Historical Survey
The primary historical roots of the Associational Baptist movement lie in the "Landmark Controversy" of the mid-nineteenth century. "A long and bitter controversy among Southern Baptists over the primacy of the local church in preaching the gospel, administering the ordinances, and doing mission work gave birth to . . ." the Associational Baptist movement, resulting in separate organizations.(1) The Landmark movement, often called "Old Landmarkism," attempted to preserve historic distinctive Baptist principles. Particularly emphasized were certain principles which appeared to be under attack by pedobaptist enemies or which had fallen into misuse by misguided Baptists themselves.(2) Apparently the Civil war closed the formative and most aggressive phase of the movement, but as early as "1855, its characteristic emphases had been advanced, and had been welded into a compact, hard-hitting ecclesiology."(3) The name "Landmarkism" was derived from a tract written by James Madison Pendleton, entitled An Old Landmark Reset.(4) James Robinson Graves, however, was the most dynamic leader in the movement. A third figure prominently involved in the formative years was Amos Cooper Dayton, who wrote the religious novel Theodosia Ernest to promulgate his ecclesiological views.(5)
John E. Stee1y(6) sees a three-part development in the Landmark movement in the Southern Baptist Convention: (1) "a tendency toward high-church exclusiveness . . . under the influence of J. R. Graves . . . ," (2) "a schism in the Baptist fellowship about the close of . . . [the nineteenth] century . . . ,(7) and (3) "a flourishing force in the Convention in mid-twentieth century, . . . in currents of thought, patterns of preaching, and organizational principles."
The "Great Triumvirate"
James Robinson Graves
One might describe J. R. Graves(8) as "the author, prophet, and statesman of the Landmark movement."(9) Born in Chester, Vermont, April 10, 1820, he died in Memphis, Tennessee, June 26, 1893. Although Graves had a Congregationalist background, he became a Baptist when he was fifteen. Four years later, he moved to Ohio. Although poverty caused by his father's early death precluded much formal education for J. R. Graves, he attempted to compensate with "assiduous private study."(10) Hence, upon moving to Ohio, he became a school principal. In 1841, he became head of a school near Nicholasville, Kentucky.(11) Having obtained a teaching position in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1845 he became a member of the First Baptist Church on July 13, 1845. Soon he was called as pastor of the Second Baptist Church of Nashville. As assistant editor (1846-48) of a weekly newspaper, The Baptist, Graves came into close contact with Robert Boyd Crawford Howell, the pastor of the First Baptist Church and editor of the paper. Upon Howel1's resignation as editor (1848) Graves became sole editor.(12) The paper was renamed The Tennessee Baptist in 1847.
As editor of The Tennessee Baptist, Graves soon entered into a controversy with the editor of another Baptist paper concerning the validity of "alien" immersions and "the propriety of recognizing Pedo-Baptist 'societies' and ministers of Christ."(13) The Kentuckian John L. Waller, editor of The Western Baptist Review, had written an article supporting the validity of pedobaptist immersions.(14) As a result of a sharp attack by Graves,(15) Waller produced "a full-dress reply" in August.(16) Waller's articles apparently were what precipitated the Landmark controversy.(17) According to Graves, "this agitation [i.e., his controversial articles in The Tennessee Baptist] gave rise to the convention, which met at Cotton Grove, W.[estern] T.[ennessee], June 11, 1851, of all Baptists willing to accept and practice the teachings of Christ and his apostles in these matters."(18) Tull asserts that "the attention which this meeting evoked throughout the south entitles it to be called the official commencement of the Landmark Movement."(19) At the meeting, Graves and his followers issued a five-fold "statement which repudiated the authority of non-Baptist churches, ministers, and ordinances."(20) Throughout the rest of his life, Graves "persuasively and energetically expounded Landmark doctrines."(21) Through articles, books, debates, and sermons he won many Baptists to his position. By January, 1880, he could assert that a majority of denominational papers held the Landmark position and that "there is [not] one association in the whole South that would to-day [sic] indorse an alien immersion as scriptural or valid; . . . it is a rare thing to see a Pedo-baptist or Campbellite in our pulpits, and they are no longer invited to seats in our associations or conventions anywhere South."(22)
James Madison Pendleton
J. M. Pendleton(23) was "known as the theologian of the Landmark movement."(24) Born in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, November 20, 1811, he died in Bowling Green, Kentucky, March 3, 1891. Pendleton's family moved to Kentucky when he was a year old. In February, 1831, he was ordained as a Baptist minister. Leo Crismon and Harold Stephens have characterized Pendleton's ministry:
Educated in the Christian seminary at Hopkinsville, he enjoyed a fruitful ministry as pastor at Bethel, Hopkinsville, and Bowling Green, Ky.; Murfreesboro, Tenn.; Hamilton, Ohio; and Upland, Pa. He was the first man in southern Kentucky who abjured avocations, giving himself wholly to the ministry."(25)
While pastor at Bowling Green, Pendleton invited J. R. Graves to conduct a revival in 1852. During the course of their association there, Graves won Pendleton's acceptance of his own "strict views regarding alien immersion and non-pulpit affiliation."(26) In 1857, Pendleton became a professor at Union University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The next year he and A. C. Dayton became joint editors of The Tennessee Baptist. This connection was terminated later because of the Civil War.(27) Apparently, "Pendleton's most significant contribution to the Landmark cause was a tract written at Graves' request, and published in 1854 under the title, An Old Landmark Reset."(28) This tract has been called "the magnum opus of Landmarkism,"(29) In this small composition, Pendleton gave his forthright and negative answer to the question, "Ought Baptists to recognize Pedo-baptist preachers as Gospel ministers?" Approximately forty thousand copies were sold. Exciting great attention throughout the denomination, An Old Landmark Reset "put the Landmark issue perhaps for the first time onto the very center of the denominational stage."(30)
Amos Cooper Dayton
A. C. Dayton,(31) the third member of the "Great Triumvirate," as their followers called them, was a native of New Jersey. Born at Plainfield, New Jersey, April 1, 1813, he died at Perry, Georgia, June 11, 1865. Although Dayton left school at sixteen because of bad eyesight, he became a school teacher a year later. He graduated from medical college in 1834.(32) In early manhood, Dayton moved South. From 1839 to 1852 he lived in Mississippi, practicing dentistry. Although reared a Presbyterian, Dayton became a Baptist in 1852. As a result of meeting Graves, he soon became a very strong Landmarker. Tull notes, however, that "while he seems to have taken most of his doctrinal positions from Graves, he was able on his own initiative to give the issues searching and intelligent examination."(33) Quite active in Landmark-oriented denominational organizations, Dayton was also a frequent contributor to The Tennessee Baptist. Besides serving as associate editor of this paper for some eighteen months (1858-1859), he subsequently edited the Baptist Banner (1863-1864), a Landmark paper published in Atlanta, Georgia. He died of tuberculosis (1865) while he was president of Houston Female Institute, Perry, Georgia.
