The purpose of this chapter will be, first of all, to sketch in brief outline the main historical features of the Landmark movement and to indicate the basic doctrines so strenuously advocated by its founders. Beyond this basic aim, an attempt will be made also to show the reaction of a cross section of Baptists to the movement and then, perhaps most importantly, to show that the doctrinal convictions of the most bitter opponents (among Baptists) of the Landmark movement were not substantially different from the views of the men and the movement to which they were opposed.1 It will be shown that many of the principle tenets of the Landmark brethren were also warmly advocated by those who expressed the strongest of personal opposition to J. R. Graves and his colleagues.

The Inception of the Movement

The year 1851, the date of the mass meeting at Cotton Grove, [TN] is the date commonly assigned to the Landmark movement as marking its beginning. It will be of some interest to note the immediate context from which the Landmark movement sprang, with particular regard to the manner in which J. R. Graves was influenced in those years immediately preceding 1851. It will be seen that he was very much a man of his times and that he was responding to the circumstances in which he found himself when he took those steps which led to the beginning of the Landmark movement.

The Agitation in The Baptist of Controversial Doctrinal Matters
In 1846 J. R. Graves first became associated with The Baptist as an assistant to R. B. C. Howell, who had edited the paper, with some interruption, since 1835. Upon the establishment of this relationship, the material in the paper immediately took on a more controversial aspect. It would be unjust to assume that Graves was entirely responsible for this "new" quality, for it was not entirely new. For some years Howell had engaged in verbal conflict with the editor, J. B. McFerrin, of the Christian Advocate, a Methodist paper also published at Nashville. In the course of the exchange, Howell had been referred to by McFerrin as "the inflated bird of Nashville" and as one who did not "consider it a matter of importance always to state the plain truth." In reply, Howell had shown himself not averse to conflict and had stated on one occasion that McFerrin was capable of adopting any expedient "however repugnant to moral principle, if he thinks he can by such means do an injury to the Baptist denomination."2 Thus it was into an atmosphere already somewhat charged with controversy that Graves stepped when he assumed the editorship of The Baptist. He proved himself fully capable of continuing the battle and of carrying it to the enemy.

There is some justification for the course of action which Graves followed in saying that it was an age of controversy and one of the greatest sources of controversy was the doctrinal differences among the various denominations. Even a cursory survey of the denominational papers of the day will indicate the extent of conflict among and even within the denominations. Graves himself set forth the reasons for the predominantly controversial matter in the editorial department of his paper in the issue of February 8, 1849. Admitting that his deliberate policy was that of giving much space to discussions of controversial topics, and recognizing that this policy might not meet the approval of all, he defended himself by saying, "We are set for the defence of the truth." Picturing Jesus as a "great Agitator" for the truth, and Paul as an agitator and controversialist, he asserted:

As long as the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel are held in any esteem, and meet with opposers, so long must there be controversy, except where absolute indifference about religion, and all its interests has taken possession of the mind.3

Graves has been often accused of engaging in controversy for the sake of controversy, but he regarded it, rather, as the means of achieving victory for the truth, as he saw it. Noting the changing attitude of many Pedobaptists toward immersion and close communion, he asked: "What has achieved all this? We answer, Controversy, Controversy, Agitation, discussion, and debates."4 This being true, the battle must be

truceless, and unremitting. Let the battle still rage and the war cry still go up — and ten years hence, far greater conquests will have been gained, and still more glorious victories won, than crown today, the history of all past conflicts.5

The Cotton Grove Resolutions
The results of the continuing agitation of controversial doctrinal matters in The Baptist were several. Among the Baptists, if the letters to the editor are any indication there was almost unanimously a warm and cordial response. Obviously they were greatly delighted to have found J. R. Graves so fearless a champion of the Baptist cause and such an able and articulate critic of pedobaptism. Among the Pedobaptists, predictably, the response was somewhat heated, with all the papers turning their editorial fire upon the young Graves. Graves took note of the Pedobaptist response in the November 23, 1850, issue of The Baptist.

It seems from the signs of the times that the tremendous conflict has begun, the battle cry resounds upon every side. Nearly every Pedobaptist paper, with which we exchanges has opened its batteries upon us within the last week. Have they had a council of war, and entered into solemn league and covenant to make one more desperate effort for our extermination?6

That the conflict was indeed fierce is substantiated by the observation of the St. Louis Watchman "that the baptismal controversy is raging nearly to epidemic type in Tennessee. The whole Christian community seems to be almost in a perfect furor."7 Under these circumstances, perhaps it is not surprising that a by-product of the controversy was an astronomical increase in the circulation of The Baptist, reaching almost eight thousand shortly before the Civil War.

The intensity of the conflict, along with the generally enthusiastic response of the Baptists, was probably a factor in leading Graves to the conclusion that the time had arrived for positive action. Accordingly, he issued a call for a mass meeting of interested persons to assemble at Cotton Grove, Tennessee, on June 24, 1851. The object of the meeting, as stated in a resolution adopted at the meeting, was

to consult the best measures to be taken by Baptists in this valley, to repel the assaults of Protestants and Catholics upon our doctrines, religion, and history, and to correct their misrepresentations, and disseminate a correct knowledge and understanding of our principles.8

In the furtherance of this objective, Graves submitted a series of questions for the consideration of the body, the answers to which would serve to define rather sharply the relationships of Baptists to other denominations and the manner in which they regarded their churches, their ministry, and their ordinances.

1st. Can Baptists consistently, with their principles or the scriptures, recognize those societies, not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem church, but possessing a different government, different officers, a different class of membership, different ordinances, doctrines and practices, as the Church of Christ?
2nd. Ought they to be called Gospel Churches or Churches in a religious sense?
3rd. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies, as gospel ministers in their official capacity?
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 doctrines of Christ, and walk not according to his commandments, but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?9

Having been presented to the group at Cotton Grove, the questions were then referred to the meeting of the Big Hatchie Association in session on July 28 at Bolivar, Tennessee. Here they were further discussed and unanimously adopted. They may be considered, as Barnes calls them, the "first official pronouncement of Landmarkism."10 The action taken at Bolivar seems to have been regarded by Graves as a necessary step towards the mobilization of the entire Baptist community in preparation for what seemed to him to be an imminent life and death struggle with the forces of pedobaptism. Actually, it is difficult to determine how much importance Graves attached to the acceptance of his propositions by the Big Hatchie body, but it is certainly true that in the hindsight of history, these queries loom large in Baptist history and may well be regarded as the beginning of the Landmark movement.

The Men and Literature of the Movement
The Landmark movement cannot be understood apart from a consideration of the personalities of the men who brought it into being and who gave it leadership. They present one of the most remarkable aspects of this remarkable movement in American Baptist history. They were without question men of marked ability, and it is in some recognition of their ability and influence that they are commonly referred to as the "Great Triumvirate." They exercised a great and widespread influence, especially through the vast amount of literature which they produced. It will be helpful to note briefly the circumstances of their lives and certain of their writings.

