F NASHVILLE.
Nashville, Sept. 8, 1S58.
At the regular monthly meeting of the
' hrst Baptist Church, held this evening,
iftlr the transaction of several items of
business, a paper was presented by brother
'liarles A. Fuller for the consideration of
he Church, which was read as follows:
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the Editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral and
unchristian conduct, in four distinct cases,
as follows:
First, in that he has sought to bring
upon R. B. 0. Howell, the Pastor of said
church, reproach and injury, and thus to
destroy his character and influence in the
Southwest, By forcing him into collision
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Correspond¬
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now
one of his issociate editors, through the
publication i a his said paper of various false
and maliciov s representations.
Secondly, in that he has endeavored to
distract and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor and four of
its deacons, and several others of its influ¬
ential meml ers, which he has labored to
produce by various inflammatory articles,
published in his paper.
Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub¬
lished in his sabl paper against R. B. C.
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry
foul and atrocious libels.
Fourthly, in that he has, at various times,
attacked, slandered and abused ministers
and brethren of high character, belonging
to our denomination, throughout the coun¬
try, in his said paper.
J. C. Darden,
Charles A. Fuller.
Case 1. Under the first charge, we refer
to "The Southern Baptist Register/' for
1858; to the "Tennessee Baptist," No.
23, Feb. 13, 1858, and No. 24, Feb. 20
1858, and No. — July 17, 1858.
Case 2. Under the second charge, we re¬
fer to the "Christian Index," No. —, April
28, 1858, and to the "Tennessee Baptist"
of the following numbers and dates; No.
23, Feb. 13, 1858; No. 26, March 6,1858;
No. 33, April 24, 1858; No. 24, Feb. 20,
1858.
Case 3. Under the third charge, we re¬
fer to the "Tennessee Baptist" of the follow¬
ing numbers and dates : No. 24, Feb. 20,
1858; No. 26, March 6, 1858; No. 23,
Feb. 13, 1858; No. 25, Feb. 27, 1858;
No. 29, March, 27, 1858; No. 30, April
tfc i
2
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
3, 1858; No. 31, April 10, 1858, No. 32,
April 17, 1858.
We make incidental reference to the
following:
"Tennessee Baptist," No. 23, April 13,
1858; No. 24, Feb. 20, 1858; No. 45,
July 17, 1858 ; No. 49, August 21, 1858;
a note addressed to Mr. Graves dated April
3, 1858 correspondence between C. K.
Winston^and C. A. Fuller, and J. R.
Graves, H. G. Scovel, and G. C. Creighton.
Case 4. Under the 4th charge, reference is
made to the conduct of his paper generally
for some years past. See the articles with
regard to R. Fuller, in 1853; to W. C.
Duncan of New Orleans; to W. W. Ev¬
erts; to J. P. Tustin; to John L. Waller;
to J. E. Dawson; to Matt. Hillsman, and
to the Bible Board.
Having heard read the aforesaid paper,
a motion to lay the same upon the table
was lost; whereupon the following resolu¬
tions, offered by Bro. A. Nelson, were
passed:
Resolved, That the charges against Rev.
J. R. Graves be entertained, and they be
set for hearing on the 2lst of September,
at 7£ o'clock in the evening.
Resolved, That Rev. J. R. Graves be fur¬
nished with a copy of the charges, and be
summoned to attend.
On motion, adjourned till 2lst Sept. .
Tuesday Evening, Sept. 21, 1858.
Church met according to adjournment,
and the meeting was opened with singing
and reading the 67th Psalm. Prayer by
Dr. S. D. Whitsett.
The Pastor of the Church having sug¬
gested the impropriety of his acting as
Moderator, under existing circumstances,
Dr. C. K. Winston was called to the
chair, to preside during the pendency
of the trial of Rev. J. R. Graves.
The minutes of former meetings were
read and approved, when the Moderator
announced the meeting ready to proceed to
business. Rev. J. R. Graves not being
present, the trial was postponed three
weeks, (to Oct. 12th,) and the Clerk pro
tern, instructed to communicate to Brothel"'"
Graves this action of the Church.
Dr. W. P. Jones then offered a paper for
the consideration of the Church, which
reads as follows :
Inasmuch as individual members of
this congregation, and the Church collec¬
tively, seem peculiarly liable to be misrepre¬
sented ; inasmuch as we desire in all things
to be circumspect, and in so far as we can
to avoid strife, and to arrive only at facts
in the progress of the investigation upon
which we have now entered; and inasmuch
as we recognize the divine authority of that
commandment, " Let all things be done
decently and in order;" therefore,
Resolved, That as a matter of common
justice, equality and safety to all, we employ
an approved reporter, whose duty it shall
be to report fully, fairly and impartially,
the testimony adduced by either party to
this trial.
Resolved, That the reporter shall keep
in their order all resolutions, etc., with as
much fidelity as practicable to the lan¬
guage of the speaker; shall take full notes
of all the speeches or remarks which may
be made by any one on either side of this
controversy, or in anywise jertaining
thereto.
Resolved, That these reports, as approved,
endorsed or passed by the Church Clerk,
be read (as the usual matters of business)
at each subsequent meeting of the Church,
and when thus publicly corrected, in ac¬
cordance with the known facts, that they
become a part of the permanent r mords of
this body, subject only to its on er.
On motion, the foregoing preai lble and
resolutions were adopted, and Di. W. P
Jones, A. Nelson, Dr. J. D. Wins ton, and
E. F. P. Pool, were appointed a commit¬
tee to procure a reporter.
After the transaction of other business,
the Church adjourned.
At the regular monthly meetin $ of the
Church, held Oct. 6th, the comm Itee ap¬
pointed to procure a reporter, si Emitted
the following report, to wit:
We, the committee appointed to secure
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
3
" the services of a reporter or reporters, in
the case of charges preferred by C. A. Ful¬
ler and J. C. Darden against Elder J. R.
Graves, met at the office of Dr. Winston;
present Dr. W. P. Jones, A. Nelson, and
E. F. P. Pool, when it was agreed that
A. Nelson and E. F. P. Pool, should see
Mr. J. M. McKee, of the Union & Ameri¬
can office, and Mr. H. K. Walker, of the
Banner.
We saw Mr. McKee, who informed us
t,hat he would undertake to report the pro¬
ceedings on Tuesday night next, and for
his services he would take a fair compen¬
sation for the labor performed.
We then saw Mr. Walker, who agreed
to undertake it if he would be allowed to
publish the reports in his paper. If not,
he could not say, nor would he agree to
act; as he said his main object would be to
get it in the Banner.
A. Nelson, ) „
E. F. P. Pool, \ lom-
On motion, Mr. J. M. McKee was se¬
lected as the reporter, and L. Collins re¬
quested to act as assistant.
Adjourned.
Tuesday Evening, Oct. 12, 1858.
The Church met pursuant to adjourn¬
ment.
The exercises were opened by reading a
portion of Scripture, and prayer by the
Moderator.
The Moderator then announced that the
Church had met for the purpose of trying
Elder J. R. Graves, upon charges prefer¬
red against him by members of the First
Baptist Church, and the Clerk was directed
to read the record of the proceedings had
so far in the case, including the charges.
The record having been read, the Mode¬
rator stated that if any member had any
objection to the same he would please to
make it known.
No objection having been made, the re¬
cord was declared approved.
The Clerk then read the following paper:
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes¬
see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member
of said church, and one of the editors of
the Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral
and unchristian conduct, in that he has
uttered and published in his said paper the
following willful and deliberate falsehoods :
1. "We can, with a clear conscience,
appeal to the Judge of all the earth, that
we have not intentionally injured^ny man,
and if we have unwittingly done so, we
truly regret it and are willing to repair the
injury."
2. " All that we could rightly do to ef¬
fect a reconciliation, though the offended
and assailed party, we have done."
3. " It will be seen that both the lash
and the law have been threatened against
one or all the editors of this paper."
4. " Reports have been put forth from
this city and circulated in it, that the Sen¬
ior Editor of this paper was a vile charac¬
ter, a dishonest man, and that frightful
revelations would be made of his standing
at home when the church trial came off.
(Note) Elder Howell made this charge be¬
fore he had been in the city nine months."
5. "What frightful crimes are we charged
with ? The most stupendous one is the
leaving of the D. D. from the name of R.
B. C. Howell in the Southern Baptist Reg¬
ister for 1858 !"
6. "We are arraigned before the church
for grossly immoral conduct and atrocious
libel, &C4 because we have left the D. D.
off Elder Howell's name."
7. " One of the very prosecutors he
[Howell] employs, C. A. Fuller, can threat¬
en to cowhide Elder Dayton, not only in
his office, but even in the hearing of the
whole church, and not so much as a re¬
proof is offered him."
8. " The other principal orator of the
21st September, [Dr. W. P. Jones,] is not
only known to Elder Howell as a teacher
of gross heresy in his class—teaching views
calculated to overthrow one of the articles
of faith of the First Baptist Church, a fun¬
damental article of Christianity and reli¬
gion—but known also to Elder H. and the
church, as the public defamer of Elder J.
M. Pendleton; not only so, but he is per¬
mitted to defame Elder J. M. P. in the
church meeting of the 21st, before Elder
H.'s face, without receiving so much as a
reproof from Elder H."
4
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
9. " Our readers will notice the closing
period of Mr. Fuller's article. [I defer
further remarks until a future opportunity,
when A. C. Dayton shall have no occasion
to say he has not reaped an ample reward
for the vituperation in which he has of
late so freely indulged.] It is singular lan¬
guage for a Christian gentleman to use to¬
wards a toother in the same church, and a
brother Mason. Such threats of brute
violence, which have been twice repeated—
once to Brother Buchanan and once upon
the floor of the church, in church meeting,
reflect no credit upon either Mr. Fuller's
bravery or his principles."
S. M. Scott.
A. Nelson.
It was moved and seconded that these
charges be entertained by the church, which
motion being submitted to the church, was
adopted.
Thereupon the Moderator declared that
the church had decided to entertain the
charges preferred against Elder J. R.
Graves by S. M. Scott and A. Nelson.
Mr. Fuller submitted a motion that the
charges previously presented against Elder
J. R. Graves, and set for hearing to-night,
be now taken up and considered.
Which motion being submitted to the
church, was concurred in.
Mr. Scovel wished it noted upon the re¬
cord that he was opposed to trying Elder
J. R. Graves upon the charges preferred
against him in the manner in which these
proceedings had been instituted.
The charges having been read by the
Clerk,
The Moderator called on Elder Graves
to state whether he admitted or denied the
charges.
Elder Graves: I deny.
The Moderator: Then it will devolve
upon the prosecution to establish the
charges preferred against Elder Graves.
Elder Graves inquired whether he would
be allowed to answer these charges pre¬
ferred against him. He was accused of
making libelous charges against his pastor,
and he desired to meet and answer them.
The Moderator stated that, of course, he
would be allowed ample opportunity to
make his defense at the proper time, but
that there was no motion before the church
at present, and until a motion admitting of
debate was submitted, Elder^ Graves could
not be heard.
Elder Graves protested against this trial
as being unscriptural, and appealed to the
church to hear him in defense.
The Moderator stated that if Elder
Graves desired to be heard by the church,
a motion to non-suit the charges for in¬
formality, would bring the case up for con¬
sideration, when he could make any state¬
ment he desired.
Mr. Rutland submitted a motion that
the charges preferred against Elder J. R.
Graves be thrown out, because the scriptu¬
ral usage in such proceeding had not been
observed.
The Moderator declared this motion in
order, and that Elder Graves could now be
heard.
Elder Graves stated that he, had some¬
thing to say in regard to this trial, and that
he might not be misrepresented, he had
committed what he had to say to writing.
He then read the following protest:
I received, upon my return home, a copy
of the charges preferred against me, in my
absence, by two members of this Church,
in behalf of the pastor, (Elder R. B. C.
Howell,) and several other private individ¬
uals, for alleged personal offences given in
the course of my public journalism for the
past five years. I might justly complain
at being seized of an ecclesiastical arrest
while in another State, intently prosecuting
a great denominational enterprise; when
the alleged offences had been of so long
standing, and my residence here had given
the parties the most ample opportunity for
conference or arraignment—yet I will not
complain, nor even inquire into the motive
of this strange .procedure.
First of all, I desire that it shall be dis-
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
5
tinctly understood that I stand ready, now
and ever, to meet any and all charges
brought against me, either as a citizen or
as a Christian. But as an American citi¬
zen, I have the right to be tried by the
laws of my country, and no man can force
me to be tried by any other. I might be
lynched by a mob; but tried I could not
be,"except by the law of the land. As a
Christian and a Baptist, it is not only my
right, but my duty to be tried by the laws
of Jesus Christ, the only Head of his
Church. By the laws of Christ, found in
the New Testament, I am ever ready to be
tried. Let me be arraigned according to
those laws, and by those I will most cheer¬
fully be tried. I appear before this Church
to demand a scriptural arraignment, and a
fair and impartial trial for the offences al¬
leged in the indictment, and if I can be
convinced that I have unwittingly injured
any one of these parties, (for intentionally I
&now>Ihave not,) I am ready to make what¬
ever satisfaction a Christian brother can
make, or any one rightly demand. Duty
to Christ, and love to my brother would
impel me to do this; nor would it be to me
a mortification, but a pleasure. But since
these charges have been brought, and thus
far entertained by the Church, not only
without the sanction of the laws of Christ,
but in direct and open disregard of their
express requirements—I must, should I
voluntarily submit to be tried upon this ar¬
raignment, regard myself as giving sanc¬
tion to a proceeding which is in open vio¬
lation of the commandment of Christ, and
I therefore respectfully decline to answer to
these charges as brought before you, and
solemnly protest against your past proceed¬
ings in my case.
Were I as certain of being triumphantly
acquitted under this process, as I am cer¬
tain that I am innocent of having unne¬
cessarily and intentionally given offence to
any one, I would no less earnestly and sol¬
emnly, as a Christian, a Baptist, and a
minister, bound by fealty to Christ alone,
and witnessing for the dignity and authori¬
ty of his word, protest in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, against being made, in
any sense, a party to such unlawful meas¬
ures.
1. In my arraignment you have
both disregarded and openly violated,
before the eyes of men, all the law
of Christ. ' „
Three of the four charges preferred are
confessedly personal to the pastor of the
Church. This was distinctly avowed by
the pastor when at your meeting, on the
21st September, he declined acting as
Moderator during the progress of this trial,
and of this I have other proof under his
own signature. jl. }
The law touching personal offences is
most clear and explicit, and reads as fol¬
lows :
" Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go ancl tell him his fault between
thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will
not hear thee, then take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two or three wit¬
nesses, every word may be established. And
if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a
Publican."
Now, it must be evident to every unbi¬
assed mind, that if the pastor was offended
with me, it was his duty to come to me
privately, and in the spirit of a brother,
and tell me my fault between him and me
alone, and seek reconciliation and repara¬
tion. If he found me obstinate and impen¬
itent, he should have taken one or two
other brethren, (not my known and bitter
enemies,) but those who were known to
have our mutual good at heart, whose testi¬
mony should be sufficient to convince me
of my error, should they testify against me,
and not until I had refused to hear them,
should my pastor have told bis offence to
the Church, or have suffered it, with his
consent, to be told to the Church. Now,
if this Church, by its action, sustains the
pastor in his open disregard of the plain
letter of the law of Christ, by inducing or
permitting other brethren to prosecute an
offending brother for him without complying
with these requisitions, then this Church
decides that this law concerning personal
offences may at any time be set aside by a
similar subterfuge. If A. offends B., B.
need only get C. or D. to prosecute A. be¬
fore the Church for the offence. '
The first step in the process of gospel
discipline has not been taken in my case,
nor has the second, and the prosecutor de
6
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
'facto has persistently refused to take them,
and until he does, the Church cannot in
accordance with the law of Christ, entertain
his charges; and not only so, but if he per¬
sists in refusing to regard them, it will he
her duty to arraign him for an open violation
of the Word of God.
Remand, then, this case, as it is your
duty, to do, and let my pastor seek a private
lnterview#with me, and if I fail to do my
duty in the premises, " let my right hand
forget its cunning;" and if a personal in¬
terview fails, let him come to me with one
or two more brethren (our mutual friends)
and if I neglect to hear them, " let my
tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; "
if I am arraigned before my Church, when
convened in the spirit and authority of the
Lord Jesus, and the Church utters her
voice, and I refuse to hear it, then,"but not
until then, let me "be unto you as a heathen
man and a publican."
2. But I protest against these proceed¬
ings upon another ground: and that is, that
they are calculated to make, and do make,
a false representation of the facts in the
case, inasmuch as they present me as the-
offending, whereas, I am in reality the of¬
fended party—as I am fully prepared to
show.
As the offended party, I have endeavored
to take the gospel steps, but I have been
denied both a private interview and one
with brethren. I have besought him
to meet me in the spirit of Christ, assuring
him that if I could be convinced that I had
done him wrong, I would offer him the
most ample satisfaction, but he has treated
my overtures with the utmost contempt,
and refused any interview with me. It was
because I was encouraged to hope that a
private adjustment possibly might be ef¬
fected that I delayed my appeal to the
Church for advice. It was while affairs
were in this posture that I was called away,
and during my absence this indictment was
preferred against me through a third party.
8. I also protest against the right of this
Church to try me upon the fourth charge:
Because this Church as yet has no possible
jurisdiction over the matters charged.
1. The charge has reference to alleged
offences against sundry persons living and
dead, mentioned in the specifications.
The matters' charged, are, therefore, con¬
fessedly personal to those individuals, and
must be brought to trial according to the
law of Christ for personal offences. (Matt.
18 : 15—17.) The directions of Christ
have not been observed in any of these,
and therefore, this Church cannot rightly
entertain the charges against me.
2. Because this Church manifestly has
no authority to prosecute it, (the fourth
charge) under the circumstances as they
exist, and if she does it, she does it con¬
trary to all law human and divine. For,
The parties are not known to this Church
as complainants. Many of them owe no
jurisdiction to this Church. My acquittal
would involve their condemnation and dis¬
grace. "What right then has the Church
to investigate and pass upon their conduct
without their knowledge or consent, and
thus implicate their conduct or character
before the world.
These foreign parties, Waller, Fuller,
Duncan, Everts, Tustin, and Dawson, are
either ignorant that a charge is preferred
here that involves them, or they are know¬
ing to it) and have authorized Messrs. Dar-
den and Fuller to prosecute me on their
behalf.
If they are ignorant of your doings, ox
have not authorized you thus to involve
them, then have you already perpetrated a
gross outrage upon their rights, and if you
proceed may inflict an irremediable injury
upon them, by passing upon their conduct
in their absence without their having an
opportunity to explain or defend. But if
they have given their consent, then they
are really parties concerned, and are bound
with the pastor of this Church, to observe
the laws of Christ as regards personal of¬
fences.
But I have the evidence, that several, if
not a majority of the parties mentioned in
the fourth charge, have not only not given
their consent to this trial, nor desired it,
but some of them were even ignorant of it
until informed by myself, and express their
surprise that Messrs. Darden and Fuller
should undertake this prosecution for them.
I doubt if a charge of this character was
ever before brought under such circum¬
stances in any civilized laud.
But even though I could have waived all
these difficulties, and gained my consent to
go into trial under these charges, yet thera
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
7
is one circumstance which would render it
impossible for me to make a right and true
defence. I protest, therefore, in the third
and last place against going into this trial
•on the ground that you have given me no
such specifications as will enable me to
know what is relied upon by my accusers
for my conviction.
You have, indeed, referred me to the
Southern Baptist Register for 1858, a work
of sixty pages, but I do not suppose any
one regards the whole document as grossly
immoral and unchristian, and I have no
means' of knowing with any certainty of
what part, or how many parts, Elder How¬
ell complains. He has never told me.
You refer me to sundry numbers of the
Tennessee Baptist, but have left me in utter
ignorance of what articles, or what sen¬
tences, are to be regarded as injurious, or
libelous. If you had intended that I
should have a fair trial you should have
shown me the very words and sentences
-which were regarded as wrong, so that I
might have come here prepared to prove
their truth, or to explain them, if possible,
so as to remove the offence.
It is the custom in the Romish Inquisi¬
tion to put men on their trial without spe¬
cifications of their offences, so that they may
not be able to make good a defence, but
" we have no sueh eustoin, neither the
Churches of God."
For these and other reasons, I entreat you
in the name of justice, nay, I charge you
by the authority of the Lord Jesus, that
you rescindyour proceedings touching me,
and require of those claiming to be offended
with me, to observe the plain requirements
of the Word of God, by taking the well
known steps of gospel discipline—and that
you will not attempt further to force me
into a trial under such circumstances as
these.
If, however, you persist in the course
which has been followed thus far, and de¬
termine to proceed with an investigation, I
dare not give my consent, and do hereby
declare, that I will be no party, direct or
indirect, to such unscriptural proceedings.
If you refuse to grant this protest, I ask
as an act of justice to me, that you will al¬
low it to be entered upon the records of this
Church, Respectfully submitted,
J, R. Graves.
Dr. Howell stated that he was surprised
to hear the paper just read by Mr. Graves.
It devolved upon him to make an expla¬
nation in regard to the case before the
church, which he would do in as few words
as possible.
Mr. Graves, he said, protests against this
trial as unscriptural and unjust, on several-
accounts, but mainly because, as he alleges,
the previous scriptural steps had not been
taken. He, (Dr. H.,) did not consider it
in this light, or it would never have had
his sanction. He knew well, and the fact
would appear in the trial,-that on his part
the measures adopted had all been strictly
scriptural. The charges against Mr. Graves
were preferred not by hisn, as the gentle¬
man alleged, but by brethren Fuller and
Darden, who were members of this church
in good standing, and fully able to main¬
tain the ground they had assumed. It
matters not who advised the course to be
pursued; they were here to prosecute the
charges they have preferred against Mr.
Graves.
The relations that subsisted between Mr.
Graves and himself were of a friendly
character until a proposition was made in
the Convention here to establish a Sunday
School Board of Publication. He had ta¬
ken a special interest in Mr. Graves, and
done all he could to promote his welfare.
He had advised Mr. (Graves that his
(Graves') honor demanded that he should
not insist upon the appointment of this
Board; that if he did, since he was a pub¬
lisher, people would say that he did so
from interested motives, though he, (Dr.
Howell,) had taken particular pains to as¬
sure Mr. Graves that he himself did not
charge any such motive. This, according
to Mr. Graves, was the origin of this diffi¬
culty. It was then Mr. Graves' duty to
have come to him, and to have demeaned
himself as directed in the 18th chapter of
Matthew. Instead of this, Mr, Graves
8
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
had assailed him, (Howell,) in a grossly
personal and abusive manner through his
newspaper, the Tennessee Baptist, and that
too, for doing what he considered an act of
kindness. The law of brotherly love, and
governing as Mr. Graves claims, in this
case, a^aid down by Matthew, had not
been observed by Mr. Graves, who pro¬
fesses to have been aggrieved by his, (How¬
ell's) course, in .regard to the creation of a
Sunday School Board. Mr. Graves did
not come to him and state his grievance,
but assailed him violently in the Tennessee
Baptist, week after week, for two months.
Many of the proofs to sustain the charges
against Mr. Graves, had been selected from
his paper during that time, and these ex¬
tracts show that the temper that was man¬
ifested from that quarter towards him was
any thing but brotherly. If he had of¬
fended Mr. Graves, according to the doc¬
trine of his protest, h.e should have come
to him and expostulated with him as a
brother.
When, after all this, Mr. Graves had
taken a prominent part in a prayer meet¬
ing, in his, (Howell's,) absence, he had
addressed a strictly '"private note to Mr.
Graves, stating that this was offensive to
members of the church, on account of his
conduct towards him, and requesting him
not to repeat it until he had withdrawn the
charges he had made against him, (How¬
ell,) as publicly as he had made them.
This note, marked strictly private, Mr.
Graves made it a point to show to as many
as he could approach, and had published
and spread broadcast over the whole South.
Notwithstanding this, he, (Howell,) hoped,
for various reasons, that it would not be
necessary to bring his conduct before the
church, and had waited three months to
see whether a sense of duty would not
prompt Mr. Graves to do him justice.
Failing or refusing to do this, and still re¬
peating his assaults in his paper, he, (How-
[,) then wrote a note, and placed it
the hands of brethren, in the hope
bringing about a reconciliation. Mr.
raves appointed brethren on his part,
thus recognizing the scriptural charaeter
of the proceeding up to the 20th day of
July last. These brethren commenced
their negotiations, which continue d till the
16th day of August, thus lingering'in this
state in spite of every effort to accelerate
it. When called upon, he, (Howell,) an¬
swered that he was ready to do whatever
an honorable man or a christian could do.
He offered Mr. Graves the following pro¬
position:
1. J. R. Graves is required to withdraw
all the charges of an offensive and person¬
al character that he has made against Dr.
Howell, which he (Howell) will specifically
present, in as few words as possible, in the
same manner and as extensively as he has
made them, without note or comment.
2. R. B. C. Howell shall on his part
withdraw all the charges of an offensive and
personal character that he has made against
Mr. Graves, which he (Graves) will specifi¬
cally present, in as few words as possible,'
in the same manner and as extensively as he
has made them, without note or comment.
This reciprocal proposition he (IJowell)
regarded as perfectly fair and honorable.
It was rejected by Mr. Graves, who here
insists that he (Howell) ought, if he thought
he was injured, to have come to him ac¬
cording to the 18th chapter of Matthew! I
The truth was, the whole thing had be¬
come a public scandal, they had long since'
passed the 18th chapter of Matthew, and
the law governing the case was laid down
in 5th chapter of First Corinthians. They
were obliged to take the case from this
point, and not from the beginning, when
Mr. Graves had wholly disregarded and
violated the law. Mr. Graves rejected all
these overtures, and the matter closed be-
fore he left the city.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
9
The effort to bring about an adjustment
between them having thus failed, brethren
inquired what ought to be done, whether
thej ought to wait for the regular church
meeting; he (Howell) replied, certainly,
do not be in a hurry about it, that the mat¬
ter ought to be brought before the regular
church meeting and a scriptural discipline
enforced. This step was accordingly taken,
but Mr. Graves being absent, he had advo¬
cated and advised, and all cheerfully con¬
curred in a postponement of action in the
matter until^iis return.
Dr. Howell stated that he had been in
the ministry nearly forty years, and had
lived peaceably with all men up to that time,
and he.would show, in the course of that
trial, that he had made every effort to live
in peace with Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves claimed to be the offended
party. In reply to this Dr. Howell said
that he had not published a paragraph in any
newspaper since last December, except a
short letter recommending brother Walton
as Corresponding Secretary of the General
Association; while he had been assailed,
week after week, in the Tennessee Baptist, in
the most violent and personally abusive
manner. During all this dime he had pur¬
posely abstained from saying anything about
Mr. Graves, either in a newspaper or in the
pulpit. How then, he would inquire, could
Mr. Graves, unless he recurred to what
passed in November of last year, be the of¬
fended party ?
Mr. Graves, he said, had inquired how
many of the parties referred to in the fourth
charge had been heard from. Dr. Howell
stated that letters had been received from
brethren Dawson, Everts, Tustin and Dun¬
can, who demanded that the trial should be
proceeded with. He was somewhat surprised
at Mr. Graves' position in regard to the
fourth charge. If, said he, a member of
this church slanders a brother not under its
jurisdiction, are we to sit silent and permit
it ? Is (the church not bound to take no¬
tice of such conduct, in any of its members,
and even though not requested to do so by
the injured parties ? Letters had been re¬
ceived from several individuals besides
those mentioned, and at least one church
abroad, demanding that this church should
proceed in the case of discipline Hp>w be¬
fore it.
Mr. Graves, said Dr. Howell, objects to
this trial on the ground that the specifica¬
tions upon the charges preferred against
him are not sufficiently definite. He has
not waited to hear the evidence, which will
be forthcoming, in all its extent, when
these charges come up for consideration.
He refuses to be tried because he has not
heard the evidence. Dr. Howell hoped the
church would proceed with the case, and if
Mr. Graves refused to attend and defend
himself, it was his own business. Mr.
Graves, with others, was editor of the Ten¬
nessee Baptist, and if brethren were misrep¬
resented, slandered and defamed by that
paper, the church ought to investigate such
matters, and put its seal of condemnation
upon the offender.
The impression had been attempted to be
made by Mr. Graves, that he (Howell) re¬
garded as a great offence the omission to
attach " D. D." to his name in the Southern
Baptist Register. He 'says, indeed, that
that is one of the most tremendous (or
some such word) of the charges against
him. He (Howell) had seen that publi¬
cation but had not noticed whether the
"D. D." was attached to his name or
not. It was of no sort of consequence to
him whatever, and no such .charge was
made, as Mr. Graves himself well knew.
One thing however, he (Howell) did notice.
The Tennessee Baptist came to him directed
in pencil, " Elder Dr. R. B. C. Howell,
D. D."
Mr. Graves (interrupting) said that was
done in the business part of the office for
10
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
which the editor assumed no responsibil¬
ity.
Or. Howell said that he would not then
further discuss these questions, since they
would all come up regularly in the course
of the trial, and he should speak of them
fully and satisfactorily. He hoped that the
church throughout the trial, would be
guided by the strictest impartiality. He
appealed to the members of the church to
hear the evidence, particularly from the
other side, if the defence should offer any,
and let come what would, do right.
Elder Graves said.,he was happy to con¬
front brother Howell. We are now doing
what should have been done in the first in¬
stance—each specifying his grievances—
but it should have been done privately, as
between brethren, and not before this im¬
mense audience. Had this course been
pursued, this matter might have been
settled outside of the church. Dr. How¬
ell had closed his remarks by calling him
(Graves) brother, and he cheerfully recip¬
rocated the spirit which he hoped prompted
it, for he entertained no ill-feeling for Bro.
Howell. He had no desire, and never had,
to injure Dr, Howell, and if he (Howell)
had come to him as his Pastor and as a
Christian brother, and made known his
grievances, it would not have been his
(Graves') fault if the matter had not been
amicably adjusted. He contended, howev¬
er, that Dr. Howell had not adopted this
course, but had assailed him.
Elder Graves assumed that this is a per¬
sonal and not a public matter, and should
have been settled according to Matthew
18th. Dr. Howell, he said, had admitted
that they were personal, when he gave
his reasons for retiring from the Modera¬
tor's chair at the beginning of this trial,
and had previously recognised it as a per¬
sonal matter over his own signature. Dr.
Howell, he said had commented with a good
deal of warmth upon the positions assumed
in his protest in this regard, and he would
introduce the opinions of eminent members
of the Baptist Church—scholars and Doc¬
tors of Divinity—to show that he was jus¬
tified in the course he had pursued in pro¬
testing against this trial, and that Dr. How¬
ell was bound to observe the scriptural
usage in such casesA
Elder Graves then read the following
letter from Rev. N. M. Crawford, D. D.,
Professor in Mercer University, who, he
said, knew all about the matters complained
of by Dr. Howell.
Penfield, October 1st, 1858.
Dear Bro. Graves : Your favor of the
27th ult., is just received.
?jc ■ *
I have looked with much anxiety at
the proceedings in the Nashville Church,
so far as I have known them since I passed
through your city in June last. If the.
statement in the Tennessee Baptist of the
nature of the charges against you, and the
manner in which they are brought, is cor¬
rect, I have no hesitancy in saying, that
the law of Christ has not been observed.
Bro. Howell and myself are kinsmen, and
I am his friend; but, in bringing these
charges against you, I must say, "that the
scriptural requisitions have been violated.
Bro. Howell knows my opinion on the sub¬
ject,, for I expressed it to him last June, in
an interview which he requested with me.
Neither do I think that charges ought to
be brought which concern third parties—
parties not known to the Church. I say this
as much for the sake of those parties, nay
more than for yours. What right has a
church, to whom I owe no jurisdiction, to
investigate and pass upon my conduct ? and
that without my knowledge or consent?
If these third parties are ignorant that
these charges which affect them, are thus
brought, injustice is done them, by investi¬
gating their conduct in their absence, and
without their having opportunity to defend
themselves; for the church will be as much
judging them as you. On the other hand,
if these parties have given their consent,
they are really the parties concerned, and
are bound to observe the laws of Christ in
regard to offences.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
11
At this distance, and without full in¬
formation, I could give no advice to either
party, if asked, but one thing I must say,
Christ's law must govern his church. No
question of expediency must be considered.
The moment we quit the rock, we sin. Let
who will be offended, we must hold to
Christ's law, every church acting in the
name of Christ, must act by the law of
Christ.
I cannot express to you how much I
have mourned over things in Nashville.
May God overrule all, and turn the hearts
of his children to the things which he ap¬
proves. Tour brother in Christ,
N. M. Crawford.
Rev. J. R. Graves, Nashville, Tenn.
Elder Graves stated that he had addressed
a letter to Dr. Crawford previous to receiv¬
ing the one he had just read, asking his
opinion upon four points, to which he re¬
ceived a reply which he read as follows :
Pennfield, October 5th, 1858.
Dear Bro. Graves :—Though reluc¬
tant to take any part in the unhappy strife
which is distracting our brethren in Nash¬
ville, and which threatens to extend more
widely, I do not feel at liberty to decline
answering your questions.
" Query 1st. ' If A. offends B. in com¬
menting upon his (B.'s public acts—his
speeches or printed articles^-does or does
not the 18th of Matthew make it the duty
of B. to go to A. and specify his w^ong and
injuries, and seek reconciliation and repar¬
ation of his wrong ? Or would it be equal¬
ly scriptural for B. to employ C. and D. to
arraign A. before the Church for gross pub¬
lic offences ? "
In my opinion, the law of Christ (Mat¬
thew xviii. 15, &c.) requires the offended
brother to seek a private interview first and:
then, if unsuccessful, to seek a second in¬
terview with witnesses. Until these steps
are taken, he has no right to bring the mat¬
ter before the church, and the church has
no right to entertain the case. The offended
party has no right to employ a third person
to bring the charge.
When Christ has given a rule, there is
no room for discussions of expediency; our
duty is simply obedience. But it is easy
to see the wisdom of this rule of Christ.
The object is to gain our brother. " If
he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."
—Matthew xviii. 15. The failure of the
first step, in accomplishing this, makes the
second necessary, and the failure of that
leads to the third. But in all, the object
to be sought is not punishment, but correc¬
tion, that the brother may be gained. Even
in the last resort, the object is not strife
nor victory, but, if possible, the restoration
of love and confidence. With this purpose
in view, how much more likely is a private
interview to be successful than the impas¬
sioned turmoil which is prone to be exhib¬
ited in a public contest. And if the pubr
lie discussion must come, how wise the pro¬
vision of two or three witnesses by whom
every thing can be established.
" 2. Will you state the distinction be¬
tween a private and a public offence, and
also to which, if not to both, you think the
18th of Matthew applicable ?"
It may be difficult to define the distinc¬
tion with a precision that will-embrace all
cases. It does not depend upon the pub¬
licity or secresy with which the act is done,
but upon the nature of the act itself. The
comment upon a brother's " public acts—
his speeches or private articles"—may be
made in a private conversation, or in a
newspaper, but this difference in the medi¬
um of communication is not sufficient to
characterize the offence as public or private.
If the thing complained of produces per¬
sonal alienation of feeling on account, of
personal injury, it would seem to be a per¬
sonal or private injury, whether done in
secret or in the presence of a thousand
witnesses.
In my opinion, a private interview, &c.,
is not to be sought in public offences. If
a man has been drunk, the offence is against
public morals, not against private rights,
and he may be dealt with without the in¬
tervention of a private interview.
" 8. Suppose a brother refuses to ad¬
dress a brother as Doctor of Divinity, be¬
cause he does not regard him as qualified
to bear the title, is he for this amenable to
the Church 1"
It is a matter of taste and usage how we
address a man in social intercourse. It is
an act of courtesy to address an individual
by his title whether he deserves it or not.
How many generals, judges, professors, and
12
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
presidents are there who are unworthy both
of the office and the title ? But who would
refuse to address a man by the title on that
account? In all frankness, I must say
that it seems to me to be no mark of a
Christian spirit either to give or take of¬
fence for so trivial a matter. Certainly I
should never think of it as making one
amenable to Church censure; particularly
wher#the offended party had not sought an
interview to make known his grievance.
"4. Suppose he has conscientious scruples
about calling any man Doctor of Divinity,
(see Matthew xxiii. 9,) and refuses to call
his pastor D. D., is he for this justly ar-
raignable before the Church as an of¬
fender?"
If a brother has conscientious scruples
about calling a man Doctor, his scruples
ought to be regarded and no offence taken.
We should always be very tender of weak
consciences.
Thus, my dear brother, I have hastily
and imperfectly answered your questions.
I am well aware that my opinions possess
no weight of authority, but as you have
asked them, I give them for what they are
worth. My heart is sad at the divisions
among those whom I much regard as 'my
people.' May God, in much mercy, heal
the wounds of his own cause.
I intended sending a copy of this letter
to Brother Howell, but I have been so in¬
terrupted that I cannot, as I am on the
point of starting to our Association.
Very truly your friend and brother,
N. M. Craavford.
Rev. J. R. Graves,
Nashville, Tenn.
Elder Graves said he would now read a
letter from Rev. J. B. Jeter, who is also a
Doctor of Divinity, which he regards as
very conclusive upon the point at issue.
He read as follows:
Richmond, Oct. 6, 1858.
Dear Brother Graves.—Your favor
of September 29th has been received, and
I will promptly reply to your queries.
"1st. If A. offends B. by commenting up¬
on his public acts, his speeches, or public
statements, does or does not the 18th of
Matt, make it the duty of B. to go to A. pri¬
vately, and inform him of his offence given,
and expostulate with him, and if he fails
in this private way, take brethren, &c.
Or, would it be equally scriptural for B. to
employ C. and D. to arraign A. directly be¬
fore the Church for a gross public of¬
fence ?
" 2nd. Will you give me your views of
the distinction between a public and a pri¬
vate offence, and if the 18th of Matthew
applies to both ?"
I deem it better to answer these inqui¬
ries together. The direction given (Matt,
xviii.) refers, in my opinion, to personal of¬
fences, whether they be private or public.
"If thy brother shall trespass against thee,"
&c. The rule is not limited to private, but
embraces all personal offences in whatever
manner given, and in all such offences no
appeal should be made to the authority of
the Church, until the preparatory steps
shall have been taken, as laid down in Mat¬
thew.
A public as distinguished from a per¬
sonal offence, is one against society, or good
morals. If a man gets drunk, or is pro¬
fane, or commits fornication, he does not
trespass against me, but against Christ—
against the public—even if the offence
should be secret, or known only to a few.
In such a case the offender should be dealt
with, not according- to Mat. xviii., but ac¬
cording to 1 Cor. v., especially ver. 11.
But there are cases, I think, in which
an offence may be both personal and public.
Suppose a man were to seduce and ruin my
daughter, he would grievously trespass
against me, but his offence would be against
the public also. It would be vain for me to
deal with him according to 18th of Mat.
Any reparation which Kb might offer to
me, would not meet the end of Church dis¬
cipline. He should be dealt with as was
the incestuous member of the Church at
Corinth. And now I am prepared to an¬
swer your first query.
The offence given by A. to B. might be
of a character so wanton and unchristian as
to be not merely a personal, but a public of¬
fence—a reproach to the cause of Christ.
In this case, a reconciliation between A.
■and B., though in itself desirable, would
fail to answer the ends of Church disci¬
pline. The offender should be dealt with
according to 1 Cor. v. Should, however,
the offence given by A. be of such a nature
that a reconciliation between him and B.
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
13
would end tlie difficulty and vindicate the
character of the Church, then, by all means,
B. should pursue the course marked out by
Mat. xviii., and the Church should refuse
to judge of the case until this course shall
have been adopted by B.
I will now answer question three.
" Suppose a brother has conscientious
scruples about colling a brother Doptor of
Divinity, (see Mat. xviii. 9,) and should, in
writing, omit the appellation, is such an
omission a crime for which one should be
arraigned before the Church ? ' "
Most certainly not. His using the title
might be a sin, but not his omitting to
use it. No man can sin in following his
" conscientious scruples" if he does not, in
doing so, violate stronger " conscientious
scruples/'
I have answered your questions on what
T deem scriptural principles, without the
slightest reference to the difficulty to which
you refer, of which, indeed, I know but
little. I should have preferred to be si¬
lent, but did not feel at liberty to with-
, hold my opinions on the principles of
Church discipline. I have only to request
that should you deem it proper to publish
my letter, that you publish it entire.
Yours affectionately,
J. B. Jeter."
"P. S.—I have deeded it proper, as Dr.
Howell is interested m the opinions ad¬
vanced in this letter, to forward him a copy
of it J."
Elder Graves said that as Dr. Howell
had endorsed this witness, he thought the
matter between them might have been sat¬
isfactorily settled upon the basis marked
out by Dr. Jeter. Dr. Howell had said
that if he (Graves) would have retracted
the charges he had made against him, that
would have been satisfactory, and would
have restored their former relations. He
had begged Dr. Howell to specify the offen¬
sive remarks in his paper but he would not
do it. He could not swallow his paper for
the last five years. Elder Graves con¬
tended that what he had said in the Tenn.
Baptist of Dr. Howell, was purely in self-
defence. If Dr. Howell, however, had
yielded to his importunities, and had spe¬
cified tbe language of which he complained,
and both had retracted whatever was con¬
sidered offensive or unkind, this whole mat¬
ter might have been amicably settled with¬
out involving the Church in what he con¬
sidered a purely personal difficulty.
But, Elder Graves said he would now
read a letter from the President of George¬
town College, D. R. Campbell, who is a
learned Doctor of Laws, in further support
of the position he had assumed. He then
read as follows :
Georgetown, Ky., Oct. 7, 1858.
Dear Brother :—Your favor came to
hand last night. I have marked its con¬
tents, and reply :
1. The case, under your first question,
is strictly subject to Matthew xviii. It is
simply a personal offence publicly commit¬
ted.
2. A private offence is a personal one,
however committed. A public offence is
not all personal, but may be against the
Church, as assailing her character, faith,
practices or interest; or against religion
and morality, as being guilty of practices
which tend to subvert them. As, in such
cases, the offence is against no individual
as such, the steps enjoined (Matt, xviii.)
cannot be taken; tlie officers or leading
men in the Church might, however, in mi¬
nor cases, seek an interview with the of¬
fender previous to his arraignment, with
the view of reclaiming him by remonstrance,
and preparing the case for church action.
Notorious offences of a highly immoral na¬
ture may need only citation and Church
action.
3. It is obligatory on no man to address
another by the title Doctor. He may re¬
frain from it for any reason he ch'ooses.
Pie need not—ought not—to be offensive,
however. It would be too absurd to disci¬
pline any man for not calling another Doc¬
tor, whether he acts from conscientious
scruples, or a conviction that the titled is
without proper qualifications.
Yours, &c.,
D. R. Campbell.
Elder Graves stated that he had a letter
from Rev. Joseph S. Baker, of Florida,
14
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
as well as others, to the same point. He
had clearly established, by the authorities
he had read, the . manner in which this
matter ought to have been settled, and he
appealed to the church to dismiss the case,
and require the prosecution to first take
the steps as laid down in the law of Christ,
and if he failed to comply with that law,
then let them bring the matter before the
church, and deal with him as an offender
should be dealt with. He contended,
moreover, that the case, as it now stands,
makes a false representation of the facts in
regard to the difficulty between Dr. Howell
and himself, by representing him as the
assailing, whereas, he was the assailed
party.
Dr. Howell, said Elder Graves, contends
that this difficulty commenced here in this
house, when the proposition came up be¬
fore the Convention for the establishment
of a Sunday School Board, but he thought
it commenced earlier, and referred to Dr.
Howell's treatment of him, from the time
of his coming here up to the night he
wrote him in regard to his participating in
a prayer meeting. The course pursued
toward him, by Dr. Howell, was a subject
of remark by brethren. From the day
Dr. Howell came back to this city, his
course toward him had been most oppres¬
sive and injurious. He had never ex¬
tended to him, (Graves,) the slightest
courtesy—had never called upon him to
lead in prayer meeting, or invited him to
take part in any other religious exercises :
thus showing that he was not recognized
either as a minister or a christian in his
own church. He felt, and all saw the slight
intended.
In addition to this, Dr. Howell, in his
speech to the Sabbath School Convention,
had made a personal attack upon him
(Graves) and those associated with him,
in that it was done to injure him in the
business by which he made his bread.
And in December following Dr. Howell
published a letter in the Christian Index,
in which this assault upon his (Graves')
business was repeated in even a more of¬
fensive form. All this, Elder Graves said,
was done before he had published a line
repelling these personal assaults upon him¬
self and friends, and yet he was charged
with having assailed and traduced Dr.
Howell.
Elder Graves said, Dr. Howell asks what
he had done to injure him, and replied that
by his private intercourse, by his speeches
and letters, running as far back as Februa¬
ry, Dr. Howell had sought to injure not
only his ministerial character, but his pei-
sonal standing, assailing his honesty as a
man.
Dr. Howell, (interrupting,) demanded
the proof.
Elder Graves replied that he had it, and
would read a statement which had been
voluntarily tendered him by the author.
He then read the following:
" During the month of February or
March, 1858, and while engaged in the le¬
gitimate pursuit of my business, in my
office at Nashville, Dr. Howell made me, as
I suppose, a casual call, finding me engaged
on a drawing for Rev. J. R. Graves. As
soon as the fact was known, (i. e.,) that
the drawing was for Rev. Mr. Graves, Dr.
Howell voluntarily remarked that the said
Rev. J. R. Graves ' was a dishonest man,
and could not be trusted.'
The above is communicated to Rev. J.
R. Graves voluntarily, in view of the re¬
cent action of the First Church in Nash¬
ville toward that gentleman and brQther,
which I have learned from the columns of
tho Tennessee Baptist."
. A. B. Hendren, Arch.
Dr. Howell remarked that he was not
before the Church for trial, and he hoped
the Moderator would permit nothing de¬
famatory of his character to be read. He
denounced the statement of Mr. Hendren
as untrue.
Mr. Fuller rose to a point of order.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
15
Elder Graves. Brother Howell asked
for proof, and I gave it.
Mr. Fuller stated his point of order to
be, that the parties had wandered from the
matter before the church.
The Moderator stated that the parties
must confine themselves to the question
under consideration.
Elder Graves appealed to all present to
bear witness that he was not here to op¬
pose a fair trial, instituted and conducted
according to scriptural usage. He was
ready and willing to submit an investiga¬
tion of his course to such a tribunal.
He referred to one of the charges
brought against him, being the leaving of
"D. D." off Dr. Howell's name in the
Baptist Register.
Mr. Fuller, (interrupting,) I wish to
ask Mr. Graves if he did not have a copy
of the charges when he wrote the article in
which he states that, " one of the most
stupendous charges was the leaving "D. D."
off Dr. Howell's name in the Register?"
Mr. Graves. I understood that to be
one of the charges.
Mr. Fuller. It is very difficult for the
gentleman to answer a plain question cate¬
gorically. I now ask him again, if he did
not have, in his possession, a copy of the
charges when he wrote that article. Let
him answer yes or no.
Mr. Graves. I did.
Dr. Howell said that the opinion of Dr.
Crawford in regard to the difficulty between
Elder Graves and himself, was predicated
upon what he had seen in the Tennessee
Baptist, which is an entire misrepresenta¬
tion of the facts, and therefore, that opin¬
ion was erroneous; and this remark would
apply to all the brethren whose letters
Elder Graves had read. Their opinions
were formed upon ex parte information, and
43 a consequence, they must be errone¬
ous. He imputed nothing wrong to these
brethren. They had been imposed upon,
and, therefore, did him injustice.
In regard to a settlement of this diffi¬
culty, Dr. Howell stated that up to June
or July last a withdrawal of the charges
and misrepresentations made against him,
in the Tennessee Baptist, would have been
satisfactory as far as he was himself per¬
sonally concerned. He desired, most sin¬
cerely, -to terminate the difficulty, but El¬
der Graves would not withdraw the charges
made against him, and the consequence
was that negotiations instituted to bring
about an adjustment failed.
He perceived that Elder Graves was un¬
der an erroneous impression, in regard to
the fourth charge. It was his conduct,
and not that of the brethren mentioned in
that charge, that this church was to inves¬
tigate. He was charged with abuse and
misrepresentation of them, and it was the
duty of the church to try him upon that
charge.
Elder Graves, (interrupting,) asked Dr.
Howell if he did not clearly intimate in his
note, and through the committee he sug¬
gested in that note, that if he, [Graves,]
would retract what he had said about him,
[Howell,] that the matter would stop
there ?
Dr. Howell replied, that the committee
could answer.
Elder Graves called on Mr. Scovel to
state his recollection.
Mr. Scovel replied that he so understood
the matter.
Elder Graves called upon the Moderator
to say if he did not make this impression
upon his, [Graves'] mind.
The Moderator replied that the corres¬
pondence will speak for itself.
Dr. Howell, [resuming,] said he did not
remember to have had any conversation
with Mr. Hendren in regard to Elder
Graves, and he pronounced his statement
16
TRIAL OP REV. J. R. GRAVES.
untrue, and demanded the proof to sus¬
tain it.
Mr. Mcintosh inquired whether Elder
Graves asked for further time to prepare
for this trial ? If he wants more time, he
was willing, and had no doubt the church
was willing to grant it to him.
Elder Graves referred to his protest.
The Moderator then stated the question
before the church to be : Shall this whole
matter be thrown out because the scriptural
usages in such cases has not been observed?
Elder Graves demanded the ayes and
noes.
Upon a call of the roll the vote stood, ayes
41, noes 98.
So the church refused to quash the pro
ceedings.
Elder Graves remarked that he under¬
stood the church by the vote just taken, to
refuse to accept his protest. He would
however, ask that it be spread upon the re
cords of the church.
The Moderator informed Elder Graves
that the church had employed a reporter to
make a full and impartial report of the pro
ceedings of the trial, and his protest would
appear as a part of that report, and thus go
upon the record.
Elder Graves repeated his objection to
the course the church had determined to
pursue in regard to this trial, and announced
his withdrawal from the church. He could
fellowship with this church no longer.
The Moderator reminded Elder Graves
that he had repeatedly expressed the opin¬
ion that the Baptist Church was the only
democratic church on earth, and by the
polity of this church no member can get
out of it except by death or exclusion.
Elder Graves admitted that he still en¬
tertained that opinion of the Baptist church,
but when the majority of the members of a
church trample upon the law of Christ they
become a faction, and are no longer a
church.
Dr. Howell moved to adjourn to Wednes¬
day evening at o'clock.
Dr. Dayton asked leave to read a short
paper—a very short paper.
Mr. Rutland appealed to the church to
hear the paper read.
Dr. Howell refused to withdraw his mo¬
tion to adjourn, as it was now midnight.
The motion being put, was carried, and
the proceedings were closed with prayer by
the Moderator.
Mr. Graves' "protest" has now been giv¬
en with his elaborate arguments to sustain
it; and as no connected review of it could
be made under the circumstances in which it
was unexpectedly sprung before the church,
the Committee of Publication deem it pro¬
per to present at this point the following
review of Mr. Graves' protest, taken from
the Baptist Standard:
DID THE CHURCH DO RIGHT, IN DECIDING
TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL.
The members of the church were satis¬
fied, that the charges were for offences of
such a character, as made the action of the
church not only proper, but necessary. It
had been expected, that Mr. Graves would
either confess his fault, and make proper
satisfaction to the church, or would make a
defence of his course. If he were inno¬
cent, what should he desire more ardently,
than to confront his accusers, and vindi¬
cate his character. If, on the other hand,
he were guilty of the charges brought, a
christian should desire to atone for his
fault, and penitence would prompt a prom¬
ise of amendment.
But Mr. Graves, as has been seen, takes
neither course. He pleads to the indict¬
ment. He occupies a position similar to
that of a man, who, accused of an offence
before the courts of the country, pleads
that the offence charged in the indictment,
even if admitted to be true, is not of such
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
17
a nature, as to bring his case within the
jurisdiction of the court. So Mr. Graves
alleges, that the Offences with which he is
charged, are not of such a character, even
if true, as to give the church jurisdiction
of the matter, until the previous steps, re¬
quired in the 18th chapter of Matthew,
had been taken. He has presented all the
arguments by which he endeavors to sus¬
tain his position, in a protest carefully
written out, and in a prepared speech, af¬
terwards given to. the public in the Ten¬
nessee, Baptist. This protest, and the argu¬
ments of this speech, have now been laid
before our readers. We have presented
all "that has been said, or that can be said,
on that side of the question.
It is but just, that the other side of this
question should be presented also, so that
the public may be able to decide, with all
the arguments before it, whether the of¬
fences charged against J. R. Graves, are
of such a character, as to render it the duty
of the church to proceed with the trial.
statement op the question.
Mr. Graves maintains in his protest and
speech, that in cases of private offence, the
party offended should take the steps re¬
quired in the 18th chapter of Matthew.
We take no issue with Mr. Graves on this
point. We say the same. Both parties
agree that in cases of private personal of¬
fences, the steps required, Matthew 18th,
should betaken, before the matter is brought
before the church. But Mr. Graves fur¬
ther maintains, that he is charged with of¬
fences of this character. Here we take
issue. We maintain that he is charged
with public offences.
If Mr. Graves is charged in the indict¬
ment with private personal offences, it is
admitted that the church had no right to
take action in the case, until the steps re¬
quired, Matthew 18th, had been taken.
But if, on the other hand, he is charged in
2
the indictment with public sins, his case
skould be dealt with according to first Corin¬
thians, 5th chapter, and the church did
right in proceeding with the trial.
This is a fair statement of the question.
We might, in discussing this question,
present the evidence, and prove that J. R.
Graves is guilty as charged; but this would
be going boyond the question in issue.
The question we have now to discuss, is not
whether Mr. Graves is guilty or innocent
of the charges brought against him; but,
whether he is charged with public sins, or
private personal offences. We have now
only to look at the charges brought against
Mr. Graves. Whether they are sustained
or not, will appear in the course of the
trial. We have no desire to prejudice the
public mind, by now entering on a discus¬
sion of the guilt or innocence of Mr.
Graves. Nor is it necessary to our pur¬
pose.
If a man is charged with conduct con¬
stituting a public sin, when he has only
been guilty of conduct which constitutes a
personal offence, it is evident that the
charge cannot be sustained upon trial.
But this is no reason why he should not be
tried, but a reason why he should be tried.
To illustrate : a man is indicted for mur¬
der with malice aforethought, when, in
fact, his offence is only manslaughter.
What is the consequence ? The charge
cannot be sustained, and the man must be
cleared. But he would have no right to
protest against being tried for murder, on
the plea that his offence was not murder,
but manslaughter. He must go into trial,
and establish the fact. So in the present
case. If J. R. Graves is charged with a
public sin, when his conduct is only a pri¬
vate offence, he has no right to protest, on
this ground, against being tried. It is the
very reason he should be tried; for if he
can establish the fact, it is evident that he
must be acquitted. An accused party can
18
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRATES.
never refuse to be tried, on the ground
that he is charged with offences, of which
he is not guilty. The object of a trial is
to ascertain this very fact.
