A Loving Appeal to the Primitive Baptists
By Elder John R. Daily
1906
PREFACEThe title of a book ought to be truly suggestive of its contents. To write a book and give it a title that contradicts what it contains, or that tends to convey a wrong impression as to its design, is an inexcusable imposition on its credulous readers. It is our humble hope that the readers of this little work will find it to be just what its title declares it to be - "A Loving Appeal to Primitive Baptists." Pure spiritual charity (divine love) is indispensably essential to the Lord's approval and blessing of any thing undertaken as service rendered to the Saviour and his sacred cause, and without that approval and blessing such service will be a curse to the Zion of our God rather than a blessing. I can truthfully say, that, in designing and preparing this book, I have earnestly prayed to be actuated by nothing but love for Jesus and his precious cause - love shed abroad in my poor heart by the Holy Spirit. It has not been my intention at all to oppose men merely, but to oppose what I am perfectly sure is erroneous teaching and calculated to spread confusion among the household of faith and bring division in its wake. I love the cause too well for which I have labored for over thirty years to remain quiet when I see the seeds of error are being sown, the results of which are already plainly visible.
Those who bring about division always accuse others of being the cause of it. Unfounded accusations amount to nothing. The rule by which to determine this question is that the one who introduces the new thing that results in severing the fellowship of the saints of God is the one who causes the division. It is never difficult to determine who this is in any case where innovations make their appearance. Parties in the church are always formed by the introduction of false teachings, and extreme positions are often taken by both sides, and in the heat of controversy improper things are frequently said and done by those who oppose such teaching. It is very important that the true veterans of the cause of Christ should be on their guard and speak and act prudently when waves of trouble rise from the introduction of heresy.
Peace is so desirable in the church of Christ. When the sheep of the Master's fold are quietly feeding on the fields of living green, beside the still waters, under beams of love which sweetly radiate from the blessed and glorious "Sun of righteousness," how inexpressibly glorious is the sight! This beautiful scene is suddenly changed by the appearance of a wolf. How vain it is in such a case to exhort the lambs and sheep to lie still or feed with indifference! Their very instinct tells them that this would be to their ruin. Sometimes, however, the sheep get to fighting. If one is so contrary as to refuse to be satisfied with the pasture his Shepherd furnishes, and butts the other sheep about, he should be tied or put out of the field. Disturbers of the peace of the fold, whether they be sheep or wolves, are to blame for the commotion they cause. False teaching brings confusion, and opposition to it is always in the interest of peace when that opposition is prompted by love and guided by prudence.
It is a very common thing for disturbers of the peace of Zion to raise the cry for peace while they are urging matters they well know will bring confusion, and when a faithful servant of Christ lifts a warning voice against such they labor very hard to make the impression on the minds of God's little children that the opposing servant is the cause of the confusion. Every innovation and departure that has ever been made has been attended by a pretended cry for peace by the innovators. A willingness has been urged in every such case to raise no bars to fellowship but live together in "peace." This is like a man sowing Spanish Needles in a corn field and at the same time saying to the farmer, "Let me sow my seeds and you may plant your corn, but do not raise any objections to my course, for the sake of peace."
Let us all rally to the old paths, then, to the good way, and carefully walk therein. Let us not be followers of men, but let us be followers of God and walk in love, remembering that Christ loved us to such an extent that he gave himself for us. The offering he made in giving himself for us was unto God a sweet smelling savour. So the love and fellowship of his saints and their unswerving devotion to his cause will ascend as a sweet savour to him. It is our object in sending forth this appeal to our dear people to stir them up to stand by the old paths and walk in the good way, because that is the only way by which peace and fellowship can be secured and maintained in the true church of Christ. The advocates of false doctrines can never secure a compromise with those who contend for the true doctrine of Christ, and even if they should succeed in securing such a compromise it would fall far short of a true union in actual peace and fellowship. A compromise is a mutual concession of the parties in dispute in which each yields what he believes to be true. There is no more union in heart after such a formal compromise than there was before. The only true foundation of peace and fellowship is to see eye to eye and speak the same thing. Recognizing this important truth Paul earnestly besought the brethren at Corinth that they all speak the same thing and that there be no division among them, but that they should be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. May the Lord help us all to labor to this glorious end.
CHAPTER I.
A PERIOD OF PEACE FOLLOWED BY CONFUSION.
The effort made by Pence, Burnam and others to "lift the Old Baptists out of the old ruts," and place them on a higher plain of popularity, resulted in a separation from us of a faction, many of whom were doubtless deceived and made to think they were doing God's will in following those leaders. That was a distressingly grievous time to those who were in the conflict, but some of the results proved to be most glorious and cause the veterans of the true cause of Christ to realize that the Lord had brought order out of chaos. There was a happy coming together in love and fellowship of some who had been of the same mind but had been kept apart by irregularities. A general revival among the churches in some sections where this trouble had caused the deepest distress gave evidence of the Lord's sanction and approval of the defence made by his servants against those innovations. Many young men entered the field at the Master's call and it seemed that an increased effort was being made by young and old ministers to proclaim the pure gospel of Christ and gather the lambs into the fold. The churches in many sections were growing in numbers, and harmonious work on the part of our editors and preachers generally seemed to unite our people in closer fellowship than had been for years. The voice of the Beloved seemed to say to the bride, "Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away. For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in the land."
In March, 1902, a copy of "The Gospel Light," came to my office in Luray, Va., where I was editing and publishing the "Zion's Advocate." I gladly assigned it a place among my exchanges. I had met its editor, Elder H. A. Todd, and esteemed him highly, regarding him as an able, humble preacher. In the next issue of the Zion's Advocate I said, "Eld. H. A. Todd, of Grayville, Ill., has started a new paper, five columns to the page, and is issued weekly, at one dollar per year. It has a large list of able correspondents. We wish it a prosperous future, and gladly welcome it to our exchange table." I was with Eld. Todd at the Danville Association, at Mt. Tabor church in Boone Co., Ind., in September 1902. I was so thankful to God for his gift. I heard him make one remark, however, that sounded strange, but I tried to think he meant well by it. He said, "A revolution of the Old Baptist church is sure to come." This statement was made in private conversation. As I had seen nothing from his pen at that time that was particularly objectionable, and as I had heard him so favorably spoken of, I let that strange remark pass without giving it much thought. I think I know now what he had in view.
At the time of a discussion held at Milgrove, Ind., I have been informed that Eld. Todd urged Eld. Crouse and other young ministers to join him in an effort to revolutionize the Old Baptists, asserting that if they would work together they could work such a revolution in ten years as would do them good. It was not long until some things appeared in "The Gospel Light" that were startling to many sober-minded old brethren, and soon it became evident that it was far from being a sound paper. Opposition to Eld. Todd's strange views stirred him up to such a pitch that he finally said that if things did not change he would go to the Missionary Baptists and that he would take some twenty of our young preachers with him; that he could preach what he believed among them and get a good living for his family; that he would as soon try to prove the Missionaries to be the church of Christ as to try to prove the Primitive Baptists to be. Many seemed infatuated with his apparent though unscholarly eloquence. He promised many things, claiming to "see the dawn of the morning and the sun of restoration arising over the eastern hills of hope." His praise of young ministers was flattering and had the tendency to inflate them with pride, as is shown by young Elder Hackleman who had taken a place with Eld. Todd as Editor. In speaking of the young gift he said, "His gift will make room for him. There are greater temptations for the aged to speak against the young, than for the young to speak against the aged. The aged have had their day of praise, and the laurels are being won by the boys. As they accomplish their work, their names will be written in glowing colors upon the hearts of the people." In some remarks that followed that boasting article Eld. Todd said, "O that God would make him a light so brilliant that the whole earth would be attracted to the shrine of the cross." It was by such flattery that Eld. Todd attempted to win the hearts of the young soldiers of the cross.