J. R. Graves
Having already spoken of Graves with reference to his career as editor of the Tennessee Baptist, it seems appropriate and necessary to mention briefly a few of the more prominent details of his life and also certain of his works.

The year 1820 marked the birth of J. R. Graves in Chester, Vermont. Left fatherless at the age of three weeks, Graves was reared in rather impecunious circumstances. Converted at the age of fifteen years, he united with the North Springfield Baptist Church, Vermont. In view of the fact that his mother was a Congregationalist and the fact also that the Baptist churches of New England tended toward a strong localism, this early affiliation with the Baptists may be an item of some significance with regard to the developments in his later life.

At the age of nineteen, Graves moved to Ohio with his family and accepted the post of principal of the Kingsville Academy. For two years he taught here and then moved on to Kentucky, where he accepted a teaching situation in the Clear Creek Academy, near Nicholasville. It was here that Graves came under certain influences which were to leave a great impact on his life. One of these was the Mount Freedom Baptist Church which he joined, and in which he took some small part. Recognizing that the young man had some native ability, and a genuine dedication, the church encouraged him in the exercise of his talents and soon licensed him to preach the gospel. His ordination soon followed. It was typical of Graves that a work accepted was a work to be fulfilled. This seems to have been the attitude with which he approached the work of the ministry.

Another influence on his life was a Baptist preacher, the pastor of the Mount Freedom Baptist Church, Ryland T. Dillard. Dillard was deeply involved in the Baptist struggle against the "Current Reformation" carried on by Alexander Campbell. Baptists were severely hurt by the inroads made by Campbell and his followers, and Baptists were sorely in need of men who could stand up to the challenge of the hour. Dillard was one such man, and he deeply influenced J. R. Graves in the time of his association with him.

In 1845, partly through the influence of John L. Waller, Graves was invited to Nashville and shortly thereafter became pastor of the Second Baptist Church in that city. R. B. C. Howell was then editor of The Baptist and from the very first Graves seems to have been closely associated with Howell. In fact, it would appear that Graves was very much influenced in certain of his doctrinal views, especially his view of the kingdom, by Howell. Graves wrote several articles for the paper which were well received, and when, in 1846, Howell resigned as editor, it must have seemed the logical step to ask the young pastor to assume the responsibility. Hesitating at first and then accepting because he felt so keenly the need for a strong Baptist witness in the printed page, he found in his position as editor a place of genuine service and leadership in the denomination.11

During his lifetime, Graves was well known as a preacher, lecturer, and debater. He traveled thousands of miles across the south and southwest, preaching to great crowds wherever he went. Contemporary accounts indicate that he possessed a marvelous eloquence and was earnest and persuasive as a speaker. But as effective as he was as a preacher, he seems to have exercised his greatest influence as a writer, not only in his editorial capacity but also as the author of a number of books.

The best known of his works today, perhaps, and certainly the standard work of the Landmark movement in its later years, is the volume Old Landmarkism: What Is It? This book was written late in life, in 1880, and is more or less a summation of his views after they had reached their final development. Perhaps the most influential of his works was The Great Iron Wheel, which was primarily an attack upon the ecclesiastical organization of the Methodist Church and those doctrines of Methodism which Graves considered erroneous. As would be expected, the book evoked loud outcries of anger from Methodist leaders and was "everywhere spoken against," but still it had its effect and the result was that many Methodists, both preachers and laymen, united with the Baptists.12

Other works by Graves include The Trilemma, The Lord's Supper a Church Ordinance, Intercommunion of Churches Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and Productive of Evil, and an edition of Samuel Adlam's book, The First Church in Providence, Not the Oldest Baptist Church in America, with an extensive introduction by Graves. Practically all of his works were of a controversial nature and wherever they were distributed and read, they called forth response, both favorable and unfavorable.

J. M. Pendleton
The second member of the "Great Triumvirate" of Landmarkism was James Madison Pendleton, whose place of birth was Spottsylvania County, Virginia, but who was for many years an adopted son of Kentucky. When Pendleton was just a year old, his family removed to Christian County, Kentucky, and this state he regarded as home for the rest of his life.

Educational opportunities under the frontier conditions which prevailed in Kentucky were few, but Pendleton made the most of these. The first school he attended was in a little log house, with his father, a man of limited educational attainments, as a teacher. With the encouragement of his parents, he applied himself with diligence to the task of securing an education, and he became in time "a most accurate Latin and Greek scholar," with a marked ability to write, and speak clearly and forcibly.

At the age of fifteen he seems to have come deeply under the conviction of sin and of his personal spiritual need, but two years passed before these convictions led to his actual conversion and a public profession of his faith. In 1829, at the age of seventeen, he was baptized into the fellowship of the Bethel Baptist Church, near Pembroke, Kentucky. In 1831, this same church licensed him to preach and within another two years he was preaching at this church and the church at Hopkinsville on alternate Sundays, and at the same time he was attending the Christian County Seminary located at Hopkinsville. In 1837 he received and accepted a call from the First Baptist Church, Bowling Green, and he entered there upon a pastorate of twenty years' duration.

In 1857 Pendleton left the church at Bowling Green to assume a position as professor of theology in Union University, Murfreesborough, Tennessee, at the same time accepting the work of the church at Murfreesborough. He remained there until after the beginning of the Civil War, at which time the tensions thus generated made it necessary for him to go north, since he was in his sentiment an emancipationist. He served for three years as pastor of the church at Hamilton, Ohio, and then in 1865, he moved to Upland, Pennsylvania, where he carried on his pastoral labors until his retirement. He spent his remaining days, until his death at the age of eighty years, at Bowling Green, the scene of his longest pastorate and his most fruitful endeavors.

It was in 1852 that Pendleton became associated with J. R. Graves. He had invited Graves to come to Bowling Green for a "protracted meeting." The meeting was in every way a great success, resulting in the addition of seventy-five souls to the church, but also awakening in Pendleton a new interest in the doctrines of the church, with which Graves was so much concerned and which he had preached with such great effect during the meeting. A lifelong friendship was formed between the two men and Pendleton became a regular contributor to the pages of The Tennessee Baptist.

It was also as a result of this meeting that Pendleton's little tract An Old Landmark Reset was written and published. It concerned itself basically with the question, Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers? Corollary to that, of course, was the question concerning Pedobaptist "societies": Ought they to be recognized as scripturally organized, gospel churches? Pendleton's answer to these questions was in the negative. It was this tract, of course, so named by J. R. Graves, that was responsible for the name given to the Landmark movement.13

Pendleton was quite a prolific writer, and it was in recognition of his ability at this point that he was asked to serve on the committee of publications of the American Baptist Publication Society. His works, for the most part, were not as markedly controversial in character as those of Graves, but he showed himself capable of meeting the challenges cast at him by those who disagreed with him, especially as he made reply to those who were critical of the positions set forth in the Old Landmark.