Dayton's contribution to the propagation of Landmark teachings was in the area of religious fiction. Admittedly, "his efforts in fiction would not rank high by critical standards, [but] they were admirably fitted for the popularization of Landmarkism's characteristic tenets."(34) Appearing originally in serial form in The Tennessee Baptist in 1855, Theodosia Ernest was published in book form in 1857. This two-volume novel was Dayton's most popular work. The first volume related to the 'baptismal controversy." The other volume discussed the subject of church polity. By 1858, the second volume reached its twenty-eighth edition.(35) Another book, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions,(36) came from Dayton's pen in 1858. Tull has characterized it as "the most cogent attack upon 'alien immersions' which the Landmark movement [ever] produced."(37)
Ecclesiology of Early Landmarkism:
Graves, Pendleton, Dayton
The major premise [of Landmarkism, asserts Hugh Wamble] is: the sole validity of Baptist churches. On the basis of this premise, Landmarkers erected an ecclesiology replete with "principles," "axioms," "corollaries," "facts," "truths," "proofs," and "consequences."(38)
Harold Stewart Smith, another student of Landmarkism, has stated rather concisely:
The Landmark movement, or Landmarkism, was dominated by a narrow interpretation of ecclesiology. The fundamental tenets are that Jesus founded a Baptist church, that a succession of Baptist churches is traceable through history, and that Baptist churches are the sole heirs to the church founded by Christ. Any other denomination is merely a religious society with a human founder. Consequently, only limited relations are possible between Baptists and other Christians.(39)
According to Wamble, at least four distinct tenets developed historically in early Landmarkism:
(1) Only Baptist ministers are authentic gospel ministers. (2) Only baptism by immersion, authorized by an athentic minister, upon an authentic candidate (believer), as a symbol (not means) of salvation, is true baptism. (3) The church is a visible, local, and independent congregation, exercising plenary authority in a democratic manner, and only Baptist churches fit this description. (4) Baptists (Baptist churches) have an unbroken succession since the time of Christ.(40)
To these four tenets should be added Graves' position on "non-intercommunion," for it is closely related to item number three. In a logical analysis of Landmark tenets, the third statement should come first, for all of the other statements depend upon it. Wamble observes, correctly, however, that "in history, the views were developed in . . . [the above] order."(41) To avoid duplications the following analysis will follow the above historical development rather than present the views of Graves, Pendleton, and Dayton individually. Where basic disagreements are present, they will be brought to light.(42)
I. Ministry and "Non-Pulpit Affiliation"
The Cotton Grove Meeting.--For the five years preceding the famous Cotton Grove meeting,(43) Graves had argued against "the question of the validity of alien immersions, and the propriety of Baptists recognizing by any act, ecclesiastical or ministerial, Pedobaptist societies or preachers as churches and ministers of Christ."(44) The purpose of Landmarkism was to arrest such loose practices which tended to compromise Baptists.(45)
At the meeting in Cotton Grove (1851), Graves wanted to erect some standards by which one might evaluate churches, ministers, and Christians. These standards were set in the form of five questions. To all of the questions except the fourth, Graves and the assembled Baptists answered "no."(46) The questions are as follows:
1st. Can Baptists, consistently with their principles of the Scriptures, recognize those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but possessing different governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices, as churches of Christ?
2d. Ought they to be called gospel churches, or churches in a religious sense?
3d. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?
4th. Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits, or by any other act that would or could be construed into such a recognition?
5th. Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity, who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments, but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?(47)
The logic of the questions and answers is clear. Indeed,
since Baptists cannot consistently do the things mentioned without implying recognition of others and undermining their own convictions as Baptists, such practices should be stopped. If Baptists believe that their churches are true . . . , there is a logical necessity, Graves held, for them to refuse all commerce with non-Baptists which would tend to be an admission that they too are Christians and that their churches are true churches . . . . Graves urged Baptists to refuse affiliation with non-Baptist ministers.(48)
An Old Landmark Reset.-- Pendleton contributed much to this discussion also. He argued from a priori premises which he assumed without question and often stated interrogatively. He asserted that "a refusal to recognize non-Baptist ministers by exchanging pulpits with them or accepting their sacramental (ordinational) acts" was an original landmark of Baptists.(49) He asked:
If Pedobaptist Societies are not churches of Christ, whence do their ministers derive their authority to preach? Is there any scriptural authority to preach which does not come through a church of Christ? And if Pedobaptist ministers are not in Christian churches, have they any right to preach? That is to say, have they any authority according to the gospel? They are doubtless authorized by the forms and regulations of their respective societies. But do they act under evangelical authority? It is perfectly clear to the writer [i.e., Pendleton ] that they do not.(50)
Pendleton reasoned, therefore:
Now, if Pedobaptist ministers do not belong to the church of Christ, they ought not to be recognized as ministers of Christ. But they are so recognized whenever Baptist ministers invite them to preach or exchange pulpits with them. As to calling on them to pray, it is a different matter; for men ought to pray, whether they are in the church or not.(51)
As editor of An Old Landmark Reset, Graves stated that pedobaptist ministers should not be invited to pray in Baptist pulpits, "since custom consecrates the pulpit to acknowledged gospel ministers."(52)
Inter-Dependence of Church and Ministry.--According to Wamble, Graves and his followers "made church and ministry inter-dependent: a true church (Baptist) cannot exist outside a true church."(53) Since Landmarkers viewed only Baptist churches as true, they would accept only Baptist ministers as true ministers. Graves stated an axiom that
baptism and an official relation to a church are prerequisites to a regular gospel ministry--hence, all ordinances administered by an unbaptized and unordained, although immersed, minister are null and void.(54)
Similarly, he stated that "it is the inalienable and sole right and duty of a Christian church to administer the ordinances, Baptism, and the Supper."(55) Pendleton agreed:
My position is that, according to the gospel. authority to preach [and do other ecclesiastical duties] must, under God, emanate from a visible church of Christ. Hence members of a visible church alone are eligible to the work of the ministry; for a church has no control of those who do not belong to it. But Pedobaptist societies are not visible churches of Christ. How then can they confer gospel authority to preach?(56)
Both Graves and Pendleton maintained that a qualified administrator is essential to the validity of an ecclesiastical act.(57)
"High Church Party."--Wamble has concluded that this view tended toward a "high church" and that Graves consequently tried to off-set such a tendency by advocating that "a minister may perform an ecclesiastical act only upon the specific authority and in the presence of his congregation."(58) Although Wamble charges early Landmarkers with modifying "the congregational theory by positing executive power in the hands of the ministry," he concedes, "nevertheless, their high view of the ministry gave them a rationale for non-recognition of non-Baptist ministers."(59)
II. Baptism and "Anti-Alien Immersion"
Importance of Valid Baptism.--Valid baptism was the major emphasis of early Landmarker ecclesiology.(60) As Pendleton said, "Our refusal to commune with Pedobaptists grows out of the fact that they are unbaptized, and out of the church."(61) Baptism, therefore. authenticates both church and ministry. Pendleton was, consequently, opposed to union meetings between Baptists and the various denominations.