The only ground, on which an accused
party can protest against being tried, is,
that he is charged with an offence of which
the court has no jurisdiction. For instance :
in the State of Kentucky, if A entrusts
property to the care of B, and B sells it
and keeps the money, this is not theft, but
a breach of trust;' and B is not subject to
prosecution by a criminal court, but suit
must be brought against him for the value
of the property. Now suppose B were in¬
dicted in a criminal court, for selling this
property entrusted to his care, and keeping
the money. He might protest against be¬
ing tried by the criminal court. He would
say, I acknowledge the fact with which I
am charged; but I am not charged with a
criminal action. Admitting all to be true,
this court has no right to try me. My
case does not come under its jurisdiction,
but under the jurisdiction of a civil court.
So in the present case. If Mr. Graves
protests against being tried, it must be
upon the ground, that he might admit the
charges to be true, and still he would be
guilty only of a private personal offeuce: in
other words, that he is charged only voiih
a 'private personal offence.
It is evident that we can determine this
question, only by reference to the indict¬
ment. If Mr. Graves is charged in the
indictment with conduct, which constitutes
a personal offence only, his protest is sus¬
tained. If on the other hand, he is
charged with offences which constitute a
public sin, then his protest falls to the
ground, and the church did right in pro¬
ceeding with the trial.
Does the indictment charge Mr.
Graves with conduct, which amounts
only to a private personal oppence,
or with conduct which constitutes* a
public sin ?
It is as follows:
the indictment,
We, the undersigned members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral,
and unchristian conduct, in four distinct
cases as follows:
First, in that he has sought to bring upon
R. B. C. Howell, the pastor of said church,
reproach and injury, and thus to destroy
his character and influence in the South¬
west, by forcing him into collision with
Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Corresponding
Secretary of the Bible Board, and now one
of his associate editors, through the publi¬
cation in his said paper, of various false"
and malicious representations.
Secondly, in that he has endeavored to
distract and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor and four of
its deacons, and several others of its influ¬
ential members, which he has labored to
produce, by numerous inflammatory articles,
published in his paper.
Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub¬
lished in his said paper, against R. B. C.
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry
foul and atrocious libels.
Fourthly, in that he has, at various times,
attacked, slandered, and abused ministers
and brethren, of high character, belonging
to our denomination, throughout the coun¬
try, in his said paper.
[Signed.J
J. C. Darden.
Charles A. Fuller.
A fifth count was added by brethren
Scott and Nelson, in which he was charged
with falsehood in nine specifications.
The indictment charges 11 grossly immoral
and unchristian conduct," not personal of¬
fences.
a dilemma.
Now Mr. Graves is in this dilemma. If
guilty of "grossly immoral and unchristian
conduct/' as charged in the indictment,
then, such conduct is a proper subject of
TRIAL OP REV. J. R. GRAVES.
19
_s r
church action, and he had no right to pro¬
test against a trial. If he pleads not guil¬
ty as charged in the indictment, still he
had no right, on this plea, to protest against
being tried, but was bound to go into trial,
and establish his innocence. He may choose
either horn of the dilemma. Either is fa¬
tal to his protest. If guilty the church
has a right to try members guilty of " gross¬
ly immoral and unchristian conduct." If
not guilty, who ever heard before, of a man
refusing to be tried, because he was not guil¬
ty of the conduct charged in the indict¬
ment? What would be thought of a
prisoner at the bar of justice, protesting
against being tried by the court, on the
ground that he was innocent!! Did any
advocate ever enter such a plea? Was such
a plea ever made before any tribunal ? No;
it was left for J. R. Graves on the 12th
day of October, 1858, to entersuch a plea
for the first time in the annals of the world.
This simple statement is fatal to Mr.
Graves' first ground of protest.
But we will go further. We will main¬
tain, not only that he is charged with con¬
duct which justified the church in trying
hinx under the indictment, but further, that
the conduct specified in the counts, is of a
character, which fully sustains the charge
of the indictment of "grossly immoral and
unchristian conduct." We refer the reader
to the counts under the indictment.
THE CONDUCT SPECIFIED IN THE FIKST TWO
COUNTS STIRRING UP STRIFE.
The conduct specified in the first count—
his seeking to stir up strife between the
Pastor and Elder Dayton—is certainly
" grossly immoral and unchristian conduct.
Of the same character is the conduct spec¬
ified in the second count, where he is charged
with laboring to produce a conflict between
the pastor and four of the deacons of the
church. Will Mr. Graves, or any of his
friends maintain, that stirring up strife
among brethren is not " immoral and un¬
christian conduct ? " Will he maintain
that this conduct is only an offence against
the individuals between whom strife is
raised ? What would be thought of an in¬
dividual, who in one of our towns, was la¬
boring to get two men into conflict ? Would
his conduct be an offence only against the
individuals concerned, or would it be an
offence against society, and the public laws ?
Most undoubtedly the latter. If he suc¬
ceeded in his efforts, and in the conflict one
of the parties were killed, he would be con¬
sidered an accessary to the deed, and would
be punished by the laws. And can Mr.
Graves maintain before an intelligent com¬
munity, that this endeavor to stir up strife
with which he is charged, is not an offence
against the law of God, but only a private
offence against individuals ? Yet such is
his position. In his speech as published in
the Tennessee Baptist, (which by the way is
by no means the speech which he delivered
before the church,) he maintains, that to stir
up strife between Bro. Howell and Elder
Dayton, is only a personal offence against
brother Howell: and that to stir up strife
between brother Howell and four of the
deacons of the church, is only a personal
offence against brother Howell and those
four deacons! We cannot account for this
opinion of Mr. Graves. We must believe
that it is his opinion. It can only be ac¬
counted for as an instance of the power of
habit upon the moral sense.
Is it necessary for us to go into an argu¬
ment to prove that stirring up strife is sin¬
ful ? If strife is sinful, to stir up strife is
equally sinful. To prove that strife is sin¬
ful we need only refer to Romans xiii, 13;
Gal. v. 20; James iii. 14-16; Second
Corinthians xii. 20. It is needless to
to go into an argument, to prove that stirring
up strife is a sin against God. We will
quote a few, out of many passages from the
word of God to prove it. " Why dost thou
20
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
show me iniquity and cause me to behold
grievance ? for spoiling and violence are be¬
fore me : and there are, that raise up strife,
and contention. Therefore the law is
slacked, and judgment doth never go forth:
for the wicked doth compass about the
righteous ; therefore wrong judgment pro-
ceedeth." Habakkuk i. 3, 4. " He loveth
transgression that loveth strife" Prov. xvii.
17. " Wherefore have we fasted, say they,
and thou seest not ? wherefore have we af-
• flicted our soul, and thou takest no knowl¬
edge ? * * Behold ye fast for strife and
debate and to smite with the fist of wick¬
edness." Is. lviii. 3, 4. These passages will
suffice. In the new Testament, while strife
is condemned, and the opposite duties are
inculcated, no law is made against the stirr¬
ing up of strife, for the same reason that the
Romans refused to make a law against par-
icide. The crime was so opposed to every
dictate of filial piety, as to render prohibi¬
tion unnecessary.
This is th® offence with which J. R.
Graves is charged in the first two counts.
We leave it with a candid public to decide,
whether this offence is a private personal
offence against the brethren thus attempted
to be estranged, or an offence against Christ
and his cause.
The conduct charged in the next two
counts comes under the general head of
RAILING.
In the fourth count, he is charged with
having attacked, slandered, and abused, for
years past, various brethren throughout the
country. The third count charges his more
recent offence, of uttering and publishing
libels against the pastor of the First Baptist
Church. Throwing aside legal terms, this
conduct is that specified in scripture lan¬
guage as " railing."
Is railing sinful, or is it merely a private
personal offence ? Let us appeal to the in¬
spired word. " Finally be ye all of one
mind, having compassion one of another )
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous)
not rendering evil for evil, or railing for
railing; but contrarywise blessing." 1st
Peter iii: 8-9. Railing is here placed in
the same catalogue with returning evil for
evil. It belongs to the same class with re¬
venge. We are told that " Michael, the
archangel, when contending with the deyil,
he disputed about the body of Moses, durst
not bring against him a railing ,accusation,
but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 9.
Why durst he not ? Was it not because God
allows none of his creatures to bring railing
accusation against any ? And if an arch¬
angel, in the fear of God, durst not bring
railing accusation against a fallen spirit of
darkness, how shall frail imperfect man
dare to rail against his fellow ? In the days
of the Apostles, no argument would have
been necessary on this point. But alas
for earth ! error in religious truth has filled
the church with its offspring, discord and
contention. And, in zeal for truth, the
servants of God have too often forgotten
what spirit they are of! The Christian
world has become so accustomed to see strife _
and railing between the advocates of oppo¬
sing views, that the great cardinal precepts
of Christianity—love to all—meekness to
opponents—and railing against none—have
to be reasserted and proved !
Some may admit that railing against an
opponent is wrong, and much more railing
against brethren, while they think it is only
a personal offence. The apostle Paul in¬
structs us on this point. In his 1st Epis¬
tle to the Corinthians, 5th chapter, he says,
"Now I have written to you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a broth¬
er be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idola¬
ter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extor¬
tioner, with such an one, no not to eat."
The evident meaning of this passage is, that
these characters are to be excluded from the
church. His meaning is fully explained in
TRIAL OF ItEV. J. R. GRAVES.
21
the 13th verse, " Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked per¬
son." Here the apostle ranks the raiier
with the fornicator, the idolater, and the
drunkard j and directs the church to deal
with him in the same manner. Is the
drunkard—is the idolater—is the fornicator
guilty of public sin ? Then so is the raii¬
er. Inspiration makes no difference be¬
tween them. We dare make none. Do we
want more evidence ? Turn to the 6th chap¬
ter of 1st Corinthians, 9th and 10th verses.
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of
God." The word here rendered revilers,
(loidoroi) is the same word elsewhere ren¬
dered raiier. The word denotes a person
using abusive language. Here the raiier
is classed with the vilest characters; and it
is affirmed of him, that he shall not inher¬
it the kingdom of God. Why can he not
inherit the kingdom of God ? The only
reason which can be assigned, is that his
conduct is a sin against God, and is hateful
in his sight. Has not the church a right
to try a member who is charged with this
sin against ^lod ? Most assuredly. It is
not only her right; it is her duty to inves¬
tigate such charges, when brought against
any of her members.
The offence specified in the 5th count,
added by brethren Scott and Nelson, is
wilful and deliberate falsehood.
Under this count there are nine specifi¬
cations of falsehood. It needs no argument
to prove,, that the conduct charged in this
count is immoral and unchristian. Or will
it be maintained, that deliberate falsehood
is also a personal offence ?
This is the conduct charged against J. R.
Graves. He is charged in the indictment
with "grossly immoral and unchristian con¬
duct." This charge is sustained in five
counts. The conduct specified in the first
two counts, is
stirring up strife between brethren.
The conduct charged in the next two
counts, is
railing against his brethren.
The conduct specified in the fifth count, is
wilful and deliberate falsehood.
Now we put this question to the candid
reader: if these counts can be established
in trial, do they not sustain the charge in
the indictment, of " grossly immoral and
unchristian conduct ?" If stirring up strife
between brethren—if railing upon brethren
for years together—if wilful and deliber¬
ate falsehood, do not constitute immoral con¬
duct, we must confess, that we know not
what does. This is the conduct charged
upon J. R. Graves, yet he maintains that
he is charged only with private offences
against individuals!
We are not now discussing the question
whether Mr. Graves is guilty of these of¬
fences. This is not the proper time for such
a discussion. Nor is it necessary for our
present purpose, to establish his guilt. It
is only necessary for us to show that he is
charged with offences which constitute
pullic sin. This has been done. And now
it matters not whether he is guilty, as
charged, or not. In either case the church
had jurisdiction of the cause, and he was
bound to go into trial. Wherever a person
is charged before any tribunal with conduct
of which that tribunal has jurisdiction, he
can never refuse to be tried by that tribunal,
whether he is innocent or guilty. Inno¬
cence does not exempt him from trial. It
never exempts from trial before any court.
How then could it exempt Mr. Graves from
trial?
The first ground of Mr. Graves' protest
has now been examined, and it has been
found wholly insufficient to establish the po-
22
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
sition, that the church should not go on
with the trial. The assumption upon which
it rests, yiz : That he is charged only with
personal offences, is found to be incorrect.
It has been established that he was charged
with sinful conduct, which gave the church
entire jurisdiction of the case.
the second ground of protest.
Mr. Graves' second ground of protest is,
that he is the offended, and not the offend¬
ing party.
It is unnecessary here to enter upon a
discussion of the fact alleged. Whether
this be true or not will appear in the course
of the trial.
For a discussion of the issue presented
in this ground of protest, we refer the read¬
er to the article in [another page, headed
" The 18th chapter of Matthew."
It is only necessary to remark in this
connection, that even if the fact alleged
were admitted, it furnishes no ground for
his refusing to be tried. This point has
been already discussed in the examination
of the first ground of protest. It is a plea
of innocence, which as has been seen, fur¬
nishes an additional reason why the trial
should proceed.
'the third ground op protest.
The third ground of protest is, that the
church has no jurisdiction of the conduct
specified in the fourth count. The reason
alleged is, the persons assailed are not mem¬
bers of the First Church. It seems suffi¬
cient answer to this, that the church is not
claiming jurisdiction over those brethren.
It claims jurisdiction over the conduct of Mr.
Graves only, who was a member of the
church, and subject to her jurisdiction.
The principle maintained in this ground
of protest is, that a church has no right to
try a member for any wrongs which he in¬
flicts on persons without her pale. The
fallacy of this principle will appear upon
brief reflection. If a member of a church
falls upon an unconverted person, and in¬
flicts upon him bodily injury, has not the
church the right to try him for his con¬
duct ? Suppose the person beaten is a
member of a sister church, has not the
church still a right to investigate the con¬
duct of her own member ? The true posi¬
tion is this: When a church member is
charged with unchristian conduct towards
any one, no matter whom, it is the duty of
the church to investigate the charge.
fourth ground of protest.
Mr. Graves' fourth ground of protest (he
erroneously styles it the third) is, that the
specifications are not sufficiently definite.
It was intended to make the specifications
sufficiently definite to enable Mr. Graves to
know of what he was charged. If, howev¬
er, they were not sufficiently definite, this
would have been ground for Mr. Graves to
ask for delay in order to prepare his de¬
fence. He might also have properly de¬
manded that the specifications should be
made more definite. All this, doubtless,
would have been granted him. The church
had postponed the trial once, and, no doubt,
would have done so again, had he requested
it. It was disposed to act towards Mr.
Graves with the utmost consideration and
fairness, and would have givetf him all the
time he might have needed to prepare his de¬
fence. Indeed Bro. Mcintosh proposed to do
so. He asked Mr. Graves if he desired more
time, and expressed the willingness he felt,
as did the members of the church, to grant
it. But Mr. Graves, in answer, only re¬
ferred to his protest; thus, evidently show¬
ing that his desire was to evade a trial al¬
together. The fact, here -specified, would
have justified Mr. Graves in asking for
more definite specifications, and in demand¬
ing time to prepare a defence; but it does
not justify him in refusing to be tried
at all.
We have thus examined the protest of
TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
23
Mr. Graves, and find it utterly groundless.
Not one objection which he urges can be
sustained.
"We submit the question, whether the
church did right in her decision to proceed
with the trial of J. R. Graves, to the judg¬
ment of a candid public.
THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER OF MATTHEW.
One of the great ends of the christian
religion, is that the members of Christ shall
live together in the unity of the spirit,
and the bonds of peace, bound and knit
together in love. Every departure from
this state of feeling is a departure' from the
will of Christ. There should be no con¬
tentions between brethren.
But in the present depraved condition
of our natures, offences will be conceived,
with, or without cause. Hence, the Divine
author of our religion has, in this precept,
provided a rule of action for such cases,
that, by its observance, wounded feelings
may be healed.
When a christian conceives himself in¬
jured by a brother, his carnal nature
prompts retaliation. But this must not be.
The law of Christ is plain. He must go
to the offending brother and tell him his
fault. If the injury was unintentional, an
opportunity is thus given for explanation.
If this command were complied with,
there could be no heart burnings among
brethren. The letting in of the waters—
the beginning of strife, would be stopped,
and the church would enjoy perfect harmo¬
ny, and peace, and love. How wise this
provision to preserve the church from
disturbance and division. How beautifully
it harmonizes with all the principles of
Christianity, and how perfect its unison
with the love, which should pervade every
christian's heart. The christian, upon re¬
ceiving offence, feels no revenge, or should
feel none. He is wounded, he is grieved;
and his first emotion is to go to the brother
whom he loves, who has thus trespassed
against him, and remonstrate with him,
not with harshness, but with regret. The
offending brother is melted, reparation is
cheerfully made, and their friendship and
love is more firmly rooted, by the blast
which has shaken it. It was obedience to
this command, which promoted that har¬
mony, which was the strength of the early
churches of Christ, and which bore a wit¬
ness of the truth of the gospel among the
heathen, who said: "How these christians
love one another."
The object of this precept is evidently
to prevent alienation between brethren.
The only construction which can he placed
upon it, limits its application to the begin¬
ning of estrangement. Its design was tb
prevent this estrangement from breaking
out into an open rupture. As soon as a
christian feels a sentiment of alienation
from his brother, at that moment this pre-
eept applies to him. He must let this feel¬
ing go no further. This estrangement
must be healed. But how ? Go to thy
brother. Seek an explanation. If he hear
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. The
difficulty is ended. But if he will not hear
thee, go to him again; repeat your remon¬
strance in the presence of one or two wit¬
nesses. If he still will not hear thee; tell
it to the church. Here your personal con¬
nection with the matter ends. You tell it
to the church. Your cause is in the hands
of the cliureh. It must demand the proper
reparation. If it is not given, the offend¬
ing and obstinate brother must be ex-
eluded.
Here it will be seen that no provision is
made for the offended brother to retaliate.
Such conduct is opposed to the genius of
Christianity. Christianity allows no retal¬
iation, no feeling of revenge. Without
this provision of Matthew 18th, there would
be a want of harmony in the system
Trespasses could not be resented, aad our
24
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
religion would present no means of redress.
But this precept presents a method, in beau¬
tiful harmony with the spirit of the gospel,
by which all wrong may be redressed—all
wounded feelings healed.
But has the offended brother the right
to cherish resentment in his heart, without
taking the course marked out in this pre¬
cept? Bid the Savior leave it optionary
with his people to obey this command, if
they chose, or to retaliate, if they prefered
to do so ? The command is positive, ancl
disobedience to it is as sinful, as the trans¬
gression of any other command. When¬
ever the state of things which it contem¬
plates has occurred, obedience is enjoined
as a duty. The church is the proper tri¬
bunal to enforce obedience to this, as well
as the other commandments of God.
Then, if the offended brother retaliates,
and attempts to injure the brother with
whom he is offended, he is doubly guilty.
In the first place, he has transgressed this
command. In the second place, he has
violated all the principles of peace, and
love, inculcated by our Savior. His con¬
duct is no longer a private offence against
an individual, but a public sin against
Christ. He has chosen to do wrong, when
Christ has directed him how to do right.
He has avenged himself, when Christ di¬
rected him to endeavor to gain his brother.
As a sin against Christ and his law, the
church should take cognizance of his con-
duet.
He cannot now shelter himself behind
the 18th chapter of Matthew. The state
of things, to which this precept was in¬
tended to apply, is past. He has brought
about the state of things, which it was de¬
signed to prevent. He has, himself, tram¬
pled upon the precept of the 18th chapter
of Matthew, and ho cannot now raise it
from the dust, to interpose it as a shield,
between him and the condemnation of the
church.
Our Savior gave this precept to prevent
the beginning of contention, but he has, in
the indulgence of unhallowed passions,
entered upon contention.
Laws should be interpreted by the de¬
sign of the law-giver. They shoiild never
be wrested to a different design. If this
precept was given to prevent the beginning
of contention, by promoting a reconcilia¬
tion; when contention is begun, it no longer
applies. If it was made to prevent con¬
tention, it was not made to shield the con¬
tentious man. On the contrary it con¬
demns him. And if his conduct, in viola¬
ting this precept, should receive the con¬
demnation of the church, how can he
claim, that this precept forbids the church
to judge him, for violating the other com¬
mands of our Savior.
Paul writes to the Corinthians, with re¬
gard to a brother, who is a railer. Does he
say that the brother, against whom he thus
rails, must go to him, and remonstrate with
him according to Matthew 18th ? No.
He says to the church, "put away from
among yourselves that wicked person."
This must be received as an explanation
of the precept of our Savior, as understood
by the Apostle. It evidently limits the
application of the precept to the beginning
of estrangement, and shows that whenever
that precept is violated, and a brother rails
upon one with whom he is offended, the
church should take cognizance of his cob-
duct.
Wednesday Evening, Oct. 13.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
The proceedings were opened by reading a
portion of Scripture by the Moderator, and
prayer by Rev. Mr. Woolfolk.
The reading of the minutes of the previous
meeting was dispensed with.
On motion, the first count in the charge of
grossly immoral and unchristian conduct
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
25
preferred against Elder J. R. Graves, was
taken up 'and read as follows :
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the Editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral and
unchristian conduct, in that he has sought to
bring upon R. B. O.Howell, the Pastor of
said church, reproach and injury, and thus
to destroy his character and influence in the
Southwest, by forcing him into _ collision
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Correspond¬
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now
one of his associate editors, through the
publication in his said paper of various false
and malicious representations.
Mr. Fuller stated that the evidence to sus¬
tain this count, was to be found in various
numbers of the Tennessee Baptist, which he
read as follows:
Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13, 1858.
44 There is manifestly a systematic attempt to
cripple down the Secretary of the Bible
Board, on the part of anti landmark men, and
editors. We allude to what has appeared in
the journal from his associate editors, and the
course of a portion of the Baptist press, and
the anti-landmark portion of the Board, and
recently heralded to the world by '' A mem¬
ber of the Board," and not the least indicative
sign, the allusion to brother Dayton as Cor¬
responding Secretary in Elder Howell's letter
to the Index, in which he virtually—to all
intents and purposes—attaints brother Day¬
ton for malfeasance in office by an insinuation.
We allude to this sentence: 44 But we are
told by the newspapers that this very brother
is himself rapidly preparing Sunday School
books, and that several will be ready, and
actually presented to 4 The Union' in April
next, at Americus, in your State. Very well—
let him prepare them, if the Bible Board will
allow their Corresponding Secretary to de¬
vote nearly all his time to writing boohs,
and instead of presenting them to 4 The Un¬
ion] let him send them to the Southern Bap¬
tist Publication Society. If they are such
books as the Baptists approve, that Society
will publish them, and for as small a price
and in as good style as the work can be done
elsewhere in the South or South-West."
44 Does brother Howell mean to say that
the Corresponding Secretary has neglected,
or may probably neglect his official duties, to
write books ? If not, why say if the Board
will allow him to devote nearly all his time
to writing books ? In any light, the impres¬
sion left is very bad, and casts suspicion upon
the Secretary, reflecting too nearly a senti¬
ment once before published in this city, that
no man should approve. All these things are
calculated to make the position of the Cor¬
responding Secretary uncomfortable, destroy
his peace, and paralyze his influence and use¬
fulness. We have no doubt but that an anti-
landmark Secretary would be preferred by
that part of the Board that adopted the late
report of a committee. Brother Dayton can
easily be driven from the Board, and will cer¬
tainly be by this treatment, but will the
Board supply his place with a better man 1
He [Mr. Dayton] has done too much good
to be let alone. He is enjoying too much of
the love, and attracting too much of the- at¬
tention of Baptists not to be compelled to
suffer the penalty, that superiority or great
usefulness is ever doomed to pay."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, Feb. 20, 1858.
44 That part of Brother Howell's letter that
most deeply pains us, is the sentence that
casts that most unkind and cruel suspicion
upon brother Dayton. Unless it does by im¬
plication charge him with having spent most
of his time, or that he is now spending, or
that the probabilities are that he is about to
spend most of his time writing books, we can¬
not gather brother Howell's intent in penning
it. He must have known that it would deep¬
ly wound brother Dayton's feelings, mar his
peace, and make him uncomfortable. He
must have known that the sentence was ad¬
mirably calculated to excite suspicion in the
minds of all over whom he had any influ¬
ence. He [Howell] doubtless knew that such
a paragraph as this had been penned and
published by a member of the Bible Board.
Surely brother H. nor any man can think it
strange that brother D. should feel sensitive
to see such an insinuation reproduced by the
President of the Bible Board."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 45, July 17, 1858.
44 Our readers will find in this column this
week a fine specimen of the sentiments of
not the Baptist '•rank and file only,' but of
a number of the leading minds of the denom¬
ination from Maryland to Florida, and Vir¬
ginia to the furthered Texas."
Among these "leading minds" see the fol-
26
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
lowing from an article signed " Alabama:'''1 ,
" Where is Tustin's influence in South Caro-!
lina? Where are Hillman's and'his friend
H. in Tennessee ? Where is Henderson's in '
Alabama? Not one of them has a tithe of
the influence in the heart of their territory I
that they had before they began this s war on
brother Graves and his paper. 'They have
made a pit, and digged it, and are fallen into
the ditch which they have made. Their mis¬
chief has returned upon their own heads,
and their violent dealing has come down up¬
on their own pate.'"
The testimony to sustain this count in the
charge against Elder Graves having been
read,
The Moderator stated that Elder Graves
would now be afforded an opportunity to of¬
fer any counter testimony he desired.
No testimony being offered by the de¬
fendant,
The Moderator said the prosecution would
now be heard.
Dr. Howell said :
Brother Moderator and Brethren :
It has become my duty, on various ac¬
counts, to address you, on this first count in
the trial of Rev. J. R. Graves, now pending
before you. I do so, not because it concerns
me more than it does many other brethren,
here and elsewhere, but because I am proba¬
bly more familiar with the details than any
other member of the church, and at the re¬
quest of the brethren who are the prosecu¬
tors, in this, and the three following counts.
I should do injustice to my feelings, did I
not here declare, that the necessity which has
forced brethren to bring this charge before
you, with its several counts, and their speci¬
fications, and proofs, against a professed broth¬
er, a member of this beloved church, pains
me most deeply. But however painful to us,
it has become indispensably necessary in or¬
der to protect the church, to protect your pas¬
tor, and to protect other brethren, at home
and abroad, from his assaults now so long
continued, and which give no indications that
they will soon cease. Would that this last
resort could have been avoided. No alter¬
native however, was left you. Every scriptu¬
ral measure was resorted to in vain. You
indeed, went even further than the scriptures
demanded. Every practicable compromise
was proposed to him. In his private notes,
and in his paper, he would, as 1 am now com¬
pelled to think, for effect merely, " entreat to
be made sensible of his wrong doing," pro¬
testing that he " was ready to do whatever
truth and religion required." But when
brought to the point he invariably, and per¬
sistently refused to retract, or disavow any of
his false and injurious charges against breth¬
ren, to apologize, or to do any thing else, but
continue to assault and defame them. The
more solicitous our private efforts to restrain
him, the more reckless grew from week to
week, his attacks. All this you know, as well
as I do, to be strictly true. You could do no
more. Longer forbearance would have been
a sin against God, and your brethren. The
cause was bleeding at every pore. Every
principle of the gospel of Christ demanded
that your indulgence should terminate ; that
he should be arraigned before you without
further delay ; you yielded to the dire neces¬
sity which he forced upon you.
With other brethren in this church, and
out of it, I myself, it seems, have come in for
a large share of his abuse and defamation.
Why, may I ask, brother Moderator, should
Mr. Graves evince so much bitterness towards
me particularly ? Indulge a few statements
in this connection ; and if I detain you some¬
what, before we enter more directly upon the
count in the indictment to be considered to¬
night, I shall, I am sure, be pardoned.
I have now been a member of the Baptist
church about thirty-seven years. During all
that time I have sought earnestly, and hith¬
erto with almost perfect success to " live in
peace with all men." With Mr. Graves par¬
ticularly, I had determined to have no con¬
flict. This was my firm purpose. For this
conciliatory course, I had various reasons, to
some of which I may not improperly refer.
In him I had taken a special interest, and
towards me, I must think, had he been a man
of ordinary temper of mind, he would under
his circumstances, have thought, and acted,
very differently. When he first came to this
city, a stranger, and friendless, I received him,
as he must himself, even now confess, with all
kindness. He possessed as I thought, talents
which with earnest piety, humility, industry,
and ordinary prudence, might render him an-
eminently useful laborerin the cause of Christ.
We were in this state, at that time, as indeed
we are even now, exceedingly destitute of
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
27
ministers. I was, perhaps too strongly, de¬
sirous of increasing their numbers, and there¬
fore too ready to extend my confidence to any
one who claimed to preach the gospel of
Christ. Knowing nothing of his antecedents
except that I found his name as an instructor
in the catalogue of a school in Kingsville,
Ohio, I introduced him, as I must now admit,
prematurely, and imprudently, to our people
in this city, and throughout the country. I
aided to the extent of ray ability, in procur
ing for him here, patronage as a teacher. As
a means of enlarging the sphere of his influ
ence, and usefulness, I sought for him, and
successfully, the pastorship, then vacant, of
the Second Church in this city. And when
in that office, he so signally failed, as some of
you know, and thought it necessary to remove
his membership, no one lamented all this
more than I did. You sympathized with him,
and kindly, but unfortunately received him
back into this church.
Pardon if you please, another series of
facts in relation to Mr. Graves. With other
brethren of this city, I labored, as some of
you here present can bear me witness, for
thirteen years most assiduously, to originate,
and establish a Baptist newspaper, for this
state, and the South-West. This paper, I
myself edited during all that period, and for
the whole of this thirteen years' work I re¬
ceived not one cent of pecuniary compensa¬
tion. I thought myself amply paid in the
good which the paper accomplished for the
cause of Christ. I also toiled with others faith
fully to originate a Baptist Bookstore here,
from which our people could obtain such
books as might be useful in the defense, ex¬
planation, and diffusion of true Baptist princi
pies. Our success was, under the circum¬
stances, remarkable. Very many of the best
works of approved authors, were distributed
through the city and country. When these
enterprises had both been at length achieved,
and placed upon a sure footing, having in my
mind the example of Dr. Mercer, of Georgia,
I made a donation of the paper, which was
my individual property, to the General Asso¬
ciation of Tennessee, and co-operated with
that body, in placing both the paper and the
bookstore in the hands of Mr. Graves, and of
his then partner in business. The paper when
it left my hands was free from debt. It owed
no man one dollar. Nor did Mr. Graves,
nor did his firm, nor did any one else for
him, or them, pay for it a single dollar. These
facts may seem strange to brethren who have
seen the statement so frequently of late re¬
peated in the Tennessee Baptist, that it was
at that very time, five or six thousand dollars
in debt! Atone time it is declared that the
paper was in debt when it left my hands five
thousand dollars; at another six thousand,
and at another enough to " sink four such pa¬
pers." All this is asserted in its columns,
when Mr. Graves must have known that it
owed no man a cent. Should Mr. Graves
deny the truth of this statement, I shall bring
such proofs of its truth as no man in this city
will ever dispute. We made the paper without
debt, a gift, and we gave our books at prime
cost, to Messrs. Graves and Shankland, in the
hope that under their management the former
as editor, and the latter as a business man, the
cause of Christ would be materially strength¬
ened, and advanced. In this hope, alas, how
melancholy has been our disappointment.
Little did we then think that this paper and
bookstore were to be perverted to mere private
ends, and to be employed to distract, divide,
and destroy the churches, and people of
Christ!
And still another series of facts ought here
to be recounted. Mr. Graves being at that
time, a comparative stranger, and it being se¬
riously, and perhaps justly, apprehended that
a consequent natural want of confidence in
him, on the part of our people, which doubt¬
less would have been felt towards any other
man they did not know, might prove detri¬
mental to the interests of the paper, I intro¬
duced him to its readers, and continued to
speak of him in its columns, in terms of high
commendation. I also continued with him, as
one of its editors, for months afterwards, and
still as he well knows, without a cent of com¬
pensation. I soon began to fear that in these
arrangements we had made a serious mistake.
In the style, and spirit of his editorials, I was
greatly disappointed. I did all I could, but
ineffectually, to soften, and direct them into
the channel of Christian courtesy. I failed
totally. Mr. Graves did not choose to defer
to my opinion. When I could no longer
endure theirharshness, and belligerency, I left
finally, the editorship of the paper, still
hoping for the best, but without one word of
valedictory to its readers, lest I might thereby
injure its circulation. In this way, and it
may be said without any self laudation, I
28
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
contributed in no small degree, to give Mr.
Graves popularity, and influence, in Tennes¬
see, and the South-West. To you brother
Moderator, and not a few others here present,
who were then my coadjutors, all these facts
are well known. And I appeal to you, and
the whole church to say, whether you had
not, and the church, and I had not therefore
a right to expect from Mr. Graves a conduct
towards us, very different from that which he
has thought proper to pursue. He ought to
have felt some gratitude. He ought at least,
not to have pursued us with such relentless,
and persevering hostility. I regret the neces¬
sity of detailing these facts, and submit to it
only because they are necessary to a just,
and proper decision of the case now before
you.
In April 1850,1 left Tennessee, and return¬
ed to Virginia, where I confidently expected
to remain, and to terminate my earthly labors,
among the scenes of my childhood, and the
friends of my early days. This church seem¬
ed very desirous that I should again return,
and resume your pastorship. The church
knows what at various times, you did in this
behalf. I declined a first call, and a second
call. I did so for several reasons. My fam¬
ily is very large, and expensive, and cannot
be transferred from one city to another, es¬
pecially if distant from each other, without
heavy cost, and labor. I have ever been op¬
posed to frequent pastoral removals. They
are in my judgment, serious evils, and to be
avoided whenever it is possible. I was great¬
ly prospered in my church in Richmond.
That church was very large, and flourished
abundantly. The Lord had there wonder¬
fully succeeded my labors. It was my pur¬
pose not to return to Nashville, notwithstand¬
ing the advice of many brethren who thought
I ought to do so. My designs were all prov¬
identially changed, and in .the following
manner: In May 1857, I was a member of
the Southern Baptist Convention held early
in that month, in Louisville, Kentucky, and I
took that occasion to visit this church, on
my way home. I did this not only to grati¬
fy a long cherished affection, but also and es¬
pecially to aid the church as far as I might
be able to do so, in procuring the services of
a suitable pastor. During my stay, which
continued three or four days, I was appealed
to in such a way as that I became impressed
with the conviction that it was the will of
God that I should return, and that duty there¬
fore demanded my compliance. I conse¬
quently accepted the pastorship, which was
a few days afterwards again offered, and re¬
turned to my old and loved field of labor, in
which I had previously spent sixteen of the
best years of my life.
We now approach the period inyourhistory
which originated the present state of things.
Certain givings out in his paper indicated very
plainly that my return to Nashville was dis¬
tasteful to Mr. Graves. I believed however
that I could overcome his dislike. I made it
a point, for many reasons, to exercise towards
him all kindness, mingled with affectionate
candor. I knew his belligerent propensities,
and determined to give him no pretext for as¬
sailing me. I assured him that though not a
Landmarker in his sense, I cared nothing for
Landmarkism, one way nor the other, provi¬
ded those who held the doctrine made no dis¬
turbance about it, and that he must know
that on that subject every church has a right
to do as it pleases, without being called in
question; that I wished well to his Publishing
House, and would seek its interests, provided
always that I must oppose several of his books,
which I believed to be unscriptural, and I
thought their circulation among our people
an injury to truth, and piety; that I disap¬
proved the style, the spirit, and much of the
matter of his paper; that these wete my
candid views, but that I should not attack
him, and hoped that he would not attack me;
that we could work together, and I trusted we
should do so, since we were together in this
city, members of the same church, and the
cause demanded our co-operation. All this in
a late paper he confesses I said to him, and
substantially avows that he placed no confi¬
dence in either the sincerity, or truth of my
statements. I noticed at the time, that to all
I said on these topics, he listened for the most
part in silence, and with the appearance of
the incredulity he has since expressed. Va¬
rious other essays which I made to secure
his kind feelings, were, I am sorry to say,
equally unsuccessful. The price of his favor
was evidently entire submission to his view's
and purposes.
The omens were unpropitious, but we
nevertheless proceeded together as harmo¬
niously as I expected until the meeting of the
Sabbath School Convention in this city, in
October of last year. In that meeting we
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
29
divided in opinion on, so far as I know, a single
topic only. With I know not how many other
brethren of this, and other churches, I con¬
curred in sentiment. We favored at the time,
the organization of a Southern Baptist Sun¬
day School Union, provided it could be done
with the concurrence of the whole South; we
thought such an organization needed to have
in charge the general direction of that impor-
portant department of our interests; we believ¬
ed that it would do good in devising measures,
and securing the means to send out, and
sustain Sunday School agents, and colpor¬
teurs ; we maintained that we wanted more,
and better Sunday School books than we
now have ; we opposed only the organization
of a Board in this city, charged with the
-special duty of procuring the writing and
publication of Sunday School Books. We
did so for reasons which I shall present
to your view more fully hereafter, but espe¬
cially because we have already in the South,
and sufficiently convenient to this city, an
able and efficient Board, to whom the churches
throughout the country have entrusted this
identical work, a,nd an attempt now on our
part, to supercede that Board by the appoint
ment of another, and that too, without con¬
sulting our brethren in other States, would
be alike illiberal and unjust. I myself, sug¬
gested to him, that it would not meet the ap¬
proval of our brethren generally, and that if
he insisted upon it, he would, since he is a
publisher, be suspected of being influenced by
interested motives, disavowing mean time,
the imputation of any such motives myself.
I assured him that in my opinion, his honor
demanded that he should take the same
ground that we did in relation to the organi¬
zation of that Board ; that as his pastor, I
would for his sake, if for no other reason,
take the ground I then held; and that I
hoped for the sake of the union, and harmo¬
ny of our people ; in deference to the courtesy
due our brethren elsewhere; and for his own
sake, he would give up the appointment of
that particular Board. In all this we were
sincere, disinterested and kind. Our purpose
was to conciliate all parties, and to secure the
continued harmony of our brethren in every
portion of our Southern Zion. It did not
then occur to me that in using these argu¬
ments I should, or could lay myself liable to
be assailed, as I have been, with so much
bitterness, and violence, as seeking to injure
hisqrrivate business, or to do harm in any
way to his Publishing House. I envy no
man his prosperity. If Mr. Graves has made
a handsome fortune already, and I am assured
that he has, I should but the more rejoice in
his wealth if gained honestly, and honorably.
On these, and other similar topics, I in my
simplicity, supposed myself to be above sus¬
picion. * Nor, it now seems to me, could Mr.
Graves himself, have thought, or charged as
he afterwards did, that in all this, we were
covertly seeking to overthrow his Publishing
House, and to destroy his private business, if
he had not believed that the organization in
this city, of that particular Publication Board,
was to contribute materially to the building
up of his Publishing House, and the success
of his private business. Of late, as you well
know, he boldly affirms that our object was
to deprive him, and his family of their bread.
How could this construction be placed
upon our action ? Does his bread and the
br»ad of his family depend upon the
overthrow of other interests ? I hold that he
does not deserve to succeed in business, who
acts upon the principle that to build up him¬
self he must overthrow and destroy his
neighbor.
We certainly, in all we did and said, in¬
tended no discourtesy, much less offence, to
any one. Nor, for several months after that
meeting, did it seem that we had harmed,
either Mr. Graves, his Publishing House, or
Mr. Dayton. Our relations, abating some
rude assaults upon Mr. Hillsman, in which he
implicated my integrity, continued much, as
they were before, up to about February of
the present year. Meantime nearly all the
Baptist papers, in the whole South, and
Southwest, had expressed their opinions on
these questions; and while they fully sus¬
tained the correctness of our conclusions,
decidedly condemned those of Mr. Graves,
and his partisans, and especially, as to his
Writing and Publishing Board in this city.
At this point, it was, that he commenced,
with violence, his public attacks upon us,
generally, and upon me particularly, which
make up three of the five counts in the
charge now before you; and all of which
you are, as a church, now called upon faith¬
fully, and impartially to try, and decide, ac¬
cording to the word of God. These trans¬
actions have all occurred among you. To
you, and to you only7, is Mr. Graves amena-
80
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
ble for his conduct. You, according to the
teachings of the Divine word, are the judges,
and the only scriptural judges of the law,
and the facts.
Adhering to the course, which, at the
beginning, I had prescribed for myself, I
persevered in refusing to have any newspa¬
per controversy with Mr. Graves, or any one
else, on these or any like issues, involving in¬
dividual honor, or integrity. I did not res¬
pond to a single one of all his numerous as¬
saults, nor have I up to this hour, given
him any provocation, or answered him one
word, either in his own, or any other paper.
Indeed, I cherished for months, and so did we
all, the hope—alas, that it was so futile!—
that he would, himself see his errors, and if
he did not return to a better mind, and vol¬
untarily do me, and the other brethren in
volved with me, justice, he would, at least,
not press these attacks to a rupture of church
fellowship.
As his pastor I continued to visit, and in¬
deed to give special attention to him, and bis
family. With him personally, however, my
interviews became gradually, more and more
restrained, and at last were always painful.
They were suddenly terminated by his pub¬
lication,, in his paper, with misrepresentations,
and perversions of two private, confidential,
and unreserved conversations, which had
Some months before occurred in his office, in
this city. In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23,
dated February 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves says:
"A short time before the Convention, Bro.
Howell was in the city office, when we re¬
marked we supposed he had drafted a con¬
stitution, &c., to be presented when the body
met,"—the Sunday School Convention. "He
replied that his time had been so engaged,
that he had not, and requested us to draft
one. We said, certainly, we had plenty of
time of course, having so little to do! We
added, that it devolved upon, and would be
expected of him, owing to the position he
had taken. He knew better than any one.
I suggested that if he could not find time, he
had better ask brother Dayton to draft it, as
he was one of the movers." "Brother How¬
ell then requested us to draft a suitable con¬
stitution, which we did."
And further, in the Tennessee Baptist, No.
24, dated February the 20th, 1858, Mr.
Graves says:
"Brother Howell" "will doubtless remem¬
ber that some months since, he was present
in our office, when an order came from that
Society, [Southern Baptist Publication Soci¬
ety,] for certain of our books, provided we
could send them within a certain time, at
forty per cent off from our catalogue prices.
This led to some inquiry, why his books
were not on sale with us, and more generally
circulated in Tennessee. The reason assigned
was, that we could net afford to give our
books at forty per cent off, in exchange for
his at twenty-five, or even at thirty-five per
cent. We would delight to meet them on
equal terms;, but to demand so much more
for their books, than they are willing to give
for ours, was, in effect to forbid us to engage
in their circulation. He suggested, that we
send oack an order, worded precisely as theirs
was, only substituting the titles of his books,
for those ordered from us, and intimated that
he felt it was doing him an injury for their
own advantage, thus to lock up his valuable
works from a large, and generous circulation,
At least those present, who heard the conver¬
sation, understood him to intimate this. He
did not indeed, charge it in direct terms, nor
say that he supposed 'others would do so.'
But he remarked with a peculiar cast of his
head, and a vrrv meaning smile, that 'He
was a native oflNorth Carolina, and the peo¬
ple of that State prided themselves upon
their sagacity, at least in one particular, and
that is, that they always know a gourd when
they see the handle.'"
Now this statement of these two conver¬
sations, is not wholly false, although a large
part of it is false. Conversations, and on
these topics, were had. They were free, un¬
guarded, confidential, and having occurred
soon after my return to this city, were in the
unreserved style in which commonly friend
talks to friend. But Mr. Graves' version
colors, perverts, adds to, and diminishes from
them in such a way, as that they make an
impression which is utterly false. To publish
at all, without the consent of the parties con¬
cerned, private, and confidential conversations,
is a violation of all the principles of honor;
to publish such private and confidential con¬
versations, with perversions, and falsifications,
is grossly immoral, and unchristian; to pub¬
lish them with the design to do injury to the
person concerned, catching up his words
carelessly dropped in fiee conversation, where
no caution, or reserve, is thought necessary,
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
81
and parading tbem with these falsifications,
and perversions, in the newspapers, is conduct
which I do not choose to characteiise. In
this manner had Mr. Graves demeaned him¬
self towards me, again and again. The next
day after the publication of the second, of
these articles, I met Mr. Rogers, a member
of Mr. Graves' Firm, and frankly told him,
that I could not again visit the office of the
Tennessee Baptist, that I was afraid to do so,
since what I said there in free conversation,
and on subjects, no matter how delicate, had
by its editor,been caught up, and, in violation
of all the principles of honor, and greatly to
my prejudice, published in his paper. After
this, how, brother Moderator and brethren,
could I have, with Mr. Graves, even social,
but especially christian, and ministerial inter¬
course?
These attacks upon me I perhaps felt the
more keenly, because of my relations to him
in past time; as well as from being a member
of the same church, and, also, his pastor.
During five or six years past, Mr. Graves
has been engaged in attacking, abusing, and
defaming brethren of high character, through¬
out the country. Specifications of these facts,
constitute one of the counts in the indict¬
ment now before you. His assaults upon me,
were but an aggravated instance of his gene¬
ral conduct. Nor in this church, were these
onslaughts confined to his pastor. They
were equally furious against certain members
of the Bible Board, who are, also, members
of this church, as brethren J. D. Winston,
Fuller, Jones, C. K. Winston, Darden, S. M.
Scott, Nelson, Bang, and others. These facts,
also, form one of the specifications of the
charge against Mr. Graves. At the same
time commenced, also, his efforts to divide
this church, so plain in their design, and pur¬
sued with so much perseverance, another of
the counts in this indictment. I foresaw,
therefore, with alarm, that Mr. Graves was
inevitably precipitating a crisis, which must
end disastrously either to him or the church.
I was the object of his defamations. So, also,
were many of you. The greater part of you
felt yourselves outraged by Mr. Graves' con¬
duct.
But Mr. Graves, in the extraordinary
course, which he last night thought proper to
pursue, declares that all this is a private and
personal matter, between him and his pas¬
tor, and since his pastor did not go to him,
and privately state his grievances, accord¬
ing to " Matt. 18," that the charge is illegal¬
ly brought. On this false ground, he de¬
nounces you as a faction, affects to withdraw
from the church, and to escape the exposure
of his guilt, which his trial will certainly de-
velope, he declares himself, and his few par¬
tisans here, twenty-five perhaps, the church,
and refusing to be tried by you, calls upon
them to try him ! Mr. Graves cannot be ig¬
norant of the fact, that the issue is not a pri¬
vate .personal one between himself, and his
pastor. The charge, the counts, the speci¬
fications, were all in his hands; he must
have known the contrary to be true. As
additional proof, I refer you to the facts,
that in the paper which he read, and called
his protest, he after taking this ground aban¬
dons it by assuming other, and opposite
grounds. He claims that he is the injured
party, and that too by his pastor. His pas¬
tor, he told you, had never extended to him
the courtesies due to a brother minister; he
had not called on him to preach, or to act
prominently in other devotional meetings.
Why the pastor thus conducted himself, you
very well know. But if Mr. Graves was
aggrieved, why did he not come to me as
required by the law in "Matt. 18?" So in
the other cases, one of which was my oppo¬
sition to the appointment of his Publication
Board, and the other was my letter to the
Index, in which I disapproved two or three
of the books published by his House. If
these were private personal matters as he
alledges, why did he not come to me private¬
ly, as the law directs ? Will he claim that
he 11 waived his right" to do so, and attacked
us in his paper, and thus devolved the duty
on me ? Brother Moderator you, and the
church, well know that Mr. Graves durst not
" waive his right." The law is imperative:
" If thy brother trespass against thee, go and
tell him his fault between thee and him alone."
Had Mr. Graves a "right to waive" obedience
to the law of Christ? Surely not. And when
he did so, and attacked you, and me, and the
rest of us, stirred up strife, sought to divide
the church, libelled and defamed us, and
published numerous falsehoods, was it still a
private personal matter between him and
his pastor ? Is it a private personal offence,
to seek for six months, in public newspaper
articles, of the most inflammatory character,
to put two ministers at variance—the first
32
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
• count in the charge? Is it a private person¬
al matter between him and his pastor, when
he uses all public, and secret means, for six
months to divide the church, and if possible
overthrow and destroy it?—the second count in
the charge—and now has as some of you wit¬
nessed last night, actually divided the church.
Is it a private personal offence between him,
and his pastor, when he has publicly, and
week after week, in numerous instances,
transgressed the law of Christ by libelling
that pastor in his newspaper?—the third count
in the charge. Is it a private personal mat¬
ter between him and his pastor, when he
slanders, abuses, and defames brethren of
high character throughout the country?—the
fourth count in the charge. Is it a private
personal matter between him and his pastor,
for him to utter, and publish numerous known
and deliberate falsehoods?—the fifth count'in
the charge. All this Mr. Graves has the
face to assume, and pretends that he has by
"waiving his right" to call upon me, relieved
himself from all responsibility, and made it
my duty to go to him privately; and because I
did not, that all your proceeding in his case are
illegal; that you—three hundred of you—
have become "a faction," and Mr. Graves,
and the twenty or thirty persons whom in
the division he has effected, he has carried
off, (most of whom have been, or are now,
directly or indirectly, connected with his
newspaper, or his Publishing House,) consti-
* tute the church! And on what grounds do
these partisans sustain Mr. Graves? The
charge is grossly immoral and unchristian
conduct. Do they sustain him in this ? Cer¬
tainly they do. Nor do they, nor does he,
attempt to controvert this proposition. They
do not deny his guilt. They only insist that
the charge has not been brought in a scriptu¬
ral manner! They break off from this
church to sustain J. R. Graves, and to sus¬
tain him in grossly immoral, and unchristian
conduct. Need I argue these questions be¬
fore you? No, certainly. You all cannot
but see that his positions are preposterous,
and absurd. His offences were open, public,
notorious, and had become a scandal, and
reproach, throughout the whole city, and in¬
deed, the whole country. How could any
private interviews of mine with Mr.
Graves, have healed the wounds he had
thus publicly, and persistently inflicted
upon you all, and upon the cause of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, here, and
elsewhere?
Bift I return. Thus matters stood on the
3d day of April last. The series of meetings
held in the Spring, which continued about
three months, and which the Lord so greatly
bleSsed, had then been in progress some
weeks. Mr. Graves had not been seen at one
of them. It was announced on the previous
night, that on Saturday night the pastor would
not be present. On that very night, Mr.
Graves made his first and last appearance in
our prayer-meetings during the revival. Mr.
Scovel, and probably also, Mr. Sfiankland,
both partisans of Mr. Graves, went to him
as soon as he came in, and insisted that he
should lead the meeting. They, however,
waited until Dr. C. K. Winston arrived, who
had previously promised the pastor that he
would take charge of the services. They
then stated to him what they had done. Dr.
Winston himself introduced and continued
the exercises for some time, and then, as re¬
quested, in the kindness of his heart called
upon Mr. Graves, who had not the modesty
to decline, but to the utter disgust of nearly
all' present, took a very prominent part. In¬
deed, some who went forward for prayers
that night, were.so shocked that they never
did so afterwards, and have not professed re¬
ligion to this day. The pastor felt this con¬
duct most keenly, and when, at 11 o'clock
at night, he heard of it, he immediately wrote
Mr. Graves a note, expressing under strictly
private sanctions, his strong disapprobation
of his conduct. The next morning, before
I had an opportunity to send it, Rev. Dr. J.
H. Eaton, of Murfreesboro', came into my
study. I showed the note to him in confi¬
dence. Dr. Eaton objected to some things
in it, and consented to write one with which
nobody could find fault. He did so, and I
adopted it, copied it, and this is the note which
was sent to Mr. Graves. The note was as
follows:
strictly private.
Saturday Night, 11 o'clock, April 3, '58.
Rev. J R. Graves : Sir—
I have just been informed that you took
the occasion of my absence to-night, to taltf
a prominent part in the prayer-meeting. Thi3
you must have known, was unpleasant and
displeasing to most of the members present,
on account of the course you have pursued
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
38
towards me, their pastor. I hope you will
not repeat it until you shall retract the charges
[you have set forth] against me, as publicly
as they have been made. I am pained to
feel under the necessity of writing such a
note as tins, to one who is a member of the
church of which I am the pastor. But duty
compels me.
Yours, R. B. C. Howell.
This note assumes, as will be seen, that
Mr. Graves' conduct towards me, had for
months been such as to make it a public scan¬
dal, and to destroy all confidence in him;
that his attempting, under such circum
stances, to lead the religious exercises of
the church was, as he must have known,
offensive to most of its members; and that
until he had done the pastor justice, it was
hoped that he would not again attempt in
this way to make himself prominent. This
expression of my feelings was, however,
communicated to him under the sanctions of
strict privacy. The fact that some of my
deacons had invited him to participate in the
meeting, was not known to me at the time of
writing this note. I state them in deference
to them, and not as, in the least, diminishing
the indelicacy and impropriety of a compli¬
ance, on the part of Mr. G., with their
request. No one but Dr. Eaton knew
anythig in relation to it, nor would he have
known, but for the desire to have counsel on
the subject. The conduct of Mr. Graves in
regard to this note was characteristic. In¬
stead of acting as a Christian gentleman
would have done in such a case, considering
its contents and treating them in a Christian
manner; if offended, coming to his pastor
and speaking on the subject with him pri¬
vately; he, the very next morning (Sunday)
and instantly upon its reception, showed this
strictly private!'' note at church, and partly
in my presence, to as many apparently as
he eould approach, before service, and stood
upon the front steps showing it, as I am
credibly informed by persons who saw him,
to such as passed in, until the preliminary
services were over, and the sermon was com¬
menced. Since then I have heard of this
note from every part of the country. He
used and misrepresented it, effectually to in¬
flame and agitate the brethren everywhere.
"Was he aggrieved by this note ? Why then
did he not come to me with it, as directed in
Matthew 18 ? That law must govern others,
3
but it does not govern him. Lately this note
has been published with false glosses in his
paper.
On the day following, I received a letter,
which, from the hand-writing on the outside
of the envelope, I was assured was from. Mr.
Graves. I was greatly at a loss as to what
I should do with this note. It was impossi¬
ble that I could now with any propriety re¬
ceive it, for the same reasons that I could
have no conversations with Mr. Graves, ex¬
cept in the presence of witnesses. These
reasons are as follows:
In the first place, Mr. Graves had in
February last, two months previous to the
date of this note, published (as before stated)
inhispaper—the former, Feb. 13th, the lat¬
ter Feb. 20th—two private and confidential
conversations, which had occurred in his
office, one in August, and the other in Octo-,
ber of last year; and what is still worse, he
published them with such mutilations, per¬
versions, additions, and falsifications, as that
the impression they made upon his readers
was wholly false.
In the second place, Mr. Graves had vio¬
lated every principle of honor and religion, by
the public use he had made, the very day be¬
fore, of a note which was "strictly private."
In the third place, Mr. Graves' conduct in
his attenqpts to divide the church, in his as¬
saults upon its members, and its pastor, and
upon many brethren abroad, was such as that
the church felt that it could not much longer
be endured. No such letters or interviews
could then heal the breach that he had made.
That could be done, if at all, only by his
voluntarily retracing his steps, and himself
applying the true remedy.
In the fourth place, what security had I
that any private notes or private conversa¬
tions that might be permitted, would not
again appear in his newspaper, with falsifi¬
cations and perversions, as others had be¬
fore, as soon as Mr. Graves found that it
could be done to promote his own interest,
or to effect my injury ?