The opposition to the new course and new and strange doctrines became so great that the paper that promised the dawn of the new "light" began to totter on the verge of a fall. Elder Hackleman, seeing that he could not gain the day of praise and win the laurels which he craved, went over into Illinois and joined the New School Baptists. As soon as Elder Todd could dispose of his paper he followed the same course. Eld. Will M. Strickland, who served as secretary at the meeting held at St. Louis, at the time of the fair at that place, finally took the same leap. Eld. Crane, we are informed, has also taken the same step. The waves thus started kept rolling to some extent, but many of us have waited in the hope of a subsiding of the agitated waters. How very distressing it is when men of our own selves arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them! We now appeal lovingly to our dear people with the question: Does not the course pursued by Eld. Todd and those who went with him prove to a demonstration that he was not an Old Baptist and that he did not love the cause which he pretended to have espoused when he joined our dear church? Did not the boast he made to take twenty young preachers with him show that he would have destroyed the precious old church had he had the power to do so?
It has been charged by some, Eld. J. V. Kirkland among others, that those who opposed Eld. Todd drove him from us by their bitterness. How very weak and childish is such a charge! Could he have been driven from the church if he had believed its doctrine and practice and loved that doctrine and practice? How many have died rather than give up the church. Persecutions of every imaginable form have been used in vain to drive the true saints from the church they loved. As to his leaving us, I am sure that he deserves credit for doing so. If I were not an Old Baptist I am sure I would do as Eld. Todd did. I have heard some who were infatuated with Todd's teaching say since he left that they would continue to be an Old Baptist as long as the ministers and brethren and sisters would let them. This sounds strange! Who would think of making such a remark while in sympathy with the dear old cause? I expect nothing else but that the ministers and brethren and sisters will let me be an Old Baptist. They have never tried to drive me from them or cause me to be any thing else than an Old Baptist. I am sure they will never do so unless I practice or teach what they cannot fellowship. Should I ever begin to do that I might expect them to drop me out.
Eld. Todd's course in going to the Missionary Baptists proves that our brethren who pointed out his departures in "The Gospel Light" were right, and deserve the confidence of faithful Baptists, and will have it. Persecution does not drive true men who love the truth to make war on it. The difference between us and the Missionaries is as great as between us and the other Arminian churches. Persecution will not drive true men from truth. All should well consider any defense of Eld. Todd and not be worried by it. The fact is Eld. Todd went where he belonged, and did us a kindness in doing so. No doubt our people, many of them, were pleased with him - all of them were in his earliest ministry. He was loved by all that knew him, none desired to give him up, but gradually our people were forced to lose confidence in him, until they were practically of one mind about it. No one should be censured for this but himself. Had he continued to preach our sentiments and been content with the Primitive customs of our people, then he would have still had the love and confidence of our people. For one to deny this who was familiar with all the circumstances is to betray insincerity. The masses of our people know when our preachers turn away from the truth and become restless and discontent. They are not easily deceived and led astray. These trials have strengthened my confidence in them and love for them. The minister who is true to death to our people will find they will be true to them. Let our young preachers solemnly consider this.
CHAPTER II.
THREE THINGS RECOMMENDED.
We want to keep the title of this booklet in view as we write, and season all we say in it with love, that it may be truly a Loving Appeal to our dear people. Nothing but love for them and the precious cause of our Divine Master actuates us in this undertaking. We have no desire to harm a single one of the followers of Jesus. We are sure there are no selfish or personal considerations prompting us. We have been trying to proclaim and defend the gospel of Christ for nearly one-third of a century. We are, it is evident, far past the middle line of our journey as a pilgrim, and we are aware that the receding sun of our life will sink very fast in the western horizon of our career. We know we have no "ax to grind" now. We think the cause of Jesus demands a notice of the things we are now considering, otherwise we would not attempt any investigation of them. Dear brethren, do not pause at the brink of our undertaking and judge us wrong, but read and prayerfully consider what we have written. Our design is to unify the people of God and draw them closer together in true fellowship. We have never wanted to scatter the flock, and we do want to escape the "woe" that is pronounced against the shepherds that do so.
In response to a call made by certain ministers of our order, a number of preachers and brethren and sisters met at St. Louis at the time of the World's Fair there in 1904. We are not disposed to pass any judgment upon the intention of that meeting. We have been informed by those that were there that a good feeling was manifested and many were made to rejoice together in the service. We shall not call in question the sincerity of any who attended. As to the three measures introduced and recommended by that meeting, to which we now call attention, we doubt not that many thought they would be for the good of our cause if adopted by the denomination in general, though none could have believed they ever would be so adopted.
One of the measures recommended was a plan for the "Federal Government" of the churches. That plan had just been set forth in a little book written by Elder J. V. Kirkland of Fulton, Ky., entitled "A Condensed History of the Church of God." It provided for the establishment of a State Association, to be composed of corresponding messengers sent from all the Associations in the state, and for the establishment of a United States Association, to be composed of corresponding messengers sent by all the State Associations. The plea urged by Eld. Kirkland for the establishment of such a system was that the welfare of the denomination is now exposed to the rash actions of the thoughtless and bitter-minded, whereas this plan would place the welfare of the cause in the hands of the best and wisest men of the church. See page 106. The grave charge is made that our people have been so afraid of Episcopacy on the one hand that they have involved themselves in anarchy (page 92) and that our denomination as a whole is in a state of anarchy (page 84). His opinion is that to be without his plan is to be without government, and to be without government is to be in a state of anarchy. The logical deductions from these premises are that as the church of Christ in the days of the apostles was without Eld. Kirkland's plan of government, it was then in a state of anarchy, and as it has continued without that plan to the present time it has always been in a state of anarchy, and as it is sure to continue without his plan to the end of time it will always be in a state of anarchy. It follows that Christ will never have a church in this world except one controlled by anarchists. We desire to appeal in a loving way to our dear people not to be influenced and led by one who offers such a pretext as this for a change in the affairs of our precious old church. We will need to notice this point further in another chapter, so we pass to another thing proposed at the St. Louis meeting.
It was recommended and urged that the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel was given to the church. It has been the position of the Primitive Baptists that the commission was given to the ministers. If the command had been given to the church she would have been told to send her preachers into all the world. As it was not said to the apostles to send into the world but to go, we have always held that the commission was given to the ministry. That the minister must have the sanction of the church is not disputed. The church ordains the minister to administer the ordinances, and approves of the call made by the Lord, but that call to preach he receives from the Lord alone, and the church can only sanction the gift she sees the Lord has bestowed. But the commission to go and preach is one thing, and an approval or sanction of that commission is quite another. This has been the bone of contention between the Missionary or New School Baptists and the Primitive Baptists. We here quote the following statement from the Throgmorton-Potter Debate, as made by Elder Lemuel Potter in his first speech on the affirmative of his question:
"I object to it (the foreign missionary work) on another ground. I do not believe it is warranted in God's word. Because in order to find even a shadow of authority for it in the Scriptures its advocates say that the great commission was given to the church, instead of to the apostles and ministers. Remember, the position that I am here to prove is that the Missionary Baptists believe that doctrine, and that the advocates of modern missions say that the great commission was given to the church, instead of to the apostles and ministers. To prove that they do put forth that claim I wish to quote from the "Great Commission and its Fulfillment By the Church," by Mr. Carpenter. He says, in speaking of the great commission:
"All forms of evangelistic work and enterprise are based upon these words. (That is, the words of the great commission). Not ministers only but all Christians, ordained and unordained, male and female, old and young, are bound by them. Some can go farther than others, but all are to Go on this errand of mercy; some are to give more than others, but all are go GIVE according to their ability the means requisite for saving the lost; some are to preach officially and more regularly than others, but all are to PREACH in the sense of communicating saving truth to those in spiritual darkness."
