The following article can be found in the book Notes on the principles and practices of Baptist Churches By Francis Wayland. This excerpt was published in the Messenger of Truth, 1920 and republished in the Baptist Trumpet of March 1959 (slightly edited)  under the title 'Points in which we have erred by imitation of others'.  In the Baptist Trumpet article the following personal statement concerning Francis Wayland was included: Francis Wayland was born 1796, died 1865, President of Brown University, at Providence, Rhode Island, from 1827 to 1855, author of twelve books, and one of the most able learned and famous New School (Missionary) Baptist preachers in the world.

Examining the thoughts of a leading Missionary Baptist not many years after the Baptist Split over Missionary societies reveals other changes in the New School Baptist as they moved further away from Old Line Baptist practices. On the topic of congregational singing Wayland indicates the Baptist changes were to be like others. His statement, "Hence the singing in Baptist churches was formerly what is now denominated congregational. We had neither choirs nor organs", should be an eye opener for Baptists of today. The slow movement away from congregational singing without the aid of musical instruments by the majority of Baptists has grown to the point that most Baptist Churches basically have entertainment shows with not only an organ but in many cases a small orchestra. His hope that a movement to go back to congregational singing was never realized. The only Baptists that Im aware of that still holds to the original Baptist practice of congregational singing without the aid of instruments is the Old line Primitive Baptists.

Editor: Elder Claude Mckee

Excerpt from the book 'Notes on the principles and practices of Baptist Churches'

From several of the previous numbers it will be perceived that I believe the Baptists to hold a distinct position among other Protestant sects; that they entertain sentiments, which, if carried into practice, must render them somewhat peculiar, and that they are perfectly capable of establishing their own usages, and of adapting their modes of worship and rules of discipline to the principles which they believe. They need borrow from no one. They have no occasion to hide their sentiments, or blush for the results to which they lead. Their very peculiarities are their titles to distinction, because they are founded on principles, which are essential to the permanent spirituality of the church of Christ. It must, therefore be a great error to obscure the distinctness of our testimony, by adopting usages, which spring from principles directly at variance with those, which we have always cherished.

In my last paper I referred to several important respects, which our brethren of other denominations have approximated more nearly to us. Whether we have had any agency in the production of these changes is a matter of inferior moment. We rejoice in the fact, as an indication of important progress in the whole body of Christian disciples.

On the other hand, however, within the last fifty years, we have, in various particulars, conformed to our brethren of other denominations. In many cases it must, I think, be observed that we have fallen into practices by no means in harmony with the doctrines, which we hold. Some of these I will here take occasion to state. How general the usages are, to which I will refer, I am unable to say. From a somewhat singular disposition to adopt the practices of those around us, it must follow that we are, in various respects, not only inconsistent with our principles, but also at variance with each other. I shall mention only such as have either come under my own observation, or been stated to me as facts, by my brethren, in the course of ordinary conversations.

One of our essential beliefs is that of spirituality of the church; that is, that the church of Christ is composed exclusively of spiritual or regenerated persons. As God is a Spirit, and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth, we have always believed that the real worship of God was performed only by believers. To us, worship, either in public or private, is the offering up to God of holy and devout affections. Hence we believe that no one can be a minister of the sanctuary, unless he be a devout and regenerate man. Hence we believe that to sing the praises of God without really lifting up the heart to him is in no sense Christian worship, and is in fact, no acceptable service. Hence our belief always has been that peculiar manner, to the disciples of the Savior. In this service they, with one voice, utter the confessions of penitence, the triumphs of faith, the confidence of hope, and bow down together with one feeling of holy adoration. Hence our singing was a service of the church, in which others united with them only in so far as they could sympathize with them in the sentiments, which they uttered. These are, if I mistake not, our beliefs on this subject, and to it our practice, until lately, conformed. A member of the church selected the tunes, led in the singing, and the whole church, and the devout portion of the congregation, united with him in this part of religious worship. Their design was to make melody in their hearts to the Lord.

For these reasons, Baptists formerly were universally opposed the introduction of musical instruments into the house of God. They asked, how can senseless things speak the praises of God? In this, they may or may not have erred. I do not deny that something of this sort may be useful to harmonize the voices of a congregation. I leave the decision of this question to the judgment of others, yet I cannot but remark, in passing, that I have rarely met a Christian person who did not prefer the singing in a vestry-room below, where nothing was head but the voices of the congregation, to the music of the choir, aided by the organ in the meeting house above. Hence the singing in Baptist churches was formerly what is now denominated congregational. We had neither choirs nor organs. Nothing but the voices of worshipers was heard in hymning the praises of God, and in this service every devout worshiper was expected to unite.

I do not pretend that in this singing there was any artistic excellence. This is never needed in popular music, or that music which is intended to move a multitude of people. All national airs are simple, and they strike upon those chords, which vibrate equally in the bosom of the common man and the amateur. When you hear a thousand Englishmen unite in the chorus of "Rule Britannia," or as many Americans join in singing "Hail Columbia," you forget every thing about chords and discords, but you are deeply moved by the common feeling, and can hardly refrain from leaping and shouting from deep emotion. So in religious music. The tunes employed were perfectly adapted to religious sentiment, and blended the whole audience in one consciousness of solemn worship.

But a change has come over us. The Episcopal Church always have approved organs, and the music of choirs. The Congregationalists imitate the Episcopalians, and we of course, imitate the Congregationalists. We have organs in all our city churches at the North, and they are now deemed essential in our small towns and villages and even in the country.

The organ requires an organist. The organist requires a leader and several professional singers to constitute an appropriate choir. These singers have a professional character at stake. They must perform in such a manner as to promote their own reputation. They select their own musicmusic in which the congregation cannot unite. The congregation listens in silence to a mere musical performance, precisely as the audience at a concert or an opera. The performers are not unfrequently the very persons who amuse the theater on the evenings of the week, and the church of a God on the Sabbath. I have known cases in which they had so little of the common respect for religion, that they have left the house of God as soon as their performance was ended. I know of a case in which the leader of a choir had conducted this part of what is intended to be the worship of God for several years, but who, during this whole period, as he confessed on his death-bed, had never heard a sermon. We believe in spirituality of worship. We believe that God requires us to worship him in Spirit and in truth. In how far such a service corresponds with our principles, let every Christian judge.

This great change has come over us somewhat gradually. We are partly over come by the declamation of men who professed great knowledge of music, and who ridiculed what they were pleased to call our want of taste. The strongest argument was, however, addressed to our love of imitation. It was said, other denominations employ professional musicians, and we must do it also, or we shall be behind the times, and lose our congregations. Pious men and women doubted. They were not convinced, but they distrusted their own judgments, and were unwilling to oppose anything, which seemed to promise an advantage to the cause of Christ. They have, therefore, borne it all in silence, and rejoice that there is one place left, the humble vestry, in which they can unite together in singing with one voice the praises of their redeemer.

I hope, however, that a reaction in this matter has commenced. Men of piety have begun to feel that it is wicked to substitute a mere musical diversion for the solemn worship of God. Men of correct taste, at least, acknowledge that congregational singing, and solemn and devout music, are alone appropriate to the service of the sanctuary. Whenever a return to the old customs has been tried, it has met with unexpected success. May the reform be universal throughout out Baptist Churches? Francis Wayland