4 In this state of the case, what was I to
do with this letter ? I honestly concluded
that it was best to send it back to Mr.
Graves unopened. I did send it back un¬
opened. Possibly I ought not to have re¬
turned it. Certainly if I had been prompted
merely by policy or a desire to maintain my
influence with many Baptists of the South-
34
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
"West, I should have read and retained his
letter. But it seemed impopssible for me
to have any direct personal correspondence
with him without a certainty of increasing
our difficulties, and for the same reasons that
I could have no private conversations with
Mr. G. without witnesses. Hence I had
decided upon a correspondence through a
committee as the only hope of a reconcilia¬
tion. This note, it seems, contained among
other things, a solicitation of a private in¬
terview. I, however, then knew nothing
of its contents, nor were they in any way,
verbal or otherwise, revealed to me until
three months afterwards, in the correspond¬
ence which then occurred.
A short time after these events had trans¬
pired, I had in the presence of Rev. R.
Ford, and Dr. C. K. Winston, a conversa¬
tion wtih Mr. Graves' friend and adherent,
Mr. A. B. Shankland, in which the matters
in question were freely talked over, and my
views clearly expressed. I told Mr. Shank-
land that it was not my province, according
to the divine law, to make any proposition
to Mr. Graves. Mr. Graves had done the
church, the brethren and the pastor, great
injury, and that no fellowship could ever
be extended to him, until he had done them
justice. Mr. Shankland was understood to
say that he would look into the affair, and
try to induce Mr. Graves to correct the
wrongs he had committed. The matter was
left in the hands of Mr. Shankland. What
he did, or whether he did anything more
than receive some informal propositions from
Dr. Winston, and present them to Mr.
Graves, I know not. Here, for the time,
the matter rested. Three months passed,
and nothing was heard from Mr. Graves.
Great reluctance was felt to bring Mr.
Graves before the church, numerous and
aggravated as were his offences, on account
of his peculiar position, and relations as a
professed minister of Christ, as editor of the
Tennessee Baptist, and especially on ac¬
count of the excitement among his heated
partisans in the country, that such a meas¬
ure was likely to produce. You were,
therefore, slow to act, and were anxious to
avoid it. It would have been easy for Mr.
Graves, had he desired it, to have placed
himself in a proper scriptural position in
the church.
And now I beg'Teave to call your atten¬
tion to still another series of facts. If an
arrangement between Mr. Graves and
myself would not have obviated all fur¬
ther disciplinary action, why did I institute
any proceedings on my own account ?
My answer is that, in my opinion, such
a proceeding would not have retarded that
resultit would doubtless have facilita¬
ted a peaceful close of these excitements. All
hope had not then been abandoned that Mr.
Graves might be brought to a better mind,
and yet be induced to act the part of a
christian. At any rate, the measure was
believed to be worthy of an experiment.
But however this might turn out, I confess
that I felt an unconquerable repugnance to
having my name connected with the pro¬
ceedings of any church trial of Mr. Graves,
or any one else. I earnestly desired some
movement that might prevent it, and sought
to obtain my end by the means which I will
now state. I addressed to Mr. Graves the
following note :
Nashville, July 19, 1858.
Rev. J. R. Graves : Sir :—
Conceiving it improper longer to permit
your personal newspaper assaults upon me
and other serious offences to pass unnoticed;
and sincerely desirous to avoid the necessity
of bringing them for its action before the
church ; I make this essay to terminate the
affair [as to myself] by private adjustment.
I have to say that brethren C. K. Winston
and C. A. Fuller, will receive and act upon
any communication, which through two
brethren appointed by you for that purpose,
you may think proper to make.
Respectfully, &c.,
R. B. C. Howell.
This note was delivered on the next day,
the 20th of July, and a prompt answer
promised by Mr. Graves. On the subse¬
quent morning, July 21st, the following
was received:
July 20, 1858.
Chas. Fuller:—
I have left my response to the note you
handed me this morning, in the hands of
brothers Scovel and Creighton, who will
confer with you and brother W. to-morrow.
Respectfully, J. R. Graves.
Thus did Mr. Graves, by naming two
brethren to act for him, recognize the offi¬
cial position of those brethren, and fully
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
35
endorse the scriptural character of the pro¬
ceedings up to the 20th of July last, which
he so soon after repudiated, and now so
earnestly denies. Nothing, however, was
heard from Messrs. Scovel and Creighton.
After waiting several days, the following
note was addressed to them :
Nashville, July 24, 1858.
H. G. Scovel and G. C. Creighton:—
Brethren : On Tuesday last I received a
note from J. R. Graves, stating that he had
placed in your hands his response to a note
I delivered to him on the same day, from
Rev. Br. Howell, and that you would con
fer with brother C. K. Winston and myself,
on the next day. Not having heard from
either of you, I wish to inquire when the
note above alluded to, as from Rev. J. R.
Graves, will be presented, and what time
will suit you to meet with Dr. Winston and
myself. An early reply to this note is so¬
licited. Respectfully,
Chas. A. Fuller.
No written answer was returned to this
note, but a meeting of the parties was pro¬
cured, when the following was presented
•from Mr. Graves:
Nashville, July 20, 1858.
Eld. R. B. C. Howell :—
Dear Brother: Yours of the 19th inst
has just been received, and I reply promptly.
I regret most deeply the present unhappy
alienation of feeling that exists between us,
and. the causes that have produced it, and I
assure you that I am ready to do all in my
power to remove both.
You cannot doubt this since, in my letter
to you dated April the 5th, (which was re¬
turned without answer,) L used this lan¬
guage :
" Bro. Howell, your course towards me
has aggrieved me, and I wish to meet you
in private, to converse with you as one
brother should with another. Will you
.grant me the meeting? If so, what after¬
noon, or night next week? Or when?
I acrnin renew this request, confident that
if we are what we profess to be, christians,
we can meet, and without the assistance of
others, in the spirit of our Master, settle all
our differences.
If I have wronged you, I entreat to be
convinced of my wrong doing, pledging you
that I will so far as possible, repair the
wrong; and may I not hope that you will
seek to amend the injury that your course
has tended to do me as a minister, and a
christian brother ?
You can indicate the time of this personal
interview to me, in a note, or if you prefer
it, through brethren Scovel and Creighton.
Respectfully, &c.,
J. R. Graves.
P. S. I see by a copy of the correspond¬
ence that has passed between brethren
Shankland and Winston, that. a misunder¬
standing exists as to the manner in which
you propose to conduct our affairs towards
a settlement. I cannot understand tmPqie-
culiar mode sought by you, either from Dr.
W.'s letter, or from your own.
I know of only one proper course for
christians to pursue, and that is clearly laid
down in Matt. 18. If you claim that I
have injured you, either privately or pub¬
licly, you should seek not to punish me by
ecclesiastical censure, but in a brotherly
spirit, to bring me to see, and repent of my
error, as Christ has commanded.
You certainly would not propose to me
a different plan for my acceptance, &c.
J. R. G.
This paper seemed to me to be of an ex¬
traordinary character, for several reasons,
which are as follows:
1. The correspondence between Dr. Win¬
ston and Mr. Shankland simply demanded
that Mr. Graves should withdraw, and disa¬
vow in his paper the false charges and inju¬
rious imputations against me which he had
made in that sheet. This seemed to me "the
proper course for christians to pursue."
2. Mr. Graves assumes that I knew what
was contained in that letter which I sent
back unopened, and argues accordingly. I
knew nothing of its contents, nor was its
substance reported to me verbally.
3. Mr. Graves had wholly disregarded
the law of Christ as recorded "in Matt. 18,"
and by his incessant assaults upon the church,
its members, and its pastor, continued for
now six months, had lashed the whole coun¬
try into intense excitement. The church
very well knew that under the circumstances
the law for its government is laid down in
the 5th chapter of First Corinthians. It
was necessary that she should thus vindi¬
cate herself from the odium fixed upon her
by Mr. Graves' disgraceful conduct.
4. Mr. Graves affects to be unconscious
36
.TRIAL OP KEY. J R. GRAVES
of having done me any injury, privately or
publicly, and entreats to be convinced of his
"wrong doing."
5. He insists upon meeting me in private,
to converse with me when he knew that he
had before, on two several occasions pub¬
lished in his newspaper, with falsifications
and perversions, such private and confiden¬
tial conversations, and had publicly exhibit¬
ed a private note.
These and other like considerations in¬
duced me to place this letter in the hands of
Messrs. "Winston and Fuller, to whom, ac¬
cording to Mr. Graves' own arrangement, it
should have been originally directed. They
then addressed to Mr. Graves' friends the
following note:
Nashville, July 29, 1858.
H. G. Scovel and G. C. Creighton:—
Brethren: In brother Graves' note of the
20th inst., he quotes from a letter formerly
addressed to brother Howell, to prove his
(Graves') willingness to adjust the difficul¬
ties between them, and also that brother
Howell knew that fact, which was stated in
the letter referred to. We remark that
brother Howell never opened this letter, but
returned it just as it was received, only sub¬
stituting [on the outside] brother Graves'
name for his own. He could not therefore
know the fact to which brother Graves re¬
fers.
It seems to appear from brother Graves'
note that he does not understand the plan
upon which brother Howell proposes to pro¬
ceed in the adjustment of their difficulties,
which plan was specifically stated by Dr.
C. K. Winston, in his note of the 12th of
July to A. B. Shankland, as also in the note
of the 19th instant to brother Graves. We
are authorized to say that brother Howell
will do whatever is demanded by honor or
religion; but that the plan may be definitely
settled at once, he offers the following basis
of settlement:
1. J. R. Graves is required to withdraw
all the charges of an offensive and personal
character, which he has made against broth¬
er Howell, which he (Howell) will specifi¬
cally present, and in as few words as pos¬
sible, in the same manner, and as extensive¬
ly as he has made them, without note or
comment.
2. R. B. C. Howell shall, on his part,
withdraw all the charges of an offensive and
personal character, which he has made
against brother Graves, which he (Graves)
will specifically present, and in as few words
as possible, in the same manner, and as ex¬
tensively as he has made them, without note
or comment.
You will please convey this proposition
to brother Graves as soon as possible, and
secure from him in writing, or by his en¬
dorsement of this note, his acceptance or
rejection of it.
We assure you of our sincere desire to
settle this difficulty, and trust that this feel¬
ing will be reciprocated by you. If brother
Graves rejects this proposition, we have
none other to make, and here the matter as
far as we are concerned shall end.
Yours truly, C. K. Winston.
C. A. Fuller.
This proposition was regarded as undoubt¬
edly fair. The pastor required nothing of
Mr. Graves towards him, that he did not
offer to accord to Mr. Graves. It was re¬
ciprocal and magnanimous. And still more.
I offered to do "vihatever is demanded by
honor and religion." What more than this
could I do ? I was ready to do no less.
Mr. Graves ought certainly to have accepted
it. Did he accept it ? The brethren acting
for me placed in my hands the preceding
correspondence, with the following final
note •
Nashville, August 16th, 1858.
Rev. R. B. C. Howell:—
Dear Sir and Brother: To this letter [the
last above] we have received no written re¬
ply, but at: a subsequent meeting, brother
Winston not present, we were informed no
written reply was necessary, and understood
from the conversation that occurred, that
the proposition made in our last note was
rejected.
Here our labors rested. We have since
received no communications either verbal or
written, from Rev. J. R. Graves, or the
brethren named by him, and therefore con¬
clude that there can be no further occasion
for our services in the matter you submitted
to our consideration.
Yours truly,
Chas. K. Winston.
Charles A. Fuller.
Thus Mr. Graves refused to accede to any
proposition whatever. Those made were
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
37
undoubtedly scriptural and right, and de¬
manded by truth, brotherly love and reli¬
gion. Madly bent upon his own desperate
designs he would hear nothing, nor consent
to any measure however reasonable or just.
These negotiations commenced, as will be
seen, July 19th, and notwithstanding every
effort to facilitate them, dragged on until the
16th of August, and at that ,point ended in
utter failure. I made one more, and a Jast
effort to screen Mr. Graves from this church
trial.
About sunset on the afternoon of Sept. 8th,
the night of the regular church meeting, Mr.
Shankland incidently saw me as I was pass¬
ing his office, and asked me if the charge
would be brought that night against Mr.
Graves. I told him that I did not know
certainly, the matter not being in my hands,
but supposed that they would be. Mr. S,
asked me to interpose and prevent it, ex¬
pressing, as his opinion, that Mr. Graves
would yet do justice to the parties-aggrieved.
I promised him that I would speak to the
brethren having the matter in charge. I did
so. They, however, having lost all confi¬
dence in Mr. Graves' disposition to do any¬
thing in the case which would be right or
scriptural, and their patience being utterly
worn out, declined longer delay. The charge
was preferred at the regular business meet¬
ing of the church in September.
What else could you do? The whole
church was beginning to be reproached as1
upholding his conduct, and to suffer in pub¬
lic estimation as particeps criminis in his
guilt. You could not disregard the divine
law, enacted for your government in all such
cases. It is recorded in the fifth chapter of
First Corinthians, as follows:
"I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged already, as though I were
present, concerning him that hath so done this
deed; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
when you are gathered together, and my
spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan, for
the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
''Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the
ol<f leaven that ye may be a new lump."
"Now I have written to you not to keep com¬
pany, if any man that is called a brether, be
a fornificator, or covetous, or an idolator, or
a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner,
with such, no not to eat." "Do ye not judge
them that are within?" "Therefore put away
from among you that wicked person."
The original charge against Mr. Graves
was preferred by two members of the church,
John C. Darden, and Charles A. Fuller, who
under an imperative sense of duty, preferred
the charge with the first four counts; and S.
M. Scott, and Anson Nelson, afterwards pre¬
ferred the fifth. Mr. Graves ridicules these
brethren and avers that they were employed
by the pastor to bring them for him. You
will know, brother Moderator, that they were
not brought for the pastor, as before said, any
more than for themselves, and the members
of the church generally, who had been so
long outraged by the conduct of Mr. Graves.
One more faet ought here to be stated. It is
well known to you and others, that it had
been the expectation if Mr. Graves would
force the church to a trial, to move the refer¬
ence of his case to a large and able commit*»
tee, with instructions to call a Council, half
of whose members should be named by Mr.
Graves, to examine the case thoroughly, and
report to the church for its action. Mr.
Graves' partisans in the church meeting,
however, especially Messrs. Scovel, Dayton,
Creighton, and Rutland, earnestly repudiated
all such committees, and inveighed against
them as unscriptural and "inquisitorial."
They required the case to come directly be¬
fore the church. In compliance with their
views, and apparently much to their satisfac¬
tion, the case was ordered as they wished. It
was voted to entertain it; a copy of the charge
and the counts, and specifications, (referring
definitely to every proof relied on in the case,)
was ordered to be placed in his hands; a day
was set apart for the hearing of the case;
and the clerk was instructed, officially, to
summon him to be present and answer.
I have especial reasons, brother Moderator,
for calling attention to the fact, and I wish it
to be distinctly remembered here, and else*
where, that Mr. Graves is not now arraigned
before you for any errors he may have es¬
poused, respecting christian doctrine, or pol¬
ity, however unscriptural his sentiments may
be; and especially is he not arraigned for his
Landmarkism. Were he before you on
these grounds, I should still insist on an able
Council to assist you, however earnestly it
might be opposed by Mr. Graves and his
88
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
friends. He is arraigned exclusively for I
grossly immoral, and unchristian conduct.
He may seek, and I imagine he will, to make
the impression that he is charged with other,
aud trifling things. Indeed he is already en¬
deavoring to do this. You will, I am sure,
hold him strictly to the issues before you.
It is very plain, from considerations already
adduced, and still more evident from the re¬
cent tone, and style of his paper, that he in¬
tended to provoke you to the utmost, under
the impression that no one would dare to
charge him before the church, and if charged
that he would be able to intimidate, and alarm
you so as to prevent any effective action,
while he would himself Tefuse to meet any
of your requisitions. Of this, his conduct
last night is, of itself, sufficient proof. In
addition to those already before you, consider
the following facts: About the time the pri
vate negotiations were pending, and before
this charge was laid before the church, he
published in his paper, articjes, of which the
following are examples: In the Tennessee
Baptist of July the 17th, 1858, No. 45, he
endorses an article from Rev. C. R. Hen-
drickson of Memphis, in which occurs the
following passage:
One of your, (Graves',) bitterest enemies
of Nashville, when in Memphis, said: "They,
[this church,] could not take hold of you, so
as to throw you out of the church; they would
like to do it, but could not" He adds:—
''By the way, if that threatened attempt
should be made, there would be such a howl
of indignation throughout the Southwest,
that the church in Nashville would think the
day of judgment had come."
Nor is this all. In his said paper of July
17th, 1858, Mr Graves supposes a case to
illustrate his own. He says:
'•Now suppose that they, [Mr. Dayton's al¬
leged persecutors,] as a last resort to ruin him,
charge him before the First Church, and a
majority should" "pronounce him guilty, and
exclude him, who cannot see what would
follow? Should he find a church that would
give his case a hearing, and assisted by a
Council if you please, prove him an innocent,
and grossly wronged, and persecuted man,
and give him membership, the Concord As¬
sociation would take cognizance of the fact,
and pronounce that one of the churches was
in disorder. But right here would be brought
in extraneous influences, personal considera¬
tions, and the whole transaction would be
charged upon the Landmark Baptists, or the
editor of the Tennessee Baptist, (as the late
Sabbath School Convention was,) whose de¬
sign was to divide, and make a party; and
the division once commenced, who could
foresee its end? Every church in Middle
Tennessee, and North Alabama, would be
forced to take sides, and the limits of the
State would not confine it. Now this would
be, should' it take place, surely charged to the
advocates of the Landmark policy, but who
cannot see that the very innocence of brother
D. (he doubtless means himself,) would be
the real cause of it, i e, should the denomi¬
nation be determined to sustain his innocency
against his assailants."
But what are the evidences that they
thought your intimidation easy, and that in
the course of a few weeks, they had actually
fully accomplished it? They are found in
various considerations, but especially in an
article in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 49, da¬
ted August 21st, 1858, from the Junior edi¬
tor, as follows:
"Brethren need not fear a church trial of
either the senior, or junior editor, brother G.
or D. There has been no charge against
either of us. There can none be made that
can be sustained." "I do not believe that
the brethren who have put in circulation the
report that charges have been made, or will
be made, will dare to make any such charge."
"There will be a great deal of threatening
thunder in the passing cloud, but it will turn
out to be only wind."
Such were the threats, and menaces held
over you by Mr. Graves, should you dare to
call him to account for his flagrant immorali¬
ties. All your pretences are "only wind."
You ''will not dare" to arraign him, much
less to find him guilty. Do so, and he tells
you beforehand, and to your face, what will
be the results. He will make it a Landmark
issue, and bring upon you all the adherents
of that doctrine; he will apply to another
church for membership, which will call a
Council, give him admission, and pronounce
him "a grossly wronged and persecuted man,"
and your proceedings shall thus be rebuked,
and denounced; the Concord Association
will, he confidently tells you, call you to ac¬
count, pronounce you in disorder, and place
upon you the bran of excommunication; he
will compel indeed every church in Middle
TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
39
Tennessee, to take sides, and if they are not
all in his favor, he will divide them; nor will
the limits of the State confine the division
he will make. This is what he will do.
Now bring your charge if you dare! Nor is
this all. Dare to pronounce him guilty, and
nsuch a howl of indignation will come up
from all parts of the Southwest, as will make
you think the day of judgment has come"
At last, goaded beyond endurance, the
charge is actually brought, and what do you
now see? The Junior editor in his next pa
per, September 11th, laughs at the proceed¬
ing in an inflammatory, and bitter article,
tells his readers that "tbe testimony referred
to, was nothing but some articles published
in the Baptist Register, and Tennessee Bap
tist, and has long been before the world, con¬
sequently not private, as is now contended,
but public and notorious, but of no impor¬
tance. They were published, and therefore
not sinful! then introduces a corres¬
pondent, who signs himself, whether truly or
not, I can not say, but perhaps truly, since
Mr. Graves is himself, "A member of the
First Baptist Churchwho writes as
follows:
'"It was with great mortification I witnessed
at the First Baptist Church last evening, so
strong a determination to carry on the work
of distraction by them so recently commenced.
They are bent upon doing one thing, which
if they shall effect, will ruin the First Bap¬
tist Church in Nashville. Yes sir, the star
of its hope will set; its candle will go out."
The Lord of hosts will not permit his church
to perpetrate so gross injustice against one of
his servants; one that has vindicated his
truth, as the editor of this paper has; without
purging her with his great wrath."
Why all this bravado? What does Mr.
Graves propose to accomplish by it? It is
Evident that his design was to intimidate the
church and thus prevent it from entertain¬
ing the charge brought against him for his
unchristian conduct. It is evident that
from the first he was determined to give no
satisfaction, but to prevent the church by
intimidation from investigating the charge.
The impunity you have for years past given
Mr. Graves, permitting him to attack, mal¬
treat, and abuse the best men in our de¬
nomination, unquestioned, and unrebuked;
has rendered him bold, and reckless in his
sinful course. And now when he finds
that you will not be intimidated—that the
church will no longer suffer him as a member
to go on in his defamations of character,
and other immoralities, thus bringing the
cause of Christ, into reproach, and dishonor
—he refuses to be tried by you, pretends
to withdraw, and denounces you as a fac¬
tion. You will of course not regard his
movements in these respects, since the
Savior himself apprises you that some
offenders will act in this manner; they will
as Mr. Graves has, "Refuse to hear the
church." "If he refuse to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as a heathen man,
and a publican." The pretended "with¬
drawal" of Mr. Graves cannot effect the
right of the church to proceed with the
trial. The conduct with which he is
charged is evidently within the jurisdiction
of the church. But in proceeding with
this trial, you should as carefully prosecute
it, in all its parts, as if he were himself
present, that if he is found guilty you may
fully record, and place before the eyes of
all our brethren, the true reasons why he
is to you, as a heathen man and a publican.
Pardon me brother Moderator, and breth¬
ren, for having detained you so long in
these preliminary statements. They were
necessary to a proper understanding of the
subject, and to place you and me, and all
of us, in our true positions in relation to
this trial. I now proceed to the consider¬
ation of the first Count in the charge
against J. R. Graves.
count i.
The first count in the charge brought
against J. R. Graves in this category, is as
follows:
"We the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves a member of
said church, and one of the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral,
and unchristian conduct, in that he has
sought to bring upon R. B. C. Howell, the
Pastor of said church, reproach, and injury,
and thus to destroy his character, and influ¬
ence in the Southwest, by forcing him into
collision with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Cor¬
responding Secretary of the Bible Board, and
now one of his associate editors, through the
publication in his said paper, of various
false, and malicious representations.
40
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
This count in the charge, made before
you, after mature, and prayerful delibera¬
tion, by two responsible brethren, in behalf
of themselves, and of the whole church, is
of a most serious and important character.
Is Mr. Graves guilty? Would to God he
were not. That he is guilty however, is
unquestionable. This fact I shall place in
as few words as possible, beyond the reach
of doubt, by full, and legitimate evidence,
and in doing which I shall find it neces¬
sary to reproduce and review all the evi¬
dence that has been read before you.
The production within a few years past,
of two volumes of religious fiction, entitled
Theodosia, and which attained at once,
an almost unprecedented popularity, sud¬
denly gave to Mr. Dayton a reputation of
the highest character. He found a warm
place in the great Baptist heart. His praise
was heralded throughout the land. This
work evinced superior genius, and although
as an argument greatly inferior to many
others, and in some respects, especially in
the second volume, seriously unscriptural,
and objectionable, yet as "A story of love and
marriage," it was exceedingly attractive.
He was believed to be very far the most
popular minister in all the Southwest. In
this I rejoiced with probably as much sin¬
cerity as any other man, never imagining
that this popularity was to become the in¬
strument of my overthrow, and of your
overthrow, and destruction. Mr. Graves
it seems, wanted the means to put us down,
and he readily imagined that if he could
bring us into conflict with that overwhel¬
ming power, that we should be at once,
and effectually crushed. The manner in
which he attempted this work, has been
stated in the count now before you.
The grounds upon which he essays to
justify his false, and malicious publications
against me in relation to Mr. Dayton, are
a speech made by me in the Sabbath School
Convention, held in this city, last autumn,
and a letter, making some personal expla¬
nations, dated December 21st, 1857, and
published in the Christian Index of Geor¬
gia. To that speech he has recurred in his
paper often, and at great length, but he
has not designated in it, nor can he desig¬
nate, a single sentence, or word, which re¬
flected injuriously upon Mr. Dayton, in
any way, as a man, as a christian, as a min¬
ister, as an author, or as Corresponding
Secretary of the Bible Board, of the South¬
ern Baptist Convention. The truth is I did
not in that speech refer to Mr. Dayton at
all. He was not in my thoughts. In the let¬
ter in question, and that contains every word
that I have ever published on the subject,
any where, or at any time, I made two state¬
ments of facts which were certainly not
very reputable to the parties concerned.
The first was the declaration by Mr. Day¬
ton, in the newspapers, before it assembled,
that the Sunday School Convention was
called at my instance, and his statement in
the same newspapers, after its adjournment,
that it was called by Mm, and Mr. Graves.
The second was that they had concealed
from me their purpose to avail themselves
of that Sunday School Convention, to inau¬
gurate a new Publication Board in the
South, to be under their direction. Still
the whole letter was written in kind lan¬
guage, and assuredly with the best feelings
towards all concerned. Before I introduce
Mr. Graves' gross, and criminal assaults
founded upon it, I will refer to several
other facts necessary to be known, in order
that this subject may be fully understood.
He charges as one of my chief offences,
that in the letter in question, I had impli¬
cated Mr. Dayton as neglecting his duty as
Corresponding Secretary, to write books,
which he vehemently denies, and pro¬
nounces it a foul, cruel, and unjust impu¬
tation upon the Secretary. What shall I
say to all this?
Mr. Graves knew, since he had been a
member of it from the beginning, that the
Bible Board about the time of its organiza¬
tion, adopted a resolution requiring the
Corresponding Secretary to devote his un¬
divided time to the duties of his office. He
further knew that he had himself then re¬
cently stated that the same Corresponding-
Secretary was busily engaged in preparing
a series of books for publication. The
proof of this fact is before you. In his
Register for 1858, then before the public,
on the cover inside, fronting the title page,
under the head of "Southwestern Pub¬
lishing House," we have this notice of
"New Books to be published in 1858:"
♦ "The Infidel's Daughter, by the author
of Theodosia,
To be ready by the first of March.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
41
. Nos. 1 and 2 of a series of Baptist Sun¬
day School Question Books, by A. C
Dayton."
In his paper he said, if I mistake not,
that these Sunday School books the Secre¬
tary would have ready, and present them
to the Union at its approaching meeting
to be held the coming April at Americus
in Georgia. He could not help seeing that
I, or any one else, would naturally, and in¬
voluntarily, couple these two facts together:
the prohibition of the Secretary from devo¬
ting his time to any other than the busi¬
ness of his office, and the fact that he was
devoting his time largely to writing books
for Mr. Graves—he himself having an¬
nounced that in a short period he would
furnish him three volumes—and that the in¬
quiry would arise, as a matter of course,
whether in this case, the Bible Board, if its
claims were regarded, would not demand tobe
consulted, and that its consent should be had,
before Mr. Dayton could justly, according
to his contract with that Board, give so
much of his attention as the work indica¬
ted would certainly require, to the prepar¬
ation of these books. I did not object to
his writing the- proposed books. Probably
the Board, had it been consulted, would
not have objected. This however was not
certain. I did not in the letter referred
to, nor anywhere else, even allude to any
book, or tract, or article previously written
by Mr. Dayton. My objection so far as
as appears, was not to any book that he had
published, or might publish. In all that I
said, and wrote on these subjects, I spokq,
of Mr. Dayton only in the most, respectful
and courteous terms. This is the whole
amount of my offence against Mr. Dayton.
Nothing else so far as T know, was then,
even pretended.
Mr. Dayton himself did not at that
time, seem to think himself grievously of¬
fended. I arrive at this conclusion from
the fact that subsequently, as previously,
he associated with me, in my own pulpit,
and out of it, and so far as I knew, or sus¬
pected, freely, and affectionately. It did
not occur to me that I had ever given him
reason to feel, or act otherwise. And this
state of things continued up to the period
at which Mr. Graves' inflammatory articles
began to appear. Since that time, Mr.;
Dayton has been wholly another man. He '
has abandoned our congregation, our prayer
meetings, and other religious assemblies.
He has kept at a distance from me, and
evidently avoided us all whenever it was
practicable to do so. With these facts dis¬
tinctly before us, we proceed to the speci¬
fications and proofs of the charge before
us.
first specification.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, dated
February 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves says:
There is manifestly a systematic attempt
to cripple down the Secretary of the Bible
Board, on the part of Anti-Landmark men,
and editors." "And not the least indica¬
tive sign [is] the allusion to brother Day*
ton as Corresponding Secretary, in Elder
Howell's letter to the Index, in which he
virtually—to all intent and purposes—attaints
Brother Dayton for Malfeasance in
Office, by an insinuation. We allude to
this sentence: 'But we are told by the
newspapers, that this very brother is himself
rapidly preparing Sunday School books,
and that several will be ready, and actually
presented to 'The Union' in April next,
at Americus in your state. Very well.
Let him prepare them, if the Bible Board will
allow their Corresponding Secretary to devote
nearly all his time to writing books, and in¬
stead of presenting them to the Union, send
them to the Southern Baptist Publication
Society. If they are such books as the
Baptists approve, that Society will publish
them, and for as small a price, and in as
good style as the work can be done else¬
where in the South or Southwest.' Does
brother H. mean to say that the Correspon¬
ding Secretary has neglected, or may prob¬
ably neglect his official duties to write
books? If not, why say, 'If the Board
will allow him to devote nearly all his time
to writing books?' In any light the im¬
pression left is very bad, and casts suspi¬
cion upon the Secretary, reflecting too
nearly a sentiment once before published
in this city, which no man should approve."
"He, [Mr. Dayton,] has done too much
good to be let alone. He is enjoying too
much of the love, and attracting too much
of the attention of Baptists, not to be
compelled to suffer the penalty that superi¬
ority, or great usefulness is ever doomed
to pay."
42
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
In these extracts deliberately written,
and published by Mr. Graves, I ask the
attention of the church, to the following
considerations:
1. He asserts that in the letter in ques¬
tion, I " attainted Mr. Dayton for malfea¬
sance in office."
Was it then a crime in me, to suppose
that since Mr. Dayton had especially con¬
tracted to give his undivided time to the
service of the Board, if any considerable
portion of it was diverted to another pur¬
pose, it must be with the consent of the
Board, and that to give its consent, the
Board must be consulted on the subject?
Could I suppose that Mr. Dayton would
think such consultation degrading? It
seems to me that it would have been far
otherwise. The Board had not been con¬
sulted, and I was not certain that when it
should be, it would allow its Corresponding
Secretary to devote so large a portion of
his time as the work indicated would neces¬
sarily demand, to writing books. I said in
other words, If the Board will consent, let
Mr. Dayton write the books, and let the
Southern Baptist Publication Society, if
they approve them, publish the books. And
this is attainting Mr. Dayton for malfeasance
in office ! It is certainly a " false and ma-
cious representation," designed to excite
contention between me and*Mr. Dayton,
and thus to bring upon me reproach and
injury.
2. What does Mr. Graves mean by say¬
ing in this connection, that Mr. Dayton
"has done too much good to be let alone"
by jiis Pastor, and others?
Docs he not substantially affirm that I
join with others, and harass, assail, and
persecute Mr. Dayton, because he has done
so much good ? This also is plainly a false
and malicious representation, made with
the same design as the other.
3. What, I ask you, does Mr. Graves
mean by declaring here, that Mr. Dayton
" is enjoying too much of the love and at¬
tracting too much of the attention of Bap¬
tists, not to be compelled to suffer the pen¬
alty that superiority, and great usefulness is
ever doomed to pay."
Mr. Dayton may be a very great, and a
very useful man. The greater and the more
useful he is, the more, if he were also a good
man, would I rejoice in having him among
us. I am sure that while I never claimed
to be his equal, it never occurred to me
that I had any reason to be jealous of his
popularity, or envious of any portion of
the Baptist love he enjoys. I always sup¬
posed that I had myself, fully as much pop¬
ularity, and of the love of my brethren as
I ever deserved. My feeling on these sub¬
jects however, Mr. Graves, it seems cannot
understand. Does he not here charge that
because Mr. Dayton is my superior, I seek
his overthrow ? Does he not substantially
affirm that I am envious of the love, and
attention that the Baptists give to Mr. Day¬
ton, and that I " attaint him for malfea¬
sance in office," that I may deprive him of
that love, and attention ? These represen¬
tations are "false and malicious."
What, I now ask, could have been his
motives for making them ? Who can doubt
that it was his design to force me into col¬
lision with Mr. Dayton, and thus arraying
his great popularity, which he himself so
much lauds, against me to break down my
character, influence, and usefulness in the
South West ?
second specifications.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves utters
the following:
" That part of brother Howell's letter
that most deeply pains us, is the sentence
that casts that most unkind and cruel
suspicion upon brother Dayton. Unless it
does by implication, charge him with hav¬
ing spent most of his time, or that he is now
spending, or that the probabilities are that
he is about to spend most of his time in wri¬
ting books, we cannot gather brother How¬
ell's intent in penning it. He must have
known that it would deeply wound brother
Dayton's feelings, mar his peace, and make
him uncomfortable. He must have known
that the sentence was admirably calculated
to excite suspicion, in the minds of all over
whom he had influence. He doubtless
knew that such a paragraph as this had
been penned and published by 'A Member
of the Bible Board.' Surely brother H.
nor any other man, can think it strange that
brother D. should feel sensitive to see such
insinuations reproduced by the President of
the Bible Board." "If it be a sin against
morals, or the Holy Spirit, for the Secretary
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
43
of the Bible Board to write a book, or a tract
while so connected, is it not as heinous a sin
for the Pastor of a church, who sells his
time for a stipulated sum ? Establish this
law and our brother Howell is the most guil¬
ty man known to us, unless brother Everts
of Louisville."
In this extract I desire to call the
attention of the church to the following
points :
1. When that letter was written, I was
not the President of the Bible Board.
This is another specimen of the reckless¬
ness of Mr. Graves' assertions, when he
thiuks he can by such means serve his pur¬
poses.
2. He says that I reproduced insinua¬
tions of " A Member of the Bible Board,"
" once before published in this city, which
no man should approve," against Mr. Day¬
ton.
Who wrote the article in the Baptist
Watchman, signed "A Member of the Bi¬
ble Board," I know not; I never sought to
know. I did not write it myself. Dr. Jones
assures me he did not write it It was,
however, a short, plain, and courteous state¬
ment of facts.
The " insinuations reproduced " by me,
as here charged by Mr. Graves, and of
which he says, I doubtless knew that they
were the same with those of a paragraph
published by an editor of this city a year
before, and to which he has of late so often
recurred, and commented upon so bitterly,
I find upon inquiry, to have been an article
which appeared in the Parlor Visitor, then
conducted by Rev. W. H. Bayless, at the
time pastor of this church, and Dr. W.
P. Jones in this city. That article of
Dr. Jones I never saw. Up to this
hour it has not met my eyes. I was curi¬
ous to know its character, and learned that
it was a Critique upon Religious Novels gen¬
erally, which the writer condemned in
strong language, as calculated to do in the
christian life, harm in the same way, and
to the same extent, that ordinary romances
do in common social life. It repudiated
all love-sick stories, religious or irreligious.
I am told, however, that no where in that
article, which so mortally offended Mr.
Graves, does either the name of Mr. Day¬
ton, or of Theodosia occur. How, then,
it maybe asked, could Mr. Dayton consider
himself especially implicated ? By what
process of reasoning could Mr. Graves ap¬
ply it to me, since I had nothing to do with
it, and never saw it ? Mr. Graves, without
any reason, justice, or propriety, placed
these circumstances in this relation to sub¬
serve his own purposes. He first made Dr.
Jones' article on religious novels, apply to
Theodosia; then he applied it to Mr. Day¬
ton as the author of that book ; then to Mr.
Dayton as Corresponding Secretar}^ of the
Bible Board; and having by repeated ap¬
peals, nearly two years ago, and before my
return to the West, succeeded in stirring
up among his partisans not a little odium,
ahd angry feeling, against Dr. Jones, he
now seeks to connect this matter with my
Index letter, and thus to transfer to me that
same odium, and angry feeling, so unjust
even in its application to Dr. Jones, and
how much more so as to me ! But in all
this what was Mr. Graves' design ? It was
his design to injure me and put me down,
by bringing to bear against me, the late
extraordinary popularity of Mr. Dayton.
3. Mr. Graves avers that I have brought
upon Mr. Dayton "most unkind and cruel
suspicions."
I have already explained the relations bf
the parties to the standing rule of the
Bible Board, requiring the Secretary to de¬
vote his undivided time to the duties of his
office. Mr. Graves, however, again brings
it up in new associations, and I must again
explain. In view of that rule, which
since it existed before, necessarily entered
into Mr. Dayton's contract with the Board;
and in view of the authoritative announce¬
ment of Mr. Graves himself, that the same
Secretary was diligently at work preparing
a series of books for publication, which were
to be ready in a few months; how could I
conclude otherwise, believing, as I did, all
the parties honest Christian men, but that
the Board would be consulted, and might
possibly withhold its consent? I suggested
this as delicately as I was able, and certain¬
ly in courteous, and respectful language.
Mr. Graves id filled with indignation, and
pronounces it "That most unkind and cruel
suspicion" cast by me upon Mr. Dayton ;
asserts that I " must have known that it
would deeply wound" him, " mar his peace,
and make him uncomfortable;" that it would
"excite suspicion;" and that "Brother Day-
44
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
ton felt sensitive," because it was " a re¬
production by the President of the Bible
Board of former insinuations."
What could Mr. Graves hope to accom¬
plish by all this tissue of falsification and
appeals? They are charged by the breth¬
ren, as " false, and malicious representa¬
tions ;" they are now proved to be
" false and malicious representations."
His purpose was undoubtedly to bring
me into collision with Mr. Dayton, and
thus by arraying against me his supposed
overwhelming popularity, to bring upon me
in the minds of all his admirers, reproach
and injury, and to destroy my character,
and influence in the South-West.
But that this was Mr. Graves' purpose,
and that he flatters himself that he has
already, to a great extent, really accom¬
plished it, we have still more direct, and un¬
equivocal testimony. Various articles in his
paper might be^referred to, but I will sat¬
isfy myself with one only. It is found in
the \Tennessee Baptist, dated July 17th,
1858, as follows:
" Our readers will find in this column
this week, a fine specimen of the senti¬
ments of not the Baptist rank and file only,
but of a number of the leading minds of
trfe denomination from Maryland to Florida,
and Virginia to the fartherest Texas."
Among these "fine specimens" is one from
a man who signs himself " Alabama," and
in commendation of whom Mr. Graves
says, he is well informed as to the state of
public feeling in his section, as the others
are in their sections. Alabama writes
thus :
" Where is Tustin's influence in South
Carolina ? Where are Hillsman's, and his
friend H. [Howell's] in Tennessee ?
Where is Henderson's in Alabama ? Not
one of them has a tithe of the influence in the
heart of their territory that they had before
they began this war upon Bro. Graves, and
his paper. They have made a pit, and
digged it, and are fallen into the ditch
which they made. Their mischief has re¬
turned upon their own heads, and their
violent dealing has come down upon their
own pate."
I have only to ask, why, if Mr. Graves
did not intend to destroy my character, and
influence in the South-West, does he thus
congratulate himself that he has done so,
and eagerly, and with commendations, pub¬
lish the declaration that I have not now
one tithe of the influence that I had when
he commenced this war upon me in his pa¬
per?
Other specifications, and many more
proofs of Mr. Graves' guilt as charged in
this count, might be introduced, but these
are deemed amply sufficient. We have
now seen that he falsely charges me with
"attainting Mr. Dayton for malfeasance in
office;" with envy of Mr. Dayton's popular¬
ity ; with persecuting Mr. Dayton on ac¬
count of his superiority, and usefulness;
that he refers to me as President, when I
was not the President of the Bible Board,
that my letter to the Index might appear
the more offensive to the admirers of Mr.
Dayton ; that he charges me with reproduc¬
ing an article in the Parlor Visitor which I
had never seen, in order to attach to me
the odium which he had attached to that
in the minds of the friends of Mr. Dayton;
and that I originated in the public mind,
unkind, and cruel suspicions of Mr. Dayton.
It is, therefore, unquestionably true that
Rev. J. R. Graves is guilty of having
sought to bring upon me reproach, and in¬
jury, and thus to destroy my character,
and influence in the South-West, and that
to accomplish this purpose, he has sedu¬
lously labored to bring me into conflict with
Rev. A. C. Dayton, who had a high repu¬
tation for piety, and usefulness, and to ac¬
complish which he has published in his
said paper, various false, and malicious rep¬
resentations.
This count, without further testimony, or
remarks, I now submit, Brother Moderator,
to the judgment of the church. I know,
brethren, with the law, and the facts before
you, that your decision will be made in the
fear,^and according to the word of God.
From your verdict, whatever it may be, I
will never shrink, I will never appeal.
Mr. Fuller said:
Bro. Moderator: I do not rise for the
purpose of offering any additional argu¬
ments as to the charge now before the
church. It seems to be a point in the
line of policy adopted by J. R. Graves
that no defence is to be made. It is a
part of the programme announced by him
n last night. Such being the case, upon
is head must rest all the responsibility of
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
45
permitting the case to go before the church
for final judgment without appearing to
defend it. The members of this church
have been violently assaulted in the Ten¬
nessee Baptist, and some of its members de¬
nounced as the vilest of the vile. You
have been taunted and goaded almost be¬
yond human endurance. Efforts have been
made to browbeat and overawe you by its
thunders, to prevent you from entertaining
and considering the charges presented be¬
fore you. And at last, when patient endu¬
rance was exhausted, and the charges
brought against the accused, what is seen?
False assertions are made as to their character
and coarse and vituperative language is em¬
ployed to disparage the reputation of those
who had the hardihood to present them¬
selves before the church as the accusers of
J. R. Graves. And even you, or a ma¬
jority of the members of the church, are
charged by one oP the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist as having been drilled
to suit the purposes of Graves' accusers.
If any drilling has been done it will be
found to be among those who were the
principal actors in the closing scenes of last
night. J. R. Graves then announced that
he withdrew from the First Baptist Church,
and that he no longer considered him¬
self a member. This may be Baptist usage,
according to his understanding, and is a
perversion no worse in its bearings than
many others that have been heralded forth
in his paper. But I know of only three
ways of getting out of a Baptist Church—
1. A letter of dismissal to join another
Church of the same faith and order. 2.
Death, which separates all earthly ties. 3.
Exclusion. And it seems strange to me,
if J. R. Graves has such perfect confi¬
dence in his innocence as he pretends, he
should now waive and avoid a fair trial
before his brethren, where he can meet his
accuser face to face. Does his failure to
appear, proclaim his innocence ? After
having dared the church to entertain
charges against him, a new light appears to
have dawned upon his vision, and he now
seeks to evade the investigation by declar¬
ing you incompetent to act as his judges.
Why is this ? Does it not show a con-
ciousness of guilt, and a fear of its being
made manifest by a fair and impartial in¬
vestigation ? Such I think will be the
verdict of the denomination, when the facts
are fully placed before them. As one of
the prosecutors, I have no private purpose
to subserve. Rather would I rejoice if
he could exculpate himself from these accu¬
sations. Before they were brought, I care¬
fully examined all the testimony, and was
unwillingly forced to the conclusion that
he is guilty as charged before you. And
I now appeal to you to decide on the evi¬
dence submitted. Let no consideration of
private friendship for your pastor, or any
regard you may entertain for me personally,
bias or influence your judgments. Re¬
member that the eyes of G od himself are
upon you, and therefore I urge you to act
and decide as standing in His awful pres¬
ence. We are but as dust in His sight.
It is ours to seek the truth in this matter,
and having found the truth, boldly and
firmly to act upon its convictions. With
a conscious rectitude of motives in the
prosecution, I leave the ultimate decision
with you. Upon your decision must the
accused stand or fall, and from your decision
there can be no appeal. Fully convinced
of the guilt of the Rev. J. R. Graves, I
again call for your decision, and will cheer¬
fully submit to whatever it may be.
Mr. Fuller moved that the vote be now
taken, upon the first count in the charge,
preferred against Elder Graves.
The. Moderator. All who believe that
this count in the charge against Elder
Graves, has been sustained by the testimo¬
ny, will rise.
Upon a count, it was ascertained that
eighty members were standing.
The Moderator. All who believe that
this count in the charge has not been sus¬
tained, by the testimony, will rise.
No one rose.
The Moderator then declared that the
Church had decided that this count was
sustained.
Mr. Fuller stated that the decision of
the Church by the vote just taken afforded
him no personal gratification. He had
acted solely from a sense of duty to his
Church, and he believed the members of
46
TRIAL OP REY. J. R. GRAVES.
the Church had done their duty in this
matter.
Upon motion,
The Church then adjourned, with prayer
by the Moderator, to Friday night at 7
o'clock.
Friday Evening, October 15, 1858.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
The proceedings were opened by reading
a portion of Scripture, and prayer by the
Moderator.
The reading of the minutes of the two
previous meetings was dispensed with.
On motion, the second count preferred
against Elder J. R. Graves, was taken up,
and read as follows:
Secondly, in that he has endeavored to
distract and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor and four of
ils deacons, and several others of its influ¬
ential members, which he has labored to
pVoduce by various inflammatory articles,
published in his paper.
Mr. Fuller stated that the evidence to
sustain this charge was to be found in vari¬
ous issues of the Tennessee Baptist, which
he read as follows:
Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March 6,
1858. "Every reader can see that these
brethren, [referring to Hillsman and How¬
ell,] took the initiative in declaring a war
against their Landmark brethren, and that
they, [the Landmark brethren,] are to be
proscribed from the Boards that direct the
great interests of Southern Baptists."
Again: "Should it come to this, who would
be chargeable with the deplorable results
that would follow. That man who first ob¬
jected to this Board, because he imagined
that the majority of .it were Landmark in
sentiment." Again: "We urge the Clerk
or Pastor of each Church, to bring this re¬
solution before their several churches, at
their next church meeting: Resolved, That
this church regard the brethren nominated
as a Board of Managers for the S. B. S.
School Union, unsound, and wholly incom¬
petent for the work. And if one-half, or a
small majority of the churches inthe South¬
west and South, say that they regard the
brethren named—Dayton, Sharpe, Graves,
Scovel, Shankland, Nelson, Beech, Murfree,
Poole, Fish—-as incompetent to decide on
books suitable for Sunday School children,
we will urge their claims to the confidence
no more, and bow our heads, and let pros¬
cription triumph."
Tennessee Baptist No. 83, April 24,
1858. "The names proposed, [and who]
would have constituted the Board, if elec¬
ted, are Dayton, Graves, Rogers, Scovel,
Shankland, Nelson, Murfree, Poole, Beech,
Fish—ten names.
Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, February 18,
1858. "The opposition, led by Brn. How¬
ell and Hillsman, burst forth in all its fury
when the committee made their report."
"A most gross and shocking attack was
made upon the men, or some of the men
nominated, because of their opinions with
regard to some matters of Baptist policy."
"No one, we presunft, will question the
competency of A. C. Dayton to discharge
the duties of the Presidency of the Union."
"To Bro. Sharpe, we suppose no man
in Georgia, or out of it, has yet objected,
as Corresponding Secretary. Bro. S. C.
Rogers, the Accountant of the Southwes¬
tern Publishing House, was recommended
for Treasurer, because it was necessary for
some member of that house to fill this office if
the Board was located in Nashville, since
money would constantly be remitted for books
in the letters sent to the house ordering other
publications."
II. G. Scovel, the Chairman of the Board,
is a man of large means, an intelligent,
practical business man, deacon of the First
Baptist Church, and has been for years,
the Superintendent of its Sunday School,
and a prompt and efficient Board-man.
Who better qualified than he, for the posi¬
tion of Chairman of the Board? A. B.
Shankland has been for twelve or fifteen
years, a Deacon of the First Church, and
a teacher in its Sunday School, and for
seven years a dealer in Baptist books. A.
Nelson, Deacon of the Church, and from
boyhood until now, either scholor or teacher
in the Sunday School, and for some years
counected with a Baptist book store. E.
F. P. Poole, late of Va., for many years a
teacher or Superintendent in a Sunday
School. Wm. F. Murfree a Brother of
TRIAL Of REY.
J. R. GRAVES.
47
liberal education and fine cultivation, bay¬
ing years' experience as a Sunday School
teacher.
A. C. Beech, Deacon of First Church,
and teacher in its Sabbath School. S.
Fish, for years a Sunday School teacher
and the efficient Superintendent of the
Sabbath School in Murfreesboro.
The above are the names of the BOARD
nominated by the Committee, and if our
life depended upon selecting a better Board
in the First Church of Nashville, to decide
the proper character of Sunday School
books, we could not do it. They would
make a better Board for this purpose, than
would the Senate or any four members of
the Senate of the United States, or of the
Parliament of England. We would prefer
them to any seven of the most learned men
in the United States, known to us, be they
D. D.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were
trained from earliest ghildhood, in Sunday
Schools, and ever since early manhood,
been teachers or Superintendents in Sun¬
day Schools. To questicfei their ability, is
to offer them the grossest insult, because it
would be to deny them the possession of
natural capacity and common intelligence, for
they have had during a long series of years
the very education and training to fit them
for the work of deciding the character of
books best suited to children and youth.
Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, Feb. 20,1858.
" Brother Howell's attack upon the Board"
was " such an attack upon men and breth¬
ren before the convention [as] is without a
precedent in our knowledge. It shocked
the feelings of every Baptist present who
heard it, or heard of it, save those three or
four who were enlisted to defeat the Union.
That brother H. should lead such an at¬
tack, was as astonishing as it was painful
to all who loved him. We notice this fea¬
ture of the opposition to the Union with
regret seldom felt by us, but as we were the
chairman of the committee that nominated
those brethren, instrumental in exposing
them, without their knowledge to such
shafts, by commending them as every way
qualified and suitable to decide upon the
proper character of Sunday School Books,
we feel'in duty bound to defend them."
Same paper again : "What then can be
the charge against these men ? If they
possess the requisite piety, morality, and
intellectuality, what do they lack ? If they
are not heretical in- doctrine, and possessed
of the above rare qualifications, what better
Board is needed ? In what respect are they
so sadly, so fatally disqualified, that no body
of men like them would be accepted by Bro.
Howell to purvey theology to his children ?
In what light can we place them, admitting
them so qualified, as to conclude with Bro.
Howell that they are wholly incompetent to
discharge the duties assigned to that Board?
We searched in vain to find it in the letter,
and then tried in vain to imagine it. We
knew it could not be their business qualifi¬
cations, for they are well known in this city
to be among our most reliable business men,
men who have been the architects of their
own fortunes, men long used to manage dis¬
creetly large amounts of money, from fifty
thousand to hundreds of thousands annual¬
ly. Here we recurred in our mind to Bro.
Howell's speech in the convention, in which
he gave his reasons for opposing the Board,
that it seemed to point to the pecuniary
interests of private individual enterprise."
"What circumstances excited suspicion
but the bare fact that such men were nom¬
inated? What is the force of brother H.'s
significant,—we had almost written, sneer¬
ing expression in his letter, ' then why
create a Board here, and especially such a
Board, &c.' We ask brother H. with all
due respect and courtesy, what he means by
emphasizing the term such ? Does he mean
that these four deacons of his own church,
as well as the three other brethren nomi¬
nated, are so ignorant or unprincipled as to
unfit them for the work ? If not, why say
derisively, ' and especially such a Board ?'
We think an explanation is due the
committee and due these brethren. It
would be demanded from another man, we
are confident."
Again : "What a cruel suspicion—aye,
what a gross insult is offered to the men
whose names were nominated for that
Board."
" Here are the names nominated for a
Board by that committee : H. G. Scovel,
A. B. Shankland, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech,
E4. F. P. Poole, Wm. Murfree, and S. Fish."
"We affirm that these men are above
suspicion in the respect intimated. They
are not the men who can be corrupted by
48
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. ©RAVES.
bribe or by favor. They are not the men—
not a man of them—who could be influ¬
enced by any means to violate the confidence
of the denomination, or to prostitute any
trust confided in them, to promote the pe¬
cuniary interests of individuals at the ex¬
pense of the best interests of the denomi¬
nation. No grosser insult could have been
intimated than to suppose they could be
used in this way."
" Who are the men nominated for a
Board that brother H. is so unwilling to
purvey theology for his children, ' or any
other like them? Four of them are the most
efficient deacons of the First Church, H. G.
Scovel, A. B. Shankland, A. Nelson, A. C.
Beech. They are pious, intelligent, ener¬
getic business men. The first named broth¬
er has for many years been the Superin¬
tendent of the Sunday School, and all, or
nearly all of them experienced teachers in
the Sunday School. Brother Howell should
withdraw his children, and advise all other
parents to withdraw their children from the
instruction of such men if they are unsafe
purveyors of religious instruction to any
man's children. If they are either unsafe
to be trusted, wholly incompetent to decide
upon what should be taught to children in
Sunday School books, they are even more
unsafe and incompetent to teach children
directly in the Sunday School. We again
say of these men, against any man's denial,
that six better qualified men, either to
manage the finances of the Union or to pur¬
vey theology for any man's children—to
decide upon the books suitable for children
—could not be selected in this city, or any
city in the South. We would prefer them
to any seven of the most learned men in
the United States, known to us, be they
D. D.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were
trained from earliest childhood, in Sunday
Schools, and ever since early manhood, been
teachers or superintendents in Sunday
Schools. To question their ability, is to
offer them the grossest insult, because it
would be to deny them the possession of
natural capacity and common intelligence."
Mr. Fuller stated that the prosecution
offered this evidence to sustain the second
count in the charge preferred against Elder
J. R. Graves.
The Moderator called upon Elder G raves,
if he was present, to submit any rebutting
testimony he might desire; or if any other
person desired to present such testimony,
it will now be received.
There being no further testimony offered,
Dr. Howell said :
Brother Moderator, and Brethren :
I On this second count of the charge
against J. R. Graves, it has become my
duty to address you, for the same reasons
that were imperative last night. The state¬
ment of those reasons I need not now re¬
peat. In these remarks, which shall be as
brief as possible, I shall have occasion to
| reproduce, and more closely examine, all
! the testimony in the specifications under
i the count now before you. The count is
as follows:
COUNT SECOND.
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the Editors of the
Tennessee Ba ptist, with grossly immoral, and
unchristian conduct, in that he has endeavored
to distract, and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor, and four of
its deacons, and several others of its influen¬
tial members, which he has labored to produce
by numerous inflammatory articles, published
in his paper.