Eld. Potter, in commenting on this quotation from Mr. Carpenter's work, said, "The Saviour said in the commission, 'Go ye into all the world.' He did not say 'send.' It would have been proper to say 'send' if it was given to the church. But he said, 'Go ye into all the world,' talking directly to the apostles. They understood it that way and preached it that way." Page 184.
Eld. J. V. Kirkland has said that he does not agree with Eld. Potter in this, and if he had not said so we would have known he does not by his teaching. He assumes that Eld. Potter would allow him the perfect liberty to differ from him without raising any bar of fellowship. It hardly seems reasonable that Eld. Potter would denounce such teaching as heretical in his debate with Throgmorton and then live in fellowship with it while advocated by one of his own brethren.
Throgmorton said in reply to this point, "Well then, I want to know how he knows that the commission was given to the Apostles and ministers! Because there were no ministers present except the Apostles! I want to know, Brother Potter, why you do not argue from the same principle that the communion was also only given to the Apostles and ministers, because there was nobody present but them when the supper was instituted." He then proceeds to give the same arguments in favor of the commission being given to the church that Eld. Kirkland has given.
In "The Apostolic Herald," for December 1, 1905, Eld. J. V. Kirkland's paper, the editor says, "As to the commission, he (Eld. J. H. Oliphant) says, 'They claim that the commission was given to the apostles as an organic body, and is resting on the church today.' Our reason for this is that the supper was given to them and them only in its origin, and it has ever been considered by all Bible scholars as a church ordinance. If the supper is a church ordinance the apostles must have been considered as an organic body or the nucleus of the church. The commission was given to the very same body. If they were an organic body or church when the supper was given to them, they were when the commission was given to them. If they were not an organic body the supper could not have been a church ordinance in its origin, and if not in its origin it is not yet. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all they baptized to observe all things whatsoever he commanded them. If the apostles must teach the baptized to observe all that Christ had commanded them, and he commanded them to go into all the world and teach all nations, it follows that the command is binding on all the baptized."
Thus Eld. Kirkland takes the same position that Throgmorton did, and uses the same arguments in defence of it. He, like Carpenter, seems to think that "not ministers only, but all Christians, ordained or unordained, male or female, old and young," are bound by the words of Jesus in commanding the apostles to go and preach the gospel. The supper was intended to be eaten by all alike, ordained and unordained, male and female. To say that the commission to go and preach was binding upon all in the same sense implies that all, ordained and unordained, male and female, are to be required to go and preach. This absurd position is taken by New School Baptists, to support their theory of modern missionism. To say that the command to teach the brethren and sisters to observe all things commanded them embraces preaching as well as other duties is absurd, for this would make it the duty of all the brethren and sisters to baptize as well.
D. B. Ray, a missionary Baptist of note, says in his "Baptist Succession," page 34, "But the commission was given to them (the apostles) in their church capacity: and, consequently, it remains with the churches to this day." This position, then, that the commission was given to the church to send her preachers into all the world, and not to the preachers to go, is the position taken by the New School Baptists. It is the bedrock of modern missionism, and is false and dangerous. It shifts the responsibility from the ministers, where it was placed by Christ, to the church, where he never placed it, and lays the foundation for a salaried ministry with all the pernicious evils that follow in its wake. We appeal in love to all our beloved brethren to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
Another matter introduced and recommended at the St. Louis meeting was that all the Baptist papers should be suspended and that only one should be published which should be under the control of a committee to be appointed by the United States Association. Thus it was recommended that we should have a church paper to be run in the interest of the denomination and managed and controlled by a kind of board. All our religious papers are individual enterprises, and perfect freedom is allowed in the publication of them, as there is freedom given to all to subscribe for any or none of them. There is no way to determine the worth of any paper but to let the good judgment of our people decide by their patronage what ones are worthy of being sustained. This matter, as well as the other two things recommended at the St. Louis "Convention," was not introduced with any hope of its ever being adopted. It does seem to be the ambition of some to stir up strife.
It may be urged, in fact it has been urged, that one has a perfect right to advocate his own opinions. That is very true so far as our relationship as citizens is concerned, but no one has a right to advocate as a leader in our church what he must know is opposed to the opinion of the great body of our people to the disturbance of the peace of the cause of Christ. If we are ourselves bitterly opposed by the great body of Baptists in views we entertain we should consider it as evidence that we are wrong or they are, and if we cannot yield our opinions for the sake of peace it is our duty to quietly leave them in peace and go where our opinions will be received. We do not at all accept the things we are herein considering, because we know them to be new and strange things and not in harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures. This is why they are so bitterly opposed by the Baptists.
CHAPTER III.
PERILOUS TIMES.
In December 1904, we received a letter from Eld. J. V. Kirkland with an appeal to our people to meet on the first day of the year at ten o'clock in all the churches and engage in prayer for peace. He requested that we publish that appeal in "Zion's Advocate." We wrote him that to pray for peace and advocate measures that would produce confusion, as he knew he was doing, would be very inconsistent; that he knew very well that what he was urging would never be accepted by our people, but would be the cause of confusion as long as they were advocated, and we begged him to cease advocating them. He attempted to defend the positions he had taken and manifested a determination to continue to teach them whatever the consequences might be. The churches of the Greenfield- Philesic Association met in a Union Meeting at Martin, Tenn., on Friday before the Fifth Sunday in July 1905. Eld. Kirkland's church at Fulton, Ky., was a member of this Association. A letter was prepared by the church at Martin and read to the sister churches composing the Union. That letter contained the following declaration: "We also wish to say that we do not endorse some measures that have lately been sprung among us, namely, that the Baptist church should have a Federal form of Government; that the commission was given to the church; and that the Baptist church should have a publication house controlled by the churches. Neither do we endorse the action of some brethren in uniting and affiliating with secret institutions." Eld. R. S. Kirkland, knowing that the churches of his association would not fellowship such a course, had joined a secret order. His doing that, knowing what he did, showed a defiant spirit and a disposition to stir up strife and confusion. If one does what he knows will bring trouble it is evident that to bring trouble was the intention of the act. Paul declared he would eat no more meat while the world stood if eating meat would cause his brother to offend. It is not so with Eld. R. S. Kirkland. If he had felt that regard for his brethren that a minister should feel he would have at once withdrawn from the secret society - in fact he would never have joined it.
The other churches in the Union all sent letters declaring in favor of dropping Fulton church from the Union and association on account of the things mentioned. A motion was made to drop that church, when Eld. J. V. Kirkland asked to speak. The motion was withdrawn and a motion was made in behalf of Martin church, was seconded and unanimously carried, not to allow Eld. Kirkland the privilege of speaking in the church there until he made amends for publicly railing against Eld. S. F. Cayce, the pastor, and the Martin church. Then the motion to drop Fulton church was again made and seconded, which was carried without a dissenting voice. This decided stand was taken and these acts were passed after efforts were made to induce the Fulton church to labor with her members and try to get them to cease advocating the strange doctrines. The Greenfield-Philesic Association and all her Corresponding Associations followed the course of the Union meeting held at Martin in declaring non-fellowship for Fulton church and the Kirklands. The Corresponding Associations of the Greenfield-Philesic are Big Sandy, Forked Deer, Obion, Predestinarian, and Soldier Creek. The alarm that all this body of Baptists took over the innovations introduced and the actions of all these bodies should not be ignored. As an example of the action taken by these Associations we given the following which appears in the minutes of the Big Sandy Association, held at Mud Creek, Carroll Co., Tenn., on Friday, Saturday, and first Sunday in September: "Unanimously agreed that we heartily endorse the action of the Union Meeting of the Greenfield-Philesic Association in dropping the church from their union while in session with the church at Martin, on Friday and Saturday before the fifth Sunday in July 1905, and we request that this endorsement be published in the "Primitive Baptist" and that all other papers of the same faith and order please copy." These Associations were in close touch with the advocates of the strange things that have caused so much confusion among us.
