Ford was a noted debater, holding debates with Alexander Campbell, Bishop Spaulding (a Roman Catholic), and Dr. N. L. Rice. According to Cathcart, he was a "Hebrew and Syriac scholar" and Calvinistic in theology.
In 1853 Ford became associated with John L. Waller, editor of the Western Recorder and Christian Repository. In 1866 it became known as Ford's Christian Repository. The sixty-odd years of publication of this journal contain over 42,000 pages! Bogard stated in 1900 that "his [i.e., Ford's] career as editor, including his connection with the Western Recorder, has been longer than that of any other editor in America."(3) Besides his prolific writing in the pages of his papers, Ford wrote several books. Among the major ones are:
Ancient Landmarks (1855), The Origin of the Baptists (1860), The Great Pyramids of Egypt (1882), What Baptists Baptize For (1887), Brief Baptist History (1888), and Ecclesiastical History (1889). Bogard stated that What Baptists Baptize For "is the best book of the kind which is now [i.e., in 1900] on the market."(4) G. R. Jewell has asserted that "much of the credit for the success of the periodical [i.e., Ford's Christian Repository and Home Circle] should be given to Ford's brilliant, precocious wife, Mrs. Sally Rochester Ford--a woman of rare intellectual and literary gifts."(5) S. H. Ford died in 1905.
The only Methodist paper in the South, at that time, [Ford observed], with the talented and virulent Dr. McFerrin, was a power whose chief aim seemed to be to break down the Baptist paper [i.e., the Tennessee Baptist], and damage or exterminate that people through the South. Methodism was in the saddle and rode forth with domineering and triumphant air. These preachers charged Baptists with Campbellism, with holding that there was no salvation outside of a Baptist church.(7)
In defense, Graves responded with the biblical teaching of justification by faith alone. He also used the writings of John Wesley and Walton Clark to show that the Methodists were teaching that regeneration comes by the water of baptism. In approval, Ford quoted Graves' questions:
"Am I uncharitable when I declare that the Methodist society is not an evangelical church? Do I misrepresent and slander when I declare that the Methodist Book Concern in Nashville is flooding the South with an unevangelical and pernicious theology--a theology teaching baptism no purer than that of Rome or of Bethany? . . .
Until . . . [Methodists do something about this, he continued), let not Baptists, at least ever acknowledge the Methodist society as an evangelical church NOR RECOGNIZE ITS PREACHERS AS EVANGELICAL GOSPEL MINISTERS any more than we do Alexander Campbell's preachers."(8)
Ford said that "here first appeared the avowal of non-intercourse with pedo-baptist preachers."(9) With great admiration, Ford asserted that Graves' position on non-pulpit affiliation was based upon a firm foundation: Graves "took his stand on the everlasting truth, that salvation was by grace through faith only--that baptism and church membership were external acts of obedience--works of righteousness-with no bearing on the justification of the ungodly--the soul's salvation."(10) Ford closed this discussion of Graves' non-recognition pedobaptist preachers by stating:
Yes, landmarkism was sounded forth, but it did not originate in ecclesiasm [sic], in church forms, or even in regard to the ordinances. It was based upon the fundamental errors of Methodism--and Campbellism, also. It was carried to an extreme, but it was based on truth.(11)
In July, 1899, Ford took issue with certain "misstatements" about "Old Landmarkism" which B. F. Riley had made in a book entitled History of the Baptists in the Southern States. Ford stated that Pendleton and Graves, contrary to Riley's assertions, were not the authors of the term "Old Landmarkism." Rather, certain men who differed with them coined it.(12) Riley had stated: Pendleton and Graves "were the first to give expression to the views which characterized a party of Baptists who came well-nigh going sufficiently far in the extremity of their views to form a distinct sect."(13) To this, Ford replied:
And as to "the forming a distinct sect" [sic] on this question we solemnly affirm that there were no more signs of it then than there are now. Editor of the Western Recorder, at the time engaged in the discussion and differing about it from Dr. Pendleton [emphasis is mine], we never heard an intimation or saw the least tendency to form "a distinct sect" on this issue.(14)
Ford carefully showed that "the denial that Pedo-baptist organizations are churches" did not originate with Pendleton and Graves.(15) He stated:
We know not a Baptist writer on the scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper who does not affirm (1) That Baptism is an essential prerequisite to church membership. (2) that Pedo-baptists are unbaptized and therefore these unbaptized assemblies are not gospel churches.(16)
He also quoted a 1611 Anabaptist confession of faith (article ten) and the 1643 and 1646 Particular Baptist Confession to corroborate his view.(17)
Richardson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Faith, of 1643 [he stated], published a "plea" or protest against the Presbyterian Westminster Assembly and its catechism, in which he says (Art. 3), Baptists cannot submit to these, "BECAUSE THE CHURCH OF WHICH THEY ARE MINISTERS IS NO CHURCH OF CHRIST, MUCH LESS A REFORMED CHURCH.''(18)
Ford then asserted: "We might fill pages with the proofs that this [i.e., Richardson's statement has (with exceptions) been the creed of Baptists through the ages."(19) He added:
Indeed the principal feature of "Landmarkism"--the only feature of it--was not first given expression to by Drs. Pendleton and Graves. . . . [As further proof,] Kiffin advocated it in 1640, and left Spilsbury's church and formed the Devonshire church because Spilsbury allowed pedo-Baptists into his pulpit. [David] Benedict . . . says that at the beginning of this century: "Indeed the doctrine of non-intercourse, so far as ministerial services were concerned, was almost universal between Baptists and pedo-Baptists."(20)
In November, 1899, the editor of the Christian Evangelist had written an editorial entitled "Dr. Whitsitt on Baptist Succession." The editor quoted the noted Baptist historian William Heth Whitsitt as stating that J. R. Graves believed and taught that membership in a visible body is essential to salvation: "In other words, he [i.e., Graves] held that salvation is not possible outside a Baptist church. He places the church before Christ and the water before the blood."(21) Ford quickly came to the defense of Graves in March, 1900. Denying the charge, he quoted Graves:
"Refusing to affiliate with them ministerially and ecclesiastically is not declaring by our act that we believe their ministers are unregenerate, but that they are not members of scriptural churches. . . . [It] is no more denying their Christian character than refusing to invite them to our communion table. . . . In all the teaching in God's word, where the plan of salvation is referred to . . . even by a type, it is blood before water.(22)
Ford stated that Whitsitt had completely misinterpreted Graves' reasoning in his refusal to recognize pedobaptist ministers as gospel ministers.
From the above discussion one might conclude that Ford was a full-fledged Landmarker. In the article protesting against the "misstatements" in Riley's church history, he sated that Pendleton "was a land-marker in its strict sense [i.e., denial of pulpit affiliation]--we were not."(23) In one of the articles in the series on the life and teachings of Graves, Ford showed specific evidence that he did not agree with Graves on this subject, although he was very sympathetic to Graves' reasons for his belief. Old Landmarkism, Ford asserted, "is a restatement of Pendleton's conclusions--that a minister of the gospel must be a member of a gospel church--baptized and set apart by its authority; that as Pedo-Baptist preachers have never been baptized, never have belonged to a Scriptural church, they have, therefore, never been Scripturally ordained, they are not gospel ministers and should not be regarded as such by an invitation to preach to Baptist churches."(24) The next two sentences apparently give Ford's own view:
This was met [by Ford himself?] by the statement that preaching was not an official act; that it was any man's duty to declare, as he had ability and opportunity, the glad tidings of salvation to lost men; that it was a duty not a function; that inviting one to preach no more than listening to him when preaching, was not an indorsement of his teaching or ecclesiastical relations either in his baptism or ordination. In fine--that HE WHO PREACHES THE GOSPEL IS A GOSPEL PREACHER.(25)
Ford added that his purpose for writing the series of articles on Graves was not
to vindicate or controvert the ecclesiastical peculiarities of Dr. Graves. It is sufficient to state clearly what those teachings were in which he differed from many of his brethren. His own views or teachings--springing as they undoubtedly did from current Scriptural principles--followed his mental habit of reasoning out every doctrine or proposition to its logical extremity.(26)
As for Ford, he admitted and strongly maintained:
That an ecclesia is inclusive and exclusive is unquestionable. No one not a member has any right to its privileges, or even to be present at its meetings. It really recognizes the standing of no one outside its own sacred inclosure. Its fellowship is CHURCH fellowship, peculiarly inhering in its own covenanted membership. No one has any right to speak or act, or participate in its church arrangements or business.(27)
When the ecclesia assembles for worship, however, the exclusiveness disappears:
When this ecclesia adjourns; when, as we may say, it throws open its doors; when it becomes a public worshiping assembly, it is a different affair altogether. It is no longer an ecclesia and is neither exclusive or [sic] inclusive. Now, to carry the characteristics of the church into the public assembly is as great a mistake as to carry the characteristics of the public worshiping assembly into the church.(28)
In short, while Ford was ready to defend Landmarkism from false attacks and was sympathetic toward the bases of its beliefs, he himself did not advocate what he considered to be the major tenet--non-pulpit affiliation.