The sin, brother Moderator, and breth¬
ren, with which Mr. Graves is here charged,
is usually denominated schism, and is one
of the most heinous of which a church
member can be guilty. It is an attempt to
tear asunder the body of Christ, the integ¬
rity, and harmony of which, he is under
the most sacred obligations to seek by every
means in his power. On this subject Paul
says, to the Corinthians—1 Cor. 1:10—
"I beseech you brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak
the same thing, and that there be no di¬
visions among you, but that ye be perfectly
joined together in the same mind and in
the same judgment." And in another
place—1 Cor., 3 :3—"Whereas there is
among you envying, and strife, and divis¬
ion, are ye not carnal, and walk as .men?"
To the Romans he says—Rom., 16 :17, 18
—"I beseech you brethren, mark them that
cause divisions, and'offences, contrary to
TRIAL OF REV.
J R. GRAVES.
49
the doctrine which ye have learned, and
avoid them. For they serve not the Lord
Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by
good words, and fair speeches, deceive the
hearts of the simple." In these and simi¬
lar texts, we have the divine teachings in
regard to the conduct with which, under
this count, Mr. Graves is charged.
Mr. Graves attempts to deny your right
to take cognizance of these repeated, and
persevering attacks upon the union and in¬
tegrity of this church, under the absurd
pretence that this is a private personal mat¬
ter between him and his pastor ! He as¬
sumes this, both in the correspondence read
here on Tuesday night, and, in which, you
saw how grossly he had deceived brethren
Jeter, Crawford, Campbell, Buck, Baker,
and others, and in his pleas, entered to
escape this trial. Why does he thus attempt
to impugn our reason, and common sense?
Does he imagine that you do not know the
difference between a private personal of¬
fense, and a public protracted, and violent
agitation to divide, overthrow, and destroy
this church ?
The plea upon which he makes these
assaults upon the integrity and harmony of
this church is the same in this case, as in
the other—a speech made by me, in tho
Sabbath School Convention in this city,
last autumn, and the letter referred to in
the preceding count; published in the:
Christian Index, of Georgia. The sub¬
stance of both is contained in the letter,
which I ask, brother Moderatoi', may now
be read. It ought to have been read last
night, but the reading escaped my memory
until the proper time was past.
The Moderator : Do you desire that the
whole letter shall be read ?
Dr. Howell: Yes Sir; the whole letter.
I wish this church to see how shamefully
it has been misrepresented; and especially
that it gives no such provocations as some
of you have supposed, for the assaults Mr.
Graves has founded upon it.
Mr. Fuller, by consent, read the letter,
as follows :
Nashville, Dec. 21, 1857.
My Dear Brother Walker:—I write now
to inquire whether you have published a
communication I sent you, some time ago,
in regard to the origin and early history of
4
the Index. I have not seen it. Lately,
owing doubtless to the derangement of the
mails, not, perhaps, more than half your
papers ever reach me. If the article has
appeared, will you please mail me another
copy of the paper containing it?
Our Sabbath School Convention seems
to have attracted very considerable atten¬
tion. On that subject I may, perhaps
without impropriety, say a few words to
your readers.
The call for that Convention was credited
to me, and up to the time of its meeting, I
really, notwithstanding some developments
which I did*not comprehend, in my sim¬
plicity, supposed myself to have been its
author. It is certain, however, that I did
not contemplate the purposes which were
developed in the assembly. I presumed
that it would be such a Convention as those
frequently of late years, held in Virginia,
in which might be presented the impor¬
tance of Sunday Schools, the best meth¬
ods of creating, and reudering them per¬
manent, the most successful way of con¬
ducting them, and how we could best and
most readily co-operate with each other
throughout the whole South, in their ad¬
vancement. Nor did I imagine that a con¬
stitution would be proposed to render the
organization permanent under any name
whatever. To this, however, when in gen¬
eral terms suggested, I accorded, still un¬
der the impression that nothing more than
has been intimated was designed. Indeed,
I thought it would be an excellent plan, and
until the constitution was submitted, ear¬
nestly advocated it. When that paper
was read, the whole truth came up before
me. It was then apparent that the call
for the Convention was not mine, and I am
now glad that it was not. Not having been
consulted at all by the movers in the enter¬
prise, nor had any explanations, I was, it
seems, behind the times, and left, when the
project was evolved, either to go, willingly
or unwillingly, with the crowd in its favor,
or to fall out of the ranks into a hopeless
minority, as I might choose. All this
brother Dayton has explained and certified
in an article lately published in your paper
and several others. You are aware, my
dear brother—for I was once your pastor,
and you know me well—that I am an en¬
thusiast on any subject that deeply interests
50
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
me. I never conceal any of my designs,
nor suspect any one else of doing so. In
my zeal for Sunday Schools, I saw only
what was apparent. If any attempt to
make use of me, for any purpose, without
my knowledge or consent, has been devel¬
oped, I regret it most sincerely, not so
much for my own sake, as for the sake of
those brethren who thought such a meas¬
ure legitimate. This explains to brethren
Dayton and others, why "Dr. Howell ad¬
vocated Sunday Schools as he did," in the
Concord Association, and yet could not, for
reasons he is always ready to assign, ac¬
cept, in the form proposed," The Southern
Baptist Sunday School Union." It was her¬
alded last summer, by brother Dayton, that
the Convention was called at the instance
of brother Howell. It is now heralded by
the same brother, and in the same papers,
that it was called at his instance, in consul¬
tation with brother, J. R. Graves, and of
which brother Howell was made the passive
instrument. These are facts, and I speak
only of facts developed by a general inspec¬
tion of all the publications in the premises,
which appeared in the meeting, and have
since found their way into the newspapers.
I am Sorry that they are such as they are,
but I am not responsible for them; and
that they should be known, is due alike to
m j, to my brethren, and to the cause in
which we are all engaged.
I cannot, my dear brother, accept the
proposed Constitution, in its present form,
of the Southern Baptist Sunday School
Union, not only because we had no such
delegation present as (not knowing the
mind of our brethren) authorized us to act
for the South, but also, and mainly, because
it originated another Southern Baptist Pub¬
lication Society. We already have one,
which is just now reaching a vigorous ma¬
turity, and having accumulated a capital of
say forty thousand dollars, and under the
direction of a Board of managers, in whose
piety, orthodoxy, wisdom, learning and in¬
tegrity, I have as much confidence as I
could have in those of any men living up¬
on earth. I have thought they might have
acted with more energy, and have given to
their publications a wider circulation, espe¬
cially in the Southwest; but my information
on this subject is not suficient to entitle my
opinions to any reliance. This Society is
especially charged with the publication of
Sunday School books, and as its reports
show, is publishing them as fast as it can
procure the manuscripts, and the means to
send them forth. And shall we now create
in the same field, and for the same objects,
another Society entrusted with the very
work already confided to this? Would this,
even supposing the new Society to be in
every sense as competent as the old, be just
to that Society? Would it be just to our¬
selves? Would it be good policy? Tome,
this whole thing is repugnant. We are
told, however, by your correspondent, that
no harm will thus be done to the Southern
Baptist Publication Society. Indeed, that
it will be rather benefitted than injured by
the presence and action of this new organi¬
zation! Thai brother, should he take it in¬
to his head to wear my coat this winter,
might just as well attempt to prove to me
that by doing so, he would put me to no
inconvenience; that indeed, it would be a
benefit to me rather than an injury. The
writer of Theodosia Ernest ought not to
give us, such logic as this. We are shock¬
ed by it rather than satisfied.
"But we are told by the newspapers that
this very brother is himself, rapidly prepar¬
ing Sunday School books, and that several
will be ready, and actually presented to the
Union" in April next, at Americus, in
your State. Very well. Let him prepare
them, if the Bible Board will allow their
Corresponding Secretary to devete nearly
all his time to writing books, and instead of
presenting them to the 'Union,' let him send
them to the Southern Baptist Publication
Society. If they are such books as the
Baptists approve, that Society will publish
them, and for as small a price and in as
good style as the work can be done else¬
where in the South or Southwest." And
let that '"Sweet Singer" also, brother Fish,
of which the Tennessee Baptist speaks as
now preparing "songs for Childrendo the
same thing. Until the Southern Baptist
Publication Society fails to do the work as¬
signed it, we want no other.
Nor can I accept that proposed local
board in this city, whose names were laid
upon the table, in the Convention in defer¬
ence to the appeals of an earnest minority,
or any other like it, as the purveyor of the¬
ology for my children. I am sorry that in
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
51
reference to that action in the Convention
brother Dayton said, in a voice of lamen¬
tation, in the article he appended to the
publication of the projected constitution,
that the best hope of the Baptist people
must now be deferred until, next April. I
am not convinced that our best hopes are
necessarily connected with the action of that
local board here, and if they were, the de¬
claration would come more modestly from
some one else than its proposed president.
I bring no charge against the christian,
moral, or intellectual character of these
brethren. They are nearly all members of
my church, and several of them among
the dearest personal friends I have upon
earth. Nor do I refer especially to the
"Landmark" doctrine, known to be "a
hobby" among them; which by the way
they do not understand, since they have
never yet learned the teachings of the Bi¬
ble, nor the opinions of our brethren in
the South, regarding it. There are several
other doctrines inculcated in that office,
such as those relating to the Abrahamic
covenant, to the law of prophetic interpre¬
tation, and the millenium, which, although
they do not invite, and bring upon us, the
same useless odium, are practically much
more injurious. And what, I will now ask,
is the use of this proposed Board at all?
They tell us that if the books that may be
offered can be published any where else than
in the Tennessee Baptist office, in Charles¬
ton for instance, upon as good or better terms,
that they shall be published Charleston.
Then why create a Board here, and especi¬
ally such a Board, to examine and pass upon
them? Why not submit the manuscripts to
the Board in Charleston? Does not the
creation of a Board here to examine and
approve the manuscripts, intimate the prob¬
ability that our brethren are afraid that the
books they have written, or intend to write,
would not be approved by such men as
Manly, Winkler, Tupper, and others of the
Charleston Board. But besides all this—I
say in the kindest terms—this particular
proposed Board, excellent as may be the
personal and christian character of its mem¬
bers, is, in my judgment, wholly incompe¬
tent to the task it is contemplated to assign
it.
I do not expect to be in Americus next
April. I suppose I shall not be. Nor do
I know to what extent my opinions might
influence the brethren there. Perhaps
nothing will be gained or lost by my ab¬
sence. I will only say further, that, upon
mature consideration, I have arrived at the
conclusion that no good can arise out of
this movement. I was strongly in favor of
such an organization as I have described,
to infuse life and spirit into Sunday Schools
in the Southwest. We cannot, it seems,
have it by itself. I am, therefore, opposed
to the whole project, and do hope that by
the brethren who may be at Americus in
April next, it will be laid upon the table,
and remain there indefinitely.
As ever, yours truly and affectionately,
R. B. C. Howell.
Dr. Howell continued:—
It will be seen, brother Moderator, that
in this letter I said:
"Nor can I accept that proposed local
Board, whose names were laid upon the
table in deference to the appeals of an ear¬
nest minority, or any other like it, as the
purveyor of theology for my children."
Further on in the same letter I said:
"I bring no charge against the christian,
moral, or intellectual character of these
brethren. They are nearly all members of
my church, and several of them among the
dearest personal friends I have upon earth."
Near the close of the letter I said:
"Why create a Board here, and especi¬
ally such a Board, to examine and pass
upon them? Why not submit the manu¬
scripts to the Board in Charleston?" "But
besides all this—I say it in the kindest
terms—this particular proposed Board, ex¬
cellent as may be the personal, and chris¬
tian character of its members, is, in my
judgment, wholly incompetent to the task
it is contemplated to assign it."
These extracts, be it remembered, con¬
tain the whole of my alleged offense against
the Deacons, and other members named of
this church, and upon which Mr. Graves
lays hold to effect a division in your body.
Nothing else, so far as I know, has ever
been pretended. These facts fully before
you, we are prepared to take another step in
the discussion,
Our mortal offence was the opposition
we made to the inauguration of that
Board. I was not alone in that oppo-
52
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
sition. I spoke and voted against it, and
so also did some of you. Let us now see
who were to have been the members of that
Boai d, and how Mr. Graves prevaricates in
relation to them. Would that Board have
been composed of four of the Deacons, and
two or three other members of this churclif In
the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, dated Feb¬
ruary 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves mentions, by
name, H. G. Scovel, A. B. Shankland, A.
Nelson, E. F. P. Poole, W. L. Murfree,
A. C. Beech, and S. Fish, all of whom ex¬
cept Mr. Poole, who has since united with
us, and Mr. Fish of Murfreesborough, are
members of this church, and says: urThe
above are the names of the Board, nomina¬
ted by the committee/' Again, he says,
Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, February 20th,
1858: "Here are the names nominated by
that Committee: H. G. Scovel, A. B.
Shankland, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech, E. F.
P. Poole, Wm. Murfree, S. Fish." And
again, in another place, he says: "Four of
them are the most efficient Deacons of the
First Church—H. G. Scovel, A. B. Shank¬
land, A. Nelson, A. C. Beech." Mr.
Graves, therefore, very assiduously labors
to impress his readers, with the idea that
these four Deacons, whose names he so of¬
ten, and so earnestly repeats, and two or
three others would ha^e composed that
Board. He says again, and again: '■'■These
are the names nominated for a Board."
Did those brethren compose the Board?
Mr. Graves himself shall answer.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, dated
March 6th, 1858, he says:
" Every reader can see that these breth¬
ren [Hillsman and Howell] took the initia¬
tive in declaring a war against their Land¬
mark brethren, and that they [the Land- i
mark brethren] are to be proscribed from i
the Boards that direct the great interests i
of Souhtern Baptists." "Should it come to <
this, who would be chargeable with the de¬
plorable results that woutd follow ? That i
man who first objected to this Board, because £
he imagined that a majority of it were (
Landmark in sentiment." He then, in j
this same article, proposes one of those ex- i
traordinary measures so characteristic of c
Mr. Graves, which, it appears to me, no £
sane man ever could approve, and which, l
by all our denominational papers that spoke t
j on the subject, was so decid^lly condemned,
as follows :
"We urge the Clerk or Pastor of each
church [throughout the whole South, and
South-west] to bring this resolution before
their several churches, at their next church
meeting:"
"Resolved, That this church regard the
brethren nominated as a Board of Man¬
agers, for the S. B. S. School Union, un¬
sound, and wholly incompetent for the
work.
"And if one half, or a small majority of
the churches in the South-west, and South,
say that they regard the brethren named,
Dayton, Sharpe, Graves, Scovel, Shankland
Nelson, Bceoh, Murfree, Poole, Fish, as
incompetent to decide on books suitable for
■ Sunday School children, we will urge their
. claims to the confidence no more, and iow
our heads, and let proscription triumph."
1 And in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 33,
r dated April 24th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
: "The names proposed, [and who] would
■ have constituted the board, if elected, are
Dayton,GRAVES, Rogers, Scovel, Shank¬
land, Nelson, Murfree, Poole, Beech, Fish,
ten names."
In these statements of Mr. Graves there¬
fore, although his catalogues are very dif¬
ferent from each other, it is seen substan¬
tially, who this proposed Board would have
been, as understood by him, and as under¬
stood by me. When laboring to stir up
strife between the pastor and deacons, and
thus divide this church, they are these
said deacons and three others, Murfree,
Poole, and Fish; but when afterwards his
thoughts were in another direction, there
is a change in the persons of the drama!
He then recollects the other names! No
one who examines these facts can avoid
seeing with what ingenuity—to use no
stronger expression—he attempted to carry
out his schismatical design.
Why should Mr. Graves ignore the plain
sense of my letter, and attempt, as we have
seen, to make those four deacons and those
other brethren mentioned, believe, that my
purpose was to disparage them ? I did not
mean when I spoke of the board to
designate as that Board those four deacons
and two other lay members of this church.
Such a thought was not in iny mind. I
thought those brethren, so far as I knew
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
53
any thing of tlfeir doctrine, entirely ortho¬
dox. I considered them, also, highly cul¬
tivated, active, and faithful Christians. I
did not suppose, that they would knowing¬
ly have permitted any thing, unscriptural,
to come forth under their auspices, as Sun¬
day School literature. Nor did I make, or
intimate such a charge, in my letter to the
Christian Index; nor did .7, in that letter,
make any offensive imputation on any mem¬
ber of that hoard. So far from it, I stated
in express terms : " I bring no charge
against the christian, moral, or intel¬
lectual character of these brethren [The
members of the proposed board.] They
are nearly all members of my church, and
several of them among the dearest personal
friends I have upon earth." How could it
be urged, in the face of this declaration,
that I made, in that letter, personal impu¬
tations upon those brethren.
It is true, that in that letter I took a
stand in opposition to the proposed board.
And allow me here brother Moderator and
brethren to state the facts and reasons
which influenced me when I said: " Why
create a board here, and especially such a
board, to examine and pass upon them [the
manuscripts] ? Why not submit the man¬
uscripts to the board in Charleston ?" "But
besides all this—I say it in the kindest
terms—this particular proposed board, ex¬
cellent as may he the personal and Christian
character of its members, is in my judgment
wholly incompetent to the task, it is con-
ex1 plated to assign it." The members of
tnat board were, with two exceptions—El¬
ders Graves and Dayton—lay-members of
our own, and other Baptist Churches, hon¬
orable, energetic, intelligent business men.
To those Deacons and the other brethren,
I meant no disparagement, in imagining
that they, at this late period of their lives,
were not likely, so far to change their
habits and pursuits, as to turn book makers,
and book reviewers. Nor does Mr. Graves
speak of them, as will hereafter be seen, as
critics in these matters—as those from whom
he expected literary and theological aid;
so much as "business men;" men to man¬
age the finances of the Union. And be¬
sides this, it is very well known that theo¬
logical errors may be so infused into a book
that the mere cursory reading of the manu¬
script, by men not profoundly versed in
Polemic Divinity, may fail to detect its
presence. And what more than a cursory
reading could have been expected from
these " business men ? " Indeed it seemed
to me that opportunity might not have of¬
fered for even that much.
When there was formerly a Publication
Society in this city, with which Mr. Graves
was connected, the board of that Society
was composed of as noble a set of brethren
as those nominated for this Sunday School
Union; indeed several of them were the very
same men; and it is well known that it was
the habit of Mr. Graves, to take the manu¬
script, or the proof sheets of any work he
desired to publish, and going round to the
offices, and other places of business of the
members, or meeting them on the streets,
to show it to them, state in general terms
what it was, and ask their approval of its
publication. But under the most favorable
circumstances, the pressure of business en¬
gagements, would, it seemed to me, pre¬
clude those brethren from any other than a
cursory examination of the Manuscripts
proposed for publication.
It struck me that in this state of the case,
the character of the Sunday School books
would depend mainly upon-the opinions of
the other two members of the Board, Elders
Graves and Dayton.
The man who writes Sunday School books
or upon whose judgment they are published,
and put into the hands of our children,
should be well instructed in the divine
word, and scriptural in his doctrine's. And
as it is desirable that a Sunday School Un¬
ion should be an enterprise upon which the
whole denomination might unite, his theo¬
logical knowledge and orthodoxy should be
undoubted by all. Could the whole denom¬
ination unite upon the views and teachings
of Elders Graves and Dayton ? The Ten¬
nessee Baptist is understood to teach, that
of the old Jewish law, all that part is in as
full force as it ever was, which relates to
circumcision; it endorses the doctrine as
scriptural which was some time since known
as Millerism, in regard to the Millenium,
and more recently, in the South known as
Thomasism, characteristic of an ultra school
of Campbellites, and actually disowned by
Mr. Campbell himself; all of which Mr.
Dayton teaches in his recent work entitled
the Baptist Sunday School Question Book.
54
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
Nor are these the most unscriptural of their
principles. I will not, however, now des¬
ignate them, nor will I speak of the spirit,
by which Mr. Graves' publications are
characterized. Even Mr. Graves' own
friends, and especially the intelligent and
well read among them, do not endorse his
orthodoxy. Rev. Dr. Joseph S. Baker, for
example, one of his special defenders, and
champions, the writer of his tract entitled
"The Question of the Age," says of him
on this subject—Christian Index, dated
April 28th, 1858 :
"I do not endorse the Theology of the
brethren in Nashville, [Graves, Pendleton,
and Dayton,] I am a believer in a personal
atonement, and believe that all for whom
the Savior has atoned, will be assuredly
saved ; not in sin, but from sin, and all its
direful consequences." " I am not a con¬
vert to their views of the premillenial reign
of Christ on earth, or of the reorganization
of the Jews as a nation, in Palestine."
And may I not say also, and say it without
offence, neither do I endorse their ortho¬
doxy. And this is the utmost construction
which could be placed upon my letter to the
Christian Index. In it I wronged no mem¬
ber of that Board. I assailed no member.
Viewing the board as a whole, I stated in
effect that I could not endorse it. I have
now stated the reasons why I could not en¬
dorse it. Those reasons were not that I
doubted the intelligence, or the honor, or
the orthodoxy of the lay brethren, who in
part composed it, but they do not claim to
be theologians and from the claims of their
business upon their time, and their thoughts,
it could not be expected, that, under the
most favorable circumstances, they could
bestow more than a brief attention on the
manuscripts submitted to them. The Sun¬
day School books would depend mainly
upon the judgment of the ministerial mem¬
bers of the Board. Nor did I in that let¬
ter question the intelligence or the honor
of those ministerial members. But I could
not endorse, as many other brethren could
not endorse, their orthodoxy. In my opin¬
ion, as in the opinion of other honest breth¬
ren, men of learning and ability, they en¬
tertained erroneous views, which I feared
would pervade the Sunday School litera¬
ture, which might emanate from the board.
And I honestly, and conscientiously, yet
courteously opposed the jaoard, in which,
from the circumstances of the case, they
would most probably exert a strong influ¬
ence, which I feared would prove highly
injurious to the orthodoxy of the rising
generation. In this I can see no cause for
blame. There was, in that letter, nothing
to provoke, or to justify the violent and
persistent attacks made upon us by Mr.
Graves. If he were offended with that let¬
ter, it was his duty as a Christian, to have
come to me for an explanation. That would
have been frankly given, and it would have
been explained to Mr. Graves, that I neither
impugned the motives of him and Elder
Dayton, nor assailed the integrity, the in¬
telligence, or the orthodoxy of the other
brethren. He would have been frankly
informed, that I only questioned the scrip-
tuality of his views, and opposed the board,
because I feared it would become the means
of extending error. This should have been
no cause of personal hostility between us.
As Christians, and servants of one common
Lord, we could agree to differ. But
instead of this he disregarded the law of
our Savior : he assailed us in his paper : he
attempted to stir up strife between Elder
Dayton and myself, and it has been seen
that he succeeded but too well in exciting
hostility in his breast towards me : he at¬
tempted to excite hostility in four of the
deacons and other influential members of
the church against me, and by thus produ¬
cing a conflict, to distract and divide the
church.
I proceed to notice the specifications un¬
der the present count.
specification first.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, dated
February 13th, 1858, Mr. Graves says:
"The opposition led by brethren Howell
and Hillsman burst forth in all its fury, when
the committee made their report" nomina¬
ting the Board. " A most gross, and shock¬
ing attack was made [by brother Howell]
upon the men or some of the men nominated,
because of their opinions with regard to
some matters of Baptist policy;" [Land-
markism.] " No one wc presume, will ques¬
tion the competency of A. C. Dayton to
discharge the duties of the Presidency of
the Union." " To brother Sharpe, we sup¬
pose no man in Georgia, or out of it, has
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
55
yet objected as * Corresponding Secretary."
" Bro. S. C. Rogers, the Accountant of the
South Western Publishing House, was recom¬
mended for Treasurer, because it was neces¬
sary for some member of that House to fill
this office, if the Board was locoted in Nash¬
ville, since money would be constantly re¬
mitted for books, in the letters sent to the
House, ordering other publications." "H. G.
Scovel, the chairman of the Board [of Man-
agers] is a man of large means, an intelli¬
gent, practical business man, Deacon, of the
First Baptist Church, and has been for years,
the Superintendent of its Sunday School,
and a prompt and efficient Board man. Who
better qualified than he,'for the position of
Chairman of the Board ? A. B. Shankland
has been for twelve or fifteen years, a deacon
of the First Chwrch, and teacher in its Sun¬
day School, and for seven years a dealer in
Baptist books. A. Nelson, deacon of the
church, and from boyhood until now, either
scholar or teacher in the Sunday School, and
for some years connected with a Baptist book
store. E. F. P. Poole, late of Virginia,
for many years a teacher or Superintendent
in a Sunday School. Wm. F. Murfree, a
brother of liberal education, and fine culti¬
vation, having years' experience as a Sun¬
day School teacher. A. C. Beech, deacon
of First Church, and teacher in its Sabbath
School. S. Fish, for years a Sunday School
teacher, and the efficient Superintendent of:
the Sabbath School at Murfreesborough."
" The above are the names of the Board
nominated by the committee, and if our
life depended upon selecting a better board
in the First Church of Nashville, to decide
the proper character of Sunday School
books, we could not do it. They would make
a better board for this purpose, than would
the Senate, or any four Members of the
Senate of the United States, or of;
the Parliament of England. We would
prefer them to any seven of the most learn¬
ed men in the United States known to us, be
they D. D.'s, or L. L. D.'s. These men were;
trained from earliest childhood, in Sunday1
Schools; and ever since early manhood, been
teaehers, or Superintendents in the Sunday
Schools. To question their ability, is to
offer them the grossest insult, because it
would be to deny them the possession of nat¬
ural capacity, and common intelligence, for
they haye had during a long series of years,
the very education, and training, to fit them
for the work of deciding the character of
books best suited to children and youth."
I solicit attention brother Moderate, to
several things in these extracts evincive
of the truth of the charge now preferred
against Mr. Graves.
1. He declares that I assaulted these
brethren—catalogues of whom he gives sev¬
eral times—furiously ; that I made upon
them a "most gross and shocking attack.'" Mr.
Graves names four men. By looking fur¬
ther on we find whom he designates by these
" four" men. They are four deacons of this
church, Scovel, Shankland, Nelson, and
Beech , and then he names seven ; of whom
six only are members of this church, the
above and two otAers. Why does Mr.
Graves so earnestly persuade these brethren,
and reiterate it in his newspaper, week after
week, that I have assailed them furiously ?
Why does he fill his columns with the 'de¬
claration, that I have made upon them a
" Most gross and shocking attack." Why
does he insist upon it so frequently, that I
have offered them "the grossest in¬
sult ? " I say nothing now of the fact
that all this is utterly false. I shall have
occasion for that fact hereafter. What could
be his design but to set these brethren at vari¬
ance with their Pastor ?
2. Mr. Graves becomes the voluntary
champion, and defender of these brethren
against the alleged attacks of their Paster!
He declares that I have assailed them furi¬
ously; that I have made upon them a "Most
gross and shocking attack; and that I, as he al¬
leges, have offered them "the grossest in¬
sult!" He is their defender! He tells them
it is his duty. Yes he will defend them!
And his defense of them, how delicate it is, I
need not remind yon. They are all excel¬
lent, intelligent, well educated, and some
of them classically educated brethren.
In their several departments no men
in this city stand higher than they do.
But he pronounces the four, my deacons,
as he pleased to call them, superior for his
purposes, to any four members of the Sen¬
ate of the United States, or of the Parlia¬
ment of England; and that the seven (that
he supposed to be members of this church,
but was mistaken, only six being members)
vastly excel any seven D. D.'s, or L. L. D.'s
known to him ! In this fulsome style he
56
TRIAL OP REY. J R. GRAYES
defends these brethren against alleged as¬
saults of their Pastor ! Did he wish them to
love, or even to respect their Pastor ? Was
he not seeking, and that too by falsehood,
and detraction on the one hand, and the
most offensive and fulsome flattery on the
other, to set them against their Pastor ?
3. Mr. Graves affirms that I made upon
that proposed Board this furious onset; this
" gross, and shocking attack;" offered them
this " gross insult;" because of their Land-
markism, which he denominates "their
opinions on some matters of Baptist policy;"
and that too, with my written, and pub¬
lished declaration before his eyes, in the
letter which he pretends to answer, that
I was not influenced by that consideration.
He did this under the mistaken impression
doubtless, that nearly all of these members,
were in his sense Landmarkers. In this
appeal, as in several others, he overreached
himself, but it is not on that account, the
less apparent that it was his design to put
the officers of this church in conflict with
its Pastor. And what could he gain by-
putting brethren Scovel, Shankland, Nel¬
son, Beech, Murfree, and Poole, even if he
had succeeded in doing so, as to all of them,
at variance with their pastor? What else
could he gain but confusion and division
in the church, and perhaps its entire ov<r-
throw ? His schismatical purpose is not to
he mistaken.
specification second.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
"Brother Howell's attack upon the Board"
was "such an attack upon men, and breth¬
ren, before the Convention, and in their
presence [as] is without a precedent in our
knowledge It shocked the feelings of
every Baptist present who heard it, or heard
of it, save those three or four who were en¬
listed to defeat the Union. That brother H.
should lead such an attack, was as astonish¬
ing, as,-it was painful to all who loved him.
We notice this feature of the opposition to
the FTnion with regret seldom felt by us, but
as we were the Chairman of the committee
that nominated those brethren, instrumental
in exposing them withouttheirknowledge, to
such shafts, by commending them as every
way qualified, and suitable to decide upon
the proper character of Sunday School
books, we feel in duly hound to DEFEND
rHEM."
Referring here, to my high commenda¬
tion of these very brethren, in my Index
letter, Mr. Graves goes -on to say—well
knowing that I had made no charge against
them:—
"What then can be the charge against
these men ? If they possess the requisite
piety, morality, and intellectuality, what do
they lack ? If they are not heretical in
doctrine, and possessed of the above rare
qualifications, what better Board is needed?
In what respect are they so sadly, so fatally
disqualified, that no body Of men like them,
would be accepted by brother Howell, to
purvey theology for his children? In
what light can we place them, admitting
them so qualified, §s to conclude with broth¬
er Howell, that they are wholly incompe¬
tent to discharge the duties assigned to that
Board ? We searched in vain to find it in
the letter, and then tried in vain to imagine
it. We knew it could not be their business
qualifications, for they are well known in
this city, to be among our most reliable bus¬
iness men; men who have been the archi¬
tects of their own fortunes; men long used
to manage discreetly, large amounts of money,
from fifty thousand to hundreds of thou¬
sands annually. Here we recurred in our
mind to brother Howell's speech in the
Convention, in which he gave his reasons
for opposing the Board, that it seemed to
point to the pecuniary interests of private in¬
dividual enterprise." "What circumstances
excited suspicion but the bare fact that
such men were nominated ? What is the
force of brother H.'s significant—we had
almost written sneering—expression in his
letter, 'Then why create a Board here, and
especially such aBoard?' &c. We ask brother
H. with all due respect, and courtesy, what
he means by empliacising the term such?
Does he mean that these four Deacons of
his own church, as well as the three other
brethren nominated, are so ignorant, or
unprincipled, as to unfit them for the work?
If not, why say derisively, 'And especially
such a Board?' We think an explanation
is due the committee, and due those breth¬
ren. It loould be demanded from anoth¬
er man, we are confident."
This specification it will be seen, brother
Moderator, is in the same spirit, and goes
TRIAL OF "REV. J. R. GRAVES.
51
over much of the same gi-ound with the
former one under this charge. Mr. Graves
reiterates. I too, must therefore reiterate.
I invite attention to the following points :
1. Why does he say that I made an
attack upon men and brethren, without
precedent ? Without precedent for what ?
He had said in a. previous paper, that it
was characterised by fury; that it was
gross, and shocking; and several times that
it was the grossest insult. Did he not seek
to make the impression that I had so con¬
ducted myself towards these "men and
brethren" as to have completely forfeited
not only their confidence, but even their
respect; and that they ought to look upon
me with aversion, as the traducer of their
character as men and christians ?
2. Why does he then designate the men
by name, upon whom as he says this furious,
gross and shocking insult was perpetrated,
in their presence, and in the presence of
the Convention, as four of the Deacons, and
two other members of my own church, if he
does not wish to bring them into collision
with me ? Why does he leave his own and
Mr. Dayton's name out, and place my dea
cons up as a mark for the "shaft" directed
against the very persons whose names he
omitted?
3. Why does he intimate that I regard
these four Deacons and two other members of
my own church, as too ignorant, or to un¬
principled to be trusted with such a work as
the creation of books for Sunday Schools ?
Was he desirous that they should respect
their .Pastor? Was it not his purpose to
bring them into collision with me ?
4. Why does Mr. Graves dwell upon all
this foul creation of his own, endeav¬
or to persuade these members of this
church that it is true, and remind them that
from any other man but me, an account of
IT would certainly be demanded f Why this
inflammatory appeal to these brethren f Was
it not to put them at variance with their
Pastor f And why bring them into collision
with their Pastor ? What is to be the result
of a war between the Pastor, and four Dea¬
cons, and two other leading members of the
church ? What else can result to the church
but injury, division, and overthrow : Was
he not laboring with all his might, to
'cause' among you 'divisions, and offences,
contrary to the doctrine' of Christ?
specification third.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
"What a cruel suspicion—aye, what
a gross insult—is offered to the men
whose names were nominated for that
Board !" "Here are the names nominated
for a Board by that committee :—H. G.
Scovel, A. B. Shankland, A. Nelson, A.
C. Beech, E. F. P. Poole, Wm. Murfree,
S. Fish." "We affirm that these men are
above suspicion in the respect intimated.
They are not the men who can be corrupted by
bribe or by favor. They are not the men—
not a man of them—who could be influ¬
enced by any means, to violate the confi¬
dence of the denomination, or to prosti¬
tute any trust confided in them, to promote
the pecuniary interests of individuals, at
the expense of the best interests of the
denomination. No grosser insult could
have been intimated than to suppose they
could be used in this way."
In another place in the same number of
his paper, Mr. Graves goes on to say:
"Who are the men nominated for a
Board, that brother H. is so unwilling to
purvey theology for his children, or any
other like them. Four of them are the
most efficient deacons of the flrst
Church : H. G. Scovel, A. B. Shankland,
A. Nelson, A. C. Beech. They are pious,
intelligent, energetic, business men. The
first named brother has, for many years
been the Superintendent of the Sunday
School, and all, or nearly all of them, ex¬
perienced teachers in the Sunday School.
Brother Howell should withdraw his child¬
ren, and advise all other parents to with¬
draw their children from the instruction of
such men, if they are unsafe purveyors of
religious instruction to any man's children.
If they are either unsafe to be trusted,
wholly incompetent to decide upon what
should be taught to children in Sunday
School books, they are even more unsafe
and incompetent to teach children directly
in the Sunday School. We again say of
these men against any man s denial, that
six better qualified men, either to manage
the finances of the Union, or to purvey
theology for any man's children, or to de-
lide upon the books suitable for children,
could not be selected in this city, or any
city in the South. We would prefer them
58
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
to any seven of the most learned men in
the United States known to us, be they D.
D.'s or L. L. D.'s. These men were trained
from earliest childhood in Sunday Schools,
and ever since early manhood been teach¬
ers, or Superintendents in Sunday Schools.
To question their ability, is to offer them the
grossest insult, because it would be to
deny them the possession of natural capac¬
ity, and common intelligence."
Bro. Moderator I ask attention, in these
extracts, to the following points which em¬
body the evidence of Mr. Graves' guilt:
1. He affirms again and again that I
have cast upon four of the Deacons, and
some other members of the church of
which I am pastor, "a cruel suspicion ;"
and that I have offered them "the gross¬
est insult."
2. He affirms that I have intimated that
these members may be "bribed," and are
NOT WORTHY of "the confidence of the de¬
nomination."
3. He in substance, declares that I have
pronounced them wanting in "natural ca¬
pacity and common intelligence."
But why all this, even had it been true,
repeated again and again, and pertina¬
ciously urged in the public prints, jeering
them mean time, with the declaration that
any other manbut me, would certainly be call¬
ed to answer for it? Who does not see that he
labored earnestly to bring them into col¬
lision with their pastor. But why bring
them into collision with him ? He could
have had no other purpose but to distract,
divide, and if possible, overthrow, or destroy
the First Baptist Church of which we are
all members.
I need not again state that every one of
these allegations by Mr. Graves, is
false. I never attacked these brethren
at all. I did not in my speech in the Con¬
vention. I did not in my letter to the In¬
dex. I have, however, every reason to be
assured that in placing himself as he sub¬
stantially did, at the head of that Board,
he sought to have their names as a bulwark
upon which he might stand before the de¬
nomination, and behind which he might
shelter himself against any attacks made
upon his own teachings. It seems that for
the present, at least, he was foiled in these
purposes. He then in his vengeful wrath
took these methods of diverting public at¬
tention from the true issue, and to bring re¬
proach and injury upon me, and upon this
church. He declares in his paper, and re¬
peats it, week after week, that I had furi¬
ously assaulted these brethren, that I had
perpetrated upon them a most gross, and
shocking attack; that I had offered them
the grossest insult; that my onset upon
them was unprecedented in all these re¬
spects ; that I pronounced them too ignor¬
ant, or too unprincipled to be trusted with
the work of making Sunday School books;
that I have cast upon them "a cruel sus¬
picion;" that I have intimated that they
may be " bribed ; " and that they are want¬
ing in "natural capacity, and common in¬
telligence ; " and he calls upon all the thou¬
sands of churches in the South, and South
West, who never before heard of them, to
meet, legislate regarding them, and vote
them incompetent; and Mr. Graves him¬
self, sets up for them, an earnest defence
against alleged attacks of their Pastor,
which attacks in reality never existed. The
man who should in a public newspaper,
volunteer to defend my wife and children,
that I have ever loved, and tenderly cher¬
ished, declaring that I had insulted and
abused them, and pronouncing them
"against any man's denial," and especially
against my denial, superior to any other
man's wife and children in America, or in
England, I should at once know that he
intended, if he possibly could, to render
me odious in their sight, and to divide, and
destroy us as a family. And what sort of
chastisement ought such an intermeddlerto
receive? In such a work, and no less nefa¬
rious and wicked is Mr. Graves now en¬
gaged. His purpose was undoubtedly, if
possible, to divide, overthrow, and destroy
the First Baptist Church in Nashville.
If, however, any doubts of his guilt ex¬
isted before, the events of last Tuesday
night swept them all away. After your
adjournment, and at the midnight hour, he
called upon his partisans, and aided by cer¬
tain men from abroad, brought here for the
purpose, actually and in your own place of
worship, when you had retired, consumma¬
ted the identical division which he had
so long, by the means set forth in the spec¬
ifications now before you, endeavored to to ac¬
complish. By appeals of his own, and of
some others, he succeeded in leading out of
'—
TRIAL OF REY.
J. R. GRAVES.
59
vtliis church, on that occasion, some twenty-
five of your number ! Some few of you
beheld that scene upon which angels must
have looked with sorrow. The schism de¬
nounced by the word of God, was boldly
consumated by J. R. Graves.
Is he guilty of grossly immoral and un¬
christian conduct, as charged in this count
of the indictment ? Alas, it is but too true.
He is guilty. Painful as it is to us all, guid¬
ed by the word of God, we are forced to the
conclusion that he is guilty.
Mr. Fuller remarked that it seemed the
programme of Tuesday night was to be per¬
sisted in, and that no defence on the part
of Elder Graves is to be made. The case is
perfectly plain that Elder Graves, is guilty
as charged, and he moved that the charge
be sustained, and that the vote of the church
be now taken upon his motion.
The charge was then read.
The Moderator. You have heard the
charge and the testimony introduced to
sustain it: All who believe that the charge
against Elder Graves has been sustained by
the testimony, will rise.
Upon a count it was ascertained that
there were seventy-nine members standing.
The Moderator. All who believe that the
charge has not been sustained by the testi¬
mony, will rise.
No one rose.
The Moderator declared that the church
had decided by a unanimous vote that the
charge was sustained.
Dr. Howell moved that a committee be
appointed whose duty it should be to con¬
fer with those brethren who held a meet¬
ing in this church Tuesday night after the
adjournment of the regular church meeting,
in order to ascertain the purpose they have
in view.
The motion was adopted.
Dr. Howell then moved that the Moder¬
ator be constituted chairman of that com¬
mittee, which shall be composed of three,
and that he appoint two others.
The motion was adopted, and the Mod¬
erator appointed S. M. Scott and A. Nel¬
son said committee.
The church meeting then adjourned,
with prayer by Dr. Howell, to meet Mon¬
day night at 7 o'clock.
Monday Evening, October 15, 1858.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
The proceedings were opened by read¬
ing a portion of Scripture by the Modera¬
tor, and prayer by Dr. Howell.
The reading of the minutes was dispensed
with.
The Moderator announced that the third
count in the charge against Elder J. .R
Graves would now be taken up.
Mr. Fuller read the count as follows:
Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub¬
lished in his said paper against R. B. C.
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry
foul and atrocious libels.
Mr. Fuller stated that the proof to sus¬
tain this charge is to be found in various
numbers of the Tennessee Baptist, which
he read as follows:
"What! Brother Howell duped—made
use of—made a passive instrument by some
one he had not so much as consulted with,
to advise and urge in 'a steam speech,' a
Baptist Association to do something he him¬
self did not understand, or if he did heartily
disapproved and abhorred! Is it probable? Is
it even supposable?" "He knew Dayton,
and Graves did not conceal the fact that they
expected the Convention would become
permanent, and furnish Sunday School
Boohs, for not a word is said about it
except in connection with this object. This
is made the basis of the appeal for a con¬
vention, 'Sunday School Libraries.' " "But
the constitution originates 'another South¬
ern Baptist Publication Society,' says
brother Howell. We answered this in the
Convention to the satisfaction of all present
we think. We do not think this was
brother Howell's idea at first, when he call¬
ed the Convention."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March 6th
60
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
1858. "What great or good enterprise
was ever inaugurated without discussion?
Not one. What great and glorious enter¬
prise but was'sought to be slain at its birth
by some Herod? Not one."
"Let brethren remember that no great
and good work has ever been accomplished
without strife. And it has often happened
that the very men, who should, of alLothers,
have made peace, are those who stirred up
the strife. As in our Savior's time, the
Rabbis stirred up the people to resist and
destroy what He proposed, and claimed to
do it by the will of God. As in the days
of the Apostles, the Chief Priests and
Scribes, and great men in Israel, verily
thought they did God service in opposing
the disciples. So it has often happened
since. Our titled and leading men have
been often found in the ranks of the oppo
sition to the best and noblest efforts for the
advancement of the cause of truth. Why
this is so, we need not now stop to inquire."
"The Apostles themselves were accused
of 'turning the world upside down/ And
their efforts for the cause of truth were
more than once the occasion of a much
greater disturbance generally than has
been raised by our efforts, or brother Day¬
ton, in the cause of the Sunday Schools.
Let not those who shout 'Great is Diana of
the Ephesians,' accuse us of raising the
mob. Who is it that has stirred up this
strife? Who made the attack? Who has
said the unkind words? Who has attacked
personal character? Who has published to
•the world that the Board nominated are
men wholly incompetent to the task propo¬
sed to assign it? Who has suggested base
and mercenary motives? Who?"
Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13,
1858. "Nothing occurred during the Con¬
vention so deeply to be deplored as brother
Howell's remarks on what he said seemed
to point to the pecuniary private interest
of individuals. True, he said, he made no
such charge as that brethren were influ¬
enced by pecuniary considerations, but that
others would think so, the inference would
be drawn—he did not draw it, but it would
be drawn, &c."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 23, Feb. 13th,
1858. "He [A. C. Dayton,] has done too
much good to be let alone. He is enjoy¬
ing too much of the love, and attracting
too much of the attention of Baptists not
to be compelled to suffer the penalty, that
superiority or great usefulness is ever
doomed to pay."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March 6th,
1858. "The ostensible leader of the Anti-
Landmark Baptists in this State, while
brother Howell was still in Virginia,
"was publishing a magazine in this city
called the Parlor Visitor. When he could
not meet by arguments the reasoning of
those whom he opposed, he did not scruple
to attempt by dark insinuations to impugir
their motives and blacken their character."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, February 20,
1858, "He, [Howell,] doubtless knew that
such a paragraph as this had been penned
and published by a member of the Bible
Board. Surely Bro. H. nor any man can
think it strange that Bro. D. should feel
sensitive to see such an insinuation repro¬
duced by the President of the Bible
Board."
[ When Mr. Fuller came to the extract
containing the letterfrom W. H. Holcombe,
he remarked : It is a well known principle
in law, that an editor is responsible for what
his correspondents may say, and the courts
have so decided.]
Tennessee Baptist, No. 25, February 27,
1858. Mr. Holcomb says: "I am tempted
to say some severe things to brother How¬
ell. For our own brethren to assail each
other and some of our time honored princi-
*ples, is indeed strange and very mortifying
to me."
"It is the province of Dr. H. to teach
his brethren the doctrines of the Bible,
surely they will not remain in ignorance
much longer."
"If, after all, the whole ground of charge
is that brother Graves as editor, and his
Publishing Honse is destined to become
more popular than the Southern Publica¬
tion Society at Charleston, should our
brethren complain? If the 'Tennessee Bap¬
tist' is the most able and popular Baptist
paper South, what of that?"
Tennessee Baptist, No. 29, March 27,
1858. Mr. Baldwin, says: "As to the
Sunday School Union, we are in favor of
its organization, and regard the attacks
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
61
made upon it by some of our milk and
water Baptists as an attack on men for their
Landmark principles more than anything
else."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 30, April 3,1858.
Mr. Hardwick says : "I am astonished that
men heretofore noted for piety and christian
courtesy should treat Baptist as you and
some of your friends have been treated."
"Let the work of proscription go on. It
cannot last long."
" At no distant day you will hear from
them, and others will learn by bitter expe¬
rience that opposition to truth is not always
profitable."
"Men in the West are trying to counter¬
act your influence, and if not, to destroy or
curtail your business."
Mr. Graves says : "If the course of some
brethren injure them it is not our fault.
We sought to prevent it."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 31, April 10,
1858. W. H. Barksdale, " I abominate that
pusillanimous spirit, which crouches before
clearly perceived wrongs, and will permit
innocence to be suspected', and well earned
reputation traduced merely because the
name of some popular and influential one
is in some way connected with the slander¬
ous rumor. Now, sir, at the risk of my
' good name/ I will here breast the storm
in the defence of the slandered Pendleton,
the traduced Dayton, and the caricatured
Graves."
" Did either of them accuse Dr. Howell
of preaching for money? Did either, of
them say that Dr. Howell could not so much
as read the word religion on account of
an intervening guinea f Although he would
not go to a single Association, however im¬
portant, unless the brethren would first
pledge him pecuniary aid." " Every one
present, however poor, promised to try to
attend^some two or three of these meetings,
save one brother, and that brother was Dr.
Howell, whose guinea seemed quite sugges¬
tive ! Eor if'I remember correctly, he in¬
variably answered, whenever in the affirma¬
tive, by saying, ' Dr. Howell will go, if Dr.
IIowelTs expenses arepaidV Now when those
whose salaries were quite insignificant when
compared to his, and whose expenses were
equally as great, were willing to go at their
own expense, for the privilege of sitting
together with their brethren in (Heavenly
places, in Christ Jesus/ and yet Dr. How¬
ell would not so much as go to a single one,
without prefacing his promise with the con¬
dition of pecuniary aid, I could not, for my
life, keep his 1 gourd handle' out of my
brain. And yet who, until brother Howell
and others sought to/crush out' and choke
down certain men and their enterprises,
would have ever thought how beautifully
his anecdotes all might be illustrated nearer
home."
Graves: " Read the article of Elder
Barksdale. Bro. B. was a member of the
Committee to draft a constitution—an anti-
Landmark man—not ultra—and the warm
personal friend of brother H. He speaks
what he does know, and testifies of what
he has seen, and his testimony will have
great weight."
© ©
Same paper. (J. J. Martin.) " I have
been surprised, and so have many others,
at the course taken by certain individuals—
some of whom are titled and famous for the
discovery of ' gourd handles' in so furi¬
ously attacking old Land-markers, for the
war is against men instead of measures.
But go on my brother, you are in the right,
and true Baptists will stand up to you."
Tennessee Baptist, No. 32, April 17,
1858. (Jones.) " The-strange, and I must
say, unchristian production of Dr. Howell
has distressed and mortified me deeply.
What good could he expect to grow out of
such a production ? All good Baptists will
be mortified at it. And has it come to this,
that Dr. Howell is seeking popularity from
the Pedoes, by striking down his friends
who are laboring for the advancement of
truth."
(T. H Thurman.) "I have read with
sorrow of the course pursued by Bro. How¬
ell, and others, relative to the action of the
Southern Sabbath School Union. I had
not expected that Elder Howell would have
occupied a position so suicidal to the inter¬
ests of our churches and children."
The testimony to sustain the third charge
having been read,
The Moderator inquired if there was any
rebutting testimony to be offered.
None having been offered,
The Moderator announced that the case
was open for any remarks that may be sub¬
mitted by the prosecution or defence.
62
TIRAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
Dr. Howell said:
Brother Moderator and Brethren :
It was not my purpose again to have ad¬
dressed you at length, in the progress of
this trial. It is thought by brethren, how¬
ever, that upon this count, at least, in the
charge before you, I ought to do so. I am
sick, sick of these disgraceful details,
through which J. R. Graves compels you
to wade. Yet I shrink from no duty. And
I willingly assume the task, however pain¬
ful, which is necessary to vindicate this be¬
loved church from the reproach and shame,
sought to be brought upon it, by the Senior
editor of the Tennessee Baptist. I do it
for the honor of Christ, for the vindication
of His truth, and for the defence and pros¬
perity of His cause, and His people. I beg
you, therefore, of your clemency, to hear
me patiently.
The count in the charge now before you
is as follows :
"We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral,
and unchristian conduct, in that he has ut¬
tered, and published in his said paper
against R. B. C. Howell, the pastor of this
church, sundry foul, and atrocious libels.
A libel, brother Moderator and brethren,
and a slander, are very nearly allied to each
other. A slander is " a false tale or report,
maliciously uttered and tending to injure the
reputation of another by lessening him in the
esteem of his fellow-citizens." To slander
is to defame, to injure by maliciously utter¬
ing a false report respecting one; to tarnish
or impair the reputation of one, by false
tales maliciously told, or propagated," A
libel is the same thing written or printed. A
slander may be a mere verbal utterance. A
libel, according to Blackstone, " is a de¬
famatory writing." It is "any book, pam¬
phlet, writing, or picture, containing rep¬
resentations maliciously made, or published,
tending to bring a person into contempt,
or expose him to public hatred or derision.
The communication of such defamatory
writing to a single person, is considered in
law, a publication. It is immaterial in re¬
spect to the essence of a libel, whether the
matter of it be true, or false, since the^ro-
vocation, and not the falsity, is the thing to
be punished criminally. But in a social ac¬
tion, a libel must appear to be false, as well
as scandalous."
Such are the laws of our country. Civil
government has ever found it necessary to
guard the people against the foul aspersions
of the slanderer,' and libeller, by the most
stringent enactments. The word of God
on this whole subject, is most explicit. I
will refer to a few passages as examples of
the divine teaching:
Solomon says: Prov. vi, 16-19 : " These
six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven
are an abomination unto him : a proud look,
a lying tongue, and hands that shed inno¬
cent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked
imaginations, feet that be swift in running
to mischief, a false witness that speaketh
lies, and him that soweth discord among
brethren." The ninth commandment is
expressed thus : " thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor." Another
of the laws of God by Moses, is thus brief¬
ly expressed : Exodus xxiii. 1: "Thoushalt
not raise a false report."
In these and like terms the promulgation
of falsehood, without regard to motive, is
rebuked. The act itself is sinful. It is
expressly forbidden, and declared hateful
to God. If falsehood itself is sinful, how
much more sinful is libel?—falsehood stated
with intent to injure—a sinful act prompt¬
ed by a sinful motive. Falsehood is a
violation of truth and right, libel is a vio¬
lation of truth and fight and love. False¬
hood is not necessarily prompted by a sin¬
ful motive, libel is the offspring of baleful
passions, of hate and revenge. A desire
to injure is opposed to the spirit of the
gospel. Had I injured Mr. Graves, still,
malice and revenge have no sanction in the
word of God. But I had not injured him.
These imputations upon my reputation,
these libels on my character were unpro¬
voked. He violated the laws of God and
the laws of man to inflict a wanton injury
upon me. It is needless to dwell upon the
moral quality of acts which civil laws do
not tolerate. If libel is abhorrent to frail
imperfect man, how must it appear to the
eye of Infinite Holiness? We will now,
with the laws of man, and the laws of God
distinctly before us, and referring, as here¬
tofore, to Mr. Graves' paper alone for our
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
63
testimony, adduce the following specifica¬
tions in proof of his guilt.
FIRST SPECIFICATION.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24, dated
February 20th, 1858, speaking of my let¬
ter in the Christian Index, before frequent¬
ly referred to, Mr. Graves says :
" What! Brother Howell duped—made
use of—made a passive instrument by some
one he had not so much as consulted with,
to advise and urge in ' a steam speech,' a
Baptist Association to do something he him¬
self did not understand, or if he did heartily
disapproved and abhorred! Is it probable? Is
it even suffposable ?" "He knew Dayton,
and Graved did not conceal the fact that they
expected the Convention would become
permanent, and furnish Sunday School
Books, for not a word is said about it
except in connection with this object. This
is made the basis of the appeal for a con¬
vention, 'Sunday School Libraries.'" "But
the constitution originates ' another South¬
ern Baptist Publication Society,' says broth¬
er Howell. We answered this in the Con¬
vention to the satisfaction of all present vre
think. We do not think this was brother
Howell's idea at first, when he called the
Convention."
I ask the attention of the church to the
following considerations in connection with
the above extracts:
At the Concord Association of last year
I was made chairman of a committee on
Sunday Schools. I stated to the Associa¬
tion, when appointed, that I could not ac¬
cept it, unless another member of the com¬
mittee would write the report. A report,
written by a brother, and slightly modified
by myself, was submitted by me. That re¬
port advised the call of a convention at the
approaching meeting of the General Asso¬
ciation at Nashville, to take into consider¬
ation the subject of Sunday Schools.
1. In the above extract, it is asserted
ithat I urged the Association to call this
convention; and unless I urged the Asso¬
ciation to do something I did not under¬
stand, that I understood what the conven¬
tion was to be, with its objects and de¬
signs; and that, if I did understand, I
(approved it, or else I urged upon the Asso¬
ciation an object I disapproved and abhor-,
,ed. He thus holds me up before the public:
j in a false attitude, misrepresents my views
and positions, in order to bring me into
j odium or contempt. He presents me in
the attitude of one who either urges a thing
he knows nothing about, or favors a thing
in its incipiency which he afterwards en¬
deavors to crush. This was calculated to
throw me into contempt, or to expose me
to odium. It is not necessary that I should
show that it is false as well as malicious.
I had in my mind a distinct conception of
what it was proper for such a convention to
consider and to propose, but those objects
were very different from the purposes which
it was afterwards attempted to carry out
through it. The statement that I did not
understand what I advised is false: the al¬
ternative that I approved of the convention
with the purposes to which they designed
to apply it, is also false.
Mr. Graves' proceeding in his endeavor
to show that I knew the ulterior purposes
to which they intended to apply the con¬
vention states,
2. That "Graves and Dayton" did not
conceal from me the fact that they expect¬
ed the convention would become perma¬
nent, and furnish Sunday school books, and
thus be moulded into the shape which it
was afterwards attempted to give it.