Whereas the primary baptism issues among earlier Baptists had revolved around the questions of the candidate (i.e., believer's baptism) and symbolic meaning of baptism, early Landmarkers enlarged the scope to include also: administration (administrator), and design. Graves stated:
Christian baptism is not the celebration of a religious rite by modes indifferent; but it is a specific act, instituted for the expression of specific truths; to be administered by a specific body, to persons possessing specific qualifications. When one of these properties is wanting the transaction is null--since, unless the ordinances are observed as Christ commanded, they are not obeyed, but perverted.(62)
In another context, Graves explained that "Baptists must admit that Christian baptism can only be administered by a duly baptized administrator who is a member of a true visible Church and acting under the authority of such Church."(63)
Mode of Baptism.--Much importance was placed on the mode of baptism. In Graves' opinion, "the form is the substance of a ceremony, and the design of a rite determines its form, and one can not be changed without affecting the other, and the change vitiates the ordinance"; "it is the form which constitutes, and is the essence of a rite, human or divine."(64) Since Christ commanded immersion, he "expressly forbad" other modes.(65) Two major arguments were used to substantiate immersion as the sole, valid mode of baptism: "(1) the meaning of baptizein and (2) the practice of the apostolic or New Testament church."(66)
Proper Administrator of Baptism.--Although the "immersion only" doctrine could justify rejection of pouring and sprinkling, it did not disqualify immersion performed by non-Baptists. To do this, Landmarkers emphasized administrator, design, and candidate. Pendleton spoke essentially the views of Graves and Dayton also, when he wrote:
The official acts of Pedobaptist preachers have no validity in them. Their falsely so-called baptisms are a nullity--their ordinances are a nullity. Immersions administered by them ought to be repudiated by Baptists. How is it? Pedobaptist ministers are not in the visible kingdom of Christ. How then can they induct others into it by baptism? Can they introduce others where they have not gone themselves?(67)
Graves asserted likewise:
If Pedobaptists and Campbellite societies are not churches--and they are not if Christ commanded the immersion of professedly regenerated persons in water--they can no more administer valid baptism than they can a scriptural Lord's Supper; no more than could a Lodge of Masons or Odd-Fellows, if every member was a devout Christian.(68)
Design of Baptism.--The design of baptism was defined "in terms of (1) a candidate's agreement with a denomination's doctrinal position and (2) the relationship between salvation and baptism."(69) With reference to the former, Graves cited the practice of the Episcopalians in their baptismal ceremony to substantiate his assertion that "the subject of baptism does not . . . profess any private faith he may entertain, but always the faith of the denomination baptizing him." (70) Wamble concludes that Landmarkism, therefore, redefined the nature of believer's baptism--the nature of faith--giving it a dogmatic character.(71) When viewing the relationship between salvation and baptism, Graves held that only two basic beliefs--mutually exclusive ones--are possible: "(1) Baptism effects remission of sins and salvation, and (2) baptism is an expression of obedience following salvation and symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection."(72) Graves advocated the second position: "There is but one religious organization on earth that administers immersion, to the professedly regenerated alone as a symbol of the death, burial. and resurrection of Christ."(73) Graves maintained that all others held the first position, which he called "baptismal regeneration" or "baptismal salvation": ". . . the professed Christian world is divided into two grand divisions vis: Catholics, Protestants, Campbellites, and Mormons on the one side and Baptists alone on the other."(74) This distinction about design permitted Landmarkers to accomplish two goals: "(l) To invalidate the immersion of believers by the Disciples of Christ, which was the major non-Baptist group then practicing believer's baptism by immersion, and (2) to support their contention that everyone who desires to be known as a Christian should undergo believer's baptism at the hands of a Baptist church."(75) "We do not teach that baptism is essential to salvation," Graves asserted, "but that salvation is essential to baptism."(76)
Necessity of Baptism.--Baptism, however, is necessary for two reasons: (1) It is the rite of initiation which must be undergone before one can become a member of the visible church,(77) and (2) it is the command of Christ which must be obeyed.(78) Graves maintained, however, that there is a unique connection between baptism and salvation; baptism manifests it:
Do not fail to do it--do not refuse to do it, and still hope to be saved, for you have not right to hope for salvation. Not because there is any merit in the act, or any grace conferred by baptism per se, but because such aversion to do the will of Christ should be an all-convincing evidence to you that your heart is not right in the sight of God . . . .(79)
As Wamble has summarized:
According to Landmarkers, the forensic clue of salvation and the chief ground of personal assurance is the rite of baptism at the hands of a Baptist church. Infant baptism is invalid, because it has an improper subject. Baptism performed by non-Baptist ministers is invalid because they are not ministers of the true church. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring is invalid, because the mode is improper. Baptism for remission of sins and salvation--whether by sprinkling or pouring or immersion is invalid, because its design is wrong. In short, according to Landmarkers, only Baptists' baptism is valid, for only they have true design, and true meaning.(80)
III. Church and Government
A Visible Institution.--In early Landmarkism, the church was defined in visible, institutional terms. Although Graves, Pendleton and Dayton agreed fundamentally in their respective ecclesiologies, they did disagree in some respects. Pendleton stated that
church . . . refers either to a particular congregation of saints or to the redeemed in the aggregate. It is employed in the latter sense in Ephesians 1:22; 3:21; 5:25, 27 . . . . In these passages and a few more like them, it would be absurd to define the term Church as meaning a particular congregation of Christians, meeting in one place for the worship of God.(81)
This interpretation, however, did not compel Pendleton to modify his Landmark views on baptism and non-recognition of pedobaptist ministers. He stated:
Dr. Griffin [a noted pedobaptist] said truly, "Where there is no baptism there are no visible churches." . . . There is no universal visible church; and if the universal invisible church, composed of all the saved, has what Dr, E.[verts] calls "form," it is impossible to know what it is. We have no idea of "form" apart from visibility.(82)
Pendleton's position was clearly Landmark in that he emphasized the "visible church." Dayton and Graves, however, "either ignored or deliberately repudiated the doctrine of the 'invisible, universal church.'"(83) Indeed,
Few features of Landmark ecclesiology are more striking than its definition of the character of the church as visible and local only. The obverse of this emphasis was a categorical, militant denial of the church as invisible or universal.(84)
Several arguments were used to substantiate this claim. Christ "set up" the church. All of the terms used to describe it in both Old and New Testaments require "form, and therefore visibility."(85) These terms include: "Kingdom of God," "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of Christ," "Bride," "Wife," and "Church."(86) Graves' most conclusive evidence, he believed, was that the word ecclesia, the word which "the Holy Spirit selected," has "but one possible literal meaning." Ecclesia means simply a local organization. In one hundred of the one hundred and ten times it occurs in the New Testament, Graves asserted, it undoubtedly refers to local, visible churches. In the remaining ten instances, it is used "figuratively," "by synecdoche--where a part is put for the whole, the singular for the plural, one for all."(87) Dayton agreed: each new church was as "isolated and independent" as the original Jerusalem church. Each true church today is the same: "a local assembly of baptized believers, meeting by his [Christ's] authority to administer his ordinances, and transact the business of the kingdom in his name."(88) Pendleton's definition is essentially the same.(89) This theory of the church accordingly "made strict local self-government one of its cardinal principles."(90) Such a view was consistent with the Landmark strictness in matters of baptism and "alien immersion" and "pulpit affiliation."(91)
