The Southern Baptist Landmark Debate

by Mark W.Fenison

The Baptists in the 19th century were much like the early Particular English Baptists in the 17th and 18th centuries in engaging opponents in open debates. Debating sharpened their stances
and gave opportunity to openly spread their views and convince the audiences. This is particularly true of the debate over Landmarkism that raged within and without the Baptists between 1860-1925. The primary opponents of the Landmarkers within the Baptist ranks
were those who predominantly received their educational training from Presbyterian and non-Baptist European Schools of higher education. They were those who advocated the theory of the Protestant Universal Invisible Church. The influence upon Baptist ecclesiology by Presbyterianism had begun in 1680-1689 and slowly but steadily gained momentum until the Baptists in 1860 were seeing the impact of that influence beginning to change the practice of Baptist churches. Up to that point the Universal Invisible church position had been only a
THEORY accepted by many Baptists but that theory was beginning to change the PRACTICE of ecclesiastical separation by Baptists. Pedo-Baptists were being invited into their pulpits and they in turn were attending conferences presided over by pedobaptist preachers. It was at this very critical time in Baptist history that God rose up men like Dr. J.R. Graves, Dr. J.M. Pendleton, Dr. A.C. Dayton, Dr. T.T. Eaton and many others in order to turn this tide among the practice of Baptists back to the "old landmark" of ecclesiastical separation from pedobaptists and all other non-baptists. Some were inconsistent (Pendleton held to the Universal Invisible Church theory) while others more consistent with the principles of Landmarkism. One of the most popular forums for public exchange during this time was debate as well as the written page. The defining principle of Old Landmarkism according to Cathcart's definition was church authority behind the ordaining and sending forth to baptize.

All parties agreed where there was no baptism there could be no visible church order. Hence, the Landmark position was quite clear and to the point. There could be no church where there was no scriptural baptism and there could be no scriptural baptism where there was no church ordained and church authorized administrator. Therefore the issue was not only over the mode and proper subject of baptism but over church authority behind the administration of that baptism.

The opponents of Landmarkism both within the ranks of Baptists and without saw exactly what this position must lead to -- Baptist Church succession by organic chain link succession. In Dr. A.C. Dayton's debate with Dr. W.L. Waller, Dr. Waller explicitly laid out the problem to the Landmarkers. He told them that the position which demands that a church authorized administrator is essential to validate baptism must logically embrace baptismal succession.

"And the first consequence claiming our attention is, that if the administrator be necessary to the validity of baptism now, he was always necessary……..If at any time since the introduction of baptism into the world, an individual received baptism in a manner contrary to the divine enactments, it was invalid to all intents and purposes……The proposition of the affirmative is, that those who have been baptized by an improper administrator, are not baptized at all. If
that be true now, it is always true…….If any LINK IN THE SUCCESSION BE BROKEN, the most skilful spiritual smith under the whole heaven cannot mend THE CHAIN…………" (A.C. Dayton, Alien Immersion, pp. 110-111).

However, A.C. Dayton goes on to voice the complete objection to the Landmark position in the following words:

"But some one may say: `This is not getting rid of the difficulty. It simply transfers it from the minister to the church. You do not indeed have to trace the baptismal pedigree of the administrator, but you do have to trace that of the church, for which he officiates. For
if this church have been constituted of unbaptized members, or if it be the off-shoot of one that was so constituted, it cannot be a true church, since a true church must consist of baptized believers. AND AN UNBAPTIZED CHURCH COULD NEVER GIVE ORIGIN TO A BAPTIZED ONE. Nor is it any easier for churches to trace their pedigree, than for individuals.'" -- Ibid., p. 124

Dr. Dayton clearly states that one church must originate from another church. Dr. Dayton did not relent from embracing church
succession but went on to defend it in spite of the lack of historical evidence to prove it just as modern Landmarkers do to this
day. How did Dr. Dayton respond to the historical challenge? Read what he says,