3. That I knew their expectation or de¬
sign, which they did not conceal.
4. That it was not my idea at first, when
the convention was called, that the organi¬
zation of a new Board of Publication would
originate a new Baptist Publication Society.
It is impossible for me to dwell upon all
the allegations of Mr. Graves at length.
From what has been already stated in this
connection it will be seen that these state¬
ments are all untrue; and they were evi¬
dently designed to expose me to public
hatred and derision.
SECOND SPECIFICATION.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, dated
March 6th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
"What great or good enterprise was
ever inaugurated without discussion? Not
one. What great and glorious enterprise
but was sought to be slam at its birth by
some Herod? Not one." "Let brethren
remember that no great and good work
has ever been accomplished without strife.
And it has often happened that the very
64
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
men who should of all others have made
peace, are those who stirred up the strifes
As in our Saviour's time, the Rabbis
stirred up the people to resist, and de¬
stroy what he proposedj and claimed to
do it by the will of God. As in the days
of the Apostles, the Chief Priests, and
Scribes, and great men in Israel, verily
thought they did God service in opposing
the disciples, so it has often happened since,
our titled and leading men have been often
found in the ranks of the opposition to the
best and noblest efforts for the advancement of
the cause of truth. Why this is so, we need
not now stop to inquire." " The Apostles
themselves were accused of turning the
world upside down. And their efforts for
the cause of truth, were more than once
the occasion of a mpch greater disturbance
generally, than has been raised by our ef¬
forts, or brother Dayton, in the cause of
the Sunday Schools. Let not those who
shout 'Great is Diana of the Ephesians,'
accuse us of raising the mob. Who is it
that has stirred up this strife ? Who made
the attack? Who has said the unkind
words ? Who has attacked personal char¬
acter? Who has published to the world
that the Board nominated are men wholly
incompetent to the task proposed to assign
it? Who has suggested base and merce¬
nary motives? Who?"
1. Since the wicked king of Judea
sought to slay the infant Saviour, and to ac¬
complish his bloody purpose, slew the in¬
fants of Bethlehem, the name of Herod
has been a synonym for unscrupulous ambi¬
tion, heartless cruelty, and detestable base¬
ness. The epithet designates not a man,
but a monster. When it is applied to any
one it awakens in the mind the character of
the monster Herod, and transfers it to the
person so designated. Politicians some¬
times, when they desire to brand an oppo¬
nent as unfaithful to his country, call him
an Arnold. Vituperation reaches no high¬
er, than to designate a cruel man as a Ne¬
ro. And to stigmatize a man as a Herod,
is to apply to him every reproachful epi¬
thet which is applicable to that hateful
character. And this is what Mr. Graves
here does to me. I am the Herod who
sought to slay in its birth his "great and
glorious enterprise." As Plerod sought to
slay at his birth the Saviour of the world,
whom every Christian loves, and thus in¬
curred the detestation of every christian
heart, so I with similar opposition and simi¬
lar baseness, sought to slay in its birth the
organization of- a Board in this city for pub¬
lishing Sunday School books. A man
would hesitate to apply such an epithet to
his worst enemy, much less to a christian
brother. It is needless to dwell upon the
christian character of such "railing accu¬
sations." It is also unnecessary that I
should assert that it is unmerited by me—
that in my opposition to that enterprise I
was influenced by no unworthy motive,
that I was impelled by no personal consid¬
erations, of ambition for myself 0 hostili¬
ty to Mr. Graves, but was actuated only by
a desire which has directed all the actions
of my life, to advance the interests of
the Redeemer's kingdom.
2. Mr. Graves asserts that I, the very
man, who should have made peace, stirred
up the strife. All that I had done in this
matter is comprised in a short speech in
the Sunday School Convention, and in the
letter to the Christian Index, which you
heard read last night. In neither of these
did I do anything to stir up strife, unless
candid and conscientious dissent from the
views of Mr. Graves necessarily induces
strife on his part. This declaration, how¬
ever, is in entire harmony with his policy,
which is constant aggression; and when¬
ever his aggressive acts are opposed, to
raise the cry of persecution. I can, with
a clear conscience, say to Mr. Graves as
did the Prophet of Israel: "I have not
troubled Israel, but thou and thy housed
S. That as in the Saviour's time the Rab¬
bis stirred up the people to resist and des¬
troy what he proposed, and claimed to do
it by the will of God, so I have stirred
up the people to resist and destroy what
Mr. Graves proposed, and claimed to do it
by the will of God. The Rabbis upon
whom our Saviour denounced his woes, and
who hypocritically opposed all his designs,
are by the christian world viewed as the
types of all hypocritical, selfish, and ma¬
levolent opposition to rightousness. To
compare me to them can be done only
with a view to transfer to me the odium
which all time has impressed on the char¬
acter of a Jewish Rabbi. Of a like nature
is his next allegation.
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
65
4. That as in the days of the Apostles
the Chief Priests and Scribes and great
men in Israel opposed the disciples, so I,
with othei titled men, have opposed Mr.
Graves ami his allies in their noblest ef¬
forts for the advancement of truth.
5. That as the Apostles were accused of
turning the world upside down, and oppo¬
sition to their efforts bred disturbances, so
the present disturbance has been bred by
similar opposition by myself and others to
Mr. Graves.
6. That I and others, not Mr. Graves,
have raised the mob, of which he speaks,
by crying, "Great is Diana of the Ephesl-
ans," 4)|»at is, defending the Southern Bap¬
tist Publication Society, and resisting the
appointment of another Publication Board
in this city to supercede it.
The motives of Mr. Graves in the advo¬
cacy and prosecution of this enterprise
have not been questioned by me. But the
design which he promoted—the appoint¬
ment of another Board of Publication—I
honestly opposed because I thought it cal¬
culated to distract the Baptist Churches of
the «South. Its deplorable influence in
this respect has been seen. It seemed to
me that a lover of the cause of Christ,
should not promote division, when the
source of contention was not a religious
principle, but only a question, whether
Sabbath School Books should he published
here or in Charleston. I knew that many
brethren were opposed to the inauguration
of a new Publication Society, hence it
would tend to retard the advance of Sab¬
bath Schools. I did not think that another
society was needed, as the one already in
existence was sufficiently able to meet all
our wants in this respect. Hence, I
thought the enterprise had better be drop¬
ped, as pressing it would only lead to need¬
less contention between its advocates and
the friends of the Southern Baptist Publi¬
cation Society. But in advocating this
opinion, I excited no mob, I roused no
contention. I calmly took a position,
which, in its results, would tend to harmo¬
ny and peace. The falsity of these charges,
their injustice to me must be seen. Every
one not totally blinded by prejudice must
see that all this contention is the result of
Mr. Graves' own course. Indeed the con¬
tention was all his own. He filled the land
5
with his cries and railing; all the while en¬
deavoring to make his readers believe that
the noise was not his own. He charges
me and others with raising the dust caused
by the furious driving of his own chariot.
7. That I attacked his personal character
and thus stirred up all this strife.
8. That I suggested base and merce¬
nary motives and this excited contention.
In regard to the last two allegations, I
desire to call the attention of the church
to a statement of Rev. Mr. Pendleton, then
his assistant, now his associate editor, and
his special friend and advocate. In the
Tennessee Baptist, February 13th, 1858,
he says:
"Nothing occurred during the Conven¬
tion, so deeply to be deplored as brother
Howell's remarks on what he said seemed
to point to the pecuniary private interests
of individuals. True, he said he made no
such charge as that brethren were influ¬
enced by pecuniary considerations, but that
others would think so The inference
would be drawn. He did not draw it, but
it would be drawn."
The writer of this paragraph will not be
suspected of mitigating the tendency of my
remarks. His evident design is to place
them in a strong light, so as to render them
as " deeply to be deplored" as possible.
Does he say that I made any personal impu¬
tations upon the characi er of Mr. Graves,
or any one else ? No, but that I positively
disclaimed all intention to make any such
imputation. These two last allegations made
to injure me in public estimation are like
the others, utterly groundless. What was
the object of Mr. Graves in all these rail¬
ing accusations against me ? Why does he
charge me with being a Herod—with act¬
ing like the Rabbis—with pursuing the
same course as the chief Priests and Scribes
—with stirring up all this strife-with raising
a mob by crying with others great is Diana
of the Ephesians—with opposing the best
and noblest plans for the advancement of
truth—with attacking his personal charac¬
ter—with imputing to him base and mer¬
cenary motives ? ! They are false allega¬
tions, evidently maliciously made and pub¬
lished, with a design to my injury. They
undoubtedly tend to bring me into con¬
tempt and expose me to public hatred and
reproach. They are therefore libels, pun-
G6
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
ishable by the laws of men, and hateful in
the sight of God. This is not merely rail¬
ing against me, but it is RAILING the allega¬
tions of wluch, are falsehoods, and falsehoods
MALICIOUSLY PUBLISHED. If the word of
God DENOUNCES A RAILER, how much more
such aggravated conduct as this.
THIRD SPECIFICATION.
In the Tennessee Baptist. No. 23, dated
February 13th, 1858, speaking of me, and
others, Mr. Graves says :
" He [Mr. Dayton] has done too much
good to be let alone. He is enjoying too
much of the love, and attracting too much
of the attention of Baptists, not to be
compelled to suffer the penalty that supe¬
riority, or great usefulness is ever doomed
to pay."
And in the Tennessee Baptist of March
6th, 1858, No. 26, he says :
" The ostensible leader of the anti-Land¬
mark Baptists in this State, while brother
Howell was still in Virginia," " was pub¬
lishing a magazine in this city, called the
Parlor Vistor. When he could not meet
by arguments the reasoning of those whom
he opposed, he did not scruple to attempt
by dark insinuations, .to impugn their mo¬
tives, and blacken their character."
And in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 24,
February 20th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
"He [Howell] doubtless knew that such
a paragraph as this had been penned and
published, by ' A Member of the Bible
Board." Surely brother H. nor any man,
can think it strange that brother D. should
feel sensitive to see such an insinuation,
reproduced by the President of the Bible
Board."
Before calling attention to several libels
in these extracts, I will remark that by
" A Member of the Bible Board," Mr.
Graves has reference to an article publish¬
ed in the newspapers with that signature.
Who the writer of that article is, as I
have before said, I do not know. Dr.
Jones, the late editor of the Parlor Visit¬
or, assures me he did not write it; and
up to this hour I have never seen the
article to which he refers in the Parlor
Visitor.
1. Mr. Graves in this specification avers
that I persecute Mr. Dayton, because he
[Mr. Dayton] does so much good.
2. That I hate Mr. Dayton, because he
[Mr. Dayton] enjoys so much of the love
of the Baptists.
3. That I compel Mr. Dayton to suffer,
because of his [Mr. Dayton's] superiority,
and great usefulness.
4. That I, as Dr. Jones, is alleged to do,
do not hesitate to impugn Mr. Dayton's
motives, and blacken his character.
5. That I do this, reproducing Dr. Jones'
alleged disparagement, in my capacity of
President of the Bible Board.
What passion in the human breast is so
despicable as envy ? What so excites the
contempt of mankind as its display ? But
when, from a simple emotion, it becomes an
actuating impulse, urging forward & pull
down and destroy its object, contempt is
changed to abhorrence. And this is the
base, vile, despicable passion, wbich Mr.
Graves here attributes to me, and assigns
as the motive for my alleged imputations on
Elder Dayton. Had this base feeling ever
rankled in my bosom, self-loathing would
be too intense for words, and I should be
justly exposed to the abhorrence and con¬
tempt of all good men, which the editor of
the Tennessee Baptist has thus endeavored
to excite against me. However good or
great the author of Theodosia may he, it
has never struck me that I had cause to
envy his worth, his greatness, or his popu¬
larity. I have felt that the favor of my
brethren has been bestowed on me in a
measure, at least equal to my merits, and a
brother deserving and enjoying the same
approval has ever been to me the source of
unfeigned pleasure. But not content with
misrepresenting my actions and putting a
false gloss upon my expressions, the edit¬
or of the Tennessee Baptist must attribute
to me the basest motive. He charges me
with having assailed Elder Dayton which
is not true, and then falsely attributes this
attack falsely charged, to the base, unwor¬
thy motive of envy.
Is it to be wondered at that noble
hearted brethren, loathing all that is base
and vile, and believing these representa¬
tions to be true, should be prejudiced and
excited against me ? Such was evidently
the_ design of Mr. Graves, in publishing
against me these " foul and atrocious libels."
FOURTH SPECIFICATION.
Mr. Graves having now succeeded in ma-
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
67
king an impression on the minds of probably
not a few of his readers against me, by ex
parte and false statements, in his paper, not
a few write articles in which they reflect
the views derived from him. Having
doubtless innocently, in many instances, re¬
ceived false impressions from the repre¬
sentations in his sheet, these impressions
are reproduced in their communications.
Being based upon falsifications, and mis¬
representations, these reflected views, are,
from their very nature as reproductions nec¬
essarily untrue. Of the writers of these let¬
ters I will be permitted to say a word or
two. Most of them I know personally,
and with all of them up to the appearing
of tHir articles in the Tennessee Baptist,
I supposed my relations to be of the most
cordial and affectionate character. I am
sure I always loved them sincerely. Nor
am I conscious of ever having inflicted in¬
jury on any of them. That they should
have suffered themselves thus to be misled is
deeply painful. I know of no cause why
they should pursue me in this manner.
Mr. Graves has labored to produce these
false impressions regarding me upon the
minds of his readers, and he now endeav¬
ors to deepen them by publishing these re¬
flections of his own libellous allegations.
Mr. Graves knows that he is legally and
morally responsible for the publication of
these injurious statements. A few years
ago he was heavily mulcted in damages for a
defamatory article of a correspondent, which
was not endorsed by him. These articles
are all published with his approval, and
several of them with his special endorse- i
ment. And giving them thus to the public
he is morally and legally responsible for the
injury thus inflicted on me. Indeed the
whole responsibility is mainly his own,
since these articles, in some instances per¬
haps were not intended for the public eye,
and therefore were not directly intended by
the writers to injure me. Such are, so far
as the correspondents are concerned, sim¬
ply false statements in regard to me. And
even in this, they are honest, believing them
to be true, in that they have been deceived
by the false statements of Mr. Graves. But
the editor of the Tennessee Baptist seizes
upon them as means for the accomplish¬
ment of his purpose, and heralds them to
the world, in order to deepen and widen
the injury, he was attempting to inflict
upon me. He thus makes the statements
his own, and the malicious intention, with
which they are heralded over the land, is
all his own. It is evident that he is
responsible for thus endeavoring to poi¬
son the public mind, by presenting these
statements of his correspondents.
FOURTH SPECIFICATION.
Rev. Wm. H. Holcombe of Mississippi,
writes in the Tennessee Baptist, No. 25,
dated February 27th 1858, as follows:
"I am tempted to say some severe things,"
[to brother Howell] "For our own breth¬
ren to assail each other, and some of our
time-honored principles, is indeed strange,
and very mortifying to me." " It is the
province of Br. H. to teach his brethren
the doctrines of the Bible. Surely they
will not remain in ignorance much longer."
" If after all, the whole ground of charge
is, that brother Graves, as editor, and his
Publishing House, is destined to become
more popular than the Southern Publica¬
tion Society at Charleston, should our breth¬
ren complain ? If the Tennessee Baptist is
the most able, and popular Baptist paper
South, what of that ?" Upon this letter
Mr. Graves comments thus: " Will his
[Mr. Holcombe's] voice be heard now?
Will brother ITowelV' regard it ?
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 29, March
27th, 1858, a writer spoken of as a Mr. Bald¬
win, and who dates his communication at
Kingsport, Tennessee, speaks thus: "As
to the Sunday School Union we are in favor
of its organization, and regard the attacks
made upon it, by some of our milk-and-
water Baptists, as an attack on men for their
Landmark principles."
Mr. Graves, in the Tennessee Baptist,.
No. 30, dated April 30th, 1858, publishes
a letter from J. B. Hardwick, Riceville,
Virginia, a young man that I greatly love,,
and that I suppose to be talented, modest
and pious, having known him for several
years, in which he refers to me thus: " I
am astonished that men heretofore noted
for piety, and christian courtesy, should
treat Baptists as you and some of our friends
have been treated." "Let the work of
proscription go on. It cannot last long."
" At no distant day you will hear from them
[the masses] and others will learn by bitter
68
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
experience, that opposition to truth is not
always profitable." "Men in the West,
are trying to counteract your influence, and
if not to destroy or curtail your business."
Upon the letter from which these extracts
are made, Mr. Graves says : " If the course
of some brethren injure them, it is not our
fault. We sought to prevent it."
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 31, April
10th, 1858, Rev. Wm. H. Barksdale, a
young man of Helena, Arkansas, in whom
I had taken much interest, and supposed
to understand what is due to the amenities
of life, writes as follows:
"I abominate that pusillanimous spirit
which crouches before clearly perceived
wrongs, and will permit innocence to be
suspected, and well earned reputation tra¬
duced, merely because the name of some
popular and influential one, is in some way
connected with the slanderous rumor. Now
sir, at the risk of 'my good name,' I will
here breast the storm in the defence of the
slandered Pendleton, the traduced Dayton,
and the caricatured Graves." "Did either
of them accuse Dr. Howell of preaching
for money? Did either of them say that Dr.
Howell couMnot so much as read the word
religion on account of an intervening guinea,
although he would not go to a single Asso¬
ciation, however important, unless the
brethren would first pledge him pecuni¬
ary aid." Every one present, however
poor, promised to try to attend some two or
three of these meetings, save one brother,
and that brother was Dr. Howell, whose
guinea seemed quite suggestive. For if I
remember correctly, he invariably answer¬
ed, Dr. Howell will go, if Dr. Howell's ex¬
penses are paid.' Now when those, whose
salaries were quite insignificant compared
to his, and whose expenses were equally as
great, were willing to go at their own ex¬
pense, for the privilege of sitting together
with their brethren in Heavenly places in
Christ Jesus,' and yet Dr. Howell would
not so much as go to a single one, without
prefacing his promise with the condition of
pecuniary aid,'I could not, for my life,
keep his 'gourd handle' out of my brain.
And yet who, until brother Howell, and
others, sought to crush out,' and choke
down certain men, and their enterprise,
would have ever thought how beautifully
his anecdotes all might be illustrated nearer
home."
The Commentary with which Mr. Graves
accompanies this production, is as follows:
"Read the article of Elder Barksdale."
"Bro. B. was a member of the committee
to draft a Constitution; an Anti-Landmark
man, not ultra, and the warm personal
friend of brother H. He speaks what he
does know, and testifies of what he has
seen, and his testimony will have great
weight."
Rev. J. J. Martin, of Wilson county,
Tennessee, says in the Tennessee Baptist.,
No. 31, dated April 10th, 1858:
"I have been surprised, and so have ma¬
ny others, at the course taken by certain
individuals, some of whom are titledm.nd
famous for the discovery of gourd handles,
in so furiously attacking Old Landmarkers;
for the war is against men, instead of meas¬
ures. But go on my brother, [Graves,]
you are in the right, and true Baptists will
stand up to you."
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 32, April
17th, 1858, a Mr. Jones, of Campbell
county, Virginia, of whom I know noth¬
ing, says:
"The strange, and I must say unchristian
production of Dr. Howell, has distressed,
and mortified me deeply. What good could
he expect to grow out of such a production?
All good Baptists will be mortified at it.
And has it come to this, that Dr. Howell
is seeking popularity from the Pedoes, by
striking down his friends, who are laboring
for the advancement of truth?"
In the same paper, a Mr. T. H. Thur-
man, unknown to me, who writes from
Texas, says:
"I have read with sorrow of the course
pursued by brother Howell, and others, re¬
lative to the action of the Southern Sabbath
School Union. I had not expected that
Elder Howell would have occupied a posi¬
tion so suicidal to the interests of our churches
and children."
The extracts here submitted embrace a
few only of the disparaging communications,
which Mr. Graves has elicited from his cor¬
respondents, and published, with a view to
my injury. Most of these correspondents
were undoubtedly deceived by his exparte
and outrageous representations. Otherwise
I do not think they could have writen as we
have seen they have. Some of them as I
have heard, have written to Mr. Graves
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
69
withdrawing their statements, but he has re¬
fused to publish any such withdrawals. I
the more lament therefore their appearance
here in this relation; but you could not avoid
it. Mr. Graves has dragged them before
the world, and subjected them to the conse¬
quences of his act. He has betrayed them in¬
to false and libelous statements, which he has
not only not corrected, but has, as we have
seen, commended to his readers as true in
themselves and important in all their bear¬
ings. The position of these correspondents
is a painful one, to themselves, and to me.
Betrayed into false and injurious allegations
by the misrepresentations of Mr. Graves
which induced them to believe them true, I
desire to distinguish between the libels and
the persons who, under mistaken impressions
produced them. This, however, does not
apply to Mr. Graves. He excited these
false impressions in the minds of his rea¬
ders; he thus induces them to make false
and injurious statements, and then malicious¬
ly heralds the libels to the public. - I pro¬
ceed to point out some of these gross libels
which Mr. Graves has published against me:
Mr. Holcombe alleges:
1. That I have assailed time honored prin¬
ciples of the Baptists in my opposition to the
proposed Board.
2. That I have assailed the Tennessee
Baptist, and that too. because it is the most
able and popular Baptist paper in the South.
3. That I have assailed Mr. Graves' pub¬
lishing house because it is destined to be¬
come more popular than the Southern Bap¬
tist Publication Society at Charleston.
I need not declare before you, brother
Moderator , that in my course "I have as¬
sailed no time honored principle of the Bap¬
tists." The statement is merely a reproduc¬
tion of intimations of the Tennessee Bap¬
tist. Mr. Graves was aware at the time he
published this libel against me, that it was
false. But he knew, that with many of his
readers, the truth of an injurious statement
would never be investigated, and that false¬
hood would accomplish his injurious purpose
better than truth. If the impression could
be made, that I was assailing time honored
principles of Baptists, he knew that odium
would be heaped upon me, without inquiry
in regard to its justice.
That I have assailed the paper and the
Publishing House of Mr. Graves is also un¬
true. I have not been the assailant but the
assailed. But here Mr. Graves publishes to
the world this injurious statement, which he
knew had no foundation in fact, but was on¬
ly a reproduction of his own false allega¬
tions; and also publishes to the world that I
was actuated to this alleged assault by that
base motive, envy of their popularity and in¬
fluence. "Why does Mr. Graves publish
these false and injurious statements? He
could have no motive, but to destroy my rep¬
utation, and ruin my character in the minds
of his readers. This publication of Mr,
Graves is an atrocious libel on my charac¬
ter.
Mr. Baldwin alleges:
1. That I am a milk-and-water Baptist.
2. That my efforts to prevent the organi¬
zation of a new publication Board to be lo¬
cated in this city, was an attack on men for
their Landmark principles.
The first of these allegations is unworthy
of notice. My labors for nearly forty years
to advance Baptist principles speak for me.
That my opposition to the proposed Board
in this city was an attack on men has al¬
ready been shown to be false. This is mere¬
ly a reproduction of Mr. Graves' former
statements which have been already an¬
swered.
These allegations, however, answered
well Mr. Graves' purpose and were publish¬
ed by him to produce injury to me.
Mr. Hardwick alleges:
1. That in resisting the organization of
that Board I proscribed Mr. Graves.
2. That in said resistance I opposed the
truth.
3. That my object was to counteract and
destroy Mr. Graves' influence.
4. That I seek to destroy or curtail Mr.
Graves' business.
5. That I have, in this affair, departed
from piety and courtesy.
This is all the echo of Mr. Graves' un-
: founded declarations. The writer of this com
munication was evidently deceived by the
assertions of the Tennessee Baptist. But
this does not mitigate the character of Mr.
Graves' conduct in parading these state¬
ments before the public, with intention to in¬
jure me. Why did Mr. Graves publish to
the world that I proscibed him ; that I was
70
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
opposing the truth; that my design was to
counteract and destroy his influence ; to de¬
stroy or curtail his business; and that my
course was inconsistent with piety and cour¬
tesy ; but because such publications would
necessarily tend to injure me and destroy my
character among his readers? It is unneces¬
sary to stop here to prove that these allega¬
tions are false. It is proved by the state¬
ments in my speech on the last night, which
it.isnot necessary to reproduce.
Mr. Barksdale alleges:
1. That I wronged Mr. Graves, cast sus¬
picion upon his innocence, and traduced his
well earned reputation.
This assertion is based upon my remarks
in the Sunday School Convention, and has
been proved by the testimony of Mr. Pen
dleton to be false. The object of my re¬
marks which have been so wrested from
their purpose, was to endeavor to induce
Mr. Graves not to press the question of the
Board, lest interested motives might be im¬
puted to him. This was said in the kindest
feeling. It had nothing of the nature of a
taunt. All such intention was earnestly
disclaimed.
2. That relymg upon my reputation to
sustain me, I have slandered Pendleton, tra¬
duced Dayton and caricatured Graves.
Nothing in regard to Mr. Pendleton has
been published by me. The falsity of the
other allegations has already been sufficient¬
ly demonstrated.
3. That I am a mercenary man, led in
what I do by pecuniary considerations.
4. That my purpose is to "choke down"
and "crush out" Messrs. Graves, Pendleton
and Dayton.
Passing the third allegation, which is un¬
worthy of notice, I remark of the fourth
that it becomes well its association with the
other, from its recklessness, and its appeal to
partisan prejudice. That Mr. Graves pub¬
lished with commendation these libels, is
proof of his relentless determination to de¬
stroy me as far as it lay in his power.
Mr. Martin alleges :
1. That my opposition to the proposed
Publication Board was a furious attack up¬
on old Landmarkers.
2. That it is a war against men and not
measures.
The falsity of these allegations is appa¬
rent from statements and arguments already
adduced. I do not notice the sneer which
his communication contains.
3. That I am not a true Baptist.
I pass that also as unworthy of notice,
since I am in this respect not unknown to
my brethren.
Mr. Jones alleges:
1. That my letter to the Index was un¬
christian. The church, brother Moderator,
heard that letter read last night, and you
saw how groundless are the accusations
based on it. ♦
2. That I am seeking popularity with
Pedo-Baptists, by striking down my friends.
That I was laboring to strike down any
one, has already been shown to be false.
The other allegation which Mr. Graves
publishes to the world, does not merit no¬
tice by me.
Mr. Thurman alleges,
That my opposition to the proposed Board
is suicidal, [I suppose he means destructive]
to our churches and children.
Such are the publications, brother Mode¬
rator and brethren, by which Mr. Graves
has sought to destroy my character. They
are false. They all tend, without doubt,
to bring me into contempt, and to expose
me to public hatred and derision. That
they were published with that design, you
cannot for one moment doubt. They are
therefore libels. For them all, Mr. Graves
is, as we have seen, fully as responsible,
legally and morally, as if he had written
them himself. He eagerly gathered them
up, and as I happen to know, in some in¬
stances at least, published them without
the consent of the writers. He delibrately
selected and printed them with malicious
intent to do me injury. And how Well are
they calculated to effect his object. With
what am I falsely charged in these libels,
so eagerly published by Mr. Graves. The
allegations are not trivial. I am falsely
charged as assailing time honored princi¬
ples of Baptists; opposing the truth; pros¬
cribing Mr. Graves; attempting to coun¬
teract and destroy his influence; to destroy
or curtail his business; as casting suspicion
upon him; as traducing his reputation;
as slandering traducing and caricaturing
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
71
Messrs. Pendleton, Dayton and Graves;
as desiring to "choke them down" and
"crash them out;" as, actuated by envy,
assailing the Tennessee Baptist, and South¬
western Publishing House; as furiously
attacking men for their Landmark princi¬
ples; as maintaining a position suicidal to
our churches and children; as seeking
popularity with Pedoes, by striking down
my friends; as being a milk-and-water Bap¬
tist; as being a mercenary man actuated
by pecuniary considerations. Such are
some of the libels, by publishing which,
Mr. Graves has labored sedulously for
months to destroy me. And yet you heard
him say that he had never had unkind feel¬
ings towards me; that he had never desired
to injure me. What! Were all these pub¬
lications made in regard to a brother he
loved? Did he entertain towards me the
love required by the Gospel, when he was
thus laboring for my destruction? Were
these publications prompted by the charity
which thinketh no evil? Did the Spirit of
Christ influence him thus to violate the
commands of the Savior?
If these allegations were true, still Mr.
Graves would be convicted of railing
against his brother. If they had not been
maliciously published, with intent to ruin
me, still he would be convicted of a crime,
which the Apostle declares to be a sin
against Christ. But they are false; but
they are maliciously published; and what is
the intensity of Mr. Graves' moral guilt?
Take these libels all together, every one
of which is clearly deduced from extracts
taken from bis paper—and a copy of each
one quoted now lies before you, that you
may, by an examination for yourselves, see
that the quotations are all authentic, and
fairly made—and what shall we say of the
moral attitude of Mr. Graves, as a member of
this Church? These libels—four under the
first specification, eight under the second
specification, five under the third specifica¬
tion, and twenty under the fourth specifica¬
tion ; in all about thirty-eight—would he
most revolting, committed under any circum¬
stances, even by a man who makes no pre¬
tensions to religion. Ordinary honesty,even
among the low and degraded, would
seem to be sufficient, even were there no
fear of punishment, to deter a sane man from
perpetrating such crimes as these. But Mr.
Graves professes to be a Christian, and
more, a minister of the pure and holy gos¬
pel of our Lord Jesus Christ. How much
more revolting are they therefore, coming
as they do, from a man making such
pretensions! Nor is this all. These atroci¬
ties, for which the laws of our land would,
were we to appeal to them, punish him so
severely, are perpetrated by him, a professed
Christian, with the vows upon him of a min¬
ister of the meek and lowly Jesus, and pro¬
fessing to govern himself by the Word of God,
not against an enemy, not against a stranger,
but against a member of his own Church,
whose peace, union, and honor, he has
solemnly covenanted to seek by every
means in his power. Nor is this all.
He has committed these heinous offences
against his own pastor, whom, as previously
remarked, he had before Jesus Christ, and by
his commandment, and in the presence of his
Church, sacredly pledged himself to love;
and honor his pastor, who received, and
kindly stood by him, when a stranger, and
friendless; who in his poverty and obscurity
firmly sustained him ; who brought him for¬
ward to public attention and respcf ability;
who up to this hour has committed no of¬
fence against him; and who for the advance¬
ment of the cause of Christ, aided by other
brethren, [placed in his hands those very en¬
gines which he has now turned against him and
agaimst you, and by the aid of which he so
unscrupulously seeks to defame, bring him
into contempt, expose him to public hatred
and derision, and thus to destroy him. How
deep, therefore, how revolting the guilt of
Mr. Graves!
I shall not address you at length, brethren,
upon the remaining counts under this charge.
I beg therefore your attention for a few mo¬
ments longer, that I may give a more full ex¬
pression to the feelings of my heart on this
occasion. God knows that if all the afflic¬
tions of my life were put together, they
would not amount to a tenth part of the suf¬
fering which this trial and the events con¬
nected with it, have cost me. I feel, howev.
er that these sufferings, are for Christ, his
cause and his people. Therefore "-None of
these things move me; neither count I my
life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my
course with joy, and the ministry which I have
received to testify the gospel of the grace of
God." If the charge before you is sustained
72
TRIAL OF.REV. J. R. GRAVES,
by the specifications and > proofs under the
several counts already presented, or any por¬
tion of them, to say nothing of those yet to
come, nor of the outrageous, and schismatical
proceedings of Tuesday night last, then a
most solemn duty rests upon you. The ques¬
tion now before you is, not whether you shall
expel Mr. Graves from your membership,
but is he guilty? That is what you have at
present to determine. He occupies, it is ad¬
mitted, but in a very peculiar sense, a high
position before the churches, as an editor, and
a preacher of talents. But this fact, while
it makes your prompt and impartial action
more difficult, renders it still more imperative.
41 He should be clean who bears the vessels
of the Lord." What have you seen for
years past, in the spirit, or language of Mr.
Graves, bearing any of the lineaments of the
meek, the lowly, the loving Jesus? The
Word of God says:—"The servant of the
Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all
men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness in¬
structing them that oppose themselves." But
Mr. Graves is frenzied, striking at every one
who does not bow down to him, and vitu¬
perating all who he imagines come in his
way.
Such has been his conduct for years past.
Brethren in every quarter of the land have
felt his blows. Not a few of them, as Dun¬
can of Louisiana, Crane of Mississippi, Tus-
tin of .South Carolina, Coleman of Arkansas,
Everts of Kentucky, and Dawson of Georgia
have appealed to you for protection against
his defamatory attacks. You could no lon¬
ger be deaf to these calls from every quarter.
While giving him impunity you are consid¬
ered as endorsing his character, and in pub¬
lic estimation, are purticipes criminis in his
evil deeds.
The course of Mr. Graves towards me, is
but a continuation of his previous conduct
towards others, and with as little provocation.
At your earnest and repeated solicitations I
returned to your pastorship, which has now
continued, first and last, more than seventeen
years. You know me intimately and well;
move intimately and better than do any other
people upon earth. I returned not to battle
against Christians of any denomination, and
especially not to battle against Christians of j
my own denomination. I came under a j
strong sense of duty, to preach to you the
gospel of Christ, to seek, with the blessing,
of God, to harmonize our people, to urge for¬
ward the cause of truth and salvation in this
part of our beloved country, and especially
to build up and strengthen, with what abili¬
ty I possess, this little Church, over which I
have anxiously watched, and for which I
have prayed so many years, and which has
always been so dear to my heart. From this
purpose I have never for a moment departed.
I have assailed no one : I have sought, pray-
fully sought, the benefit of all, and of all
alike. Why then am I, and are yon, and
our friends elsewhere, assailed by Mr. Graves,
in the manner which has beeit exposed?
Why are we now, week after week, falsified,
slandered, ridiculed, and belittled by him,
and by both his associate editors ? Is this
the "howl" which it was prophecied would
come up, and which would make you, and
me, and this whole Church "think the world
was coming to an end?" For more than six
months we did not notice Mr. Graves'" attacks
in any way. To this day neither yon nor
I have published one word of response.
This impunity has been abused by him.
It has rendered him but the more bold
and reckless. You have now at last called
him, and properly, to answer at your bar.
As a member of this Church, having the same
rights with every other, and only the same
rights, and as ycmr pastor, entitled until it is
forfeited, to the respect due the pastoral of¬
fice, I cheerfully, gladly, throw myself upon
your enlightened justice. If in your opinion,
I and others implicated, have deserved the
shame attempted to be heaped upon us, we
will not appeal from your decision It is
your duty to speak truly, and to sustain the
right, no matter who suffers. Hitherto God
has supported me in the ministry, without
stain or reproach. I do not, however, ask
you to spare me. I never will. I will not ac¬
cept from you forbearance. I ask only for even-
handed justice. If I am guilty, as Mr. Graves
affirms, strike me down. I occupy a position
of which I am unworthy. I asked of Mr.
Graves, in all my efforts to settle this matter,
as to myself, privately, nothing towards me
which I did not voluntarily offer to do my¬
self towards him. I now ask you to do no¬
thing in regard to him, which 1 would not
have you do with regard to me in like cir¬
cumstances.
But Mr. Graves is guilty, indubitably
guilty, as charged in every on* of these
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
73
cases. This, his warmest admirers, when
their " sober second thoughts" come to bear
rule, will be obliged to admit. If you find him
guilty you must pronounce him guilty. You
cannot avoid this verdict. He will then stand
before you, and before all others, who ac¬
knowledge the sovereignty of Baptist Church¬
es, in the exercise of discipline, as convicted
Of the offences charged. You will after¬
wards be called upon to decide what the
Word of God requires you to do with him.
If his offences are really what they are rep¬
resented in this charge, and clearly proved
to be in the specifications under the several
counts before you, you owe it to him; you
owe it to yourselves; you owe it to our breth¬
ren, and churches throughout the land; you
owe it to the cause of truth, and salvation;
you owe it as a duty to Jesus Christ, to
place upon him the seal of your condemna¬
tion. But he refuses to hear you ! He af¬
fects to withdraw ! He denounces your au¬
thority and jurisdiction ! The brethren have
told his offences to the Church, as the law
demands. He repudiates it all. The com¬
mandment of Christ leaves you no alterna¬
tive. It is definite. "If he refuse to hear
the Church, let him be unto thee as a hea¬
then man, and a publican."
Mr. Fuller moved that the questiort be
now taken, as it was apparent no defence
was to be made.
. The motion was concurred in,
The Moderator stated the question before
the Church to be: Whether Rev. J. R.
Graves is guilty of libel as charged.
The Moderator. Those who believe that
the charge has been sustained by the testi¬
mony adduced, will rise.
Upon a count, eighty-four members were
standing.
The Moderator. Those who believe that
the charge has not been sustained by the
testimony adduced, will rise.
None rose.
The Moderator then declared that the
church had, by a unanimous vote, decided
that the charge had been sustained by the
testimony.
On motion, the meeting adjourned to 1
o'clock Tuesday evening, with the benedic¬
tion by Dr. Howell.
Tuesday Evening, Oct. 19, 1858.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
The proceedings were opened by reading
a portion of scripture by the Moderator, and
prayer by the Rev. Mr. Walton.
On motion, the reading of the record was
dispensed with until the conclusion of the
trial, when the whole should be read and
passed upon.
Mr. Fuller moved to take up the fourth
count in the charge against the Rev. J. R.
Graves.
The motion was concurred in.
Mr. Fuller said that as the evidence to
sustain the fourth count in the charge against
Rev. J. R. Graves is to be found not only
in the editorial columns of various numbers
of the Tennessee Baptist, but also in sun¬
dry letters published in that paper, he should
beg leave to accompany the testimony with
a running comment upon the same, which
was the only argument the prosecution pro
posed to offer.
The Moderator stated that it was in the
power of the church to grant this privilege.
Dr. Jones suggested that as it was custo¬
mary to call upon the defendant for any re¬
butting testimony he might desire to offer,
that it would perhaps be proper to extend
that invitation now.
The Moderator replied that the invitation
would be given when the evidence offered
by the prosecution had been heard.
Mr. Fuller stated that the argument had
been prepared to accompany the testimony
in the form he had suggested, and he hoped
the privilege of thus presenting it would be
granted him.
The Moderator suggested that a motion
to grant the prosecution the privilege desired,
would be entertained.
Mr. Scott moved that the prosecution be
allowed to accompany the proof to sustain
the fourth count in the charge against Rev.
J. R. Graves, with a running comment, as
requested.
74
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
Which motion was concurred in.
And then,
Mr. Fuller read the fourth count in the
charge against Rev. J. R. Graves, and com¬
mented as follows:
COUNT FOURTH.
" We the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral
and unchristian conduct, in that he has, at
various times, attacked, slandered and
abused ministers and brethren of high
character, belonging to our denomination,
throughout the country, in his said paper."
Mr. Fuller said:
The public press is, in our day, an en¬
gine of immense power. Properly conduct¬
ed, its blessings are in calculable. When
however, it becomes licentious and demor¬
alizing, it is the most withering curse with
which any community can be visited. This
is true of newspapers of every class, but
especially is it true in relation to those that
are professedly religious. The licentious
character of the Tennessee Baptist, has for
years past, been a source of deep mortifica¬
tion to many brethren, and of irreparable
injury to the cause of righteousness in con¬
nection with our churches. The specifica¬
tions already before you, are sufficient
proof of this fact. But we proceed :
FIRST SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATION OF REY. DR. FULLER, OF
BALTIMORE.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 43, dated
July 9th, 1853, Mr. Graves thus attacks,
slanders, and abuses Rev. Dr. Fuller, of
Baltimore. Speaking of the session of the
Southern Baptist Convention held in that
city, in May of that year, Mr. Graves says:
"A few, say three or four, appropriate
the whole direction of the Convention to
their own control. Great efforts at precah-
ing and speeching, to shine on the part of
D. D.'s and dreadful failures. Alas ! Alas!
that great men and ministers should be
vain and ambitious; and yet who more so?!"
" Several local movements, of very question¬
able policy, and very singular. Dr. Fuller
follows brother Brantly on Sabbath morn¬
ing, in an exhortation of nearly three quar¬
ters of an hour! and in Dr. Fuller's own
pulpit! ! What could have been brother
F.'s motive ! Did he not himself request
that no one should say one word after he
had preached in Nashville, at the previous
Convention ? Do ifs alter cases ? Monday
night Dr. Baker preached the Domestic
Mission sermon. Requested by Dr. F. to be
short—short since the church was going to
ordain a young minister, and he himself
had the charge to deliver !!—a very em¬
barrassing position, for the annual speaker,
which he felt. Tuesday night set apart for
speeches on Home Missions, and the great
West. The time occupied by Bro. Shuck,
followed by Dr. Fuller on the China field.
The importance of the Domestic field,
and the progress and prospects of missions
in the West not presented ! Arrangements
curiously singular! Great sensation pro¬
duced by Dr. F.'s speech. Considered high¬
ly inappropriate, inapposite, and disorgan¬
izing—had no particular point; never would
have been taken for a missionary speech,
Home or Foreign—was considered personal
in some reflections on ministerial dress."
" And speaking of ageing, we saw a bold
specimen of it exhibited by the reprover,
viz : When the Catholic priest enters the
church—his stand—he kneels, and pre¬
tends to pray in the presence of the con¬
gregation, and to be seen by them, and to
impress the people with his awe, and rev¬
erential feeling, &c. Little Methodist Cir¬
cuit Riders play off the the same trick be¬
fore their congregations and high heaven,
for the same purpose, to be seen of men;
and we have seen brother Baptist ministers
do the same thing, to our infinite disgust.
It always appeared to us to be a species of
detestable apeing." "How many more
than two kinds of prayer are there, public
and secret ? Is this minute, or half minute
pulpit genuflection, public or secret prayer ?
If public or social, why not pray audibly,
that the congregation may unite in, and be
edified by it? If it is'intended for secret
prayer, why appear in public, and seek thus
like a class of old, to be seen of men ? "
Bro. Moderator. The church will see
that in these extracts Mr. Graves brings
the following imputations against Dr. Fuller:
1. That he is a vain, and ambitious man.
2. That his exhortation on Sunday, and
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
75
his speech on Tuesday night, in his own
church, were ridiculous.
8. That he treated his brethren, especial¬
ly Dr. S. Baker, with offensive disrespect.
4. That his Tuesday night's speech was
disorganizing.
5. That in it he indulged in personal re¬
flections upon his brethren.
6. That in his proceedings he was apeing
Catholics.
7. That he prays in his pulpit to be seen
of men.
8. That he is a Pharisee.
Put all these imputations together, and
what a tirade for one brother to publish of
another ! What provocation had Dr. Ful¬
ler given to Mr. Graves? None whatever.
He had treated him with courtesy and re¬
spect. The popularity, talents, and piety
of our Baltimore brother, undoubtedly
were his great offence. Could the most
malignant enemy have pursued him with
more bitterness. In the eye of Mr. Graves,
Dr. Fuller is vain, ambitious, ridiculous,
offensive, a disorganiser, a censurer, apes
Catholics, prays to be seen of men, and is
a Pharisee. His indulgent readers are ex¬
pected to believe all this. Doubtless many
of them do. What then must be their feel¬
ings towards that brother ? Need one word
be said in his defence ? I presume not.
My only purpose is to prove, as I have now
dpne indisputably, that Mr. Graves did at¬
tack, slander and abuse Rev. Dr. Fuller,
of Baltimore. This first specification is
therefore fully sustained.
SECOND SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATIONS OF REV. DR. WALLER, OF
KENTUCKY.
In the Tennessee Baptist, dated October
28th, 1854, announcing the death of Rev.
Dr. J. L. Waller, Mr. Graves says :
" We have differed for years, and widely
in our opinions [with brother Waller] on
one subject, the propriety of receiving the
immersions of Campbellites, and Pedobap-
tists as valid, and communing with such."
In the Tennessee Baptist, dated August
4th, 1855, speaking of the " Recorder when
under brother Waller's control," Mr. Graves
says : m
" Its guns are spiked with Campbellite
gold, and Campbellite influence."
The Long Run Association, that of which
Dr. Waller was a member, and which em¬
braces the churches in Louisville, at its
meeting for 1855, referring to these, and
many other similar defamations by Mr.
Graves, adopted and published the follow¬
ing resolution: Tennessee Baptist, Dec.
8th 1855.
" Resolved, That while it might have
been expected that from interest, prejudice
or misapprehension, some would fail to do
justice to the character of one led so often
to reflect upon, and expose their errors, it
is with the deepest mortification that we
find some Baptists volunteering to dispar¬
age his wisdom, and becloud his memory;
especially are we astonished that a Baptist
editor, in no equivocal manner, by slight
implications, invidious reflections, occa¬
sional assumptions, elaborate editorials,
adriot appeals for patronage, and articles
of correspondents prepared to .order, or
with instructive reference to their des¬
tination, has industriously and long been
seeking to create the impression that he has
proved himself a more enlightened, consis¬
tent, and faithful expounder of the princi¬
ples and usages, and defender of the cause
of the Baptists, than the illustrious and la¬
mented Waller. Of the truthfulness mod¬
esty and disinterestedness of the assump¬
tion, let enlightened Baptists of the pres¬
ent, and future generations judge."
Thus did that large and talented Asso¬
ciation think itself obliged to vindicate the
character of the noblest brother among
them, then so recently deceased, from the
aspersions of Mr. Graves, who upon read¬
ing this rebuke was obliged to say—Ten¬
nessee Baptist, December 8th, 1855.—
"The allusion is undoubtedly to ourself."
Consider if you please, brother Modera¬
tor, these several extracts. What are the
imputations they contain ?
1. He maintains that Waller was an open
communionist, and otherwise a man of loose
principles.
2. That he had been bribed by the Camp¬
bellites, and therefore durst not in his pa¬
per advocate true Baptist principles.
3. That he Graves, and not Waller, was
the true champion of the Baptist churches
and people.
4. When these defamations were set
forth and Dr. Waller was defended, by the
76
TRIAL OF REY. J R. GRAVES
Long Run Association, Graves was excited
to frenzy, and waged battle with them all.
Brother Moderator, and brethren. You
kne\v John L. Waller personally. Was he
an open communionist ? Was he a man to
be bribed ? Was he a false or feeble advo¬
cate of Baptist principles ? Why did Mr.
Graves thus assail Dr. Waller? Was he,
as some others have been, in Graves' way ?
Could he not bear Waller's popularity and
greatness ? Truly " pride cometh before
destruction: and a haughty spirit before a
fall."
Brother Moderator. Can there be any
doubt that Mr. Graves did attack, slander,
and abuse Dr. Waller of Kentucky?
third specification.
defamations of rev. dr. everts of
louisville.
The assaults of Mr. Graves upon Dr.
Everts' church, and upon Dr. Everts him¬
self, of Louisville, Kentucky, have been
most flagrant. As to the former, in a note
dated September 13th, 1858, Dr. Everts
says:
" In regard to Elder Graves' course to¬
wards Louisville Baptists, and myself, I
would simply say that he admitted an anon-
imous article into his paper, seriously re¬
flecting upon the Walnut Street Baptist
Church, and Pastor, and containing both
palpable falsehoods and miscolorings. Dr. W.
B. Caldwell wrote an answer in explanation,
and vindication of our church, which as
he did not wish his name brought before
the public, I forwarded, authorizing the use
of my name as responsible for the article.
But though an anonymous slanderous attack
had been published, the endorsed vindica¬
tion was rejected as anonymous. Mean time
another anonimous article was allowed to
appear, reasserting the former slanders,
and sowing seeds of distrust, and strife.
Whereupon, another brother, (T. A*. Reed)
of this city, formerly a friend of Graves,
wrote to Graves remonstrating against the
injustice he'was doing to the Walnut Street
Baptist Church, and Pastor, by his anony¬
mous and slanderous publications, and set¬
ting us right before the readers of the Ten- .
nessee Baptist. This letter was not allowed ]
to appear. Still a third, and I think a .
fourth slanderous article was allowed to ap- <
pear anonymously, with I believe, new ed¬
itorials, and enforcements, &c., &c. Bro^
Reed, after waiting for the appearance of
his first communication, sent a second j and
after waiting a considerable time for the
appearance of that, wrote a third. Wheth¬
er he was discouraged from forwarding the
third, from what seemed persistent purpose
to withhold justice, I know not. But some
time later, Wm. Garnet, in the Western
Recorder, in a short article, challenged the
name of the writer of these calumnious ar-
. tides, and pledged himself to prove five
palpable falsehoods in them, as well as gross
miscolorings, if a responsible name were
given. All this passed, but no justice was
ever done to us by the Tennessee Baptist,
or apology offered. And to the publicity
given to slanders by that paper, without cor¬
rection, we trace the jealousies and distrust,
that have obtained against the Louisville
. Baptists to this day, throughout the South
• West. Fellowship and confidence have
i been impaired, and jealousy and distrust
s' spread, by the injustice of the Tennessee
i Baptist.
Dr. Everts further says: 11A year ago last
May, in the presence of Dr. Eaton, these
matters were talked over with Elder Graves.
He made explanations, and removed some of
my objections to him personally in the mat¬
ter, by attributing the responsibility to
some persons in Kentucky, whom he had
trusted, and whom he had [then] learned
to distrust as designing and mischief-ma¬
king men. As my mind was disposed to
charity, and I believed Graves a perfect man
compared with some among us, I considered
the matter settled, and at Graves' request,
last January wrote him to that effect, and
he published my letter in the Baptist, I
think, in February or March."
This matter of falsehood and slander,
may be considered by Dr. Everts settled so
far as he is concerned. That, however,
does not relieve this church from the re¬
sponsibility of looking into it, and re¬
lieving itself from any complicity in these
crimes by administering to their perpetra¬
tor a just and scriptural rebuke.
Mr. Graves' assaults upon Dr. Everts
himself were still more flagrant. At the
meeting of the Long Run Association of
Kentucky for 1855, which includes tflfc
churches of Louisville, and of whiclf J. L.
Waller was a member, a committee made a
TRIAL OP REV. J. R. GRAVES.
77
report for publication in its minutes, ex¬
pressive of the feelings of that body in re¬
gard to the death of that distinguished man.
Of that committee Dr. Everts was chair¬
man. The report was brief, and closed with
three resolutions. The first lamented his
death as a great loss to the Baptist denom¬
ination ; the second referred to him as one
of the wisest and most effective champions
of our cause, and the third deprecated the
attacks which even some Baptists, and Bap¬
tist editors, naming none however, specifi¬
cally, had made upon him. In the Tennes¬
see Baptist, No. 14, dated December 8th,
1855, referring to this report of a com¬
mittee generally, of which Dr. Everts was
chairman simply, and to the last resolution
especially, Mr. Graves says :
" The allusion is undoubtedly to ourself.
It excites no emotion in our heart, but the
deepest sympathy for the poor man whose
heart and head were in a condition to de¬
liberately elaborate such a specimen of ma¬
lignity, insane; for Elder Everts' madness
towards us, seems to overcome his reason,
sense of propriety, and sober judgment.
What an indignity to the departed dead, to
have such an epitaph [the resolutions] en¬
graved by the hand of the Association of
which he was a member! What an insult
offered to the Association ! When they
should be called to weep—to balm the
memory of a loved and departed brother
with tears of sacred affection, and holiest
recollections, to have every fiend in their
natures addressed, their basest feelings ap¬
pealed to, and the intensest hatred excited
towards a living brother in Christ!! [that
is J. R. Graves.] Whom did Elder Everts
gratify by his own insatiate thirst for re¬
venge ? Is such an offering acceptable to
the surviving brothers and sisters of Brother
Waller? We know them better, for we
know most of them well. Whom of the
fifty-eight delegates [who by the way voted
for them] did he gratify ? How many were
prepared to affirm the charges embraced in
the resolutions? It was a morsel sweet to
the palate of Elder Everts alone—a morsel
that he deliberately prepared in the solitude
of his study, in which we suppose he made
his book of prayers! Wonder if he knelt
down, and read one of those prayers over
this so-called 'Report on the death of the
lamented Waller,' but in fact a malignant
aspersion of a brother minister! To our
readers we need not say that the resolution
is a compound of falsehood in the general,
and in the concrete; that it seems imbued
with the intensest malignity ? It is an at¬
tempt to skulk behind the body of a dead
brother in order the more effectually to strike
a living one through the heart. The labor
of Elder Everts and all those who carp so
much about injury done [by J. R. Graves]
to Brother Waller's fame, evidently is not
so much to excite admiration in the hearts
of Baptists for Brother Waller, as preju¬
dice, and hatred towards ourself—not [so
much] to call attention to his virtues, as to
failings attributed to us. In behalf of our
late brother Waller, and in behalf of his
surviving relatives, we entreat the Long
Run Association at its next session to re¬
consider, and expunge this resolution from
its minutes; [which, however, they never
did, but adhered to it;] and, in the place of
a slander upon a living brother, insert an
honorable encomium upon the departed one.
Whatever may be our transgressions, such
obituary notice is a burning shame to any
Baptist Association—a disgrace to civilized
humanity."
Mr. Graves further says in the same pa¬
per : "We have read the above resolutions
in the columns of the Western Recorder!
By whose agency, or advice, were they in¬
serted in the Recorder ? The Association
did request it. Did brother Cooper,
the local agent, insert them without consul¬
tation, or advice ? He has no cause to as¬
perse, or defame us. Did the [editorial]
Committee,. Dr. Caldwell, Tyler, and Bran-
ning, order their insertion ? But they are
cultivating peace, and never say, do, or have
done, ought to our prejudice, or injury. It
would falsify their professions ; prove them,
the most arrant hypocrites under the sun, to
accuse them of ordering, or conniving at the
insertion of such an abusive article. Who
but the author—Elder Everts—secured
their republication in the Recorder? the
last sting that the unsanctified spirit that
conceived them, saw the means of inflict¬
ing ! The man who could prepare such res¬
olutions to read over the dead, can do any¬
thing that he imagines the cloak, and pro¬
fession of religion will cover. Such a man
78
TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
make prayers for Christians to read, and
study, in order to imbue their souls with
the spirit of Christ ? !! The worst wish
we wish Elder Everts is, that he may be
brought to see this act in the light that ev¬
ery unprejudiced Christian looks upon it,
and repent of it; and for the honor of a
common humanity, and Christianity, if he
will asperse, and slander his brethren, take
some other occasion than an obituary notice
to do it. We regret to be called upon to
rebuke so severely, but such an act is so
flagrant, that no reproof can equal it. Nor
will we wink at such acts, though perpetra¬
ted by a Baptist minister—though a D. D."
Brother Moderator : A summary of the
iniquities of Mr. Graves developed in this
specification need not be made. The whole
exhibition is outrageous in the highest de¬
gree. Can a Christian man conduct him¬
self in this manner ? It seems to me im¬
possible. Yet, Mr. Graves professes to be
a Christian, and a minister of Christ. As
a member of this church we are considered
as endorsing him, because we have not
called him to account. But my object
here, is to show in what manner, and style,
Mr. Graves in his said paper, attacked,
slandered, and abused Rev. Dr. Everts, of
Louisville. Nor has he, to this day, that
we have seen, or heard of, in any public
way, withdrawn, or apologised for his of¬
fensive assaults.
FOURTH SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATIONS OF REY. DR. DUNCAN, OF
NEW ORLEANS.