Dr. Riley says--most incorrectly--they (Drs. Pendleton and Graves) were the first to give expression to the views which characterized a party of Baptists. And one of the principal views which characterized this "party of Baptists" was "to demand properly authorized administrators of baptism. The first to refuse pedo-Baptist immersion! And this is given as history!(29)
Ford forthrightly stated that the "absolute necessity of properly authorized administrators of baptism . . . had in fact no more to do with it [i.e., "Old Landmarkism"] than apostolic succession had."(30) He then presented statements from David Benedict (1812 and 1846), S. H. Cone (1848), A. M. Poindexter (1845), and the Elkhorn (Kentucky) Baptist Association (1801) as proof of his assertions.(31) Ford's final analysis was that "Baptists [had] declared it and acted accordingly before Pendleton and Graves were born."(32) In another article, Ford admitted that when Graves rejected "all irregular immersion," he "went farther than the one question argued by Pendleton [i.e., the question of pulpit affiliation]."(33)
Similarly, Ford was at one with early Landmarkism in declaring that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Prefacing a list of "Baptist Principles," he asked: "What . . . are those principles which have, ever since the Lord Jesus proclaimed them, distinguished those people now called Baptists?"(34) The third principle, which he cited, stated: "III. That a figurative burial with Christ is essential to baptism--that is, immersion."(35) Ford was in agreement with early Landmarkers also in his insistence that valid baptism must have the proper deign. In an editorial on "Oneness With Christ," he stated:
This and nothing less than this is the great gospel blessing, everlasting union and life with Christ now and forever.
Baptism, the symbol of the gospel proclaims this vital truth. Baptized into Christ--buried with Christ in baptism, raised from the pictured grave in baptism--putting on Christ in death, burial, resurrection in name, destiny and glory. While these live and last, baptism will live and the gospel last. Neither of them has ever ceased or become extinct since Christ proclaimed all power in heaven and earth is given unto Me. Go preach, go disciple, go baptize.(36)
Ford happily quoted William Sanday in illustrating his own belief on baptism:
Baptism has a double function. (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ . . . Immersion--Death . . . . Submersion--Burial (the ratification of Death) . . . . Emergence--Resurrection . . . . (37)
After quoting Sanday, Ford asked:
Is it not singular and significant and reassuring that those so-called ignorant Baptists have, through the ages, grasped this sublime meaning of baptism, have been impressed with its design and have practiced it amid ridicule and oppression? Is it not singular and significant that the higher scholarship of this age has been forced to acknowledge that they have been right?(38)
In another article, he stated that the real issue, vital issue, of infinite import, is "How does a guilty soul gain standing in God's favor and acceptance in his sight?"(39) The solution, he stated, is that "CHRIST IS THE DOOR AND IT IS THROUGH CHRIST TO BAPTISM AND NOT THROUGH BAPTISM TO CHRIST. "(40)
In the book What Baptists Baptize For Ford cited several answers to the question "Why Baptize at All?" (1) "Because Jesus Commanded Believers to be Baptized," (2) "Because There is a Gospel Reason for the Command," (3) "Because Baptism is an Oath of Allegiance to Christ," (i.e., "To be Baptized into 'Jesus Christ,' is to avouch Jesus as THE Christ; the Messiah of God," "Baptism to Jesus Christ is submission to him"), (4) "Because Baptism Dramatizes the Creed of the Believer."(41) Ford, therefore, was in essential agreement with early Landmarkers in their stand on "Baptism and 'Anti-Alien Immersion.'"
In a discussion of Romans 16:3, Ford wrote an essay entitled "What Is a Church?"(43) Using this scriptural citation as a basis for his discussion, he stated: "We may . . . learn from it the scriptural characteristics of a church."(44) Ford thereupon listed eight scriptural characteristics: (1) "It was an assembly"; (2) "It was an organized assembly"; (3) "It was, therefore, a local assembly"; (4) "It was necessarily a visible assembly"; (5) "It was, therefore, a distinct assembly"; (6) "It was a voluntary assembly"; (7) "It was, further, a spiritual assembly"; (8) "It had its inviolable terms of admission."(45) He concluded:
A burial with Christ in baptism was essential to membership, then: it is essential now. . . . This ancient landmark has never been obliterated: it never can be. . . . The constituents of a gospel church are immersed believers, who have been called, cleansed, and sanctified by the spirit of grace. Spiritual stones "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord."(46)
In September, 1899, Ford published two articles which give further insight into his beliefs on the church.(47) He stated:
We affirm that there is no such thing in existence as a catholic--that is, universal, church. Church means always an assembly. It means nothing else.(48)
Ford's arguments were similar to Graves'. Ford said: "It is settled that ecclesia means an assembly, and that a gospel church is a called out assembly of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."(49) He questioned:
But while assembly is acknowledged to be the primary or literal meaning of ecclesia the question occurs, has it other meanings? Does it mean the aggregate of believers or the saints of all ages--"a universal, invisible assembly?"(50)
Answering in the negative, his chief argument was as follows:
Now church has but one meaning--an assembly. But it has figurative applications, such as the "church of the firs-born whose names are written in heaven," in which figurative application there is a resemblance to a church or called out assembly. It is not a church in FACT, no more than the bestowment of the Holy Spirit was an immersion in FACT. It is a figurative application of the word to an ideal gathering of the redeemed.(51)
He used the same line of reasoning in a discussion of "The Bride--The Lamb's Wife."(52) Ford admitted that "in Ephesians . . . [Paul] uses the word church in its figurative application more than it is used in all the New Testament besides . . . ."(53) Paul, he said, "compares the redeemed to a wife, and then to an assembly, or church."(54) Revelation 19:7 was cited as another example of the figurative use of an expression to refer to the aggregate of the redeemed. Ford then asserted:
Now a bride, a wife, a virgin, each means a woman, and means nothing else. Literally, that is really, believers in the aggregate, or "the whole number of the elect," are not a bride, a wife, or a woman. The are individual persons. These terms have not two meanings, the one a woman, the other meaning the believers or the elect. No; it is simply and plainly a figurative application of the word bride, just as is the figurative application of the word church. The believers in the aggregate, the elect of all ages, are no more a universal church than they are a universal bride, and making this figure a fact as Rome has done, using the term Mother Church, and representing the imaginary thought as SHE with personal individual attributes and actions, is a monstrous error. But we have just as much right and warrant to call the redeemed the universal bride or wife a we have to call them the universal church. They are neither in fact, but only in figure.(55)
Ford said that the same could be said for other New Testament expressions (i.e., building or house, city, garden, flock, army).
But really [he added] it need not be urged that they are in fact none of these. A universal garden, a universal flock, a universal army, or a universal house, or bride, is no more a figure of speech than is a universal church--that is, a universal assembly. There is no such thing in fact. It is a figurative application.(56)
Although scholars have said that "the church is compared to a bride," Ford denied it, stating:
It is the saved who are compared to an assembly, or ideal church, and to a bride, and to a building, not the church or a church. . . . We repeat it: God's redeemed are figuratively likened to an assembly, but that assembly is never compared to a bride or a wife or a house. It is the redeemed ones themselves that are so compared; not one figure compared to another figure.(57)
He added that the metaphors applied to Jesus are used the same way:
He [Jesus] is called the Lamb of God; but the Lamb is never called the door. . . . It is Jesus PERSONALLY who is figuratively, not really, a Lamb, a Door, a Vine, is [sic] Bread. It is the redeemed personally who are figuratively, not really, called a bride, a house, a church. And it is misleading as it is wrong to make the figure a and build a theory on the perversion.(58)
Ford then discussed the "Body of Christ" under the heading "The Redeemed Are Called Christ's Body." As might be expected, here too, Ford asserted that "Body," like the other metaphors, "has but one literal or ground meaning--a material organized substance. But it has many figurative applications, which are called definitions."(59) He admitted that "especially is this word used to describe the redeemed of all ages."(60) First Corinthians 12:12 was his proof-text. This passage, he stated, simply teaches "the oneness of Christ and His redeemed."(61) The members of the Corinthian church, addressed as "the sanctified in Jesus Christ," were pictured as a complete body.