Denial of Invisible or Universal Church.--The complement of the view seeing church as visible and local only was the "denial of such conceptions as the invisible church, the universal church, the church militant, [and] the church triumphant."(92) According to Tull, Graves repudiated in particular "the branch-church theory," "the church-army theory," and "the universal church theory."(93) Graves understood that acceptance of such theories would be inconsistent with his strict position on baptism and pulpit affiliation. Dayton was in basic agreement with Graves.(94) In his opinion, the terms "invisible church" and "universal church" could have valid meaning only as generic or metaphorical terms. Jesus made such use of "my church" in Matthew 16:18.(95)
Church and Kingdom.--The relationship between the church and the kingdom provided the background for a difference of opinion between Graves and Dayton. As early as 1848, Graves was "identifying the Kingdom of God with 'the Baptist Church.'"(96) Only in the mid-fifties, however, did he formulate a detailed theory of the relationship between the church and the kingdom.(97) Dayton provided the first extended Landmarker discussion of this subject in volume two of Theodosia Ernest (1857). Dayton did not accept the concept of an invisible church, but he did maintain the existence of an invisible kingdom of God. The children of God from all ages of history are embraced in this kingdom.(98) Dayton also conceived of a visible kingdom. "Like the invisible kingdom, it is composed of individuals, but unlike the [invisible] kingdom, it is not composed of individuals alone. Gospel churches also belong to it."(99) Faith alone enters one into the invisible kingdom. A profession of faith and baptism places one into the visible kingdom. Thousands of people have been members of the invisible kingdom of Christ and have never entered his visible kingdom. Similarly, not all those in the visible kingdom are members of the invisible kingdom. Simon the Sorcerer was in the latter category. The invisible kingdom has existed as long as there have been men living by faith, but the visible kingdom was "set up in the days of Pontius Pilate."(100) Baptism is the door into the visible kingdom:
This step, by which one passes from without this visible kingdom to a place within it, is taken in baptism. This is the rite or ceremony of initiation. He who is rightly baptized is in it. He who is not, is out of it. (101)
Tull has noted, however, that "Dayton thought that the church could in no sense be equated with the visible kingdom. . . . [It is] in the kingdom," is "part of the kingdom," but "it is not the kingdom."(102) The church is, however, the executive of the visible kingdom, receiving members, electing its own officers, ordaining its ministers, commissioning evangelists and missionaries, and providing for public worship.(103) Although Dayton maintained that the administration of baptism is exclusively the prerogative of the local church, he held that baptism is not the door of entrance into the church; it is entry into the visible kingdom. Membership in the visible kingdom must precede membership in the church. A church, therefore, by baptism, must initiate converts into the visible kingdom before it can receive them into its membership.(104)
If another gospel church has received him into the kingdom, [Tull states] the church requires only a certificate of this fact, in order to receive him into membership. In any case, the church is composed only of those who are members of Christ's visible kingdom.(105)
According to Tull, Dayton's "closely reasoned" position "left one important question conspicuously up in the air."(106) In Dayton's theory, one may be a member of the visible kingdom without ever joining any church. A case in point would be the Ethiopian officer whom Philip baptized (Acts 8).(107)
J. R. Graves' mature views of the relationship between the kingdom and the church were presented in Old Landmarkism (1880) and Intercommunion: Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and Productive of Evil (1881).(108) He stated:
The terms church and kingdom . . . were used as synonymous terms by the evangelists so long as Christ had but one organized church for they were then one and the same body. As soon as "churches were multiplied," a distinction arose. The kingdom embraced the first church, and it now embraces all the churches. The churches of Christ constitute the kingdom of Christ, . . . each separate and independent in itself, . . . constitute the kingdom; as all the separate sovereign States of these United States constitute the Republic of America. . . . No one can enter the kingdom of Christ without beoming a member of some one of his visible churches.(109)
The kingdom has been in existence "from the days of John the Baptist ." The churches today form the aggregate of the kingdom.(110)
That Dayton and Graves disagreed is evident. This disagreement lay in at least three areas:(111) (1) Graves believed that the kingdom, like the church, is visible only. He stated that Christ "has no invisible kingdom or church, and such a thing has no real existence in heaven or earth."(112) Dayton believed in an invisible kingdom. (2) In Graves' opinion, the component parts of the kingdom are gospel churches exclusively: "visible churches alone, as such, are members of Christ's kingdom, and individuals, a such can not be--therefore individuals can only be in the kingdom as units of the constituents or 'integral portions of the kingdom,' as I can only be a member of this Republic by being a citizen of some one of these States."(113) Dayton maintained that the kingdom (both invisible and visible) is composed of individuals. (3) In Graves' view, baptism is the door of entrance into a local church: "baptism is an ordinance of, and in, each local church--not of the kingdom . . . ."(114) His scriptural support was John 3:12 (sic, 3:5?), with "born of water" referring to baptism and "born of the Spirit" meaning regeneration. He maintained, therefore, that baptism is a prerequisite to entrance into the kingdom. Apparently showing open disagreement with Dayton's earlier interpretation, Graves asked that, if individuals may enter the kingdom "before they become members of a church, . . . they may live and die good members of Christ's kingdom and never become members of his church?"(115) He felt this interpretation clearly to be in error.
"The importance of a doctrine of the kingdom for church polity," Tull asserts, "Graves keenly perceived."(116) Graves said that unscriptural theories about the kingdom "inevitably give rise to unscriptural and pernicious practices, especially in administering the ordinances."(117) Tull calls Graves' position a "radically sectarian conception" because "'Baptist' can, with strictest accuracy, be written in front of any legitimate use of the words 'church,' or 'kingdom of God,' without distorting Graves' plain intention."(118) He states that "not only . . . non-Baptist societies were not in the kingdom, but also . . . non-Baptist individual Christians were outside the kingdom."(119) Dayton's view of the invisible kingdom was somewhat less sectarian. Graves' view, however, "has at least the merit of consistency"; whereas, "Dayton's view looks like a piece of clever theological legerdemain."(120) Dayton simply called "invisible kingdom" what other Baptists and Protestants called "the universal church."(121)
Marks or Signs of True Churches.--According to the leaders of early Landmarkism, true churches may be identified by certain clear snd unmistakable marks or signs.(122) Graves listed eight of these in Old Landmarkism: (1) "divine institution,"(123) (2) "visible institution,"(124) (3) "locality . . . upon this earth,"(125) (4) "local organization,"(126) (5) "spiritual" or "professedly regenerate" membership,(127) (6) "scriptural baptism,"(128) (7) Lord's Supper as "a local church ordinance, commemorative only of a sacrificial chastisement of Christ for his people, never expressive of fellowship, or of courtesy for others, or used as a sacrament,"(129) and (8) "church succession" or perpetuity of the "kingdom."(130) The early Landmarkers maintained that no religious group may be called a true church "unless it conforms to all of these marks."(131) Few congregations of other denominations manifest the mark of regenerate and voluntary membership. Others--such as Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran Presbyterian, and Methodist--are lacking in the marks relative to government. Early Landmarkers held, therefore, that only Baptist churches qualify as true churches.(132)
IV. Succession
Dayton and Graves affirmed the continuous existence of Baptist churches since the time of Jesus Christ. Although "Graves preferred to date the church's beginning with John the Baptist, . . . he admitted that John did not organize a church."(133) Tull has noted that "Pendleton, [however,] always an independent spirit, cared little for the succession theory."(134) Early Landmarkers interpreted the church in Matthew 16:18-20 as an ecclesiastical organization, having institutional form and existence since the time of Christ.
