Okay....J.R. Graves (I like the name) Let's clarify where Pendleton stood on the issue of succession. No he did not fight against it, but it is very significant that he did not utilize it as one of his arguments. Graves and others used this argument to support their conclusions. Pendleton did not. He was noticably different in his handling of this issue than other Landmark members.
Let's look at some quotes...
Morgan Patterson recognized that Pendleton did not hold to these views. He wrote, “Yet it must be remembered that Pendleton differed from other Landmarkers in significant ways. His understanding of Landmarkism seemed to be limited to his concept of pulpit affiliation. Also, unlike many Landmarkers, he accepted the concept of the universal church, never adhered to Baptist successionism, and was able to work within the organizational framework of the conventions and societies of Baptists in a way many Landmarkers were never able to do.” See W. Morgan Patterson, “The Influences of Landmarkism Among Baptists,” Baptist History and Heritage 10 (January 1975): 56.
James Tull notes four areas where Pendleton disagreed with Graves: “(1) Pendleton never relinquished the idea of the universal church; (2) refused to equate the Kingdom of God with the aggregate of Baptist churches; (3) refused to subscribe to the theory of church succession; and (4) thought the theory of nonintercommunion was trivial and unimportant.” James E. Tull, High-Church Baptists in the South (Macon: Mercer Press, 2000), 44.
Thomas White wrote in a dissertation that document all of Pendleton's books and over 700 of his articles, "On the issue of church succession, there is no clear refutation of the church succession theory in Pendleton’s writings. Tull did not document his statement; however, after studying Pendleton’s work, this author concludes that Tull accurately noted an absence of church succession in Pendleton’s writings." Thomas White, "James Madison Pendleton and His Contributions to Baptist Ecclesiolgoy" Ph.D. diss. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005.
Additionally, sources like S. H. Ford, “History of the Baptists in the Southern States by B. F. Riley. D. D. —Misstatements—Old Landmarkism— Succession—Irregular Immersions,” Ford’s Christian Repository and Home Circle (July 1899): 420, claimed that Pendleton said, “The ana-Baptist [sic] question [did they sprinkle] really has nothing to do with the landmark question; nor has the church succession question. . . . I doubt not there have been in all ages, from the days of the apostles, persons who have believed for substance as Baptists do now; but that there has been a regular succession of churches, I am by no means certain. . . . It has not been established to my satisfaction; but I am a ‘landmarker.’”
This last quote is from Pendleton himself (according to Ford). This is my point. Successionism is a separate issue from Landmarkism. Again, R.B.C. Howell affirmed successionsim but fought vehemently against Graves.
Howell said that “the Apostolic Church was Baptist and that through several channels it may be readily traced in a state of comparative purity down to our time.” See R. B. C. Howell, The Terms of Communion at the Lord’s Table (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1846), 262.