The Salem Association of southern Indiana, Eld. Potter's association at the time of his death, one of the largest and strongest in the country, published in her minutes a General Corresponding Letter, from which we take the following extract: "We think no church has the right to advocate that the commission was given to the church, or for a federal government, or that the church should go into the printing business and have a paper published under her immediate supervision; to exhort the dead to repent and obey the gospel spiritually is as unreasonable as it would be to exhort the dead in the grave to get up and walk naturally." Exhortations to the dead in sins to repent and believe the gospel spiritually has been introduced by Todd and his followers, and the seeds of that course were still found in some places. The Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations of Virginia stood as a unit in opposition to these new and strange doctrines, and this opposition was plainly manifested by the great body of our people all over the country. Not a single association or church attempted to adopt and press the new measures. In view of these facts is it not our duty to rally together and refuse to be led by such visionary teachers? In love we appeal to our precious brethren and sisters to stand by the old paths and walk in the good way. When the voice of the great body of the Old Baptist church is raised against a few aspiring leaders is it not unsafe and unwise to follow after such leaders? Where will we drift if we allow ourselves to be carried by every wind of doctrine?
CHAPTER IV.
"THE APOSTOLIC HERALD."
Soon after the action of the Associations in dropping Eld. J. V. Kirkland's church from their connection, he sent forth a circular announcing his intention to start a new paper. He charged the Baptists who dropped him from them with violating the agreement entered into at the National Convention at Fulton, Ky., held in 1900. We are sure that the Elders who were in that "Convention," at least a very large majority of them, had no idea of binding themselves to allow without dispute the same things advocated in our church that leading Missionary Baptists contend for as a reason for their modern Missionary operations.
Eld. Kirkland's avowed purpose in starting his paper was to defend "our cause against these awful abuses, and if possible avert this dreadful combination, which seems bent on the destruction of a number of ministers in our denomination, who are full of light and piety and on whom much of the success of our cause depends." How very startling is such a statement coming from one who pretends to be an Old Baptist! The "awful abuses" he refers to, we suppose to be the actions of his association and the corresponding associations in declaring non-fellowship for his course and teaching. As he has charged those who opposed Todd as being guilty of driving him from us when he should have been retained, we can but think that he includes him among the "number of our ministers who are full of light and piety and on whom much of the success of our cause depends." There seemed to have been just such a "combination" in the days of the rise of Fullerism, and as Eld. Kirkland has argued that no bars should have been raised against the Missionary Baptists, we can but suppose that Fuller and Carey and others who advanced and introduced the heresies which gave rise to the New Baptists are regarded by him as having been "full of light and piety, and on whom much of our cause" depended in their day. At any rate it is evident that he regards himself and all who are in full sympathy with him as being full of light and piety, and that has been the tone of his paper all along. The inference is that the old ministers and young ones too, who stand opposed to his innovations, are in darkness and devoid of piety, and that they with the brethren who stand by them have formed a combination to destroy all "who are full of light and piety." In love we appeal to our precious brethren to solemnly consider this display of arrogancy and contrast it with the disposition of Paul who confessed himself to be less than the least of all the saints and the chief of sinners.
We confess that we are not full of light and piety. We know that in us, that is in our flesh, dwells no good thing. There has never been any combination among the Old Baptists to destroy us. On the contrary, we have been held up by them while we have been so very unworthy of their support. Can it be that they combine to destroy those who are "full of light and piety," and that they support those among them who can boast of no good in themselves?
There is a lamb-like plea for peace and love made in the "Apostolic Herald" that seems to know no bounds. At the same time it is vehemently urged that no bars to fellowship should ever be raised against any heresies. Even the New School party is named as not deserving any such treatment. It is argued that there is no precept or example for such a procedure in the New Testament. We are commanded in the word of God to reject the heretic after the first and second admonition, and to withdraw ourselves from such as walk disorderly, but for the first time in the history of our denomination it is advocated in a religious paper that claims to be of our order that no such action should be taken which is based on the claim that there is neither precept nor example for it in the New Testament. Is not the show of a plea for peace apparent to all as a false pretension standing in connection with such reasoning? Oh, dear brethren, let not the song of the enchanter allure you from the old land-marks.
The position taken that there should be a Federal Government formed is abandoned now, and the opposite extreme is being urged; that is, that all associational organizations should be abandoned. Efforts are being made to induce the churches to leave the associations in which they have stood so many years and which have brought them in touch with so many of the dear saints of God. Is it safe to follow the leadership of those who thus shift from one extreme to another? It is plain that this effort is made in order to ignore all the actions of Associations and churches in declaring against the new things introduced by the Kirklands, and to draw all away with them that can be caught in the net that has been spread. In as loving way as we can, we appeal to our precious brethren and sisters whom we still want to serve in the Master's cause not to be thus ensnared.
The commission is still made a bone of contention. Eld. J. V. Kirkland continues to advocate what the Missionary Baptists have held since their separation from us, agreeing with Throgmorton and differing from Potter in the position those leading men took in their discussion on church identity. The paper question is not urged since the birth of the "Apostolic-Herald," but as a few fall in with Kirkland's idea of the commission he is holding that forth in the seeming hope of accomplishing more by that than the other points in dispute. We now propose to offer some arguments against his view of that matter, which we ask our dear readers to carefully consider.
We affirm that the Scriptures teach that the commission, as recorded in Matthew xxviii. 18-20, was not given to the church, but directly to those called and sent forth to preach the gospel.
Argument 1. Our first argument we deduce from the language of the commission itself. The Saviour said, "Go teach all nations," not send and teach them. We insist that if the commission had been given to the church, as an organic body, the Saviour would have said, Send teachers into all the world. If the commission had been given to the church, the Saviour would have used language susceptible of such an interpretation. To parry the force of this argument, the Missionary Baptists insist that, "as the Lord's Supper was instituted for the whole church to observe, so the commission, 'Go teach all nations,' was in like manner intended wholly for the church." But the church was then in session, and so this ordinance was given as a church ordinance for all to partake of it, because it was a commemorative service. The Saviour gave laws and ordinances for the whole church, but he likewise gave a special command to his ministers to go and preach his gospel, and they only are sent forth under it into all the world.
Argument 2. Our second argument we deduce from the fact that women are forbidden by the Scriptures to teach in public. Now if the commission was given to the church, it necessarily follows that all the church, including women, are thereby commissioned to preach the gospel. See I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35. But this the Scriptures contradict, for the apostle says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." See also, I. Tim. ii, 11, 13. The fact that the Missionary Baptists send forth female preachers grows out of their view of the great commission, for if the commission was given to the church, they cannot consistently refuse to ordain them to the work.
Argument 3. Our third argument we deduce from the fact, that, after his resurrection, and after the church was fully organized, by the installation of Deacons, and thousands had joined it, Christ sent forth preachers who traveled and preached extensively and successfully before they were authorized by the church to baptize. Paul and Barnabas both traveled and preached extensively before they were ordained at Antioch. Compare Acts ix. 20-29 and Acts xi. 23-25, with Acts xiii. 2-4. By no other than the immediate authority of Christ did they thus travel and preach the gospel. Paul said, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." I. Cor. i. 17. May it not be concluded from this that the authority to preach the gospel is not to be confounded with the authority delegated to the church?
Argument 4. Our fourth argument we deduce from the fact that the church of Christ is merely the executive body in the kingdom of Christ, hence it cannot be said with propriety that it has authority to send forth ambassadors abroad. There never was an instance in the history of nations where a subordinate body, such as the executive or judiciary department, was authorized to send forth ambassadors. The king or chief executive always retains this authority in his own immediate hands. He sends them when and where he pleases without consulting any subordinate body in his kingdom. Christ, who alone is the King in Zion, sends forth his ambassadors into all the world to preach his everlasting gospel.