"So when we find a church holding the doctrines of Christ, and `walking in all the statutes and ordinances of the Lord, blameless,' constituted to all appearance upon a heavenly model, we
are justified in taking it for granted that it is a true church, UNTIL SOME ONE CAN, AND DOES SHOW EVIDENCES TO THE CONTRARY. We are under no necessity of going back to ask by whom it was constituted, much less to trace its pedigree in all pas ages. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A TRUE CHURCH, AND ACTS LIKE A TRUE CHURCH, AS IT BELIEVES ITSELF TO BE, UNTIL SOME ONE SHALL PRESENT SOME GROUND OF DOUBT. AND SUCH GROUND MUST NOT BE VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN CONJECTURE, FOUNDED ON BARE POSSIBILITIES OR EVEN UPON PROBABILITIES -- IT MUST BE SOMETHING TRUE AND RELIABLE. I might say to any man: `Sir, you have no reliable evidence that you are the descendant of the family whose name you bear. For, even now, some people live as man and wife who are not truly married, and in past generations such things were much more
common than they are now. The chances are that some time or other, nobody now, knows when, at some place or other, nobody now, knows where, in the case of some one of your ancestors, nobody now knows which, the marriage covenant was violated, and you may be the offspring of shame and sin. Such irregularities have been innumerable, and it should be strange indeed if some of them had not by some means crept into your family.'

He would probably knock me down for my insolence, and yet I would have quite as good ground for my dishonorable imputations as those have who say that there is now no Baptist church that can be sure that it is a true church by regular descent from Christ and the apostles. I say again, when we find a body of professed believers which has the ordinances and the doctrines of Christ, we are justified in the absence of proof to the contrary in taking it for
granted that it came honestly by them. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A TRUE CHURCH, BELIEVES LIKE A TRUE CHURCH, AND ACTS LIKE A TRUE CHURCH, TO ME, IT IS, AND MUST BE A TRUE CHURCH, UNTIL THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. The burden of proof falls upon the adversaries. We do not need to establish our pedigree. It is for them to invalidate it; and that, not by suppositions, but by facts, not by suggesting what was possible, or even probable, but by showing what most certainly was true. Whenever this is done, in regard to any particular church, it will become its duty at once to correct any wrong by seeking a NEW
ORGANIZATION at the hands of those against whom no deficiency has been established." (Ibid., pp. 126-127).

This is how Dr. Dayton answered the "what if" argument of those who are enemies to "old Landmarkism." However, Many Landmarkers instead of relenting took a position they could prove historically in debate. They could historically prove to their own satisfaction that Baptist churches had existed in every generation from Christ to the present as this was the current
consensus of all Baptist Histories up to that time and this was the admission of many non-Baptist historians up to that time. They called this position "Baptist Church Perpetuity." Since, their
detractors and opponents scorned Landmarkism because in their mind it demanded the unprovable idea of "church succession" the proponents of Landmarkism in their debates and polemical writings denied they held to church succession but rather they believed in church perpetuity. Hence, in THEORY many denied church succession but in PRACTICE they
all supported what they called "regular church order" in the constitution of churches.
Some Landmarkers which were more consistent saw the inconsistency between the THEORY which rejected church succession and the PRACTICE which confirmed it. Dr. T.T. Eaton was one of those who placed this inconsistency right before their faces:

"If Baptist succession be the bad thing some brethren say, then certainly if out to be given up. There should be no more of it. The churches now in existence ought to have no succession. When a new church is organized, it should have no sort of connection with other churches, or relations to them. Let churches be organized anywhere, anyhow, by anybody. Just let people be believers, and let them baptize each other and start a church. This does away with Baptist
succession. And if it be the bad thing that is charged, it ought to be done away with at the earliest moment. Those who oppose Baptist Succession have no logical ground to stand on in organizing a church out of material furnished by other churches, and with those baptized
by regularly ordained Baptist ministers." (quoted by Milburn Cockrell, Scriptural Church Organization, Second Edition , pp. 57-58).

