Baptist History Homepage


by Louis Keith Harper

      J. R. Graves, considered by most scholars as the father of "Old Landmarkism," died on June 26, 1893. He is buried in the Elmwood Cemetery, Memphis, Tennessee and his tombstone bears the inscription,

"Brethren I will that ye remember the words I spake unto you while I was present with you." 1
      Many indeed have remembered Graves' words and the resulting interpretations and comments have produced a considerable amount of written material.

      Fortunately, studies of "Old Lankmarkism" lend themselves to a systematic, topical arrangement. The first group examines the origin, progress and impact of the movement in nineteenth century American Baptist thought. The second group of studies focuses on Baptist divisions in the twentieth century when the American Baptist Association, Landmarkist in sentiment, withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention. Later, a number of churches withdrew from this new Association and formed what today is known as the Baptist Missionary Association. Several studies have examined these schisms. The third group of studies examines the continuing influence of Landmark ism in the late twentieth century, particularly among Southern Baptist churches. These studies have attempted to assess the degree of this influence especially regarding ecclesiological matters.2 To the three areas may be added a fourth, that, for the sake of this study, will be identified as a "general category." In the "general category" one

[p. 12]
finds Landmarkism examined as a small segment of the larger Baptist picture. That is, they treat Landmarkism as a portion of a larger topic rather than the topic itself. Articles in reference works may be placed in the general category as may biographies of early Landmark leaders. The remainder of this chapter will employ these four topics as a framework for examining the literature pertinent to "Old Landmarkism."

      Six studies have considered Landmarkism as a nineteenth century movement, of which three treat Landmarkism in relation to the Southern Baptist Convention. The Livingston T. Mays' 1900 study, "A History of Old Landmarkism," identified two principal factors that gave rise to the Landmark movement. According to Mays, the first was controversy over the nature of the ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper. An example will illustrate these doctrinal disputes. Suppose a Presbyterian minister who had been baptized by sprinkling immersed an individual. Could such a baptism be legitimate? This question led to others. Baptists maintain that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. If an individual had been immersed as described above and that baptism was judged not legitimate, could that individual still participate in the Lord's Supper? The answer to these questions led to the second factor that gave rise to the Landmark movement. On the one hand, some Baptists maintained that such baptism was valid and any individual so immersed was entitled to all privileges pertaining thereto. Another group of Baptists, the Landmarkers, denounced such practices as irregular and unscriptural. They maintained that authority to administer the ordinances was only found in local Baptist congregations. The Landmarkers insisted that their position was

[p. 13]
correct, and the more boldly they presented their position the more polarized opinion became. Friction was inevitable and neutrality was almost an impossibility.

      In Mays' assessment, the primary evils of Landmarkism were pride and a tendency toward bigotry. He also felt that Landmarkism tended to elevate the church above Christ.3 Nevertheless, Mays condemned neither the movement nor its leadership. He saw the mid-nineteenth century as a time when Baptists had become "loose" on doctrinal matters. Landmarkism had met this "looseness" head-on; and while it may not have been completely orthodox, Mays felt that it helped restore a degree of doctrinal purity to Southern Baptists by causing them to focus more attention on doctrinal matters. 4

      For the most part, Mays' study was brief, generalized and uncritical. Later studies took a much harder look at Landmarkism. In 1947. E. T. Moore's work, "The Background of the Landmark Movement," correctly identified Landmarkism as one controversial movement among many that marked the nineteenth century. As was the case with Mays, Moore was primarily concerned with the relation of Landmarkism to the Southern Baptist Convention.

      Moore saw Landmarkism as a parallel to the Oxford Movement in England. Moore argued that both movements focused on the question of authority. This need for Baptists to define the nature of authority was the result of a number of factors but chief among them was Campbellism, a separate movement that had originated within Baptist ranks. Alexander Campbell claimed that he and his followers preached the "Ancient Gospel." He believed that baptism was in some way necessary for the remission of sin. He further believed that this had

[p. 14]
been the original apostolic pattern and that he was a restorer of the "primitive order."5