But [he added] surely it is but a picture--a figurative application of the word body; and stripped of its figurative language is simply this: "All believers are one with Christ." But not a real universal body, no more than a real universal church.(62)
Admittedly, Paul said that "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," but (1) "the Spirit does not literally baptize the believer; and . . . [(2)] we cannot be literally immersed into a body, especially as it is a human, or real body, that is figured."(63) Furthermore, since "the body of the Lord Jesus is at the right hand of God," then "no being can become an actual or real part of it."(64) Clearly, he continued, "'the aggregate of believers,' or 'elect of all ages' are not A BODY, are not the LORD'S BODY-- . . . there is no [sic] such a body as that in all God's universe; . . . it is a figurative application of the word body, just as it is the figurative application of the term bride, or building, or vineyard, or city, or f lock, or church."(65) Similarly, "mystical body" is a misleading term. When this expression is used, he concluded, "let us at once understand that it is a supposed or figurative body--something that does not really exist at all--that is presented, but which is an illustrative picture of the redeemed of all ages."(66) He concluded and summarized his arguments against universal church as follows:
A "church," like a body, is a literal, actual thing. It is a real assembly. To speak of a universal assembly or church--having the supposed functions or "notes" of it, as of a real literal church, is just as illogical and as unwarranted as to speak of the universal body having the supposed functions or "notes" of it as of a real literal body. Body when applied to the redeemed is a figure, not a reality. Church when applied to the redeemed is a figure, not a reality. There never has been in fact anything of the kind. A church is a company of baptized believers joined together for the service of God.--a real, actual, veritable assembly, and nothing else is a church.(67)
Ford clearly denied, therefore, the existence of the "universal church"; he also disapproved of the expression "invisible church." He had at least two reasons for rejecting this term: (1) "there is no such qualifying term as 'invisible' to the term church in the New Testament; and [(2)] . . . wherever the word church is used for anything but a literal assembly it is a figurative expression, like bride, woman, house, body and the like."(68) As an assembly, "a gospel church . . . means association, fellowship, social or mutual community and action."(69)
No one person [he continued] can be a church. . . . But conversion--which is supposed to admit into the "invisible church" is individual. It is a transaction between the soul and its Lord. It admits Him, not to an assembly. And if nothing more than this were taught us in the New Testament, there would be no idea of a gospel church, for that necessarily implies mutual relations and duties. We are converted by the viewless operation of the Spirit dealing alone with the heart. We join a church--if it be a church--for church means people, and with them we are mutually united in what concerns fellowship.(70)
Ford maintained that the "invisible church" concept was originated by the pedobaptist reformers of the sixteenth century. The problem the reformers faced was how to justify infant baptism while at the same time
declaring that faith is essential to baptism and church membership and that the SPIRIT'S PRESENCE and power is unseen, as the wind to which His operation is likened. The unseen is God's work in the heart; the seen is baptism and church membership; and without the unseen the other is false.(71)
The result was, he contended, that "the Reformers or Protestants hold to the theory of a spiritual, or regenerated church; but in practice is a non-spiritual, promiscuous, worldly church."(72) The solution of "this contradiction, the natural and necessary result of infant baptism, . . . was by the invention of the term 'invisible spiritual church,' as distinctive from local carnal church."(73) In short, "we conclude with the statement which heads this article,--that the term invisible, first meant only, with the Protestant, that the unseen presence and power of the Spirit must preceed [sic] the 'sacraments' or church membership; then as infant baptism admitted all into the church, it was not the true or spiritual church; and lastly that there is another church, true, spiritual, and invisible--THE GENESIS OF AN INVISIBLE CHURCH IS PEDO-BAPTISM."(74)
Baptist scholars who contended for the "invisible church" concept had often cited a statement from the Philadelphia Confession of Faith as corroborative proof that it had been a commonly held belief among Baptists. The crucial passage stated that "the elect MAY BE CALLED INVISIBLE . . . . "(75) Ford countered this argument with a two-pronged attack: (1) The Philadelphia Confession of Faith also called for the "laying on of hands . . . upon baptized believers . . . for a farther reception of the Holy Spirit of promise."(76) Ford then asked: "will [the] brethren [also] . . . stand by this other more positive deliverance, the laying on of hands after baptism as an ordinance of Christ?"(77) (2) "IT IS A MISTAKE to say that what is known as the Philadelphia confession of faith was adopted by the Philadelphia Association. This has been shown again and again. . . . The association never did more than agree to permit and publish it."(78)
From the above, one might assume that Ford and Graves held the same position on the doctrine of the church and that Ford was influenced by Graves. Ford insisted:
To attribute the objection to this unscriptural word . . . first to J. R. Graves is positively untrue. Thousands like the writer, who differed widely from him, and nearly all his peculiar views, never sanctioned, but always opposed the use of this ambiguous and misleading phrase.(79)
The "peculiar views" which Ford had in mind were primarily Graves' "peculiar views of the Kingdom of Christ."(80) Again, Ford denied strongly that Graves "was the first to teach that the kingdom was the aggregate of churches . . . ."(81) J. L. Reynolds, Edward T. Hiscox, A. P. Williams, and Jeremiah Bell Jeter had all held similar views.(82) Although Graves' "views of the kingdom were incorrect (to our mind)," Ford continued, to infer that he believed in baptism regeneration is incorrect.(83) According to Ford, however,
the kingdom of heaven, of Christ, of God, is his king--dominion--his reign. We never think or speak of Christ's dying for the kingdom, of saving the kingdom. The kingdom is his dealing with man and man's relation to him.(84)
He added: "The general (and, we think, the Scriptural) view of the Kingdom is that it is eternal life--a spiritual relation to Christ, the soul's security and salvation.(85)
Similarly, Ford disagreed with Graves' interpretation that baptism is the "door" to membership in a "gospel church." "The Reformers, and Protestants generally, [he stated], with all of their apologies for and explanations of the term invisible as meaning the unseen work or 'door' into that church, fell back on the patristic doctrine that 'The Sacrament of Baptism was the door into the church' with no term to distinguish it."(86) The New Testament, however, teaches otherwise, he objected. Ford gave four arguments to show that the Protestant view is incorrect:
lst. If baptism be the door, into the Christian church, then all whom John baptized . . . were, by the reception of this ordinance, made members of some church; but no such intimation is given in the Scriptures. . . .
2d. If baptism be the door into the church then there is no such thing as putting a person out of the church; for, in order to do this, he must be unbaptized. But this cannot be done.
3d. If baptism be the door into the church, can one person constitute a church? . . . If . . . [as he has shown], the first person, whom John baptized, was not, by the reception of this ordinance, constituted a member of some church the second was not, nor the third, nor any subsequent subject.
4th. In the account of the Eunuch's baptism, Acts 8, no mention is made of his being added to any particular church; nor have we any reason to believe, that he considered the ordinance in this light.(87)
He then asked: "If then, baptism be not the door into the visible church of Christ, . . . 'What is?"(88) He answered:
We answer, nothing more nor less, than fellowship. By fellowship, we are admitted; and by disfellowship, we are excluded. "Is then a person, who is received into fellowship as a Christian, to be considered as a church member?" We answer, no; but he must be fellowshiped, as an orthodox, baptized, and regular Christian.(89)
On the issue of the "marks" and identification of a New Testament church, Ford's views were in basic agreement with the position of early Landmarkism. On one occasion, he listed five principles "which have, ever since the Lord Jesus proclaimed them, distinguished those people now called Baptists."(90) Moreover, Ford denied that Baptists are Protestants. In an editorial, he listed "three fundamental errors which constitute it [i.e., Protestantism] an ism . . . .":
I. Infant involuntary church membership. The infant is made a member of the church and said to be united to Christ, with the expressed or implied dogma that it is regenerated and made a Christian by baptism.
II. Clerical rule. The clergy, or bishops, in assembly, or conference, or conclave, make the laws and govern the laity.
III. A Universal or Catholic church, either as one church (which means assembly or congregation) or various branches united without a trunk. This is protestantism. It is Romanism with protest against other errors of that clerical fraternity.(91)
Since "BAPTISTS deny theoretically and practically these characteristic errors . . . ," they are not Protestants. To the contrary, Baptists have taught:
I. None can be members of a gospel church fur of free choice and on a personal profession of faith in Christ.
II. The gospel church, not a ministry or clergy, governs under Christ's revealed laws, of which they are the executives, not the framers.
III. That each company of baptized believers in covenant to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances is a church of Christ and that nothing else is, whether called invisible, universal, spiritual, or by other name.(92)
Ford, therefore, was just as strong as early Landmarkers in his doctrine of the church and identification of Baptist churches as New Testament churches.
It is composed [Patterson asserts] of those who feel that an interlocking, minutely described succession may not be fully supported by extant historical evidence, but nevertheless was a reality and necessity. They are unwilling to tie themselves unequivocally or categorically to any particular sectarian group or individual as a Baptist predecessor lest newer light controvert their position.(96)
Ford, Patterson contends, held "that Baptist succession was an historical actuality, even if not always apparent."(97) Ford is difficult, however, to classify accurately. Although Patterson has classified Ford as a "successionist," he might fit more correctly into what Robert G. Torbet has called the 'Anabaptist spiritual kingship" theory.(98) Torbet himself, however, includes a variation of the successionist theory which sees "a succession of principles which are evident in individuals or groups who have held essentially the Baptist witness."(99) Furthermore, in another light, Ford's position seemed to be a more kin to that of Orchard than of Graves. Wamble has stated that "Orchard traced succession through 'disciples' . . . . Graves traced succession through churches or visible organizations."(100) The following summary of Ford's views on succession should illustrate the problem.
Ford denied that his historical views were the same as those of Graves, although he insisted that neither Graves nor any of the early Landmarkers believed in "Baptist Apostolic succession."(101) His views were similar to those of Pendleton. Pendleton, he stated, said that "the ana-Baptist [sic] question [did they sprinkle] really has nothing to do with the landmark question; nor has the church succession question."(102) Pendleton believed in a succession of "persons."
