|
"OLD LANDMARKISM"
What Is It?
CHAPTER
XVIII.
The inconsistencies of,
and evils abetted by, Baptists who practice inter-denominational
affiliations.
Axiom I.
A straight line can not cross itself though
projected indefinitely.
Axiom
II.
Truth is never inconsistent with itself, and is
never the abettor of error.
Consistency is a jewel.—Old
Adage.
The practice of affiliating
with unbaptized and unordained men of the various human societies of this age as
scriptural ministers, and with those societies which "are but an organized
muster against the lordship of Christ" (Bro. Bright, New York) as
evangelical churches, involve its advocates in many and glaring inconsistencies,
and makes them the abettors of many and pernicious evils. A few of these only
have I space to point out.
Inconsistencies
of Affiliation.
1. The "liberal"
Baptists of today are at a loss for language with which to eulogize the martyr
Baptists of the ages past for their steadfast opposition to doctrines and
practices they called antichristian, and yet they seem at the same loss to
condemn and degrade their own brethren, of this age, for opposing the self-same
doctrines and the self-same practices, put forth by the self-same sects, which
those martyrs called antichristian! They certainly "can not love the one
and bate the other, or bold to the one and despise the other" (See Chapters
XIV and XV).
2. Should a Baptist Church
so far depart from the faith as to discard immersion and adopt affusion
for baptism, and infants and unregenerate sinners for proper subjects, and
accept a hierarchical or aristocratic form of church government, and a
ministerial prelacy, every orderly Baptist Church in the land would
disfellowship it as, in any sense, a church—would refuse to recognize its
minister as evangelical, or receive his ministrations; but let this unscriptural
body join a Methodist conference, or a Presbyterian presbytery, and, presto,
it is an "evangelical church," and its minister is
"evangelical," in the estimation of our liberals, and invited into
their pulpits and to participate in their "union meetings." This is
the consistency they wish us to admire!
3. Should one of our most
highly esteemed ministers renounce our faith, and embrace and advocate
fundamental and dangerous errors, he would be promptly expelled from our church,
and debarred our pulpits; but let him join himself to a Pedobaptist or
Campbellite society, and, with our liberal brethren, he is at once
"evangelical;" and, to illustrate Christian charity and its Thread
liberality," is lovingly invited into their pulpits, and treated as a
ministerial equal. For one error he would be expelled from the pulpit and the
house; but let him go and take unto himself seven ethers worse than the first,
and, lo! he returns to find it swept and garnished for his reception!
4. The most liberal of our
liberal brethren, by their words, when called upon to answer, will
freely admit that Pedobaptist and Campbellite societies are not scriptural
churches, and therefore, not evangelical, and yet, before the public, by their acts—uniting
with them in "union meetings," and joining their "alliances’ of
various kinds—they declare that they are evangelical churches of Christ, and
indorse and recommend them to the world as such, and thousands are led to join
them by Baptists indorsing them as churches.
5. The most liberal of the
would-be "undenorninational" brethren will frankly declare, if asked,
that no organization, save a scriptural church, can administer Christian
baptism, or authorize a man to preach, and, in this, they say truly; yet, by
their affiliations, they do say, and they know they are understood to declare,
that Pedobaptist and Campbellite preachers are truly baptized and ordained
ministers of scriptural churches, and in all respects equal to themselves.
When do they wish us to
understand that they tell the truth? When they speak, or when they
act?
If Baptist preachers are
scriptural ministers. Pedobaptists certainly are not, and vice versa, since
two things unlike each other cannot be like the same thing—scriptural.
6. Bro. N. L Rice, the
great Presbyterian leader of his day, declared if immersion only is baptism,
then we Pedobaptists are all unbaptized, and our societies are not churches in
any sense, nor are our preachers baptized, or ordained, or authorized to preach.
This is unquestionably true. Now the most "liberal" of our brethren,
Bros. Burrows and Jeter, will assert as stoutly as the stoutest Landmarker, that
immersion alone is Christian baptism. But yet, in the face of these logical facts,
they will indorse the immersions and ordinations of Pedobaptist societies as
valid, and even indorse those societies as "evangelical churches."
Land-markers are abused for not indorsing their course as consistent.
