THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 THE COLLECTION OF 
 NORTH CAROLINIANA 
 
 C286 
 B62o 
 
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 0000410280 
 
 This book may be kept out one month unless a recall 
 notice is sent to you. It must be brought to the North 
 Carolina Collection (in Wilson Library) for renewal. 
 
 Form No. A-369 
 
^M^^M'I" "i 1 'i' 'I wu^MJumM^m^M^^ sj^mm^^ 
 
 THE ORIGIN 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BAPTIST 
 
 1 
 
 
 BY 
 
 C. J. BLACK 
 
 .3 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 m 
 W 
 
 M\ 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 . - ■ ■ 
 
C. J. BLACK 
 
The Origin of the Baptist 
 
 by 
 C. J. BLACK 
 
 Author of A History of the Brown Creek-Union 
 Baptist Association, A History of Loray Bap- 
 tist Church, A Short History of Sandy 
 Plains Baptist Church. 
 
 Now Pastor of Loray Baptist Church 
 Gastonia, N. C. 
 
 Price 50 cents 
 
 "Upon this rock I will build my church and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 
 16:18. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Page 
 
 The Deep Down Things 4 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 The Baptist Tree 8 
 
 The Origin of The Baptist 9 
 
 The Origin of American Baptist ' 20 
 
 Who Are the Original Baptist 24 
 
 The Origin of the Primitive Baptist 34 
 
 What the Baptist Have Been Called Through 
 
 All the Ages 55 
 
 Christian Baptism 65 
 
 Should Baptist Exist as an Independent De- 
 nomination, or should They Unite with 
 Pedobaptist Denominations 83 
 
DEDICATION 
 
 To my family that the Lord has made possible 
 for me to have and especially my wife, who has 
 borne my children and stood by me these thirty 
 years that I have spent in the Ministry, these 
 pages are affectionately dedicated. 
 
THE DEEP DOWN THINGS 
 
 The Deep-Down Things are strong and great 
 Firm, fixed, unchangeable as fate, 
 Inevitable, inviolate, 
 
 The Deep-Down Things. 
 
 The truth endures. Men pass from youth, 
 Books, creeds, and systems suffer ruth; 
 Change has no dart can slay the truth — 
 The truth endures. 
 
 The Deep-Down Things! All winds that blow, 
 All seething tides that roam and flow, 
 May smite but cannot overthrow 
 The Deep-Down Things. 
 
 The surge of years engulfs the land 
 And crumbles mountains into sand, 
 But yet the Deep-Down Things withstand 
 The surge of years. 
 
 Behind the years that waste and smite 
 And topple empires into night, 
 God dwells unchanged in changeless light 
 Behind the years. 
 
 The Deep-Down Things! Of little faith 
 Is he who fears they suffer scathe — 
 Impervious to the darts of death — 
 The Deep-Down Things. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Some may wonder why I have written this 
 little book, and they may think that I have gone 
 into a forbidden path, but I assure them that I 
 have not. There is a great demand for a book of 
 this kind, and I had just as well write it as any 
 body. I feel that if I do not write it that it will not 
 be written. If every historian would tell the 
 truth, there would not be any need for this little 
 book, but they will not tell the truth when it 
 comes to the claims of Baptists. They say that 
 Baptists are of recent origin, and that they origi- 
 nated in America. To show that Baptists are as 
 old as the New Testament, and even older, is the 
 one aim of this little book. Baptist originated 
 with Christianity and have been here all the years 
 it has been believed in, and without the Baptist 
 idea of Christianity, there would not be any New 
 Testament Christianity. Christianity and Bap- 
 tist are synonomous terms. 
 
 We are not going into an extensive argument 
 to set forth our claims, but we have been ex- 
 tensive enough to show that we have just grounds 
 for our claims. It is not a fancy of ours to be- 
 lieve that we are the only New Testament church, 
 but the truth of it is we are, and since we 
 are, we feel that we ought to contend for our 
 rights. We are commanded to earnestly contend 
 for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, 
 and that is what we have tried to do in this little 
 book. Read it carefully, and then think a little 
 about our claims. Investigate all the other claims 
 
that you may be able to get hold of. When you 
 have done this, decide who is right about the 
 church question. Baptist are the only folks who 
 make the assertion that they have been here as 
 long as Christianity, except the Roman Catholics, 
 and any one who knows church history at all, 
 knows that their claim is not true. Others may 
 intimate that they are the oldest, but you will 
 not find any reputable historian who tries to set 
 forth the claim that protestantism goes beyond 
 the German Reformation. 
 
 Now, if our claim be true, how loyal ought 
 we to be to the Baptist Cause ? 
 
 Had any man a right to organize a denomi- 
 nation and say that it is a Christian church ? Had 
 any man a right to organize a society and say 
 that it has a right to administer the ordinance of 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper any way that it 
 pleases? We believe that such is a dangerous 
 business and that the people ought to become well 
 informed to know that such cannot be conducive 
 to the best interest of Christianity. We cannot 
 be true to the Bible and practice just any thing 
 for baptism, and have just any purpose we may 
 wish in the administration of the Lord's Supper. 
 The New Testament places certain limitation on 
 both of the ordinances, and to go beyond these is 
 preposterous to the highest degree. Baptist have 
 not done what they ought to have done, but they 
 have done some things that other people have not 
 undertaken. They have fought for the ordi- 
 nances, and have well nigh won out. They have 
 earnestly contended for believer's baptism, and 
 
 6 
 
they have well nigh won out on that point. What 
 we need most now is to stress Godly living. If 
 all of our Baptist folks would live as they should, 
 we would not need to argue the question of church 
 perpetuity, nor would we have to argue divine 
 origin. The world would know us by our fruits. 
 
 One more word: Did the blessed Master fail 
 on his job? Did He have to raise up men like 
 Calvin, Luther, Knox, and Wesley to get him out 
 of a hole? By no means did he fail. The gates 
 of hell have not prevailed against his church, 
 and they will never do it. His church is still here, 
 and will remain here until he comes again to claim 
 His own. It is the embodiment of his doctrine, 
 and it is his real mystic body setting forth the 
 glorious characteristics of his kingdom. Read 
 this little book carefully and prayerfully, remem- 
 bering that it has been written without any 
 malice toward anyone, but with a real desire for 
 the truth, and nothing else. If the claim of this 
 book be true, let us be better Baptists than we 
 have been and let us win this world to our side 
 by lives of consecration and service to His glor- 
 ious cause. 
 
 Fraternally, 
 
 Gastonia, N. C., June, 1924. 
 
millennium. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE BAPTIST 
 
 This is an age of most careful research 
 along scientific lines. It goes even further than 
 this. The day has come when we want to know 
 the origin of almost everything. We are trying 
 to learn all we can about the origin of the nations 
 of the earth from the Mound Builders of the west 
 to the most terrible cannibals of the isles of the 
 sea. We just want to know. We are boring down 
 into mother earth to see what she contains; 
 We are exploring the heavens above with our 
 mighty telescopes; we are going into the blue 
 deep to see what is there. Oh well, it is an age 
 of investigation along almost every line except 
 religion. If it is so important along historical 
 and scientific lines, why not along denominational 
 lines? We think that it is. Really, we believe 
 that it is more important to investigate our creeds 
 than anything else. Possibly, eternal life may 
 hinge upon this investigation. So many are de- 
 luded by some sceptical creed — one that is mis- 
 leading so that the main doctrines are overlooked. 
 We ought to know where these denominations 
 came from just as much as we do the Bible. We 
 cannot know the real church of Christ unless we 
 investigate. We ought to know it, because the 
 others are imposters. You may think that it is 
 impossible to determine the real church even 
 thought we do investigate, but, do you not believe 
 
that the Master has so arranged things that his 
 church may be known ? Do you not think that He 
 gave it some birth marks that we may be able to 
 trace it by? We think that He did, and that it 
 may be known forever by these, however corrupt 
 the world may become, or however many denomi- 
 nations may arise. False deeds may be tested, 
 and the real owner can be determined, however 
 long the line, or however old the right. It is true 
 that the church was in hiding for twelve hundred 
 and sixty years according to the prophecies, but 
 let us reason just a little. Suppose you have a 
 cow to stray from your barn, you follow her to a 
 woodland. You know it is your cow because it 
 is the same old spotted one with a broken horn 
 and a knocked down hip that you have seen daily 
 since you owned her. Her marks are such that 
 there can be no doubt about her identity. You 
 positively know it is your cow that went into the 
 woods. You could describe her to any newspaper 
 man, you can picture her without any trouble. 
 Now, suppose you follow her through a forest 
 1,260 miles long. You lose sight of the cow, but 
 you keep on the track of her. You keep seeing 
 signs of her all along the way, and finally you 
 come upon the same old cow. She is still spotted, 
 she still has a broken horn, she still has the 
 knocked down hip. Would you swear to her iden- 
 tity ? Most surely you would. Now, if we can find 
 a people during the first two hundred and fifty 
 years that we are certain we know. They hold 
 to certain principles, they practice certain things, 
 and have certain characteristics that we just can- 
 
 10 
 
not be mistaken about, and then, if we come down 
 to the fifteenth century and find the same people, 
 holding to the same views, practicing the same 
 things, and having the same characteristics, is 
 it not conclusive evidence that they have been 
 here all the time, and that they originated during 
 the first century of the Christian era? Surely 
 you will admit this. We can prove that the Chris- 
 tians of the first centuries held to the very same 
 things we hold today. They believe in a convert- 
 ed membership, they immersed for baptism, they 
 did not immerse any but believers, they called 
 each other brother or sister as the case might de- 
 mand. They were democratic in the government 
 of their churches, they were laughed at for their 
 strict adherence to their views, and many more 
 things we might say, but is this not sufficient to 
 set up the claim we are trying to establish here? 
 Our claim is this: the Baptist had their origin 
 with John and Jesus and have existed in some 
 way or other since their day. They may not have 
 been called Baptist all the time, but they have ex- 
 isted under some name or other all through the 
 dark ages. We want it understood that we are 
 not so careful about the name as we are the doc- 
 trine. 
 
 In trying to set up the claim that Christ was 
 the founder of Baptist churches and that all other 
 denominations are works of men, we must notice 
 the church as it is pictured in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 1. The church the New Testament describes 
 was an independent organization. The very word 
 
 11 
 
church in the original language conveys the idea 
 of an independent body. Local, self governing, an 
 organism. We never read of "the church of Asia 
 Minor," or "the church of Syria," or "the church 
 of Palestine." We see mention made again and 
 again of "the churches of Asia," "the churches of 
 Macedonia," and "the churches of Christ Jesus." 
 We want to say further that this did not refer to 
 denominations either. The New Testament sets 
 forth the idea that the church is a local, inde- 
 pendent body of baptized believers. 
 