His views of the uncertainty of a "regular succession of churches" [said Ford] was in full accord with ours. But he was a land-marker in its strict sense--we were not.(103)
Ford believed in church succession, but not a linked succession. In an essay entitled "The True Succession of Christ's Witnesses--What Is It?" he stated that
Succession is a misleading term; especially when applied to a church or to churches. A church is like a day, independent of any church that has preceded it, as any day is independent of every previous day.(104)
After more than fifty years of study, he stated, his position was
. . . that there has been A SACRED SUCCESSION--to use the words of William Hague of Rhode Island--of God's witnesses through the ages--torch bearers in the world's gloom--the earthern [sic] vessels of immortal principles. The principles and the vessels were divorced, often riven but never uprooted, and witnesses necessary to the continuance of the principles--a celestial chivalry, undying in their influence and triumphant even in their seeming defeats.(105)
none but a member of the ecclesia--the converted membership--are in duty bound to participate, and none but the membership have any right or claim to this privilege of showing forth the Lord's death. But then the church has the clear right to declare fellowship with those who possess the prerequisites of church membership--for those who, did circumstances permit, would become members. The church does, through its officiating minister, declare that church fellowship where those of the same faith and order are invited to seats at the Lord's table.(108)
Ford denied that this practice is "inconsistent with the doctrine that the supper is strictly a church ordinance, and to be celebrated by a church as such."(109) He compared inter-communion to the practice churches often observe at business meetings: "Just as a church has the right to invite a participation in its church meeting, to elect one not a member to preside, to become moderator, or even to decide a question for the church, it has the right to invite 'visiting brethren of the same faith and order' to show forth with the church the 'Lord's death till He come.'"(110) Logical consistency was "the governing force" which made Graves take the position he had. Ford, therefore, took basically the same stand on the communion question that Pendleton took.
Hall's preaching resulted in "hundreds" of professions of faith.(114) Although he never attended college, Hall was a student at Milburn Academy, Milburn, Kentucky, ("a Campbellite school") for three years.(115)
On July 6, 1871, Hall married Miss Mollie Earl. Three children were born to this couple. Mrs. Mollie Hall died December 12, 1899. Hall's second marriage was with Miss Lillian J. Smith of Trezevant, Tennessee, August 8, 1900. He preceded her in death, December 4, 1905.(116)
In Bogard's opinion, Hall was "the greatest debater in the Baptist denomination."(117) Among those whom Hall debated were the "Campbellites" E. C. L. Denton (who was President of Milburn Academy and Hall but a student at the time!)(118) and J. A. Harding; the Methodists Dr. Jacob Ditzler and Dr. E. W. Alderson, and the "famous infidel Putman" of New York ("President of the Free Thought Association of America" ) .(119)
Journalism was the field, however, which made Hall such an important figure in the present study. "Bro. Hall [Bogard stated] has proved himself to be a very successful newspaper man."(120) His newspaper career began in 1879 when he joined F. L. DuPont in editing the Baptist Gleaner at Fulton, Kentucky. In 1881, Hall consolidated his paper with the Baptist Banner of Cairo, Illinois. He was associated with W. P. Throgmorton for approximately one year. In 1884 Hall, together with J. B. Moody, revived the Baptist Gleaner at Fulton. After about five years, Hall sold his interests to Moody. Later he bought the Baptist Reaper and changed the name to the Baptist Gleaner. After five years, he sold his paper to the Western Recorder. He continued to edit, however, for two years, the "Gleaner Department" of the Western Recorder.(121) On February 5, 1897, Hall bought at auction, for $4,000, The American Baptist Flag of St. Louis, Missouri.(122) From 1897 to 1905 the paper was a sixteen page, weekly publication, although several of the issues were eight page editions. In 1900, Bogard stated that "the Flag has a large circulation; the last published statement gave it at fourteen thousand."(123) By means of the paper, Hall conducted a steady dialogue with editors and other religious leaders with whom he agreed or disagreed. His controversies with the Sunday School(124) and Home and Foreign Mission Boards(125) of the Southern Baptist Convention, and with Southern Seminary(126) eventually led to his active role in the formation in 1905 of the Baptist General Association, the first national body of Associational Baptists. He preached his last sermon at First Baptist Church, Texarkana, Texas, at 7 p.m., November 24, 1905.(127)This meeting was the formative session of the association, and Hall was chairman of the committee which drafted the "Statement of Principles of the General Association" (i.e., the constitution).(128)
1. Is it right for a Missionary Baptist to allow a Pedobaptist to preach in his pulpit?
2. Is it right for Baptist papers to say anything against the union of Baptists and Pedos preaching together?
3. Do the Baptists recognize Pedobaptist preachers as true gospel ministers?(131)
Hall responded:
ANSWER: 1. It is not right. Rom. 16:17; 2 Jno. 10.
2. Certainly. Baptist papers should expose all wrong proceedings within their own ranks, or outside of them.
3. They do not. While regarding many of them as good men, they do not regard them as authorized to perform the functions of a minister, nor do the Baptists regard Pedobaptist churches as true churches of Christ. Hence, they refuse to accept the ordinances of Pedobaptist churches.(132)
it is wrong to receive such baptisms [i.e., alien immersions], and if the party secures a dozen letters from good churches those letters could not correct a defective baptism. Such a person is not a proper church member.(139)
This automatically excludes pedobaptist and "Campbellite" baptisms, as well as "Hardshell" and "Regular Baptist" baptisms, for he contended that only "Missionary Baptist churches are the true churches, and can administer valid baptism . . . ."(140) Hall's position on the relationships between baptism and church membership and between baptism and the kingdom, however, were not so clear-cut as the above statements. In 1899, a series of articles appeared from several writers, advocating various answers to these issues. Hall did state, however, that in John 35, one should translate: unless one is born of water, "even of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."(141) "The Kingdom named here [he stated] means the saved state, the cleansing of grace."(142) Apparently Hall, therefore, did not agree with Graves that baptism incorporates the believer into the church. Two weeks later, however, I. S. Hicks asked him how he could reconcile this with the view that the sum total of the true churches constitutes the kingdom, a "visible or organic kingdom."(143) Hall rejoined with the assertion that in Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16, "the word 'and' comes from a different Greek word to that in John 3:5. The word Kai of John 3:5 is rendered by the word 'even' over forty times in the New Testament."(144) George Varden wrote Hall that Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and John 3:5 all have kai and that Hall was mistaken.(145) Varden agreed, however, that "born of water" in John 3:5 does not mean baptism. Hall made no comment. Finally, a month later, Hall admitted his error on the use of kai in Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38: "In this statement we had altogether another matter in mind, and stand corrected now."(146) He added no further explanation, however, as to the possible effect of this admission on his original contention about "even of the Spirit." Hall's position, therefore, was similar to S. H. Ford's, although subsequent analysis will show that their views on the relationship between church and kingdom did not agree.
The conversion of a sinner introduces him into the spiritual, invisible, universal church of Christ. This invisible church is the only church that has a succession through past ages. All visible churches are necessarily human, and subject to the changing conditions of their environments, and are therefore sister churches, and should affiliate with each other on terms of perfect equality. This invisible church embraces all Christian people, of all classes and names.(149)
Hall, however, denied "this whole 'invisible, universal church' idea."(150) "There is [he contended] but one sort of a church in the New Testament; and that is a local and visible church."(151) Hall then cited a number of scriptures to corroborate his assertion (e.g., Acts 9:31,15:41,19:37; Rom.16:4,16; 1 Cor. 7:17, 11:16, 14:33, 34, 16:1,19; 2 Cor. 8:1, 19, 23, 11:8, 28, 12:13; Gal.1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:4, 20, and 2:7). "Any reader [he continued] can see that the references above are to visible assemblies of people; and that these assemblies had a local meeting place as well as a visible multitude to make the congregation."(152)
"The word 'church' [itself, Hall maintained] means an assembly; most generally a small assembly that can conveniently meet together. But always an assembly considered as in convention."(153) He conceded, moreover, that
in a few passages in the Scriptures, like Heb.12:23--"The General Assembly and church of the First Born"--the aggregate of the saved is considered as being collected in one meeting, and they thus constitute a church. But there is not a passage in the Bible where the word "church" is so used as to embrace all the saved, in their divided, scattered, uncollected dispersion. When all the saved are included they are considered as assembled together. When they are scattered they are never spoken of as a church. There is, therefore, no such thing known in the Bible as an "invisible, universal church." This fiction is of modern creation, and is designed to include all those who are supposed to be saved, so as to allow them to have some sort of ecclesiastical fraternity in church matters.(154)
Hall continued his discussion by listing several observations about New Testament churches:
l. It could be said to them, "Let your light so shine before men," &c. Matt. 5:16. Visible church members can do this. Invisible church members cannot.
2. It can be said ye are as "a city that is set on a hill that cannot be hid." Matt. 5:14. An "invisible church" must always be "hid," else it would not be "invisible" . . . .