Argument 5. Our fifth argument is deduced from the following words of the commission, "Go teach all nations, " "go ye into all the world." If the Saviour had delegated the church to send forth the ambassadors, then the church could limit the field of their operations to certain countries, as China or the South Sea Islands, as many churches of the world are now doing. Thus the church could abrogate the commission given by Christ, and substitute one of her own in its stead. As Christ's commission is unlimited, in its extent of territory, no church has the right to nullify, repeal or abrogate it by limiting it to some definite country. The very fact that the church dare not interfere with the field of labor which Christ has assigned his ministers, is proof positive and certain that the act of ordaining a man confers no authority respecting the work of preaching the gospel.
Argument 6. Our sixth argument is deduced from the fact that a person regularly ordained by the church may administer legal baptism whether he really had been called by Christ to preach the gospel or not. A Baptist never questions the legality of a man's baptism when it is known that he was regularly ordained by a sound and orderly Baptist church even if it turns out that he was an imposter. A man may be called of God to preach the gospel without being authorized to baptize, and a man may be authorized to baptize who has not been called of God to preach the gospel. From these facts it is evident that the calling and sending of ministers to preach the gospel is the exclusive work of the Lord, while it is delegated to the church to ordain them to administer the ordinances. These two kinds of authority should never be confounded.
CHAPTER V.
FROM ONE EXTREME TO ITS OPPOSITE.
Eld. J. V. Kirkland, having been dropped by his own association and all her corresponding associations, and not having been recognized by the associations generally on account of his new and strange views, rushed from the extreme of advocating a federal government to that of urging all associations to dissolve and trying to get the churches that belong to associations to withdraw from them in order to disband associational organizations altogether. In "The Apostolic Herald" for June 1, 1906, Eld. Kirkland says, "I have been a member of the Primitive Baptist church twenty-two years, and I have never known a fuss among them (and there have been many) but what the larger part of it was caused by, originated in, or came to light or spread from some association." We take the privilege of calling attention to the faulty syntax of this sentence. "What" should be "that", and the "association" ought not to be the object of three prepositions in one series. The writer goes on to say, "So associations (as they are now conducted) are wholly unscriptural and unpleasant." This is the view that "The Apostolic Herald" takes of associations now. What a change this is from the position taken by Eld. J. V. Kirkland two years ago! In his book, "A Condensed History of the Church of God," page 87, he said, "Many have thought it unscriptural to hold associations of churches; they say they have no scripture for the organizing of associations. There is nothing said in the scripture for organizing a church. We have no express command in the Bible to organize a church or an association either; but we have a command to assemble for religious purposes, and an association is an assembly the same as a church. The word ?church' is from the Greek word ?ekklesia,' and signified an assembly of saints on earth or in heaven. (See Strong's "Dictionary of the New Testament," also Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.) A church is an assembly of the saints; and an association of many churches is as much a church as only one dozen saints assembled together." He said further, page 78, "I think that the association of churches for the purpose of corresponding and cooperating in worship and mutual edification is very useful and cannot well be dispensed with; and when associations are used as such they are truly scriptural. An association may become unscriptural by doing things that are in violation of the scriptures, and so may a church. No doubt great injury has been done our cause by so many of our brethren flatly condemning the associations instead of the unscriptural use of them. It is the abuse of the associations that should be condemned, and not the use of them."
It is evident from the above quotation that Eld. Kirkland believed in associations two years ago, and was not in favor of having them abandoned. This effort on his part to prove them to be scriptural is as strong as any effort we have read or heard. Now in his paper he publishes to all his readers that they are wholly unscriptural and unpleasant. He believed two years ago that great injury has been done our cause by so many of our brethren flatly condemning associations, but now there appears in his paper as flat a condemnation of associations as we have ever known to be made. Surely if great injury had been done before by such a course it is still injurious. On page 83 he said, "Many of our able writers in the past few years have endeavored to find the cause of this confusion in the practice of annual associations, and for a short time I thought that perhaps this was the cause; but I noticed that other denominations had annual associations, conventions, and conferences, with no such factions arising from them at all. Upon a thorough examination, I feel perfectly satisfied that the cause of this evil is not in the practice of annual associations." Observe that this was the conclusion to which Eld. Kirkland arrived upon thorough examination. Now he publishes that the larger part of every fuss that was ever known by him was caused by associations, or originated in them. He had made a thorough examination and found that the many able writers who attributed the cause of fusses to the associations were wrong in their opinions. Now he seems to have discovered that they were right. When he wrote his book he not only wanted the associations we had then, but an additional one in each state, and a big United States affair. Now he labors to get rid of the associations we have, and proclaims them unscriptural and the source of all the fusses that he has known. Two years ago he believed them to be scriptural, believed that they could not well be dispensed with, and that they were as much churches as the churches themselves. Now he regards them as wholly unscriptural and advises the churches to get out of them. Those who follow such leaders are like the Irishman whose mule was running away with him. When asked where he was going he replied, "I don't know, just ask the mule."
We make a loving appeal to all our dear people not to be led by such wavering teachers. We do not favor Eld. Kirkland's idea of a "Federal Government," which he advocated in his book, but we agree with him that the cause of the confusion is not to be found in annual associations, that they could not well be dispensed with, and that much harm has been done our cause by so many of our brethren flatly condemning associations. We know of no better plan by which there can be an interchange of ministry and a correspondence kept up than to have annual associations. A better record of the state and progress of the cause can be left in this way, and the feast of the saints in thus meeting and worshiping together are surely most glorious. Many are the sweet oases in the desert of life which we have found in the past at our associational meetings. We want to see them kept up, not for the government of the churches, not as judiciaries over them, not as legislative bodies or executive organizations, but as mutual love feasts to still be enjoyed by the saints of different sections being brought together in assemblies for the worship of God.
We believe the design of withdrawing from Associations is to furnish a place and opportunity to foist upon our dear people the sentiments we are considering, and that the churches which they succeed in taking from the associations will become places for the dissemination and defence of these things. Time will tell whether these predictions are true or not.
CHAPTER VI.
A CORRESPONDENCE.
Elder J. M. Thompson, of Greenfield, Ind., wrote a letter in February 1906, to Eld. J. V. Kirkland, the purpose of which was to try to avert a division on the points advocated by Eld. Kirkland. The following quotation from that letter shows its design:
"It is no doubt apparent to you now that the opposition to your views on the commission and federal government is so pronounced and determined that they will not be accepted by a large majority of our connection of Baptists; and that to continue the advocacy of them and the certain opposition to them must result in a division. And it is unquestionably certain that if they are advocated they will be persistently opposed. In view of this can you make a public statement that you will cease to teach and contend for them, and earnestly advise all, who believe relative to said questions as you do, to not further by public or private teachings, sustain the views you have advanced pertaining thereto, for the sake of peace? Or do you hold that your positions on said subjects are of such vital importance that you should persist in teaching and contending for said views, even though a division result from it and the opposition to it? I believe peace can be restored if it can be understood that there will be no further advocacy of the things referred to that seem to be objectionable to a majority of our people. Then by proper treatment and further intercourse former ties and brotherly love and sweet fellowship would be restored. This would make glad many hearts and tend to prosperity and happiness in our beloved church."
Eld. Thompson then called his attention to the position he had taken that the divisions separating the people known as Missionary Baptists and Means Baptists from us were wrong, and that the teachings of Fuller, Rice, Judson, and others, of the former division, and those of Pence, Burnam and others, of the latter division, should have been tolerated, and informed him that such a position taken by him created a strong suspicion that he now favors a union with those bodies. He then said, "It is believed that it is your intention to teach those things you know to be objectionable and that are certain, through the opposition of objection, to bring about a division, and that, when that is accomplished you will favor a union with Pence, Burnam, and followers, and with Scarboro and those who stand with him in opposition to the Southern Mission Board. If you are firmly opposed to a union with Pence, Burnam and followers, while they hold to the means theory of salvation, that was a bone of contention leading to the division, and if you are opposed to a union with Scarboro and those who stand with him in opposition to said Mission Board system, a clear and concise statement of your opposition to a union with either will tend to allay the feeling of suspicion and make easier a reconciliation. I earnestly request that you make a clear and full statement of your mind concerning a union with either or both the parties named. And if under any circumstances you would favor a union with either, what would be required on their part, if anything, to make said union possible? If you do not wish to make the statement in your paper, I desire you to make it in your reply to this letter, for I am very desirous that facts be made known that will bring about a better condition in the dear church of the meek and forbearing Saviour, our holy exemplar. How much his spirit of meek forbearance and forgiveness is needed among our people now! Evil surmisings are doing much harm, and a better understanding is very necessary."
