In the book Intercommunion, JR Graves does mention the confession and of course, his disagreement with Article 26, Paragraph 1. He mentioned his preference of the First London or the New Hampshire Confession as to giving what he believed to be a more scriptural definition of the church. (I am not sure even most Landmarkers today would completely agree with him on the kingdom.) But notice, whatever your view of the church or whatever your view of Landmarkism is, he does not advocate the cutting of fellowship of his Baptist brethren over the Confession. In fact, the whole of the book is about the evils of inter-denominational church fellowships, not about Baptists fellowshipping with other Baptists. Here is what he wrote:
BAPTIST THEORIES. Among Baptists of this age there is no general accord as to the scriptural definition of the term Ecclesia-Church, and among our theological writers there is a diversity that amounts to a confusion. Often the same writer will hold to two definitions that are evidently contradictious, i.e., that it is used by the Holy Spirit to designate two radically different and opposite notions—as it if was claimed that baptize means to sprinkle water upon a person or to immerse a person into water—opposite acts. The oldest confession put forth by English Baptists (A. D. 1643), thus defines a New Testament church:
“Jesus Christ hath here on earth a spiritual kingdom which is his church [i.e., composed of his churches], whom he hath purchased and redeemed to himself as a peculiar inheritance; which church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith and joined to the Lord and each other by mutual agreement; in the practical employment of the ordinances commanded by Christ, their Head and King.”— Crosby.
This, with but slight verbal alterations, purely explanatory, is just what I would define it to-day. They evidently use church in its true collective sense, implying all his churches compose his kingdom, and that each one is a company of visible saints, etc. The Baptists of that day knew no other church. Half a century later “many congregations” adopted, with but slight modification, the Presbyterian definition, which they in turn had modified from the Catholic definition. It runs thus—
“The Catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and the truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof, and may be called the spouse—the body—the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.”
This confession, with this Romish definition of church, was adopted by the Philadelphia Association when it was organized in 1707 without alteration, and doubtless, without examination, and very many of our earlier Associations adopted it, and thus this definition has been handed down from “sire to son.” This will account for the tenacity with which it is held and defended by the fathers among us. The New Hampshire Confession appeared fifty years ago, and has been adopted by the larger body of American Baptists,—gives no other definition of a New Testament church than a local assembly, and it had been well had no other idea ever been instilled into the minds of Baptists.
Graves, James Robinson. INTERCOMMUNION INCONSISTENT, UNSCRIPTURAL, AND PRODUCTIVE OF EVIL. . Walking Through The Word. Kindle Edition.