 2. The New Testament church immersed, and 
 practiced nothing but immersion. This is seen 
 by the use of the Greek word baptizo. It occurs 
 many times, and is always used when baptism 
 is mentioned. The word sprinkle is never used in 
 connection with baptism. The word pour is never 
 used either. To sprinkle is one word and to bap- 
 tize is another. This word is the one that all 
 Greek scholars declare means to immerse. We do 
 not need to argue this. It has been admitted, 
 but we give it a passing notice because so many 
 do not know what the scholars of today say about 
 many things. 
 
 The second argument we wish to notice to 
 prove that the New Testament church immersed 
 is the fact that all of the early historians tell us 
 that the practice of immersion was continued for 
 thirteen hundred years. Let us notice a few of 
 them. The first is Dr. Mosheim. He was a 
 Lutheran, "In this century baptism was admin- 
 istered in convenient places, without the assem- 
 blies; and by immersing the candidates wholly 
 
 12 
 
in water." (Eecle. His. Vol 1, p. 42). Have you 
 not seen this very thing done many a time? I 
 have administered without the assembly many 
 a time. The second man we wish to mention is 
 Bishop Smith of Kentucky. In a sermon quoted 
 in the Biblical Recorder of August 8, 1840, he 
 says: "We have only to go back six or eight hun- 
 dred years, and immersion was the only mode, 
 except in cases of sickness. It was not only uni- 
 versal, but primitive and apostolical." This was 
 strange language for a Methodist preacher, but 
 he used it just the same. No Baptist preacher 
 would make a stronger claim than this. Third. 
 Hagenback, professor of theology in Basel, in 
 a work entitled "The Christian Church of the 
 First Three Centuries," in his 19th lecture, says: 
 "Baptism in the beginning was administered by 
 immersion — Sprinkling was in early times admin- 
 istered to the sick, on their dying beds." 3. Cole- 
 man, in a work entitled "Ancient Christianity 
 Exemplified," in referring to immersion, says: 
 "In the primitive church, immediately subsequent 
 to the age of the apostles, this (immersion) , was 
 undeniably the common mode of baptism, the ut- 
 most that can be said of sprinkling in that early 
 period is, that it was, in cases of necessity (sick- 
 ness), permitted as an exception to a general 
 rule, pp.395-96." 
 
 It seems to us that this is enough to satisfy 
 any reasonable mind that the New Testament 
 church immersed. We might refer to many more, 
 but we deem this sufficient. 
 
 4. They did not baptize infants, but believers 
 
 13 
 
only. Not a single instance of infant baptism is 
 found in the New Testament. It has been search- 
 ed again and again to no avail for a single in- 
 stance of infant baptism. The greatest advocates 
 do not claim that it is mentioned, but they infer 
 that infants were baptized because households 
 were. This is not an argument at all. I have bap- 
 tized many a household, and yet have never bap- 
 tized an infant. Homes were without babies in 
 that day as much as they are now. The New 
 Testament is just as clear as it can be on this 
 one point. No one was admitted unless they gave 
 credible evidence of a changed life. John would 
 not baptize unless they brought forth fruits meet 
 for repentance, and the preachers following him 
 made the same demand. 
 
 We might bring up more than this to show 
 the main characteristics of the Baptist, but since 
 our space is so limited, we will not mention any 
 more just here. We will now pass on with the 
 argument. Can we not say that Baptist churches 
 of today conform entirely to the New Testament 
 model ? Do they deviate in a single instance ? Do 
 they not hold to all these things that the New 
 Testament requires ? They certainly do. We are 
 not trying to set up a claim to defend the Bap- 
 tist, but we want to show that Christ has kept 
 his word, that his church is still here, that the 
 gates of hades have not prevailed against it" 
 by any means. You may trace their footsteps 
 in the snows upon the Alps, you may trace them 
 by their bloody foot prints in Piedmont, you may 
 find their ashes in Smithfield, you may see their 
 
 14 
 
names covered in ignominy and shame, but the 
 Baptists live, and will live until He comes again. 
 
 Christ has never been ashamed of his bride, 
 he has never divorced her, nor has she so nearly 
 failed that he had to get some great reformer 
 to pull her out of the rubbish of Romanism. No, 
 he has been with his church whether in the open, 
 or in hiding all of these years. Protestantism did 
 need reformers to bring it into existence, but Bap- 
 tists are not protestants. They never came out 
 of Romanism, and nothing is protestant which did 
 not come out of Rome, or one of Rome's descend- 
 ants, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and Knox were 
 great leaders, but the Lord never empowered 
 them to organize his church. That had been done 
 years before they were born. Henry the VIII, 
 could murder his wives, and keep England terror 
 stricken, but he could not organize the Church 
 of God. But if these men had not existed, where 
 would the pedobaptist denominations have come 
 from? But there is one thing we are proud of 
 and that is, since these errors are here, they hold 
 to things so antagonistic to the New Testament 
 that anyone who wishes to know the truth can 
 discern with little difficulty. They sprinkle, 
 while the New Testament church immerses, they 
 argue that the church saves, while the New Tes- 
 tament holds that it does not. 
 
 5. The next thing we wish to show is that all 
 of the best ecclesiastical historians declare that 
 the Baptists have existed since the days of John. 
 Let us notice a few of these. We cannot mention 
 very many, but enough of them to show that our 
 
 15 
 
claim is well grounded. 
 
 The first testimony we wish to mention is that 
 of Dr. J. J. Dermount, chaplain to the king of 
 Holland, and Dr. Ypeig, professor of theology in 
 the University of Groningen. These are men 
 whose scholarship is admitted. No one dares to 
 deny what they say. The Dutch Baptist claimed 
 that they were the direct descendants of the 
 Waldenses. The king of Holland wanted to as- 
 certain the truth in the case, so he appointed 
 the above mentioned scholars to make an investi- 
 gation of the claim, and here is what they report- 
 ed: "The Mennonites (Baptist) are descendants 
 from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses, 
 who were driven by persecution into various coun- 
 tries, and who, during the larger part of the 12th 
 century, fled into Flanders, and into the provinces 
 of Holland and Zealand where they lived simple 
 and exemplary lives. They were, therefore, in 
 existence long before the Reformed Church of 
 the Netherlands. We have now seen that the 
 Baptist, who were formerly called Anabaptist, 
 and in later times Menonites, were the original 
 Waldenses, who have long in the history of the 
 church received the honor of that origin. On 
 this account the Baptist may be considered as the 
 only Christian community which has stood since 
 the days of the apostles, and as a Christian so- 
 ciety which has preserved pure doctrines of the 
 gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct 
 external and internal economy of the Baptist 
 denomination tends to confirm the truth, which 
 is disputed by the Romanish church, and the 
 
 16 
 
Reformation brought about in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury was in the highest degree necessary, and 
 that the same time goes to refute the erroneous 
 noitons of the Catholics that their communion is 
 the most ancient." These men were not Bap- 
 tist, and were not seeking favors from the Bap- 
 tist. They were appointed to ascertain the truth of 
 the matter. For one to dispute this would be 
 to argue against oneself. What these men say 
 is enough to settle it, but we will quote from Dr. 
 Mosheim, Murdock's Trans, vol. Ill, pp. 198-200. 
 "The origin of the sect, who from their repetition 
 of the baptism received in other communities, are 
 called Anabaptist, but who are also denominated 
 Mennonites, from the celebrated man to whom 
 they owe a large share of their present prosperity, 
 is involved in much obscurity. For they suddenly 
 started up in various countries of Europe, under 
 influence of leaders of dissimilar characters and 
 views, and at a time when the first contests with 
 the Catholics so engrossed the attention of all, 
 that they scarcely noticed any other passing oc- 
 currences. The modern Mennonites affirm that 
 their predecessors were the descendants of those 
 Waldenses who were oppressed by the tyranny of 
 the past, and that they were a most pure off- 
 spring, and most averse from any inclinations 
 towards seditions as from all fanatical views." 
 We might quote further from this article, but is 
 it not clear that he, too, believed that the Ana- 
 baptist came from the early days of Christian- 
 ity? He does not come right out with the exact 
 words, but what he says is what we claim. 
 
 17 
 
We will mention just one or two more utter- 
 ances from history, then we will pass to another 
 phase of the question. The next we wish to quote 
 from is Dr. William Whitsitt, who had such a 
 squabble with our leaders over a simple state- 
 ment he made about the English Anabaptist. 
 In his little book that caused so much comment 
 he says this: "Immersion as a religious rite was 
 practiced by John the Baptist about the year 
 thirty of our era, and was solemnly enjoined by 
 our Saviour upon all of our ministers to the end 
 of time. No other observance was in use for bap- 
 tism in New Testament times. The practice, 
 though sometimes greatly perverted, has yet been 
 continued from the Apostolic age down to the 
 present." Dr. Whitsitt was a great scholar. He 
 made considerable research. He was a little 
 cranky, but we feel that he was an honest man. 
 He puts the matter clear enough for any one to 
 see. Baptist have been here all of these years. 
 They have not been called Baptist all the time, 
 but they have been the offspring of John the Bap- 
 tist just the same, and because of this they have 
 been called Baptist. 
 
 We will mention just one more extract from 
 Ray's Baptist Succession, p. 85. Dr. Ray had 
 heard that Prof. William Williams did not believe 
 in Baptist succession, and yet he was the pro- 
 fessor of church history in the Southern Baptist 
 Theological Seminary, then situated at Greenville, 
 S. C. In reply to Dr. Ray he said, "You ask, 
 'Have the Baptist as churches a divine or a hu- 
 man origin? Have the Baptist originated from 
 
 18 
 
the church of Rome, or the Reformation of the 
 sixteenth century?' I answer that the Baptist 
 churches in my opinion, are of divine origin, and 
 originated in the first century under the preach- 
 ing and founding of the apostles of our Lord. 
 They were not called Baptist churches because 
 they had no need of any name as there was not 
 in that age any other kind of church under the 
 divine order of things. Very truly, 
 
 Your brother in Christ, 
 
 Wm. WILLIAMS." 
 