One of his most popular works as indicated by its circulation of more than fifty thousand copies by 1900, was the little book Three Reasons Why I Am a Baptist. His Church Manual has likewise been very popular and has become in many quarters a standard Baptist work. Perhaps his most valuable book, and apart from the Old Landmark the most significant, was his work Christian Doctrines: A Compendium of Theology. Cathcart describes it as "a masterly production, concise, logical, orthodox, and comprehensive." Others of his works include The Atonement of Christ, Sermons on Important Subjects, and a brief commentary on the New Testament beginning with Acts.14

A. C. Dayton
The third man among the leadership of the Landmark movement was A. C. Dayton, who was born at Plainfield, New Jersey, in 1813. Unlike Pendleton and Graves, Dayton's first church affiliation was not with the Baptists but rather with the Presbyterians, at the age of twelve. When he was sixteen, he was forced to leave the village school, in which he had been a regular attendant, because of a defect in his vision. For a time he taught school, and then he entered the Medical College of New York City, from which he received his medical degree in 1834. He found himself unable to bear up physically under the duties of medical practice and so relinquished his profession. Seeking a more congenial climate for his health, he came South, stopping in Shelbyville, Tennessee, long enough to meet and to marry Miss Lucy Harrison, and then finally settled in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where he took up the practice of dentistry.

As an active layman in the Presbyterian Church, Dayton attended many of their general meetings and at one of these he had called to his attention a little book, Carson on Baptism, which made an indelible impression on his mind and soul. The eventual result of this and other incidents was that he became convicted of his need for scriptural baptism and he sought it at the hands of the Baptist church in Shelbyville, Tennessee. The Sunday following his baptism he preached his first sermon, a message on "The Love of God." Shortly thereafter he became associated with J. R. Graves as an associate editor of the Tennessee Baptist and assumed also the duties of Corresponding Secretary of the Bible Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. At the same time, he served several churches as monthly pastor.

During the Civil War, Dayton removed with his family to Perry, Georgia, where he assumed for a time the presidency of Houston Female College. He was also an editorial contributor to the Baptist Banner, published at Atlanta, and was working on the preparation of a religious encyclopedia when death brought his labors to an end in 1865.

There were evidently two factors which influenced Dayton toward an interest in matters of an ecclesiological nature. One was, of course, his own experience which had led him to a departure from the Presbyterian Church and an entrance into the Baptist fellowship. The other factor was his acquaintance with Graves. With his encouragement, Dayton brought forth for publication a denominational novel, Theodosia Ernest, which had an unusually favorable reception, as is indicated by the fact that it rapidly ran through several editions and even became popular in England. Dayton used the book as a vehicle for setting forth the local nature of the church and the characteristic Landmark emphases. Another of his works is the little book Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions which is primarily a review of the opinions and arguments of various Baptist leaders with regard to the acceptability among Baptists of such immersions. It is important as a clear expression of the Landmark sentiments, but also for what it indicates concerning the viewpoints of those who expressed their disagreement with the Landmarkers. The other major work which Dayton produced was The Infidel's Daughter, a volume of different character than those mentioned above, but one which enjoyed a wide popularity.15

The Distinctive Tenets of Landmarkism
Those doctrines which are regarded as distinctively Landmark fall into the category of ecclesiology. This was the primary concern of the Landmarkers and all of their writings have to do with the matter of defining a church and, even more, with the setting forth of the New Testament pattern for the polity and practice of a gospel church. It is well to bear in mind when reference is made to the doctrines which are "distinctively Landmark," that this does not mean that the Landmarkers were the only ones who held them. Indeed, there were a great many Baptist, not Landmarkers, who believed as did they. But the Landmarkers were distinctive in the consistency with which they held to their doctrines, in the rigidity with which they applied the principles which they considered to be New Testament, and the firmness, even the vehemence, with which they proclaimed their beliefs. They were distinctive also in the manner in which they related all of their teachings to their doctrine of the church.

The Primacy of the Local Church
The basic teaching of the system, from which issue forth the characteristic emphases of the Landmark movement, is that of the primacy of the local church. Graves and his associates agreed in defining the church as local only, denying that there was any scriptural authority for speaking of the universal church. In his column "Keep It before the People" in The Baptist, Graves repeatedly defined the church in the following terms:

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 by Christ, and submitting to no law He has not enacted.16

A. C. Dayton, speaking through one of the characters in his novel Theodosia Ernest, defined the church in a similar fashion and at the same time explicitly denied the existence of a "universal Church."

The Church is a local organization, charged by the King with the execution of his laws. It is in the kingdom; it makes a part of the kingdom; it is subject to the laws of the kingdom; but it is not the kingdom, any more than the courts of law and the executive of any state are themselves the state.
. . . . .
The Holy Catholic or universal church is a figment of men. The Scriptures commonly employ the word [church] to signify only a local assembly of Christian people, who meet together in one place to observe Christ's ordinances, and to transact the business relating to his kingdom.17

In the above, some suggestion has already been made as to the relationship of the church to the kingdom, with reference to the views of Dayton and Graves. This is an area of some importance, not only because it is centrally involved in the Landmark teaching, but also because there has been at this point so much misinterpretation as to the actual position taken by Landmarkers.

Basically their teaching was this, that the Kingdom of Christ consisted of the sum total of local churches that might be properly regarded as "true churches of Christ." True churches of Christ are those that are scripturally baptized and organized, that practice scriptural principles, and that are in all things subject to the laws of Christ. The only churches that were able to qualify by these standards were, in the judgment of Graves, Baptist churches. Thus, it is not incorrect to say that the Landmark view was that the kingdom of Christ consisted of the aggregate of Baptist churches.18

Because of Graves' unusual view of the kingdom in its relation to the church or churches, it has by some been asserted that Graves believed that there was no salvation outside a Baptist church. An example of this is found in the words of W. H. Whitsitt:

It is here claimed by Dr. Graves to be impossible to enter the kingdom of Christ without joining a Baptist church. As a matter of course salvation is impossible outside of the kingdom of Christ. Therefore salvation is impossible outside of a Baptist Church.19

But those who make such inference make the mistake of interpreting Graves' view of the kingdom and church in the light of their own view of kingdom and salvation. Thus they arrive at a conclusion that is clearly unwarranted, in consideration of Graves' express statements to the contrary.

Graves distinguished between the act of salvation and one's entrance into the kingdom, and this latter act he equated with one's entrance into a local church of Christ.

