In the Central Baptist [newspaper] of the 2d inst., I see the following statement: "The Herald says that Rev. S. H. Ford, D.D., of Memphis, does not wish to be considered an adherent of what is known as 'old landmarkism.'" In the May number of the Christian Register for 1856, over the initials S.H.F., I find the following answer to two queries:

      "1. Are Pedobaptist establishments gospel churches?" And,

      "2. Are Pedobaptist preachers gospel ministers?"

      And. "No! BAPTISTS HAVE NEVER BELIEVED THAT THESE SPECIOUS ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS WERE GOSPEL CHURCHES, OR THAT THEIR PROJECTORS OR LEADERS WERE GOSPEL MINISTERS."

      Now, to some, the perfect consistency of the statement of the Herald with the above quotation from the Repository may appear very clear. But to plain, common-sense people, it looks somewhat incongruous. And though so good and great a man as Bro. [A. M.] Poindexter, of Va., after publishing to the world that "No Baptist can rightly or consistently recognize a Pedobaptist church as a scriptural church or a Pedobaptist minister as a scriptural minister," may continue to oppose the old landmark, yet the reason of his course appears in no very enviable light to such men as Bro. Walker, of the same State, who has received the impression somewhere (it makes no difference about this), that the fair deductions of logic are entitled to some respect,

      And Bro. Ford says, "these specious ecclesiastical establishments," Baptists do not regard as "gospel churches." Very well. We suppose he includes himself this statement. This witness is certainly true. Now, the conclusion from the above is, that the preachers of such churches are not "gospel ministers!" No fault here. Surely, none but gospel churches have gospel ministers. Whateley himself could find no error in this. But with those extraordinary powers of mind by which some of our brethren so clearly see that it is exactly right to recognize and invite men to preach the gospel for them [not clear] gospel ministers, we, unfortunately, (?) have not been endowed. But then, they don't invite them to preach the gospel. We couldn't so conclude, without doing them much injustice. For our brethren don't go to builders to get their horses shod, nor to the hattery for boots and shoes. What, then, do they invite them to preach? Politics? But some Pedobaptist preachers, though not "gospel ministers," think this would be wrong. A "vain philosophy" - their systems of religion, or - what? This, we can't decide. And if our brethren would make all these explanations before and, it is quite probable that but few of the Pedobaptist ministers would accept or appreciate their kind courtesies.

      Let me say, in conclusion, that if was quite proper to make it: for where a brother doesn't accept the results of his own teachings, he should disclaim them himself, or get some one to do it for him. Who would blame a man for correcting mistakes made in 1856, or even still further back? It is noble! It is praise-worthy! Would that we all had more of this grace.

      Whenever any of our anti-landmark brethren make the discovery that one single man was sent forth in apostolic times as a regularly authorized preacher of the gospel, before his immersion, and consequently before he became a member of a "gospel church," we will be pleased to hear from them through THE BAPTIST.

      Their silence on the subject will be understood as a confession of their inability to meet this demand.
           Little Rock, June 7, 1870.

=======

[From The Baptist newspaper, July 2, 1870. CD edition. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

---

More on Baptist Landmarkism
Baptist Controversies
Baptist History Homepage