 Now, we have set forth the Baptist claim as 
 nearly as we can in the small space allowed this 
 article in this book. If we have not satisfied you, 
 will you not read more extensive books? We re- 
 fer you to Ray's Succession, Baptist Perpetuity, 
 by W. A. Jarrell, Orchard's History of the Baptist, 
 Benedict's History of the Baptist, John T. Chris- 
 tian's History of the Baptist, and many other 
 works of the same kind, but the above are the 
 best we know of. 
 
 Baptist are from God. They came as a direct 
 result of the labors of John the Baptist and Jesus 
 Christ the Son of God. They have stood the 
 abuse of all the ages, they have gone through 
 all kinds of imprisonments, they have stood fire 
 and sword, and they are still willing to suffer 
 persecution if it takes this to keep the pure gos- 
 pel of Jesus Christ in this world. They have been 
 tested to the utmost, but still they live and will 
 continue to live until the ransomed of the Lord 
 shall be gathered home to be with Him who 
 doeth all things well. 
 
 19 
 
THE ORIGIN OF AMERICAN BAPTIST 
 
 Much has been said about the origin of the 
 American Baptist, and we feel that this little 
 book would not be complete if it did not give a 
 full account of their origin. Of course, we cannot 
 give many quotations, but we have all of the 
 books in our possession that we refer to so that 
 if any one doubts our statements about these 
 matters, they may examine them for themselves. 
 
 The most of our pedobaptist friends say that 
 we originated with Roger Williams in Rhode Is- 
 land. This is not true, because Dr. John Clark 
 was here preaching Baptist doctrine many years 
 before Roger Williams decided that immersion 
 was the New Testament idea of Baptism. (See 
 Ford's Origin of the Baptist. This has all the ar- 
 gument necessary to clear up the question to any 
 sane mind) . Dr. John Clark came to this country 
 from England, and was a Baptist when he came 
 here. But you say "Where did the English Bap- 
 tist come from?" This is an easy question to set- 
 tle. All historians admit that the English Bap- 
 tist came from Wales. The next question that 
 arises at this point then, is where did the Welsh 
 Baptist come from? We can settle this very 
 easily. Please turn to Davis' History of the 
 Welsh Baptist, page 5-7 and read the following: 
 "By what means the Christian religion was first 
 introduced into Britain, is a matter which has 
 often engaged the pens of historians, but whose 
 records do not always agree. The tradition that 
 
 20 
 
Joseph of Aramathea was the first who preached 
 the gospel in Britain, at a place called Glasten- 
 bury, the wicker chapel built for him by the an- 
 cient Britons, and his walking stick growing to 
 a plumbtree, might be worthy of the attention of 
 those who can believe any thing. However, we 
 are willing for those who believe that the good 
 man who buried our blessed Redeemer also pro- 
 claimed salvation in his name to our forefathers, 
 to enjoy their own opinion. That the Apostle 
 Paul also preached the gospel to the ancient Brit- 
 ons, is very probable from the testimony of Theo- 
 doret and Jerome ; but that he was the first that 
 introduced the gospel to this island cannot be 
 admitted; for he was a prisoner in Rome at the 
 time the good news of salvation through the 
 blood of Christ reached this region. That the 
 Apostle Paul had great encouragement to visit 
 this country afterwards, will not be denied. When 
 we consider the particular inducement he might 
 have had from Pomponia, Grecina, and Claudia 
 Ruffina, the saints in Ceasar's household; the 
 former wife of Aulus Plautius, the first Roman 
 governor in Britain, and the latter a born Briton, 
 the daughter of Caractacus the Welsh king, 
 whose husband was Prudence, a believer in 
 
 Christ." About fifty years 
 
 before the birth of our Saviour, the Romans in- 
 vaded the British Isle, in the reign of the Welsh 
 king, Cassibellan; but having failed, in conse- 
 quence of other and more important wars, to con- 
 quer the Welsh nation, made peace with them, 
 and dwelt among them for many years. Dur- 
 
 21 
 
ing that period many of the Welsh soldiers joined 
 the Roman army, and many families from Wales 
 visited Rome; among whom there was a certain 
 woman of the name of Claudia, who was married 
 to a man named Pudence. At the same time, 
 Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome, and preached 
 there in his own hired house, for the space of two 
 years, about the year of our Lord 63. See Acts 
 28:30. Pudence and Claudia, his wife, who be- 
 longed to Ceasar's household, under the blessings 
 of God on Paul's preaching, were brought to the 
 knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, 
 and made a profession of the Christian religion. 
 See 2 Tim. 4:21. These, together with other 
 Welshmen, among the Roman soldiers, who had 
 tasted that the Lord is gracious, exerted them- 
 selves on the behalf of their countrymen in Wales, 
 and who at that time were vile idolaters." 
 
 Much more might be quoted from this very 
 valuable book, but is this not enough for any 
 reasonable mind ? We believe that it is. The man 
 who wants to know the truth does not want far- 
 fetched evidence. This that we have produced 
 is not farfetched, but is the direct evidence of 
 our best historians. From these facts, we see 
 that Christianity was planted in Wales by the 
 converts of the Apostle Paul, and that the Eng- 
 lish Baptist originated from the Welsh Baptist. 
 Please see "Did They Dip?" by John T. Christ- 
 ian. The English Baptist came to New England 
 by the hundreds. These peopled all of the north- 
 ern states so that we may say our northern 
 brethren came directly from the English Bap- 
 
 2? 
 
tiat. 
 
 Possibly a word about the Southern Bap- 
 tist will not be out of place at this point. Cath- 
 cart in his encyclopedia has this to say: "Six- 
 teen Baptist about to emigrate to America, form- 
 ed themselves into a Baptist church in 1701, with 
 Rev. Thomas Griffith, one of their number, as 
 pastor. They came to Pennpek, now in Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., where there was a Welsh Baptist 
 church. Leaving in this place some of their num- 
 ber, and receiving accessions in return they re- 
 moved, in 1703, to Iron Hill, in the Welsh Tract, 
 New Castle Co., Del. At that time a part of Penn- 
 sylvania. In 1738, this colony moved to the Pee 
 Dee section of South Carolina and organized the 
 Old Welsh Neck church near Society Hill, S. C. 
 This church soon began missionary operation, and 
 it was not long until it had numbers of arms 
 organized and doing business for their king. 
 Among these arms were the Old Lanes Creek 
 church in Union County, N. C, and Meadow 
 Branch as an arm of this and other churches 
 around there. In fact, nearly all of the old church- 
 es in that section were the offsprings of the old 
 Welsh Baptist church. The Welsh Neck Baptist 
 association came from this church. 
 
 This, then proves that the American Baptist 
 are the descendants of the converts of the Apostle 
 Paul. We believe that this is enough to convince 
 any one that we have the original New Testament 
 Baptist right here in the south. Further argu- 
 ment cannot be continued here as space will not 
 admit it 
 
 23 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 WHO ARE THE ORIGINAL BAPTIST 
 
 Another question must be settled before we 
 pass to the main matter of this history, this is 
 the question of church identity. Who are the 
 Primitive Baptist? There are two sects claiming 
 the honor, one sect calls itself Primitive, or Old 
 Baptist, the other is called Missionary Baptist. 
 The first mentioned claims that they are the ori- 
 ginal New Testament church, the Missionary 
 claims the same thing; now who is right about 
 this matter? Is there no way by which this im- 
 portant question may be settled? Has the Lord 
 Jesus left his church so uncertain that it cannot 
 be identified? We do not think so. Would it be 
 justice to His church to leave it so that it cannot 
 be located without any trouble? Most surely 
 it would not be. To settle this once for all, we are 
 giving an entire chapter to a discussion of this 
 question. We might mention the fact that there 
 are more than two kinds of Baptist, but the ques- 
 tion does not lie between but two of them, the 
 Missionaries and the Primitives, or Hardshells, 
 the others, such as the Seventh Day Baptist, the 
 Adventist, the German Baptist, the Freewills, 
 and the Campbellites are of very recent origin, 
 consequently they are not in this question at 
 all. It is a matter entirely between the two de- 
 nominations we mentioned at first. They were 
 a part of our body at one time, or they were in 
 
 24 
 
some sections at least. They never joined in with 
 us in every place, but only where the brethren 
 tried to form a union. In 1832, a surgical opera- 
 tion was performed on the Baptist denomination 
 of the United States that severed the Hardshells 
 from us, and since that time the question has 
 been, "Which is the body, the part that was am- 
 putated or the part that was left? Is the Mis- 
 sionary Baptist the part that was left? We do 
 not think we can possibly make it any plainer. 
 They left us. They said they did. Their minutes 
 show that they organized their associations after 
 this split. Now, if a boy marries a wife and sets 
 out for himself, who can lay claim to the original 
 home, the old parents, or the new home? This 
 is too simple. Any ten year old child can answer 
 this. They left us and set up a denomination 
 of their own. "They went out from us, but they 
 were not of us; for if they had been of us, they 
 would no doubt have continued with us ; but they 
 went out, that they might be manifest that they 
 were not all of us. IJno. 2 :19." We claim that the 
 Missionary Baptist are the original apostolic Bap- 
 tist, and that no church can claim New Testament 
 identity without being missionary. Now, let it 
 be understood in the very beginning of this article 
 as to what our real intention is. We want to say, 
 first of all, that we have no personal flings to 
 make at anybody. This is too important a matter 
 to trifle with. We do not believe in personal 
 thrusts. We do not want to make any. We are 
 discussing a system, a denomination, a creed and 
 not a person, or persons. An opponent is grab- 
 
 25 
 
bing for straws when he begins to use abusive 
 language to carry his point. We have many 
 friends who believe in the antinomian doctrine. 
 Many of them were reared to believe that way; 
 others have not given it the real thought they 
 ought to have done. We love them, but cannot 
 referain from the truth when it comes to histori- 
 cal facts. They do not want us to deviate from 
 it in the least, we are sure. We truly hope that 
 the reader may lay prejudice aside for the time 
 being and reason with us as we look at this im- 
 portant question. We cannot give as much in- 
 formation here as we desire, but if you want to 
 go further into this matter, read Prof. Carroll's 
 History of Anti-Missionism in America. This has 
 all you need to know about it. We are discuss- 
 ing this because so many of the Anti-Missionaries 
 think that their denomination is the original 
 church, and, too, many Missionaries think the 
 same because they have never heard the Hard- 
 shell claim denied. Many of these are honest, 
 but honesty in believing a thing does not make 
 it true. For us to determine who are the New 
 Testament Baptist, we must notice some of their 
 characteristics before "the split." 
 