To enter the Kingdom he must enter some local church – since the Kingdom is composed of all the existing local churches, as the United States is of all the 38 states. The church is, and can be, enter only by baptism.20

In further clarification, he goes on to say that it is an unfounded assumption to say that there is no salvation out of the kingdom. Rather,

Salvation is the precedent qualification for the kingdom. All who enter must be saved outside. Only the saved were added to the church. Acts 2d, last clause, None but the saved can be scripturally added.21

A similar statement leaves no doubt as to his meaning:

He must be a new creature in Christ Jesus before he can comprehend the nature of the Kingdom as the duties or responsibilities he takes upon himself in becoming a citizen of it. He must be a saved man before he is qualified for the rite that places him within the Kingdom.22

Obviously, Graves did not say, nor did he intend to say, that there is no salvation outside a Baptist church, but he did say, in so many words, that a saved person might yet be outside the kingdom because he had not submitted to baptism and thereby entered into the fellowship of a local church.

The Succession of Baptists
In closest connection to his beliefs as to the relationship of church and kingdom was Graves' belief in a succession of "true churches of Christ," that is, churches owning the principles and polity of the first church, organized by Christ himself. When there was only one church, the church at Jerusalem, church and kingdom were, of course, identical. To be in the kingdom was to be a part of that church. As churches multiplied, the churches collectively constituted the kingdom. Now Christ had given his promise that his kingdom would have a continuing existence, that it would never be destroyed.23 Therefore, "true churches," local churches, being the constituent units of the kingdom, must have always existed from the time when Christ founded the first church.

The organization he first set up . . . which Christ called his church, constituted that visible kingdom and today all his true churches on earth constitute it; and, 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.24

Graves, and consequently all exponents of Landmarkism, have often been represented as basing all of their claims as to church authority and validity of church actions on a visible, traceable succession of Baptist churches. This is not accurate, as the following statement indicates:

Nor do we admit the claims of the "Liberals" upon us, to prove the continuous existence of the church, of which we are a member, or which baptized us, in order to prove our doctrine of church succession, and that we have been scripturally baptized or ordained.25

To be sure, Graves does repeatedly affirm his conviction that it is possible to trace, with some degree of accuracy, Baptist principles, and therefore churches that are substantially Baptist, back to the "days of John the Baptist." Included in this Baptist genealogy of Graves are some groups that Baptists today, with the added insights of historical research, might be reluctant to claim, for several reasons. Among these are the Waldenses, Albigenses, Paulicians, Novatianists, and Donatists, all of whom Graves styled as "predecessors" of the modern-day Baptists.26 But regardless of his interest in a historical succession of Baptist churches, Graves did not rest his claims as to church validity on such a succession. His principal concern was with an expression of confidence in the veracity of Christ. If a person believed in the truth of the Scriptures, then he must believe that Christ was able to keep his promise that his kingdom would be forever. To Graves, this meant that in every age there must be scripturally organized churches, obeying the commands of the Saviour. If a man did not believe this, he could not be a believer in the Bible.

We do not admit that it devolves upon us more than upon every other lover of Jesus to prove, by incontestible historical facts, that this kingdom of the Messiah has stood from the day it was set up by him, unbroken and unmoved; to question it, 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. We dare not do this.27

At the same time that he asserted his conviction that Christ has always had his true and uncorrupted churches on earth, he emphatically rejected the charge that his view or the Landmark view, was that of apostolic succession.

Those who oppose "church succession" confuse the unthinking, by representing our position to be, that the identical organization which Christ established –- the First Church of Judea -– has had a continued existence until to-day; or, that the identical churches planted by apostles, or, at least, some one if them, has continued until now, and that Baptist ministers are successors of the apostles; in a word, that our position is the old Romish and Episcopal doctrine of apostolic succession. I have, for full a quarter of a century, by pen and voice, vehemently protested against these misrepresentations, . . . We repudiate the doctrine of apostolic succession.28

A further clarification of the Landmark position is found in the succeeding statement:

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 . . . did establish a visible kingdom on earth, and that this kingdom has never . . . ceased from the earth . . .29

The words of J. J. Burnett seem very fitting at this point in appraisal of Graves' views of succession.

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.30

Church Authority: The Ordinances of the Church And the Proclamation of the Gospel
A major concern of the Landmarkers was the matter of church authority. They saw the church as the executive agency of the kingdom, charged by divine mandate with the conduct of all matters relating to the work of Christ's kingdom.

To the saints organized into churches -– for we find no companies of unbaptized and unorganized persons spoken of as saints in the New Testament –- was "the faith" -– which is but another word for "the gospel," with all its ordinances -– at first delivered, and for all time, to be held by it.31

Thus, to the church has been given the authority to baptize and to administer the Lord's Supper. Likewise the church has been given the mandate to preach the gospel. No other organization can rightfully claim authority for the performance of these acts. Only the true church of Christ, as previously defined, could legitimately undertake the performance of "gospel acts." It is with this understanding of the Landmark emphasis on church authority that the ordinances of the church must be considered.

The administration of baptism

The major emphasis of the Landmarkers with regard to baptism was that it is an ordinance of the church. Contrary to which be supposed, this viewpoint was by no means unanimous, as Pendleton noted in an 1855 article in the Southern Baptist Review:

There are many, however, who deny that baptism is a church ordinance. They call it a gospel ordinance, or a ministerial ordinance; but they say it is not a church ordinance. Our position is that it is a church ordinance.32

By this is meant that each local church is fully endowed with the authority for the administration of the ordinance and is charged with the responsibility for the maintaining of the scriptural ideals and commands concerning baptism.

In support of this view that baptism is a church ordinance, Pendleton points out that it is "universally conceded" that baptism is administered as a rite which initiates into the fellowship of a church. "There is no admittance without baptism." This being true, "It is strange indeed if baptism which is so prominently instrumental . . . in bringing persons into a church of Christ, is not itself a church ordinance."33

If it be accepted that baptism is indeed a church ordinance, there are several conclusions that may be logically drawn. First, the church has the authority to decide by whom the rite shall be administered. This the church does in setting apart God-called men for pastoral office and authorizing these men to perform the act of baptism. This does not mean that baptism has by this authorization become a ministerial ordinance, for the ministers are responsible to the church for the exercise of this authority. Again, it is within the province of the church to say to whom the baptismal rite shall be administered. This is simply to say that "every church of Christ has an unquestionable right to say who shall be admitted to its membership." If baptism were not regarded as a church ordinance, the right of a church to decide on applications for membership would be materially infringed. Finally, to speak of baptism as a church ordinance is to say that "every church of Christ is the guardian, the conservator, of the integrity and purity of the ordinance of baptism." No minister, no individual member, no applicant for membership can change the action or the subjects of baptism, for the ordinance has not been committed to individuals but only to the local church which is directly responsible to Christ, the Head.34

The above statements are an indication of the Landmark emphasis on church authority in relation to the ordinance of baptism. It will be sufficient, perhaps, to conclude this section by calling attention to the fourfold formula for the expression of baptismal doctrines. Baptism is, in the words of Graves, "a specific act, instituted for the expression of specific truths; to be administered by a specific body, to persons possessing specific qualifications."35 The lack of any one of these elements in the observance of the ordinance is sufficient to make the "transaction" null and void, for unless the ordinances are "observed as Christ commanded, they are not obeyed, but perverted."36