3. A visible church can receive and execute the commission of Matt. 28:19-20. But an invisible church cannot. Because--
(1) If there are any preachers in the "invisible church" they could not deliver the gospel message to visible audiences . . . .
(2) If there is any baptism in the "invisible church" it could not be administered by "invisible administrators" to visible subjects . . . .
(3) They would have no ability to administer the Lord's Supper, because it is a memorial service to be seen by men . . . .
(4) It could not formulate nor propagate the doctrines of the commission for the reason that this must be done in the use of visible means, and for the good of visible people . . . .
(5) It could never have the fellowship that is contemplated in the commission, because this fellowship is of the disciples . . . [who] are all visible people, and would not know how to be in fellowship with an "invisible church."
4. There Is no need for this "invisible church." (1) Christians don't [sic] need it . . . . (2) God don't [sic] need it . . . . (3) The world don't [sic] need it . . . .
5. This "invisible church" cannot perform any of the functions of a church. . . .
6. The members of the "invisible church" are entirely ignorant of their surroundings. There is nobody who can prove he is in such a church. If he is in it, he don't [sic] know it, and no one else knows it. . . .
7, The "invisible church" is a medley of contradictions, if it is anything. It is said to have in it the saved of all denominations. These "saved" people at the same time that they are in the "invisible church" are also in their different denominational churches, and hold to all the peculiar doctrines of their several denominations. They have Mormons . . ., Catholics . . ., Episcopalians . . ., Universalists . . ., Presbyterians . . ., Methodists . . ., Campbellites . . ., Baptists . . ., all mixed together in one "invisible body," cemented together by the conflicting doctrines of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism; salvation by grace vs. salvation by works; final perseverance vs. apostasy; open communion vs. close communion; episcopacy vs. congregationalism; affusion vs. immersion, and a hundred other conflicting doctrines! . . .
8. It would be hard to draw a picture of an "invisible church," but it must have a resemblance to a monstrous beast . . . .
9. I most emphatically deny that I have any membership in such a thing as this "invisible church." If I am a member I don't know it, and it is against my will. . . .
10. There are not two sorts of churches of Christ--one big, invisible church, and the other little, visible churches. If so, then a man would belong to two churches at once. . . .
11. Separate particles cannot form organizations except by being collected together. There are many Mason in the world. Any number of them can be organized into local lodges, but all of them taken together would not make a lodge out of which there are no Masons. . . . So God has a family of children, and these can be organized into churches; but all the children of God do not make one great, big, universal church, out of which there are no children of God. . . .
12. The believers in the universal church are not agreed as to how one gets into it. Baptists are supposed to be put in by conversion; Methodists are . . . born members of it; Presbyterians baptize their babies into it; Campbellites baptize sinners into it; Episcopalians enter by confirmation; the Hardshells have been in from the foundation of the world; Mormons are immersed into it; Catholics are sprinkled into it, and the Universalists get into it without doing anything! . . .
13. How different from all this is the New Testament idea of a church. A visible company of disciples, with a pastor, deacons, a place of worship, gospel, ordinances, songs, prayer, worship and a visible influence and existence in the world. Such a church can honor God, bless the world have fellowship one with another, stand for the truth, be persecuted, be loved, be hated, and be known in the world. That is a New Testament church--a Baptist church. . . . Our principles are scriptural, consistent, reasonable.
l. No "invisible church."
2.Visible churches administer the ordinances.
3. Visible churches authorize the preaching.
4. Visible churches were entrusted with the entire work of the commission.
5. Visible churches are New Testament churches.
6. Visible churches are Baptist churches.
7. Therefore Baptist churches are authorized to do all the work committed to New Testament churches.
How, then, can we affiliate with other churches without a surrender of these patent truths?(155)
Clearly, Hall's position here was similar to the ones presented by Graves and Ford, although he did not discuss the role of the church as "Body of Christ." In an editorial comment advocating church authority for administering the ordinances, as opposed to clerical or preacher authority, however, Hall stated that
Christ is the Husband, the church is his bride, and in his absence she should manage his affairs. Christ is the Head, the church is his body, and the body should be intrusted with the responsible management of the affairs of the Head while he is away. Christ is the Master, . . . and as a body we are to do his will.(156)
Hall contended, moreover, that the church was established before the Day of Pentecost.(157) This became a leading contention of later Associational Baptists.
At the turn of the century a number of articles appeared in the pages of the American Baptist Flag, debating the relationship of the kingdom and the church.(158) These articles reflected generally the differences which had existed earlier between the "Great Triumvirate." Hall's openness to publish such variant beliefs suggests that his own position was not yet crystallized. Finally, in March, 1899, he expressed himself on. the editorial page.(159) On the issues of salivation and baptism, and salivation and church membership, Hall stated:
Salvation in Christ precedes membership in a church of Christ, and citizenship in the kingdom of Christ. We reach the blood of Christ before we come to the waters of baptism and we must reach Christ for our salvation before we come to the church for membership. The spiritual must precede the ritual, the faith of the heart must go before the works of the life. Every man should be saved before receiving baptism or entering a church; and every saved man should obey God in baptism, and by union with a church of Christ. We should obey because we are saved, not in order to be saved.(160)
The emphasis on salvation before baptism and before church membership was clear. His views relative to the kingdom and church echoed Graves' views:
The Kingdom of Christ is composed of the sum total of all the churches of Christ; and the churches of Christ are composed of those who, upon a profession of faith in Christ, have received a gospel baptism, and are continuing in the fellowship. The Kingdom of Christ is therefore a visible institution, composed of visible subjects. . . .
We enter the kingdom of Christ at the same time we enter a local church of Christ. Entrance into one does not precede entrance into the other. In Christ's day the kingdom and church were the same, for there was but one church at that time, and that church made the kingdom. But now there are thousands of churches of Christ, the aggregate of which make the kingdom of Christ.(161)
Like Graves, Hall cited Daniel 2:44 as proof for his contention that Christ established a visible kingdom on earth during his public ministry.(162) Apparently, however, Hall did not agree with Graves' position that baptism is "the door into the church." If he had, probably he would have declared it strongly in the above quotations.
Hall's underlying criticism of the "universal, invisible" position reflected the earlier historical development of Landmarkism. He saw that the other Landmark tenets would fall logically as a result of a denial of the third tenet--"Church and Government." He stated logically:
If all saved people constitute the "universal church," or Kingdom of Christ, and this fact can be proven by the Scriptures, then we surrender the doctrine of close communion, close baptism, and close ordination. In fact, everything distinctly Baptistic can be given up, and ought to be, for it is perfectly patent that if a saved Methodist, Presbyterian, Campbellite, or anybody else is in the church, in the Kingdom, he is as much in as any Baptist can be, and has as much right to what is on the inside as any Baptist can have.(163)
Like Graves before him, Hall contended that only "Missionary Baptist Churches" are true churches, although there are Christians in other religious denominations.(164) "We believe [he continued, that] the Lord was a Baptist, and that his commission was given to the Baptists . . . ."(165)
The succession of Baptist churches [Hall maintained, however,] is but an incidental issue as connected with the Whitsitt controversy. . . . The contention is not between 'intelligence" and "ignorance," but between a belief in God's word and a belief in a Pedobaptist standpoint.(166)
Hall contended that Baptist perpetuity is based "on the infallible and glorious word of the Lord."(167) Like Graves, Hall used Matthew 16:18 as his major prooftext. He asserted that whenever one denies perpetuity, "he charges Christ with a false statement in saying the 'gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"(168)
Hall, moreover, denied that Baptists believe in
"Apostolic succession," for that means a succession of apostles; but we believe in the succession of churches. Christ did not promise a perpetuity to men, nor to their office, but he did promise perpetuity to his churches.(169)
Similarly, Hall denied "the charge that the doctrine of Baptist succession is 'maladorous Romanism.'"(170) To the contrary, he countered that,
if it is necessary for Baptist churches to be faithful for one week or month in order to be true New Testament churches, it is equally necessary that they be true New Testament churches for eighteen hundred years, or else they cease to be true churches. . . .
If there has [sic] been New Testament churches on earth that were not Baptist churches, then, Baptist Churches are not New Testament churches, and should disband. So it is succession or dissolution.
If the words of the Master come true, there will always be New Testament churches on earth. Hence, succession.(171)
Hall's view was clearly a "church link theory" of succession. Anyone who says that
he believes there have been Baptists in all ages, but he does not believe they have always had connection with one another so as to link them together, [is mistaken, Hall maintained]. In our view . . . it is no more difficult to show and accept the linking together of the Baptists of the generations past, than to assume that Baptists have always existed. Why should it be supposed that Baptists have existed in every age since Christ's ministry, and yet that they were not connected together. Such a weak evasion of a patent truth must be for the purpose of excusing the loose practices of some northern and eastern Baptists. We believe Baptists have always existed, and have always been connected.(172)
Moreover, the idea of an "invisible church succession," Hall asserted, is ridiculous; the only kind of church succession can be "visible."(173) Hall was certain, also, that only Baptist churches have historical continuity and are based upon the Hew Testament model.(174)
To substantiate historically his position on Baptist perpetuity, Hall cited a number of quotations from Baptists, pedobaptists, and "Campbellites."(175) This methodology was essentially that utilized earlier by Dayton, Graves, and Ford.