 1. The Baptist were great advocates of Bible 
 revision. They believed that the Bible ought 
 to be translated into our native tongue. Rome 
 said that it would not do, but Baptist did all they 
 could to give God's word to the laity and the 
 unlearned people of the English speaking world. 
 Now, did the Anti-Missionaries ever contend for 
 a thing like this? Have they ever tried to look 
 
 26 
 
into any of the translations to see if they were 
 authentic? They have not, but they have ridi- 
 culed learning and Bible investigation so that the 
 masses of their communicants are bitterly op- 
 posed to any revision, and some are opposed to 
 reading the Bible at all. Here they stand with 
 Rome and not with the Baptist. 
 
 2. The original Baptist contended for an edu- 
 cated ministry and believed profundly in educa- 
 tion. They had schools and colleges many years 
 before the divisions came about. Several were 
 established in this country, especially in the 
 north. The Charleston association had a com- 
 mittee appointed to look after this matter. Let 
 us notice this extract from a paper written by 
 Dr. Furman in 1821. Now, this was eleven years 
 before "the split" took place. Here is what he 
 says: "The churches in the Charleston associa- 
 tion, nearly thirty years ago, established a Gen- 
 eral Committee of their body, to act in concert 
 with the association, to superintend the common 
 secular interests of the churches, and to have the 
 disposal of a fund provided for at the same time ; 
 the principal object of which was the education 
 of pious young men for the gospel ministry as 
 stated above, when destitute of other assistance. 
 To this committee, also, they have since commit- 
 ted the concerns of Foreign and Domestic Mis- 
 sions, for the propagation of the gospel, in con- 
 cert with other bodies, as an auxiliary to the Gen- 
 eral Convention of Baptist churches in the United 
 States, or a constituent part of that body. This 
 General Committee is an incorporated body, by 
 
 27 
 
act of the state, and therefore known in law. 
 They have gratuitously educated a respectable 
 number of ministers, some of whom have become 
 eminent, have provided a theological library for 
 students in divinity, have furnished poor minis- 
 ters, in several instances, with useful books, 
 gratis; and for more than twenty years, have 
 supported a missionary, and, during a consider- 
 able part of the time, a school among the Catawba 
 Indians." We will not quote further, but is this 
 not interesting matter since it comes from the 
 pen of a man who wrote many years before "the 
 split" came? Yes, they believed and supported 
 education to the fullest. Who are the supporters 
 of our Christian schools today? Is it the 
 Hardshells? Who ever heard of their building 
 a single school ? No one. They oppose all of our 
 theological institutions, and ridicule ministerial 
 education, but the old time Baptist did not. They 
 craved an educated ministry. They did all they 
 could to have an educated ministry. Who con- 
 tends for such today? Is it not the Missionary 
 Baptist? They have an educated ministry for 
 the most part, and believe in it most profundly. 
 If you find one who does not, he is more Hardshell 
 than Missionary. Missionary Baptist believe so 
 much in education now that they are raising a 
 round million dollars in North Carolina for the 
 endowment of our schools and colleges. Who ever 
 heard tell of a Hardshell raising an endowment 
 fund? They have no schools, no seminaries, not 
 even an orphan asylum. They boast of their ig- 
 norance, and do what they can to propagate it. 
 
 28 
 
The Wingate School was built to further the cause 
 of education in this section. If you wish to see 
 what it has done, see the story of this school given 
 in the author's history of the Union Baptist As- 
 sociation. It has done great good for this sec- 
 tion, but it has been fostered by the Missionary 
 Baptist. We are glad to note that many Hard- 
 shells have patronized it, but it has been con- 
 trolled by this association. Let us see one more 
 reference from history. Rippon's Register, vol. 
 1, p. 97. Here is what he says about the Phila- 
 delphia Association which met Tuesday, Oct. 6th, 
 1789: On Wednesday the following took place: 
 "Met this morning at six o'clock for prayer. In 
 the forenoon read very agreeable letters from 
 several associations, conferred upon the necessity 
 and importance of raising a fund for the educa- 
 tion of pious and promising young men for the 
 ministry, and engaged to promote subscriptions 
 for said purpose." Now, here are statements 
 from the two most important associations in the 
 United States at this time. Both of them agree 
 that they were in hearty sympathy with educa- 
 tion, and that they were so much enthused over 
 the matter that they actually had prayer meet- 
 ings to pray for God to call young men into the 
 ministry. We might refer you to other associa- 
 tions of this day, but they all agreed on this mat- 
 ter. The Baptist before "the split" were mis- 
 sionary in faith and practice. 
 
 3. They had days of fasting and prayer. So 
 many of these are mentioned in the old records 
 that we cannot notice them all. We will give a 
 
 29 
 
few of them from the best records we can find. 
 The first we wish to give is from Rippon's Reg- 
 ister, vol. 1, p. 105: "May 13th, 1790, forty-two 
 years before 'the split,' I proposed to our mem- 
 bers a meeting to join with you and the rest of 
 the churches in England, who keep a monthly 
 evening meeting in prayer to God for a revival of 
 religion. It was agreed to: accordingly we met, 
 and I trust that God was with us. All of our 
 members are much aroused, and some young peo- 
 ple are under very serious impressions. We find 
 that several days were set apart for prayer and 
 fasting by the churches of the Kehukee associa- 
 tion. At this time the churches began earnestly 
 to desire a revival of religion, and set apart two 
 days of fasting and prayer, to solicit the throne 
 of grace for a revival." Burkett and Read's His- 
 tory of the Old Kehukee, 1803, p. 61, again— "In 
 consequence of a motion made by Elder J. Mc- 
 Cabe, the Association thought proper to advise 
 the several churches ( in order to remove the 
 general complaint of coldness in religion), to set 
 apart some time every day between sunset and 
 dark, to be engaged in private prayer to the Lord 
 for a revival of religion." Same history mention- 
 ed above, p. 77. Now does this sound anything 
 like a Hardshell meeting? By no means. This 
 was a Missionary body indeed. True, it became 
 antinomian in the last, but it was not until pois- 
 oned by the outsider. 
 
 4. One more thing we notice about the church- 
 es before "the split." They were a great folk for 
 revivals. The references we made just above 
 
 30 
 
this to show that they believed in fasting and 
 prayer, shows also that they believed implicitly in 
 revivals. They had revivals just as the Mission- 
 aries do today, only that they did not make con- 
 version just an act of the mind as some of our 
 modern evangelists do today. They had the old 
 time mourners to come forward and remain at the 
 front seat. We have seen an old sister who re- 
 members when mourners were invited in one of 
 the Hardshell churches of Stanley county. Oth- 
 ers are mentioned in The History of the Liberty 
 Association, written by Elder Henry Sheets. The 
 history of the Baptist is a history of revivals. 
 The one we wish to men tion most is that of 1800- 
 1803. Mr. Benedict, in speaking of the great re- 
 vival that swept over several states in the South 
 like a great tidal wave in 1800-1803, was of such 
 extraordinary character that he says of it: "The 
 above relation was given me by Rev. George 
 Pope, the pastor of the church at Abbott's Creek, 
 who is a man of sense and moderation, and who, 
 with many of his brethren, was much tried in 
 his mind and stood aloof from the work at its 
 commencement, but it spread so rapidly and so 
 powerfully that they soon discovered such evident 
 marks of its being a genuine work of grace, not 
 withstanding its new and unusual appearances, 
 that their doubts subsided, and they cordially and 
 zealously engaged in forwarding and promoting 
 it. Mr. Pope, in the course of the revival, bap- 
 tized about five hundred persons. History of the 
 Liberty Association, p. 43. I might give many 
 more references in regard to this great revival 
 
 31 
 
and others just as great, and these references by 
 the most distinguished historians, but it is use- 
 less to mention so many to prove a point like this 
 when the story of many of them has been handed 
 down from age to age by our foreparents. They 
 held them in New Testament days, and since that 
 time evangelism has been the keynote of the 
 churches of Jesus Christ. 
 
 5. We want to say in the next place that Bap- 
 tist have always been missionary. Evangelism 
 and missions always go hand in hand. They can- 
 not be separated. Missions and evangelism are 
 dependent the one upon the other. In order to 
 prove the above statement we will give some im- 
 portant quotations from Benedict's History of 
 the Baptist, 1848 edition. "Old School and Primi- 
 tive Baptist are appellations so entirely out of 
 place, that I cannot, even as a matter of courtesy, 
 use them without adding, so-called, or some such 
 expression. I have seen so much of the mission- 
 ary spirit among the old Anabaptist, Waldesians, 
 and other sects ; so vigorous and perpetual were 
 the efforts of those Christians, whom we claim as 
 Baptist, in early, middle, and later ages, to spread 
 the gospel in all parts of the world, among all 
 nations and languages where they could gain 
 access, that it is plain that those who merely 
 preach up predestination, and do nothing, have 
 no claim to be called by their name." Is this 
 not too true? But a name does not make a his- 
 torical fact true. It takes more than this. Let 
 us notice one more reference to the above men- 
 tioned history. "The farther down I go into the 
 
 32 
 
regions of antiquity, the more fully is the mission- 
 ary character of all whom we denominate our sen- 
 timental brethren developed. Propagandism was 
 their motto and their watch-word. They seldom 
 went alone, but two and two was the order of 
 their going out, and such was the order of their 
 zeal in their hazardous vocations, that no ordi- 
 nary obstacle could alarm their fears or impede 
 their progress. As nothing of this kind appears 
 among the opponents of the missionary enter- 
 prise, I cannot, with my views of duty as an hon- 
 est historian, apply to them the terms in question, 
 as I fully believe they mis-apprehend their own 
 character in this matter. And, furthermore, as 
 I do not wish for any controversy with them on 
 this subject, I prefer to say but little about it 
 p. 935-936." There are the views of an honest 
 historian who had investigated the entire matter 
 from one end to the other. It is so sad to see so 
 many honest people deluded by this erroneous 
 doctrine. It is going to cause many to miss the 
 eternal city. They think the whole matter hinges 
 on God, and that man has nothing to do with 
 his salvation. 
 
 Have we not shown that the Missionary Bap- 
 tist are the original Baptist ? Have we not shown 
 that they comply exactly with the customs of the 
 ancient Baptist and that they are the very people 
 Christ gave his commission to when he was about 
 to leave this world? Most surely we have. 
 
 33 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST 
 
 Now, since we have said what we did in the 
 previous chapter, is it not fitting that we show 
 just where this ism originated ? We cannot do jus- 
 tice to the question without doing this. 
 