     Baptists rejected the idea that baptism could "wash away sin." Naturally, they also rejected Campbell's contention that the Apostles had baptized for the remission of sin. Since Campbell had not restored primitive practice, nineteenth century Baptists contended, he was without genuine authority himself. On the other hand, when the question of authority was placed before the Baptists, Moore contends that the Landmarkers overemphasized the autonomy of the local church and thereby introduced a form of "high-churchism" among Baptists.6 This is not to say that the Landmarkers believed salvation was obtainable through church membership. Neither does it mean that the Landmarkers felt the church could dispense God's grace where and when they pleased. The Landmarkers merely believed that local Baptist churches were the only true, legitimate churches. They felt that only Baptist churches had the authority to evangelize and administer the ordinances. Moore also credits Landmarkism with introducing a strong denominational consciousness to the Southern Baptist Convention. 7

     Despite its title, Moore's work was more an extended character sketch of J. R. Graves than an analysis of the historical background of the Landmark movement. Moore's conclusions, nevertheless, were correct as far as they went. For the purposes of this study, the real significance of Moore's work is two-fold. First, he associated Landmarkism with other, similar movements. Second, he identified the "Restoration Movement" as a factor in precipitating the Landmark movement.

     The negative reaction to Alexander Campbell's doctrine was a

[p. 15]
significant factor in the rise of Landmarkism but it was not the only factor. In his work, A History of Southern Baptist Landmarkism in the Light of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology, James E. Tull also identified the anti-mission movement as another key factor in the rise of Landmarkism.

     The thrust of Tull's work, while it is historical, was not primarily concerned with Graves' influences. Rather, Tull was concerned with the cornerstone of Landmarkism, namely, ecclesiology. In systematic theology, ecclesiology concerns the doctrine of the church. That is, ecclesiology is the study of the nature and function of the church. Tull argued that rather than resetting an ancient Landmark, Graves had actually erected a new one. Furthermore, according to Tull's analysis, Landmarkism was not only unorthodox, it ". . . diverged significantly from Baptist tradition (or traditionalisms) with respect to every important point."8 Tull rejected Graves' contention that Baptists had existed since the first century. Graves had preached that through the ages Baptists had interpreted the church in local terms only and that those local bodies had the authority to administer "Gospel Acts" such as the administration of the ordinances and evangelization. Tull likewise rejected these assertions as historical Baptist doctrines. Thus, Tull's work was a vindication of that element within the Southern Baptist Convention that did not embrace Landmarkism.

     Clearly, Tull identified Graves as an innovator in nineteenth century Baptist thought, especially with regard to ecclesiology. Two subsequent analyses have departed from a Southern Baptist Convention context and built upon Tull's contention that Graves was an innovator.

[p. 16]
     In perhaps the most succinct analysis of Landmarkism to date, Hugh Wamble identified the movement as resting upon the premise of the "sole validity of Baptist churches."9 He also identified the movement as having four major tenets that have become recognized by scholars as perhaps the most succinct description of Landmarkism:
1. Only Baptist ministers are authentic gospel ministers.
2. Only baptism by immersion, authored by an authentic minister, upon an authentic candidate (believer), as a symbol (not means) of salvation, is true baptism.
3. The church is a visible, local, and independent congregation, exercising plenary authority in a democratic manner, and only Baptist churches fit that description.
4. Baptists (Baptist churches) have an unbroken succession since the time of Christ.10
     Harold S. Smith concurred with this analysis. In "A Critical Analysis of the Theology of J. R. Graves," Smith said, "Ecclesiology was always Graves' primary concern, and he wrote more on this theme, particularly the ordinances, than on any other theological subject. For almost fifty years, every book and numerous articles included the doctrine of the church as an integral element."11 Beyond all doubt, Graves and the other early Landmarker's ecclesiology was the doctrinal foundation of the movement.

     If scholars are generally agreed that Graves' primary passion was ecclesiology, they are not all agreed that Graves was an innovator in that regard. In "A Study of the Antecedents of Landmarkism," LeRoy B. Hogue concluded that long before Graves most Baptists, especially in New England, were loyal to the concept of the local church. Even those Baptists embracing the Philadephia Confession of Faith, one noted for a dual concept of a universal invisible and local visible church, emphasized the local church most strongly. Hogue therefore concluded

[p. 17]
that the heart of Old Landmarkism, the interpretation of the church as a local body, was not new. Therefore, Landmarkism itself was not new in the strictest sense. Furthermore, since the various elements of Old Landmarkism were found in one form or another among various Baptist groups, Hogue concluded that the Landmark movement was merely the logical extension of Baptist thought in that day.12

     Thus, recent Baptist scholars, while clashing on the authenticity of Landmarkism's claim to be the historic Baptist tradition, agree that the heart of Old Landmarkism was ecclesiology. They also agree that ecclesiology was the primary reason for the schism that led to the organization of both the American Baptist Association and North American Baptist Association.