BRO HALL:--In your sermon at Rock Spring church you said that "fellowship was one of the bars around the Lord's table. What kind of fellowship did you mean, Christian or church fellowship?(177)
Hall responded:
ANSWER: We said and meant "church fellowship." No one can come to the supper of the Lord in a church who is not an position to receive its hands of fellowship. But he who is in position to receive that token in one church of Christ, is prepared to receive it in every other church of Christ on earth. When Jesus said, "I appoint unto you a kingdom that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom," (Luke 22:30) he gave them the liberty of eating at that table wherever they found it in that kingdom. If he did not, then his words do not rightly express his meaning.(178)
Hall's position on the Lord's Supper, therefore, was similar to that of Pendleton and of Ford.
Throughout his editorship with the American Baptist Flag, Hall and other Baptist leaders debated the merits of gospel missionism as opposed to the mission board system. Probably the most succinct and concise statement of his own position appeared on the editorial page on January 27, 1898. Hall presented "A Brief statement of the essential doctrines of Gospel Missions . . . ."(179) A synopsis follows:
l. All delegated, divine authority is in the churches. Christ has no other executive bodies on earth. . . .
2. The commission was given by Christ to the body of his disciples, as his church; and is now obligatory upon every church as a direct command from her Lord. . . .
3. In the execution of this work churches may combine and co-operate so as to be mutually helpful to each other by the organization of subordinate and subservient conventions and associations; but such conventions and associations are for consultation and advice only. . . .
4. Conventions and associations must be composed of regularly appointed messengers (not delegates) from the churches, who are authorized to express the will of the churches in what they desire to have done.
5. Such conventions and associations should be just large enough to secure efficient co-operation, and to obtain easy direction and control from the churches, and no larger. . . . Our conventions are too large. Seven tenths of the churches are not represented in them.
6. Membership in such conventions and associations must be free to any and every Baptist church that sends a messenger. A financial basis of representation is a scandalous burlesque on Baptist church independence.
7. The appointment of a Board of advisers, and agents, to do the service appointed to them by the churches, is all right, when said Board is wholly subject to the churches, each of whom has a right to a voice in directing the affairs. Churches should express themselves specifically, by resolution, as to what they desire to have done by such Board.
8. If a secretary may be helpful to the churches in correspondence and visitation, let him be selected by the churches, and his duties prescribed. But let him be a servant of the churches.
9. If any salary is paid to a secretary let it be paid from a specific fund raised for that special purpose. . . .
10. Every cent given for missions must go to missions. All expenses must be paid out of funds given for expenses.
11. If any church is able to send out a missionary and support him, it should do so within itself. It needs no co-operation to help it in this work.
12. No missionary co-operation is needful or helpful except just that number of churches that can support a missionary. . . .
13. Every missionary must go to his field with some Baptist church behind him as his director. No mere squatter or self-appointed missionary is to be assisted in his work. . . .
14. Every missionary must report his work direct to the church, or churches, sending him out.
15. Every missionary has an agreed salary, capable of supporting him in reasonable comfort, and all he may receive above this amount he will place in the hands of the churches who have charge of his work, to be used by them, in aiding other missionaries.(180)
Hall asserted that
in this system we avoid centralization, debts, bossism, and the churches direct the work. If there be State Conventions or Southern Baptist Conventions, they are for social, religious and educational advantages. They have no right to prosecute independent work. The churches have that [right].(181)
He also asked:
Can anyone detect any unbaptistic, unscriptural, anti-missionary doctrine in this platform or principles? Is there any opposition to "organized work," or any spirit of Hardshellism in it?(182)
The theme of final church authority in missions was an addition to the issues of earlier Landmarkism, but Hall insisted that
it appears to be a case made out that Dr. Graves was a sure-enough Gospel Missioner in all the principles that go to make up that idea. He believed we had too much mission machinery, and that it was fast involving the worst forms of episcopacy, and that we had need to get back to the churches. This is the cry of the Gospel Mission brethren today. We are safe when we are in control of the churches [i.e., mission work is under the control of the churches], under Christ.(183)
Hall also maintained that the men who "introduced convention sovereignty," also advocated "alien immersion, [the] invisible church and other departures from the Bible [i.e., from Landmarkism] and Baptist principles . . . (184)
was the first man to sound the note of warning about the financial basis of representation in associations and conventions, and at one time he introduced an amendment to the Constitution of the Missouri General Association to do away with that unbaptistic clause which demands the payment of money before a church is entitled to admission.(187)
Ford's massive work of over fifty years, including both books and articles in the Christian Repository, must have had an impact on the whole Baptist denomination. Although Ford was ready to criticize Graves, stating that Graves "had his weaknesses, many of them,"(188) and to disagree with him on many of the major concepts of Landmarkism, he nevertheless thought very much of him:
Having known that remarkable man [Graves] nearly all of his public life, associated with him in various lines of labor; his neighbor and personal friend for years: though differing with him in many of his views [emphasis is mine], yet at one with him in the glorious doctrines of grace, and in the eternal principles which distinguish the Baptist brotherhood: we think we can, from documents and personal knowledge, present his life, his character and his influence in a way which will place him and those who revere his memory in a true and edifying light."(189)
Ford's denial of the "invisible church" and his view that ecclesia must always mean a visible "assembly," however, actually place him in the Landmark moment, whatever his disagreements with Graves. Bogard stated: "No other man has so thoroughly exposed and answered this 'Invisible, Universal, Spiritual Church' theory as he."(190)
Hall is also a pivotal figure because he represents graphically the Landmarkism of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According to J. H. Grime in 1898, Hall was "the J. R. Graves of the South and [his paper] the FLAG was the landmark paper of the South."(201) Similarly, W. F. Lowe declared: "When J. R. Graves died the mantle fell on J. N. Hall."(202) Hall clearly felt that he was walking in the theological footsteps of the "Great Triumvirate," for he stated that "the sainted Graves, Dayton and Pendleton fought for and established the scriptural land-marks of the Baptist faith . . . ."(203) Hall was proud to be a Landmarker. He advertized in one of his books that "The American Baptist Flag . . . is an aggressive Landmark Baptist paper, and is not ashamed nor afraid to speak its sentiments."(204) In answer to the question "What is Baptist Landmarkism?" Hall replied:
It is a simple, unflinching faithfulness to Baptist principles. . . . It announces that Baptists are capable of carrying out their Lord's commission in all of its details without calling in the help of others. A Landmark Baptist does his own preaching, his own baptizing, manages his own church affairs, uses his own pulpit, and does not ask or need the aid of any other preacher, of any other denomination, to help him do the work. . . . In his [i.e., a Landmark preacher's] estimation there is but one true church, organized by the Lord, endowed with perpetual life, with the promise of ultimate triumph, commanded to glorify God in all ages, with full authority to preach the gospel, and administer the ordinances, and government the Lord ordained, and with unbroken continuity reaching back to the days of John's ministry.(205)
He wondered why anyone would "have . . . a determined opposition to Landmark Baptists," for
Landmark Baptists are plainly and only such Baptists as stand invariably by what all Baptists preach as truth. Is it right for Baptists to baptize? Then it is always right. It is right for them to ordain their own ministers, use their own pulpits, observe the Supper among themselves? Then it is always, everywhere, and invariably right for them so to do. That is all a Landmark Baptist does.He is simply a Baptist all the time, and in every place.(206)
1. Bogard, pp. 234-38; William Cathcart (ed.), "Ford, Rev. Samuel Howard, LL.D.," The Baptist Encyclopedia, I, 404-405: George Raleigh Jewell, "Ford's Christian Repository, The," ESB, I, 457.
2. Bogard, p. 234.
3. Ibid. pp. 234-35.
4. Ibid., p. 235.
5. Jewell, p. 457.
6. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIII (November, 1899), 677.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 678. The emphasis by capitalization here apparently is Ford's. No documentation is given here, but the quotation appears to be from the Tennessee Baptist.
9. Ibid. Variations of the spelling of "pedo-baptist" and "Landmarkism" are quoted exactly as they appear in Ford's and Hall's writings--without special note or use of "sic."
10. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIII (November, 1899), 678.
11. Ibid., p. 679. Emphasis is mine.
12. Ford,"History of the Baptists in the Southern States by B. F. Riley, D.D.--Misstatements--Old Landmarkism--Succession--Irregular Immersions" [cited hereafter as "Misstatements"], ibid., LXIII (July, 1899), 419-20.
13. Ibid., p. 419, quoting Riley.
14. Ibid., p. 420.
15. Ibid., pp. 423-25.
16. Ibid., p. 424.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid. Emphasis in Ford's quotation.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 425, quoting David Benedict, Fifty Years Among the Baptists.