 Their claim in the beginning was that they 
 were not opposed to missions, but the modus oper- 
 andi, (manner of operating it) . The one thing they 
 objected to most of all was the way Rice and oth- 
 ers had of raising money to further the cause of 
 missions. They could not endure Boards and Con- 
 ventions. Oh, how repulsive they were to them. 
 They declared non-fellowship with a brother who 
 contributed to the mission cause, and became 
 greatly offended at anything any one said in ad- 
 vocacy of the missionary cause. They said that 
 God would raise up men to preach to the heathen 
 if they were not converted. A more nonsensical 
 thing could not have been thought of. It was not 
 the plan of work, but covetousness and Antinom- 
 ian doctrine that came in the way and caused 
 them to do as they did. The way they have con- 
 ducted themselves since this time has proven to 
 the world that it was. What a man believes has 
 so much to do with him. God has had his plan 
 through the ages. The commission was given to 
 men who had the gospel in their hands. Jesus 
 meant just what He said. In a few paragraphs 
 we are going to see what we can determine about 
 
 34 
 
the origin of this denomination that has been such 
 a deadly foe to the progress of the cause of Christ 
 in this state, not only among the Hardshells, but 
 those who claim to be Missionaries. We are sorry 
 indeed to say that many of them are so much 
 poisoned with this doctrine that they stand in 
 the way of any progressive movement, and par- 
 alyze all efforts toward systematic giving. It does 
 not stop here, but goes even further; they have 
 put a spirit of bitterness in the brethren to the 
 extent that they are bitterly opposed to any mod- 
 ern movement for the advancement of the Mas- 
 ter's kingdom. Since we have Dr. B. H. Carroll, 
 Jr's. book, "The History of Antimissionism in 
 America," before us, we will quote quite freely 
 from it. Several things are made clear that we 
 do not need to comment on. This quotation is from 
 pages 85-96: 
 
 The Rise of the "Hardshells" 
 In studying the history of any great move- 
 ment it is necessary to take a view point. I choose 
 to take my stand in Kentucky in studying the 
 Hardshell split in the Baptist denomination. This 
 State has ever been, in theological as well as 
 profane history, a "dark and bloody ground," the 
 storm center of controversy, the battlefield of 
 jarring religious opinions. Her preachers have 
 ever been men of war from their youth upward. 
 They have been trained in a stern school. "Infi- 
 delity," "Deism," "Hell-Redemptionism," "Park- 
 erism," or "Two-Seedism," "Campbellism," "Hard- 
 shellism," "Old Landmarkism," "Gospel Mission- 
 ism," and "Whitsittism," succeeding and over- 
 
 35 
 
lapping each other, have for a hundred years di- 
 vided her forces and shorn her of her power. 
 There is scarcely an Association in her borders 
 that has not been riven on one or more of these 
 stones of stumbling and rocks of offence. Not 
 that all of these issues have been born here, or 
 that any of them were confined to this State, but 
 here they were cradled and nurtured. Contro- 
 versy has always flourished in Kentucky's fruit- 
 ful soil. It is a place where two seas meet and 
 where the Baptist ship has been like, time and 
 again, to have perished. Here Greek has met 
 Greek with the inevitable tug-of-war. One can- 
 not but mourn when contemplating all the fierce 
 virility wasted in combat when heresy-hunter 
 and heresy monger have joined in the rigid grip 
 of internecine strife. How terrible the loss of 
 energy when an irresistible force meets an im- 
 movable body! When Kentucky's two extremes 
 shall have tempered each other and the fierce 
 fires of battle have been moderated to the warm 
 glow of fraternal love, and all her exhaustless 
 fund of energy shall be directed no longer to the 
 uprooting of "every plant which our heavenly 
 Father hath not planted," but to watering with 
 tears and tending and cultivating with devotion 
 the one he has planted, how speedy and magni- 
 ficent will be its growth. May God hasten that 
 time! But at present our object is to look at the 
 mistakes, the follies and the sins of the past that 
 constitute history. 
 
 The leaders against missions have been many. 
 The opposition against missions has been one, in 
 
 36 
 
origin, progress, argument, and spirit, although 
 hydra-headed in its various forms of manifesta- 
 tion. It is the purpose of this chapter to ascer- 
 tain its genesis and trace and demonstrate its 
 unity through its varying forms. Every great 
 movement is to a large extent identified with its 
 leaders. The biographical method is the true one 
 by which to study history. We therefore present 
 some accounts of the three great leaders in the 
 anti-mission crusade, together with an outline 
 of their argument, from which by an inductive 
 progess we hope to show the spiritual genealogy 
 of all anti-missionaries, whose number is even at 
 the present day great. The three leaders were 
 John Taylor, of Kentucky, Daniel Parker, of Illi- 
 nois, and Alexander Campbell, of Virginia. 
 
 John Taylor was an earnest, consecrated, self- 
 sacrificing and conscientious minister of the gos- 
 pel. He was the only real Baptist of the three. 
 No man can read the account of his conversion, 
 or the story of his efforts to evangelize Kentucky 
 for Christ, without feeling that he was a con- 
 verted and honest man. He was the victim of 
 the prejudices engendered by his lack of educa- 
 tion and his early environment. Yet all his good 
 qualities but served to give respectability and 
 force to his opposition to the mission cause. It 
 is pleasant to recall that in his later life he was 
 more in sympathy with the mission movement 
 and less timorous of the bugbear which he had 
 been the first to raise. But, as Dr. Spencer well 
 says : "His pamphlet had gone forth on its perni- 
 cious mission, and probably did more to check the 
 
 37 
 
cause of missions in Kentucky, than any other 
 publication of the period." For a comprehension 
 of the better side of John Taylor, one should 
 read his "History of Ten Churches." 
 
 Daniel Parker was contemporary with John 
 Taylor and claims to be the first opponent of the 
 mission system. "It makes me shudder when I 
 think I am the first one (that I have any knowl- 
 edge of) among the thousands of zealous relig- 
 ionists of America, that have ventured to draw 
 the sword against the error, or to shoot at it and 
 spare no arrows." But it is doubtful if this state- 
 ment be true. Taylor wrote in 1819, Parker in 
 1820 and his pamphlet was republished in 1824, 
 at which time it was printed at Lexington, Ken- 
 tucky, along with another on the same topic and 
 rehashing the same argument, addressed to Maria 
 Creek Church. Parker was a son of John Parker. 
 He was born in Culpepper county, Virginia, reared 
 in Georgia amid extreme poverty and ignorance, 
 baptized in 1802, and licensed shortly after. In 
 1803 he removed to Trumbull Church in Tennes- 
 see, was ordained there in 1806, and moved to 
 southeastern Illinois in 1817. He claims, to have 
 traveled through a great many of the States of 
 America. In 1810, an old brother in Tennessee 
 advocated in a crude form the Two-Seed Doc- 
 trine. Parker rebuked him for it, but in 1826 set 
 forth in pamphlet an elaboratation of the same 
 views. 
 
 It is not easy to explain, at least what was 
 meant by Mr. Parker himself, in the phrase 
 "Two-Seed," which in time became so notorious. 
 
 38 
 
This at least may be said: the teaching repre- 
 sented by it was that form of antinomonianism 
 which carried the doctrine of predestination to 
 its utmost extreme. 
 
 Statement of the Doctrine 
 
 The essence of God is good; the essence of 
 evil is the Devil. God's angels are emanations 
 from or particles of God ; evil angels are particles 
 of the Devil. When God created Adam and Eve, 
 they were endowed with an emanation from Him- 
 self, or particles of God were included in their 
 constitution. They were wholly good. Satan, how- 
 ever, diffused into them particles of his essence 
 by which they were corrupted. In the beginning 
 God had appointed that Eve should bring forth 
 only a certain number of offspring ; the same pro- 
 visions applied to each of her daughters. But 
 when the particles of evil essence had been in- 
 fused by Satan, the conception of Eve and her 
 daughters was increased. They were now requir- 
 ed to bear the original number, who were styled 
 the seed of God, and an additional number who 
 were called the seed of the serpent. 
 
 This Two-Seed doctrine is a curious revival, 
 with some modifications of the ancient specula- 
 tive philosophy of Manichaeus. Dr. Newman calls 
 it a "very disgusting form of Gnostic heresy." 
 It is easy to see how such a heresy would cause 
 opposition to missions, for the progeny of one of 
 the seed would constitute the body of Christ, 
 whose salvation is certain; for the other, no sal- 
 vation is provided. The following quotation is 
 taken from page 11 of a copy of the first min- 
 
 39 
 
utes of the General Association of Baptists in 
 Kentucky, organized at Louisville, Friday, Octo- 
 ber 20th, 1837. 
 
 The Anti-missionary spirit owes its origin to 
 the notorious Daniel Parker. He was the first 
 person called Baptist that lent a hand to the In- 
 fidel, and Papist in opposing the proclamation of 
 the gospel to every creature, and the translation 
 and circulation of the Scriptures in all languages 
 and among all people. Possessing a strong na- 
 tive intellect, and a bold adventurous imagination 
 — with a mind cast in nature's most capacious 
 mold, but for want of cultivation admirably cal- 
 culated to be the receptacle of notions, the most 
 crude, extravagant and chimerical, he generated 
 an Utopian scheme of theology, the tendency of 
 which was to subvert all practical religion. The 
 grounds of his opposition to missions were — that 
 the devil was an eternal "self-subsistent being" 
 (to use his own phrase) ; that though God had 
 created all, yet the devil begat a part of man- 
 kind; that those begotten of the devil were his 
 bona fide children, and to their father they would 
 and ought to go ; and of course sending them the 
 gospel and giving them the Bible were acts of 
 such gross and supreme folly that no Christian 
 should be engaged in them! On the other hand 
 he taught that the remaining portion of the hu- 
 man family were the actual sons of God from 
 eternity, and being allied to Jesus Christ ere "the 
 morning stars sang together and all the sons of 
 God shouted for joy" by the nearest and dear- 
 est ties ot consanguinity, being no less than "par- 
 
 40 
 
tides' of his body — bone of his bone and flesh 
 of his flesh, the Redeemer would nolens volens, 
 take them to mansions prepared for them in 
 bliss; and hence Mr. Parker very wisely conclud- 
 ed, that if such were the case, the Lord had very 
 little use for the Bible or Missionary Societies. 
 But there were many who embraced only half the 
 doctrine of Mr. Parker and though they mani- 
 fested no great apprehension for the liege sub- 
 jects of the Prince of Darkness, yet they express- 
 ed great alarm lest the missionaries should help 
 the Lord to perform his work, and convert the 
 souls of some in a way God never intended they 
 should be. They were such staunch friends of 
 the Lord's, doing all His work, that they set upon 
 and terribly assailed their missionary brethren, 
 for fear they should by some means assist the 
 Lord in the salvation of his elect! In their zeal 
 against these ambitious strides of the mission- 
 aries, they have occasioned great disturbance 
 and distress — and destroying the Peace of Zion, 
 the progress of religion has been greatly retard- 
 ed, and the influence and usefulness of many 
 ministers and churches utterly paralyzed. 
 