The administration of the Lord's Supper

As in the case of baptism, the greatest emphasis was placed on the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance. In all likelihood, there was greater unanimity among Baptists generally at this point, with regard to the Supper, than with regard to baptism. Almost every Baptist, for instance, would have agreed that baptism, and therefore church membership, should precede one's participation in the Supper. It was on this basis that Baptists excluded Pedobaptists from communion, because they had not subjected themselves to scriptural baptism and were therefore not qualified for "a seat at the Lord's Table." There would have been further agreement in the belief that the administration of the Supper ought to be carried out only by a particular local church, even when members of other churches were invited and expected to participate. This was the manner in which the Supper was observed at associational meetings and other general gatherings, by the participation of visiting Baptists in the observance of the Supper administered by the host church. This was in recognition that the Supper is truly a church ordinance, that "the Lord's table is committed to the custody of every gospel church"37

Beyond this broad area of general agreement, there was quite a diversity of opinion. Many Baptists would have felt that it was their right and privilege to share in the observance of the Supper by any Baptist church; that it would be wrong not to participate and a discourtesy to be refused. In other words, their beliefs and practice would have been that of intercommunion. It seems probable that this was the position of a majority of Baptist churches.

The Landmark view, as expressed by Pendleton and Graves, was in opposition to the practice of intercommunion, especially if it was looked upon as an unqualified right. Pendleton was willing to concede that a church might extend an invitation to members of another church to commune with them at the Lord's Table, but if this was done, it could only be done as a matter of Christian courtesy. "There is no imperative obligation in the case. No church member can claim as a right a seat at the Lord's table in any other church."38 The recognition of such a claim, if widespread, would not only be destructive of the independence of the churches but would also be subversive of church discipline.

Every church, as we have seen, is required to guard the table of the Lord; but how can this be done if the members of other churches have an unqualified right to approach that table? It cannot be done at all.39

Unlike Pendleton, Graves was unwilling to express his approval of the practice of intercommunion under any circumstances. The only right to communion which any church member possesses is that which Christ has authorized, the right to commune with the church of which he is a member. The fact that Christ has not given him the right to commune with any other church is equivalent to a positive prohibition. As for the churches, they have no right, under the authority of Christ, to extend the privileges of communion beyond their own membership. When this is done, even as an act of supposed courtesy, much of the symbolism of the Supper is vitiated, and it has become no longer a church ordinance but rather a denominational or social rite.40

Both Pendleton and Graves made much of the church's role as guardian of the purity of the Lord's Table. This ordinance, Pendleton said, has been "committed to the custody of every gospel church. To suffer an improper approach to it is to incur the displeasure of the Head of the church."41 It was only within the framework of a careful exercise of this guardianship that Pendleton was willing to admit the practice of a limited intercommunion. But for Graves, the responsibility of the church to safeguard the purity of the feast meant that there must be no intercommunion whatever.

But, if it is not her [the church's] duty to invite any but her own members, then, she ought not to do it, and if the act robs her of the power to obey the laws of her Head, and preserve the purity of this sacred ordinance, then, she may know the practice is wrong, and fraught with evil.42

Scripturally and consistently, he said, a church cannot extend the invitation to the Supper "beyond her own membership and discipline."43

The proclamation of the gospel

There is perhaps no clearer evidence of the extent to which the Landmarkers carried the matter of church authority than that which is seen in their emphasis that the preaching of the gospel is an official act or duty of the local church. There can be no authority for the preaching of the gospel than that which derives from a true church of Christ. Pendleton asks the question in An Old Landmark Reset: "Is there any scriptural authority to preach which does not come through a church of Christ?" In the context he indicates his decided conviction that there is none, and that those who preach without such authorization are guilty of inverting the order established by the Head of the church.44 In similar fashion Graves asserted that "Christ commissioned his churches alone to preach his gospel." This being true, "it is certain that no other organization has the right to preach it – to trench upon the divine rights of the church."45

If, then, the church alone possesses the authority for the proclamation of the gospel, only such a once as has been authorized by the church may properly engage in the ministry of the word. Just as one who has not been ordained by a church may not administer the ordinances, even so may not one who is not properly authorized preach the gospel. "The preaching of the gospel, and administering the ordinances, belong strictly to a specific officer of a local church – can only be done by its authority and under its guardianship."46

To the Landmark emphasis on the preaching of the gospel as an official duty was often opposed the assertion that "it is as much the duty of one Christian as another to preach the gospel."47 Both Pendleton and Graves emphatically rejected this argument on the grounds that such a doctrine would amount to a repudiation of the "special call" to the ministry and would make ministerial ordination meaningless.

If it is the duty of all Christians to preach . . . then there is no special call to preach; for the generality of the call does away with its specialty . . . . And as to ordination, why ordain men to preach, if it is the right and duty of all to preach? This new doctrine stultifies our denominational action on ordination for the centuries past. 48

The only ones who may properly preach the gospel are those who have been called by the Lord and whose call has been given public recognition by a church of Christ in the act of ordination.

Non-Pulpit Affiliation and Nonrecognition of Pedobaptist Societies as Gospel Churches
Perhaps the most characteristic aspect of the Landmark movement, certainly the one by which it is best known, was the pronounced unwillingness of the Landmarkers to affiliate pulpit-wise with the ministers of other denominations, thereby recognizing them, as they thought, as gospel ministers, and likewise their unwillingness to recognize other "religious societies" as in any sense gospel churches. These emphases were, of course, only the logical outgrowth of the Landmark doctrine of the church and its ordinances. Convinced as they were that only Baptist churches kept the ordinances and the faith of the gospel "as once delivered unto the saints" and believing that such loyalty to the scriptural commands was essential to the constitution of a gospel church, the Landmarkers could not consistently admit that the local assemblies of other denominations were scripturally organized churches. And if these denominations were found lacking at this point, it was impossible for them to ordain men as gospel ministers who were entitled to be recognized as such.

This nonrecognition of Pedobaptist societies and their ministers was basic to the Landmark movement from its beginning. The Cotton Grove resolutions had made clear the Landmark viewpoint that Baptists could not consistently recognize other religious societies as gospel churches nor could they grant recognition to their preachers as properly authorized gospel ministers. Pendleton took up the latter proposition in the Old Landmark and stated the issue thus: Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptists preachers as gospel ministers? In his negative answer Pendleton sought to show that the Pedobaptist societies lacked the essential character of gospel churches because they failed "to exemplify the precepts of the New Testament." If their organizations could not be considered as gospel churches, then their ministers lacked scriptural authority to preach, and they therefore ought not be recognized as gospel ministers. Pendleton expressed his conviction that the practice of some Baptist ministers of exchanging pulpits with Pedobaptist preachers was a virtual recognition of these men as gospel ministers and of their organizations as gospel churches. Such a custom was at least inconsistent with Baptist principles.49

The Reception of Landmarkism among Baptists
Of rather great importance in connection with this dissertation is the question as to the manner of reception which was accorded the Landmark movement by the Baptists. To what extent were they even aware of its existence? And, if aware of it, to what extent were they sympathetic with the purposes and principles of Landmarkism? On the other side of the ledger, it will be of interest to notice the degree of opposition which Landmarkism received, who the opponents were, and the basis of their opposition. Limitations of space preclude a full and complete answer to these questions, but it will be possible to take note of typical reactions and of certain facts and figures which may be regarded as indicative.