T. A. Patterson, pp. 137-38, has stated in partial agreement: "Dr. Pendleton and Dr. Ford were right in their statements concerning the origin of the movement. If Dr. Ford intended to limit Landmarkism to the question of the propriety of inviting pedobaptists to preach in Baptist pulpits, he did not include enough. Pendleton indicated on numerous occasions, and then reaffirmed it in his book, that Landmarkism had to do with the non-recognition of pedobaptist ministers and churches. Not only did this involve the refusal to invite these ministers to preach in Baptist pulpits, but it also involved the refusal to invite them to seats in Baptist assemblies. It denied that Baptists should participate with them in union meetings, or should unite with them in any kind of program which could be construed as an endorsement of them or of their churches as scriptural organizations. Of course, the main point of contention very soon came to be, not whether pedobaptist churches were gospel churches, but whether or not they were recognized as such when their ministers were invited into Baptist pulpits." He agrees basically with Ford that Graves and Pendleton were not the first ones to hold these views, but disagrees with Ford's view that non-pulpit affiliation was the major point of Landmarkism.
21. Ford, "Dr. Whitsitt's Statement in Regard to Dr. J. R. Graves--A Protest," FCRHC, LXIV (March, 1900), 169; quoting Whitsitt.
22. Ibid., p. 170; quoting Graves.
23. Ford, "Misstatements," p. 421.
24. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIV (August, 1900), 492.
25. Ibid., emphasis is Ford's.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., pp. 492-93.
28. Ibid., p. 493.
29. Ford, "Misstatements," p. 423.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., pp. 422-23. See also Ford, "Pedo-Baptist Immersion--Historic Facts--Semple's and Mercer's Histories of Virginia and Georgia," FCRHC, LXIII (August, 1899), 483-85.
32. Ford, "Misstatements," p. 423.
33. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIV (August, 1900), 492.
34. Ford, "The Spread of Baptist Principles During the Century" [cited hereafter as "Spread"], FCRHC, LXIV (May, 1900), 293.
35. Ibid. For other examples, see Ford, "German or Dutch Translation of the Original for Baptize," ibid., LX (February, 1896), 94-96; Ford, "Does 'Dip' mean 'Dip'--Or Does 'Baptize' Mean 'Baptize'?" ibid., XL (October, 1885), 254-58.
In another article, Ford, "Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster Abbey--Baptism," ibid., XXII (September, 1876), 201, stated about Dean Stanley: "But his researches . . . have forced from him the acknowledgment that the baptism of the Primitive Church, and of all parties until the fourth century, 'was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters.'"
36. Ford, "Editorial," ibid., LXIV (July, 1900), 446.
37. Ford, "Higher Critics and Baptism" ibid., LX (February, 1896), 92-93; quoting William Sanday's commentary on Romans in The International Critical Commentary.
38. Ford, ibid., p. 94.
39. Ford, "The Real Issue--Wherein Baptists Differ from all Others," ibid., LX (February, 1896), 90.
40. Ibid. See also What Baptists Baptize For (St. Louis, Mo.: Christian Repository Office, 1887), pp. 1-14.
41. Ibid., pp. 15-34. See also, "Editorial," FCRHC, LXIV (September, 1900), 575.
42. Wamble, p. 430.
43. Ford, "What Is A Church?" FCRHC, LXIV (October, 1900), 610-12.
44. Ibid., p. 610.
45. Ibid., pp. 610-11.
46. Ibid., p. 612.
47. "The Universal Church--Its Real Meaning" and "Is There a Catholic or Universal Church?" in Bogard, pp. 239-48, 249-52. The articles appeared originally in FCRHC, LXIII [September, 1899).
48. Bogard, p. 249.
49. Ibid., p. 240.
50. Ibid., p. 241.
51. Ibid., p. 242.
52. Ibid., pp. 242-44.
53. Ibid., p. 242.
54. Ibid., p. 243.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid., p. 244.
57. Ibid., p. 245.
58. Ibid., pp. 245-46.
59. Ibid., p. 246.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., p. 247.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., p. 248.
67. Ibid., In an "Editorial," FCRHC, LXIV (September, 1900), 575, Ford stated "THERE IS ONE BODY, while there are thousands of organized gospel churches, each of which may be figuratively called 'a body' with the Lord Jesus its spiritual head. These are one in foundation, in spirit and church life. They are one as the magnolia forest, but distinct and separate as the flowering trees."
68. Ford "Editorial," ibid., LXIII (October, 1899), 638.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid. See also his "Editorial," ibid., LXIII (November, 1899), 702.
71. Ford, "The Genesis of an Invisible Church--Pedo-Baptism," ibid., LXIII (September, 1899), 534.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., p. 535. See also Ford, "The General Misconception of Church Membership--Visible and Invisible--The Door" [cited hereafter as "General Misconception"], ibid., LXIII (November, 1899), 646-49; and "Was There an Invisible Church at the Time of Pentecost?" ibid., LXIII (November, 1899), 650-52.
75. Ford, "Editorial," ibid., LXIII (October, 1899), 638; emphasis is in Ford's quotation.
76. Ibid., quoted by Ford.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. Ford, "Editorial," ibid., LXIII (November, 1899), 702.
80. Ford, "Life," ibid., LXIII (December, 1899), 744.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid., p. 745.
84. Ibid., p. 746.
85. Ibid., p. 747.
86. Ford, "Does Baptism Admit to Membership in a Gospel Church?" FCRHC, LXIII (November, 1899), 652.
87. Ibid., p. 653.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid., pp. 653-54. See also "General Misconception," pp. 646-49, where Ford, p. 648, emphasized in particular that "the very idea of a church implies social contact, fellowship, mutual sympathy, purpose, and co-operation. . . . Conversion, justification, is between the individual heart alone with God and has nothing to per se with congregation or church."
90. Ford, "Spread," p. 293. He even narrowed these down " to three: "a spiritual church," "a distinct or local church," and "an independent church," p. 294.
91. Ford, "Editorial," FCRHC, LXIV (June, 1900), 381.
92. Ibid. See also his essay entitled "The Real Issue--Wherein Baptists Differ From All Others," ibid., LX (February, 1896), 90-92; note especially his statement, p. 91, that "we affirm that this gospel truth [i.e., "it is through Christ to baptism and not through baptism to Christ" (above, p. 69)[note #40]--the center and summit of gospel grace, is held as a principle by Baptists alone, and that they differ in this from all others."
93. W. M. Patterson, Baptist Successionism, p. 10.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.
96. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
97. Ibid., p. 11.
98. R. G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (lst ed. rev.; Valley Forge, Pa: The Judson Press, 1963), pp. 19-20.
99. Ibid., p. 19.
100. Wamble, p. 442.
101. Ford, "Misstatements," pp. 420-21.
102. Ibid., p. 420. The words in brackets are Ford's.
103. Ibid., p. 421.
104. Ford, "The True Succession of Christ's Witnesses--What Is It?" FCRHC, LXIV (March, 1899), 160.
105. Ibid., p. 169. See also his book The Origin of the Baptists, Traced Back by Milestones on the Track of Time (rev. ed.; Memphis, Tenn.: Baptist Book House, 1876) for his detailed successionist views.
106. See above, p. 66. [note #28]
107. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIV (August, 1900), 493.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid.
111. See Bogard, pp. 441-44, and W. M. Barker and Mrs. J. 1. Hall (eds.), Memoirs of Eld. J. N. Hall: The Peerless Defender of the Baptist Faith (Fulton, Ky.: Baptist Flag Print, 1907), pp. 7-42, 333-49, for biographical sketches. The present sketch is based upon these sources plus other materials gleaned from the American Baptist Flag [cited hereafter as ABF].
112. Bogard, p. 441. [dissertation incorrectly shows #119 in the text above.]
113. Ibid., p. 442.
114. Ibid.
115. Barker and Hall, p. 11.
116. Leo. T, Crismon, "Hall, John Newton," ESB, I, 1958, 596.
117. Bogard, p. 441.
118. Barker and Hall, p. 11.
119. Bogard, pp. 444-45.
120. Ibid., p. 443.
121. Ibid.
122. Hall, "The Sale of the Flag," ABF, XXIII (February 11, 1897), 4. Bogard, p. 444, and Baker and Hall, p. 12, incorrectly stated that Hall bought it in 1898 and moved it to Fulton, Kentucky. Hall was first shown as editor, however, on January 18, 1897, ABF, XXIII, 8. The paper carried the heading "St. Louis, Mo." until April 21, 1898, when it read "St. Louis, Mo., and Fulton, Ky.," then "Fulton, Ky., and St. Louis, Mo." (August 4, 1898), and finally "Fulton, Ky."
123. Bogard, p. 444.
124. He even published his own Sunday School literature.
125. His views on missions were called "Gospel Missions."
126. Particularly the so-called "Whitsitt Controversy."
127. See Barker and Hall, pp. 333-41, for a description of this sermon.
128. Ibid., pp. 342-49, for a copy of the Statement of Principles and an analysis of the leadership which Hall demonstrated there. They said, p. 343, that this document provided the "medium ground between the extreme board [!] and the extreme gospel mission ideas" present at the meeting and added, pp. 343-44, that "it was said at his death that Dr. Hall had changed his views, but a comparison of his last document with his editorials, which are in this book [i.e., Barker and Hall], and cover a period of more than ten years, will show different."
