J.
R. Graves’ Life-Time Position on Church Constitution Investigated
A
number of
Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist churches believe they are the direct
descendants of those Landmark churches in the 1800s of which J.R. Graves was
the most vociferous spokesman. These churches affirm (that is by their leading
men) that Graves took the position that no Scriptural church could be formed
without a mother church, which we
call, Essential Mother Daughter Authority
(EMDA). They also maintain that he opposed Direct
Authority (DA). The question is posed that if these present day EMDA churches
do not agree with Graves and the Landmark churches of his day, then how can
they claim they are in agreement with Graves? If
Graves taught EMDA, then their position is in line with him and those churches
of his day, then they can walk together in agreement. But if Graves and those
churches taught DA, then they will not company with him or the churches which
agreed with him. (Am 3:3). We should be able to determine conclusively from
Graves’ works the position he held whether it was EMDA or DA. Either way this
issue should be settled by honest investigation. Graves’ position as the
leading Landmark Baptist of his day should be ascertained and published. What
was Graves’ position?
We will
attempt to demonstrate from Graves’ explicit statements that he held to DA
during the period of 1855-1862. His first statement on this subject that I have
seen is in The Great Iron Wheel. This
is one of Graves’ earliest books. The First edition was published in 1855. The
last, the thirtieth edition, was published in 1860. The total number of volumes
published before the cast iron plates were destroyed by the Union Army in 1862,
was 50,000 volumes! Cf. The New Great
Iron Wheel, p. 10. Graves’ statement on church constitution in this book
is:
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. Graves. Great
Iron Wheel, p. 552, 1855.
Analysis of
this statement indicates the subject of the statement is church constitution, not some other issue. Graves is not here
speaking of succession, continuity nor perpetuity. These synonymous terms do
not indicate whether one believes in EMDA or DA. Graves is speaking of how a
church becomes a church or how it receives churchhood. He excludes all other bodies as a source of a
church’s beginning. He makes the reader understand just what kind of bodies he
excludes from the process of becoming a church. He asserts that a church does
not obtain its being from any civil entity, that is, from any political
institution. Now up to this point, EMDA men are in complete agreement with
Graves. But when he goes further and says,
Each particular Church is independent of every…ecclesiastical
body…
he expressly
excludes any church as the source of church being, power, authority or
existence and at this word they must part company with him but not publicly!
This means that in Graves’ view no church depends upon another church for its
being! This powerful statement of how a church obtains church status shakes the
pillars of the EMDA temple and makes Graves a heretic in their eyes! But Graves
is not through. He goes further. He not only gives the negative which cuts off
the EMDA branch, in unequivocal terms, but he positively affirms DA in these
unmistakable words—
Each particular Church
is independent of every other body…receiving its authority directly from
Christ…
This
designates how a church is set up by DA. This authority, Graves insists, is
received directly from Christ! Not
indirectly through a mother church, as EMDA mistakenly claims! Of course,
because DA is so despised, detested and repudiated by EMDA men, this is an
unacceptable statement for them. The mere term DA causes them to stop their
ears (Ac 22:22; Ze 7:11; Ac 7:57). So far as anyone knows, they have never seen
this statement by Graves! For not one EMDA brother has ever attempted to
explain it! They pretend it does not exist. This is an oxgoad
to their position. But so long as we allow words to carry any meaning, there
can be no question that Graves held emphatically and tenaciously to DA during
this time period (18551860). This cannot be denied!
Of course,
during the Civil War Graves did not publish anything. The Baptist was suspended due to the war and Graves himself was a
refugee. But soon after the Civil War in 1867 Graves was able to re-establish The Baptist and he began publishing it
again. For the purpose of establishing
Graves’
position on DA in this time period we will look at what he stated in the Great Carrollton Debate (Carrollton, MO)
which was held with Jacob Ditzler in 1875. The book
was published in 1876. In that discussion Graves said:
Each particular Church is independent of
every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receives its authority directly
from Christ.” Graves. Great
Carrollton Debate, pp. 995-6, 1876.
This is a
concrete assertion of DA and was made fifteen years after the publishing of the
last edition of The Great Iron Wheel in
1860. His words are almost verbatim of those in 1855. The idea is
identical. This demonstrates, to a remarkable degree that Graves had not taken
an inchoate posture on this subject in 1855 but rather DA was his settled
position and he held it at least until the time of this debate, November 1875.
DA, in these references, stands out like Mt Rushmore and those who do not see
the physiognomy do not see it because they do not like what they see! (Jn
9:41). This is not only ignorance but it is willing ignorance. Thus from 1855 to
1875 we have traced Graves’ position on how a church is constituted and it was
by DA and his position had not changed.
In 1875 his voice was but an echo of that in 1855. Thus, for twenty
years we have certified Graves’ position in his own words and that was
unquestionably DA.
Now we move
forward another nine years to 1884. The next reference is found in The New Great Iron Wheel published in
1884. Graves wrote:
…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. Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 125, 1884.
One sees
instantly that this reference contains the very same idea, in slightly
different terms, as that in the earlier statements. There is a studied and
consistent DA-declaration in Graves’ expressions which cannot be misunderstood.
He excludes all other like bodies in
other localities as an essential medium
of church authority or power. Then to make doubly sure his meaning was
understood, he adds the phrase divinely
invested, and connects it with that which a group obtains by being so
invested, which he says, includes all the powers and prerogatives of a Church
of Christ! This means that a group obtains everything required to become a
church by divine investment! Graves
is saying a church has nothing, and can have nothing, beside what Christ gives
it directly! He is the source of all the powers and prerogatives of a church of
Christ! Divinely invested is a
powerful way of stating DA! And that, according to Graves, is all a group needs
to become a church of Christ! In this statement he dares any man to attempt to
twist his words (as some have done) into EMDA or to make a compromise with it!
The two positions are mutually exclusive. They repudiate each other. Graves’ DA
position is so pronounced that were he living today, no EMDA church would allow him in their pulpit! And yet, many of
them claim Graves as a supporter of the EMDA position!
In the same
book, a few pages later, Graves quoted Tertullian with approval:
Three are sufficient
to form a church although they be laymen. Graves. The New Great Iron Wheel, p. 136.
Of course,
Tertullian was referring to Mt 18:20 and Graves agreed with this ancient writer
that this text refers to church constitution. We know this because on the
preceding page Graves stated his understanding of this verse in these
words:
Christ said, where two or three are gathered
in my name [authority], there am I in the midst of
them
(Mt 18:20). Graves. The New Great Iron
Wheel, p. 135.The word in brackets was added by Graves-JC.
So, Graves taught that Mt 18:20 referred to
church constitution and the authority to constitute a church is given by DA
from Christ out of Heaven—not from a mother church on earth! This means that
Graves believed that any two or three saints in gospel order (that is, saved
and baptized) could organize a Baptist church and when they did so, they were
as much a church as any church on earth! No reasonable man can question Graves’
meaning! Once again in the same book Graves expresses his position on this
subject:
That
each particular church was invested by its prime
founder with all the functions, rights, powers and prerogatives necessary to
its self-preservation and perpetuation, and for the discharge of all the trusts
he designed it to execute, until he should come again.” Graves. New Great Iron Wheel, p. 143.
Here Graves
contends that a church is invested by its prime founder with everything
essential for a group to come into being and function as an independent church—
without any earthly help. This is DA
stated in the plainest language. That
is, a group of baptized saints become a church by receiving their commission
from the prime Founder—the Lord Jesus Christ! This investment of power and
authority is direct out of Heaven and not from a mother church, directly or indirectly,
whether in Jerusalem, Antioch or Kentucky!
His position
cannot be made into EMDA without gainsaying! In the light of these pertinent
and consistent references for DA, given in Graves own words, it is amazing that
EMDA men can and do quote Graves as believing EMDA! But those who make this
attempt never give any explanation of these explicit statements by Graves for
DA. The question is not addressed in any of their books, tracts, emails or
papers. In the main they do not even admit these specific references exist—much
less have they attempted to explain them! Thus from 1875 to 1884 there can be
no question, Graves taught DA!
Now for this
last period we need say but little. While some have suggested that Graves
changed his position from DA to EMDA before his death in 1893, (Cf. LUF p. 168, Appendix I.) the mere
possibility of a theory without supporting evidence is worthless. Quod gratis asseritur,
gratis negatur, i.e., “If no grounds have been
given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it.” To
believe something without evidence is conjecture; to believe it against the
evidence is purblindness. There is not the slightest
evidence, in any of Graves’ books nor in his paper, that he ever made any such
change. Because these men have no support for this theory, what they lack in
evidence they make up with repetition.
For this
time period, we have found many statements by Graves in the TN Baptist in which he specifically set
forth DA. For example:
A body of baptized Christians can organize
themselves into a church at pleasure, and no exterior body can organize them,
much less can a Presbytery organize a body superior to itself. Can a stream
rise higher than its fountain? Graves. TN
Baptist, Sept. 3, 1885, p.8.
Note
especially these phrases:
A body
of baptized Christians can organize themselves into a church at pleasure…no
exterior body can organize them…
One cannot
imagine how any statement for DA could be more positive! Graves denies that the
right to organize a church comes from any exterior body—that is any church—and
asserts it is in the hands of those who wish to form a church. Of course, no
man can question his meaning. DA was never expressed more forcefully!
