Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage

Landmarkism Under Fire

A Study of Landmark Baptist Polity on Church Constitution

by Elder J.C. Settlemoir

Chapter 3 - J.R. Graves, Old Landmarkism and Church Constitution

That Old Landmarkism, in its essential ideas, and the views of J.R. Graves on the church are closely related go without saying. What did J.R. Graves teach on the subject of church constitution? He is often quoted as believing in EMDA.[49] Rather than infer what J.R. Graves believed about church constitution I will give his direct quotes on the subject from several different sources.

Church Defined

Unlike so many today, Graves did not hesitate to define his terms[50] and he defined church and published his definition in every edition of The Baptist as a standing editorial for years![51] Note carefully what he says:

4. Each visible Church of Christ is a company of scripturally immersed believers only, (not of believers and their unconverted children and seekers on probation), associated by voluntary covenant to obey and execute all the commandments of Christ, having the same organization, doctrines, officers and ordinances of the Church at Jerusalem, and independent of all others, acknowledging no lawgiver in Zion but Christ and submitting to no law he has not enacted. Read Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1-5; Acts 2:41,42; Matt. 18:20-23-28; 2 Cor.7:6-19; Philip. 26:27; 1 Cor. 5:12,13.[52]

How are they associated together? By voluntary covenant! What organization did they have? The same as the Church at Jerusalem. Did they submit to any law Christ had not enacted? None! Note he gives no place here for EMDA at all and EMDA advocates have recognized this embarrassing fact![53]

Church Authority Direct from Christ

Of course EMDA maintains the authority to constitute a church must come not from Christ directly but indirectly from Christ through a mother church. But this was not the teaching of J.R. Graves! Graves gives his definition of church as follows:

I will now define a Scriptural Church, as regards its polity and powers, and these define its character, whether Democratic or otherwise, whether legislative or executive only.

Sec[tion]. 1. – Each particular Church is independent of every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is accountable to him alone.[54]

Graves here tells us that each particular Church receives its authority directly from Christ! This excludes presbyteries, associations, elders, bishops and mother churches as well and this leaves EMDA a begging orphan! It is assumed that Graves knew what Landmarkism was and if he did, then EMDA was not a Landmark doctrine in any sense of the term! Remember, then, EMDA did not come from Landmarkism according to their own dictum–Like begets Like![55] But as Landmarkism and EMDA are totally different, EMDA got its origin from some other source! Let them tell us who their mother was!

A Church Is Divinely Invested with Power

Graves taught emphatically that every church is divinely invested with all the powers a church can have–but not by the instrumentality of a mother church:

....Therefore, each assembly was a complete Church, and being complete in itself, it was independent of all other like bodies in other localities, and being each independent it was divinely invested with all the powers and prerogatives of a Church of Christ.[56]

This is self constitution! And no man can mistake the meaning of Graves. Consequently the old Landmarker was himself a “neo-Landmarker” according to what some say![57] How strange!

Members Unite with Christ and Each Other

Graves did not leave us in doubt about how a church is constituted. He said:

From the above I am warranted in formulating this definition:–

A Scriptural Church is (1) a local organized assembly, (2) of professedly believing and truly baptized persons, (3) consisting of the ministers and laymen living in or near the same place, (4) organized upon terms of equality in all Church privileges, and (5) in conformity with the governmental and doctrinal teachings of Christ and his apostles, (6) united in covenant with Christ and each other for the maintenance of his worship, discipline and ordinances, and the universal promulgation of his Gospel; (7) each body being complete in itself and absolutely independent of all other organizations.”[58]

“In covenant with Christ and each other...” is Graves’ direction for church constitution! EMDA teaches those who would constitute a church must first become members of the mother church and then must be given specific authority from that mother church to constitute. They thus put the church above Christ! This was not the doctrine of Graves.

Christ Taught His Saints to Constitute Themselves
into a Church

Graves believed Christ commanded His churches to “voluntarily organize themselves by mutual covenant into a Christian assembly...”

Then your ‘church’ (?) has never yet done one of the five or six distinct duties Christ commands and requires each of his churches to do, and the first among these is:–

(1.) To voluntarily organize themselves, by mutual covenant, into a christian assembly; and to eat the Lord’s Supper as a church, all assembled in one place.[59]

Graves also says of the Methodists, that their members “...did [not] enter into mutual covenant for the purpose, nor are your societies organized by a mutual covenant...” Note that of the “five or six distinct duties Christ commands and requires” what Graves believes to be first: “To voluntarily organize themselves” “into a christian assembly.” How is that done? “By mutual covenant”![60]

Graves is here teaching that Baptists did organize or constitute themselves into NT Churches by the process of mutual agreement and by no other manner or means. Whatever any “helps” may have contributed to the organization, it is clear they had no power or authority essential to constitution as Graves saw it! His view was that the power required to constitute a church resides in Christ alone, given directly to them and manifested in those who compose the new church by that desire to “gather together in His Name” alone!