129. J. M. Pendleton, Judson Taylor, and J. N. Hall, Landmarkism, Liberalism, and the Invisible Church [cited hereafter as Landmarkism] Fulton, Ky., and St. Louis, Mo.: National Baptist Publishing House, 1899), [p. 74].
130. Ibid., p. 66; see also p. 67.
131. See "Queries," ABF, XXIII (April 29, 1897), p.
132. Ibid.; see Barker and Hall, pp. 163-65, for Hall's reason for opposing "union meetings."
133. For example, see Hall, "Queries,' ABF, XXIII (April 8, 1897), 9; and Barker and Hall, p. 115.
134. For example, see Hall, "Editorial,' ABF, XXIII (February 25, 1897), 8-9.
135. Barker and Hall, p. 159.
136. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIII (June 17, 1897), 8. See Hall, "Queries," ibid., (May 13, 1897), p. 9, where he said "tongue-in-cheek": "We suppose some Scripture for alien immersion could be found in the third [sic] epistle of Peter. We are not sure of it, however."
137. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., (February 18, 1897), p. 8.
138. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., XXIV (January 6, 1898), 8.
139. Hall, "Queries," ibid., XXIII (April 8, 1897), 9.
140. Barker and Hall, pp. 125-27, 39, 147.
141. Hall, "Born of Water and Spirit," ABF, XXV (February 9, 1899), 1.
142. Ibid.
143. "A Few Suggestions," ibid., (February 23, 1899), p. 1.
144. Ibid.
145. George Varden, "Born of Water and Spirit," ibid., (May 11, 1899), p. 1.
146. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., (June 15, 1899), p. 4.
147. Pendleton, Taylor, and Hall, p. 67.
148. Ibid.
149. Ibid.
150. Ibid., p. 68.
151. Ibid.
152. Ibid.
153. Ibid.
154. Ibid., pp. 68-69.
155. Ibid., pp. 69-73. The author feels justified in including such a lengthy quotation here, for this passage will give a good illustration of Hall's style of reasoning (influenced perhaps by his many debates?) and writing, especially on such a major issue.
156. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIII (February 18, 1897), 8. Articles seeing "Body of Christ" both locally and universally appeared at least once in the Flag. T F. Moore,"Body of Christ," ibid., XXV (May 11, 1899), 8, affirmed that the "One Body" of Ephesians 4 referred to the church at Ephesus and that each local church is a "Body of Christ." C. E. W. Dobbs,"The Body--The Church," ibid., XXVI (Jan.26, 1900), 1, however, contended that the expression "Body of Christ" is descriptive of the whole company of the saved." Hall added no editorial comment, however, to either article!
157. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., XXIII (Feb. 4, 1897), 8.
158. For examples, see: A. A. Andrus,"Are the Words Church and Kingdom Synonymous?" ibid., (April 8, 1897), p 5; W. C. Benson,"Restricted Communion," ibid., XXIV (Sept. 8, 1898), 1; C. E. Hughart," The Kingdom of Heaven, the Church of God and Gospel Missions," ibid., (Nov. 10, 1898), p.6; D. S. Brinkley, "The Kingdom and the Church," ibid., XXV (Feb. 9, 1899), 1; I. S. Hicks,"A Few Suggestions," ibid., (Feb. 23, 1899), p.1; N. D. White, "How We Enter the Kingdom," ibid., (March 16, 1899), p. 3; W. P. Lowe,"Exegetical," ibid., (May 4, 1899), p. 5; O. G. Lenning," The Kingdom and the Church," ibid., (June l, 1899), p. 2; John A. Chambers, "The Kingdom of Heaven," ibid., (June 15, 1899), p. 3; E. T. Moore,"Body of Christ," ibid., (May 11, 1899), p. 8; C. E. W. Dobbs, "The Body--The Church," ibid., XXVI (Jan.26, 1900), 1.
159. Articles giving varying interpretations continued for some time afterwards, however.
160. Hall, "Editorial, "ABF, XXV (March 9, 1899), 4.
161. Hall, "Flag Wavelets," ibid.
162. Hall, "Editorial, ibid., (June 8, 1899), p. 4.
163. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., (April 27, 1899), p. 4.
164. Barker and Hall, p. 149; see also Pendleton, Taylor and Hall, Landmarkism, p. 73.
165. Barker and Hall, p. 171; see also, ibid., pp. 125-26, 136, 143, 154, for similar statements.
166. Hall, "With a Comment," ABF, XXV (April 27, 1899), 4.
167. Barker and Hall, p. 146.
168. Ibid., pp. 162-63; see also, ibid., pp. 170-71.
169. Ibid., pp. 130-31.
170. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIV (Jan. 6, 1898), 8.
171. Ibid.
172. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., XXIII (Feb. 18, 1897), 8.
173. Hall, "With a Comment," ibid., XXV (April 27, 1899), 4.
174. Pendleton, Taylor and Hall, Landmarkism, p. 72.
175. Hall, "Footprints of the Baptists: Historic Evidence Showing that the Baptists Have the Succession," chapter nine, Barker and Hall, pp. 176-83.
176. For example, see 'Editorial," ABF, XXIII (Oct. 7, 1897), 8; and "Editorial," ibid., (June 17, 1897), p. 7. Another article without an author assigned, "Qualifications tor the Lord's Supper," ibid., XXIV (Nov. 10, 1898), 7, stressing the same facts, probably was written by Hall.
177. J. S. Engle, in "Queries," ibid., (May 12, 1898), p. 7.
178. Ibid.
179. Hall, "Editorial, ABF, XXIV (Jan. 27, 1898), 8. See also Barker and Hall, pp. 120-21, for a similar article.
180. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIV (Jan. 27, 1898), 8.
181. Ibid. See also, Barker and Hall, pp. 120-73, for numerous statements about his plan of mission work.
182. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIV (Jan. 27, 1898), 8.
183. Barker and Hall, pp. 155-56.
184. Ibid., p. 127.
185. Ibid., p. 155.
186. Bogard, pp. 239-52. These articles had appeared originally in FCRHC, LXIII (September, 1899).
187. Board, p. 235. Regardless of the possible exaggeration of Bogard's statement, the ties between Bogard and Ford are present and will become more evident in chapters four, five, and six.
188. Ford, "Life," FCRHC, LXIV (March, 1900), 162.
189. Ford, "Editorial," ibid., LXIII (September, 1899), 573, explaining the subsequent issues--October 1899 through September 1900--on the "Life, Times, and Teachings of J. R. Graves."
190. Bogard, p. 236.
191. See, for example, S. H. Slaughter, "That Wonderful Article," [denouncing J. B. Gambrell] ABF, XXVII (January 24, 1901), 13.
192. Bogard wrote regularly for Hall and was his pastor for several years; see Bogard, "The Light Turned on and Gospel Missions Vindicated," ibid., XXIII (September 23, 1897), pp. 2-3, for an example of their common missions views.
193. Jarrel was a regular contributor to the paper.
194. Winters, "Campbellism vs. Bible," ibid., XXIV (January 6, 1898), 14.
195. See J. A. Scarboro, "Missions--Gospel Plan vs. Board Plan," ibid., (January 20, 1898), pp. 1, 4.
196. For example, see Hall, "Editorial," ibid., (March 31, 1898), p. 8.
197. See Hall, "Editorial, ibid., XXIII (July 18, 1897), 8-9.
198. Hall, "Editorial," ibid., XXIV (May 5, 1898), 8.
199. See almost every issue of ABF from the beginning of Hall's editorship in 1897 until after Whitsitt resigned as president of Southern Seminary in 1900.
200. Hall accused Hayden and other subsequent BMAT leaders of being "Board men"! "For the Sake of Truth," ibid., XXV (March 9, 1899), 1.
201. J. H. Grime, "Strong Endorsement," ibid., XXIV (October 13, 1898), 11.
202. W. F. Lowe, "Rev. J. N. Hall, D.D.," ibid., XXXII (January 25, 1906), 1. See also Lowe, "He Will Be Saved, But His Works Will be Burned," [an answer to critical statements by D. B. Ray] ibid.; J. H. Milburn, "To the Memory of J. N. Hall," ibid., (January 4, 1906), p. 16, and Barker and Hall, pp. 33 and 38, for similar statements.
203. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIII (October 7, 1897), 8. See also Barker and Hall, pp. 145-46, where Hall complimented S, H. Ford's articles on the life of J. R. Graves.
204. Pendleton, Taylor, and Hall, Landmarkism, p. 74.
205. Hall, "Editorial," ABF, XXIII (October 7, 1897), 8.
206. Ibid.
Go to Abstract and Acknowledgements.
Go to Chapter I: Introduction".
Go to Chapter II: "Early Landmarkism: Graves, Pendleton, and Dayton."
Go to Chapter IV: "Historical Survey of the Rise of the Associational Baptist Movement".
Go to Chapter V: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Official Associational Baptist Documents."
Go to Chapter VI: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Non-Official Associational Baptist Documents."