Christ's Veracity.--In the eyes of Graves, Christ's veracity was the main issue at stake. He said: "LANDMARK Baptists very generally believe that for the word of the Living God to stand, and for the veracity of Jesus Christ to vindicate itself, the kingdom which he set up 'in the days of John the Baptist,' has had an unbroken continuity until now."(135) Graves continued: "To-day [sic] all his true churches on earth constitute it [i.e., the kingdom]; . . . therefore, if his kingdom has stood unchanged, and will to the end, he must always have had true and uncorrupted churches, since his kingdom can not exist without true churches."(136) In a debate Graves explained:
The Church of Christ must have a history. Christ declared that he builded, founded, called into existence his own church, and the gates of hell were not to prevail against it--it was not to be annihilated by the sword nor destroyed by the corruptions of Satan. If Christ's words be true, His Church has had a continuou existence from His day until our own, and if His words are not true He is not the Christ of God, and we have no Savior. The question then is not so much whether we can trace the history of His Church for every month or year or century, but whether He uttered a truth or a falsehood, whether the book we call the Bible be true, whether we have a Savior.(137)
Answering some of his critics, Graves stated: "Nor have I, or any Landmarker known to me, ever advocated the succession of any particular church or churches; but my position is that Christ, in the very 'days of John the Baptist,' did establish a visible kingdom on earth, and that this kingdom has never yet been 'broken in pieces '. . . ."(138) In short, Graves maintained:
To question. . . [the kingdom's continuous existence] is to doubt his sure word of promise. To deny it, is to impeach his veracity, and leave the world without a Bible or a Christ. . . . For Christians to admit that Christ has not-preserved his kingdom, unbroken, unmoved, unchanged, and uncorrupted, is to surrender the whole ground to infidelity.(139)
Besides Matthew 16:18-20 and passages from Daniel (e.g., 2:44; 7:25, 27) early Landmarkers often appealed to Revelation and Hebrews for scriptural support.(140)
As Wamble has noted, "the Landmark argument is simple: to deny the continuous existence of Christ's church (kingdom) is, implicitly, to deny Christ, and to trust Christ as a trustworthy savior is, implicitly, to believe in the continuous existence of His church."(141)
Proof of Church Succession.--Although Graves and his colleagues disclaimed any necessity to prove succession, they sought proof from "definition" and from "history."(142) Graves argued that one need only discover the "marks" or characteristics of the original church which Christ established and test contemporary bodies to find a replica. In his polemical work against Methodism, The New Great Iron Wheel, Graves stated: "The question is, Is my Church or your Church Apostolic in structural identity formed after the one divine model?"(143) He added:
So with respect to my church; if I can prove its apostalicity [sic], its perpetuity is established by the sure word of God without need of my attempting to prove an unbroken succession of Churches; for Christ, by the mouth of His prophets, declared that His Kingdom should never be broken in pieces, but "should stand forever"--and never be utterly prevailed against. Christ's Kingdom being composed of his true local Churches could not stand without them and its perpetuity thus secured by the veracity and power of the Divine founder secures the perpetuity of His Churches, one or more.(144)
Using analogy, Graves argued that, like the Atlantic cable which stretches between Newfoundland and Valentia, Ireland, and accurately carries messages from one side to the other, modern Baptist churches stretch back to the days of John the Baptist. In neither case is absolute proof of "continuity" required before one believes that such continuity exists.(145) One of Graves' main presuppositions was the belief that "if Baptist churches are veritable churches of Christ, all dissimilar opposing ones are not . . . ."(146) Wamble has concluded:
It is proved by definition and observation, Landmarkers held, that non-Baptist religious "societies" are not to be called churches. They are not like the original church, for they hold beliefs and observe practices alien to the original church. . . . It is proved by definition and observation that nineteenth century Baptist churches are to be called churches, for they presently show the marks of the original church."(147)
Historical Proof of Church Succession.--Graves' arguments were objected to by both non-Baptists(148) and "Liberals" (i.e., Baptists who did not accept Graves' teachings about historical succession).(149) Graves, therefore, turned to history to prove Baptist succession. He traced Baptist history through such non-conformist sects as the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, Donatists, and Anabaptists.(150) In 1855, he published a history entitled A Concise History of Baptists.(151) This book was written in 1835 by an English Strict Baptist pastor, G. H. Orchard. In an introduction to the book, Graves admitted that
a full, philosophic history, it claims not to be, but it does claim to prove, by the most unquestionable authorities, the existence of large communities of Baptists, in the various countries of Europe, and a succession of them from the earliest ages down to the present time;and we think the author has been successful. It has been before the public in England for several years, and if its authority has been questioned we have the fact to learn.(152)
Unfortunately,"both Orchard and Graves preferred and deliberately used quotations from non-Baptist authors, many of which are taken out of context and rarely represent the authors' viewpoints."(153) Early Landmark historiography, therefore, is characterized primarily by "a collection of opinions, used in proof-text fashion, and argued with the spirit of a prosecuting attorney."(154) William Morgan Patterson, however, has stated that, although
J. R. Graves has often been depicted as the originator of Baptist succession by those unsympathetic with his ecclesiastical pronouncements, . . . this . . . [is] manifestly incorrect because of the several works which antedated Graves' writings. Certainly it was true that Graves quickly embraced, endorsed, and energetically advertised the position. Yet, his relation to the view may be more accurately designated as that of popularizer and promoter.(155)
Patterson affirms also that not even Orchard can "be regarded a the first and only proponent of the theory."(156) According to Wamble, Graves and Orchard did not have the same idea of Baptist succession:
Orchard traced succession through "disciples" who had personal faith in Christ and who had voluntarily undergone baptism as a public expression of their faith. Graves traced succession through churches or visible organizations.(157)
"The trail of blood," a term originated by Graves(158) to designate persecuted believers throughout the centuries, became "the clearest and most satisfactory proof" of Baptist succession.(159) In the Landmark approach, the emphasis was wholly upon the similarities between Baptists and the dissenters whom the successionist historians had chosen. Tull has observed, however, that "no attention was given to dissimilarities or to the doctrines and practices of some of them which positively contradict the principles of modern Baptists."(160) Early Landmarkers, similarly, denied vehemently that Baptists are "Protestants."(161) Baptists, Graves affirmed, existed as a people separate from Catholicism "before the Protestant daughters of Rome were born."(162) Since non-Baptist "societies" were founded by men in "modern" times, they cnnnot claim to be "true churches"; the true church was founded by Christ in the apostolic period.(163)