The Rapid Spread of the Movement
It seems probable that Baptists generally were very much aware of the Landmark movement, even in its beginning years – 1851-1854. The Cotton Grove resolutions, as adopted unanimously by the Big Hatchie Association in 1851, had been published in the Tennessee Baptist and had thereby received wide circulation. An even greater impact was evidently made by Pendleton's tract, An Old Landmark Reset, published by Graves in 1854. Pendleton says, in his Reminiscences, that more than forty thousand copies of the tract had been printed before 1891. Sufficient interest had been created and a sufficiently large following attracted by 1855 that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting that year in Montgomery, Alabama, was forced, after lengthy discussion, to give up the customary practice of recognizing ministers of other denominations and of inviting them to participate in the deliberations.50 This does not mean that those of the Landmark persuasion were then in a majority, but it does indicate that they were a highly vocal and unified minority, and it would appear that their views were not automatically rejected as being "alien and heterodox."

Graves himself gives testimony, which we must regard as essentially accurate, as to the wide spread and acceptance of Landmark principles.

At this writing, January 1880 – and I record it with profound gratitude – there is only one Baptist paper in the South, of the sixteen weeklies, that approve of alien immersion and pulpit affiliation ("the Religious Herald"), while already two papers in the Northern States avow and advocate Landmark principles and practice. I do not believe that there is one association in the whole south that would today indorse an alien immersion as scriptural and valid, and it is a rare thing to see a Pedobaptist or Campbellite in our pulpits, and they are no longer invited to seats in our associations and conventions anywhere South.
The heavy drift of sentiment throughout the whole South, and the "Great West" and Northwest, is strongly in favor of Baptist churches doing their own preaching, ordaining, baptizing, and restricting the participation of the Supper to the members of the local church celebrating it.51

Later historians, in their evaluation of the Landmark movement, have added their testimony as to the rapid growth and great effect of the movement in Baptist life. In this connection, of some interest is the comment of W. Morgan Petterson:

Under the versatile leadership of Graves, Landmarkism flourished incredibly among Baptists in the South. Its numerical strength and influence became enormous. Through the popularity and sanction of Landmarkism, Baptist theories of succession gained wide acceptance. During the period of Landmark ascendancy the number of historians who advocated and defended succession increased markedly. Books and pamphlets purporting to trace an unbroken Baptist genealogy appeared in abundance.52

The Opponents of Landmarkism
Inevitably, because of the very nature of the movement, Landmarkism attracted a large amount of opposition. Having been born out of controversy and actually representing a more or less new phase in an old controversy, the movement aroused a strong reaction from the Pedobaptists and also a rather "bitter dissension" within Baptist ranks. Perhaps this latter development is the most surprising of all: the degree of opposition which the Landmark views encountered among Baptists. Certainly this seems to have been the thing that surprised and wounded Graves the most. Just a trace of this personal feeling is revealed in his Old Landmarkism, in the opening paragraph of Chapter XII:

It argues a degenerate state of affairs when Baptists have to defend themselves against the attacks of their own brethren, for consistently maintaining the time-honored principles of their own denomination. When professed Baptists make friends with a common enemy, they even show a more "fierce," and bitter, and persecuting spirit, than those who once put our fathers to death for holding the self-same sentiments that Landmark Baptists hold today.53

Pendleton, in commenting toward the close of his life on the reaction that was occasioned by the publication of his most famous work, said that his position "was most earnestly controverted by a large number of brethren." Of the Baptists that opposed his viewpoint, he mentioned only five, but these men were five of the most prominent Baptists of their day: John L. Waller, J. L. Burrows, S. W. Lynd, W. W. Everets, and Jonathan E. Farnham.54 Waller was, of course, well known for his work as editor of the Western Baptist Review and the Christian Repository and wielded a large influence. Burrows, Everts, and Lynd were leading Baptist pastors, while Farnham was a professor at Georgetown College in Kentucky. To these names may be added those of two other men who were influential among Baptists and outspoken in their opposition to the Landmark movement: R. B. C. Howell and J. B. Jeter. Howell was pastor for many years of First Baptist Church, Nashville, while Jeter served as a pastor in Richmond and later as distinguished editor of the Religious Herald. It can be easily seen that Landmarkism faced formidable and respected opposition within the Baptist denomination.

It is of the greatest significance that these men, almost without exception, and others also, who expressed such strong opposition to Landmarkism as a movement, were apparently at the same time in basic agreement with one or more of those doctrines which have come to be regarded as Landmark principles. It will not be possible, of course, to give a detailed analysis of the views of each of these men in support of the above statement, but it should be sufficient to notice simply the points at which certain ones of them expressed agreement with the tenets of Landmarkism and to observe that their opposition has a basis that was not entirely doctrinal or was perhaps merely limited to one aspect of Landmarkism. Indeed, it would appear that many of the opponents of Landmarkism were actually not very far doctrinally from its proponents and that they differed principally with the rigidity and the vehemence with which the Landmarkism urged their system. Certainly there is no indication that they regarded the Landmark doctrines as outlandish and alien and neither they nor Baptists generally rejected the principles propagated by Graves and Pendleton as innovations.

First, a glance will be taken at the views of Waller, as expressed in certain of his writings and in the editorial columns of the papers with which he was associated. Waller, it may be recalled. Had been involved to some degree in the Landmark controversy from its very beginning and had, before that, been a participant in the discussion that evidently played a part in the development of Graves' views. This discussion had been carried on between Waller in the Western Baptist Review and "Fidus,"55 a correspondent in the Tennessee Baptist, and had centered around the question of the validity of baptism administered by Pedobaptist ministers. Waller had expressed himself, in reply to a query, as generally disposed to accept such baptism, providing there had been a credible profession of faith.56 This viewpoint, which Waller evidently maintained until his death in 1854, was of course anathema to Graves, and it placed Waller squarely among the ranks of the opponents of Landmarkism.