7. The "liberals"
among Baptists, by their words, and by frank admissions, will say
that Pedobaptist and Campbellite organizations are not scriptural churches, and
therefore, that their ministers are both unbaptized and unordained, which is the
truth; and yet, when immersed Pedobaptist preachers come to us, our
"liberals" will receive them, and continue them as ministers, without
either baptism or ordination; or, as in the recent case of Mr. Foote,
Campbellite, ordain without baptism. To accept the baptisms of a society is to
indorse that society as a scriptural church, since no organization but a
scriptural church can baptize.
8. If a Baptist Church
should elect a Pedobaptist or Campbellite preacher to occupy its pulpit for one
year, and pay him a salary for his services, as she ought if she
employs him, all Baptists, and all men, would say that the act would be
strangely inconsistent. When Mr. Chambliss, of Richmond, declared his
unwillingness to defend, not to advocate, close
communion, his church promptly accepted his resignation, and all Baptist
Churches approved their course; and only one man, Bro. Jeter, deemed it
consistent to continue him as pastor; but, if it is consistent to receive the
services of such a preacher once or twice a year, it is equally so to receive
his ministrations fifty-two times. A principle cannot be divided. Even the most
obstinate of open communionists (The New York Independent admits this to
be unanswerable) accept this argument as valid when applied to
interdenominational communion, viz.: If Methodists and Presbyterians can commune
together occasionally, they can always, and,
therefore, can all unite in one church.
9. Our "liberal"
brethren are wont to say that it is only the matter of the mere act of baptism—"close
baptism"—that separates them from all other sects which they call
"evangelical churches," and, upon these grounds, it is so. To be
consistent with themselves they should invite all who have been immersed to
their tables—the Greek Catholics, who observe no other act, all immersed
Catholics and Protestants, all Campbellites, Mormons, etc., etc. Thus, as I have
ever maintained, the anti-landmark position swings wide, if not wide open,
the doors of the Lord’s Supper. This glaring inconsistency is now being
charged with effect upon the "liberal" Baptists of the North by the
New York Independent. We do not say that it is close baptism alone that
keeps other denominations from our tables.
10. The position of these
affiliating Baptists is so manifestly weak, that it imperils the
whole line of our denominational defenses. The fact is, scores of worthy
brethren have openly avowed it, and hundreds of others, who have not, now feel
all the logical absurdity of closing the table against those to whom we open our
pulpits, and openly indorse as members of evangelical churches. I am free to say
that I am forced to admit the consistency of Bros. Jeffery, Thomas, Reeves, and
Pentecost in advocating the offering of all our church privileges, and
tokens of church recognition, to Pedobaptists, or withholding all. They felt and
declared that they were logically compelled to be Old Landmarkers or Open
Communionists. I am free to say that, could I be convinced that
Pedobaptist and Campbellite societies are evangelical churches, and could
conscientiously invite their ministers into my pulpit, and granting the general practice
of inviting members of all sister churches to the table is scriptural, I
would, with the next dip of my pen, proclaim myself an open communionist. A man
who cannot feel the irresistible force of this conclusion cannot be made to feel
the force of logic. All evangelical churches are scriptural, and, therefore,
sister churches; and, when our liberals invite sister churches to their tables,
they, in fact, invite all they call evangelical, and they feel this, and,
consequently, are falling into the practice of inviting no one, and this is
throwing the table open to all—for none are precluded—all who wish can come.
Though not a prophet, yet
my personal conviction is that, fifty years from this writing, the Baptists of
America will be either Old Landmarkers
or Open Communists.
Some two years a go, Elder
W. A. Jarrell, of Illinois a Landmark Baptist, proposed to discuss the
communion question with Bro. Jeffery, of New York. Bro. Jeffery objected because
he was a Landmarker, and occupied consistent and impregnable ground. I quote
extracts from two letters:
September 11,
1875.
"It would be of
advantage to me to discuss the question with a man who will defend the propriety
of ministerial and missionary cooperation with Pedobaptists; and then I would
charge upon them the inconsistency, and drive them, and the denomination, to
choose between Landmarkism and Open Communion. They recognize and act upon the
propriety of exchange with Pedobaptists in preaching, prayer-meetings,
and general work. This fact enables me to take advantage of their inconsistency.
Your position deprives me ‘of the argumentum and absurdum.’
The question among us is
not: Shall we extend recognition in Christian privilege to Pedobaptists? but it
is, rather, Shall we forbid participation simply in communion with persons whom
we admit to all other privileges of work and worship?"