In any historical analysis of the Landmark system, the importance of "Baptist succession" is clearly evident:
For the historian of the Landmark Movement, the church succession theory perhaps derives its chief importance from the fact that it is a compact summary of the Landmark faith, holding all of its elements in one concept. The successionist theory gave the movement a sharp cutting edge, and added greatly to its dynamism. Its simplicity was a part of its strength.(164)
V. Non-Intercommunion
In the early stages of the development of Landmarkism, most Landmarkers apparently embraced what was the majority view of the churches throughout the Southern Baptist Convention: close communion.(165) The traditional argument for close communion was two-fold: (1) "Immersion is essential to baptism" and (2) "baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper."(166) Dayton, when he wrote the first volume of Theodosia Ernest, stated that the only issue between Baptists and such pedobaptists is related "to what baptism is."(167) The close communion practice of the Baptist churches, however, did not necessarily extend to a strict local church communion, for intercommunion was commonly observed.(168) Strict local church communion restricted participation to the particular members of the local church observing the ordinance. Intercommunion took at least three forms: (1) "Local church communion in which visiting Baptists were invited to partake," (2) "associational communion," and (3) "convention communion."(169) Even J. R. Graves participated in "associational communion."(170) This situation, however, did not last. Tull has admitted:
The exact date at which Graves reached a decision as to the fallacy of intercommunion is not known. We have his own word that in the meeting of the Concord Association of 1848 in which he presided over the communion service, he "deferred without a question to the opinions of our grave and reverend seigniors." It was, however, this very occasion which "awakened investigation."(171)
By 1855,(172) however, Graves reached a belief in strict local church communion. In The Tennessee Baptist he asserted: ". . . The members of no one church have a right to come to the table spread in another church, though 'of the same faith and order'; for each church is independent . . . "(173) Tull concludes, therefore, that Graves and his colleagues "made two significant additions" to the earlier Baptist practice, "which effected a total exclusionist stand": (1) "non-Baptists were excluded from communion because they were not members of the particular local church which was observing the ordinance (non-intercommunion)"; (2) "they were excluded because they were not members of any church."(174) Pendleton, however, advocated the earlier position. He refused the Supper to non-Baptists because they were not baptized.(175) The denial of intercommunion was the last tenet in the theological development of Landmarkism as a system of closely related doctrines. The denial of intercommunion was a logical development from the original denial of pulpit affiliation:
The full importance of the Landmark insistence upon strict local communion is manifest when Graves' conception of open communion, as the end result for which pulpit affiliation and alien immersions are preparatory stages, is considered. "The only guard upon which we can successfully meet and counteract the liberalizing influences, which. are gently bearing the Baptists of America into the slough of open communion [Graves stated], is strict local church communion . . . ."(176)
Summary and Conclusion
Hugh Wamble has described the Landmark system succinctly:
Its logic is tight. Given its premises and logic, its conclusions are inescapable. Its impulse is religious--as if to deny the system at any point is to reject Christ, to destroy the Bible, to subvert salvation, to compromise Baptist convictions, and to threaten Baptists' organized work.(177)
In comparing and summarizing the information gleaned from the above study, the following observations may be made:
(1) Apparently, "the issues for specific debate [in Landmark controversies] nearly always revolved around one central guestion: namely, whether the church is exclusively responsible for all gospel acts; and that underneath this question was another more fundamental; namely, what is the church?"(178) (2) The particular answers given to the following questions made the early Landmarkers distinct from other Baptist theologians: (a) Is the church local only? (b) Are the kingdom of God and the church identical? (c) Is perpetuity necessary to the existence of the church? (d) Are non-Baptist "religious societies" authentic gospel churches? (e) Does the church have exclusive jurisdiction over ministerial acts? (f) Does the church have exclusive jurisdiction over the ordinances? (g) Does the church have exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of its members? (h) Does the church have exclusive jurisdiction over benevolent and missionary enterprises?(179) (3) The differences between Graves and Dayton concerning the relationship of "kingdom" and "church" were not crucial. "Actually, [Tull observesl, these two of the 'Great Triumvirate' were in substantial agreement."(180) (4) Pendleton, however, in many respects was not so logically consistent in his form of Landmarkism. He (a) believed in the universal church, (b) did not equate the kingdom of God with the aggregate of Baptist churches, (c) did not teach church succession, and (d) considered the theory of strict local communion trivial and unimportant.(181)
In assessing the Landmarkism of J. R. Graves, T. A. Patterson has concluded:
Perhaps every point that he advocated was at some time in the past maintained by some other Baptist, but, undoubtedly, Graves was the first person ever to bring all these different beliefs into one system. He was also the first to give expression to the system. (182)
Study of the views of later Landmark theologians, as represented by S. H. Ford and J. N. Hall, will seek to deterinine whether or not they represented a more or less advanced form of Landmarkism.
NOTES
1. J. Don Hook, "American Baptist Association," ESB, I, 1958, 36.
2. Tull, p. 126; Torbet, p. 193.
3. Tull, p. 127.
4. W. M. Patterson, p. 757. See J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What Is It? [cited hereafter as OL] (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), pp. xii-xiii.
5. W. M. Patterson, p. 757.
6. Steely, p.134.
7. As the primary subject of the present study, this schism will be described in chapters four and five.
8. S. H. Ford, "Life, Times, and Teachings of J. R. Graves" [cited hereafter as "Life"], Ford's Christian Repository and Home Circle [cited hereafter as FCRHC], LXIII (Oct., 1899), 606-16; (Nov., 1899), 670-79; (Dec., 1899), 741-49; LXIV (Jan., 1900) 39-48; (Feb., 1900), 100-105; (Mar. 1900), 162-69; (Apr., 1900), 225-33; (May, 1900), 287-90; (June, 1900), 349-59; (July, 1900), 425-27; (Aug., 1900), 487-93; (Sep., 1900), 556-59;O. L. Hailey, J. R. Graves: Life, Times, and Teachings (Nashville: n.p., [1929]); William Cathcart (ed.), "Graves, J. R., LL.D.," The Baptist Encyclopedia (2 vols.; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1883), I, 446-68; Homer L. Grice, "Graves, James Robinson," ESB, I, 1958, 576-78; and Smith, pp. 1-91.
9. Tull, p. 128. Compare Torbet, p. 186.
10. Tull, pp. 128-29.
11. Ibid., p. 129.
12. Ibid., pp. 129-30.
13. Ibid., p. 130. See Graves, OL, p. xi.
14. Tull, p. 130. See John . Waller, "The Validity of Baptism by Pedo-baptist Ministers," The Western Baptist Review, II, no. 7 (March, 1948), 267-72.