     Particular points of contention regarding this division have been dealt with by David O. Moore and Philip R. Bryan. In 1945 Moore wrote a monograph entitled, "The Landmark Baptists: A Corner on Orthodoxy." Moore noted that the Landmarkers were opposed to missionaries operating under the jurisdiction of mission boards. They insisted that missionaries be supported exclusively by individual congregations. He also noted that the Landmarkers seemed to be opposed to all convention activities in general. The main bone of contention: ecclesiology.13 Moore restated these sentiments in 1947 with his Th.D. dissertation, "The Landmark Baptists and Their Attack Upon the Southern Baptist Convention Historically Analyzed." By this time the term "Landmark Baptist" had become strongly identified with those churches in the American Baptist Association. Thus, Moore was dealing primarily with the reasons why a new Baptist group had been formed in 1905. This work offered more critical examination of such Landmark doctrines as the

[p. 18]
nature of baptism, ecumenicism, the local church and direct succession. Both works reached the same conclusion. The Southern Baptist Convention had divided over the doctrine of the church.

     But the departure of the Landmarkers didn't settle basic questions of ecclesiology. In 1950, a number of churches from the American Baptist Association withdrew and formed the North American Baptist Association. In 1969, this group changed its name to the Baptist Missionary Association of America in order to dispel any confusion generated by the adjective "North."14

     Philip R. Bryan studied both this division and its predecessor in 1905. In "An Analysis of the Ecclesiology of Associational Baptists, 1900-1950," he divided Baptists into two camps, non-Landmarker "Convention Baptists" and Landmarker "Associational Baptists," distinguished by differing ecclesiological interpretations. He also argues that the 1950 division of the American Baptist Association, while not a Landmark vs. non-Landmarker conflict, was nonetheless the result of ecclesiological presuppositions as well as personality conflicts in the A. B. A.'s leadership.

     Bryan's analysis is also significant for two other reasons. First, he agreed with Hogue that Landmarkism was not new. Second, he enlarged on Wamble's analysis to include two other Landmarkist contentions. These two contentions were restricted communion and direct support of missionaries. Inseparably tied to the concept of the local church, both are usually practiced by churches adhering to Landmark doctrine.

     Obviously, the Landmarker exodus from the Southern Baptist Convention did not settle all questions regarding ecclesiology for

[p. 19]
either the American Baptist Association or the Southern Baptist Convention. The third division of the literature concerns the lingering influence Landmarkism exercises on non-Landmark Baptists.

     William W. Barnes was among the first historians to critically examine this area of Landmarkism's historiography. In a 1934 work entitled The Southern Baptist Convention: A Study in the Development of Ecclesiology, he argued that Southern Baptists had assumed a corporate consciousness not unlike that found within the ranks of Roman Catholicism. That is, certain committees and officials were assuming power as the bishops had done in early church history. Barnes attributed this phenomenon to seven distinct factors ranging from the centralization of the Federal government to Landmarkism.15 Southern Baptists, thanks to the influences of Landmarkism, were more aware of this history and mission than ever before. According to Barnes, this attitude had resulted in a subtle shift. Barnes saw the Southern Baptist Convention of his day as evolving into a connectional or "Denominational Church" rather than a cooperating association of independent Baptist congregations.

     Apparently, Barnes' argument did not go unheeded. Baptists in the North and South began to question their respective ecclesiological interpretations. The culmination of this inquiry resulted in two significant studies. The first study entitled What Is the Church? was edited by Duke McCall. This volume contained ten essays concerning the New Testament church and represented some of the papers presented in two consecutive summer symposiums at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

     John E. Steely wrote the essay entitled, "The Landmark Movement in

[p. 20]
the Southern Baptist Convention." He analyzed Landmarkism as having a three-fold impact on the Convention. First, there was a tendency toward high-church exclusivism as manifested in the concepts of Baptist succession and closed communion. Second, a schismatic or divisive element developed in Baptist fellowship toward the end of the nineteenth century centering primarily on ecclesiology that led to the founding of a new group of Baptists. Finally, Steely contended that Landmarkism was still having an effect on twentieth century Baptists, particularly regarding questions relative to the ordinances and mission methodology.16 In his words, "The impulses set in motion by J. R. Graves in the Baptist family have not yet spent their force, and their final and total effects remain to be seen." 17