A Church Is Dependent upon No Other Body
for Its Existence

The old Landmarker does not hesitate to exclude all religious organizations from any essential connection to a new church!

Each particular church, is a body of Christ complete in itself, and absolutely independent of all other religious organizations.

This is so evident upon the face of the Scriptures I see not how to make it more manifest.

The proof given that the very word ekklesia (an assembly) denotes a complete church, equally implies its independency, i.e., that it is dependent upon no other body for its existence or self perpetuation, or the discharge of all the functions and trust of a Church of Christ.[61]

Graves argues that the very term ekklesia implies its independency from mother churches, associations, boards, synods, presbyteries, ordained elders or what have you. An ekklesia must get its authority from Christ or it is not His church! This is the essential of Landmarkism. EMDA is rejected, excluded, refuted!

A Church Is Constituted When Members Covenant
with Christ and Each Other

Graves gives the Baptist method of church constitution again:

Nor can I learn, from any source, that your ministers and members covenant with Christ and each other for the maintenance of His worship, doctrine, and ordinances, the teaching of His word...[62]

This is how Landmark Baptist churches are constituted–they covenant with Christ and each other. EMDA is no part of either Graves’ doctrine nor that of Landmarkism!

The Source of Church Authority

But what is the source of the authority for church constitution according to Graves? Does he teach this authority comes from a mother church? This is what EMDA advocates assert.[63] This is what the theory demands. This is the absolute essential of church constitution in their thinking but Graves denies their assumption at the threshold and states his position as follows: “Christ said, where two or three are gathered in my name [authority], there am I in the midst of them.”[64]

The authority for the constitution of a new church, Graves says, is not from a mother church or from an elder sent with this authority as EMDA teaches! Graves does not bow to the pressure that this constitutional authority is obtained from a “mother church.”[65] Nor does he give any place for the idea that this authority is granted by the mutual permission of a mother church in conjunction with Christ, as some might have it. Rather, he teaches that the authority is directly from Christ–and from Christ alone! And that he appeals to Mt.18:20 for his proof and this sets EMDA off from Landmarkism as the leper was set off from Israel. This is what the Old Landmarker taught!

How the Authority Is Received from Christ

Of course, some may question as to how the authority is received from Christ. Graves again sets this matter in noon-day light. He says:

Each particular Church is independent of every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is accountable to him alone.[66]

This is as clear as words can be. The source of authority in church constitution is a shot directly from Christ, not a ricochet from a mother church. Graves is upholding not only the Baptist, but the Landmark Baptist, doctrine of church constitution here! Each particular Church is independent...receiving its authority directly from Christ...” How plain these words! Misunderstanding is impossible! EMDA and Landmarkism are necessarily and mutually exclusive! The two doctrines are diametrical opposites. A Landmark Baptist cannot hold EMDA nor can an EMDA advocate hold to Landmarkism!

The Number Necessary to Form a Church

Bro Cockrell and others say if Mt 18:20 refers to church constitution then you must have at least six members to constitute a church[67] and by this means they hope to throw out this text as far as church constitution is concerned. This text is a terrible threat to them and they seek to eliminate it from this discussion.[68] But Graves will not join in their error. He quotes Tertullian with approval on this subject:

“Tertullian [A. D. 150] says, ‘Ubi tres ecclesia est, licet laici.’ ‘Three are sufficient to form a church although they be laymen’.”[69]

One can see at a glance that the doctrine of self constitution is not apostate Landmarkism[70] but orthodox Landmarkism! This is where Graves stood.

Saved Baptized Saints Can Organize Themselves
into a Church

Graves in writing to the Methodists censors them because they do not believe in self constitution. They think they must have higher powers confer something on them to constitute a church. He censors Methodism and EMDA in the process:

You deny to your members any voice–

1. In organizing themselves into a Scriptural church–in determining the formation of their government and form of organization.

2. In covenanting together to observe the laws of Christ in all things, and to watch over each other for good.[71]

EMDA teaches those who are in gospel order cannot constitute a church without authority from a mother church! They manifest their opposition to Scripture and old Landmarkism when they take this skewed position. Graves will not buy their soap!