15. Tull, p. 130, citing The Tennessee Baptist.
16. Tull, p. 131. See Waller, "The Administrator of Baptism," The Western Baptist Review, III, no. 12 (August, 1848), 460-74.
17. W. M. Patterson, p. 757.
18. Graves, OL, p. xi.
19. Tull, p. 131. See also Wamble, p. 421.
20. W. M. Patterson, p. 757. See OL, pp. xi-xii, for the text of the "Cotton Grove Resolutions."
21. W. M. Patterson, p. 757.
22. Graves, OL, p. xv.
23. William Cathcart (ed.), "Pendleton, James Madison, D.D.," The Baptist Encyclopedia, II (1883), 897-98; Leo T. Crismon and Harold Stephens, "Pendleton, James Madison," ESB, II, 1958, 1082-83; Hailey, pp. 73-74.
24. Crismon and Stephens, p. 1082.
25. Ibid. Compare T. A. Patterson, pp. 1310-31.
26. Crismon and Stephens, p. 1082.
27. Ibid., p. 1083.
28. Tull, p. 133. J. M. Pendleton, "An Old Landmark Re-Set," in B. M. Bogard, Pillars of Orthodoxy, or Defenders of the Faith (Louisville, Ky.: Baptist Book Concern, 1900), pp. 266-311.
29. Crismon and Stephens, p. 1082.
30. Tull, p. 133.
31. William Cathcart (ed.), "Dayton, Rev. A. C., M.D.," The Baptist Encyclopedia, I (1883), 319-20; J. Clark Hensley and Homer L. Grice, "Dayton, Amos Cooper," ESB, I, 1958, 351-52; Hailey, pp. 74-77.
32. Hensley and Grice, p. 351.
33. Tull, p. 134. Smith, p. 110, observes, however, "to what extend a reciprocal influence, or the influence of one man on the other, cannot be determined."
34. Tull, p. 135.
35. A. C. Dayton, Theodosia Ernest [hereafter cited as TE] (2 vols.; Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, n.d.).
36. A. C. Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions [hereafter cited as PCI] (Nashville: South-Western Publishing House, Graves, Marks & Co., 1858).
37. Tull, p. 135.
38. Wamble, p. 429.
39. Smith, pp. xvii-xviii. Compare Torbet, p. 170.
40. Wamble, p. 430.
41. Ibid.
42. The structure of Wamble's essay will be followed rather closely in this chapter.
43. See above, p. 15.
44. Graves, OL, p. xi.
45. Wamble, p. 431.
46. Graves, OL, p. xii, states incorrectly that "these queries were unanimously answered in the negative. . . . " Steely, p. 135, and Torbet, p. 175, make the same error.
47. Graves, OL, pp. xi-xii.
48. Wamble, p. 431. See also Graves, The Watchman's Reply [cited hereafter as Watchman] (Nashville: Published for the Tennessee Publication Society, by Graves & Shankland, 1853), pp. 55-57, for some other explicit statements on this subject.
49. Wamble, p. 432.
50. Pendleton, p. 274.
51. Ibid., p. 275.
52. Ibid.
53. Wamble, p. 432.
54. Graves, The Tennessee Baptist, October 6, 1857; quoted by Moore, p. 28; Wamble, p. 432; and Hailey, pp. 55-56.
55. Graves, OL, p. 51.
56. Pendleton, p. 310.
57. Wamble, p. 433.
58. Ibid. See Graves, The Act of Christian Baptism [cited hereafter as Act] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), p. 58; and Pendleton, pp. 298-99, for brief reactions to the charge of "Baptist High Church party."
59. Wamble, p. 433.
60. Smith, p. 311, calls baptism "the 'keystone' idea" of Graves' theological system.
61. Pendleton, p. 279.
62. Graves, OL, p. 64. See also Graves, Christian Baptism, the Profession of the Faith of the Gospel [cited hereafter as CB] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), p. 3.
63. Graves' introduction to Dayton, PCI, p. vii.
64. Graves, Act, pp. 9, 11.
65. Graves, The Graves-Ditzler: or, Great Carrollton Debate [cited hereafter as Graves-Ditzler Debate] (Memphis, Tenn.: Published by the Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1876), pp. 521-24; CB, p. 4; OL, pp. 65-74. Pendleton, p. 271, made similar statements.
66. Wamble, p. 434.
67. Pendleton, p. 280. See also Graves, CB, p. 4; OL, pp. x, 33; Dayton, TE, II, 43-44, 69. The whole of Dayton's work, PCI, is an expose of and answer to the arguments given by anti-Landmarkers on this very issue.
68. Graves, Act, pp. 55-56.
69. Wamble, p. 435.
70. Graves, CB, p. 9.
71. Wamble, p. 435.
72. Ibid. See Graves, Act, pp. 38-43; and OL, pp. 64-79.
73. Graves, Act, p. 60.
74. Graves, The Relation of Baptism to Salvation [cited hereafter as Relation] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), pp. 19-20.
75. Wamble, p. 435. See Graves, CB, pp. 10-12; and Dayton, PCI, pp. iii-xii.
76. Graves, CB, pp. 34-35.
77. Ibid., p. 18; and OL, p. 33.
78. Graves, Act, p. 46; and Relation, p. 5.
79. Graves, Relation, p. 55.
80. Wamble, p. 436; compare Smith, p. 273.
81. J. M. Pendleton, Church Manual: Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches [cited hereafter as Church Manual] (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1867, 1945), pp. 5-6.
82. Pendleton, "And Old Landmark Reset," p. 304; see ibid., pp. 267-69, for the original reference to Griffin.
83. Wamble, p. 436. See Dayton, TE, II, 96, 99; and Graves, OL, pp. 35-42.
84. Tull, p. 154.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid. See Graves, OL, p. 32; Dayton, TE, II, 168.
87. Graves, OL, pp. 38-39.
88. Dayton, TE, II, 93.
89. Pendleton, Church Manual, pp. 6-8.
90. Tull, p. 156. See Graves, OL, pp. 38-39.
91. Above, pp. 20-21. See Graves, OL, p. 140, for a list of the "divine, inalienable, and sole prerogatives of a Christian church."
92. Tull, p. 156. See Graves, OL, p. 32.
93. Tull, p. 157.
94. See Dayton, TE, II, 94, 95.
95. See ibid., pp. 101-103
96. Tull, p. 160, citing Graves, The Tennessee Baptist, July 6, 1848, p. 2.
97. Tull, p. 160.
98. Ibid.; see Dayton, TE, II, 41-42.
99. Tull, p. 161; see Dayton, TE, II, 42.
100. Tull, p.161; see Dayton, TE, II, 44-45.
101. Dayton, PCI, p. 185; see also, ibid., pp. 79-80.
102. Tull, p. 162.
103. Dayton, TE, II, 48.
104. Ibid., pp. 186-88.
105. Tull, p. 163.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid. See Dayton, PCI, 191.
108. Graves, Intercommunion: Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and Productive of Evil [cited hereafter as Intercommunion] (Memphis, Tenn.: J. R. Graves & Son, 1890).