     One year after the Southern Baptists published What Is the Church, the Northern Baptists published Baptist Concepts of the Church. This work included eight essays on various ecclesiological topics as well as an appendix entitled "Dispensational Ecclesiology." This work employed Robert Torbet's skills in a chapter on the topic. Torbet viewed the Landmarkers as reflecting both the individualism and interdenominational rivalry of the frontier. He also credited New England separatism as influencing a young Graves who was originally from Vermont.18 In reflecting on Landmarkism's influence in the twentieth century, Torbet agreed with both Steely and Barnes that the Landmark element within the Southern Baptist Convention stressed Baptist distinctiveness even if it generated a combative spirit. He also agreed with Steely that the crux of Old Landmarkism was the question, what is the church?19

     These studies paved the way for subsequent studies that focused on

[p. 21]
Baptist thought and polity. David Saunders identified the doctrines of Landmarkism as having a definite influence on missions methodology. W. Morgan Patterson took a close look at Landmarker claims to historical succession in Baptist Successionism A Critical View. Walter B. Shurden examined controversy as a way of life for Baptists in Not A Silent People.20 Finally, James E. Tull identified J. R. Graves as one of nine key people in Baptist history in Shapers of Baptist Thought. In this work, Tull continuously asserted that Landmarkism was on the way out. "In short," said Tull, "the Landmark movement, though still in being, is now undergoing a gradual decline."21

     Tull's death notice for Old Landmarkism may have been premature, for many share the opinions of Torbet and Steely that Landmarkism is no dead issue. This was evidenced in the January 1975 issue of Baptist History and Heritage, the Southern Baptist Convention historical journal. The majority of this issue was dedicated to the subject of Old Landmarkism. Among the five essays and editorial, three were character sketches of Graves, Pendleton and Dayton by Harold S. Smith, Bob Compton and James E. Taulman respectively. 22

     The remainder of the articles approached Landmarkism from a more analytical perspective. James E. Tull's article, "The Landmark Movement: An Historical and Theological Appraisal," described the movement as a defense of what its leaders felt were, ". . . the historic and distinctive principles of Baptists."23 Tull's essay echoed the sentiments expressed in his earlier writings, namely, that Graves had been a great innovator in Baptist thought.24

     W. Morgan Patterson's assessment was somewhat different than Tull's in that he made moderate corrections to Tull's perception of

[p. 22]
Graves as an innovator. Such practices as closed communion, non-acceptance of "alien baptism," even historical Baptist succession were all widespread prior to Graves.25 On the other hand, Graves did synthesize certain practices and beliefs into what became known as Landmarkism. "But not all tenets," cautioned Patterson, "were born in the genius of Graves. He was eclectic, and his creativity was to be found in constructing a cogent system (given his premises) and popularizing it for the Baptist masses in the South."26

     Patterson identified three strong influences of early Landmarkism. First, the writings of Graves, Pendleton and Dayton influenced many regarding doctrine. Second, the Landmark attitude toward the church led many to abandon board-based, non-church related missionary enterprises in favor of local church missionary projects. Third, Landmarkism left many thoroughly convinced that Baptist churches had an unbroken continuity since the New Testament era. William H. Whitsett was forced to resign as professor and president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in 1899. Whitsett had maintained that Baptists, as a denomination, could not be found in history prior to 1641, a position that Landmarkers strongly resented.27 Today, the majority of Graves' writings are still in print. Many Baptists refuse to support missionaries supervised by a denominational board or agency. Likewise, a number of Baptists continue to maintain the doctrine of church perpetuity.28

     The fourth and final category of Landmarkist literature, identified earlier as the "general category," has also received a considerable amount of attention. Among these sources are biographies on Pendleton and Dayton, as well as The Life, Times and Teachings of J.

[p. 23]
R. Graves, by O. L. Hailey.29 The Graves' biography is personal and emphasizes the "non-public" Graves. This is easily understood in light of the fact that Hailey was Graves' son-in-law.

     Other works have approached Landmarkism as a small part of the larger Baptist experience in the United States. Among these are William W. Barnes' The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953, Robert O. Baker's The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People 1607-1972, A History of Baptist Churches in the United States by A. H. Newman, Robert G. Torbet's A History of the Baptists and A Religious History of the American People by Sydney Ahlstrom.