The next
reference is given by Jarrel in Church Perpetuity, p. 1. Some EMDA men have questioned this
reference, suggesting it could not be trusted as Jarrel
did not identify the source from which he took it. Jarrel
says “Graves wrote,” but he did not give the source. Jarrel
published his book in 1894, the year after Graves died. Jarrel
knew Graves and dedicated his book to him. If Graves had changed his position
from DA to EMDA before his death then of course Jarrel knew it. But Jarrel carefully stated Graves’ position as he knew it to
be. Brother Wayne Wolfe and I found
this quote in The Tennessee Baptist. While there are a few slight differences they
are insignificant and there can be no doubt that Jarrel
was quoting from Graves’ answer given in The
Tennessee Baptist in a column he entitled Querist. Here is Graves’
statement quoted by Jarrel:
Wherever
three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches meet and
covenant together to hold and teach and be governed by the New Testament, etc.,
there is a church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of
ministers within a thousand miles of them. There is not the slightest need of a
council or presbytery to organize a Baptist church. Graves. TN Baptist, May 15, 1880, p. 759.
Jarrel’s quote
brings Graves’ latter years into clear focus indicating that Graves held DA
until the end of his life. Jarrel quotes him in 1894
just after his death as still holding the identical position he had held from
the beginning of his career. As this statement is now verified to be that of
Graves himself, another EMDA theory goes in the round file! EMDA men did not
believe these words belonged to Graves and some do not accept them now, even
though we have proved they are the production of Graves’ own pen! This
statement fixes DA as the stated position of Graves in the latter period of his
life.
We have
looked at Graves’ position on church constitution during four specific periods
of his life and in each one of these he stated his position as DA in explicit terms! There was no variation.
He did not
waver. In his early days it was DA. In his middle years is was DA and in his
prime it was DA and in his declining years it was DA! There is no question as
to what Graves believed and practiced
as to church constitution throughout his life!
Therefore,
when men attempt to enlist Graves under the EMDA banner in books, articles,
sermons, and by their silence, as they do, how can they be justified? Are they
not responsible to speak truth? (Ze 8:16). Is it not wrong to bend and twist Graves’ words to make them line up with a theory which he
denied with voice and pen? (Ex 20:16; Col 3:9).
Is it not wrong to quote a man as supporting a position which he expressly denied? Is it not wrong to
misrepresent what any man believes—especially of those who are no longer in the
land of the living? Bro Milburn Cockrell
said:
… brethren, do not twist and turn the words of our old Baptist
brethren to justify your departure from the faith. Scriptural Church Organization, 2nd edition, p. 91.
Thus, in the
light of Graves’ prolific statements throughout his life-time on this subject,
we must ask, is there an intentional purpose to mislead Baptists as to what he
believed on this subject? Is this not a cover-up? Is this not a prime example of deception? Is this not an attempt to delude our people as to Graves’ real position on this subject? Given the
prominent position that Graves held in the Landmark movement, does it not
necessarily follow that those who assert that EMDA is an essential part of Landmarkism prove they do not know what Old Landmark is?
According to
Graves, the investment of church power
is direct out of Heaven!
It cannot be
obtained from a mother church, either
directly or indirectly! No church ever had this power to constitute a church
whether in Jerusalem, Antioch or Kentucky!
No
presbytery, no ordained preacher, no association, nor any other entity on earth
has power to constitute a church!
Of course,
Graves’ position is DA, full throttle!
His position
cannot be made into EMDA without gainsaying!
In the light
of these pertinent and consistent references for DA, in Graves’ own words, it
is amazing that anyone would even suggest Graves held to the tradition of EMDA!
Nor will you read any explanation of these explicit statements by Graves for DA
by any EMDA writer.
Why not?
The question
is too hot to handle!
They write
books, articles, tracts and preach sermons on this subject but never attempt to
explain these explicit statements of
DA by Graves!
When men
hail Graves as a champion for EMDA and claim they are in the same line of
churches as he was, the facts we have given indicate something is rotten in the state of Denmark! The increasing tension
between those who teach EMDA and these statements by Graves’ on the specific subject of how a church is
constituted (not some irrelevant issue), speak like the trumpet of Sinai
and the volume is ever increasing!
We have
proved J. R. Graves’ position was DA throughout his life!
What should Landmark Baptists do with this
information?
What must they do?
What have they done?
How will
they answer for what they have done?
*Comments welcome. jcsettle3@outlook.com 317-994-6107
If the reader desires more information on Graves’ position or on the Baptist position on Church Constitution, he may order: Landmarkism Under Fire, Revised edition. The book is sent free to those who will send $4.00 for postage. Order address is: 839 W. US Highway 136, Lizton, IN 46147. Make check payable to New Testament Baptist Church and enclose a mailing label.