As you can plainly see, Dr. Eaton denied that one could reject succession without as well rejecting the common practice by Baptists in constituting new churches. Even those who in THEORY rejected the necessity of a preexisting church in the constitution of new churches, in PRACTICE conformed to Dr. Eaton's position and what was consistent with the principles of Landmarkism. Many that admitted historically church succession could not be proven, believed it was the Biblical position and if enough historical data became available it would be proven historically true as well. Dr. John T. Christian purposely using the term "succession" stated that this was his belief when he said:

"I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time." -- John T. Christian, A History of Baptists, Vol. I, introduction)

However, one thing is undeniable. The essential position of Old Landmarkism denied direct authority and therefore denied spontaneous origin of any church. This fact was clearly understood by the opponents of Landmarkism to necessitate the doctrine of organic chain link church succession. Matthew 28:19-20 demands organic chain link church succession and this is what Historical Baptists have PRACTICED and called "regular church order."

Conclusion

In our first chapter, we learned that the proper authorized administrator is characterized by seven factors. The administer is

(1) the contextual "ye" not "them";

(2) the qualified
experienced "ye" not the unqualified inexperienced "them;

(3) the "ye" of like faith and order with Christ not those who are not;
(4) the "ye" that are in a institutionalized churched state of like faith and order not the unchurched;

(5) the "ye" that represent the Church of Jesus Christ and those being sent out by that church not
anyone else.

(6) the "ye" that are reproduced as the direct historical product of link to link organic succession between the first and second coming of Christ not any church unrelated to this historical succession

(7) The kind of churches found in the pages of the New Testament.
These seven characteristics can be summarized under three headings.

(1) In regard to doctrine and practice they are churches of like faith and order with Christ.

(2) In regard to origin they are the product of a preceding church of like faith and order. (3) In
regard to history they are those churches that did not begin as a denomination outside of Palestine, outside the earthly ministry of Christ and outside the city of Jerusalem. The Great Commission "ye" stands forever as a denial in the so-called doctrine of direct authority and spontaneous church constitution. In the second chapter, we learned that New testament Churches as a rule practiced all three aspects of the Great Commission and that is laid down explicitly in Acts 2:41-42. We learned that when they left this pattern it was for specific reasons that are clearly stated and which are exceptions to the rule not the rule of practice. Last, we learned that they took steps to restore any exceptions to this rule and that is our rule for practice when we come into contact with a Christianity that is not in keeping with the rule of the Great Commission practice.

In the third Chapter, we learned that the New Testament provides Scriptural principles to guide us in identifying New Testament Churches in secular history between the first and second coming of Christ. We learned where not to look for them. In the fourth chapter we learned that the early leaders of English Particular Baptists whom many historians believe originated the
Baptist denomination in England personally denied that and stated clearly they did not originate anything and that their own churches were framed and erected by ordained preachers from country churches. They believed in Baptist church succession. In the fifth chapter we learned from the writings and associational minutes of the early Particular English Baptists that they believed the Great Commission was given to the church alone. They believed contained in the Great commission was "gospel order" which included authority to gather baptized believers into church membership. They denied they believed ordained ministers could carry out this commission without being authorized and sent by the church. They rejected the doctrine of direct authority and spontaneous church constitutions. In the sixth chapter we learned the Philadelphia Baptist Association was formed by these same early English Particular Baptist
and that they followed a set pattern identified by them as "regular church order" in the constitution of their churches. This pattern included church authority by vote preceding the act of self-constitution either in connection with letters of dismissal and/or in ordained church representatives sent to gather such churches. In addition, their order included ordained supervision directing the constitution and closing by these ordained men declaring those being
constituted to be a church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the seventh and final chapter we learned that the true definition and practice of Old Landmarkism denied direct authority to constitute churches. It denied church constitution apart from the authority of a preceding church of like faith and order. We learned that although chain link succession was denied in theory among some Landmarkers (not all) it was observed in practice by all in general. We learned that objections to mother church authority were not based upon any real facts. In Appendix I, we learned that the immediate and overall context of the giving of the Great Commission necessarily identifies the "ye" in Matthew 28:19-20 as inclusive of the church of Christ at Jerusalem and not merely the apostles.

In Appendix II, we learned what are the essential characteristics of the same gospel, same baptism and doctrine and practice promised age long existence in Matthew 28:19-20. In conclusion, The great commission is given to the church alone and it includes authority to gather baptized believers into church membership. This is exactly the historical practice of Baptists and
what they referred to as "regular church order."

__._,_.___