In Eld. Kirkland's reply, dated March 1, 1906, he asserted his willingness to do anything that he could conscientiously do to bring about peace among our people. In answer to Eld. Thompson's question in regard to making a statement that he would cease to teach and contend for the things that are producing confusion, he said, "I cannot conscientiously make such a promise. I have never taught anything in my life in the ministry but what I earnestly thought to be the truth, and I have always sincerely believed a thing to be scriptural before I advanced it."
This claim is made by every advocate of whatever strange views have ever been published. All claim to believe that what they teach is scriptural. We agree with Eld. J. W. Richardson in the following quotation from his pen: "The chief reason of the adoption of the view that the commission was given to the church was to make the members of our churches believe that if they cannot go in person, it is their duty to contribute of their means to those who can and will go, the introduction of which view led to the organization of the foreign Missionary Boards among the churches in 1792, which caused the great division in the United States in 1832." Eld. Richardson is correct in this. Now to insist upon the right to teach a doctrine in the Old Baptist church that has been a bone of contention between them and the Missionary Baptists is to insist upon the right to drive the wedge they drove.
Eld. Kirkland said in his reply to Eld. Thompson's letter, "I have as much right to ask those brethren who teach contrary to my views to make a promise that they will cease advocating their views as they have to ask me to make such a promise, and I would never think of demanding such a thing of them." Thus he claims the right to demand those who oppose the Missionary view of the commission to cease their opposition to that view, but insists upon great forbearance. He said, also, "I think we could live in peace and allow liberty on such differences." "If those who differ from us will stop passing non-fellowship resolutions, and treat us with the kind, brotherly respect that we do them, the trouble will be to an end at once. As to bars of fellowship set up at the Black Rock Convention or other places, I object to them because they are absolutely without scriptural precedent or commandment, and are not the best way to correct errors. It excludes the erring from the God- given remedy for error, which is the gospel, and openly violates the scriptures in diverse places. See Gal. 6: 1; Eph. 4:1-4; Heb. 13:1; James 5:19,20; Rom. 15:1. I do not endorse the measures set on foot by Carey and others, nor the erroneous doctrine they produced, but I do think that if we had treated them kindly and turned loose all the truth of the gospel on them in a loving, gentle way, it would have corrected the error, and I think the same is true of the means division."
Thus he would set aside the bars that were raised against the heresies that so distressed the dear church of Christ in the times referred to, and thus open the floodgates of error. He said, "As to uniting with the Gospel Mission Baptist of the Burnam-Pence Baptist, I would say, while I would be glad to see all these brethren united upon sound Bible principles, I do not think we are at all ready for it, and to undertake it under the present condition of things would be to make bad matters worse, and on this account I have never made any efforts to affect such unions." He meant to say he had never made any efforts to effect such unions. Now if his reason for not making efforts to effect such unions is that we are not ready for it, it is to be inferred that he thinks we may get ready for it in the future. If, as he says, no bars of fellowship should ever have been raised against heresies, we are unable to see why we should not be ready now to take down all the bars that have been raised and receive into our fellowship all who have ever gone out from us.
In answer to the question asked by Eld. Thompson in regard to the principles upon which he would be willing to unite with the "Gospel Mission" wing of the Missionaries and the Pence-Burnam party, if he would be willing to unite with them at all, he said, "I would be willing to unite with these brethren upon the principle laid down and published in the general address of the Fulton meeting in 1900, a copy of an extract of which I herewith enclose.
"We do most solemnly and prayerfully beseech all of our churches and people that they raise no bars to fellowship against any Primitive Baptists with whom they are agreed on fundamental principles - such as the eternal salvation of sinners wholly by grace and entirely unconditional on the sinner's part, and who are sound and orderly in the ordinances of the church administering baptism by immersion to penitent believers only by ministers of the gospel, clothed with authority by the church, and administering the Lord's supper to such baptized believers only, and who manifest a willingness to labor for the peace, union and fellowship of the whole body.
My brethren need not to be suspicious of me in anything, for if they would write or speak to me on anything that they want to know about what I believe, I will frankly tell them."
_______________
Elder Thompson wrote as follows March 10th:
Eld. J. V. Kirkland; Dear Brother: - Your letter of recent date received. I read it with interest, regret and disappointment. As you had repeatedly said, in substance, as I understood you, that you had only advanced the proposition for a "Federal Government" for our churches, and your views relative to the commission being given to the church, that our people might consider them, and not with a view to press them upon us; that you were not disposed to do so if it would tend to distress or divide the church, I thought it not unreasonable to appeal to you in our distress, and in view our threatened division, to do what you could to avert the division and relieve our distress.
As to my motive, it is to do all I can for permanent peace in our churches and enduring prosperity. And being hopeful that peace would be restored if the advocacy of the positions named were discontinued, I wanted to do what I might to bring about said desirable condition, and I still want to do so.
You say, "I am willing to make myself plain on all points." You certainly should be willing to do so, and should try the best you can to be understood. We all should be willing for our brethren to know what our intentions are pertaining to our church. You further say, "As to uniting with the Gospel Mission Baptists, (by this I understand you to mean Scarboro and other Missionary Baptists, who oppose the "Southern Mission Board") or the Burnam and Pence Baptists, I would say while I would be glad to see all these brethren united upon Bible principles, I do not think we are at all ready for it, and to undertake it under the present condition of things would be to make bad matters worse." But the question, Brother Kirkland, is this: If conditions are changed by a division over the "Federal Government" and church commission question, will you favor a union of those who stand with you and the bodies named? The accusation against you is that this is your desire and intention, if there is a division, and, therefore, that you are willing to continue the contention though it result in a division. For it is reported that you have expressed a willingness to accept Missionary Baptist churches on their baptism. Are you willing to do this? Or would you insist that they all be baptized by Primitive Baptist ministers?
You say you have never made any effort to effect such unions, etc. It is reported that you advised in the Gospel Light that we unite with the Burnam and Pence Baptists; and that you advised Elder Ed Harlan, of Village Creek Church, Fayette County, Ind., to try to prevail on the churches there to unite with them. Are you correctly represented in these statements? If not, wherein are you misrepresented?
I ask the foregoing plain and fair questions that I may know what I ought to do to be helpful in effecting the peace, harmony, and prosperity, for which my soul longs. I most fully realize that said blessed condition cannot be reached except the Lord bless. For His guidance and blessing in all things necessary thereto I trust that I humbly pray. What course would you suggest that would most likely be successful in effecting a reconciliation as you view the trouble?
Kind regards to all, with sincere good wishes for you, Brother Sam, and your dear families.
Your brother, I trust, in the good hope through grace,
John M. Thompson.
_______________________
In Elder Kirkland's reply, dated March 21st, he said that he had always thought, since he had first studied the subject, that the commission was given to the apostles as an organized body. He said also, "I can say as I always have that I do not wish to force my views on any one, on this nor anything else. All I do is to kindly submit the truth on any point to my hearers, and leave them to accept or reject it as they may be convinced or not. As to my suggestions on the government of our natural relationship, I made them for our people to prayerfully consider, and I have never at any time made any effort to press them on them. I am not pressing my views and never have. I leave all at liberty to dissent from them and still hold my fellowship and friendship, but those who are passing resolutions against them are pressing their views."