But even though Waller thus declared his willingness to accept Pedobaptist immersions and though he also was in opposition to the views of Pendleton, as expressed in An Old Landmark Reset, it is not to be supposed that he disagreed with all the tenets and practices of Landmarkism. In his work on Open Communion, he declared himself opposed to the admission of Pedobaptists to the Lord's table, because of the conclusion that might possibly be drawn:

Believing as we do, that the churches planted by the apostles were composed of penitent believers who had been immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we can not, by inviting them to the Lord's table, recognize Pedo-baptist societies as gospel churches.57

He went even further in his work on the Reformation, declaring here that the Reformed Churches, because descended from the Roman Catholic Church, "have no ministry, no ordinance, no ecclesiastical existence."58 He thereby places himself in complete agreement with J. R. Graves as to the status of these "religious associations."

Moreover, Waller was apparently in fairly close agreement with Graves on the matter of Baptist succession. In an article appearing in the Western Baptist Review in January, 1848, he said:

The history of the Baptists, we would remark finally, proves conclusively that they are no descended from the Papal church . . . . Already it has been demonstrated, that the New Testament churches were Baptist churches.59
A similar statement is found in the article entitled "Reformation," already alluded to:

It is the testimony of eminently learned men and opponents, that the churches of the first ages of Christianity, were Baptist churches. We might trace the existence of these churches, step by step, through every successive age from that time to the present.60

The instances of agreement might be multiplied many times over, but the citations given should be sufficient to show that, while the differences between Waller and the Landmarkers were very real, yet there was also substantial agreement between them and this agreement occurred in connection with points of doctrine that are considered basic to the Landmark system.

The second opponent of Landmarkism whose views will be considered is R. B. C. Howell, for many years pastor of the First Baptist Church of Nashville and also editor, it will be remembered, of The Baptist prior to 1848. It is, of course, well known, as has been mentioned previously, that Howell and Graves came into sharp personal disagreement and that the personal difficulty between the two men had serious repercussions that affected the whole denomination. Whatever the circumstances or the basis of his disagreement, Howell certainly was not reckoned to be a Landmarker. S. H. Ford tells us that Howell "antagonized Dr. Pendleton's views of 'Pulpit affiliation or land-markism.'"61 Moreover, Howell was the target of criticism by the Landmarkers who strenuously opposed his election to the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1859. Their opposition to him, it would seem, was not doctrinal, but rather grew out of the personal and church difficulties in which Graves and Howell figured.

Even so, it is evident that Howell was in agreement with the Lardmarkers in at least two important points. Indeed, the indication would seem to be that Graves derived his views in at least one of these instances from Howell. Mention has been made of Graves' unusual view of the kingdom, as related to the churches. Evidently this was Howell's belief also.

In regard to the kingdom, too, Graves believed it was organic, indeed that the church or churches and the kingdom were identical . . . . We think his view was incorrect. But Dr. Howell, and also Dr. Reynolds of South Carolina, held the same. Dr. Howell wrote in the Baptist of August, 1838, an answer to a request to give his view of Born of Water or Spirit. "The Kingdom of God in the verse in question means the Church; to be born of water, means baptism without which no man can lawfully enter into the church." Graves held and advocated that same view through life. It has recently been termed popery. It has been averred that the recent controversy has been made known that a Romanist class of Baptists exist, holding this view of the kingdom. But it was held and advocated by leading scholars, including Reynolds and Howell, a half century ago, and was not peculiar to J. R. Graves.62

In addition, Howell was a firm believer in Baptist succession, evidently convinced that Baptist churches had existed upon earth since the days of the apostles. Howell's most famous work, Terms of Communion, gives clear expression to this view.

I have frequently in the preceding chapter spoken of the church now called Baptist, as having existed in all ages since the days of the apostles . . . . I assert that the Baptist church has existed, in a state of comparative purity, connected with neither Papists nor Protestants, in every period since Christ, and that in this sense God has not left himself without a witness.63

It is obvious that Howell did not believe merely in the perpetuity of Baptist principles but in a succession of Baptist churches, which was essentially the same view espoused by Graves and his colleagues. This would appear to have been the viewpoint held by a great many Baptists of that day.

Finally, the views of W. W. Everts are to be considered, but only very briefly. In the Christian Repository of January, 1855, Everts undertook to answer the arguments of Pendleton's work published the previous year. His review was entitled "The Old Landmark Discovered," Pendleton replied with an article, appearing in two parts in the April and May numbers, entitled "The Old Landmark Vindicated." This latter work was also reviewed at great length by Everts.

In his review of An Old Landmark Reset, Everts took issue with Pendleton's denial that "Pedobaptist societies" were in any sense "gospel churches." He also challenged the declaration by Pendleton that preaching is an official act, properly authorized only by a gospel church. Naturally, he called in question also the basic contention by Pendleton that Pedobaptist ministers should not be recognized as gospel ministers and should not be invited into Baptist pulpits. It is Evert's statements with regard to the ecclesiastical character of the "Pedobaptist societies" toward which concern is principally directed at this point.

Everts declared that "Baptists have ever regarded Pedobaptist communities as churches," not because they consider them as having measured up to the scriptural requirements at every point, but because they regarded them as "congregations, or permanent assemblies of Christians." Baptists, he says, have "conceded" ecclesiastical character to the Pedobaptist congregations, have thought of them as churches, "but churches imperfectly organized and disciplined; churches in partial error and disobedience; churches irregular and unscriptural in their ordinances and polity." As an illustration, showing the contrast between a scripturally organized Baptist church and an imperfectly organized Pedobaptist church, Everts envisions "a perfect tree, with distributed roots, straight trunk, symmetrical top, branches and myriad twigs in their season, crowned with foliage." This of course, is representative of the Baptist church. In contrast, he describes a tree in which, "in the perversion of nature, the roots have all been crowded by a rock on one side of the base, the trunk is prone to the ground, or gnarled or deformed," this, of course, depicting a Pedobaptist church.64 The illustration is not, as Pendleton suggested in reply, very courteous to Pedobaptists.

It would seem, then, that, while Everts was willing to concede ecclesiastical character to the Pedobaptist congregations, it was a rather barren concession and probably afforded little satisfaction to the Pedobaptist ministers to be thus recognized. In the final analysis, the differences between Pendleton and Everts may have been more apparent than real, with the real difference occurring at the point of application and practice. For, even in the more liberal viewpoint of Everts, there was still a great gulf separating the Baptist churches and the Pedobaptist churches.

Landmarkism, as has been shown in the preceding pages, was basically a sectarian movement that was intended to call the Baptists of the middle nineteenth century back, as Graves saw it, to "the old paths," wherein their Baptist forefathers trod. It emerged into being at a time when the American religious scene was torn by interdenominational strife, especially by the conflict between the Baptists and other denominations over questions relating to the mode and subjects of baptism. The immediate soil out of which the Landmark movement grew was the developing conviction on the part of J. R. Graves that Baptists were not acting consistently with their professed principles, that Baptists generally needed to be made more aware of the "landmarks" of the historic faith, and that urgent action was needed lest some of the ancient landmarks be removed from Baptist life. The evidence of this growing conviction is seen in the pages of the Tennessee Baptist, of which Graves was editor, and in the literature of the Landmark movement which was produced, in the main, by Graves, J. M. Pendleton, and A. C. Dayton. In this first chapter, special attention has been given to the principal tenets of Landmarkism and to the reaction among Baptists which the propagation of these principals occasioned. This Baptist reaction is felt to be of some importance since it serves to indicate the standing of the principal Landmarkers among their Baptist brethren and the feeling of Baptists generally toward the doctrines which they proclaim.

