Baptist Watchman Tidbits

The Baptist Watchman was one of the leading periodicals of the "Primitive Baptists" after the Civil War and was published out of Nashville, Tennessee and edited by Dr. R.W. Fain and later by Dr. J.B. Stephens and B.E. Mullins, all elders of the PB church. I have previously shown how this periodical and its editors held to the means view, the original view of the Baptists and of the Hardshell faction. (See these postings - here, here, here, here)

Here are some tidbits of information from that periodical. 

Baptist Watchman July 3rd, 1875 (highlighting mine):

"Bro. John Clark, Zion's Advocate Vol. 15, no 3 Calls on the "Baptist Watchman" to inform its readers whether its Editors are of like-faith with a paper called the "Signs Of The Times." We can only say to Bro. Clark, that we suppose both himself, and others of the readers are acquainted with the leading traits of doctrine contended for by the "Baptist Watchman." These we regard as our true sentiments, and we expect if favored by Divine providence to continue in their defence, having as we trust true regard to the admonition by the Apostle, to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints." Editors 

This is interesting because elder Clark was an opponent of the "Signs of the Times" periodical and its editors and leading writers, mainly Elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott. One of the main reasons for Clark's opposition was the denial of the Trinity by that periodical and the above named writers. It is also due to their entertaining the idea of eternal vital union, or Two Seedism, and their idea that the mediatorial Christ, his human existence, was created sometime in eternity past. Clark charged them with being Arians for this reason, but I have shown how it is also akin to Sabellianism, a view held by Hardshell leader Wilson Thompson. (See these postings - here, here, here, here, here) It seems that Elder Clark wanted Dr. Fain and the other editors of the Baptist Watchman to declare against Beebe and the Signs and Dr. Fain, et. als., did not want to do so but they did say that their beliefs were well known (meaning that they were not in league with the views of Beebe and Trott)

I think that Dr. Fain and his brethren (Dr. Stephens, Mullins, etc.) did not want to declare against certain sects within the PB or anti mission brotherhood, probably because it would have hurt their circulation and influence. I have also thought that this is why they did not more forcefully fight against those who were beginning to increase in numbers who denied means. I believe had they been more forceful in defense of the means question, it would have hindered the denomination from declaring against the means view (which they did later in the end of the century). 

Further, this shows that Elder Clark was a frequent reader of the Baptist Watchman and I have not seen where he ever objected to the means view held to by Elders Fain and Stephens. This would seem to disprove the accusation of Elder Lemuel Potter (also a frequent reader of the Baptist Watchman) who said that Elder Clark denied means and debated the subject with Elder Stephens. 

Wrote Dr. Fain in reply to an Arminian letter to the paper:

"We would say, if election is true, all the elect will be saved through the means of His own appointment; and the shining of the Christian light is one of His appointed means on whatever subject he wish to make it bear." (July 31, 1875)

This is another proof that shows the position of Fain, Stephens, and the Baptist Watchman. They supported means, which was the original position of the "Old Baptists."