Mr. Graves is charged with having at¬
tacked, slandered, and abused Rev. Dr.
Duncan, of New Orleans. In a note dated
at New Orleans, June 8th, 1858, Dr. D.
says:
" I send you a copy of the pamphlet
about J. R. Graves." " The Dictator ought
long since to have been put down, as far as
his church can effect so desirable an object/'
It is entitled—" New Orleans Weekly Bap¬
tist Chronicle," dated November, 1854,
and contains the "Defence against false
charges, and misrepresentations of Rev. J.
R. Graves." In this paper he thus addresses
you : "We call upon the church of which
Mr. Graves is a member, to listen to the
allegations which we now make against
him, and substantiate by proof that cannot
be gainsayed, and when they have heard,
to act in a manner becoming their position,
and responsibility." He definitely charges
Mr. Graves with " Misrepresentations in
three modes," and says : " On these three
counts, we distinctly charge, and arraign
J. R. Graves for falsehood." The paper
then goes on to establish, and does estab¬
lish these charges incontestibly. Dr. Dun¬
can further says : "We deem it proper to
call the attention of the South-West, and
South, to some among his numerous false¬
hoods, and misrepresentations. This is
done, not so much to defend the reputation
of the Senior Editor [of the Chronicle,]
who personally feels himself beyond the
reach of the envenomed shafts, hurled by
so unrighteous a hand, as to show Southern
Baptists what is the moral character of him
who seeks to destroy a press that is labor¬
ing, and has long labored for the denomi¬
nation; and who, as the conductor of a
Baptist paper of wide circulation, has it in
his power to inflict much evil upon our
cause, and to bring destruction upon many
of those who, doubting the propriety of
his course, openly express their disapproba¬
tion. If the Tennessee Baptist be sustain¬
ed in its conduct towards the Senior Editor
of the New Orleans Chronicle, by the voice
of the denomination in the South-West, or
any large part of it, then have we estab¬
lished among us, and over us, a Dictator
that will henceforth rule us with a rod of
iron. If an editor among us can attack
personally, any Baptist whom he pleases,
and then exclude him from all defence be¬
fore the same tribunal; if he can do this
unrebuked, and unpunished; our denomi¬
national freedom is gone."
Mr. Duncan further says : " It is with a
very sad heart that we enter upon this mat¬
ter. God knows that we have tried to
avoid it. He has several times pro¬
posed arbitration of the points at issue
between him, and the Editor of the [Ten¬
nessee] Baptist, but these proposals were
treated with silence, or rejection. He
[Duncan] has asked repeatedly, to be allow¬
ed a defence in the columns of the Tennes¬
see Baptist, and has as often been refused.
He has written private letters, requesting
that these repeated acts of hostility should
cease, or that responses should be allowed
in the [Tennessee] Baptist, but the attacks
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
79
have not ceased, and the responses have not
been allowed. Such has been the state of
the matter for more than a year. It is im¬
possible to get a show of fairness, much
less'justice from the [Tennessee] Baptist.
Not only has it not published Mr. D.'s an¬
swers, but it has not stated ev<aa in its own
words, the substance of his replies, and
has never to this day, even given a true
statement of the leading views entertained
by Mr. D. on the points on which he has
been so mercilessly attacked by the [Ten¬
nessee] Baptist."
Dr. Duncan concluded his " Defence"
thus : " But enough." " Let Baptists read
what we have said. God is our judge,
that we have acted with much reluctance,
and after striving to settle this* difficulty
with Mr. G. in some manner less objection¬
able, and less painful to the feelings of all
interested. Mr. Graves will not listen to
reason. Did we think him merely misled,
we should do otherwise than this; but the
evidence of his intentional wrong-doing of
a cherished purpose to crush the Chronicle,
and all connected with Professor Duncan,
(if he can,) is to our mind, as clear as the
sun at mid-day." " We deliberately arraign
J. R. Graves, Baptist editor of Tennessee,
before the denomination, on the charge of
repeated falsehood and misrepresentation. Our
proofs have been adduced. Judge between
us, ye that are interested. Acquit him of
falsehood if you can. Acquit him of mis¬
representation if you can. One thing,
however do, say now whether a man so
careless of truth, so hasty, so fell in his
hostility, so incapable of discussing any
subject with candor and fairness, so unjust
to his opponents, is fit to lead, nay, to
govern, (for govern is what he is clearly
rying to do) the denomination in the South-
West. Decide now, Baptists that are free,
whether the despotism of this man is to
stand, or fall. His committed partisans, no
doubt will uphold him, be he false, or be
he true. But will the intelligent, the
thinking, the freedom-loving among our
Baptists, defend, and sustain him in this
high-handed course of injustice, and ini¬
quity?"
Our charge against Mr. Graves is, that
he has in his paper, attacked, slandered,
and abused Rev. Dr. Duncan, of New Or¬
leans. And if Dr. D. is to be believed, if
the testimony in this case now before you,
deliberately prepared, and published by
him to the world, is reliable, those attacks,
and that slander and abuse were most fla¬
grant. I call upon the church to notice as
follows :
1. Mr. Graves is guilty of uttering against
Dr. Duncan, "numerous falsehoods."
2. Mr. Graves is guilty of perpetrating
against Dr. Duncan, " numerous misrepre¬
sentations."
3. Mr. Graves refused Dr. Duncan the
privilege of replying to these assaults
through his paper, in which they were
made, although it was frequently solicited.
4. Mr. Graves refused to state even in
his own words, the substance of Dr. Dun¬
can's replies, and also to give a true state¬
ment of Dr. D.'s views.
5. Dr. Duncan several times proposed to
Mr. Graves a private arbitration to settle
points at issue between them. Mr. Graves
rejected his overtures.
6. Dr. Duncan appealed to this church.
The case is now at last before you legally,
and formally. You are called to pronounce
upon it, and you will pronounce upon it
fearlessly, as the word of God may seem to
you to demand.
FIFTH SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATIONS OF REV. MR. TUSTIN, OF
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
During many months past, Mr. Graves
has been attacking, slandering, and abusing
Rev. J. P. Tustin, of Charleston, South Caro¬
lina, in a style and manner; very similar to
that which characterized his pursuit of Dr.
Duncan, just now considered. All who
know anything of Mr. T., or of his paper,
know him to be courteous, gentlemanly,
and polished in all his intercourse, and
writings. He is received, and endorsed by
his church in Charleston, as a true Baptist,
sound in doctrine, and in morals unim¬
peachable. He is also endorsed by the
Southern Baptist Publication Society, hav¬
ing for several consecutive years, been ap¬
pointed its Corresponding Secretary, which
office he continued to fill, until he volunta¬
rily declined a re-appointment, but still
continues one of its directors. This is the
man that Mr. Graves has been denouncing
for more than a year past, as a Pedobaptist
in disguise, a Presbyterian in principle,
80
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
and a secret open communionist. The
truth of all this Mr. Tustin earnestly, and
persistently denies. His brethren also,
who know him intimately, declare that all
these attacks upon him, are slanderous, and
the imputations unjust. This however,
makes no difference with Mr. Graves. He
goes on with his slanderous declarations, just
as if nothing had been said, nor any deni¬
als made.
The origin of this attack seems to have
been as follows: Rev. J. S. Baker, say, in
the Christian Index, Vol. 37, No. 17, dated
April 28, 1858:
" In the year 1855, I wrote a series of
articles, which were published in the Ten¬
nessee Baptist. In a note appended to
one of the articles, is the following state¬
ment :
" I am credibly informed, that one of
the principal advocates of the resolution
proposing to invite Pedobaptists to seats
with us at our Biennial Convention ki 1855,
has said that he would have no scruples in
communing with them at the Lord's table,
if it were not contrary to Baptist usage."
This produced no hue and cry at that
time; led no one to question the truth of
the information I had received ; but since
brethren have allowed their feelings to be¬
come exasperated by the disgraceful war¬
fare which they are carrying on against
each other, repeated allusions have been
made to it by editors, and others.
" As soon as I discovered that brother
Tustin was the individual supposed to be
referred to by me, and before I knew that
brother Graves had adduced it to convict
brother Tustin of holding sentiments favo¬
rable to mixed communion, I wrote to bro¬
ther Tustin; informing him that my refer¬
ence was not to him, but to ' a popular' (or
' prominent,' I am not certain which word
was used) Baptist minister of Georgia."
This denial by Dr. Baker, which was
also communicated to Mr. Graves, had no
effect. Mr. Tustin was Corresponding
Secretary of the Southern Baptist Publi¬
cation Society, and although Mr. Graves
afterwards charged it upon Dr. Dawson,
still he held on to his charges upon Mr.
Tustin. True, he professed to have proYed
it by certificates. You have, however, but
too many evidences that certain men can
prove by certificate, about any thing they
choose to prove. A man declares that he
does not believe a thing, and never did be¬
lieve it. But no matter for all this, Mr.
Graves proves by certificates that he does
believe it! Upon some of you this game
has of late, been very conspicuously played.
To extract but a small part of what Mr.
Graves has said, would of itself, occupy
hours of your time. Two, or three articles,
are sufficient for our purpose.
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 49, Aug
15th, 1857, Mr. Graves, speaking of Mr"
Tustin, says :
" Did wq seek to ruin him, it is in our
power to effect it as easily as we write this
paragraph." " He [Tustin] denies that he
ever admitted his preference for the Pres¬
byterian form of Church Government over
the Baptist; and also, if he knew an open
communion Baptist church that was respec¬
table he would hook on to it."
Mr. Graves affects great surprise at these
denials. And in the Tennessee Baptist,
No. 50, August 22d, 1857, Mr. Graves
says, derisively :
Mr. Tustin, " A Charleston Baptist min¬
ister, and Corresponding Secretary of the
Southern Baptist Publication Society !!!
receiving a thousand dollars per annum as
the*pastor, or supply of a Pedobaptist Soci¬
ety I"
To preach regularly in a Pedobaptist
house of worship, may be a great sin. If
any of you think so, I beg to call your at¬
tention to the following, in the Tennessee
Baptist, No. 26, March 6th, 1858, in which
article, Mr. Graves says :
" Through the kindness of the New
School Presbyterians, we have been invited
to occupy the large Presbyterian house, [in
Gallatin,] two Sabbaths in the month,
until we can erect one."
Mr. Graves accepted this invitation, as v
you know, and has been preaching in that
house now more than a year ! Why then
does he condemn Mr. Tustin for like con¬
duct ?
This specification needs no analysis. It
is certain that Mr. Graves has attacked,
slandered, and abused, Rev. J. P. Tustin,
of Charleston, South Carolina.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
81
SIXTH SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATIONS OF REV. DR. DAWSON, OF
GEORGIA.
During a year or more past, Mr. Graves
has been endeavoring to make the impres¬
sion that all the more cultivated and en¬
lightened portion of our people, are under
the influence of a strong tendency to open
communion ; and especially that influential
ministers at the North, and at the South,
are now plotting to lead our brethren into
that heresy; and that particularly the
whole North " are upon the verge of the
plunge into open communion."
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 25, Febru¬
ary 27th, 1858, Mr. Graves says :
"That a scheme is being plotted, and
the elements at work, to open-communiontze
the Baptist denomination in America, we
have long had reason to fear, and that a
large body of Northern Baptists are upon
the verge of the plunge into open commu-*
nion at the table, as well as in baptism,
and in the pulpit, we have long been satis¬
fied ; and that there are men in the South
ready to second the move, cannot be ques¬
tioned ; men whose published sentiments
are even now preparing the way before the
denomination."
The " published works" here denounced
seem by later numbers of his paper to be
those of brethren Mell, Fuller, Taylor,
Bowen, Howell, and probably some others.
In his preface to the "History of Open
Communion" by Orchard, Mr. Graves says:
In the last century the American Baptists
have, through the influence of great names,
and leading influential ministers, been in¬
sensibly drawn into the very outer circles of
open communion." "Our Doctors of Di¬
vinity, popular metropolitan preachers, the
Presidents, and professors of our Colleges,
and members, and brethren high in position,
and popular favor," have "brought the de¬
nomination to the very verge of the plunge
into open communion."
It was intimated by Dr. J. S. Baker, a
minister of Florida, in an article some years
since, that one brother of high standing in
Georgia was known to have a strong lean¬
ing in that direction. And early in the
present year, an anonymous writer, signing
himself "Probus" asserted in the Tennessee
Baptist, that Rev. J. E. Dawson was the
6
guilty party. His language is as follows :
"Our brother Dawson, is that very iden¬
tical popular preacher in Georgia, who has
at least once in the hearing of unimpeacha¬
ble witnesses, declared himself not a Baptist
but like Tustin, an open communionist, at
heart. I do not believe that he will dare to
deny that he has said that Jie is willing to
go into open communion if the Georgia
churches generally will do so."
This charge Dr. Dawson immediately laid
before his church in Columbus, by which it
was fully investigated, and in a publication
under date of July the 8t.h, 1858, officially
declared by them to be "without the least
foundation." See S. W. Bapt., July 29lh
1858.
On this whole subject Dr. Dawson writes
under date of Newnan, Georgia, September,
17th, 1858, as follows : V
"The essential facts between J. R. Graves
and myself, are in print, and you can find
them in the Index" newspaper.
"When the articles appeared in the Ten
nessee Baptist, accusing me of being an open
communionist, I felt it my duty to lay
them before -the church in Columbus. An
investigation was at once instituted. Mr.
Graves, was written to, and every means
adopted to obtain the facts in the case. The
result was that no evidence could be found
and the church pronounced the charge
"without foundation.'" The most offensive
article was signed "Probus." Both the
church and myself, demanded of Mr. Graves
the real name of the author. This he re¬
fused to give, but gave James Perryman, of
Buena Vista, Geo., as Probus' authority.
I sought an interview with Perryman, in¬
tending to report his case to his Church, un¬
less he could give me satisfaction. In the
presence of several brethren, he utterly de¬
nied having ever told Probus, or Graves, or
any one else any such thing, or having used
any language justifying such charges. This
is still his position so far as I know.' The
charges made by Probus, I have denounc
ed, as "wilful falsehoods." I now repeat
this, I never used such language, or any¬
thing like it. Perryman will give his cir-
tificate, that he never told Graves, or Pro-
bus any such things. The falsehood is be¬
tween Probus and Perryman, and the only
question is, who is Probus? I suppose
Graves will not deny being himself (Pro-
82
jTIRAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
bus) the author. If this is so, then, the
case is in a nutshell. And until Graves
can prove himself clear (by showing that
he himself is not Probus, which lie can on¬
ly do by a certificate from Probus himself,
over his real name) he stands before the
christian world, charged with wilful "false¬
hood."
The charges made against me in the Ten¬
nessee Baptist a.re of the most serious char¬
acter, and if sustained, would forever de¬
stroy my usefulness, and depose me from
the ministry, if no more. Shall such con¬
duct be tolerated in the Churches ? Shall
Church members be allowed to publish such
vile slanders, with impunity ? If so, what
is Church membership worth ? Whose rep¬
utation is secure ?
Of course I cannot say which is the guil¬
ty party, Graves or Perryman. The false¬
hood is with them. But until Graves makes
a better showing than he has done, the
charge is upon him. Graves tries to evade
the question, and to change the simple issue,
but he cannot do this. His charges against
me are distinct. Pie gives Perryman as the
author of these charges. Perryman utterly
denies the truth of it. This is the issue,
and he cannot escape it. If Perryman told
him these things, he is thus far vindicated
(though still a libeller for having published
them in his paper.) If he (Perryman) did
not, he is guilty, and in my opinion unwor¬
thy of Church membership, until he makes
atonement to the injured party.
The fact that Graves is an editor, is no
excuse. An editor has no more right to lie,
or slander a brother, than any other man. As
the- facts are now before me, he has done
both, and the Church is induty, bound to en¬
force a healthy discipline." "As this thing
now stands, I cannot think of Graves but
as a toilful slanderer. I can have no confi
dence in any thing he says. If he can
prove himself clear I shall be gratified, and
will acknowledge the fact publicly, but un¬
til he does, he must [himself] admit the
justice of my position. Graves published
an extract from a letter of Perryman, to
the effect that he had proof to establish
my guilt. This letter is no proof, and
Graves must know it. Perryman never
said that he had proof to establish the char¬
ges made by Probus, but [that he had proof]
that a conversation had taken place between,
Johnson and Neal.
There never was a plainer case than this..
I charge Probus with publishing "wilful
falsehoods." Probus is Graves. He gives
Perryman as his author. Perryman utterly
denies being his author. Graves must prove
that Perryman has lied, or the sin attaches
to him. If he does the former, Perryman
is unworthy of membership. If he cannot
do this, then he is unworthy. No christian
who has any sense of propriety, ean justify
such conduct; nor can any cause long pros¬
per which tolerates such offenders ; indeed
it would be attempted under no other cir¬
cumstances. The position that one chris¬
tian may slander another, simply because he
happens to be the editor dff a paper, is both
sinful, and foolish ; and the effort to pass
these things by as mere rumor, of no conse¬
quence, indicates a very depraved judgment,
•and a very low standard of morality."
Thus has Mr. Graves, as charged, attack¬
ed, slandered, and abused Rev. Br. Dawson,
of Georgia. Nothing need be added by me
to make the case more plain. Dr. Dawson's
own statement is ample in the premises. I
proceed now to the last specification under
this count.
SEVENTH SPECIFICATION.
DEFAMATIONS OF THE BIBLE BOABJJ.
In the Tennessee Baptist, whose editor
is one of the Vice Presidents of the Board,
No. 23, dated February 13th, 1858, Mr.
Graves says;
"There is manifestly a systematic attempt
to cripple down the Secretary of the Bible
Board, on thepart of Anti-Landmark men,
and editors. We allude to what has ap¬
peared in the Journal [Home and Foreign]
from his associate editors [J. B. Taylor,
A. M. Poindexter, and R. Holman] and
the course of a part of the Baptist press,
and the Anti-Landmark portion of the
Board." All these things are calculated to
make the position of the Corresponding Sec¬
retary uncomfortable, destroy his peace,
and paralyse his influence, and usefulness."
"Brother Dayton can be easily driven from
the Board, and will certainly be by this
treatment, but will the Board supply his
place with a better man ? He has done too
much good to be let alone. He is enjoying
too much of the love, and attracting too
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
83
much of the attention of Baptists, not to be
compelled to suffer the penalty that superi¬
ority, or graet usefulness is ever doomed to
pay"."
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 26, March
6th, 1858, Mr. Graves says, " The first
attack upon Brother Dayton did not begin
with this Sunday School Union. The
ostensible leader of the Anti Landmark
Baptists in this State, was ' A member of
the Bible Board.' " " When the second vo¬
lume of Theodosia appeared, and there was a
probability, amounting to logical certainty,
that the question would be set at rest, whe¬
ther Pedobaptists were true churches of
Christ, and whether not being such, they
could have any lawfully ordained ministers,
he made no attempt to reply to the argu¬
ments, but labored by artfully insinuated
inuendoes to destroy the influence of the
book," "by intimations that the author wrote
not for the sake of truth, but for the love of
money." • "This was probably intended to
reach Louisville in time to prevent the re¬
appointment of so bad a man as Brother
Dayton to so important an office as Cor¬
responding Secretary."
He further says in the same paper:—" If
Brother Dayton flattered himself that he
would be permitted to rest in peace while
his bboks were every day gaining larger
circulation, and exerting a larger and more
controlling influence over the minds of the
best thinkers among the Baptists, he soon
discovered that he was very much mistaken.
A few months only had elapsed when 'A
Member of the Bible Board' found occasion
to introduce a resolution in the Board, call-
, ing for the appointment of a committee to
examine the records of the Southern Bap¬
tist Convention, and ascertain the exact re¬
lation which the Bible Board was intended
by the Convention, to sustain to the circula¬
tion of the Bible, and other religious books.
The committee brought in a report, pre
pared without doubt, by the same member
of the Board who moved the appointment.'
" No inconsiderable part of it [was] designed
to condemn or criminate the Secretary." "As
the matter has thus, [in newspaper articles]
been made public by others, and the Bible
Board has by them been dragged into this
controversy, much to our regret, we shall
recur to this report again. But let no one
charge us with having involved the Bible
Board in the dispute. We wish the ene¬
mies of the [Southern Baptist Sunday School]
Union, and the Old Landmark, could have
let the Board alone. But since they seem
to be determined to use it, and if need be
destroy it for the sake of injuring the Land¬
mark members of it, and the President of
the Sunday School Union, we cannot help
it."
And still further in the same paper Mr.
GraVes says:—"If the object is, as the
manifestations force us to believe, to drive
Brother Dayton from the Board, it is very
probable they will succeed."
The Tennessee Baptist of April 10th,
1858, has the following announcement from
Mr. Graves:—
" Brother Dayton, tendered his resigna¬
tion to the Bible Board last Monday, to
take effect immediately. There are some
who will read this with pleasure."
In the Tennessee Baptist, No. 36, dated
May 15th, 1858, Mn Graves says :—
"We venture to prophecy that in less than
four years there will be an attempt made
to transfer the Bible Board from Nashville
to Charleston, and combine its work with
that of the Southern Publication Society.
And if this plan should succeed, and the
Board of that Society be created a Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention, no one of
the accusers of Brother Dayton will see any
need of any more explicit instructions than
the Bible Board has already received from'
the Baltimore, Montgomery and Louisville
Conventions, to authorize it to engage
largely in the joint distribution of Bibles,,
and our denominational and other religious
books; not a single dog of them all will so
much as wag his tongue in condemnation of
them. And then will be rendered plain
what now we can only guess at, for whe¬
ther there may not have been a secret plot
to ruin and destroy the credit of the Bible
Board in Nashville, for the purpose of alien¬
ating the confidence of the churches, and
the brethren from it, and thus prepare the'
way for the removal of the Board to Charles¬
ton."
Brother Moderator: Allow me to call
your attention, and that of the church, to
the following points which are contained in
the extracts now read from Mr. Graves'paper.
He maintains, as an analysis will show, the
following propositions:—
84
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
1. That a majority of the Bible Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention, conspired
1 with certain men and editors, to "cripple
down" Mr. Dayton.
2. That the Bible Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention sought to annoy Mr.
Dayton and to destroy his influence and
usefulness.
3. That the Bible Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention could not let Mr. Day¬
ton alone because he had done so much
good.
4. That the Bible Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention, persecuted Mr. Dayton
from envy of his great popularity.
5. That because Mr. Dayton was superior
to any of them, the Board sought to drive
him from his office.
6. That the Bible Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention persecuted Mr Dayton
because he had proved in his book, that Fedo-
baptists have no true churches, nor lawfully
ordained ministers.
7. That these officials of the Southern Bap¬
tist Convention pursued Mr. Dayton from
the Board because his books had so large a
circulation, and exerted an influence so con¬
trolling over the minds of the best thinkers
among the Baptists.
8. That the object of the report of the
committee of January last, was to criminate
the Secretary, and thus secure the nefarious
purposes dictated by envy, ambition, and
malice.
9. That the majority of the Board were
determined to use it, and if need be destroy
■it, for the sake of injuring the Landmark
members of it, and Mr. Dayton.
■10. That there was a secret plot in the
Bible Board of the Southern Baptist Con¬
vention to ruin and destroy its credit, and
alienate from it the confidence of the churches
and brethren, in order to get it removed to
Charleston.
11. That when this is done the Southern
Baptist Publication Society will use it for
its purposes, and no one will complain.
12. That the Bible Board of the Southern
Baptist Convention is made up of a set of
dogs.
Of all this, brother Moderator, and breth¬
ren, what shall we say? Have you ever
seen a more malignant exhibition of hatred,
slander, abuse, defamation ? And who are
these members of the Bible Board of whom
Mr. Graves and his allies speak in such
terms in a public newspaper?. As citizens,
and professional and business men, they are
regarded as equal to any others in this city.
As Christians, and members of this church,
they are among the most honored, intelli¬
gent, pious, and useful of our brethren.
They are men well known and intrusted by
our brethren of the Southern Baptist Con¬
vention, with the management of one of its
Boards. Not a few of them are honored
as our city officers. They have no personal
interests whatever to subserve, and are ut¬
terly incapable of the low jealousy, envy,
ambition, and malice of which they are so
wantonly accused by J. R. Craves and his
pliant associates. Week after week, and
month after month they have for years neg¬
lected their own private business, and often
pressing obligations, to attend to the inter¬
ests entrusted to this Board. They are also
the very members who are generally pre¬
sent at its meetings, and best acquainted
with all its affairs. What they do in this
department is purely a work of faith and
labor of love, for the advancement of the
cause of truth and salvation. If such breth¬
ren as these may not be trusted, in whom
can we place confidence. They are worthy
compeers of their brethren of the Foreign
Mission Board in Richmond, Virginia, and
of the Home Mission Board in Marion, Ala¬
bama. And who is their accuser ? This
trial has thus far shown, and the next- count
will show still more fully who he is. But
I need not thus detain you. We have
now seen how Mr. Graves has attacked,
slandered and abused the Bible Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention.
I now submit this count, brother Mode¬
rator, to the judgment of the church, the
judges, and the only scriptural judges of the
law, and the facts. You have now seen
from ample unimpeachable and unquestion¬
able testimony, that J. R. Graves is guilty
of having gratuitously attacked, slandered,
and abused, Rev. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore;
Rev. Dr. Waller, now deceased, of Ken¬
tucky, Rev. Dr. Everts, of Louisville, Rev.
Dr. Duncan, of New Orleans, - Rev. Mr.
Tustin, of Charleston, Rev. Dr. Dawson, of
Georgia, and the Bible Board of the South¬
ern Baptist Convention. We might, , in¬
deed, have introduced many others as hav¬
ing been the objects of similar defamations, '
TRIAL OF REY J. R. GRAVES.
85
as Rev. Dr. Crowell, of Missouri, Rev. W.
C. Crane, Bestor, Chambless and Rev. Dr.
Teasdkle, of Mississippi, Rev. Messrs. Tiche-
ner, Henderson, and Taliaferro, of Alabama,
Rev. Dr. Manly, and Mr. Kendrick, of
Charleston, Rev. Mr. Hillsman, of Knox-
ville, Rev. Mr. Coleman, of Arkansas, Rev.
Dr. Lynd, and brethren Caldwell, Brannen,
and Tyler, of Kentucky, Rev. Drs. Dagg
and Mell, of Georgia, and others. But we
will not do so. We have presented a
few names only, of the many of whom
J. R. Graves is the public accuser, and
defamer. The divine injunction in cases
like this is imperative. The church, I
doubt not, will obey it to the letter:—
" Them that sin rebuke before all, that
others also may fear."
The Moderator inquired whether there
were any other remarks or testimony to be
presented.
Mr. S. A. Davidson said he wished to
express his views upon the whole subject,
and inquired whether it would be in order
to do so now.
The Moderator replied that it would not
until the question now before the church
was disposed of.
Mr. Davidson said he had acted with the
minority during the progress of this trial,
and he desired an opportunity to express
his views upon the whole matter, and his
object now was to inquire when it would be
in order to do so.
The Moderator explained that a decision
upon the fourth count would not be a dis¬
posal of the whole subject, but that that it
would come up for the future action of the
church, at which time the brother would be
afforded the opportunity he desired.
Mr. Davidson then gave notice that when
the matter came up for final disposal, he
should make a speech covering the whole
ground, in which he would express his
views touching the case.
The Moderator stated that if there was
any rebutting testimony to be offered, it
would now be heard.
None being offered,
Mr. Fuller remarked it is apparent that
no testimony is to be offered by the defend¬
ant, and he moved that the question be now
submitted to the church.
The motion was concurred, in when
Mr. Fuller again read the fourth count
in the charge against Rev. J. R. Graves.
The Moderator.—Those who believe that
the fourth count in the charge against Rev.
J. R. Graves has been sustained by the
testimony adduced, will rise.
Upon a count it was ascertained that
seventy-six members were standing.
The Moderator.—Those who believe that
the fourth count in the charge against the
Rev. J. R. Graves has not been sustained
by the testimony adduced, will rise.
None rose.
The Moderator then declared that the
church had unanimously decided that the
fourth count in the charge against the Rev.
J. R. Graves had been sustained by the tes¬
timony adduced.
Dr. Howell asked leave to make a per¬
sonal explanation.
Leave was granted.
Dr. Howell said he had to-day received
a note, from which he wished to read an
extract. He did not know the author per¬
sonally, but was advised that he is a man
of truth and integrity, and a member in
good standing of the Baptist Church in his
neighborhood. He read as follows:
Fayetteville, Tenn., Oct. 15, 185S.
Rev. Dr. Howell.
Dear Sir: I saw and conversed with a
gentleman a day or two ago, that was a
delegate to the Liberty Association, and
also to the General Association, and speak¬
ing with reference to the difficulty between
Graves and yourself, he told me that it was
a common talk at the Association, among
the delegates there, that you had agreed
with the Pedoes, for the consideration of the
sum of fifteen hundred dollars, paid to you
hp Pedohaptists, to use all the influence you
had against Graves, in order to ruin h_m
86
TRIAL OP REV. J R. GRAVES
standard as a preacher, and as a man of
veracity.
Dr. Howell remarked that he had just
received this letter, and had read the extract
to show the character of reports that are put
in circulation to injure his standing, and he
would ask whether it was necessary for him,
as the pastor of this church, to formally
deny the charge that he had sold himself
to the Pedobaptists for $ 1,500? That was
all he had to say in regard to this report.
Mr. Nelson moved that a copy of the
charges preferred against Rev. J. R. Graves
by S. M. Scott and himself be forwarded to
Mr. Graves, as he understood a copy had
not been sent him yet, and that he be noti¬
fied that they will be set for trial at the
next regular meeting of this church, which
will be Wednesday evening, the 10th of
November.
Mr. Scott said that before the question
was taken upon this motion, he begged
leave to withdraw the first specification in
this count.
Leave was granted, and the first specifi¬
cation, as read, was withdrawn.
And then
The motion of Mr. Nelson was concurred
in.
Dr. Howell moved that when this meet¬
ing adjourns, it adjourn to meet at seven
o'clock, Wednesday evening, the 10th of
November, the time for the next regular
meeting of the church.
The motion was concurred in.
And then,
The meeting adjourned, with prayer by
Dr. Howell.
Wednesday Evening, Nov. 10th, 1858.
The Church met pursuant to adjourn¬
ment, and the session was opened with the
reading of a portion of scripture by the
Moderator, and prayer by Dr. Howell.
The report of all the proceedings in this
trial, from its commencement, as made by
Mr. McKee, the gentleman employed for
that purpose, was read, corrected, and
adopted as the record of the church.
The Moderator then stated that the bus¬
iness now before the Church was the fifth
and last count in the charge which had
been preferred against J. R. Graves, by
brethren Scott and Nelson.
The Clerk then read the charge as fol¬
lows :
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes¬
see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member
of said church, and one of the editors of
the Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immoral
and unchristian conduct, in that he has
uttered and published in his said paper
the following wilful and deliberate false¬
hoods :
1. "We can, with a clear conscience,
appeal to the Judge of all the earth, that
we have not intentionally injured any man,
and if we have unwittingly done so, we
truly regret it and are willing to repair the
injury."
2. "All that we could rightly do to ef¬
fect a reconciliation, though the offended
and assailed party, we have done."
8. "It will be seen that both the lash
and the law have been threatened against
one or all the editors of this paper."
4. "Reports have been put forth from
this city and circulated in it, that the Sen¬
ior Editor of this paper was a vile charac¬
ter, a dishonest man, and that frightful
revelations would be made of his standing
at home when the church trial came off.
(Note) Elder Howell made this charge be¬
fore he had been in the city nine months."
5. "What frightful crimes are we charged
with? The most stupendous one is the
leaving off' the D. D. from the name of R.
B. C. Howell in the Southern Baptist Reg¬
ister for 1858 I"
6. "We are arraigned before the church
for grossly immoral conduct and atrocious
libel, &c.. because we have left the D. D.
off Elder Howell's name.'
7. "One of the very prosecutors he
[Howell] employs, C. A. Fuller, can threat¬
en to cowhide Elder Dayton, not only in
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
87
his office, but even in the hearing of the
whole church, and not so much as a re¬
proof is offered him." ^
8. "The other principal orator of the
21st September, [Dr. W. P. Jones,] is not
only known to Elder Howell as a teacher
of gross heresy in his class—teaching views
calculated to overthrow one of the articles
of faith of the First Baptist Church, a fun¬
damental article of Christianity and reli¬
gion—but known also to Elder H. and the i
church, as the public defamer of Elder J.
M. Pendleton; not only so, but he is per
mitted to defame Elder J. M. P. in the
church meeting of the 21st, before Elder
H.'s face, without receiving so much as a
reproof from Elder II "
9. "Our readers will notice the closing
period of Mr. Fuller's article. [I defer
further remarks until a future opportunity,
when A. C. Dayton shall have no occasion
to say he has not reaped an ample reward
for the vituperation in which he has of
late so freely indulged.] It is singular lan¬
guage for a Christian gentleman to use to¬
wards a brother in the same church, and a
brother Mason. Such threats of brute
violence, which have been twice repeated—
once to Brother Buchanan and once upon
* the floor of the church, in church meeting,
reflect no credit upon either Mr. Fuller's
bravery or his principles."
S. M. Scott.
A. Nelson.
The Moderator said that the Church had
heard the allegations now read. If J. R.
Graves were present he would call upon
him to plead guilty or not guilty, but since
he was not present, the call would be prepos¬
terous. He asked whether any one was au¬
thorized to plead for him. No one answer¬
ed. The Moderator said, the Church will
now hear the prosecution upon this count
in the charge against J. R. Graves.
Mr. S. M. Scott asked leave to accompa¬
ny the evidence with a commentary.
Dr. W. P. Jones suggested that it would
be more in accordance with general usage
to have the evidence presented first.
The evidence was then read.
Mr. Scott said:
Brother Moderator and Brethren :—The
specifications which we present, containing
the falsehoods alleged in this count, are all
taken from one and the same number of the
Tennessee Baptist.
We, the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennes¬
see, charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member
of said Church, and one of the editors of
the Tennessee Baptist, with grossly immor¬
al and unchristian conduct, in that he has
uttered and published in his said paper, the
following wilful and malicious falsehood :
specification first.
Tennessee Baptist, dated Oct. 9th, 1858,
Mr. Graves" says: "We can, with a clear
conscience appeal to the judge of all the
earth, that we have not intentionally injur¬
ed any man, and if we have unwittingly
done so, we truly regret it, and are willing
to repair the injury."
We refer to the testimony on all the pre¬
ceding counts, as proof that he has inten¬
tionally injured this church, its pastor, and
some of its members : and, to his rejection
of all appeals to him to retract and "repair
the injury," that he does not truly regret,
and is not willing to repair the injury.
We refer specifically for proof that Mr.
Graves here asserts a wilful falsehood, to
the fact, that prior to this announcement
by him, brethren Winston and Fuller had
explicitly stated in a note to Mr. Graves,
that " we are authorized to say that brother
Howell will do whatever is demanded by
honor or religion," "but (continued those
gentlemen,) that the plan may be definitely
settled at once, we [Winston and Fuller,]
offer the following basis of settlement.
Then followed a reciprocal proposition—
that is—a proposition that R. B, C. How¬
ell and J. Ii. Graves should each withdraw,
as publicly as they had made, all offensive
charges against the other.
Could more noble or equitable proposi¬
tions have been made by mortal man ?
Then too, brethren Winston and Fuller ac¬
companied these magnanimous propositions
with an expression of their sincere desire to
settle this difficulty. But, Mr. Graves,
who thus solemnly " appeals to the judge
of all the earth;" who with so much pa¬
rade pledges his willingness to repair any in¬
jury, rejected these propositions! He not
88
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
only refused to repair the injuries done his
pastor and brother by withdrawing his ac¬
cusations, but absolutely refused, or reject¬
ed all honorable or religious adjustment
whatever. For Elder Howell, as before
stated, had in so many words proposed to
do " whatever is demanded by honor or re¬
ligion. " What more could your pastor—
could any christian gentleman propose ?
You see at onc6 how utterly groundless and
shamelessly false is Mr. Graves' solemn de¬
claration in so far as pertains to Elder R.
B. C. Howell.
Mr. Graves, in reference to a thing, about
which he knew just nothing at all, virtual¬
ly charged Jno. L. Waller with lying.
Waller repeatedly and affectionately ad¬
dressed him private letters expecting to be
set right before the readers of the Tennes¬
see Baptist. And finally, he wrote Mr.
Graves, in these impressive words: " I
have done all, that honor, friendship, or
Christianity, required me to do. * *
* * * When I wrote to you as a
friend and a 'christian, affirming solemnly
what I had written to be true, instead of
correcting, or even alluding to my affirma¬
tion, you substantially restate your charge,
and even aggravate it," etc. Thus is Mr.
Graves' assertion in the name of the judge
of all the earth, proven to be a wilful false¬
hood as pertains to Jno. L. Waller.
Many of you know that Mr. Graves
assailed the editor of the " New Orleans
Baptist Weekly Chroniclein a very rude,
objectionable and reproachful manner. You
know that Elder W. C. Duncan charged
Mr. Graves with many falsehoods, and call¬
ed upon this church to listen to his allega¬
tions. You, however, gave no attention to
these things until recently, and Mr. Graves
persistently refused to do justice or in any
wise repair the injuries done this brother.
Mr. Duncan says he " has several times
proposed arbitration of the points at issue
between him and the editor of the Baptist,
but these proposals were treated with si¬
lence or rejection. Fie [Duncan] has ask¬
ed repeatedly to be allowed a defence in
the columns of the Tennessee Baptist, and
has as often been refused. He has written
private letters requesting that these re-
2>eated acts of hostility should cease, or
that responses should be allowed in the
Baptist, but,'the attacks have not ceas¬
ed, and the responses have not. been al¬
lowed."
Thus by the testimony of Elder W. C.
Duncan, is the assertion of Mr. Graves,
though made under the solemnity of an
oath, proven to be, a wilful and deliberate
falsehood.
Those of you who were readers of the
Tennessee Baptist, cannot have forgotten
the excitement which Mr. Graves, through
anonymous communications succeeded in
getting up, and for a great while maintain¬
ing against the Walnut street Baptist Church
in Louisville, Ivy. Elder W. W. Everts
says: "Mr. Graves admitted ananonyinous
article into his paper, seriously reflecting
upon the Walnut street Baptist Church and
pastor, and containing both palpable false¬
hoods and miscolorings. Dr. W. B. Cald¬
well wrote an answer in explanation and
vindication of our church, which, as he did
not wish his name brought before the pub¬
lic, I forwarded, authorizing the use of my
name as responsible for the article. But
though an anonymous, slanderous attack
had been published, the endorsed vindica¬
tion was rejected as anonymous. Meantime
another anonymous article was allowed to
appear, reasserting the former slanders and
sowing seeds of distrust and strife. Where¬
upon another brother (T. A. Reed) of this
city, formerly a friend of Graves, wrote to
Graves, remonstrating against the injustice
he was doing to the Walnut street Baptist
Church and pastor, by his anonymous and
slanderous publications, and setting us
right before the readers of the Tennessee
Baptist. This letter was not allowed to
appear. Still a third) and I think a fourth
slanderous article was allowed to appear
anonymously, with, I believe, new editori¬
als, and enforcements, &c., &e. Brother
Reed, after waiting for the appearance of
his first communication, sent a second, and
after waiting a considerable time for the
appearance of that, wrote a third. Wheth¬
er he was discouraged from forwarding the
third, from what seemed a persistent pur¬
pose to withhold justice, I know not. But
some time later, Wm. Garnett, in the Wes¬
tern Recorder, in a short article challenged
the name of the writer of these calumni¬
ous articles, and pledged himself to prove
five palpable falsehoods in them as well as
gross miscolorings if a responsible name
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
89
were given. All this passed, but no jus¬
tice was ever done to us by the Tennessee
Baptist, or apology offered."
Thus is Mr. Graves proven, not only
guilty of publishing wilful and deliberate
falsehoods in reference to the church and
brethren in Louisville, and to their serious
injury, but also of persistently refusing to
repair the injuries done; and thus, too, his
assertion in the name of the judge of all
the earth, is proven a twofold falsehood,
wilfully and deliberately uttered and pub¬
lished.
These, are but specimens of many simi¬
lar testimonies in our possession, and which
we are prepared to present, but deem it un¬
necessary, as in the mouth of two or three
witnesses, every word is established.
SPECIFICATION SECOND.
Mr. Graves says : " All that we could
rightly do to effect a reconciliation, though
the offended and assailed party, we have
done."
He well knows that he has rejected all
overtures of every character which have
been made to him, and all appeals to con¬
sent to a reconciliation, although assured in
writing that the party referred to would do
anything demanded by honor or religion.
Ah must see, therefore, and know that this
too, is a wilful violation of truth—a delib¬
erate falsehood.
Mr. Graves, or any other man of honor
or religion, or even destitute of both, could
rightly atfcept or make some proposition
for reconciliation, within the pale of honor
or religion.
We ask, whether in the annals of the hu¬
man race, such a proposition as was made
by Elder Howell, was ever before rejected
by any one professing to be a christian
gentleman ?
SPECIFICATION THIRD.
"It will be seen," says Mr. Graves, "that
both the lash and the law have been threat¬
ened against one or all the editors of this
o
paper."
This is said of Chas. A. Fuller's speech
in the church meeting on the night of the
21st of September last. A large number
of brethren and sisters were present at that
meeting, and know the statement to be false,
but with the view of eliciting positive
proof upon these points, we have to re¬
quest that you, brother Moderator, will
call upon all the brethren and sisters here,
who were present at the meeting referred
to by Mr. Graves to rise : and while they
stand that you will ascertain the number;
then put the question : " Those, who heard
C. A. Fuller or any one, threaten any one
or all the editors of the Tennessee Baptist
with the law or the lash, will please rise,"
and note the number, if any. Then put the
question, those who neither heard such re¬
marks, nor believe that any such were made,
will rise—note also the number.
Mr. Fuller said it was important to as¬
certain how many were here to-night of
those who were present at that meeting on
the 21st of September, as he wished them
to express an opinion as to the truth or
falsity of the assertion of Mr. Graves, as
to what he (Fuller) had said.
Dr. "W. P. Jones suggested that those
present at the meeting on the 21st of Sep¬
tember, be requested to rise, and after the
number has been ascertained, that they be
seated and then give the desired expression
by rising.
The Moderator then requested all pres¬
ent who were at the meeting held on the
21st of September, to rise.
Upon a count, it was ascertained that
there were sixty-one present who had at¬
tended that meeting. All resumed their
seats.
The Moderator. Those who were pres¬
ent at the meeting on the 21st of Septem¬
ber, and who know the statement of Mr.
Graves, which has just been read, to be
true, will rise.
None rose.
The Moderator. Those who were present
at the meeting on the 21st of September,
and who know that Mr. Fuller did not
make the threats, as charged by Mr. Graves,
will rise.
Upon a count it was ascertained that
fifty-six were standing.
Mr. Scott resumed:
90
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
I have thus, brother Moderator, estab¬
lished the third specification by fifty-six
witnesses, whose testimony not one arose
to question. There can be no doubt of
the fact that Mr. Graves is guilty under
this spe lification of wilful and deliberate
falsehood. I now proceed to
SPECIFICATION FOURTH.
Mr. Graves says : " Reports have been
put forth from this city, and circulated in
it, that the Senior Editor of this piper
was a vile character, a dishonest man, and
that frightful revelations would be made of
his standing at home, when the church
trial came off." In a note he makes the
first part of this ajfply to our pastor. He
says: "Elder Ho well made this charge be¬
fore he had been in the city nine months."
We are authorized to say that "Elder
Howell" denies this charge, and demands
proof from disinterested witnesses. In the
absence of such proof it is a falsehood.
Dr. Howell asked that an extract from a
letter from one of the deacons of the Free¬
mason street Baptist Church, Norfolk, Va.,
of which church A. B. Hendren, a volun¬
tary assailant, professes to be a member,
should be read, and appended to, and made
a part of the testimony under this specifi¬
cation. Mr. Scott acquiesced. Dr. Howell
said :
Before reading the extract he begged to
state, that he had known Mr. Hendren in
his early life. He had been intimately ac¬
quainted with his family, and relatives, who
were excellent people, and most of them
members of the church in Norfolk, of
which he, in his youth, was pastor; which
is to say from the beginning of 1827, to
near the close of 1884. When this Mr.
Hendren came to this city some months
since, he received him warmly, interested
himself in his behalf, and did all he could
to procure business for him in his employ¬
ment of a house-builder. Fie had to this
end taken special pains favorably to repre¬
sent him to his friends. He regretted even
now, to say one word in disparagement of
him, and would not do so, were he not
compelled. The extraordinary publication
of Mr. Hendren had left him no alterna¬
tive. He must either be silent, and allow
that gentleman to fix his malicious imputa¬
tion upon him, or he must defend himself
by showing from unquestionable sources,
to what reliance Mr. Hendren is entitled.
He did this with the sincerest reluctance.
If Mr. Flendren suffered from the exposure
he had compelled him to make, he had to
thank only himself, and his unscrupulous
friend, Mr. Graves.
The extract is as follows:
"I have always regarded A. B. Hen¬
dren, and so I think have all who know
him well, as an exceedingly excitable, im¬
pulsive, indiscreet man, too ready to catch
at any thing before understanding it, and
likely, beyond almost any one I ever knew,
to speak and act unadvisedly. In such an
issue as that you mention, between him
and Dr. Howell, there cannot be two opin¬
ions among those who know the parties.—
You cannot find here a man who has any
confidence in Hendren."
Mr. M. B. Howell explained that this
letter was in reply to a letter from himself
to that gentleman. He had understood
that he knew something of the character
of Hendren, and he had written to him re¬
questing a statement of the facts within
his knowledge, and had received the reply
from which the extract had been read.
[From another letter since received, from
the same gentleman, the following is
taken :—
"I saw in the last Tennessee Baptist, a
communication from A. B. Hendren, in
which he attempts to charge you with
falsehood. It is preposterous to suppose
that any thing he could say should injure
you. He was notorious here for the viola¬
tion of his business engagements, and dis¬
regard of his word, to such an extent that
no one I have ever heard speak of him,
has the slightest confidence in him." "His
whole course here was wayward, and vas-
cillating, and his general character in this
community was very far from being that of
a man of unimpeachable veracity
This is the testimony of an officer of the
church of which Mr. A. B. Hendren was
a member, in Norfolk, Virginia. It will
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
A
91
be sufficient, perhaps, to add the fol¬
lowing :—
Freemason Street Baptist Church, )
Norfolk, Va., April 15th, 1858. J
At a meeting held this date, a letter was
presented from Mr. Andrew B. Hendren,
and read, asking for a letter of dismission
from this church, to join the Baptist church
at Nashville, Tenn.
Upon statements made by brethren J.
Hardy Hendren, and Charles H. Langly,
relative to conduct of brother Andrew B.
Hendren, while in.Salisbury, North Caro¬
lina, which they learned from good author¬
ity, to have been of such a character as to
justify his expulsion from this church.
On motion, brother Andrew B. Hendren
was expelled.
(A true copy of the proceedings.)
John White,
Church Clerk.
State of Virginia, City of Norfolk.
This day personally appeared before me,
W. A. C. Ellis, a Notary Public for the
city and State aforesaid, [John White] and
acknowledged the above writing to be his
act. Given under my hand and seal, this
the 29th day of November, 1858.
Wm. A. C. Ellis,
Notary Public.]
Dr. Howell thought it necessary to say so
much in regard to the credibility of the
gentleman whose certificate Mr. Graves
thought proper to foist into these proceedings
on the first night of this trial. The church
now knows what weight they ought to
attach to the volunteered statement of Mr.
Andrew B. Hendren. He repeated that
he regretted to present these facts, on ac¬
count of the pain they will give the family
and friends of Mr. Hendren, whom he
highly esteemed, but he was compelled to do
so, in self-defence.
Mr. Scott resumed:
I proceed to
specification fifth.
Mr. Graves says:—What frightful crimes
are we charged with. The most stupendous
one is the "leaving off the D. D. from the
name of R. B. C. Howell in the Southern
Baptist Register for 1858."
The charge against Mr Graves had been
in his hands when he wrote the above, sev¬
eral weeks, and he knew that it contained
no such charge. The charge is as follows:
"We the undersigned, members of the
First Baptist church, Nashville, Tennessee,
charge Rev. J. R. Graves, a member of
said church, and one of the editors of the
Tennessee Baptist with grossly immoral
and unchristian conduct, in four distinct
cases, as follows:
First, in that he has sought to bring
upon R. B. C. Howell, the pastor of said
church, reproach and injury, and thus to
destroy his character and influence in the
Southwest, by forcing him into collision
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late correspond¬
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now
one of his associate editors, through the
publication in his said paper of various false
and malicious representations.
Secondly, in that he has endeavored to
distract and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor and four of
its deacons, and several others of its influ¬
ential members, which he has labored to
produce by numerous inflammatory articles,
published in his paper.
Thirdly, in that he has uttered and pub¬
lished in his said paper against R. B. C.
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry
foul and atrocious libels.
Fourthly, in that he has at various times
attacked, slandered, and abused ministers
and brethren of high character, belonging
to our denomination throughout the coun¬
try, in his said paper. Signed,
J. C. Darden,
C. A. Fuller.
Mr. Graves endeavors to excuse him¬
self by an allusion to the Southern Baptist
Register, in which he says the D. D. was
left off Elder Howell's name. But the
Southern Baptist Register is alluded to
only once in the specifications, and then
under the first count, which charges Mr.
Graves with endeavoring to force Dr.
Howell into collision with A. C. Dayton.
Leaving the D. D. off Dr. Howell's name
could have no influence in forcing him into
collision with A. C. Dayton. Nor is it
possible that Mr. Graves should suppose it
92
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
♦ —
would have that effect. How then could
lie say that one of the most stupendous
crimes with which he is charged, is leaving
the D. D. off R. B. C. Howell's name ?
No such charge is made, nor could Mr.
Graves have supposed that such a charge
was brought against him. It was a wilful
and deliberate falsehood, uttered and pub¬
lished without so much as the semblance of
truth.
SPECIFICATION SIXTH.
Mr. Graves says: "We are arraigned
before the church for grossly immoral con¬
duct, and atrocious libel, &c., because we
have left the D. D. off Elder Howell's
name."
The church knows that this is false, and
you all remember that Mr. Graves admit¬
ted, before the large concourse of people
assembled in this house, in the beginning
of this trial, that when he wrote this sen¬
tence he had the charges (as just read) in
his possession.
He therefore knowingly and deliberately,
with the truth before his eyes, preferred
the falsehood. He deliberately penned,
printed, published and circulated to thou¬
sands of readers, a falsehood in preference
to the truth,. This assertion like the fore¬
going, is utterly destitute of so much as
the shadow of truth, and Mr. Graves
knew it.
SPECIFICATION SEVENTH.
Mr. Graves says : "One of the very
prosecutors he [Howell] employs, C. A.
Fuller, can threaten to cowhide Elder
Dayton, not only in his office, but even in
the hearing of the whole church, and not
so much as a reproof is offered him."
"The whole church" present at the time
referred to by Mr. Graves in this specifica¬
tion, heard doubtless every word that C. A.
Fuller said, and well know that he said no
such thing.
But that truth may be doubly vindicated,
and unblushing falsehood exposed, we ask
again, Bro. Moderator, that jou will request
all the brethren and sisters who were pres¬
ent on the occasion referred to, and who
understood Mr. Fuller to threaten to cow¬
hide Elder Dayton, to rise?
Then ask, if you please, all who know
that Mr. Fuller did not so threaten Mr.
Dayton, to rise.
The Moderator: All who were present
at the meeting on the 21st of September,
and know that Mr. Fuller threatened to
cowhide Elder Dayton, as charged by the
Rev. J. R. Graves, will rise.
None rose.
The Moderator: All those who were
present at that meeting, and know that Mr.
Fuller did not threaten to cowhide Elder
Dayton, as charged by Mr. Graves, will
rise.
Upon a count it Whs ascertained that
fifty-six were standing.
Mr. Scott resumed :
This specification, also, brother Modera¬
tor, is sustained by the testimony of fifty-
six unimpeachable witnesses. The allega¬
tion of Mr. Graves is proved to be a bold
and unblushing falsehood. I proceed :
SPECIFICATION EIGHT.
Mr. Graves says : "The principal orator
of the 21st September, [Dr. W. F.Jones,]
is not only known to Elder Howell, as a
teacher of gross heresy in his class, teach¬
ing views calculated to overthrow one of
the articles of faith of the First Baptist
church, a fundamental article of Christian¬
ity and religion—but known also to Elder
H. and the church, as the public defamer
of Elder J. M. Pendleton; not only so, but
he is permitted to defame Elder J. M. P.
in the church-meeting of the 21st, before
Elder H.'s face, without receiving so much
as a reproof from Elder H.
"Elder Howell," we are authorized to
say, knows nothing of Dr. Jones' heresies
in the case charged, except through the
statement of Mr. Graves, upon whose
veracity he has learned not to rely.
"Elder Howell" and the church do not
know Dr. Jones as the public defamer of
Elder J. M. Pendleton.
Elder Howell was not Moderator of the
meeting of the 21st September, and theie-
fore, even if Dr. Jones had then and there
defamed Elder J. M. P., was not in a posi¬
tion to administer a reproof. The whole
statement is a falsification.
SPECIFICATION NINTH.
In an article published by C. A. Fuller,
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
93
he used, in the closing sentence, the follow¬
ing language:
"I defer further remarks until a future
opportunity, when A. C. Dayton shall have
no occasion to say he has not reaped an
ample reward for the vituperation in which
he has of late so freely indulged." Upon this
sentence Mr. Graves says: " Our readers
will notice the closing period of Mr. Ful¬
ler's article. It is singular language for a
christian gentleman to use towards a broth¬
er in the same church, and a brother Ma¬
son. Such threats of brute violence, which
have been twice repeated—once to brother
Buchanan, and once upon the floor of the
church, in church meeting, reflect no cred¬
it either upon Mr. Fuller's bravery or his
principles."
Does deferring further remarks to a fu¬
ture opportunity constitute a threat of
brute violence? Mr. Fuller made no such
threat, and it must be evident to every
member of the church, upon the bare read¬
ing of this language of C. A. Fuller, that
it contains no threat of brute violence.
The statement of Mr. Graves is, therefore,
plainly false.
• Many other specifications might be pre¬
sented, but these are sufficient. It is un¬
questionable that Mr. Graves is guilty of
falsehood as eharged againsf him.
The Moderator: Are there-any remarks
to be offered in defence ? If "not, we shall
proceed to put the question to the Church.
The Moderator: Those members who be¬
lieve that the charge of falsehood against
the Rev. J. R. Graves has been sustained
by the evidence adduced, will rise.
Upon a count, it was ascertained that
seventy-nine were standing.
The Moderator: Those members who be¬
lieve that the charge of falsehood against
the Rev. J. R. Graves has not been sus¬
tained by the evidence, will rise.
None rose.
(The Moderator then declared that the
Church had unanimously decided that the
charge of falsehood against the Rev. J. R.
Graves had been sustained by the evidence.