 Dr. Carroll, of Texas, in a speech before the 
 Southern Baptist Convention at Hot Springs, 
 Arkansas, in 1900, compared Parker in his vio- 
 lence to a wild boar rooting up the tender plants 
 in a garden. The following description of the 
 person and personality of Daniel Parker was writ- 
 ten by Dr. John M. Peck, of Home Mission fame, 
 while Parker was still alive and active : 
 
 Mr. Parker is one of those singular and extra- 
 
 41 
 
ordinary beings whom divine Providence permits 
 to arise as a scourge to his church, and a stumb- 
 ling block in the way of religious effort. Raised 
 on the frontier of Georgia, (by others he is spok- 
 en of as a native of Virginia) , without education, 
 uncouth in manner, slovenly in dress, diminutive 
 in person, unprepossessing in appearance, with 
 shriveled features and a small, piercing eye, few 
 men for a series of years have exercised a wider 
 influence on the lower and less educated class of 
 frontier people. With a zeal and an enthusiasm 
 bordering on insanity, firmness that amounted to 
 obstinacy, and perseverance that would have done 
 honor to a good cause, Daniel Parker exerted 
 himself to the utmost to induce churches to de- 
 clare non-fellowship with all Baptist who united 
 themselves with any of the benevolent (or as he 
 called them "newfangled") societies. 
 
 His mind, we are told, was of a singular and 
 original sort. In doctrine he was antinomian. He 
 believed himself inspired, and so persuaded oth- 
 ers. Repeatedly we have heard him when his 
 mind seemed to soar above his own powers, and 
 he would discourse for a few moments on divine 
 attributes or on some devotional subject, with 
 such brilliancy of thought and correctness of 
 language as would astonish men of education and 
 talents. Then again it would seem as if he were 
 perfectly bewildered in a maze of abstruse sub- 
 tleties. 
 
 Besides his itineracy among the churches, 
 Parker was a writer, and among other things 
 published for a time a periodical called the 
 
 42 
 
"Church Advocate." How much a person of in- 
 fluence he was is shown by the fact that during 
 four years, from 1822 to 1826, he was a member 
 of the Illinois State Senate. His disastrous ca- 
 reer in Illinois and Indiana came to a close in 1833, 
 when he removed to Texas. 
 
 It is said of Daniel Parker, that at one time 
 in his earlier career he applied for appointment 
 as missionary, and when it was refused him, turn- 
 ed against mission societies and missionary ef- 
 fort of every kind. This was true at least of his 
 coadjutor, Wilson Thompson. Just how far Park- 
 er was influenced by Taylor cannot be known ; but 
 Wilson Thompson, his coadjutor, admits to being 
 greatly influenced by reading Taylor's pamph- 
 let. Recent mission troubles in Texas may pos- 
 sibly be due in part to Parker's labors after 
 reaching that state, although we can discover 
 nothing of his life after he moved to Texas. The 
 Parkerite heresy has not yet died out, for the 
 census bulletin for 1893 reports to the member- 
 ship of this sect in the entire country at 9,932. 
 
 The third and greatest opposer of the mission 
 system was Alexander Campbell. He was the son 
 of Thomas Campbell, a Presbyterian clergyman. 
 Alexander was born in Ireland but educated at 
 the University of Glascow, in Scotland, for the 
 Presbyterian ministry. The date of his arrival 
 in this country is variously given between 1807 
 and 1809. September, 1809, is probably the cor- 
 rect date. In 1809 the Christian Association at 
 Washington, Pennsylvania, was organized. On 
 the 12th day of June, 1812, Alexander Campbell 
 
 43 
 
and wife were baptized by Rev. Matthias Luce, 
 as were also his father, mother and sister. 
 
 All these arrived at their convictions on the 
 subject of baptism separately and to the mutual 
 surprice of each other. Campbell was received by 
 this baptism into Brush Run Church, which next 
 year, 1813, presented a written creed to Red Stone 
 Baptist Association, and was received into mem- 
 bership with that body. In March, 1811, Camp- 
 bell married, and in April moved to Buffalo (now 
 Bethany), Virginia. In 1820 he debated with 
 Walker on the subject of baptism. In August, 
 1823, he began to publish a small religious month- 
 ly, called "The Christian Baptist." After mak- 
 ing an extensive tour through some of the West- 
 ern States and finding the anti-mission leaven 
 implanted by Parker and Taylor already at work, 
 he became much more bold in his attacks so that 
 Daniel Parker established "The Church Advo- 
 cate," a periodical similar in size, form and aim 
 of "The Christian Baptist," for the purpose of 
 advocating church sovereignty and exclusiveness, 
 in opposition to benevolent societies in the West. 
 There can be no doubt that in this Parker and 
 Campbell made common cause. 
 
 While the chief root of Parker's opposition 
 lay in his heresy, Campbell's lay in the fact that 
 he considered himself a Reformer. As he said 
 in his preface, I would do no good to convert 
 heathens to a form of Christianity held by men 
 who themselves needed to be converted to New 
 Testament Christianity. Reformers have never 
 been missionaries, nor the reforming ages per- 
 
 44 
 
iods of missionary activity in the church. This 
 was true of the Roman church. For three hun- 
 dred years, while the reformers were trying by 
 means of councils to cleanse the church in head 
 and members, there was no missionary activity. 
 Not until after the Reformation, when the Coun- 
 cil of Trent had finally put a quietus on the re- 
 form movements, did Roman missionary activity 
 begin. The same was true of the Protestant 
 churches. As long as Europe was filled with the 
 jangling of their warring creeds, missionary ef- 
 fort, though feebly attempted a few times, mis- 
 erably failed. But in the fullness of time when 
 religious opinions had all clarified and crystallized 
 into settled creeds, Cary arose to set the Chris- 
 tian world on fire with missionary enthusiasm. 
 Campbell, then, as a reformer, could not readily 
 be a missionary. His mistake lay in supposing the 
 Baptists needed reformation. What they needed 
 was cooperation and missionary zeal. This, Camp- 
 bell was not responsible for giving them, except 
 as Judas was responsible for our redemption. 
 
 We have then the curious spectacle of the 
 highest antinomianism, represented by Parker 
 and Taylor, and the most extreme Arminianism, 
 represented by Campbell, combined to attack the 
 principles of missions. The one side claimed it to 
 be an infringement of the devine, and the other 
 of church sovereignty. This coalition was great- 
 ly successful. Dr. Spencer truly says of Campbell, 
 that he exercised more influence over the Bap- 
 tists of Kentucky than of any other State, and 
 that while "not the originator of opposition to 
 
 45 
 
missions he was its most successful advocate." 
 It is not our purpose to follow Mr. Campbell into 
 all the doctrinal and credal tergiversations into 
 which his reform policy led him. But by attacking 
 and attempting to change the very plan of salva- 
 tion itself, the only doctrine more vital than that 
 of missions, he finally succeeded in adding an- 
 other to the already large number of sects in 
 Christendom. His activity in this line was so 
 great and its results are so well known as to ob- 
 scure his responsibility for the Hardshell split. 
 The truth is, Alexander Campbell was the fath- 
 er of twins, Hardshellism and Campbellism. Hard- 
 shellism first gave indication of its appearance, 
 but as in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was sup- 
 planted in the womb by its brother, Campbellism. 
 Hardshellism, though longer in taking to itself 
 habitation and a name, was the first of the two 
 to disturb the Baptist denomination. But here, 
 as in the case of Parker, many followed him in 
 his opposition to missions, who did not join him 
 in his doctrinal vagaries and who were left behind 
 to vex the saints when the believers in his creed, 
 as set forth in the "Christian Baptist" and "Mil- 
 lenial Harbinger," went out from the Baptists to 
 form a new denomination. The denomination he 
 founded has found it necessary in the struggle 
 for existence to discard all his anti-missionary 
 ideas, and to use all the methods he so unspar- 
 ingly burlesqued. The quotations made from his 
 writings are all from the period while he was 
 still a Baptist, as his influence was largely dimin- 
 ished among them after his secession. But not 
 
 46 
 
until the last Hardshell, Gospel Missioner and 
 Retrenching Church and Association has sloughed 
 off from the Missionary Baptists, will the cure 
 be complete. 
 
 Now, just a word about the rise of Anti-mis- 
 sionism in our State, North Carolina. We have 
 shown by the above article where the matter ori- 
 ginated, and what the real intent of it was, but we 
 have not shown how it came into North Carolina. 
 This we can do by giving a historical sketch writ- 
 ten by Dr. T. H. Pritchard while he was president 
 of Wake Forest college. He was an honest his- 
 torian, and had so much experience with the Bap- 
 tist of this state, and in fact, with those of the 
 Middle Atlantic States, that he knew all about 
 the different changes that had come about dur- 
 ing the colonial and succeeding years. This ar- 
 ticle we quote from was published in The Bibli- 
 cal Recorder while he was at Wake Forest. Here 
 is the statement: 
 
 Not Primitive or Old School, But New School, or 
 Anti-Missionary Baptists 
 
 "I propose to show that the terms Old School 
 and Primitive, when applied to that class of Bap- 
 tists who oppose Foreign Missions, Sunday 
 Schools, revivals of religion, Bible societies, etc., 
 are misnomers, and that the real Primitive or 
 Old School Baptists are the Missionary Baptists 
 of this day. This is a question of fact, not of opin- 
 ion, and I shall submit testimony drawn from 
 their own records establishing the position. The 
 evidence adduced is taken from the "History of 
 the Sandy Creek Association," written by Dr. 
 