     Significant contributions to the historiography of Landmarkism have also been made in two reference works, The Baptist Encyclopedia, edited by William Cathcart in 1881 and The Southern Baptist Encyclopedia, edited by Norman Cox in 1958.

     Of these two, The Baptist Encyclopedia is particularly noteworthy for several reasons. First, the biographical sketches of Graves, Pendleton and Dayton offer intimate glimpses of how their peers perceived the early Landmark leaders. Second, Cathcart, defining the church as local, visible and autonomous, defended Landmarkism by citing as authorities passages from several historic Baptist confessions of faith.30 The article entitled "Old Landmarkism" is even more specific. Here the author identified William Kiffin, an English Baptist of the seventeenth century, as an Old Landmarker. According to this article, "The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord's table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church . . . ."31 Lack of proper

[p. 24]
baptism and church membership therefore invalidated any pedobaptist claim to proper authority. The writer went on to say:
Inseparable however, from this matter, (non-ministerial affiliation) is a denial that pedobaptist societies are Scriptural churches, that Pedobaptist ordinations are valid and that immersions administered by Pedobaptist ministers can be consistently accepted by any Baptist church. All these things are denied and the intelligent reader will see why.32
By the publication of this work in 1881, the term "Old Landmarkism" had become a standard adjective in theological circles.33

     Complementing Cathcart is The Southern Baptist Encyclopedia, edited by Norman W. Cox, which features several articles relevant to Landmarkism. Biographical sketches of Landmark leaders appear along with articles on developments since 1881. This work differs from Cathcart on a number of points, not the least of which is that it assumes a non-Landmark stance. In fact, Lynn E. May identified Landmarkism as one of seven major crises that have significantly affected much of Baptist life.34 Articles in this work tend to characterize the Landmark movement as schismatic, non-scholarly and militant.35

     In assessing Landmark historiography topically, one clearly sees that the majority of studies to date have addressed the conflict over the authenticity of Landmarkism. Some such as Cathart and Hailey have argued in favor of Landmarkism. Others such as Tull and Barnes have argued against it. Later studies characterized by Hogue and Bryan, have moved the discussion to new ground by entertaining broader issues such as Graves' role as an innovator and how ecclesiology influenced Baptist polity in the twentieth century. This study will continue in this vein by seeking to examine the historical factors that led to the

[p. 25]
rise of Landmarkism.

     Another noteworthy facet of Landmarkism's historiography is that it may be divided into three approximate eras. Early analyses tended to be favorable. After 1900, however, studies became more critical until the mid-1960's when a more moderate attitude began to be exhibited, especially with Patterson and Hogue who corrected earlier, more critical assessments of the Landmark movement.

     A survey of this literature indicates that several questions regarding Old Landmarkism remain unanswered. How did other denominations resolve their questions of authority? What intra-denominational factors helped trigger the Landmark movement? Besides Campbellism and anti-missionism, what interdenominational factors helped initiate the Landmark movement? The remainder of this study will be dedicated to these questions.