No Church Can Extend Her Rights beyond Her Self

Graves taught that no church can delegate its powers. And if this is true, no church can give authority to another church! No church can ordain for another church. No church can baptize for another church. No church can call a pastor for another church. Graves drives home this truth:

4. We learn that all our church rights, privileges, and franchises are limited to the particular church of which we are members, as those of a citizen are limited to the State of which he is a citizen. Nor can one church constitutionally extend her franchises or privileges to persons without and beyond her jurisdiction, any more than one State can extend her franchises to citizens of other States.[72]

Again he said: “Sec[tion]. 6.–These powers, rights, and duties, cannot be delegated, nor conceded or alienated with impunity.”[73]

This means no church can delegate any power, right or duty it has from Christ to any other entity! Thus no church can delegate, confer, grant or impute church constitution to another church! No church can grant such power because it is Christ’s prerogative and His alone! The authority to constitute is given directly by Christ to each assembly alone and that power cannot be delegated to another. This is old Landmarkism!

The Pattern

What is the pattern of church constitution to which Landmark Baptists often refer? Graves says:

Christ enjoined it upon his apostles and ministers for all time to come, to construct all organizations that should bear his name according to the pattern and model he ‘built’ before their eyes; and those who add to or diminish aught, do it at their peril.[74]

Graves is not talking about EMDA here but about their knowing how to model churches after the apostolic churches.[75] The evidence of my contention is found in one of Graves’ earliest works. He said:

That these principles can be found together, embodied in specific Articles, in any one chapter in the New Testament, I do not claim; nor can the Apostles’s Creed or the acknowledged Articles of Evangelical Faith; but, like these, they run through the whole body of the teachings of Christ and his apostles; and I do maintain that the principles of Church constitution, order, and discipline are as clearly and specifically taught as are the doctrines which Christian churches are to hold and teach. Therefore men–Church rulers–have no more right to invent forms of Church government to please their own fancy, than to invent doctrines, regardless of the teachings of Christ and his apostles.[76]

But lest some question what Graves meant in this paragraph, I submit the following from the same source in a chapter entitled Constitution:

Article I.

Sec. 2.–a particular Church may consist of any number not less than “two or three” gathered together in the name of Christ.

Sec. 4.–Each particular Church is independent of every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is accountable to him alone.[77]

EMDA advocates try to wring from Graves their theory but by no means will he speak the desired shibboleth! Graves here is referring to Mt. 18:20 as “two or three” confirm. This book was written in Graves’ early years.[78]

The book Old Landmarkism is nothing but Graves’ conception of what a Landmark Baptist is–and he gives the indelible marks. Strange to say he never does speak of “mother church authority”. Let EMDA advocates tell us why! In this book Graves lists ten marks, and the first is:

As Baptists, we are to stand for the supreme authority of the New Testament as our only and sufficient rule of faith and practice. The New Testament, and that alone, as opposed to all human tradition in matters, both of faith and practice, we must claim as containing the distinguishing doctrine of our denomination–a doctrine we are called earnestly to contend. [79]

What constitutes an old Landmark Baptist? Graves answers: “Not the belief and advocacy of one or two of these principles as the marks of the divinely patterned church, but the cordial reception and advocacy of all of them, constitute a full ‘Old Landmark Baptist.’”[80] But EMDA was not one of these principles because it is no where to be found in this book nor in any other book Graves wrote! Furthermore, EMDA opposes old Landmarkism. EMDA opposes Graves. EMDA opposes Graves’ Book; EMDA opposes Graves’ doctrine! This writes Ichabod over the door of EMDA as a Landmark doctrine!

Who Can Form a Church

In the Great Carrollton Debate, held in 1875 at Carrollton, Mo., Jacob Ditzler, the Methodist, debating with J.R. Graves, contended that Christian people, baptized or not, could constitute a church.[81] J.R. Graves gave the Landmark Baptist position. Remember many well-known Landmark Baptists preachers were present at this debate. Listen to Graves’ answer:

Now I wish Elder Ditzler to know that there is a world-wide difference between originating an organization different from anything that can be found in the Bible, different from anything the world had ever before seen or heard of, and calling it a Church, and organizing a Christian Church. It is true that two or three baptized individuals can organize a Church, provided they adopt the apostolic model of government, and covenant to be governed by the sole authority of Jesus Christ.[82]

EMDA says a group of baptized individuals cannot organize a Church–unless (!) they have a mother church’s authority. Graves says “that two or three baptized individuals can organize a Church, provided they adopt the apostolic model of government, and covenant to be governed by the sole authority of Jesus Christ.” The apostolic model of government does not even hint at EMDA. No matter who may be right here, Graves or the contenders of EMDA, it is easy to see that the old Landmarker and the EMDA advocates are not on the same page!