 47 
 
Geo. W. Purefoy, and I shall sometimes use his 
 language and sometimes my own, quoting the 
 names of authors, with chapter and verse, that 
 there may be no question as to the authenticity 
 of the testimony presented. Taking it for granted 
 that the Christians of the apostolic age were Bap- 
 tists, which I assuredly believe, two things are 
 clear: First, that God called and directed men to 
 preach to the heathen (Acts xiii:2; Gal. i:15) ; 
 and, second, that funds were raised by the 
 churches and paid as "wages" to the missionaries 
 (2 Cor. xi:7,8,9). The original and Primitive Bap- 
 tists were, therefore, Missionary Baptists, like 
 those of the present day, who sent men called of 
 God to preach the Gospel to the heathen and col- 
 lect funds which are paid as the wages of the 
 missionaries. 
 
 I shall now prove from unquestionable his- 
 torical facts that the Associations which are now 
 anti-missionary were in favor of foreign missions 
 up to the years 1826-27-30, and have no claim to 
 the title of the Old School Baptists. 
 
 I will begin with the Baltimore Association, 
 perhaps the most famous body of this modern sect 
 in the United States. Their minutes for 1814 con- 
 tain the following record : "Received a correspond- 
 ing letter from Bro. Rice, one of our missionary 
 brethren, on the subject of encouraging mission- 
 ary societies." This Bro. Rice was Luther Rice, 
 who was then just from Burmah, whither he had 
 gone as a missionary with Adoniran Judson. 
 
 In 1816, these minutes, in their circular let- 
 ter, say: "The many revivals of religion which 
 
 48 
 
are witnessed in various parts of the country — 
 the multiplication of Bible societies, Missionary 
 societies, and Sunday schools, both in our own 
 and foreign countries — are viewed by us as show- 
 ing indications of the near approach of that day 
 when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the 
 earth." 
 
 The minutes of the same year state that "the 
 Standing Clerk was instructed to supply the Cor- 
 responding Secretary of the Foreign Mission 
 Board with a copy of our minutes annually." 
 
 In 1817, "Bro. Luther Rice presented himself 
 as the messenger of the Baptist Board of For- 
 eign Missions, and was cordially received." 
 
 Elder James Osborne was a member of this 
 body which cordially received a Foreign Mission- 
 ary, and at this very session was appointed a 
 Home Missionary. This man Osborne, who was 
 a leader in the Anti-mission secession, both in 
 Maryland and North Carolina, I remember to 
 have seen in Charlotte when I was a small boy. 
 He was a handsome, dressy man, full of conceit, 
 and very fond of talking of himself and of selling 
 his own books. 
 
 From the same authentic source, the minutes 
 of the Baltimore Association, we learn that in 
 1828 they called themselves "Regular Baptists," 
 just as we do now. The same year they expressed 
 their joy at the intelligence of the conversion of 
 the heathen, and as late as 1827 the association 
 expressed by formal resolutions their sorrow at 
 the death of Mrs. Ann H. Judson, and their great 
 interest in the mission with which she was con- 
 
 49 
 
nected, and it was not till 1836, when the associa- 
 tion met with the Black Rock Church, and then by 
 a vote of sixteen to nine, that fellowship was 
 withdrawn from churches favoring foreign mis- 
 sions, Sunday schools, etc. 
 
 To come back now to North Carolina, I can 
 prove that the Kehukee and Country Line Asso- 
 ciations, two of the most influential of the Anti- 
 mission party, were once missionary bodies. In 
 Burkett & Read's History of the Kehukee Asso- 
 ciation it is stated on page 139 that in 1794, a spe- 
 cial day was appointed to pray God for a revival 
 of religion, and on page 145, that it was the cus- 
 tom of the ministers of that date to invite peni- 
 tents to come forward and kneel down to be pray- 
 ed for, just as we do in our revival meetings now. 
 
 In Bigg's History, Kehukee Association, page 
 162, it appears that this Association appointed 
 delegates to meet at Cashie Church, Bertie coun- 
 ty ,in June, 1805, with delegates from Virginia, 
 Portsmouth, and Neuse Associations, and at this 
 meeting arrangements were made to collect mon- 
 ey for missionary purposes. Thus it appears that 
 the Kehukee was not only in fellowship with the 
 Portsmouth and other Missionary Baptist As- 
 sociations, but that the very first missionary so- 
 ciety ever organized in the State was in the 
 bounds of this body. 
 
 In 1812, this association sent $3 ; in 1813, $5 ; 
 and in 1814, $5, to the general meeting of cor- 
 respondence of North Carolina, which was an or- 
 ganization of the Missionary Baptist. 
 
 The same history of the Association shows 
 
 50 
 
that in 1817, it was in correspondence with the 
 General Convention of the Baptists, which met 
 that year in Philadelphia, and which was support- 
 ing Judson and other foreign missionaries, and 
 it was not till 1827 that this Association took a 
 decided anti-missionary ground. 
 
 The evidence to show that the Country Line 
 Association was a missionary body up to the year 
 1832, is perfectly overwhelming. Its minutes 
 show that in 1816, '17 and '18, that body sent dele- 
 gates to the general meeting of correspondence, 
 and in 1816 Elder Geo. Roberts, one of the min- 
 isters of this Association, was the Moderator of 
 the general meeting of correspondence of which 
 Robert T. Daniel was the agent, and which devel- 
 oped into the North Carolina Baptist State Con- 
 vention. In 1818 this association sent $13.45 to 
 the North Carolina Missionary Society by the 
 hands of Bro. John Campbell. 
 
 And what is still more remarkable, there was 
 a very prosperous Woman's Mission Society in 
 this Association, the minutes of which, kept by 
 John Campbell, show that the "Hyco Female Cent 
 Society" was formed at Tynch's Creek meeting 
 house, in Caswell county, in October, 1816; in 
 March, 1817, it met at Bush Arbor meeting- 
 house; in March 1818, it met at the same place; 
 in 1819 at Grave's meeting-house, and the fifth 
 annual meeting was held in September, 1820, at 
 Arbor. All of these churches are not anti-mission, 
 but were then missionary bodies, and the persons 
 who preached the annual sermons — R. Dishong, 
 J. Landus, Barzillar Graves, Abner W. Clopton, 
 
 51 
 
and S. Chandler — were all Missionary Baptist 
 ministers. 
 
 In 1832, the Country Line Association was in 
 regular correspondence with the Flat river and 
 Sandy Creek Associations, both of which were 
 then and still are, missionary bodies. 
 
 In 1832 James Osborne, of Baltimore, visited 
 this Association, and under his influence it was 
 induced to withdraw fellowship from the Mission- 
 ary Baptists of the State. 
 
 Now from this brief statement of unvarnished 
 facts we see that the Missionary Baptists are just 
 where the apostles were and where all of the name 
 were in 1827-28, when a new sect arose, calling 
 themselves, according to Elder Bennett's Review, 
 page 8, at first the Reformed Baptists in North 
 Carolina, and then the Old Baptists, the Old Sort 
 of Baptists, Baptists of the Old Stamp, and fin- 
 ally adopted the name of the Primitive Baptists. 
 
 There are many things about these brethren 
 which I like and I would not needlessly call them 
 by an offensive name, but I can not style them 
 either Old School or Primitive Baptists, for in 
 so doing I should falsify the facts of history and 
 acknowledge that I and my brethren have de- 
 parted from the faith of the apostles and Baptist 
 fathers. In no invidious sense, therefore, but 
 from necessity, I am obliged to call them New 
 School or Anti-missionary Baptists." 
 
 The short statement of the whole matter is 
 this: 
 
 1. The Regular Baptists of Europe were Mis- 
 sionary Baptists. 
 
 52 
 
2. The first Baptists of England were Mis- 
 sionary Baptists. 
 
 3. The first association ever formed in Eng- 
 land was a Missionary Baptist Association. 
 
 4. The first Baptist Church in America, at 
 Newport, R. I., was a Missionary Baptist Church. 
 
 5. The first Baptist Association ever organiz- 
 ed in America, the Philadelphia, which included 
 all known Baptist churches, was a Missionary 
 Baptist Association, and annually raised money 
 for ministerial education and missionary opera- 
 tions. That Association has ever been a mis- 
 sionary body. 
 
 6. The first Association that was organized 
 in New England, the Warren Association, which 
 embraced all the Baptist Churches in New Eng- 
 land, was a missionary body, and is to this day. 
 
 7. The first Baptist Association ever formed 
 in Virginia was a Missionary Baptist Association. 
 
 8. The first Association organized in North 
 Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Ten- 
 nessee, and in every Southern State, were Mis- 
 sionary Baptist Associations. 
 
 9. All the fathers, founders, and originators 
 of this new sect, who claim the name of Primitive 
 Baptists, once belonged to Missionary Baptist 
 churches, and co-operated in the missionary work, 
 and some of them, like James Osborne, the ori- 
 ginator of anti-missionism in Maryland and North 
 Carolina, were actually missionaries of the 
 boards. Now this is the unenviable position in 
 which the "Anti-missionaries" have placed them- 
 selves. So far as I can learn, they deny that 
 
 53 
 
Missionary Baptist churches are churches of 
 Christ, or that they can, or ever could, administer 
 Gospel ordinances. Whence, then, did the Anti- 
 missionaries get their baptisms and ordinations ?" 
 We have written at length on this subject, 
 but is it not necessary since so many are not in- 
 formed on this line? We have done this to help 
 our people to know the facts in the case. We 
 have not done this to provoke argument by any 
 means, and we hope that those who read these 
 lines may investigate this question as fully as 
 they need to, so that they may come to an honest 
 conclusion of the whole matter and not live and 
 die under a sad misunderstanding. 
 
 54 
 
WHAT THE BAPTIST HAVE BEEN CALLED 
 
 THROUGH ALL THE AGES 
 
 From A. D. 33--A. D. 1924 
 
 Baptist have never named themselves in any 
 way. They have left that part of the matter for 
 other people and they have always had plenty of 
 folks more than ready to name them. Of course 
 the names have always been given them because 
 of some characteristics they possessed. Some- 
 times they named them for a man, but only be- 
 cause he was the leader and not because he was 
 the originator of their creed, if they have one. 
 They had different names in different countries, 
 but all of them had the same doctrine. The name 
 did not make a difference in them in any way. 
 Sometimes they were named for some fanatical 
 sect that happened to be in force and also to be 
 diesipsed. This they tried to do to disgrace the 
 Baptist, but they have lived through all of the 
 ages since Jesus was here, and they are going 
 to continue to live as long as time lasts if the 
 Bible is not destroyed. Their life is depending on 
 the truth as it is preached. If the gospel is not 
 preached, the Baptist suffer greatly. They live 
 as the gospel lives. 
 