In the next chapter more detailed attention will be given to the controversy between the Baptists and other denominations, with special attention to those factors which must have influenced the doctrinal convictions of Graves.


1. This is to say that much of the opposition to the Landmark movement was based on factors not strictly doctrinal. Some Baptists objected to the rigidity of the system, while accepting its basic teachings. Others objected to the forceful, almost belligerent, manner in which Landmark principles were urged, but found themselves in general agreement with Graves. Other opposition appears to have been personal in nature, a case in point being that of R. B. C. Howell, with whom Graves came into serious, tragic personal conflict.

2. S. H. Ford, "Life, Times, and Teachings of J. R. Graves," Ford's Christian Repository, LXIII, No. 10 (Oct., 1899), 613.

3. J. R. Graves, "A Chapter on Controversy," Tennessee Baptist, V, No. 23 (Feb. 8, 1849).

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. J. R. Graves, "The War Begun," Tennessee Baptist, VII, No. 12. (Nov. 23, 1850).

7. St. Louis Watchman, quoted in a review of Reasons for Becoming a Baptist, by W. L. S1ack, in Tennessee Baptist, VII, No. 34 (May 3, 1851).

8. "Mass Meeting at Cotton Grove," Tennessee Baptist, VII, No. 45 (July, 19, 1851).

9. Ibid.

10. W. W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954), p. 104.

11. The major source of biographical material given above has been Ford's "Life, Times, and Teachings of J. R. Graves," Ford's Christian Repository, Oct., 1899-Sept., 1900. Other sources include: O. L. Hailey, J. R. Graves, Life, Times, and Teachings (Nashville: By the author, 1929) and James Jehu Burnett, Sketches of Tennessee's Pioneer Baptist Preachers (Nashville: Press of Marshall and Bruce Company, 1919).

12. For a number of years Graves carried a column in his paper captioned "Still They Come," in which he gave the names and circumstances of various ones, of which he had been informed by his correspondents, who had come over to the Baptist faith from the Pedobaptist denominations, particularly from Methodism. After the publication of The Great Iron Wheel, its influence is frequently cited.

13. In thus supplying the name for Pendleton's tract, Graves was referring to Proverbs 22:28: "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." It was his conviction that certain of the ancient landmarks of the Baptist faith had been "removed," or had fallen into disuse, and he aimed at resetting them so firmly that they would never be set aside. 14. Biographical material given in the above sketch has been drawn from several sources. The three major ones are as follows: The Baptist Encyclopedia, ed. William Cathcart (rev. ed; Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1883) II, 897-98; Ben Bogard, Pillars of Orthodoxy (Fulton, Ky.: National Baptist Publishing House, 1901), pp. 253-65; J. M. Pendleton, Reminiscences of a Long Life (Louisville: Baptist Book Concern, 1891).

15. Principal sources for the sketch given of Dayton's life are: The Baptist Encyclopedia, I, 319-20; and Bogard, pp. 13-16.

16. Hailey, p. 45.

17. A. C. Dayton, Theodosia Ernst, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1856), II, 48.

18. J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What Is it? (Texarkana, AR: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), p. 33; also p. 25. Cited hereafter as Old Landmarkism.

19. W. H. Whitsitt, "'No Popery' Again," The Baptist Argus, III, No. 28 (July 13, 1899), 3.

20. Ford, Ford's Christian Repository, LXIII, No. 10, 746.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., p. 745.

23. The promise of Christ concerning the continuity of the Kingdom to which Graves refers are those found in Matthew 16:18 and Daniel 2:44.

24. Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 123.

25. Ibid., pp. 124-25.

26. A. C. Dayton, Pedobaptist and Campbellite Immersions (Nashville: Southwestern Publishing House, 1858), pp. x-xi.

27. Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 124.

28. Ibid., p. 122.

29. Ibid., pp. 122-23.

30.Burnett, p. 194

31. Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 44.

32. J. M. Pendleton, "The Scriptural Meaning of the term 'Church,'" Southern Baptist Review and Eclectic, I (Feb.-Mar., 1855), 67.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid., pp. 67, 68.

35. Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 64.

36. Ibid.

37. Pendleton, Southern Baptist and Eclectic, I, Nos. 2 & 3, 69.

38. Ibid., p. 70.

39. Ibid.

40. Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. 100, 101.

41. Pendleton, Southern Baptist Review and Eclectic, I, Nos. 2 & 3, 69.

42. Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 86.

43. Ibid., p. 81.

44. J. M. Pendleton, An Old Landmark Reset, in Bogard, pp. 274-75.

45. Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. 43, 45.

46. Ibid., p. 144.

47. Ibid.

48. J. M. Pendleton, "The 'Old Landmark' Vindicated," The Christian Repository and Literary Review, XLI (May, 1855), 268-69.

49. Pendleton, in Bogard, pp. 267, 272-73, 274-77.

50. John A. Broadus, Memoir of James Petigru Boyce (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1927), pp. 126-27.

51. Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. xv-xvi.

52. W. Morgan Patterson, "Development of the Baptist Successionist Formula," Foundations, V (Oct., 1962), 342-43.

53. Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. 142-43.

54. Pendleton, Reminiscences of a Long Life, p. 104.

55. See August, 1848, issue of the Review; also May 25, 1848, and following issues of the Tennessee Baptist. "Fidus”" was Graves himself. See Barnes' note as to the identify [identity] of "Fidus," p. 103n.

56. John L. Waller, "The Validity of Baptism by Pedo-Baptist Ministers," The Western Baptist Review, III, No. 7 (Mar., 1848), 267ff.

57. John L. Waller, Open Communion Shown to be Unscriptural and Deleterious (Louisville: G. W. Robertson, 1859), p. 73.

58. John L. Waller, "Reformation," Christian Repository, I (Jan., 1852), 14.

59. John L. Waller, "The Reasons Why I am a Baptist," Western Baptist Review, III (Jan., 1848), 165.

60. John L. Waller, "Reformation." Christian Repository, I (Oct., 1852), 635.

61. S. H. Ford, "Review of History of the Baptists in the Southern States by B. F. Riley," Ford's Christian Repository, LXIII (July, 1899), 421.

62. Ford, Ford's Christian Repository, LXIII, No. 10, 616.

63. R. B. C. Howell, Terms of Sacramental Communion (3d ed. Rev.; Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1847), p. 248.

64. W. W. Everts, "The Old Landmark Discovered," The Christian Repository and Literary Review, XXXVII (Jan., 1855), 23.

* * * * *