Presbytery Or Elders Not Essential to Church Constitution

EMDA further maintains you cannot constitute a church without the presence of an ordained minister. Apparently they believe there is some essential episcopal power flowing through the fingers of ordained men which can be obtained in no other way. Is this what Graves believed? Let him tell us.

Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament,’ etc., ‘there is a church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church.[83]

Now it is evident with these quotes before us that those who teach EMDA did not derive this teaching from J.R. Graves! It is also very evident that the advocates of EMDA do not know what Landmarkism is nor do they know what J.R. Graves believed and taught on church constitution! When they attack us for believing self constitution they also attack Graves and old Landmarkism!

When these brethren imply that we have been dishonest or that we have misrepresented these old writers,[84] the reader will be able to see what the real situation is and who is responsible for misrepresentation. Furthermore, many of these quotes have been published in GPP on different occasions.[85] This quote from the Great Carrollton Debate[86] was sent to both Bro Cockrell and Bro Pugh in July 2001 so there can be no question that from that time forward, at least, they knew this quote stood. Of course, Bro Cockrell probably knew this quote from his own reading.[87] Yet, while Bro Cockrell in the 2nd edition of Scriptural Church Organization called for an apology,[88] we have heard of none concerning this misrepresentation and perversion of the teaching of J.R.Graves[89] and Landmarkism! No apology has been made! Graves has been touted as a believer in EMDA without a single line of proof which is as unscholarly as misleading. Graves’ books are available. The fact that Old Landmarkism: What is It? does not mention EMDA ought to awaken every EMDA advocate to their misconception! Could Graves write this book on Landmarkism and not mention an essential of it? Could Graves publish his many other books and never insist on this essential? Could Graves publish his writings over a period of nearly fifty years as well as editing The Baptist, The Tennessee Baptist, The Baptist and Reflector and The Southern Baptist Review and Eclectic,[90] (which I estimate amounted to some fifty thousand pages!) and never mention EMDA if he believed it![91] The credulousness of EMDA advocates on this subject has driven them out of bounds!

Let me now ask some questions.

Is it not abundantly proven from these quotes that Graves’ position on the constitution of churches was self constitution and that it is diametrically opposed to EMDA? Do not these quotes establish the fact that Graves taught churches receive their authority directly from Christ without church involvement? Is it not true that Graves taught that two or three in gospel order could constitute a church without elders, without a mother church and without any other entity on earth? Now, how then can we account for these men contending Landmarkism is EMDA? How could such a misconception be published without checking the sources? Why have these writers and preachers pinned this theory on Landmarkism? Are not these documents abundantly available to every searcher of truth? Why then have they been overlooked? Why this misrepresentation? Why do these brethren still claim Graves believed in EMDA after they have seen these quotes? And why do those who claim EMDA is a doctrine of Landmarkism never give documentation for their claims?

Why do they call us neo-Landmarkers, apostate Landmarkers and the like? Why do EMDA advocates call those who believe in self constitution by less than flattering names? Why this animosity?[92] Why do they claim we misrepresent Graves when we have given many, many, specific quotes proving what he believed?

Will these men who claim Graves and Landmarkism taught EMDA now set this matter right? Will the advocates of EMDA[93] remove this misrepresentation from Graves and from Landmarkism, making it abundantly clear in their churches, conferences, books and papers that Graves never believed in EMDA and that EMDA was never a doctrine of Old Landmarkism?

How can honest men do less?

In the next chapter we will give a full definition of EMDA.

Footnotes

[49] Cf. Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 84; Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, p. 36; Robert Ashcraft. Landmarkism Revisited, p. 194-195; W. Barnes. The Southern Baptist Convention: 1845-1953, p. 100; Morgan Patterson. Baptist Successionism, p. 10.

[50] I have never seen a single article or book by an EMDA writer who defined his terms on the constitution of a church!

[51]See Appendix VI for terms used in this book and in Baptist History.

[52] The Baptist, May 4, 1867, p. 1.