Mr. Fuller said it seemed from the evi¬
dence submitted to the Church and the de¬
cisions arrived at so far, that there could
not be a doubt as to the guilt of the accus¬
ed, that he had been found guilty upon
every count, and as to the duty of the
Church in the premises, there could be no
question. The Church should put upon
the accused the highest seal of its condem¬
nation. He was satisfied the Church had act¬
ed throughout this trial, with a firm determi¬
nation to do justice, let the consequences
be what they may, and with that action he
should be satisfied.
Mr. Fuller moved that
Whereas, Each church is the divinely
appointed guardian of the morals of its
members; and, whereas, Rev. J. R. Graves
has, upon an impartial trial, been found
guilty of grossly immoral and unchristian
conduct :
First, in that he has sought to bring
upon R. B. C. Howell, the Pastor of said
church, reproach and injury, and thus to
destroy his character and influence in the
Southwest; by forcing him into collision
with Rev. A. C. Dayton, late Correspond¬
ing Secretary of the Bible Board, and now
one of his associate editors, through the
publication in his said paper of various false
and malicious representations.
Secondly, in that he has endeavored to
distract and divide said church, by means
of a conflict between its pastor and four of
its deacons, and several others of its influ¬
ential members, which he has labored to
produce by various inflammatory articles,
published in his paper.
Thirdly, in that be has uttered and pub¬
lished in his said paper against R. B. C.
Howell, the pastor of this church, sundry
foul and atrocious libels.
Fourthly, in that he has, at various times,
attacked, slandered and abused ministers
and brethren of high character, belonging
to our denomination, throughout the coun¬
try, in his said paper.
Fifthly, in uttering and publishing nine
wilful and deliberate" falsehoods, specified
in the foregoing proceedings :
Therefore, Resolved, That the Rev. J.
R. Graves be formally excluded from fellow¬
ship) in this Church.
The Moderator stated that the question
94
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
under the motion just submitted, was
open for discussion, and any one having re¬
marks to make would now be heard.
Mr. S. A. Davidson said he had on a
former occasion expressed a desire to make
some remarks upon the points involved in
this trial. He had a motive in view then,
which does not hold now, and, consequent¬
ly, he had but little to say. He stated that
he had sympathized with the minority at
first, and disapproved of the action of the
Church in this matter, because he believed
it was a personal quarrel, that ought to have
been settled privately. He also disapprov¬
ed of the course of the minority, because
he feared it would result in injury to the
Baptist Church. The object he had in de¬
siring to address the Church, was to see if
something could not be done to avert the
consequences which were likely to result
from the action of the Church on this mat¬
ter. But, alas, it was now too late to effect
what he had desired—the harmony and the
welfare of the Church. He believed that
it was a fixed fact that Mr. Graves was to
be expelled, and it would, therefore, be
folly to say anything in the hope of avert¬
ing this result.
Dr. TV P. Jones thought the brother
was not in order.
The Moderator decided that Mr. David¬
son was in order.
Ms. Davidson, resuming, said that from
the evidence adduced on the trial and the
protest of Mr. Graves, he learned that the
difficulty 1 between Dr. Howell and Mr.
Graves had its origin in misunderstanding
each other. Dr. Howell had opposed the
roposition in the Convention here last
year for the establishment of a Sunday
School Board of Publication, and he had
opposed it in an able manner, as he always
does oppose or advocate a measure, and
Mr. Graves had defended that proposition,
and he thought neither had done wrong in
this respect, and his opinion was that this
difference in regard to the policy of estab¬
lishing a Sunday School Board of Publica¬
tion, was not a matter for Church discip¬
line. Both claimed to have been the as¬
sailed party, and either had a right to de¬
mand a personal explanation. Dr. Howell's
" Index Letter," as it is called, was regard¬
ed as an assault upon Mr. Graves, but Mr.
Graves did not proceed in regard to what
he complained of in this respect, accord¬
ing to the 18th of Matthew, but assailed
Dr. Howell in return, and thus widened
the breach.
Mr. Davidson said that in cases like this,
he thought the one that complained ought
to have sought a private interview, in the
hope of bringing about a proper adjust¬
ment, and he thought Dr. Howell was the
one to have made this advance. In regard
to the proposition that had been made for
a settlement of the difficulty, he was not
prepared to give it his sanction. For a
man to take back what he had said was not
always the best mode of settling difficul¬
ties between christians, and, therefore, he
thought the demand should not have been
made. When a difficulty occurs between
politicians arfd editors, and the matter is
referred to friends, if a retraction is de¬
manded and refused, a duel is the conse¬
quence. To make a statement and then
take it back, carries with such a course a
species of degradation, because the state¬
ment was made upon what the author re¬
garded as reliable authority. He had,
therefore, objected to Dr. Howell's propo¬
sition, and this was the reason he wished to
address a few remarks to the Church.
Christians should have a better way of set¬
tling difficulties than this. They can for¬
give one another, according to the gospel,
whose teachings they professed to follow.,
If was God-like to forgive, and it was in
this spirit he had desired to appeal to the
Church, but alas, it was now too late.
In regard to the specifications in the
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
65
charges, Mr. Davidson thought there might
as well have been ten thousand as ten, as
they were all a good deal alike, and when
divested of everything of a personal and
exciting nature, they were not of so seri¬
ous a character that a satisfactory adjust¬
ment might not have been had without an
appeal to the Church. Neither Dr. Howell
nor Mr. Graves will outlive the evil con¬
sequences to the Baptist Church of this
trial.
He deeply regretted the action of the
Church. Mr. Graves' friends do not be¬
lieve the charges, and will treat the decis¬
ion of the Church with contempt.
Dr. Howell said :
Brother Moderator: I did not intend to
have spoken again in the progress of this
trial. I desire, however, to say a few
words, and they shall he as few as possible,
in answer to brother Davidson. He will
allow me to assure him in advance, that
every remark I may think it my duty to
make, shall he uttered in christian courte¬
sy, and with that sincere personal regard
that I have so many reasons to cherish. I
have known him for many years. I have
known his father from my youth. Two of
his brothers were fellow students with me
in college. They both became ministers,
and I loved them sincerely. I am under
special obligations to him for kind atten¬
tions shown me in years past, in hours of
disease and intense suffering. In the course
he has thought himself obliged to pursue
in regard to this trial, I believe him to be
actuated by pure motives, and a sense of
obligation to the cause of Christ. I cannot,
therefore, speak of him, but in- terms of
unaffected respect. He has, however,
greatly mistaken both the facts in the case,
and the teachings in regard to them of the
word of God. Of this I cannot but hope
he will himself be convinced when they
are properly before him. But, however
this may be, he and you will, I trust, hear
me candidly and patiently.
Brother Davidson tells you, brother Mode¬
rator, that he "Disapproved the action of
the. church in this matter." "Why he did
so he has distinctly stated. I am glad that
he has, since we can now examine his rea¬
sons dispassionately, and show him, and
others who have entertained similar im¬
pressions, that they are wholly without
foundation. He believed the whole dis¬
turbance, as he says, " A private quarrel
which ought to have been settled privately,"
and that, therefore, the church, when the
charge was preferred originally by breth¬
ren Darden and Fuller, and subsequently
additionally, by brethren Scott and Nelson,
ought not to have entertained it; and hav¬
ing entertained it erroneously, he believed
that you ought, when the motion was made,
to have remanded it, that is, dismissed it,
on account of its informality. This is the
ground taken, as you know, by the Tennes¬
see Baptist, the conductors of which then
had brother Davidson's ear. He has not
read that paper, he tells us. I do not
question the statement. I only know he
uses its thoughts and language. Nor has
his conversation been with those who
would be likely to correct his erroneous im>-
pressions. An article appears on the first
page of the "Baptist Standard" of this
week, proving that the facts are all pre¬
cisely the opposite of what brother David¬
son supposes. Every word of that article
I endorse, and wish it to be considered, and
recorded, as my answer to his speech.
[A large portion of what follows in tips
address, is a reproduction, subsequently
written out, of the substance of that arti¬
cle. It is not recollected that any new
thought is introduced, but some parts of
it are, for convenience and applicability,
abridged severely, and others are carefully
elaborated.]
The developments which have been made
in the progress of this trial, show as con¬
clusively as that two and two make four,
that Mr. Graves' offences with which he is
charged before the church, are not, private,
but public, and in the most full and em¬
phatic sense. This being unquestionably
true, it is certain not only that the church
acted correctly both in entertaining_ the
charge, and refusing to remand, or dismiss
it, but also that it could not have^ acted
otherwise than as it did, without sinning
against God and the brethren. We dared
not longer foster in its bosom, this man,
unrebuked. The voice of God is continu¬
ally ringing in our ears, " Put away from
96
TRIAL. OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
among you that wicked person." Our
brethren from all quarters—Kentucky, Mis¬
souri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Alabama, Georgia, South Caroli na—are
appealing to us for defence against his
vituperative and libellous assaults. They
could not reach Mr. Graves but through
our action. The aegis of our protection
has, up to this time, been over him. His
public shame was settling down upon us.
bor all this either there were, or there were
not good reasons. In either case a man of
any christian feeling, should have demand¬
ed your action. That on the contrary
Mr. Graves violently, desperately, resists
it, is proof positive of his deep guilt, of
which he well knew, should a fair trial be
permitted, he must be convicted. Under
these circumstances, how could we longer
remain silent, without betrayal, nay more,
without an abandonment of the cause of
Christ, which we are all solemnly pledged
to love, honor, and defend.
Brother Davidson did, at first, he tells
us, " Sympathize with the minority," that
is, with Mr. Graves, and his faction. His
sympathy with them has now ceased. Nor
is he alone in this feeling. Not a few others
whose names I could mention, who voted
to remand the case, are with brother Da
vidson in this respect. They are now
heartily with the church, and fully prepar¬
ed to acquiesce in its decision. They
know that Mr. Graves, by his friend, an¬
nounced in your preliminary proceedings,
his purpose to attend, and defend himself
against this charge. They were present
and saw that although he indulged in
great violence, he made no schismatic
movement until after a very decisive vote of
the church, which plainly indicated that he
could not so control its action as to make
it subservient to his purposes. Then it
was, andgnottill then, that Mr. Graves and
his partisans seceded, and set up for them¬
selves. Brother Davidson was also a wit¬
ness to those midnight proceedings, of
which, until then, we did not suppose any
member of this church, not even Graves
himself capable, and which were not only
abetted, but actually headed and carried
forward, by men from abroad, who had
been brought here for the purpose. R. G.
Kimbrough was the chairman of that fac-;
tious assemblage, and among its chief i
speakers, who blew the fires of discord,
were such as Grimmett, and Pendleton,
and Stevenson, and Clement. These men
had thrust themselves, uninvited, into our
sanctuary, to aid. this faction in our
disorganization, and what they doubtless
hoped would be our destruction. The
deed, and the hour, were worthy of each
other. " Every one. that doeth evil, hateth
the light, neither cometh to the light lest
his deeds should be reproved." Upon such
a scene as that the sun should never shine.
Then and there they "crucified the Son of
God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
Forty-one voted to remand the charge, and
among them brother Davidson. Mr. Graves
recorded carefully the names of them all,
claimed them as belonging to him, and so
reported to the General Association. Some
of them resisted—brother Davidson for
instance. They did not consider that
because they voted to remand the case, they
were therefore, as a matter of course, obliged
to join his faction. All this brother David¬
son saw. He was satisfied. His sympathies
toere at an end. I am pleased to hear from
his own lips, that he does not approve the
schism perpetrated on that night, and that
he remains in his place, unmoved as a mem¬
ber of this church. These remarks, by the
way. We proceed to examine more especial¬
ly the reasons assigned by brother David¬
son, why he supposed, as he tells us, that
we ought not to have entertained the
charge, and that when the motion was made,
it ought to have been remanded. He says
it was "Because he believed it a personal
quarrel, and that it ought to have been set-*
tied privately."
Others fell into the same error with
brother Davidson, and doubtless through
the same means, the false representations
of the Tennessee Baptist and its advocates,
who labored from week to week, to make this
impression upon the public mind. Not a few
other honest and excellent brethren, be¬
lieved at first, these representations, because
they supposed that Mr. Graves would not
falsify the facts, as they must now see that
he has done. The several counts, specifi¬
cations, and proofs that sustain the charge,
are before them. Do they still believe that
all this affair is " a personal quarrel" between
J. R. Graves and his pastor, that ought to
have been, or that possibly could have been
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
97
settled privately t Is it necessary now to
review this whole case, to prove what in
its progress, has so often and so clearly been
demonstrated, that the offences for which
Mr. Graves has been tried, of which he
has in every case been found guilty > and for
which the motion now pending is, that he
shall he expelled from membership in this
church, were all public, and most flagrantf
The first charges «him with "sowing discord
among brethren," in which he was disas¬
trously successful. The second count
charges him with schism, or division of the
church, and in this also he has painfully suc¬
ceeded. The third, that he has uttered and
published numerous libels upon his pastor ;
the fourth, that he has attacked, abused
and slandered brethren abroad, as well
as at home; and the fifth, that he has
uttered and published various known and
deliberate falsehoods. All these, together,
now established by full, and indubitable
testimony, place the fact beyond question,
that J. R. Graves is guilty as charged, of
" Grossly immoral and unchristian conduct.1'
And call you these offences, of which you
have found this man guilty, 11 a private
quarrelV Was it all a private quarrel ?
Surely no one can believe it was. Was any
part of it a private quarrel ? If so, what
part of it ? The discord sown among bretlv
ren, to break down and destroy his pastor;
was this private? Was the division of the
church, by means of a conflict between
eight or ten of its members private ? Were
his defamations of brethren throughout the
country, from Baltimore to New Orleans,
private? Were his published libels private?
Were his written and published falsehoods
private ? Did all these together constitute
"a private quarrel" between your pastor
and J. R. Graves? We do not think so.
This church has by vote declared that it
does not think so. Does brother Davidson
still think so? It seems tome impossible.
But I was involved in the matter by
name, and therefore my brother thinks it
must have been private. But the Modera¬
tor, too, was involved in it by name, and
so were brethren J. D. Winston, and Fuller,
and Jones, and Darden, and Scott, and Nel¬
son, and Bang, and many others at home, and
Fuller, and Tustin, and Everts, and Dun¬
can and Dawson, and others abroad. Was
it a private quarrel with ^ each one of us,
and of them f If so, pray tell me what
constitutes a public quarrel ? Can there be
such a thing ? It would seem not, accord¬
ing to brother Davidson. Personally I was
no more involved than were others. I am
your pastor. That is all. And without
doubt that is my great offence, and I believe
it is my only offence against J. R. Graves. If
I had not assumed this relation to you, he
never would have imagined that I was an
offender. In this remark I speak advisedly.
This fact, however, certainly gives me a
just claim to your protection. The fair
standing, and usefulness of a pastor, are
certainly the property of the church of
which he is the servant. Any attempt,
therefore, by whomsoever made, privately
or publicly, to embroil the pastor with his
brethren, or to curtail or lessen his influ¬
ence, or his usefulness, or to draw contempt
upon him, and thereby hinder the spread of
the gospel, and retard the, progress of the
Redeemer's Kingdom, is an offence against
God, his church, and his people. Your
pastor, when Mr. Graves had committed
these, and many other like sins, did not;
consider them a " private quarrel." He,
therefore, did not treat them as such. He
did not go to him privately, nor did he
charge Mr. Graves before you. To you, to
the church collectively, the whole ease be¬
longed, and four of your own number pre¬
ferred the charge. Suppose I had gone to
Mr. Graves privately, and he had confessed
to me his fault, and asked my forgiveness.
As to mepersonally, provided he had made
his'retraction as public as had been his as¬
saults, that might have been satisfactory.
But would that have atoned for his offences
against the church as such; for his offences
against many others of its members; for his-
offences against brethren throughout the1
country; for hisoffences against truth, and
honor, and religion ? Surely not.
To another consideration I will call broth¬
er Davidson's attention: He knows, I' pre¬
sume, that upon even a strictly private of¬
fence, the church is obliged to act, should it'
come to its knowledge, and this too, irrespec¬
tive of the manner in which that know¬
ledge was obtained. So teaches Mr. Graves'
own authority, Rev. Dr. J. S. Baker, He
says, Periodical Library, Vol. 1, No. 4, p.
262, etseq. 1847 :
" The opinion prevails [in some quar-
98
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
ters] that a violation of the rule [in
Matt. 18] by the aggrieved, in bring¬
ing an offender before the church be¬
fore he has pursued the prescribed course,
relieves the church from the obligation
[otherwise existing] to deal with the indi¬
vidual thus arraigned before them, [that in
such a case, she must remand the charge
for iinformality, and refuse to hear it.]
Were the effects of personal difficulties,"
continues Dr. Baker, "confined to the par¬
ties more immediately implicated, such an
opinion might be maintained with some de¬
gree of plausibility; but it should be re¬
membered that every offence committed by
one individual against another, is an offence
committed against the whole body, and
against the cause for the furtherance of
which that body was incorporated. While,
therefore, the irregularity in the course
pursued by the person aggrieved, might
subject him to censure," "should the
church [because of this irregularity] neg¬
lect [or refuse] to act upon the case, it is
certain that such neglect [or refusal] could
not fail to afford just cause of complaint
to others." How then, if this be a just
view of the law in the case, could this
church have refused to entertain this
charge against Mr. Graves; how could she
have remanded it, even had it been pri¬
vate as Mr. Graves claims, and as brother
Davidson supposed it to have been, without
a direct violation of the word of God ? You
were obliged, Mr. Graves' own witness be¬
ing judge, to entertain the charge, and- to
refuse to remand it.
But this is not all that Dr. Baker says on
the subject. He further remarks, and fully
to my purpose: " A church is bound to
take cognizance of every manifest violation
by its members, of any of the laws of Christ's
kingdom, with which it becomes acquainted,
whether the information of such violation
is communicated in a regular order or not."
" The church is required to set her seal of
disapprobation upon every transgression of
the law of God. Her obligation to do this,
is not made to depend in the slightest de¬
gree, upon the means by which she arrives
at the knowledge of the transgression; for
the character of -the offence is not affected
in the least, by the manner in which it is
made known." "So long as she is ignorant
of the offences committed by her members,
she is not chargeable with them; but the
moment she is made acquainted with them,
if she fails to adopt measures for calling the
offenders to account, and for preventing the
occurrence of like offences in the future,
she virtually sanctions those offences, bids
the offenders God speed, becomes a par¬
taker of their evil deeds, and renders her¬
self amenable both to God and men. See
Psalms 50: 18, 1 Tim. 5:02, 2 John 11."
This church, therefore, pursued the true
scriptural course, even had the offences
been private, as I said. The knowledge
of them had now reached her, and she was
obliged either to act, or to sanction Mr.
Graves' crimes, and become a partaker of
his evil deeds. And since his offences were
not private, but, as Mr. Pendleton, his co-
editor and blind partisan, declared a few
days since, on the floor of the General As¬
sociation at Lebanon, they were c( all public,"
how much more imperatively was the church
called upon to entertain the charge, and pro¬
ceed with the trial. It did this, and you
followed the law strictly. The correctness
of our proceedings in these respects, never
can, with the facts before them, be ques¬
tioned by any; they never will be question¬
ed, by any intelligent Baptist, well read in
Ecclesiastical Polity.
We now turn to another considera¬
tion. Brother Davidson refers in what he has
just said, to my correspondence with Mr.
Graves, and tells you that he is "Notprepared
to give it his sanction." He has also seen
Mr. Graves' correspondence with Doctors
Jeter, Campbell, Crawford, Baker, and
Buck. Is he " prepared to give that his
sanction ?" By questions artfully pro¬
pounded, suppressing truth, and suggesting
falsehood, he drew from them answers to
sustain himself. In common life a man-
who obtains property "by false pretences,"
commits a felony, which sends him to the
penitentiary. The answers in question, of
these distinguished brethren, were certain¬
ly "obtained," and used, "under false pre¬
tences." This, then, is a moral felony. If
a legal felony sends its perpetrator to the
penitentiary, does not a moral felony unfit
J. R. Graves for membershijHn this church?
Is a moral, felony less crimf^l than a legal
felony? .'"Can a man be tolerated in the
church, while boldly committing crimes for
which, in society, he would be consigned
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
99
to the cells of a dungeon ? Mr. Graves'
object was not only to degrade me generally,
by publishing their letters, but especially in
the estimation of these distinguished breth¬
ren. What shall I say to all this. Had it
been my property of which he was seeking
to deprive me, he would have gone to the
State prison for this crime, as the law pre¬
scribes. It was, however, my character,
infinitely more valuable than property ever
can be.' Is there no penalty for him
who destroys your character ? Is this no fel¬
ony? And this is the man who denounces
this church as a disorderly faction, for pre¬
suming to arraign and try him, for such
offences, and who sets up himself, and his
score of parasites, as the only pure, and or¬
thodox First Church in Nashville. Has an
instance ever before occurred of such unit¬
ed guilt and presumption ? Again I ask,
does brother Davidson approve that corres¬
pondence ?
He is not prepared to give his sanc¬
tion to the notes I wrote to Mr. Graves.
All that correspondence is before you. Par¬
don me, Mr. Graves' alleged missive of the
5th of April last, is, whether properly or
improperly, omitted. Mr. Graves has, in¬
deed, published it in his paper, but it is not
recorded in the proceedings of this trial. He
says that the letter he published, was that
which I sent back unopened, and that in it
he asked of me a private interview. I will
not say that this letter, published four
months after it is said to have been written
and commented upon so voluminously, is
not the letter really sent. In a former part
of this trial, I tacitly admitted that it might
have been. I must, however, now say that
I did not then, and that I do not now believe
it. No proof exists that this note publish¬
ed, I think, in September, was the same
with that written to me in April, except
Mr. Graves' assertion, and what reliance can
we place, upon the truth of a man convicted
as he now is before you, of uttering so
many known and deliberate falsehoods f I
have strong reasons, indeed, to believe that
it is not the same, since the published letter
is comparatively brief, and the envelope
sent to me was large, full, and its contents
evidently voluminous. If this is not the
note sent me, it must be one afterwards
concocted by J. R. Graves, to suit his pur¬
poses, and foisted upon the public as that
which I declined to receive. Is not this
very much like Mr. Graves, who writes
anonymous notes to himself, that signed
Probus, for example, lauding J. R. Graves,
and defaming other men? Another con¬
sideration. If he wanted a private inter¬
view with me, in compliance with the in¬
junction of Christ, in Matt. 18, why did he
not come to me in person f I was his pas¬
tor. I should have received him as his
pastor. He was not afraid that I, who have
done him so many favors, would not now
speak with him. Mr. Pendleton says that
J. R. Graves is afraid of no living man.
He was then, not afraid of me. Why does
he pretend that he wrote me a letter, when
he was within a few squares of me, asking
a private interview f, The truth of all this
is, to say the least, very questionable. I
will give as my apology for not introducing
this note, the fact that in this trial, I have
presented—I will present before the church
no letter whose authenticity is questionable.
These, brethren, are the reasons why, in
this trial, that alleged letter has not been
laid before you. That they are satisfac¬
tory to you, and will be to others, I do not
doubt.
Still further. If during a revival of relig¬
ion, the public participation of a member
of the church, whether lay or ministerial,
in the exercises, would prove prejudicial to
the meeting, would it not be the duty of
the pastor, privately, to request him to ab¬
stain from such public participation, and es¬
pecially in his absence ? So I thought,
honestly and sincerely. Hence my private
note to Mr. Graves on the 3d of April last.
Of that private note much has been said.
I will repeat here, that to subserve his pur¬
poses of schism and division, he exhibited
it the next day, April 4th, publicly, at
church, to as many as possible of the breth¬
ren and congregation. He, all this while
saying not one word to me about it, sent it
trumpet tongued throughout the land, and
then with falsifications as to its origin,
character, and purposes, he published it in
his newspaper. As to the correspondence
which commenced the 19th of July, and
terminated with so much excitement, on
the 19th of August, that has already been
sufficiently explained. It was the whole of
it, from first to last, collateral and inciden¬
tal, and did not, and could not change the
100
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
character of J. R. Graves' public offences,
long continued, and flagrant, into " a per¬
sonal quarrel [with me] that ought to have
been settled privately," or that possibly
could have been settled privately.
But brother Davidson states an especial
reason why this correspondence did not re¬
ceive his approbation. It demanded that
J. R. Graves should retrace and disavow
his false and injurious imputations against
me, and that he should do this in the same
manner, and as publicly as he had made
them. He says : " For a man to take back
what he has said, is not always the best
mode of settling difficulties among chris¬
tians, and therefore, he thought the demand
should not have been made."
If a man, I answer, be he a christian or
not, shall publish an article in a newspaper,
in which he charges you with hypocrisy,
dishonesty or falsehood, is it enough that
he come to you, and make a private apolo-
gy, refusing mean time, to withdraw publicly
these foul imputations? Could he in that
way, ever do you justice? Could you pos¬
sibly think such a man honorable, or even
sincere? Would men in honorable, social,
or political life, require less? Have not
christians as much honor as other men?
"Why does brother Davidson think that
"this is not always the best mode of set¬
tling difficulties among christians?" The
Savior requires that if one man has injured
another, that the offender shall not only
repent of the wrong, but that he shall also
make ample reparation for the injury. Sup¬
pose that injury is inflicted by public defa¬
mation in a newspaper ? Is a private apol¬
ogy sufficient? Does this amount to the
reparation demanded by the Savior, of every
christian? Paul's opinion on this subject
differed widely from that of brother David¬
son. He and Silas, his companion, were,
by the public authorities of Philippi, un¬
justly apprehended, abused, and cast into
prison. The next morning they had thought
better of the subject, and as Luke tells us,
"The Magistrates sent the sergeants say¬
ing, let these men go. And the keeper of
the prison told this saying to Paul." "But
Paul said," " They have beaten us openly,
uncondemned, being Romans, and have
cast us into prison, and now do they thrust
us out privily ? Nay verily. But let them
come themselves, and fetch us out." And
the Magistrates did come, "and brough
them, out." Brother Davidson does not,
I presume, censure Paul for this high
and honorable conduct. Why, then, when
I pursue a like course, is he " not pre¬
pared to extend his approval ? If Paul's
conduct was christian, mine certain¬
ly was also christian. I respectfully sub¬
mit, whether a close observance of christian
conduct is not always the best mode of set¬
tling difficulties among christians ?" I
honestly believe that it is, and I do not
think that brother Davidson will now dis¬
sent from my opinion.
But brother Davidson has still other rea¬
sons for withholding his approbation to
that correspondence. He tells you that:
"To make a statement, and then take it
back, carries with it a species of degrada¬
tion."
Doubtless J. R. Graves thinks so. He,
therefore, told you the other night, on this
platform, in his .peculiarly classic style, that
he coidd not, or ivould not stvallow his paper."
He has said in that sheet that the members
of this church are a company of graceless
persecutors, without honor, honesty, or
truth. He take that back ! No sir. He
cannot do it. Possibly he might make a
private apology, not to be spoken of beyond
that small circle. But to take itbackyiwS-
licly as he made it; no, sir; this " carries
with it a species of degradation !" And
are these my brother's conceptions of hon¬
or and religion?. I cannot think so. In
his praiseworthy anxiety to save us from
the pain and trouble of amputating this
gangrenous member, which, if retained,
would certianly destroy our ecclesiastical
life, his thoughts have for the moment be¬
come confused. He has, I must believe, now
better conceptions on this important sub¬
ject. Why should we "cry peace, peace,
when there is no peace?" Solomon truly
said, " There is a time for peace, and a time
for war." And never did that wise man
speak more wisely. The church has sought
peacefor years, and its pacific spirit, and
measures, have only encouraged his beliger-
ancy.No alternative is left. It must con¬
sent either to confront the accuser, and
stand upon its defence) or must tamely
surrender the cause of Christ, and submit
to receive at his hands a dishonorable and
unchristian destruction.
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
101
The church could have avoided all this
agitation, and strife, so much deprecat¬
ed by brother Davidson, and by many
others, and the end of which he thinks
none of us will live to see! But upon
what terms ? Had we, as this church has
tdo long done, bowed our necks to the yoke
of Mr. Graves; had we preferred his in¬
terests to the interests of Christ; had we
borne without complaining, his abuse, false¬
hoods, and defamations : had we endorsed
all his immoral and unchristian conduct;
had we obeyed all his behests, and flattered,
and eulogized him, as judging from
the columns of his paper, so many of his
blind sycophants are wont to do; we should
have had no trouble. We should have been
lauded by him as the very paragons of wis¬
dom and piety; and while we continued to
do so, our popularity, so far as bis paper
was concerned, would have been unbound¬
ed. But to have obtained this elevation,
which, after all, would have been the pop¬
ularity of mere slaves, what must have been
our sacrifices ? We must have abandoned
Christ, and religion, and honor, and truth,
and self-respect. God's frown would have
rested upon us, as the pall that covers the
coflin of the dead. We should no longer
have deserved the regard of our brethren.
A mountain of shame would have over¬
whelmed us. And are we prepared for all
this ? J. R. Graves exacted no less. He
believed himself able to force our submis¬
sion. I have reasons for this opinion, to
some of which I will refer. When it was
first intimated that his iniquities, would
probably not much longer be endured, and
the church would perhaps feel itself obliged
to call him to account, we were, as we have
before seen, publicly, and through his col
umns, dared to do so, and threatened,
should we attempt such a thing, with the
most fearful consequences. I speak advis¬
edly, and what some of us know from
our own personal observation to be true,
when I say that papers were prepared in
this city, and sent out to churches and as¬
sociations, and others were procured from
associates at a distance, in a half a dozen
States, and as soon as it was announced,
which Mr. Graves hastened to do, that he
was charged befor the church, these papers
came back, endorsed 'by the bodies to
whom they had been sent for the purpose,
and were published by scores in the Ten¬
nessee Baptist, seconded by inflammatory
editorials. They all denounced us as a set
of persecutors, unscrupulously seeking to
put down Graves because we envied his
greatness and popularity ; and our proceed¬
ings were denounced as unscriptural, cruel,
and iniquitous; and this, too, before his
trial commenced, before any proceedings, had
been instituted, except the bare charge, and
before these churches and associations had
any competent knowledge whatever on the
subject, except that the charge in question
for " immoral and unchristian conduct,"
was preferred against him before the church.
They did not even know who had preferred
this charge. They had been told by the
Tennessee Baptist, that I did it, and that
the most atrocious thing charged was that
Mr Graves had inserted my name in his
Register for this year, without the appended
Doctor of Divinity.
As a specimen of many of them, I will
read one from an Association in another
State. Its style, you will perceive, is pre¬
cisely that of the senior editor of the Ten¬
nessee Baptist. It is as follows, dated Oc¬
tober 12 th :
" Resolved, That we regard the charges
preferred in the First Baptist Church in
Nashville, as reported in the Tennessee
Baptist of September 11th, 1858, against
Elder J. R. Graves, as the last expiring
throes of envy, malice, and the darker pas-
sons of the human heart (which is desper¬
ately wicked) and chagrin, deep mortifica¬
tion, and bitter disappointment of the par¬
ties engaged in this unholy and wicked at¬
tempt to alienate him (Graves) from the
affections of his brethren."
We had the alternative to submit
to Mr. Graves, and have peace, or fol¬
low Christ and his word, and breast
thisstorm. The church chose Christ, and the
storm. I honor it, and our brethren
every where will honor it for this decis¬
ion.
Brother Davidson further tells us that
this process of requiring a man to take
back his statements, is dangerous. He
says that among men of the world, "Such
a demand, if refused, is commonly followed
by a duel."
We have not inquired, brethren, wheth¬
er what we have demanded is dangerous or
102
|TIRAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
not. We only ask whether it is scriptural
and right. We are, I hope, not " men of
the world." Mr. Graves, therefore, fortu¬
nately for him, need not fear "a duel,"
nor bodily harm of any kind, notwithstand¬
ing his several attempts in his newspaper,
to make people believe that he and his al¬
lies are in danger in that respect. He
will, I trust, dismiss all his apprehensions
on that score. " Among men of the world"
the danger indicated may, I grant, ex¬
ist. For less offences than those he has
committed against some of us, many a
man has, upon the ensanguined field,
poured out his life-blood. The evil, how¬
ever, in its origin and turpitude, is cer¬
tainly with him who publishes the false,
and injurious statement. A man should
ponder long before he sends forth in the
columns of a newspaper offensive personali¬
ties. He who makes such publications, be
he editor or not. must expect to be called
to account, and be prepared to meet the
consequences, whatever they may be. If,
under wrong impressions, a man has made
such publication, and finds that he has done
his antagonist an injury, if a gentleman, and
much more, if a christian, he will require
no prompting, but hasten of his own accord
to " take it back." He will do so promptly,
cheerfully, fully. To a true man, it never
occurs that in the withdrawal of such pub¬
lications, there can possibly be any " spe¬
cies of degradation" whatever. Have 1
in any way injured any one, and especially
my brother ? No power on earth shall pro-
vent me from making, as soon as I have
discovered it, a suitable confession of my
error, and full reparation for the injury in¬
flicted. Is that injury public ? I will
make a public confession and reparation.
My own honor demands it. My religion
demands it. Fie who thinks otherwise, has,
in my judgment, fallen into a most serious
error. It is only the upstart, the unprin¬
cipled, and the bully, who can act upon
other grounds than those I have now indi¬
cated. Of such, with glorious old Jacob,
I can truly say :
"0 my soul, come not thou into their secret;
To their assembly mine honor, be not thou united.''
Of course, these considerations are ap¬
plied to the case before us. J. R. Graves
assails, defames, and seeks perseveringly to
degrade me in the estimation of my breth¬
ren. He has the proof that his statements
are all without foundation in truth, and that
they are injurious in the highest degree.
I call upon him to retract and disavow
them. My request only increases his wrath
and the vindictiveness of his assaults. My
friends call upon him. The only effect ig
to turn his blows upon them also. He re¬
fuses every offer, and will withdraw noth¬
ing. His answer is " I cannot sivallowmy
paper." His paper! If it had been swal¬
lowed up in the depths of the sea five years
ago, its destruction would have been a bles¬
sing to our whole country. No such with¬
ering evil as the Tennessee Baptist has
within my knowledge, ever before visited
the Baptist churches, and people of the
South. It has inflamed their passions, en¬
gendered distrust, put them in fierce con¬
flict with each other, substituted sectarian
rancor for the love of Christ, and wherever
it has influence, well nigh driven all spirit¬
uality from the heart.
Brother Davidson, without, however, ad¬
mitting all this, kindly reminds us that
"It is God-like to forgive." I grant it. But
let it be remembered that God does not for¬
give impenitent and persistent offenders. He
forgives those, and those only, who repent
and forsake their sins. If we do the same,
it will still be God-like. As to myself, I
can truly say that personally I cherish no
enmity towards J. R. Graves. I have no
disagreements with him that I am not
ready at any moment to recoucile, should I
find in him a corresponding disposition.
But I again remark that all this is a side
issue, and does not enter into the merits of
the question before us. I refer to them
only because they are anew brought up
by brother Davidson.
Brother Davidson is, however, impressed
with Mr. Graves' protest, and cannot, it
seems, divest his mind of the conviction that
some sort of private action ought to have taken
place before this case was brought before the
church. His feelings on this subject deserve
respect, and I shall treat them respectfully.
Possibly they may be shared by others, if
not here, at least probably elsewhere. To
satisfy him, and them, if any entertain this
opinion, I will again refer to Mr. Graves'
own authority, Rev. Dr. J. S. Baker. Pe¬
riodical Library, Vol. 1, 1847, No. 4, p.
262—273. Dr. Baker says:
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
103
"The rule in Matt. 18,15—17, is limited
to cases of personal differences, and cannot,
therefore, be extended to cases of public
offences, [such as those of Mr. Graves,]
without sanctioning a principle most mani¬
festly erroneous and highly pernicious in its
tendency." " There is neither precept nor
example in the word of God, to justify the
belief that it is our duty, ordinarily, to ad¬
monish a public offender [Mr. Graves for
example,] privately, before he is called to
an account publicly for his conduct."
To satisfy the reader of the correctness
of this assertion, we would direct his at¬
tention to the numerous injunctions given
in the sacred writings in reference to pub¬
lic offences. The following are some of the
many to which we refer :
Romans, xvi, 17—"Now I beseech you,
brethren, mark them which cause divisions
and offences, contrary to the doctrine which
ye have learned; and avoid them."
1 Cor., v, 4, 5—"In the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
together, and my spirit, with the power of
^>ur Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a
one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus."
Verse II—"But now I have written unto
you not to keep company, if any man that
is called a brother, be a fornicator, or cov¬
etous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunk¬
ard, or an extortioner; with such a one,
no, not to eat."
Verse 23—"Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked person."
2 Thess. iii, 6—" Now we command you,
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he received of
us."
Verse 14—" And if any man obey not
our word by this epistle, note that man, and
have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed."
1 Tim.,,v, 20—"Then that sin, rebuke
before all, that others also may fear." See
also Prov. xx., 10—Gal. i, 7, 9, 2 John,
v., 1, 10, &c.
"On these passages of Scripture, we have
but two remarks to offer. 1st. They are
addressed, with but one exception, to the
people of God, or the Church; and, in the
passage excepted, the Apostle gives to the
highest officer in the church a rule, which
is evidently designed not so much for the
regulation of his own conduct, as for the
government of the church over which he
presides. This is apparent from the in¬
structions which precede it, relative to wid¬
ows, unmarried women, elders, &c. 2d.
In these passages there is not the most dis¬
tant allusion to any preliminary steps, re¬
quired to be taken, as in the case of personal
differences,—no direction to go to the of¬
fender, and " tell him his fault between
thee and him alone," and " if he will not
hear thee, take with thee one or two more,"
&c. As it respects the examples of Christ
and his Apostles, they are adverse to the
opinion which we are combating. Christ
publicly charged the Scribes and Pharisees,
and even his own disciples, with their der¬
elictions of duty. But as some may ques¬
tion the propriety of making the acts of an
Omniscient and sinless Savior a precedent
for short sighted and erring mortals, in
matters of this kind, we will refer to the
acts of his disciples, after the administra¬
tion of the affairs of the church was de¬
livered up into their hands.
At an early period, while yet the disci¬
ples held their possessions in common,
Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of a
novel species of fraud, and of a barefaced
falsehood. Peter received intelligence of
the fact. It is not stated whether he re
ceived it by a direct communication from
*the searcher of hearts, or through individ¬
uals who were acquainted with the circum¬
stances of the case, for it was a matter of no'
consequence to us to know by what means he
obtained his information. But as it was of
importance that we should be acquainted
with the course of conduct which, under
such circumstances, Infinite Wisdom would
approve, the particulars of the proceedings
in the case are given in full. Ananias and
Sapphira appeared successively before the
Apostles and those who were assembled
with them. Peter did not take them aside
and expostulate with them on the evil nature
of their sin, and urge them to an acknow¬
ledgment of their guilt, and a profession
of penitence, but interrogated them, re¬
spectively, relative to the transaction in
which they had offended, and publicly
charged them with the guilt of lying unto
104
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
the Holy Ghost. God set the seal of Ms
approbation upon the course pursued by
Peter, by visiting them with a most awful
and speedy judgment.
It should be borne in remembrance, that
the infliction of the punishment, in this
case was not the act of the apostle, but the
immediate act of God. See Acts v., 1, 11.
On a subsequent occasion, Peter himself,
it appears, was guilty of pursuing a course,
which did not well comport with his chris¬
tian vocation. For this the Apostle Paul
passed his censures upon him, not in a
private interview, but in the presence of an
assembly of the disciples—" before them,
all."—Gal. ii., 11, 14. Moreover, the pro¬
ceedings in this case were recorded, sent
abroad, and read to the churches. While
empires have risen and fallen, that record
has been preserved by the kind Providence
of God, and is still read to the churches
for their edification. We do not learn that
Peter, after the manner of some offenders
of our day objected to the course pur¬
sued by Paul in order to screen himself
from censure. Nor does it appear that he
manifested at the time, or subsequently, any
hostile feelings towards him who had thus
publicly accused him of conduct inconsist¬
ent with his christian character. So far
from this, when he had occasion to mention
Paul in one of his epistles, he speaks of
him as " our beloved brother Paul."—2 Pet¬
er, iii, 15.
Enough has been said, we conceive, to
evince that the precepts of the gospel and
the examples of the apostles, so far from
teaching that it is our duty invariably to
admonish a public offender privately, before
toe arraign him publicly, sanction a course of
conduct directly the opposite of this.
But we have heard it objected, that the
apostles acted under the immediate and
special influences of the Holy Spirit, and
therefore, their examples axe not safe pre¬
cedents for us. In reply to this objection,
we have several things to say : 1st. An of¬
fender will seldom want for a plausible ob¬
jection to every rule of discipline which is
applicable to his case, even though such be
expressly given in Scripture. 2d. If we
admit what is objected to the examples of
the Apostles, it will by no means follow,
that an opposite course of conduct to theirs
would be correct. 3d. If the simple fact
that the Apostles acted under extraordina¬
ry influences of the Spirit, renders it im¬
proper to follow their example in one in¬
stance, in which it is possible to imitate
them, we see not why it should not render
it equally improper to follow them in any
other of their public acts. 4th. We can¬
not believe that the Holy Spirit would dic¬
tate a course which was repugnant to the
principles of moral rectitude or natural
equity. As these principles are as eternal
and unchangeable in their nature as the
being of God, we cannot conceive that
what was morally right in the days of Pe¬
ter and Paul can be morally wrong now.
5th. The examples of the apostles and prim¬
itive disciples, we are expressly taught in
Scripture to follow. (See 1 Cor. iii, 1—
Phil, iii, 17—1 Thess. i, 7—2 Thess. iii,
9, &c.) This, of itself, should be sufficient
(;o obviate every objection.
As we have answered an objection to the
views which we entertain, we will now pro¬
ceed to state an objection or two to the rule
of those who differ from us in opinion. m
1st. Their rule must necessarily prove
invalid. It can bind no one; for what is
every man's duty is evidently the duty of
no one in particular. When an individual
is guilty of a public offence, the knowledge
of his guilt becomes, as it were, public
property, and every member of the church
suffers equally from his defection. The
duty to go to him, therefore, cannot devolve
upon any one in particular. Moreover, if
you require the public offender to be ad¬
monished privately, before his conduct is
submitted to the church for investigation,
you do virtually extend over him the aegis
of your protection, and insure impunity in
sin to the grossest offenders. The greater
the offence, too, the greater would be the
security of the offender: for who would
ever report to the church the case of the
confirmed drunkard, the notorious gambler,
or the abandoned woman, if he were re¬
quired first to admonish such in private.
2d. We further object to the rule in
question, that if it be observed, it cannot
secure the ends which we should have in
view. The rule is based upon the mistaken
notion [entertained as we have seen by Mr.
Graves] that the reformation of the individ¬
ual is the principle thing that renders action
necessary. But interests have been affected
TRIAL OF REY J. R. GRAVES.
105
infinitely superior to the individual interests
of the offender. His misconduct has brought
reproach upon the cause of Christ, and
serVed to fortify the ungodly in their unbe¬
lief, and confirm them in all their hard
speeches and ungodly deeds. He has fixed
a stain upon the christian name, which all
his tears of penitence can never wash
away; and he has rolled a stone against the
sinner's heart which no subsequent exer¬
tion of his power can ever remove. If
there is not an action of the church on his
case, her neglect will fix, indelibly, a stain
on her own character. So long as she holds
in fellowship the offender, she must and
will be considered as holding fellowship
with his deeds of darkness. The prominent
objects which should be kept in view in
dealing with public offenders, should be the
■preserving untarnished the honor of the cause
of Christ, and the good name of the church.
But these objects could not be advanced
by requiring the offender to he admonished
privately, before he is brought to the bar of the
church. Should he repent and make ac¬
knowledgments in private, this could not
supersede the necessity of an action of the
church; as nothing but an action of the
church could evince to the world, that she
had no fellowship for his unchristian acts.
The argument cui bono, must be allowed,
therefore, to have its full force here."
Thus is it clearly seen that there is no
authority in Scripture for requiring public
offenders, such as Mr. Graves, to be admon¬
ished privately, before their cases are sub¬
mitted to the action of the church; and
that both scripture and reason forbid the
incorporation of any such rule into the gov¬
ernment of the church. Therefore, the
proceedings of this church up to this hour,
have been scriptural, regular and proper.
These conclusions, it seems to me, no well
instructed Baptist can call in question.
I regret also, to hear some other declara¬
tions of the Tennessee Baptist, reiterated
by brother Davidson. He thinks that the
specifications are trivial!
I am sure he has not considered them,
or if he has, that he is infected with the
strange notion which apparently obtains so
widely in this quarter, that acts and pub¬
lications which, by any one else, would be
denounced as insufferable, are, when per¬
petrated by an editor, the merest trifle !
Are editors, and especially professedly re¬
ligious editors, not amenable to the laws of
truth and honor that govern other men? The
same rule must govern us all. This, all must
admit. Is it, I ask, a trivial offence to fo¬
ment discord among brethren ? Is it a triv¬
ial offence to divide the church, and set its
parts at war with each other ? Is it a triv¬
ial offence for a man to utter and publish
against his pastor, numerous foul and atro¬
cious libels ? Is it a trivial offence for a
man to slander and defame his brethren
throughout the country ? Is it a trivial
offence for a man, with malicious intent,
to utter and publish numerous known and
deliberate falsehoods ? Of all these this
church has, after careful and prayerful de¬
liberation, and upon ample and unques¬
tionable testimony, pronounced Mr. Graves
guilty.^
David, it seems, had enemies like ours,
of whom he speaks thus: "Lo, they lie
in wait for my soul. The mighty are gath¬
ered against me. Not for my transgres¬
sions, nor for my sins." " They run and
prepare themselves without my fault."
"Behold, they belch outwith their mouth.
Swords are in their lips." And .against
them, he thus uttered his prayer: " For
the sin of their mouth, and the words of
their lips, let them even be taken in their
pride; and for cursing, and lying which
they speak." These are precisely Mr.
Graves' offences, and David, inspired by
the Spirit, spoke of them as crimes of the
deepest dye. Are they trivial in Mr.
Graves? If these are trivial, then no
crimes can ever be important. Such a
thing as " grossly immoral and unchristian
conduct" cannot exist! An editor cannot
sin ! But brother Davidson now begins to
see more clearly than he has seen hereto¬
fore. This phenomenon is readily account¬
ed for. At first, and up to the night when
he completed his schism, he sympathized,
he tells you, with Mr. Graves. His eyes
were then opened. Graves went too far.
He could not follow him. He sympathiz¬
es with him no longer, and yet he has not
been able to escape from quite all the er¬
roneous notions that he had so firmly em¬
bedded in his mind. Brother Davidson is
now with the church. So are a half a doz¬
en other brethren, as I happen to know, of
the forty-one, claimed by the schismatics.
106
TRIAL Off REV.
J. R. GRAVES
Their example, in this respect, will, I
trust, be followed by all the remainder who
really love our Lord Jesus Christ.
Regret has been in various quarters ex¬
pressed, that an able and impartial counc.il
was not called to assist the church in this
important trial.
The original design was to call such a
council, but it will be remembered that Mr.
Graves' special friends earnestly opposed giv¬
ing any such direction to the case. Mr. Marks,
the brother-in-law of Graves, assured us that
Graves intended to contest the case before the
church; and Mr. Rutland, Mr. Creighton,
and Mr. Dayton made speeches to show
that for committees, and all similar appli¬
ances, there is no scripture authority what¬
ever. All thoge who are now the Graves
faction, and who have published that they
are about now to call a council of their
Own, to try Mr. Graves, then insisted that
councils, committees, and all like forms,
are wholly opposed to scriptural polity, and
that every case must be tried by the church,
and by the church alone. Disposed to ex¬
tend lenity as far as possible, and to
comply if possible with their wishes, the
brethren acceded to their desires, and the
case was brought at once before the church.
All this is well known to the church. If
the church has erred in trying J. R. Graves
without the assistance of a council, it is be¬
cause he, and his partisans, demanded that
it should do so, and it kindly consented to
defer to their requirements.
In regard to councils abstractly consid¬
ered, pardon a few words.
Some one has recently said, and entirely to
my purpose, that, "As helps in the disposi¬
tion of complicated and difficult questions,
they may be made very useful; while at
the same time it is evidently quite possible
for them to usurp authority, or otherwise
abuse their privilege, so as to become a
mischief rather than a help." "One thing
must be regarded as a settled truth, from
which no considerations whatever shall
tempt us to depart. This is that all ques¬
tions of discipline, and management, in
the affairs of any church, are for the
church, and the church alone to determine.
The only modification of this that can be
admitted, is that sometimes churches may
consent between themselves, or parties i
within the same church, to refer some;
matter of disagreement to a council, just
in the same way as individuals sometimes
submit their differences to an arbitration.
It is in this case understood that the
churches respectively, in consenting to such
a reference, agree to abide the award.
This, however, is, or ought to be, an ex¬
ceptional case, and should occur only in
those instances where every other expe¬
dient fails. It must be kept in mind be¬
sides, that the council while acting in this
capacity, has no original right of decision.
All its powers it derives from the fact of
the churches, calling it, and is no more a
tribunal than is any other board of arbi¬
trators whatever. It is the more necessary
to guard this point, as it is so easy for the
actual truth here to be lost sight of, and
councils come to be regarded [as Associa¬
tions already are, in this part of the coun¬
try] as a sort of tribunal outside of the
churches, [and above them,] possessed of
original jurisdiction."
The scriptures know nothing of any
such bodies. The only organizations re¬
cognized in the divine word, are churches.
Each church is an independent body, ac¬
knowledging no sovereign but Christ, the
head of all the churches. Through the
connection of all the churches with Christ,
the common head and sovereign, a bond of
union arises which connects them with
each other. Each is as independent of the
other, as if no other existed. Their union
with each other is indirect, and dependant
upon their union with Christ; nor evident¬
ly, does it admit of any legislation what¬
ever. Even the churches themselves, in¬
dividually, have no original sovereignty.
All the power they possess, is given them
by Christ, their head. All the authority
therefore, possessed by each church, is a
delegated authority. It extends only to
its own members. It is a characteristic of
delegated authority, that it cannot be re-
delegated by the party receiving it. Each
church has received from Christ, sovereign
power for its own government. That sov¬
ereignty is therefore inalienable. No
church, nor combination of churches, can
confer it upon anothor. Therefore, no
church has the power to convey to another
body an authority equal to its own. Christ
has given it no right to do so. It is absurd
to suppose that it can do so. A church is
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
107
a representation of Christ. No representa¬
tive can create another representative.
This belongs to the original appointing
power. Certain powers are granted by
Christ to the churches individually, to be
exercised by themselves. Do they under¬
take to create a second organization, with
powers equal to tlieir own? This is plainly
au assumption of original sovereignty. It
is an infraction of the sovereignty of Christ.
No church therefore can confer on an asso¬
ciation, or a council, or any other such
body, a right to govern it, or to interfere
with or revise its proceedings. No com¬
bination of churches can do this. Asso¬
ciations, councils, and other similar bodies,
are consequently necessarily inferior to the
churches. The churches cannot make them
their equal. When they essay to do so
they usurp the authority of Christ; and
when these bodies attempt to exercise judi¬
cial legislative, or other govermental au¬
thority, they also usurp the power of Christ.
Roth sin against God, and necessarily bring
upon themselves misery, shame, and suffer¬
ing. It is plain therefore that a council
can have no original jurisdiction, nor can
it decide for a church, even should that
church earnestly desire it, any matter of
discipline whatever. The church must it¬
self speak, or no authoritative decision is
ever pronounced. And when au individual
church does speak, her sentence is final.
From that sentence there is no appeal.
If we look into the past we shall be ad¬
monished to carefulness on this subject.
"Every reader of history knows during
how many ages the Popes and General Coun¬
cils contended with each other for the su¬
preme ecclesiastical authority. It seemed
to have been conceded that the churches
must acknowledge a master, and the simple
question was which of these two should be
the master. These councils lorded it over
the consciences of men. It was the coun¬
cil of Constance that condemned John
Huss to the stake. And all this outrageous
usurpation arose out of an original use of
councils, such as that which Baptists now
practice. We do not mean to say that we
are in danger of a renewal very soon of
this extreme form of ecclesiastical despot¬
ism; but to show that the natural tendency
is, unless proper guards are thrown around
them, to lodge with councils a power which I
not only does not belong to them, but which
is also dangerous to purity of discipline, and
to the freedom of our churches. We would
have the churches properly value that high
prerogative which they received from the
Master, when he said : "Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea¬
ven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth, shall be loosed in heaven." So long-
as they act with his authority, and in strict
conformity to his law, the churches have a
right to expect that what they do in this
capacity, will thus be sanctioned, and con¬
firmed by him."
I admit that councils, as sometimes used
among us, may be very useful, but I can¬
not help feeling that there is too much
readiness to resort to them, and that there
.is a growing tendency to disrespect the ac¬
tion of churches, in important cases of
discipline, which are decided without their
assistance. Will they not soon come to be
considered as essential to church govern¬
ment? Are we not verging towards a
Presbyterian polity, and disposed to give,
contrary to scripture, a right to councils
and associations, to revise our proceedings,
and even, if they see proper, to reverse
them ? Power is apt to steal insensibly
from the many to the few, and how long
will it be ere the churches will have given
up their sovereignty, have lost their inde¬
pendence, and we be found in the same
race towards ecclesiastical despotism, with
other great| and popular denominations.
At present this danger threatens to come,
and quite naturally, from that very quarter
in our ranks, which is the most vociferous
in its denunciation of the power, and ty¬
ranny, alleged to be exercised in the gov¬
ernment of other denominations. With
these men, power, it would seem, is only
deprecated when it is against them„and
church sovereignty only maintained when
it can be made to subserve their purpose.
Power in their own hands, legal or illegal,
is exercised and defended to the last ex¬
tremity.
Against all ex parte councils I must here
raise unequivocally my warning voice.
When both parties in a contest can agree
upon a council as a board of referees,
advisory simply, good results may arise.
The church meditated such a council in
the commencement of this trial. Mr.
10S
Graves' party refused it. You would not
have an ex parte council; therefore, you
could have no council at all. Mr. Graves
now calls a council ex parte. He would
not admit of a disinterested council. What
is now the object of his council ex parte?
What can it be but to whitewash him and
his schism, by their pretended endorse¬
ment; which, if it assembles, it will do un¬
doubtedly. Ominous voices have come to
us lately, on this subject, from Kentucky,
ATew York, and other quarters. Ex parte
councils can never command my respect.
Seldom do they ever meet, that they do
not perpetrate irreparable mischief. To
avoid them our churches must appreciate
their own high prerogative, "It must be
their study to make the provisions within
themselves answer all the purposes of eccle¬
siastical discipline, and the established re¬
lations between churches, must suffice to
keep them in harmony with each other.
The laiv of Christ, and the spirit of Christ,
are the two grand provisions made. If we
have these fully, the occasions for councils
and for all exterior helps to good discipline
and mutual peace, will pass away forever."
Brother Davidson regrets, as he tells us,
the action of the church, because Mr.
Graves has many friends, and that they
ivill treat your decision voith contempt.
That Mr. Graves has many friends, who
sustain him for peculiar reasons, and that
they will for the present at least, treat your
decision with contempt, there can he no
doubt. They have already treated you with
contempt before you have reached any de¬
cision. You can, however, having the ap¬
proval of Christ, afford to bear their con¬
tempt. "If God be for us, who can be
against us ?" The fear of their contempt,
is no good reason why the church should
not* act, provided her action is scriptural,
deliberate, prayerful, just. But the decree
has gone out from this metropolis, that it shall
be so, and we know full well, that any de¬
cision you might reach will he "treated with
contempt" for a season. We saw the other
day at Lebanon, a specimen of what we
are to expect in this quarter, enacted under
the name of the General Association. In
that place a large number of good, but de¬
ceived men, were brought together, drilled
for the purpose, and were induced to out¬
rage the constitution of that body, set at
naught the word of God, and trample rea¬
son and brotherly love under their feet, in
order to heap indignity upon this church.
T,hat merely missionary body constituted
itself into a Iligh Court of Appeals, sat in
judgment upon the decision of this church
before it was made, and allowing it no hear¬
ing in the case, pronounced authoritatively,
its condemnation. Thus a mere missionary
organization conducts it self towards a sov¬
ereign church, in no way amenable to it.
Such a scene of passion, violence, and in¬
justice, as was there enacted, I never be¬
fore beheld, I hope never again to witness.
It has never been equalled by any party
political gathering of which I have any
knowledge. I there heard myself, and this
church, denounced as no Baptists at all, a
set of factionists, and unworthy to be re¬
cognized as christians.
But truth cannot always be suppressed.
Men cannot always remain furiously mad.
The "sober second thought" must come.
Then if our brethren are indeed christians;
if the love of God, and of their brethren,
is in their hearts, they must, they will
hear the voice of reason and religion.
When all the facts are before them, then
they will see, and confess, that this church
has been guided strictly, throughout this
whole trial, by "the law of Christ, and the
spirit of Christ." Then their present
"contempt" will be turned into admiration
of the firmness of this church, of its pa¬
tience, and the unshrinking purpose with
which it has sought to discharge a paiuful,
and most difficult duty; maintaining un-
desecrated scriptural discipline, undeterred
from calm and deliberate action by the fiery
assaults of thousands of adversaries. To the
present case peculiar circumstances have
elicited the attention of the whole country.
The eyes of all our brethren are upon us.
Should the church withdraw its fellowship
from Mr. Graves, I believe that they will
respect its decision; whether they will,
however, remains to be seen. If they do,
Mr. Graves must either go down finally, or
else he must repent of his sins, forsake
them, and seek restoration to the church.
If they do not respect its decision, what
then ? Undoubtedly our cherished, and
scriptural principles of church sovereignty
under Christ is at an end ; Baptist Church
Government is a failure; and wickedness
TRIAL OF REY. J. R. GRAVES.
109
in high places, must not only go unrebuk-
ed, but be upheld, cherished, and defended,
by our own brethren. Which of these re¬
sults is to arise time will soon show. One
or the other is inevitable. This case will
test the polity of our churches. It will
either destroy, or establish it. Let our
brethren, as brother Davidson says they
will, "treat your decision with contempt
let J. R. Graves be received, and counten¬
anced by them, as he was before this trial,
and accepted as if uncensured; or if ex¬
pelled, as still in fellowship as a member,
and a minister; and who then, among our¬
selves, or others, will feel the least respect
for Baptist church government? Who
will dare to defend its practical efficiency ?
They will pull down upon their own heads
this glorious temple, erected by the Savior,
and like another Samson, bury themselves
in its ruins. But i no, I cannot believe
it. Our brethren will, they must respect
the decision of a church. But these are
not questions that so directly concern us.
For what our brethren may do, or not do,
elsewhere, we are not responsible. I have
not inquired, the church has not inquired,
whether its decisions will be approved by
many or few, of our brethren, or others,
here or elsewhere. Our object is not to
please men, but to do the will of God. Is
it not still as true as it was in apostolic
times, that, "If we yet pleased men, we
should not be the servants of Christ" ?
Are our decisions thus far, scriptural, and
just to all parties ? Have we reached our
conclusions calmly, by impartial investiga¬
tion, seeking humbly, prayerfully, the di¬
vine direction ? These are the proper in¬
quiries for us, and not whether what we do
will meet human approval. We are not
indifferent to the good opinion of oui
brethren. We ardently desire their love,
and approbation. But if we are compelled
to choose whether we will please our breth¬
ren or please Christ, we cannot hesitate.
Our brethren are dear to us, but Christ is
infinitely more dear. We will please and
honor our brethren if we can. At what¬
ever hazard we will please and honor
Christ.
The motion before you is that J. R.
Graves, for grossly immoral and unchris¬
tian conduct, of which you have found him
guilty in five distinct cases, be now expelled
from the fellowship of this church. If he
be expelled, this act of course cancels his
authority to preach, and administer the
ordinances of the gospel. His authority
as a minister, goes necessarily with his
membership. Being no longer a member,
he is of course no longer a minister of this,
or of any other church. Brother Davidson
has not told us whether he thinks Mr.
Graves ought to be expelled or not, or
whether he shall vote for his excommunica¬
tion or against it. Whatever may be his
opinion of the specifications under the
charge regularly before you, I am very con¬
fident that he thinks his expulsion Remand¬
ed by offences committed since. Brother
Davidson was present, and heard J. R.
Graves denounce us to your face, as a dis¬
orderly faction; as incompetent to sit in
judgment upon his case; as indeed, no
Church of Christ at all; and that he should
resort to another tribunal, an ex parte
council, with his own followers, to pro¬
nounce judgment upon him, and upon us.
He saw him take down the names of the
forty-one who voted to remand the case, of
which Brother Davidson was himself one,
and heard him call upon them to declare
themselves the First Baptist Church, and
with which about twenty of them com¬
plied, pronouncing themselves the Church,
and us no Church at all. This is the
party that the General Association received
as the First Churcl; in this city, and made
Mr. Graves its presiding officer, when it
usurped the power to expel us from that
body. All this Mr. Graves has said, and
done, or procured to be said and done, be¬
yond the things specified in the charge for
which he was arraigned before you. Can
it be that brother Davidson still thinks that
this church can do its duty, and not pro¬
nounce the sentence of excommunication
upon J. R. Graves? Has this church any
fellowship for him? Are not all the ties
that bound him to us, of confidence, and
love, already broken? In all except the
formal ecclesiastical act, he is even now ex¬
communicated. In pronouncing the sen¬
tence proposed in the pending motion, the
church does but publicly declare this previ¬
ously existing state of the fact, and make them
official. The word of God makes our duty
imperative. Speaking of such men as J.
R. Graves, Christ says : "Let him be unto
110
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
thee as a heathen man, and a publican."
And Paul says : "Now we command you
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother that-walketh disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he received of
us." "Put away from among yourselves
that wicked person." The duty is a pain¬
ful one, but we cannot avoid it. I close
with a memorable apostolic admonition:
"Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind
striving together for the faith of the gos¬
pel; and in nothing terrified by your ad¬
versaries; which is to them an evident
token of perdition, but to you of salvation,
and that of God. For unto you it is given
in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe
on him, but also to suffer for his sake."
"Let no man deceive you with vain words,
for because of these things cometh the
Wrath of God upon the children of disobe-
bedience. Be not ye therefore partakers
with them. For ye were sometime dark¬
ness, but now are ye light in the Lord.
Walk as children of light, proving what is
acceptable unto the Lord, and [having] no
felloAVship with the works of darkness."
The Moderator inquired if any other
brother desired to offer any remarks; if
not, he should proceed te put the question.
No one responded.
The Moderator : The questipn before
the Church is, Shall the Rev. J. R. Graves,
upon the charge now before you, he expelled
from the fellowship of the Church f Those
who believe that the Rev. J. R. Graves
should be now expelled from the fellowship
of the Church, will rise.
Upon a count, it was ascertained that
seventy-eight were found standing.
The Moderanor : Those who believe that
the Rev. J. R. Graves should not be expel¬
led from the fellowship of the Church, will
rise.
None rose.
The Moderator: The Rev. J. R. Graves
is unanimously expelled from the
fellowship of the flrst baptist
Church in Nashville.
Dr. Howell wished to make a suggestion.
Brethren from all parts of the country
were calling for information in regard to
this trial. Letters had been received ask¬
ing why the Church had not been heard,
and it was evidently necessary that the pro¬
ceedings of this trial should be published.
He, therefore, moved that the proceedings
be certified by the Reporter and the Clerk,
and published, that all may see what has
been said and done; and that brethren S.
M. Scott, W. F. Bang and A. Nelson be1
appointed a committee to superintend the
publication of the same in the Baptist
Standard, and that they have a sufficient
number of copies printed in'pamphlet form
to meet any demand that may exist for
information in regard to the trial.
The Moderator inquired whether the re¬
monstrance from the Baptist Church at
Murfreesboro, and that from Elder J. M.
Pendleton, should appear with the pro¬
ceedings.
Mr. Fuller explained that the matters to
which they referred had no immediate con¬
nection with this trial.
The motion of Dr. Howell was then con¬
curred in.
Mr. Fuller suggested that as the proceed¬
ings of the trial were very volumnious, the
editor of the "Baptist Standard" be author¬
ized to publish such portions in his paper
as he might deem proper.
Mr. Woolfolk, the Editor of the "Baptist
Standard" thought it best that the entire
proceedings should be published in the
paper, and it was so ordered.
Mr. Fuller said that the response from
the Baptist Church at Murfreesboro, as
well as that from Elder J. M. Pendleton,
which had been received and laid upon the
table, ought to be taken up and acted upon.
He, therefore, moved that' when this meet¬
ing shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet Mon¬
day night next, for the purpose of consid¬
ering these responses, and any other matter
that may be brought before the meeting.
TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
Ill
The motion was concurred in.
Dr. Howell said it had been reported
that a number of letters had been received
protesting against this trial. He had re¬
ceived none himself, and he desired to in¬
quire of the Clerk whether he had received
any such letters from Associations, Church¬
es or individuals.
The Clerk stated that he had received
only two such letters, one from an Associ¬
ation and one from a Church.
Mr. Fuller submitted a motion that a
committee of three be appointed, whose
duty it shall be to prepare a reply to the
letters from the Association and Church
mentioned by the Clerk, and also to pre¬
pare and report business for the action of
the meeting on Monday night.
The motion was concurred in, and
The Moderator appointed Messrs. C. A.
Fuller, W. P. Jones and A. Nelson said
committee.
The meeting then adjourned with pray¬
er by Mr. "Woolfolk.
The foregoing is a correct copy of the .Report of the proceedings of the
trial of Elder J. R. Graves, by the First Baptist Church, of Nashville, as
furnished by me.
JNO. MILLER McKEE, Reporter.
As Clerk of the First Baptist Church, I hereby certify to the correctness
of the foregoing Report.
S. M. SCOTT.
SYNOPSIS
OF THE
TRIAL OF J. R. GRAVES.
From, the Baptist Standard.
THE TRIAL.
In the last number of the Standard, the
final proceedings in the trial of J. It.
Graves were given. A concise resume of the
facts in the case may be expected from us.
Let us first take a brief review of the
position of Mr. Graves before the church.
On the first night of the trial he protested
against the right of the church to try him,
on the ground that he was not guilty of'
■public hffences, but personal. The Indict¬
ment bi ought by brethren before the church
charged, him with public offences, " grossly
immoral and unchristian conduct," and
this in five counts, each of which, if true,
constitutes a public offence. But Mr.
Graves maintains, that though charged with
grossly immoral and unchristian conduct,
he is guilty of personal offences only, and
that consequently, the church had no right
to try him. Now, when a church member is
charged with immoral conduct, it is evi¬
dent that the church has a right to try
him, even though entirely innocent. Her
"duty to Christ requires her to investigate
the facts, that it may be discovered wheth¬
er this injury to the cause of religion has
been perpetrated : her duty to the accused
demands that she investigate the charge,
and vindicate him if innocent. The church,
in such a case, has a duty similar to that
of the courts of our country. When a
man is charged before a court as guilty of
conduct punishable by our laws, he may
assert his innocence; and it is the glory of
English laws, that the accused must jhave
a fair trial before he can be pronounced
guilty. But it would be an unheard of in¬
novation, if every man charged with crime,
could plead his INNOCENCE as a BAR to
trial. If this could be established as pre¬
cedent, no criminal could be convicted:
all would plead not guilty, and demand to
be turned loose from the bar, " unwhipped
of justice," to renew their depreda¬
tions on society. The accused has a right
to demand a trial; he may produce all the
testimony he can command; he may meet
and rebut the evidence brought against
him; but he cannot refuse to be tried.
There is one exception only to this rule.
Where an offender is charged before one
court with an offence which belongs pro¬
perly to the jurisdiction of another, he
may plead to the indictment, and deny the
114
TRIAL OF KEY. J. R. GRAVES.
right of the court to try him for an offence
of which it has no jurisdiction. But the
case of Mr. Graves does not come under
this exception. He was charged with of¬
fences of which the chureh, jure divino,
has jurisdiction. If he denies the right of
the church to take jurisdiction of public
offences, he opposes at once the practice
and teachings of the New Testament. If
he denies that he is charged with public
offences, he flies in the face of the indict¬
ment, which charges " grossly immoral and
unchristian conduct." If he maintains that
though charged with public offences, yet
his offences are private only, he is at once
met by the universal rule of justice, which
binds a man pleading not guilty, to go into
trial, that his innocence maybe established,
by rebutting the charge brought against
him. This it was the duty of Mr. Graves
to have done. Why he did not, we can¬
not conceive. He evidently had not taken
the bearings of his position, or he would
have been able, since, to defend it with
greater ability. He would have been
able to bring forward at least some argu¬
ment to sustain it; and his inability to ad¬
duce a single one in the columns of his pa¬
per, is proof that he mis-calculated the
strength of his position. If he had gone
into trial, made a defence, and, if excluded,
had he then obtained admission into anoth¬
er church, his position would not have
been entirely defenceless: many of our
brethren believe, though as we think incor¬
rectly, that one church has a right to re¬
ceive a member excluded from another
church, when she thinks the action unjust.
Had Mr. Graves acted in this manner, he
would have been sustained by a principle
held by many Baptists; and then the issues
would have been made on the question of
his guilt or innocence. The church would
then have been compelled to defend her
course, by proving that Mr. Graves was
guilty, and that his exclusion consequently
was just and right. But in the present
attitude of Mr. Graves, this question does
not properly arise. He denied the right
of the church to try him: his partizans
sustained him in his denial: hence the only
question now before the churches for their
decision, is whethera church has a right to
investigate a charge of immoral conduct
brought against one of its members. On
this question there can be no doubt.
Baptist Churches have ever held that
this right is unquestionable. We have
never known a previous instance in which
it has been doubted.
Mr. Graves' own witnesses sustain
tiie action of the church in proceed¬
ing with the trial.
Mr. Graves made great efforts to obtain
authority by which to sustain the course he
adopted. He wrote a letter to Rev. Dr.
Jeter, of Virginia, and claimed that his
reply was an endorsement of his course.
But Dr. Jeter, with all the facts before him,
has expressed his conviction that the church
acted scripturally, in deciding to proceed
with the trial. He says :
The case, as I understand it, is this: Sev¬
eral members of the First Baptist Church,
brought against Elder J. R. Graves, the
charge of gross immorality. The specifi¬
cations in support of the charge were of¬
fences against individuals, but these offen¬
ces were publicly committed, and were, in
part, designed, as it was alleged, to " dis¬
tract and divide the church." I think the
church acted scripturally in entertaining the
charge. The offences charged were of a
mixed character, partly personal and partly
public—and the church could not decide pre¬
viously to investigation whether any of them
belonged to the class referred to in Matthew
18. The right of the church to investigate
the charge seem clear. The investigation
was due to Elder G. He was a minister
in the chureh, had been solemnly charged
with immorality, and a full examination of
the charge was demanded for his vindica¬
tion, if he was innocent. The trial was
TRIAL OP REV. J. R. GRAVES.
115
due to the accusers. They had brought a
charge, which if false, would recoil against
themselves. The examination was due to
the church herself. If the accused mem¬
ber was innocent, she was bound to defend
him; if guilty, to reform or expel him.
This course is, so far as I am informed, ac¬
cording to Baptist usage. It is also scrip¬
tural. " Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions and of¬
fences contrary to the doctrine which ye
have learned; and avoid them." Of this
very offence, and almost in the precise lan¬
guage, was Elder G. charged. If an indi¬
vidual guilty of this offence is to be mark¬
ed and avoided, he surely should have a
fair trial.
Rev. W. C. Buck was also written to by
Mr. Graves. The principle laid down in
his reply fully sustains the action of the
Church. Speaking of public offences—
such as violate divine precept, he says:
"All that is necessary in such cases in or¬
der to church action, is adequate proof of
the action by the accused party; for if the
action is proved upon him, his guilt is de¬
termined by the unerring divine precept.
The act is sin, because it is transgression
of a divine law, and if the proof of the
party's guilt is sufficient to establish the
fact upon him, he may be arraigned before
the church without attending to the forms
laid down in the 18th of Matthew."
The principle is here laid down, that in
cases of public offences, the accused member
may be arraigned immediately before the
church. But no man can be condemned as
guilty before a trial. The church cannot know
before a trial whether " the proof is suffi¬
cient to establish the fact upon him." This
is the object of a trial. The church can¬
not know before investigation, any thing*
of the conduct of a member. Who is to
judge whether the conduct is such as to
require that it should come immediately
before the church ? It cannot be the
church, for this would require the church to
pre-judge the case before trial. We can
place no interpretation of Bro. Buck's lan¬
guage, which does not result in absurdity,
except by supposing him to place the pow¬
er of judging of the course proper to be
pursued, in the members who are cog¬
nizant of the offender's conduct. If a
church member sees a brother engaging
in conduct which he deems a public
offence, it is his right, his duty to re¬
port it to the church. Thi is what we
understand Bro. Buck to teach; and this
is what brethren did in the case of J.
R. Graves. They had seen him for
years assailing brethren, and railing, with
opprobrious epithets upon every brother
whom he supposed to stand in his way;
they had witnessed his slanders and revil-
ings, and had borne with them : they now
beheld him attempting, without cause, to
ruin their pastor, whose usefulness was the
property of the church, and whose influ¬
ence tended to the advancement of the
cause of truth : they beheld him endeav¬
oring to accomplish his ruin by libel and
reviling, unfounded, and unmerited; to ac¬
complish this end, they beheld him sowing
strife between him and an influential min¬
ister in the church ; they beheld him evem
attempting to distract the church itself, in
order to effect his purpose. They deemed
this, and properly, conduct constituting a.
public sin; they thought the exhibition of
such passions and feelings dishonoring to>
the religion of Jesus; they knew it was
contrary to the precepts of Him whose re¬
ligion is love ; they believed that the time
for forbearance was past: they charged;
him before the church with his immoral;
and unchristian conduct. How should the'
church have acted ? She could know noth¬
ing of the matter without inquiry; she had!
no right to institute such inquiry except im
the presence of the accused; her only
course was to summon him before her, and;
proceed to investigate the charge. This,
in cases of public offence, brother Buck
says was her duty. The church could know"
116
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
nothing of the character of the offence
without investigation • she could only take
cognizance of the charge. The charge
specified immoral and unchristian conduct:
it was the duty of the church to investigate
the charge.
Mr. Graves also wrote to Rev. Dr. Ba¬
ker for his opinion, who in reply sent an ex
tract from the Periodical Library, in which,
he had, some years ago, given his views on
this subject. Mr. Graves claims this extract
alho as an endorsement of his course. But
the views presented by Dr. Baker in that
work sustain the course of the First Church
most fully, and unequivocally condemn the
course of Mr. Graves. He says:
" There is one error prevalent in many
of our churches, which should be corrected.
We allude to the opinion, that a violation of
the rule [18th chapter of Matthew] by the
aggrieved, in bringing an offender before the
church before he has pursued the course pre¬
scribed by the Saviour, relieves the church
from the obligation to deal with the individ¬
ual thus arraigned before them.
"Were the effects of personal difficulties
confined to the parties more immediately
implicated, such an opinion might be main¬
tained with some degree of plausibility; but
it should be remembered, that every offence
.committed by one individual against anoth¬
er, is an offence committed against the whole
body, and against the cause, for the further¬
ance ot which that body was incorporated.
While, therefore, the irregularity in the
course pursued by the persoh aggrieved might
subject him to censure, and preclude from
him the right to complain of the church,
should she neglect to act upon the case, it is
certain, that such neglect could not fail tp^
afford just cause of complaint to others.
On this subject we lay down two distinct
propositions, and request our readers to test
their correctness by the touchstone of
God's word. If they be found correct, let
them, be carried out into the acts of their
respective churches, to the honor of God
and to the good of His cause.
I. A church is bound to take cognizance
of every manifest violation by its members,
of any of the laws of Christ's kingdom,
with which it becomes acquainted, whether
the information of such violation is commu¬
nicated in a regular order or not.
The reasons for this rule are obvious. The
church is required to set the seal of her dis¬
approbation on every transgression of the
law of God. Her obligation to do this is
not made to depend, in the slightest degree
upon the means by which she arrives at a
knowledge of the transgression; for the
character of an offence is not affected, in the
least, by the manner in which it is made
known. The magistrate is as much bound
to have a band of robbers arrested, when
information of their acts of robbery i3 com¬
municated by one of their own number,
who has turned a traitor, as when it is com¬
municated by an honest and orderly citizen.
And so is the church as much bound to no¬
tice offences committed, when she receives
her intelligence through one who is an of¬
fender, as when she receives it through the
most harmless and exemplary of her mem¬
bers. So long as she is ignorant of the of¬
fences committed by her members, she is not
chargeable with them; but the moment she
is made acquainted with them, if she fails to
adopt measures for calling the offenders to
account, and for preventing the recurrence
of like offences in future, she virtually sanc¬
tions those offences, bids the offenders God
speed, becomes a partaker of their evil deeds,
and renders herself amenable both to God
and man. [See Ps. 1., 18—1 Tim. v., 22
—2 John xi.]
"A. charges B. with trespasses committed
against himself, before he pursues the course
prescribed by the Saviour. B., in return,
charges A. with a violation of the rule to
which we have referred, and pleads, per¬
haps, that the church has no right to deal
with him, as the case was informally brought
before it. Such a plea is evidently invalid."
"We have frequently known churches to
dismiss cases indefinitely, because there was
some irregularity in the manner in which they
were brought before them. In other in¬
stances, the cases are dismissed until the ac¬
cuser brings his accusation in the prescribed
form. These generally prove, too, final dis¬
missions. If we are right in the views ex¬
pressed in the preceding part of this article,
that church is wrong which pursues either of
these courses. "He that knoweth to do good
and doeth it not, to him it is sin." By a
parity of reasoning, that church which knows
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
117
'of the existence of an evil in it, and neglects
to correct it promptly, must be viewed as
guilty before God.
" When an individual is charged with
criminal conduct, if instead of replying to
the charges brought against HIM, he endeavors
to criminate others, he affords strong presump¬
tive evidence of his own guilt. He acts upon
the same principle with the thief, who when
the officer of justice and the mob are at his
heels, raises the cry, and cries lovdest of all,
"Stop thief! stop thief! " His principle is
to evade justice by diverting attention from
himself to some other individual. To pre¬
vent your plucking the beam out of his own
eye, he would set you to picking at the mote
in his brother's eye."
From this it is seen that even if the of¬
fence of Mr. Graves had been only of a per¬
sonal, instead of a public character, still Dr.
Baker, Mr. Graves' witness, condemns his
course. If the offences of Mr. Graves were
admitted to be personal only, and if Dr.
Howell had himself brought the matter be¬
fore the church, neither of which is true,
still, according to Dr. Baker, the Church
had not only the right, but duty required it
to investigate the case. Yet, Mr. Graves
maintains that Dr. Baker sustains him in
his assertion, that the church, by that act,
unchurched herself. The course of Mr.
Graves is condemned even by the state¬
ments of his own witnesses.
'We may sum up the issue between the
Church and Mr. Graves in syllogistic form
as follows:
I. A church has the right try members
charged with public sins.
II. J. R. Graves was charged before the
church with public sins. Therefore :
The church had a right to try J. R. Graves.
I. A Church has the right to try
members charged with public sins.
Is it necessary to bring forward argu¬
ments to sustain this principle ?
It has never, to our knowledge, been
questioned by Baptists. This right, this
cfruty, follows from the fact that the
church is the conservator of the morals of
its members.
The churches may learn their duty in
this regard, both from the practice and the
teachings of the Apostles.
1. Their Practice.—"Wherever the
conduct of an individual was contrary to the
will of God, we find that the apostles and
early christians invariably rebuked the of¬
fender publicly. Annaniasand Sapphira re¬
ceived the public rebuke of Peter for their
falsehood, and the justice of God at once
visited the offenders with the punish¬
ment of their crime. When, some time af¬
ter, Peter preached the gospel to the Gen¬
tiles, in the persons of Cornelius and his
household, the brethren at Jerusalem,
supposing that he had violated the divine
will, publicly reproved him. The apostle
made no complaint of the manner in which
the reproof was administered, but only de¬
nied its justice. He showed that he had
not violated the will of God, but had acted
in direct obedience to it. Again, when the
conduct of Peter at Antioch was to be
blamed, Paul reproved him in the presence
of them all. His conduct was a cause of
stumbling to the brethren, and the correc¬
tion, to be beneficial, ought necessarily to
be as public as the offence. We learn from
the third epistle of John, that Diotrephes
"prated against" the apostle "with malicious
words." The apostle threatens that, upon
his arrival, he "will remember his deeds;"
strongly intimating that the proper punish¬
ment by exclusion from the church, would
be inflicted. That this is the course indica¬
ted in his threat, becomes evident from the
teachings of the Apostles.
2. Their Teachings.—Paul enjoins the
Romans to avoid those who caused divisions
among them, ''Now I beseech you brethren
mark them which cause divisions and offences,
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learn-
118
TRIAL OF REV.
J. R. GRAVES.
ed; and avoid them." Romans xvi: 17. Thefee
brethren were not to be "avoided" until their
guilt had been established by an impartial
trial. The injunction then, must be inter¬
preted to command a trial of those charged
with such offences, and the avoidance of the
guilty. In the fifth chapter of First Corin¬
thians, the church is commanded " to put
away that wicked person," who had been
guilty of public sin. And among the char¬
acters so to be dealt with, are mentioned the
fornicator, the covetous, the idolator, the
RAILER, the drunkard, and the extor¬
tioner. To the Church at Thessalonica the
command is given: "Now we command
you brethren, that ye withdraw from every
brother that walketh disorderly"—2nd Thes-.,
olonians iii: 6. In giving Timothy direc¬
tions for his conduct in the churches, Paul
imposes the command: "If any man teach
otherwise, and consent not to wholsome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine which is accord¬
ing to godliness; he is proud, knowing noth¬
ing, but doting about questions and strifes
of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, rail¬
ings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of
of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of
the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:
from such withdraw thyself."—First Timo¬
thy vi: 3-5.
These injunctions were not to be obeyed
without a trial of those accused; hence all such
commands are based on the right of the church
to try persons charged with such offences. To
this effect is the injunction of Paul to Tim¬
othy : "Them that sin rebuke before all,
that others also may fear."
These teachings of divine inspiration in
reference to public offenders, abundantly sus¬
tain the principle stated, that a church has a
right to try members charged with public
sins.
This principle of church polity is univer¬
sally held among Baptists ; and, as hasheen
t een, is sustained by brethren Jeter, Baker,
and Buck, as indeed it is by all who have
written on this subject.
II. J. R. Graves was charged before
the Church with public sins.
To sustain this statement we need only
refer to the indictment, which charges J. R.
Graves with "grossly immoral and unchris¬
tian conduct." Hence the conclusion necessa¬
rily follows that THE CHURCH HAD A
RIGHT TO TRY J. R. Graves.
It is established now, that in the issue
made by Mr. Graves, between him and the
church, the course of the church was en¬
tirely scriptural. The principles of jus¬
tice, and the teachings of inspiration alike
sustain its right to proceed with the trial.
The offences of J. R. Graves
warranted his exclusion from the
Church.
We proceed to the investigation of a
point, which it is important that our breth¬
ren abroad should be able to decide properly.
The church proceeded with the trial, and
after a calm hearing of the evidence, pro¬
nounced J. R. Graves guilty of the offences
charged and acting under a sense of duty,
solemnly excluded him from her fellowship.
The right of the church to proceed with the
trial, upon his refusing to appear, is unques¬
tionable. Otherwise every member charg¬
ed with immoral conduct before his church,
might estop its proceedings in his case, by
refusing to appear before it.
To prove the scriptural propriety of the
final decision of the church we submit the
following propositions:
Prop. I. The proof presented be¬
fore the church establishes the guilt
of J. R. Graves in the offences charg¬
ed.
The offence first charged against J. R.
Graves, is having endeavored to force the
Pastor of the First Baptist Church into
collision with A. C. Dayton, with intent to
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
119
bring upon him reproach apd injury, and
to destroy his character and influence in
the SouthWest. Did he endeavor to pro¬
duce the collision ? When we see an indi¬
vidual intermeddling between two neigh¬
bors, and continually telling one that the
other has injured him, and falsely asserting
that he has assailed his character and mo¬
tives, we affirm, unhesitatingly, that he is
seeking to stir up strife between them, and
to set them at variance. So, if Mr. Graves
seeks, by unfounded assertions, to make the
impression that Dr. Howell was endeavor¬
ing to injure Elder Dayton, that he had as¬
sailed his character and conduct, we may be
assured that he desired to stir up strife be¬
tween them. Did he not do this ? It is in
proof that he did this and more. He al¬
leges that Dr. Howell is engaged with oth¬
ers in a systematic attempt to cripple down
^Elder Dayton; he declares that Dr. Howell
attaints Dr. Dayton for malfeasance in office;
that he easts suspicion upon him; that he
is envious of the good which Elder Day¬
ton has done, and of the love and attention
which he enjoys, and desires to make him
pay the penalty of his superiority and use¬
fulness; he repeats that Dr. Howell casts a
most unkind and cruel SUSPICION upon
Bro. Dayton; that he (Howell) knew it [his
letter] would wound his feelings, and de¬
signedly sought to wound him, and to mar
his peace; that he knew it would, and con¬
sequently intended to excite SUSPICION
against him; that he knew of ,a paragraph
which had been penned by a member of the
Bible Board, and he, the President of the
vBoard reproduced it to wound and east sus¬
picion on Elder Dayton. This unfounded
tirade of reiterations could tend to but one
end, viz : to destroy harmony, and to cause
dislike on the part of Elder Dayton, and
thus promote strife between him and
his Pastor. That these allegations are
all unfounded, may be seen by turning
to the speech of Dr. Howell, where the
matter is fully explained. Why should Mr.
Graves seek, by placing false glosses upon
the language of Dr. Howell, to stir up strife
between him and Elder Dayton? Elder Day¬
ton was possessed of great popularity; Mr.
Graves was, as he now states, offended with
Dr. Howell: take these facts in connection
with the animus shown by Mr. Graves—
the implacable hostility with which he as¬
sailed his pastor, and we cannot escape the
conviction, that he sought to force this col¬
lision, as a means of casting odium upon
Dr. Howell, and thus destroy his character
and influence.
The second offence with which Mr
Graves is charged, is attempting to distract
and divide the church, by means of a con¬
flict between the Pastor and four of the
Deacons. He maintains that the Pastor
made "a most gross and shocking ATTACK
upon the men :" that he questioned their
ability, and "offered them the grossest in¬
sult ;" and he himself stands forth as their
defender against the alleged furious AS¬
SAULTS of their pastor. He reiterates again
and again that his attack was unprecedented;
shocking to the feelings of all present in
the convention; that it was astonishing and
painful; and he felt in duty bound to de¬
fend them. And though no reflection, not
the slightest, had been made against them,
he asks "what can be the charge against
these men." "Dees he mean that those
four Deacons of his own church as well as
the three other brethren nominated are so
ignorant, or unprincipled &c.;" and twits
them with the declaration that an explana¬
tion would be demanded from another man."
Again he asserts, growing more and more
reckless in each paper, that the Pastor cast
upon them a "cruel suspicion," offered them
a "gross insult" and maintains as if
against his assertion that they are "not to be
corrupted by bribe or by favor", and de¬
clares that their pastor has offered them the
"grossest insult" in ^'supposing thty
120
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
could be used in this way." He intimates
that their pastor charged them with being
''incompetent" or "unsafe to be trusted,"
and continually heralds himself as their
champion against the "grossest insult
offered to them." What could be the pur¬
pose of all this tissue of unfounded alle¬
gation ? It was done without an object,
merely to indulge his spleen, by railing
upon his Pastor, or the purpose was, (and
Mr. Graves never acts without a purpose)
to stir up strife between the Deacons of the
church and its Pastor, and, by thus pro¬
ducing a conflict, to distract and divide the
Church. The object is manifest: it could
be no other.
The third offence charged against Mr.
Graves is writing, and publishing sundry
libels against his pastor.
Before proceeding further, let us briefly
examine the course of Dr. Howell, to see
what was the occasion for all this vitupera¬
tion, misrepresentation, and abuse.
It is well known that in the fall
of 1859, a Sunday School Convention
was called to meet at Nashville. It
was supposed that the Convention would
take into consideration the best means
of promoting the cause o f Sunday
Schools, and of rousing our brethren to the
importance of the work. But the commit¬
tee appointed, reported in favor of making
the Convention permanent, with a Board at
Nashville, for the purpose of furnishing
Sunday School books. This organization, so
unexpectedly proposed, was opposed by Dr.
Howell in a speech on the floor of the Con¬
vention. In that speech he advised Mr.
Graves, as his Pastor, and his friend, not to
insist on the organization, lest his enemies
might impute to him interested motives;
at the same time earnestly disclaiming all
intention to impute such motives himself.
He made no attack upon Mr. Graves, nor
on the proposed Board, but opposed the
organization solely on general principles of
expediency, and propriety. Those who
know the frankness of Dr. Howell's nature,
the entire absence of concealment which
characterizes him, will at once recognize in
this speech, that open manliness and free¬
dom from guile, which conscious of no evil,
imputes no evil to others. Elder Pendle¬
ton admits that he " made no such charge,"
but that "he pnblicly disavowed the impu¬
tation of improper motives to G. [Graves."J
And states that "he [Pendleton] under¬
stood" that " this was the end of the mat¬
ter. " The disavowal was received as sat¬
isfactory." Then we perceive that, thus far,
neither Mr. Graves, nor any one else had
any ground for complaint. The only fur¬
ther action taken by Dr. Howell in this
matter, consists of a letter to the Christain
Index, in which he states his objections to
the proposed" organization. But it con
tained no personal reflection, or imputation
on any one. Elder Pendleton is pleased to
term it a "strange" letter, but he does not
eall it an offensive one. Its strangeness
consisted, perhaps, in his daring to oppose
a cherished scheme of Mr. Graves, in a
calm dignified manner. This was his only
offence; the only occasion offered for this
violent strain of defamation and misrepre¬
sentation.
Mr. Graves begins his revilings with
much caution. He tests public sentiment
and will not venture too far at first. Where
there was so little ground for calumny, he
did not dare to proceed at once to the
length he desired. Public sentiment must
be prepared to view the victim with dis¬
trust and enmity, before the sacrifice is
offered. His misrepresentations must be
allowed to leaven the public mind; mean¬
time, he contents himself with endeavoring
to destroy all respect for Dr. Howell, by
exhibiting him in a contemptible light.
He represents him as either knowing and
approving the design for which the Con¬
vention was called, and afterward turning
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
121
against it; or as advocating in the Associ¬
ation a design of which he knew nothing,
or which he abhorred. He alleges, that
knowing all about the design, which was
not concealed from him, he first advocated,
and then opposed it.
But six weeks afterward, this caution is
discarded. The grapnels which he has
thrown out have caught firm hold of the
prejudices of his adherents; it remains to
work them deeper. The mask is now-
laid aside. He now represents " Brother
Howell," " whom he has never sought to in¬
jure," " for whom he has ever entertained
the &A(?est feelings," as a " Herod," "ly
whom-this glorious enterprise was sought to
be slain at its birth;" compares him to " the
Rallies'" of our Saviour's time—to " the
CAie/Priests and Scribes," in "opposing the
noblest efforts for the advancement of truth;"
he asserts that he (Howell) has " stirred up
the strife;" that like the Ephesian copper¬
smith, he " stirred up the mob," by crying
great is Diana of the Ephesians, [The South¬
ern Baptist Publication Society.] He
charges him with the despicable feeling of
ENVY of Dr. Dayton; alleges that he repro¬
duced the articles of another, impugning his
[Dayton's] motives, and blackening his
character. He publishes with approval, com¬
munications of his correspondents, in which {
the unfounded allegations are made, that he
is assailing time-honored principles of the
Baptists; that envy of the influence and
popularity of the Tennessee Baptist and
South-Western Publishing House actuate
him; that he is a milk and water Baptist,
and assailed men for their Landmark prin¬
ciples ; that he, with others, is engaged in
a work of proscription, is endeavoring to
counteract the influence of Mr. Graves, and
to destroy his business; that he wronged
Mr. Graves, east suspicion on his innocence,
and traduced his reputation; that he tra¬
duced Dayton, and caricatured Graves;
that he is mercenary ; that he has sought to
crush out, and choke down certain men and
their enterprises; it is alleged (with a
sneer) that he is furiously attacking Old
Landmarkers; that he has made a war on
men, instead of opposing measures: that
he is no true Baptist; that his Index let¬
ter was unchristian; that his position is
suicidal to our churches and children; and
that he is seeking popularity from the PE-
DOES, ly striking down his friends laboring
for the advancement of truth." Will it be
believed, in future time, when prejudice
has subsided, and the voice of reason is
heard, that all these allegations are based
on one short speech, and one short para¬
graph^ neither of which furnishes the
slightest ground for any such assaults.
They are without provocation or occasion.
History will award, Mr. Graves credit for
his unparalleled ingenuity, but will wonder
,at his success. All these allegations have
been shown in the trial, to be groundless.
That Mr. Graves is guilty of libellous rail¬
ing, there cannot be a doubt.
The fourth count in the charge against
J. R. Graves, specifies his having attacked,
slandered, and abused brethren throughout
the country.
It was in evidence before the church, to
sustain this count, that he railed upon
Rev. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, as vain and
ambitious; as acting in his own pulpit in a
ridiculous manner; as deporting himself
with marked discourtesy toward brethren ;
as making a disorganizing speech; as in¬
dulging in personalities against his breth¬
ren ; as apeing the Catholic priesthood; as
having a Pharisaical spirit; and praying
hypocritically to be seen of men.
He defamed Jno. L. Waller, as an open
eommunionist, and declared that his paper
was spiked with Cambellite gold.
It was in evidence before the Church
that he did great injustice to tho Walnut
122
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
Street Baptist Church at Louisville, pub¬
lishing anonymous articles in his paper
containing palpable falsehoods against it;
and not only refused repeatedly to publish
its vindication, but admitted again and
again anonymous articles repeating the de¬
famations, and deepening the injury. It was
in evidence that he assailed Rev. Dr. Everts
in an article of unparalleled bitterness;
charging him in a tissue of unheard of re-
vilings, with "insane malignity;" with "ap¬
pealing to the basest feelings," to " gratify
his insatiate thirst of revenge ;" he reviled
him, as preparing "in the study, where he
made his book of prayers," a " malignant
aspersion," an " appeal to every fiend in
the nature" of Baptists, " a morsal sweet
to his palate," "composed of falsehood"
and " imbued with intensest malignity."
He reviles him as "skulking behind the
body of the dead to strike a living brother
through the heart." He reviles him as
one, who with an "unsanctified nature,"
" can do any thing that he imagines the
cloak and profession of religion will cover."
It is impossible to convey a idea of the
spirit of the article; let the reader turn to
the evidence. And all this was occasioned
by a temperate resolution, vindicating the
memory of the deceased from his aspersions.
It was in evidence, before the church,
that J. R. Graves uttered against Rev. Dr.
Duncan, of New Orleans, numerous false¬
hoods and misrepresentations; that though
requested, he would make no correction,
nor, though it was repeatedly sought,
would he allow him to vindicate himself
through' the columns of the Tennessee
Baptist; he would not submit the matter
to reference, though it was proposed by
Bro. Duncan, nor accede to any amicable
proposition whatever.
He assailed Rev. Mr. Tustin, of Charles¬
ton, as a secret open communionist, as a
Pedo Baptist in disguise, and though the
charge was earnestly denied, and it was
proved that the evidence upon which the
charge was made did not apply to him, yet
it never was retracted, but is repeated to
this day.
Rev. Dr. Dawson has been falsely de¬
famed in his paper, as an open communion¬
ist, in an article over the signature of
" Probus," who is supposed to be Mr.
Graves himself.
It was also in evidence that Mr. Graves
had traduced the Bible Board. The Sec¬
retary of the Bible Board had entered on a
policy, which would have rendered the
Board tributary to the Southwestern Pub¬
lishing House. The issues of that House
were sought to be distributed in ^innec-
tion with, and even in lieu of Bibles. A
committee being appointed to investigate
and report, did report to the effect that the
instructions of the Bible Board, restricted
its operations to the distribution of the
scriptures, and the publications of our Pub¬
lication Societies. Mr. Graves became
highly indignant; assailed the members of
the Board as envious of the superiority of
Elder Dayton ; asserted that/the Board at¬
tempted to break him down; that the mem¬
bers of the Board sought to use it, and
even destroy it, for the purpose of injuring
the land mark members of it, and especial¬
ly Elder Dayton; that they sought to
drive him from the Board; and in the
height of his spleen at being foiled in the
effort to render the Board tributary to him,
he charges the Board with the design, which
could have been suggested only by his own
intention, to render itself tributary to the
Southern Baptist Publication Society; and
suggests that the whole alleged attack on
the Secretary was intended to ruin the
Board (! ?) for the purpose of accomplish¬
ing this purpose; intimating that the
Board meditated suicide, that its remains
might be conveyed to Charleston! He
was himself endeavoring to ruin it; broad¬
side after broadside was poured upon it;
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
123
and yet lie affected to say that the Board
was meditating its own destruction. And
in the uncontrollable fury of his spleen, he
applies to his brethren the epithet "DOGS"
—" not a single DOG of them ALL
would as much as wag his tongue "
The fifth offence charged against Mr.
Graves is falsehood. Nine instances of
falsehood were taken from one and the
same paper. It is needless to specify these.
It is painful to state that they were all es¬
tablished upon him by incontrovertible tes¬
timony, and his guilt is enhanced from their
having been uttered with a view to excite
prejudice against the church.
Th? guilt of Mr. Graves of the offences
charged, is undoubted. Even his own
friends do not attempt to deny it, or to de¬
fend him. Nor does he himself make any
defence. His friends admit that he has
done very wrong ; but they seem to think
that his offences are not of such a charac¬
ter as to justify church discipline. We
proceed then to complete our demonstra¬
tion, and offer the following:
proposition ii.
The offences of which J. R. Graves
has been proved to be guilty, are of
such a character, as to warrant and
demand his expulsion from the
Church
The first offence of which he has been
proven guilty, is having endeavored to force
the Pastor of the First Baptist Church
into collision with A. C. Dayton, with in¬
tent to bring upon him reproach and inju¬
ry, and to destroy him character and influ¬
ence in the Southwest. This, as has been
shown, has been fully established against
hiai. In deciding the moral quality of an
action, it is the safest test to bring it to the
touchstone of the divine word. Man may
err; his passions, his prejudices, or his af¬
fections may lead him astray. But the
divine law knows no partiality, it is unin¬
fluenced by human emotion; its index
points unswervingly to the dial of Eternal
Right.
This offence is two-fold. 1. Laboring to
stir up strife and contention. 2. The inten¬
tion to injure the Pastor of the First
Church.
It is needless to trouble ourself to prov
that strife or contention is sinful. Its sin
fulness follows from the fact that it is in
consistent with the love which the scrip
tures enjoin. It is plainly denounced ir
the divine word. " He loveth transgres
sion that loveth strife." Prov. xvii. 19:
" Wherefore have we fasted say they, and
thou seest not. . . . Behold ye fast for
strife and to smite with the fist of wick¬
edness." Is. lviii, 3, 4. "Let us walk
honestly as in the day; . . . not in
strife and envying." Rom. viii, 14. "Now
the works of the flesh are manifest, which
are these, adultery, fornication, unclean-
ness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
&c." Gal. v. 19, 20. It is unnecessary
to multiply quotations on this point.
From the sinfulness of strife, the truth
of our proposition necessarily follows, that
laboring to stir up strife is SINFUL.
Without further argument on this point,
we appeal to the unerring teachings of Rev¬
elation. This sin is frequently and solemnly
denounced. We select some passages at ran¬
dom. " A froward man soweth strife."
Prob. xvi, 28. " There are th^t raise up
strife and contention, therefore, the law is
slacked, and judgment doth never go forth."
Hab. 1, 3, 5. " These six things doth the
Lord hate; yea seven are an abomination
unto him; a proud look, a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood, an heart
that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that
be swift in running to mischief, a false wit¬
ness that speaketh lies, and he that SOW¬
ETH DISCORD AMONG BRETHREN."
124
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
Prov. vi, 15—18. " A wicked mail walk-
eth with a froward mouth : * * * Fro-
wardness is in his heart, he deviseth mis¬
chief continually; he soweth discord.
Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly;
suddenly shall he be broken without reme¬
dy." Prov. vi, 12, 14, 15.
While laboring to stir up strife is itself
sinful, the design with which, in this case,
it was done, intensifies the guilt. The
minister of Christ is his servant, called to
labor for him in a public position. His
labor, his influence belong to Him who
has called him, and whose servant he is.
When called to the pastoral office, his char¬
acter, and influence for good become, in a
peculiar manner, the property of the
Church. All his-powers are dedicated to
the work, and belong to the Church, and
to the head of the Church. Any injury
to his character and usefulness, is an injury
to the Church, to the cause of religion,
and of Christ. Any injury which disqual¬
ifies a general for the discharge of his duties,
or which incapacitates a statesman for his
office, is an injury to the State; so it is an
injury to the cause of Christ, to destroy
the influence and usefulness of a Christian
Pastor. Again : as it it contumacious to
the State, to attempt to offer injury to a
judge, or to a legal officer, so it is contumely
to the King of Zion, to assail and injure
a brother laboring in an official capacity
in His Kingdom. The influence of Dr.
Howell h^s been powerful for good. The
destruction of that influence would be, to
that extent, prejudicial to the cause of Zion.
We can only measure the consequence, by
imagining every man of equal influence to
be stricken down. Though the light of
one star should not be missed from heaven,
yet the sacrilegious hand that would dash
it from its sphere, is as audacious in rebel¬
lion, as though it had attempted to darken
every constellation in the firmament.
This attempt to stir up strife, and that
between fellow-servants in a common min¬
istry, who above all should love one another,
and to destroy the influence of one by that
of the other, when both, as star beams
blend and mingle, should converge and
combine, is deeply sinful. It is as if he
would set the heavens at war; and if Mr.
Graves had been guilty of no other offence,
this one alone, so offensive in the sight of
heaven, should receive the condemnation
of the Church.
The SECOND OFFENCE of which J. R.
Graves has been proven to be guilty, is an
attempt to distract and divide the church,
by means of a conflict between the Pastor
and four of the Deacons.
The attempt at schism here proven was
afterwards consummated. Two of the four
Deacons, whom-he labored so assiduously
to throw into conflict with the Pastor, were
influenced by him, and have sustained him
in his schismatical course.
None will deny, that an attempt at schism
is an offence demanding the highest seal of
disapprobation, which the church can im¬
pose. "Now I beseech you brethren, by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all
speak the same thing, and that there be
no divisions among you; but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind,
and in the same judgment. 1 Cor. i : 10.
Now I beseech you brethren,mark them which
cause DIVISIONS, and offences contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned; and
avoid them. For they that are such,
serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their
own belly, and by good words, and fair
speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple.
Roms. xvi: 17, 18.
Andrew Fuller, than whose opinions, none
are entitled to greater respect, in comment¬
ing on this passage almost fifty years ago,
says:
"The characters to be avoided appear to
be persons whose object it is to set up a
party in the church, of which they maybe
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
12
the heads or leaders—a hind of religious
demagogues. Such men are found, at one
time or other, in most societies: and in
some cases, the peace of the churches has
been invaded by strangers, who are not of
their own community. Let the "brethren"
have their eye upon such men. "Mark
them." Trace their conduct, and you will
soon discover their motives. Stand aloof
from them, and "avoid" striking in with
their dividing measures. In case of their
being members, the church collectively consid¬
ered ought, no doubt, to PUT AWAY from
amongst them such persons : but, as ev¬
ery collective body is composed of individ¬
uals, if those individuals suffer themselves
to be drawn away, the church is necessarily
thrown into confusion, and rendered inca¬
pable of a prompt, unanimous, and decided
conduct. Let members of churches there¬
fore beware how they listen to the insinua¬
tions of those, who would entice them to
join their party. Men of this stamp are
described by the apostle, and therefore
may be known, particularly by three things:
First, By their doctrine : it is contrary to
that which has been learned of Christ. Se¬
condly, By their selfish pursuits: "they
serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their
own bellies." Thirdly, By their insinuat¬
ing, whining pretences of affectionate re¬
gard towards their partizans : "by good
words, and fair speeches, they deceive the
hearts of the simple."
The applicability of these remarks to the
present case will be seen by all. The sin¬
fulness of him who would rend asunder the
body of Christ, and destroy its unity, need
not be enlarged on.
The sinful character of stirring up strife
between the Pastor and Deacons, from which
this end would result, has already been es
tablished. No one will deny that introdu¬
cing dissension into the heart of the church,
by stirring up baleful passions, and thus
causing a conflict between the Pastor and
Deacons, is a sin justifying exclusion.
The THIRD OFFENCE, of which J. R.
Graves has been proven guilty, is uttering
'and publishing in his paper sundry libels
against his pastor. The character of these
libels has been seen. They are such acts as
are designated in the scripture by the terms
"railing" and "reviling." No other term
will designate the application to a brother of
such epithets as a "Herod;" the likeninghim to
the Chief Priests and Scribes; to the raisers
of the mob at Ephesus; and accusing of be¬
ing actuated by envy to ruin a brother
&cr., ,&c.
The moral character of these acts is clear¬
ly designated with the scriptures. " Know
ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul¬
terers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of them¬
selves with mankind, nor thieves, nor cov¬
etous, nor drunkards, nor RAILERS, nor
extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of
God." First Corinthians vi: 9-10. "But
now I have written unto you not to keep
company if any man that is called a brother
be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a R AILER, or a drunkard, or an extor¬
tioner; with such an one, no, not to eat."
.... therefore PUT AWAY from among
you that wicked person. The Apostle here
prescribes the course to be adopted with such
characters. But it may be urged in extenua¬
tion, that a portion of these railing accusations
are by correspondents. Some of them were the
private letters of correspondents, reflecting
the views imbibed from Mr. Graves. They
were deceived by him; they did not intend
to injure Dr. Howell, but only to express
sympathy for Mr. Graves. He seized upon
those letters without the knowledge of the
writers, and used them to accomplish his
purpose. Is the murderer less guilty be¬
cause he seizes the axe of another, which lies
at his door, to accomplish his fell design ?
The use made of these letters was the act
of Mr. Graves. It was his act alone; and
upon him rests the responsibility. The wri¬
tings of Mr. Graves would sustain us in go •
ing further even than this. In the Tennes¬
see Baptist, December 25th, 1858, he says;
126
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
''No man has a right to defame another,
or to stab his character with another secret¬
ly, any more than he has to a less offensive
action in sight of heaven, i. e., assassinate
him ; and the man who will allow himself to
be made a confidant in a plan or attempt to
murder or assault a man's body, or burns
his houses, or injure his property, by that
confidence, is, in the eye of the law accessa¬
ry to the deed, and [is] to all intents and pur¬
poses, guilty of the act contemplated
Mr. Graves was not merely the confidant
of those correspondents, but seized their com¬
munications, as weapons for the accomplish¬
ment of his purpose.
This attempt to ruin a brother evinces the
rankling of unholy feelings, and such con¬
duct imperaci/ely claims the action of the
church, and, unless repented of, demands
exclusion. To contend that it is personal
only, is a vain subterfuge. So is assault and
battery personal injury, but who will con¬
tend that repeated assault and battery would
not justify exclusion from the churchl The
injury, here, is deeper, by so much as injury
to the reputation is more serious, than triv¬
ial injuries to the person. The reputation is
dearer, injury to it is more lasting, and more
severe. Rev. Dr. Baker classes public per¬
sonal injury, as by assault and battery, with
sins which justify exclusion from the church.
In the instance under consideration, the injury
is more public, inflicts a deeper wound, and
is more disgraceful'to the cause of Christ.
Every consideration combines in forcing us
to the conclusion, that this offence was of
such a character as fully justified the exclu¬
sion of J. R. Graves from the church.
The FOURTH OFFENCE of which J. R.
Graves has been proven guilty, is attacking,
slandering, and abusing brethren throughout
the country. The railing on Dr. Fuller, of
Baltimore ; the attacks on the memory of
Waller; the injuries inflicted on the Walnut
Street Church ; the revilings of Dr. Everts,
of Louisville; the wrongs inflicted by false
allegations upon Dr. Duncan, of New Or¬
leans; the persistent and unprovoked assaults
upon Rev. Mr. Tust.in, of Charleston; the
slander and defamation of Dr. Dawson; the
attacks upon, and revilings of the members
of the Bible Board, taken singly, and in the
aggregate, constitute offences of such char¬
acter of reviling, and wanton public injury,
as have already been proved to be public
sins, warranting and demanding the highest
seal of reprobation.
The FIFTH OFFENCE of which J R.
Graves has been proven guilty, is wilful and
deliberate falsehood. On the moral charac¬
ter of this offence it is unnecessary to dwell.
Public sentiment coincides with revelation,
in fixing upon it the brand of universal con¬
demnation.
COROLLARIES.
In conclusion: I. It has been shown that
J. R. Graves was charged with offences,
which justified the church in proceeding
with the trial, according to the universal cus¬
toms of justice, and the rules of the scrip¬
tures. The witnesses brought foward by Mr.
Graves to sustain his course, by their tes¬
timony condemn him, and sustain the church.
Corollary 1. The protest of Mr. Graves
falls to the ground, and his affecting to re¬
fuse to be tried is highly schismatical, and is
wholly unsustained by reason or scripture.
Corollarv 2. Those persons who affected
to withdraw with Mr. Graves are schismat¬
ics, whose course was highly sinful, and un¬
less repented of, will compel their exclusion
from the church.
Corollary 3. As no man can take advan¬
tage of his own wrong, the pretended with¬
drawal of Mr. Graves could not effect the
right of the church to proceed with the
trial, and the church acted in a proper and
scriptural manner in proceeding with the
trial in his absence.
II. It has been shown that the evidence
before the church fully proved the guilt of
J. R. Graves of the offences charged.
III. It has been shown that the offences
127
TRIAL OF REV. J. R. GRAVES.
proven upon him are, each and all, of such a
character as fully warrant and demand his
exclusion from the church.
Corollary 1. The Church in excluding
J. R. Graves acted under the authority of
Christ, and her decision is binding by his
authority and decree.
Corollary 2. J. R. Graves is "as a heathen
man and a publican." "Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea¬
ven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven." Matt, xviii:
18.