11. It has long been
noticed that our charitable and liberal brethren exhibit vastly more of their
"courtesy" and fellowship towards the unbaptized teachers of
acknowledged heresies—men who bitterly and constantly oppose Baptist influence—than
they do towards their own brethren, who occupy the position and advocate the
doctrine and policy of our historical ancestors in the martyr ages of
Christianity. In nine cases out of ten, if there were Landmark Baptist preachers
and a Pedobaptist minister present, the liberal minister will pass by his own
brethren, and invite the unbaptized preacher and public opposer of Baptists into
his pulpit, or call upon him to close with prayer. Is this consistent?
The
Evils Abetted by Anti-Landmarkers
1. It is the duty of
Baptist Churches to throw their whole proper weight, as divine
institutions, in favor of the authority of Christ, and the correct and proper
observance of His laws and ordinances. But this is impossible, if we associate
ourselves on an equality with those religious societies not called into
existence by the authority of Christ, but in contravention of His will,
whose belief, practice, and influence are erroneous. Such associations most
effectually paralyze our own influence for the truth by indorsing manifest
error. This great evil is abetted by affiliating ministers and churches.
2. If Pedobaptist and
Campbellite societies are not scriptural churches, and if they do teach
fundamental and dangerous errors, and every Baptist will admit these facts, then
it is a fact, that by associating with them as churches, and recognizing their
ordinations and immersions as valid, and, by pen or tongue, calling them
"evangelical churches" and "evangelical ministers" before
the world, we do, by all our influence, indorse their false claims, sanction
their pernicious errors, and aid them, to the extent of our influence, in
deceiving the multitude to unite with them as churches. And whenever we admit
them to be evangelical, we impliedly admit that there is no real necessity for
Baptist Churches—we are, in fact, not churches at all, but sectaries, and are
guilty of dividing the body of Christ.
3. If Pedobaptists
"churches" are "an organized muster against the lordship of Jesus
Christ," as was asserted by Bro. Bright before the New York State Baptist
Ministers Conference, which I have shown our fathers have ever believed and
acted upon, then, by ministerial and ecclesiastical affiliations with them, we
do accredit them as the true ministers and churches of Christ, and bid them
"Godspeed," and become partakers of their sin.
Since writing the above my
eye has fallen upon the following:
At a recent installation of
a Baptist minister in Massachusetts, two Baptist ministers, and five Pedobaptist
ministers took part in the proceedings" (Christian at Work).
Pedobaptist ministers in
the North are sometimes invited to assist in ordaining Baptist ministers, and
why not, as well as to install? In one case no more than another do we
accredit them as scriptural ministers.
4. By indorsing human societies,
as Protestants and Campbellites admit theirs to be— i.e., originated
and set up by men — we say that men may invent and set up evangelical
churches equal in all respects to the divine institution which Christ set up,
and we degrade the authority of Christ to that of wicked men, and teach the
world to give equal respect to man’s work as to that of Christ.
It is a sad fact, seen and
deplored by the venerable Oncken when in this country, that Baptists, by their
practical endorsement of Pedobaptist societies as evangelical churches, are very
largely responsible for the success and prosperity of those organizations in
this country. Said Oncken to the writer:
"The Baptists of
America have done and are now doing more to give success and spread to
Pedobaptist sects than those sects could do for themselves without Baptist
assistance. You Baptists here are like crutches under the armpits of these
societies, upholding them and saying, by all the influence of your acts, these
be the true churches of Christ— ‘evangelical churches.’ If Baptists would
only put forth the whole weight of their united influence against Pedobaptism,
it could not live through the century in America, where it is unsupported by the
State."
And after a pause:
"And I believe God will not be left without a body of witnesses in this
land who will bear a faithful testimony against the whole family of the vile
woman of the apocalypse."
5. Our liberal brethren
disobey—and teach others to do so—the plain commands of the Holy Spirit
concerning the attitude they should occupy toward the teachers of manifest and
acknowledged errors and false doctrine, which was "to avoid them"
—to have no company with them, that they may be ashamed."
Will the reader turn back
and read Chapters XII and XIII.
ENDNOTES:
[1]
He said that he, and the Baptists of
Germany, never called Pedobaptist ministers evangelical, nor their societies
churches, nor their members brethren.
BACK TO CONTENTS
|