[53]See GPP “Chain Link” Ecclesiology... p. 1, July 1997; “Constitution of Churches”, April 1, 2000 and several other issues. Not one editor, writer or paper has ever attempted to refute a single one of these many quotes, so far as is known. http://www.gpp‑5grace.com/graceproclamator

[54] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate, p. 995-6. Cf. The Great Iron Wheel, p. 552.

[55] Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark, p. 10. “Like begets like in every realm of creation, therefore every Baptist church must be organized out of an already existing Baptist church.”

[56] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 127. My emphasis.

[57] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization. The author has several different kinds of Landmarkers: Apostate Landmarkers, pp. 7 ,42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 94, 62,79; hyper Landmarkers, p. 43; Strict Landmarkers, p. 53; Radical Landmarkers, p. 50; neo- Landmarkers, p. 86.

[58] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 125.

[59] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel p. 127.

[60] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 127.

[61]J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 134.

[62] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 134.

[63] Cf. Tom Ross. Resetting An Old Landmark, p. 10; Milburn Cockrell, Scriptural Church Organization, p. 29, 61.

[64] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 135. The emphasis is Graves’.

[65] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 4; Tom Ross, Resetting An Old Landmark, p. 10.

[66] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate, p. 995.

[67] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 36. Cf. Benedict, History of the Baptists, p. 643, Where Benedict recounts how Elders Miller,Thomas and the unordained John Gano constituted a church with three members. Apparently these old Baptists had not learned this rule of six as the minimum number.

[68]Bro Cockrell refers to this verse only once in SCO. p. 36.

[69] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 136; Old Landmarkism, What is It? p. 41.

[70]Milburn Cockrell, Scriptural Church Organization, pp. 7, 49 et. al.

[71] J.R. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 351.

[72] J.R. Graves. Intercommunion, p. 161.

[73] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate, p. 995-6.

[74] J.R. Graves. Old Landmarkism. p. 30-31.

[75] See Graves’ method of constitution in Jarrel’s Baptist Perpetuity, p. 1.

[76]J.R. Graves. Great Iron Wheel, p. 544.

[77]Op. Cit. p. 552.

[78]Great Iron Wheel was written in 1855, when he was thirty five. In 1880 he published Old Landmarkism, What is it?

[79] J.R. Graves. Old Landmarkism: What is it? p. 139.

[80] Ibid. p. 141.

[81] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate. p.944. We too are accused of teaching the same thing, which is not true. Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 12. In this place Bro Cockrell refers to those who differ from him as “modern liberal Baptists...”

[82] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate. p. 975.

[83] J.R. Graves, quoted in W.A. Jarrel. Baptist Church Perpetuity, p. 1. Jarrel does not give the source of this quote. I have been unable to locate this quote but suspect it is taken from The Baptist.

[84] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, 2nd ed. p. 91.

[85]J.C. Settlemoir. “Constitution of Churches.” GPP. April 1, 2000, p. 1.

[86] J.R. Graves. Great Carrollton Debate, p. 975.

[87] Milburn Cockrell . Scriptural Church Organization, “The view that I, the writer of this book, hold to in ecclesiology he has held for over 40 years. I have not embraced them due to some undesirable circumstance. After 40 years of diligent study of the Bible and thousands of books on church history I am convinced more than ever of the Landmark view of the church.” p. 91. In SCO the author also quotes from this debate, p.30. Yet, he never so much as mentioned the above quote in his book or BBB.

[88] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, 2nd Edition, p. 98: “Therefore an apology is in order and I’m sure would be appreciated.”

[89] Cf. Chapter 13.

[90] Cf. Albert W. Wardin, Jr. Tennessee Baptists, p. 246. Graves published books occupy several pages in Edward Starr’s A Baptist Bibliography, vol. 9, pp. 111-120.

[91] James Burnett in Tenn. Pioneer Baptist Preachers says this about Graves: “In this connection I may be permitted to say that while Dr. Graves was a successionist there is no evidence, I think, that he put undue emphasis on the fact of succession or on any sort of ‘mother church’ notion; he did emphasize church authority and with apostolic zeal contended for the recognition of the same. p. 194.

[92] Bro Cockrell refers to those who differ with him by several terms, some not too becoming, e.g., Apostate Landmarkers, Liberal Baptist, Neo Landmarker. Cf. Scriptural Church Organization, pp. 7, 42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 62, 79, 80, 86, 89. He seemed to have an attitude of indignation throughout this book which I have not seen in any other book he wrote.

[93]As well as those who oppose Landmarkism and who make the same claim.

Go to Chapter 4

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage