There was no man who delivered such trip-hammer blows on the system of teaching called Campbellism as did J. R. Graves. Mr. Campbell, as a general thing, ignored Graves, or treated him as a misrepresentative of the Baptist people and claimed to have evidence that the Baptists generally disapproved of Graves' course. So frequently and emphatic were these statements by the leader of the "Current Reformation," that the General Association of Middle Tennessee and North Alabama, at its session in Winchester in 1854, thought it necessary to pass the following preamble and resolutions: --

"Whereas, Alexander Campbell, in a late number of his Millennial Harbinger, has asserted that the doctrines contended for by the editor of the Tennessee Baptist are not approved by the Baptists of Tennessee, and that he is in possession of letters from many distinguished Baptist ministers, condemning the course of Bro. Graves, as editor of the Tennessee Baptist, in his recent controversy with him (Mr. C.), and awarding to Mr. C. as much orthodoxy as they claim for themselves. And whereas, we believe that the doctrines advocated and enforced by the editor of the Tennessee Baptist, are sustained by the word of God, and are the same which have distinguished Baptists in all ages from the beginning of the Gospel; and whereas, we believe that the so-called "Current Reformation," as represented and propagated by Mr. C. and his followers, is a system of gross heresies, opposed to the teachings of the Gospel, subversive of all spirituality in religion, and destructive to the souls of men and whereas, we regard the charge put forth by Mr. C. as an unjust imputation upon the character of the Baptist ministers and churches in the State. Therefore,

"Resolved, That we fully indorse the positions of the editor of the Tennessee Baptist, in his recent exposure and triumphant refutation of the pernicious dogma of baptismal regeneration, and kindred doctrinal errors of the so-called 'Current Reformation.'

"Resolved, That it is due to the Baptist ministry in Tennessee, that the injury Mr. Campbell has done them by the published imputation of secretly harboring heretical sentiments, and giving him aid and sympathy in his war upon the doctrines of our holy faith, should be atoned for on the part of Mr. C., by a publication of the letters and names of those ministers and brethren he refers to; and should he persist in casting suspicion upon our ministers, by withholding the publication, that we shall treat Mr. Campbell's charge as false and unfounded.

"Resolved, That we recommend the Tennessee Baptist as an able and valiant defender and advocate of the faith of the Gospel, and faithfully devoted to the interests of the Baptist denomination.

"Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be incorporated in the proceedings of this body and a copy of the same forwarded for publication in the Tennessee Baptist.

John W. King, Chairman."

      To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell's repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of "distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves," he made no reply. Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell's averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals. Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of "baptismal remission;" insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of "the Reformation." It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the "Reformation" was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition: --

The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.¹

      The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue -- viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? -- is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?

      Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition - indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was,in fact, a repudiation of "original Campbellism." That system - with many of its most distinguished "proclaimers" had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit's work. It's early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the "consummating act" -- immersion.

      The next proposition objected to was this: "In the case of a penitent believer, the pardon of past sins is conditioned upon immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Fanning was asked to affirm that. He refused. He claimed that "baptism" and not "immersion" should be the term used. He was asked if there could be a baptism without immersion. But it seemed that he wished to have the indefinite word (in English) baptism, so as to included all who, though sprinkled or poured upon instead of being immersed, were really baptized.

      Further, Mr. Fall objected to the words, "conditioned upon." It was too sweeping. It shut out all hope of pardon for those who did not comply with this invariable condition. An "assurance of remission," or something like that, was desired to be substituted for condition of pardon.

      Graves became tired of this seemingly endless logomachy and insisted on the propositions as first stated, and there the whole affair ended. It seemed patent to the writer that Fall and Fanning and the others who were consulted did not desire a debate with Graves, though they threw the blame of its failure upon him.²

      One thing was evident above all else in respect to this preliminary discussion (having conducted the correspondence -- afterwards published by Mr. Fall), no man with whom I have ever been associated was clearer or more emphatic in his conviction and utterance that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and in no conceivable way dependent upon or connected with personal work, submitting to baptism, or membership in the church than was J. R. Graves.

      "I want the discussion," said Graves, "to go down to the bedrock of the Gospel plan of salvation, or else I have no time to waste upon it. I want the issue of eternal importance to be clearly made -- Is salvation 'by works of righteousness which we have done,' or is it by sovereign, unmerited grace? If it is by or through baptism; through or by the church or kingdom - by any act of the creature done by him or for him - then it is by works, and grace is no more grace. This is the damning heresy of Rome and to a great extent of Protestantism. Campbellism is this same heresy, which Paul denounced and Rome formulated, presented in a new and popular dress. I shall not give my time to the discussion of terms such as 'for' and 'unto,' but discuss, the vital essential principle. 'Is justification, through faith, or is it by works?' This decided, and the meaning of Peter's words at Pentecost and other expressions in the New Testament, are thoroughly in harmony with the great Gospel fact announced by our Lord Jesus: 'He that believeth in Him shall not come unto condemnation, but has passed out of death unto life.'"

      And so ended the proposed discussion between these two representative men.

HIS WORK AND HIS WORKS -- THE LIGHTNING STROKE.
      There was a degree of mental and physical energy in this man possessed by few. A large head, with massive erect font and full heavy backhead indicated force and endurance. "I heard him preach three hours and a half before the General Association at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in 1860, to a great congregation, whose united attention he held to the last"³

      The same untiring endurance and application marked his daily habits. He would read, make notes and prepare matter for whatever book he had on hand, from early morning till noon. Then, after lunch, go to his office and attend to editorial business matters; return in the evening and write or revise editorials and book manuscripts into the small hours of the night, sometimes till nearly morning. From this constant labor he would go to meet a list of appointments to preach or lecture - often in distant States - and speak for hours at a time to enthusiastic audiences, and then return to his desk to write night and day. Could this continue? Could brain or body bear the constant strain?

HIS WORKS.
      A list of his works need not be given. They number some twelve in all, some of these large volumes. The first and most widely known of these was his "Great Iron Wheel," twelve thousand of which sold the first year of its publication. It is a disclosure of the methods of Methodism, showing its arbitrary as well as unscriptural character. There is no question but its influence was felt by the whole Methodist body, and that it was the cause of great changes among the people. That was written in his young days. He now, when past his three-score years, undertook the work of his life -- what he considered such -- THE SEVEN DISPENSATIONS.

      Robert J. Breckenridge in a theological work entitled, "The Knowledge of God Objectively Considered" points out, "grand epochs which mark His dispensations -- as from period to period, His manifestations became more full in themselves, or more subject to human scrutiny. Following these (epochs,) we may call the period from Adam and Noah the first state of the New Creation; that from Noah to Abraham the second state; that from Abraham to Moses the third state; that from Moses to Christ the fourth state; the personal ministry of Christ the fifth state; and the period from the Ascension of Christ to the second advent, the sixth state." He leaves the line of thought here, with the remark, that "all that will follow the second advent of Christ, may be considered one single state, or we may make the millennial one single state and the eternal glory another state" (p. 388).

      Whether Graves caught the thought form Breckenridge or not we have no way of knowing; that he was familiar with that author and admired him is evident from his quotations from his great work, but there is no reference to Breckenridge's views of these dispensations.

      Graves however, always realistic, formulated these epochs into seven and likened them to the days of the week.

Eden was the first day -- Sunday,

From the fall to Noah the second, Monday,

From Noah to Abraham the third day,

From Abraham to Moses the fourth day,

From Moses to Christ the fifth day,

From the incarnation to the second advent the sixth day or Friday,

The seventh or Sabbath, the reign of the Lord Jesus over a renovated earth.

      It will be seen that the book is a history of redemption from the covenant of works broken by Adam down to "the consummation of the ages." Nearly half the book is given to the period and elucidation of the pre-millenarian reign of the Lord Jesus. We are not reviewing this or any other work of his, but candidly say that, while differing with him on several things elaborated in this really great work, we consider it, as we expressed when first it appeared, a theological treatise of profound thought, comprehensive, scriptural and helpful.