In reply to Elder Thompson's question in regard to his favoring a union with the "Gospel Mission" wing of the Missionaries and the Pence-Burnam party, he said, "I cannot tell what changes would be brought about by a permanent division. As to the Gospel Mission wing, they are still in connection with the Board and Convention Baptists, and many of them are strong Arminians. I could not favor a union with them even if we were divided until there was a clear understanding on all these things and they accept the original doctrine of the Baptists. I can hardly see why you want to know what we would do if your side forces a division and makes it permanent. I know our side will not force the division on these things, but do all they can to prevent - not to surrender what they believe to be the truth, and if the other side should non-fellowship us I cannot see why they should care what we do after the division."
In this statement Elder Kirkland uses the terms "our side" and "your side" showing that he recognized a division as already existing. We ask the candid reader, Did not the formation of "sides" arise from the introduction and advocacy of the things of which the great body of Primitive Baptists are complaining?
He further said, "As to receiving churches from the Missionary faction, it has been my opinion that if a church or churches of that faction should become orderly in doctrine and practice, as taught in the scriptures, and abandon the error upon their part upon which the division was caused, that it would be best to receive them as did the Kehukee Association when they united with the Separate Baptists in 1777, as recorded in Burkett and Reed's History, pages 48 and 49; also in Hassell's History, pages 697 and 698. But in matters of propriety and impropriety like this I would be governed by the voice of the body.
"As to what I advised in the Gospel Light about uniting and restoring fellowship with the Means Baptists, I send you the article which contained all I ever said about that in the Gospel Light. It was in the account of my tour in your state. I guess you have that article. I do not now remember what passed between Elder Harlan and me on that subject, but I guess if I said anything to him on the subject, but I guess if I said anything to him on the subject that I said about what I sent you in the account of that tour. I now think as an individual that all the churches that are divided over that, like the one which brought up the advice I gave on it, ought to rescind all the acts touching fellowship, and all come together in love and fellowship, and let the gospel of grace be freely preached and use it as the remedy instead of non-fellowship resolutions."
_______________________
We now give two letters written by Elder Thompson, to which no reply was made by Elder Kirkland.,
GREENFIELD, IND., March 29, 1906.
Elder J. V. Kirkland; Dear Brother: - I may have misunderstood you relative to what you said about advocating your proposition for a Federal Government for our churches, and your view that the commission was given to the church. But I now understand you that it is your determination to continue to teach said things even though you are satisfied it will result in a division; or that you will do so regardless of the consequence. Do I understand you now? I was under the impression that in an article which appeared in the Primitive Baptist you said in substance what I said I understood you to say.
We may have ideas differing as to what it is to press an opinion on others that we hold. I understand that to persistently teach a thing and insist that our opinion is correct when we have previously stated our opinion and it has been rejected by a large majority of the people that we would have accept it, and they are positively opposed to it, is pressing said opinion. And in view of the fact that the most talented, learned and gifted men in our church have and do oppose your views after thorough investigation, it does appear that it is unreasonable that you should continue to urge them. Now, Brother John, it appears to me that this is your unenviable attitude in this distressing contention in the Primitive Baptist Church.
You want to know why I ask as to what you would do if a division is forced and becomes permanent. You say you cannot see why I ask if you would favor a union with the Scarboro element of the Modern Mission Baptists, (which element you are pleased to call "The Gospel Mission Baptists,") and the Burnam and Pence Baptists. I tried to be understood in asking my questions.
It is believed that you are confident that you will be opposed while you continue to teach as you have on the subjects named, and that it will result in a division; that you are willing it should, with the prospect of a union with the parties named; that you do not hope for a reconciliation with the great majority of our church while you so teach; and that you prefer a union of the Missionary party named, Burnam and Pence party, and those who will go with you, yourself included, rather than to continue with those who will persistently oppose your teaching the subjects named. It is understood that statements you have made clearly indicate that you have anticipated said union. It is argued that you well knew that there was an unpleasant contention over associations a few years back; that a number were opposed to the organization while many were not, but that all were opposed to associational government in any way of the churches; and that with the knowledge of the decided and firm opposition to associational rule, and while our church was in confusion and distressed condition, you introduced your proposition for an associational "Federal Government" for our churches; and that you must have expected to be met with very positive opposition, and that while our cause was suffering, publicly espoused the Missionary Baptist contention that the commission was given to the church, which had been met with the unyielding opposition of our most gifted ministers, they holding that it was the basis of modern Mission Baptists for their unscriptural operations. So it is believed, in view of this course, that it was your intention to advocate these objectionable things, being confident that it would lead to a division, having planned to effect a union, if possible, of all that would go with you with the Burnam and Pence faction with what you term the "Gospel Mission Baptists," when they were separated from the Board Baptists. And concerning your statement that "The Gospel Mission wing are still in connection with the Board and Convention Baptists and many of them are strong Arminians," and that you could not favor a union with them until there was a clear understanding and they accept the original doctrine, it is believed that by the Original Doctrine you mean the "London Confession of Faith," which it is believed you are satisfied that they will adopt, being in close touch with Elder Scarboro and in supposed correspondence with Burnam, or Pence, or both. It is verily believed that you have some understanding with said parties concerning a union. Have you? Or have you no understanding with them pertaining to a union? Have you had any talk or correspondence with any one favoring a union of those who go with you and said parties, provided there is a division and some go with you? You did not say whether you would favor receiving those you call "Gospel Mission Baptists" on their baptism, if all things should be favorable to a union with them as whole churches. You did not answer my question relative to that. I repeat the question: Would you favor receiving them on their baptism?
I have carefully read the account of the division and reuniting of those who compose the Kehukee Association, given in Hassell's History, pp. 697, 698, but fail to see that receiving the Arminian Missionary Baptists would be a parallel act. The statements of Benedict, their acknowledged historian, as given in Hassell's History, pp. 751 to 771, are sufficient to prove it would not be. According to Benedict, they departed from the faith, introduced new, unscriptural theories, heresies, and practices, were contentious and abusive, and history records that faithful men of God bore with them, endured their abuse, nick-names, misrepresentations, deriding and abominable practices until it was no longer a Christian virtue to labor with them more in the church; so they declared non-fellowship for them.
And, Brother John, it seems to me that it is very wrong for any ministers of today to condemn the tried and faithful servants of the beloved Master who endured the bitterness of that contention and came forth from it as the pure gold from the dross, as by fire.
Concerning your position that the commission was given to the church as an organic body, and that the churches should send her ministers authoritatively to certain places to preach and baptize, I ask that you consider the following facts:
1. "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert." Acts 8:26. There he met the Ethiopian, preached to him and baptized him. Did the Church send Philip on that mission?
2. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me." Gal. 1:15. Paul here seems to labor to show that his commission to preach was direct from the Lord, which was sufficient authority. Did the church send him on said tour?
3. "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not in the way of the Gentiles, etc., go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go preach, . . . heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, etc., . . . provide neither gold, nor silver nor brass in your purposes, etc." Matthew 10:5-9. Is there any evidence here that the church sent them? or that they were commissioned as a church to go?
4. "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two by two before his face," etc. Did the church send these seventy preachers? Jesus said, "I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip,' etc. Luke 10:1-11. Does this evidence that the commission was given to the church?
5. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. And they went forth, and preached every where," etc. Mark 16:15-20. What is there in this, Brother John, that in the least evidences that it was a command to the church? or in Matthew 28:16-20? Haven't you just supposed, without evidence in either connection, that this commission was given to the church?
When you preached your first discourse, did you have authority from the church to preach? Did the church send you when you came to Indiana to preach? Has the church been sending you on each of the tours you have made to preach the gospel and baptize? In Acts 13:3, 4, won't the statements admit of the rendering given by Brother Hassell? Does the language absolutely necessitate your rendering, that send in the 4th verse must be the same as send in the 3rd verse? that both refer to the act of the church? I think that you must concede that the language does not necessitate your rendering, and it will admit of the rendering given by Brother Hassell.
If the sending in this 13th chapter is psitive evidence that the commission was given to the church to send ministers to preach, then every minister who has gone forth on a tour to preach before the church acts and sends him on that tour has gone without the authority the Lord has established. The brethren brought Paul down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Acts 9:30. It is not explained as to how they brought him to Caesarea nor how they sent him to Tarsus. They may have brought him in a conveyance in company with themselves to Caesarea and then sent him to Tarsus in the care of some person on a beast. I have been brought and sent by brethren when our tours to preach, but there was no authoritative act of the church necessary to the bringing and sending. And I suspect you have been sent many times to places to preach by brethren and the church did not act in sending you. Then may it not have been that the brethren at Antioch, after they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas, sent them in a conveyance or in the care of some one and that they thus departed unto Seleucia, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost as Philip was sent to preach to the Ethiopian? I think you must admit that this may have been the way they were sent; that the Holy Ghost sent them with commanding authority, but the brethren sent them by helping them on their way as your brethren have sent you when you have departed from them. And if this was the way (and it seems most probable it was) then the connections referred to affords you no proof that your view is correct that the commission was given to the church. But if you could prove your view is correct, it would be evidence that you have not gone preaching and baptizing in a scriptural way. As well try to prove that Paul and Barnabas were brought to Caesarea by the church authority as that they were sent to Tarsus by church authority.
As you said you were willing that our people know your position on things pertaining to the church I have not kept our correspondence private. I shall be truly glad if you and your brethren see your errors in theory and practice, and use the talents, with which God has blessed you, in scripturally building upon the true foundation, "gold, silver and precious stones." Love to all,
Your brother I trust,
J. M. THOMPSON.
Greenfield, Ind., May 8, 1906.
Elder J. V. Kirkland; Dear Brother: - I have waited with great desire and expectancy for a reply from you to my last letter to you, written the last of March. I am sure I wrote in a kind spirit, with good intention and an anxious feeling that what I wrote in opposition to departures might be convincing and lead to better conditions. For my great desire is for a restoration of peace, permanent peace. And being assured from my knowledge of the fixed purpose of our ministers and brethren to persistently oppose your views of "Federal Government" and "Church Commission," if propagated, and believing them wrong and that we never can have peace while said views are advanced and upheld by ministers of our church, I was and am confident that the only way to avert division and restore peace is for you and others to cease to teach them. In view of this I appealed to you, with the best evidence I knew to present, to convince you and, if possible, to prevail on you to renounce errors and labor for peace.
As you have not replied I write again, for I am not willing that any of our dear people shall be led through deception or ignorance of any intention to unite them with the unscriptural parties (named in former letters) which seems to me to be the purpose.
I am informed that since Elder Todd went to the Modern Missionary Baptists you said concerning his positions, that we opposed, that you were with Elder Todd. He taught that the blood of Jesus was sufficient for all mankind, etc. Do you believe what he taught on that subject?
It seems that you are not really willing to defend your "Federal Government" proposition. This indicates that you do not consider it as scriptural, or best that our people adopt it. If you do not you should say so. But if you do yet hold that we should adopt it, please consider, that if said "Federal Government" had been in vogue about 250 A. D., and strictly adhered to, the corrupt party under Cornelius would have controlled and dragged Novatian and his brethren into their abominations; or that had it been in force when Cary and Fuller were pressing their heresies and false practice on our ancestors in the church of Christ, the Cary and Fuller party would have had the majority in the "Federal Government" body, and true believers would have had to acquiesce or rebel against their "Federal Government."
As you have not replied to my last letter, written the last of March, you may treat this in silence. I believe you should have answered my letter and every question in a plain fair way, and that you ought to make a full answer to this letter. For if you are willing that our people know your intentions pertaining to the church I have asked nothing that you should hesitate to answer. If any or all the things I named, as held against you, were incorrect, you should have been pleased to have an opportunity to correct them.
You cannot reasonably expect me to withhold the facts now in my possession from our people; for I realize that I cannot be faithful to them and do so, when it is evident to me that there is a preconcerted arrangement to lead as many of them as possible into unscriptural errors and into an unholy union with the Scarboro Modern Mission Baptists and the Pence and Burnam faction. And if you are willing for your positions and purposes to be fully known, as your statements imply, you will not object.
I would hal with a joyful heart a statement from you that would be satisfactory and result in permanent peace.
Yours with sincere desire for lasting peace.
J. M. THOMPSON.
CHAPTER VII.
SOME EXPLANATIONS.
I had heard serious charges preferred against Elder J. V. Kirkland and strong expressions of belief that he was going to the Modern Mission Baptists, and I was asked by a number of brethren who were interested if I thought he would go to them. I said that I did not believe he would, that I had confidence in him as a true Primitive Baptist and believed he would stand with us if others did go.
When I read his proposition for a Federal Government I was surprised; and when I heard he had espoused the Arminian Baptist contention that the commission was given to the church, my surprise increased. But I hoped he would cease to advocate views so unscriptural when he read the scriptural evidence and convincing arguments presented by some of our ablest ministers against them and saw the opposition of our people, so nearly unanimous, against his new theories.
When I heard of the trouble in Tennessee and that his church had been severed from its former union with other churches, I was much troubled in spirit; and as it appeared to me that a serious and extensive division was imminent if there was not an earnest effort, blessed of the Lord, put forth to effect reconciliation, I determined to correspond with him, and if he was disposed to be reasonably communicative, to find out what his intentions were and whether he was guilty or not of some hurtful things held against him. My purpose was, if I found him to be the true Primitive Baptist I had believed him to be, to earnestly labor to convince our brethren who believed he was an enemy to our cause that they misunderstood his intentions.
When Elder J. V. Kirkland failed to reply to the letters I wrote him in a kind spirit, as given to Brother Daily at his request for publication; failed to answer my plain and reasonable questions, which he should and doubtless would have been glad to have answered if he had been innocent of an arrangement with Scarboro, Pence, and Burnam, for said union, I forcibly realized that I would be unfaithful to our people and to our adorable Saviour and Father in heaven if I kept it from our people, his secret plot to force a division, which was very apparent, and to form a union with heretics. Therefore I give the foregoing extracts and letters for publication. I do it solely in the interest of the dear Master's cause and our precious church. I do it with a burdened heart.
Fair speeches and pretense of love for our cause, of humility, meekness, and a professed desire for peace and Primitive Baptist unity, when one pursues the inconsistent course that Elder Kirkland has, cannot be accepted as genuine by the wise and true.
J. M. THOMPSON.
_____________________________
We do hope and pray that this little book will be a real blessing to our dear church. We have prayed for this in preparing it, and we now send it forth with the hope that no bitterness of feeling will be raised by it in the hearts of those who cannot be brought to see these matters as we do, and that those who are anxious to stand in the old paths and walk in them may be strengthened and drawn into closer fellowship.
We have held the editor of the Apostolic Herald in high esteem, and apart from the things herein objected to, we still esteem him as a gifted minister. We know it is not with any desire to injure him in the least that we have published this book. The principles considered have been denominated vital subjects by those who have introduced and advocated them, even vital subjects of special importance to the good of our body at large. See Minutes of St. Louis Meeting, page 5. We know that on minor points of difference a spirit of forbearance should be exercised, for it is not possible for all to see alike in everything, but it is necessary in order to a true union and fellowship in the body that all be agreed on vital subjects of special importance to the body at large. The doctrine of Election, or any other doctrine, cannot be of any more importance than such vital subjects.
Those who are now on the editorial staff of the Apostolic Herald have ever been precious brethren. We feel personally interested in Elders William H. Crouse, E. W. Thomas, and M. G. Mitchell, who are on the staff of that paper. We certainly wish them well, and if these pages should not have the effect of leading them to see the matter in the right light, we hope they will not result in any bitterness of feeling. Let us ever be personal friends whatever may be our differences.
JOHN R. DAILY.