Chapter 2


     1 Harold S. Smith, "The Life and Work of J. R. Graves," Baptist History and Heritage 10 (January 1975): 19.
     2 W. Morgan Patterson, "What Is Landmarkism?," Southern Baptist Convention, Public Relations Office n.d., pp. 1-4. Patterson's essay was valuable in forming the framework for this essay. The first three of the essay's four categories were adopted from "What Is Landmarkism?"
     3 Livingston T. Mays, "A History of Old Landmarkism" (Th.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1900), p. 50.
     4 Ibid., p. 49.
     5 Campbell's influence on Landmarkism will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
     6 E. T. Moore, "The Background of the Landmark Movement" (Th.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1947), p. 66.
     7 Ibid., p. 67.
     8 James E. Tull, A History of Southern Baptist Landmarkism in the Light of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology, New York: Arno Press, 1980), see the abstract. This work was originally submitted as a Ph.D dissertation at Columbia University, 1960.
     9 Hugh Wamble, "Landmarkism: Doctrinaire Ecclesiology Among Baptists," Church History XXXIII (December 1964): 429.
     10 Ibid., p. 430. Note that this analysis is chronological.
     11 Harold S. Smith, "A Critical Analysis of the Theology of J. R. Graves" (Th.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966), p. 151.
     12 LeRoy B. Hogue, "A Study of the Antecedents of Landmarkism" (Th.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966), pp. 298-299.
     13 David O. Moore, "The Landmark Baptists: A Corner on Orthodoxy," unpublished monograph, 1945, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. While this work is not polemical, D. B. Ray's pamphlet, "That New Revolutionary Landmark Baptist Faction," certainly was. Ray, an avowed Landmarker, denounced men such as J. N. Hall and Ben Bogard for the division and accused them of using
[p. 27]
Landmarkism as a "hobbyhorse" to further their own ambitions.
     14 J. Don Hook, "North American Baptist Association," ESB, II, p. 984. See also Leon Taylor, "Baptist Missionary Association," ESB, III, pp. 1597-1598; Louis F. Asher, "Baptist Missionary Association," ESB, IV, pp. 2105-2106.
     15 William W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention: A Study In the Development of Ecclesiology (published by author, 1934J, pp. 60-80.
     16 John E. Steely, "The Landmark Movement In the Southern Baptist Convention," Chapter 8 in What Is the Church?, ed. Duke McCall, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), pp. 134-147.
     17 Ibid., p. 147.
     18 Robert G. Torbet, "Landmarkism," Chapter 7 in Baptist Concepts of the Church, ed. Winthrop Hudson, (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1959), pp. 171-173.
     19 Ibid., pp. 193-194.
     20 David L. Saunders, "The Relation of Landmarkism to Mission Methods," The Quarterly Review (April 1966): 43-57; W. Morgan Patterson, Baptist Successionism A Critical View (Valley Forge: The Oudson Press, 1969); and Walter B. Shurden, Not A Silent People (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972).
     21 James E. Tull, Shapers of Baptist Thought (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1972), p. 150.
     22 Harold S. Smith, "The Life and Works of J. R. Graves;" Bob Compton, "James M. Pendleton, A Nineteenth Century Baptist Statesman (1811-1891);" and James E. Taulman, "The Life and Writings of Amos Cooper Dayton (1813-1865)," Baptist History and Heritage 10 (January 1975).
     23 James E. Tull, "The Landmark Movement: An Historical and Theological Appraisal," Baptist History and Heritage 10 (January 1975): 3.
     24 On page 10 of this article Tull states, "The question of alien immersions was not an issue among the early English Baptists (and indeed has never become one to this day in this branch of the Baptist family). Also, the question had been here and there an issue of only sporadic interest among Baptists in America." This statement may be a bit over zealous. For example, the question of irregular immersion came before the Philadelphia Association no fewer than six times between 1707-1807. Usually, these queries questioned the validity of immersion by non-ordained individuals. Each time the Association considered the question, it answered in the negative because: (a) unordained individuals were not qualified to baptize and (b) acceptance of such baptisms would "throw contempt on Christ's authority" (see
[p. 28]
Minutes of Philadephia Association 1707-1807. especially 1787-1788).
     25 W. Morgan Patterson, "The Influence of Landmarkism Among Baptists," Baptist History and Heritage 10 (January 1975): 54.
     26 Ibid.
     27 Ibid., pp. 49-53.
     28 In addition to the American Baptist Association and Baptist Missionary Association, a number of Baptist churches remain unaffliated with any particular group. They prefer to be known as independent Baptists. Many have their own publications which reflect Landmark ideas. Three such churches and their respective publications are: The Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky, publishers of The Ashland Avenue Baptist; The Central Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas, publishers of The Baptist Challenge; and the Berea Baptist Church, South Point, Ohio, publishers of The Berea Baptist Banner.
     29 W. C. Huddleston, "James Madison Pendleton: A Critical Biography" (Th. M. thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1962); J. E. Taulman, "Amos Cooper Dayton: A Critical Biography" (Th. M. thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1965); and O. L. Hailey, The Life, Times and Teachings of J. R. Graves (Nashville, n.p. 1929).
     30 The Baptist Encyclopedia, s.v., "The Church." Hereafter cited as BE.
     31 BE, s.v., "Old Landmarkism."
     32 Ibid.
     33 BE., s.v., "William Crawford."
     34 ESB, s.v., "Crises, Southern Baptist," by Lynn E. May.
     35 ESB, s.v., "American Baptist Association," by J. Don Hook. See also note 14.

Chapter 2

[A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Department of History, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky - in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. Used with the permission of the author.]

Baptists: Landmarkism
Baptist History Homepage