      Of two other books a few words -- "The Old Landmark, What Is It?" and "Inter-communion." The first is a restatement of Pendleton's conclusions - that a minister of the gospel must be a member of a gospel church -- baptized and set apart by its authority: that as Pedo-Baptist preachers have never been baptized, never have belonged to a Scriptural church, they have, therefore, never been Scripturally ordained, they are not gospel ministers and should not be regarded as such by an invitation to preach to Baptist churches. This was met by the statement that preaching was not an official act; that it was any man's duty to declare, as he had ability and opportunity, the glad tidings of salvation to lost men; that it was a duty not a function; that inviting to preach no more than listening to him when preaching, was not an indorsement [sic] of his teaching or ecclesiastical relations either in his baptism or ordination. In fine -- that HE WHO PREACHES THE GOSPEL IS A GOSPEL PREACHER.

      But "The Old Landmark, What Is It? went farther than the one question argued by Pendleton. It aimed to show that Landmarkism included the rejection of all irregular immersion; church succession, and exclusive church observance of the supper.

      It is not within the scope of our object or purpose to vindicate or controvert the ecclesiastical peculiarities of Dr. Graves. It is sufficient to state clearly what those teachings were in which he differed from many of his brethren. His own views or teachings -- springing as they undoubtedly did from current Scriptural principles -- followed his mental habit of running out every doctrine or proposition to its logical extremity.

      For instance, that an ecclesia is inclusive and exclusive is unquestionable. No one not a member has any right to its privileges, or even to be present at its meetings. It really recognizes the standing of no one outside its own sacred inclosure. Its fellowship is CHURCH fellowship, peculiarly inhering in its own covenanted membership. No one has any right to speak, or act, or participate in its church arrangements or business. When the ecclesia adjourns; when, as we may say, it throws open its doors; when it becomes a public worshiping assembly, it is a different affair altogether. It is no longer an ecclesia and is neither exclusive or inclusive. Now to carry the characteristics of the church into the public assembly is as great a mistake as to carry the characteristics of the public worshiping assembly into the church.

      And then, in regard to the Lord's Supper, it is certainly true, as clearly demonstrated by Dr. Graves, that is strictly a church ordinance. None but a member of the ecclesia -- the converted membership -- are in duty bound to participate, and none but the membership have any right or claim to this privilege of showing forth the Lord's death. But then the church has the clear right to declare fellowship with those who possess the prerequisites of church membership -- for those who, did circumstances permit, would become members. The church does, through its officiating minister, declare that church fellowship where those of the same faith and order are invited to seats at the Lord's table. Such invitations and such acceptance is not inconsistent with the doctrine that the supper is strictly a church ordinance, and to be celebrated by a church as such. Just as a church has the right to invite to a participation in its church meeting, to elect one not a member to preside, to become moderator, or even to decide a question for the church, it has the right to invite "visiting brethren of the same faith and order" to show forth with the church the "Lord's death till He come." He was under that governing force of logical consistency and was in all things fearlessly true to his convictions.

      It will be seen from the list of works issued, book after book, between 1880 and 1890, together with the editing of the Baptist, a large correspondence, with some of the aids of the present in the way of shorthand and typewriters, together with almost constant traveling and preaching, that the strained bow might any moment break. It did,

      The lightning struck the leafy, fruitful tree, and it was riven through - not uprooted. An epoch, a crisis in his life path, affecting his current of thought and usefulness, occurred. He was paralyzed while preaching, and seemingly his arduous work finished.

__________

Notes

¹ I write from memory as the correspondence is not in my possession. - SHF.
² In this whole correspondence Elder P. S. Fall proved himself a courteous, honorable gentleman and won my abidng respect. - SHF.
³ Rev. J. R. Burress, Greenville, Miss.

[From Ford's Christian Repository and Home Circle, August, 1900, pages 487-493. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

---

Chapter 12
More on J. R. Graves
Baptist History Homepage