109. Ibid., p. 33.
110. Tull, pp. 163-64. Graves, Intercommunion, pp. 150-63.
111. Tull, pp. 164-66.
112. Graves, OL, p. 32.
113. Graves, Intercommunion, pp. 142-43.
114. Graves, OL, p. 33.
115. Graves, Intercommunion, p. 143.
116. Tull, p. 167.
117. Graves, Intercommunion, p. 141.
118. Tull, p. 167.
119. Ibid.
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid., pp. 167-68.
122. Graves, The New Great Iron Wheel [cited hereafter as NGIW] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), pp. 125, 135; OL, pp. 27-42; Dayton, TE, II, 131, 165, 480. See also Torbet, pp. 191-93 and Smith, pp. 252-61.
123. Graves, OL, pp. 29-31.
124. Ibid., p. 32.
125. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
126. Ibid., pp. 35-52.
127. Ibid., pp. 53-63.
128. Ibid., pp. 64-79.
129. Ibid., pp. 80-120.
130. Ibid., pp. 121-30. Wamble, p. 438, lists five "signs which appear most commonly in Landmark literature. . . . They deal primarily with the corporate life of the church as a visible institution."
131. Wamble, p. 438.
132. Ibid., pp. 438-39. See also ibid., pp. 440-41. Torbet, p. 178, and Smith, pp. 259-60, relate basically the same information.
133. Wamble, p, 439. See Graves-Ditzler Debate, pp. 797 and 915.
134. Tull, p. 177, n. 4.
135. Graves, OL, p. 121.
136. Ibid., p. 123.
137. Graves , Graves-Ditzler Debate, p. 1050. See also Wamble, pp. 439-40, and Tull, pp. 173-76.
138. Graves, OL, pp. 122-23.
139. Ibid., p. 124.
140. Tull, pp. 175-75.
141. Wamble, p. 440.
142. Ibid. This is Wamble's terminology. See Tull, pp. 170, 176, 186; and Dayton, PCI, p. 140.
143. Graves, NGIW, p. 104.
144. Ibid. See also OL, pp. 124-25.
145. Graves, OL, pp. 125-26.
146. Graves, Watchman, p. 57. See also NGIW, pp. 103-108, 124; OL, pp. 35-42; and Dayton, TE, II, 95, 158-65.
147. Wamble, p. 441.
148. For example, Ditzler in Graves, Graves-Ditzler Debate, pp. 923-26, 960-66.
149. See Graves, OL, pp. 124-25. Steely, p. 135, states that Graves used the expression "the liberals" to refer to "open communionists."
150. See Graves, The Trilemma [cited hereafter as Trilemma] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex. Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), pp. 121-22.
151. G. H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists (Reprinted by: Lexington, Kentucky: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1956). This book was printed by Graves in 1855.
152. Ibid., p. xii. Wamble, p. 442, apparently is in error when he states that "Graves said that . . . 'its authority has been questioned.'"
153. Wamble, p. 442. See Dayton, T, I, 183, for examples of these quotations.
154. Wamble, p. 442. See Tull, p. 182, for a similar opinion.
155. W. M. Patterson, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View [cited hereafter as Baptist Successionism] (Valley Forge, The Judson Press, 1969), p. 26. Steely, p. 136, is in agreement here. He notes, however, that "it is rather the a priori method of establishing such a claim [of Baptist Succession], with the dependence upon this succession for present-day validity of the ordinances, which distinguishes the Landmark view."
156. J. M. Patterson, Baptist Successionism, p. 26.
157. Wamble, p. 442.
158. So Wamble, pp. 442-43.
159. Graves, in Orchard, p. xviii and Trilemma, pp. 119-20. See also Wamble, pp. 442-43; Tull, pp. 183-84; and Steely, p. 136.
160. Tull, p. 182. See W. M. Patterson, Baptist Successionism, pp. 52-54.
161. Graves, Trilemma, pp. 77-118, 162.
162. Ibid., , pp. 127-28. Compare Dayton, TE, II, 255.
163. Graves, Trilemma, pp. 83-85; NGIW, pp. 35-47; Graves-Ditzler Debate, pp. 935-38; Dayton, TE, II, 98-99; compare Tull, pp. 232-55.
164. Tull, p. 189.
165. Ibid., pp. 223-25.
166. Ibid., p. 223. Compare T. A. Patterson, p. 223.
167. Dayton, TE, I, 376.
168. Tull, pp. 225-26.
169. Ibid., p. 226.
170. See Hailey, pp. 45, 50.
171. Tull, pp. 227-28, citing The Baptist, June 16, 1883, p. 5.
172. Tull, p. 228. T. A. Patterson, p. 41, says: "His thunking in regard to communion seems to have assumed definite shape by 1867." See also ibid., p. 223. The account given by Hailey, pp. 50-51, is confusing at points, although 1867 seems to be the date he prefers.
173. Tull, p. 228, quoting Graves, The Tennessee Baptist, September 1, 1855, p. 3. See T. A. Patterson, pp. 224-27, for a summary of Graves' full-developed arguments.
174. Tull, p. 230.
175. Ibid. See Pendleton, Distinctive Principles of Baptists (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1882). pp. 178-80.
176. Tull, p. 231; Graves, OL, pp. 119, 152. T. A. Patterson, p. 220, agrees: "It is very probable that the South would eventually have drifted in the direction of"open communion had it not been for the Landmark movement." See ibid., p. 228, for the names of a number of Baptist theologians who agreed with Graves on the matter of strict local communion but were not necessarily Landmarkers.
177. Wamble, p. 444.
178. Tull, p. 261. Smith, p. 251, voices agreement: "Ecclesiology was always Graves' primary concern, and he wrote more on this theme, particularly the ordinances, than on any other theological subject. For almost fifty years every book and numerous articles included the doctrine of the church as an integral element." Hailey, p. 53, however, a\states: "Yes, Landmarkism sounded forth but it did not originate in ecclesiasticism, in church forms, or even in regard to the ordinances. It was based upon the fundamental errors of Methodism--and Campbellism also. While it was carried to an extreme, it was based on truth."
179. See Tull, pp. 261-62.
180. Ibid., p. 259. Hailey, p. 37, even refers to "his [i.e., Graves'] mistaken view of the kingdom."
181. Tull, pp. 259-60. Torbet, p. 176, says that "Pendleton tried to hold Landmarkism to this one application [i.e., non-pulpit affiliation] of his concept of the church. But the logic of the theory was developed by Graves into a rigid system of greater scope and wider implications." T. A. Patterson, p. 128, has essentially the same understanding.
182. T. A. Patterson, p. 139.
Go to Abstract and Acknowledgements.
Go to Chapter I: Introduction".
Go to Chapter III: "Later Landmarkism: Ford and Hall."
Go to Chapter IV: "Historical Survey of the Rise of the Associational Baptist Movement".
Go to Chapter V: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Official Associational Baptist Documents."
Go to Chapter VI: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Non-Official Associational Baptist Documents."