Appendix I. - Did Graves Change His Position
on Church Constitution?
In spite of the constant but groundless claims that J.R. Graves
taught EMDA, we have finally learned that these brethren knew Graves
did not teach this doctrine all along! How was this discovery made? Bro Curtis
Pugh, who is a foreign missionary and a correspondent of BBB, sponsored
by Berea Baptist Church,
stated in a personal letter to me:
It is possible to quote from Graves
in one era of his life and prove something quite different than what he came to
believe with more maturity and study. I believe that Bro. Graves came in his
later life to the position which I hold on the manner of church organization,
but I have not with me the books necessary to prove this.
Here he plainly admits Graves once
taught a view of church constitution diametrically opposed to EMDA! Graves’ repetitively published this view in his paper, The
Baptist and in his numerous books. Old Landmarkism was published by Graves as late as 1881without any hint of a change on the
constitution of churches. For these brethren to claim Graves
changed his position without giving the proof surely “. . . denotes a degree of
prove-something-at-all-costs unexcelled in the history of theological debate.”
Unless these men can give us references from Graves’
own pen which states he changed his position to EMDA we will count this as a
mere smoke screen! As these references have not been forthcoming, those who
take this position are forced to admit Graves
never changed his position. I contend Graves
never taught EMDA at all! Bro Pugh said Graves
changed his position. He did this to defend his changing Graves’
position from self constitution to EMDA in BBB.
He later claimed he did not have Graves’ books with him in Romania to
locate the quotes to prove this change. Are Graves’
books available? Why haven’t others found these illusive quotes? Why have we
never heard of this supposed change of Graves
before? Could it be that these men knew there was no such quote in Graves writings? Those who make this claim are
responsible for producing the references. Why have they not done so? I do not
believe any such evidence concerning J.R. Graves exists and their silence seems
to justify my belief that they know this as well as I do!
So I ask the question, Did Graves change his position on church
constitution from self constitution to EMDA? I don’t believe he did and I
give the reasons for my position.
Jarrel published Baptist Church Perpetuity in 1894, the year
after Graves died, and he quotes Graves’
position exactly as it had been for nearly fifty years! Jarrel was a scholar
and an associate of J.R. Graves. If Graves had
changed his position on this subject, Jarrel knew it! I cannot account for
Jarrel quoting Graves in his book in 1894
where he explicitly states Graves position was self constitution if Graves had changed to EMDA before he died! While I have
not read all of the nearly 40,000 pages of The Tennessee
Baptist–The Baptist–The Baptist Reflector,
I am familiar with most of Graves’ published
books and I have never seen a line which teaches EMDA. I challenge Bro PughBor any other manBto
produce one quote from J.R. Graves (in unedited form!) to support this
contention! These men have misrepresented J.R. Graves,
as believing EMDA for years, and they are misrepresenting him now. They have
joined forces with anti Landmarkers in this claim. They have recently put forth
a perversion of Graves’ position on church
constitution and
they have the responsibility to make their readers aware of their
dissimulation!
Furthermore Graves’ son-in-law O.H. Hailey wrote a brief biography
of Graves in 1929. If any man knew Graves’ position, it was Hailey. In this book, written
nearly forty years after Graves’ death, he quotes this doctrinal statement,
perverted by Bro Pugh, from The Baptist of 1857 and not a word of a
change concerning item number four, which is Graves
definition of a church! He does in fact state Graves
changed his position on Communion in these words: “He modified as all know,
later in life, and advocated strict church communion, to which change of view
and its advocacy reference will be made more fully hereafter.”
This change had nothing to do with the definition or constitution of a church. Graves did change his view on communion and wrote and
taught on this change
but he never made any change on church constitution.
Bro Pugh said he believed Graves changed his position on
church constitution from self constitution to EMDA but he did not have the
books with him in Romania
to prove it. Did Bro Pugh ever read where Graves
changed his position from self constitution to EMDA? If such a quote exists,
Bro Cockrell knew it and the place where it was found. Why was it not in SCO
originally? This would have been the very thing needed in the book. Why was it
not in the 2nd edition? Surely Bro Pugh can obtain these books.
Surely he can find these references. Surely he will publish them in BBB.
Whoever says Graves changed his
position must do one of several things. First, he can plead ignorance as
to what Graves believed. This means he really
does not know what Graves believed about
church constitution and has not carefully read his books but has merely assumed
he believed EMDA. Or secondly, he can admit he made unfounded claims,
about what Graves and the old Landmarkers
believed on this subject. Or thirdly, he can bring forth evidence that Graves changed his position from self constitution to
EMDA! Or fourthly–if these things prove too hard–and I believe they are
Bhe can remain silent!
At any rate, no one should accept the claim that Graves changed his
position from self constitution to EMDA from anyone unless they can give fully
documented quotes from Graves’ own works
indicating such a transition.