 Let us notice the names by which they have 
 been known in all ages of the Christian era. They 
 were first called "Disciples." While the gospel 
 was being preached around Jerusalem, they were 
 called nothing else, but when they were dispersed 
 
 55 
 
to Syria and the church of Antioch was organized, 
 they were called "Christian" because they fol- 
 lowed so closely the teachings of Christ and his 
 apostles. They were called Christian for the first 
 century, but when they begun to scatter to other 
 nations outside of Palestine they had other names 
 given them. During the second century they were 
 called Montanist and in some sections they were 
 called Turtullianist after Tertullian who held to 
 Baptist views and preached Baptist doctrines. 
 During the third century they were called Nova- 
 tionist. These men came into existence during 
 the time that Constantine the Great was reorgan- 
 izing the forces of Rome, and as he said, was 
 putting Christianity on its feet, but he was only 
 making ready for the coming of the Roman Cath- 
 olic church with all of its deceptive doctrines and 
 heresies. It made no difference how formal and 
 lifeless his reign was, there was a people there 
 to stand up for the truths of God as they are 
 taught in the New Testament scriptures. They 
 were called Novationist in derision. Before they 
 had died out another name was given them. This 
 time they were named for a man Donatus, hence 
 they were called Donatist. These men lived as they 
 preached. They were not learned but they were 
 consecrated. Their lives made a most wonderful 
 impression on the communities in which they 
 lived. This name lasted until the sixth century. 
 They were succeeded by the Numidians and the 
 Paulicans. It is very easy to see why they were 
 called Paulicans. They adhered so closely to the 
 teachings of Paul that they imbibed his spirit and 
 
 56 
 
showed his fervor for the gospel to the extent that 
 it was noticeable. They bore this name until the 
 tenth century. At this time they were called the 
 Albigenses. They were called this at Albiga, 
 France. They sprung up all of a sudden in France 
 at this town, and because they were located there, 
 they called them Albigenses. This name went 
 with them through the latter part of the tenth 
 century and on until the eleventh century. Dur- 
 ing the latter part of the eleventh and the twelfth 
 centuries they were called Paternines. Then they 
 were caller Petrobrussians ; from this they went 
 to Arnoldist. Then they were called Waldensians, 
 not Waldensians like we have them in North Car- 
 olina, but Waldensians who practiced the very 
 things the Baptists practice today. They may not 
 have been like us in every way, but there was no 
 noticeable difference. Later they were called Ana- 
 baptist because they baptized those who had been 
 sprinkled by pedobaptist. The same thing they are 
 doing every Sunday at this time. The Germans did 
 not like the sect and tried to exterminate them in 
 every way they could. In some sections there was 
 a fanatical sect known by the same name but not 
 the original Baptist. They say that there were 
 more than forty sects in England known by this 
 name. Some of them did not immerse, but believed 
 in believers baptism and would resprinkle those 
 who had been sprinkled in infancy. This put them 
 in the class to be called Anabaptist, but they were 
 not really such. This name followed them far into 
 the seventeenth century. Later on the word Ana 
 was left off and they were called simply Baptist, 
 
 57 
 
meaning those who immersed. 
 
 To this name many prefixes have been placed, 
 but they remain the same old time New Testa- 
 ment Christians they were in the first century. 
 They have not lived the truth as they have believ- 
 ed it, but they are the same in practice they have 
 always been and the gates of hell have not pre- 
 vailed against them. They have made their im- 
 press upon the world whereever they have ex- 
 isted, and as long as time last they are going to 
 preach the truth in such an uncompromising way 
 that they may have half a dozen other names 
 before He comes. 
 
 The pedobaptist and other denominations 
 sprung up in different sections of our country at 
 the following times : 
 
 Roman Catholocism A. D. 607, Feb. 19. 
 
 The Christianity of these terrible times met 
 a supreme test, the wrecks and deformities of 
 which, she, in many respects, has never sur- 
 vived. In a despairing effort to hold some power 
 over these heathen invaders, the Christianity of 
 the times assumed to play upon the superstitions 
 of the uncivilized hordes. This was successfully 
 accomplished in many ways, principally by claim- 
 in great spiritual powers for the bishops, by im- 
 posing severe penalties upon the violators of 
 Christian precepts, and by overdrawing the un- 
 cultured mind with mysterious ceremonies and 
 gilded pageantry. It was this misguided effort 
 to convert the barbarians that gave rise in those 
 awful days to the fanaticism which finally 
 stretched its pall over the middle ages and prosti- 
 
tuted the simplicity of Christianity into a mighty 
 system of sacerdotalism and ritualism. 
 
 Ridpath says, on page 520, Vol. 4, in speaking 
 of the times of Charlemange: "The Holy See at 
 this time made the discovery that the presenta- 
 tion of moral truth and obligation to the barbar- 
 ian imagination was less effective than splendid 
 shows and gilded ceremonies. She, therefore, 
 adopted pageant instead of moral expostulation 
 and converted the barbarians with spectacels." 
 It was through these means and under conditions, 
 that the Church was able to gradually assume 
 her control, until she gripped and subdued the 
 political as well as the religious powers of the 
 people. 
 
 The actual establishment of the Roman Pa- 
 pacy was accomplished by Gregory the Great, in 
 the year A. D. 590. On page 418, Vol. 4, Rid- 
 path says, "This epoch in history should not be 
 passed over without reference to the rapid growth 
 of the Papal church, in the close of the sixth cen- 
 tury and the beginning of the seventh. Most 
 of all by Gregory the Great, whose pontificate ex- 
 tended from 590 to 604, was the supremacy of 
 the Apostolic See asserted and maintained. Un- 
 der the triple title of Bishop, of Rome, Primate 
 of Italy, and Apostle of the West, he gradually 
 by gentle insinuation or bold assertion, as best 
 suited the circumstance, elevated the Episcopacy 
 of Rome into a genuine papacy of the Church. He 
 succeeded in bringing the Arians of Italy and 
 Spain into the Catholic fold, and thus assured the 
 solidarity of the Western Ecclesia." From this 
 
 59 
 
time forth to the Reformation, a period of quite 
 nine hundred years, the Roman papacy held her 
 despotic sway over the map of Europe. She seized 
 the sceptre of state and made the kings of earth 
 her servants. She grew rich with wealth and be- 
 came drunk with power. She committed fornica- 
 tion with kings, and made the inhabitants of the 
 earth drunk with her whoredoms. She was 
 "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with 
 the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Ignorance, 
 lust and fanaticism ran riot under her dominion. 
 Her history is written in fire and blood, and is 
 stamped with the curse of God. The historian 
 calls these centuries of papal dominion the "Dark 
 ages." The cross of Jesus was lost to the gaze 
 of a despairing world, while the "deceiver of na- 
 tions" glutted herself in fatness. At her hands 
 the true followers of Jesus suffered "trials of 
 cruel mockings and scourgings, yea moreover of 
 bonds and imprisonments ; they were stoned, they 
 were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with 
 the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins 
 and goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, torment- 
 ed ; of whom the world was not worthy." 
 
 However, the light of modern civilization 
 broke with the beginning of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. With the dawn of the Reformation, we have 
 the rise of modern denominationalism. This 
 period seems to have been God's time to wake 
 the nations out of sleep. The intellectual, politi- 
 cal and religious mind of the world was ready for 
 a new order of things, and the people were pre- 
 pared to welcome any leaders who could teach 
 
 60 
 
them to walk in new paths." This quotation has 
 been given to get a back ground for the beginning 
 of denominations. The Catholics are the mother 
 of nearly all of the protestant denominations — 
 please remember that the Baptist denomination 
 is not protestant — especially all those that prac- 
 tice infant sprinkling and some that do not. Some 
 of those that came out of the Catholic church are 
 strict immersionist. Such is the case with the 
 Greek Catholic church and several other denomi- 
 nations we will not name at this time. The Catho- 
 lic church did not originate in a day as some of 
 the protestant denominations. It was the devel- 
 opment of many ages. It really began with the 
 reign of Constantine the Great and was not per- 
 fected until 1870 when the pope was declared 
 infallible. We cannot give a detailed account of 
 the rise of Catholicism here, but hope to in an- 
 other little book we have been working on for 
 some time. 
 
 The next denominations we wish to mention 
 is that of the Moravians which originated in 1457. 
 This movement did not figure very prominently, 
 but when Martin Luther appeared on the stage 
 of action in the beginning of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, things took a turn and the Lutheran church 
 was organized out of the German Catholics and 
 in direct opposition to them. This movement cul- 
 minated in the Diet of Worms which indorsed the 
 Augsburg Confession, thus giving origin to the 
 Lutheran church. This was June, 1530. 
 
 Selsus E. Tull in his little booklet entitled 
 "Denominationalism Put to the Test" has this to 
 
 61 
 
say about this movement : "All great movements 
 converge their forces into the personality of some 
 great man. Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, 
 whose life spanned the years from 1483 to 1546, 
 became the religious leader of the new day. Luth- 
 er saw the general catholic degeneracy and disso- 
 lution, and organized a movement for reform. He 
 had no avowed intention to break away from the 
 Church; his idea was simply to reform the prac- 
 tices of the Church. His attacks upon the rule 
 of the Pope, and his defiance of the Pope's edicts 
 brought him under the anathema of excommuni- 
 cation. This situation forced Luther and his fol- 
 lowers into a separate organization in the year 
 1520," but the real organization of the Lutheran 
 church was not perfected until the Augsburg Con- 
 fession was adopted at the Diet of Worms in 1530. 
 
 The next religious movement was in England 
 under the leadership of Henry VII. We give the 
 following from "Denominationalism Put to the 
 Test." These facts are published in the very best 
 histories we have, and as you read them do not 
 think for one minute that we originated them. 
 These are established historical facts: 
 
 "In 1509 Henry the Eighth was crowned King 
 of England at the age of twelve years. He was 
 married the same year to Catherine of Aragon, 
 daughter of Ferdinand, and widow of his brother 
 Arthur. Twenty years later than this, when 
 Henry came to exercise his own prerogative in 
 personal matters, he decided to divorce Catherine 
 and to marry Anne Boleyn, an English girl, who 
 had been reared at the court of Charles the Fifth 
 
 62 
 
of France. This question of Henry's divorce rais- 
 ed a great discussion in the church, which finally 
 was carried to the Pope of Rome for settlement. 
 The Pope decided against Henry. Realizing the 
 political affairs, Henry thereupon took matters 
 in his own hands and proceeded to put away 
 Catherine and to marry Anne, notwithstanding 
 the Pope's pronounced interdiction. This defiance 
 of the Pope caused Henry's excommunication 
 from the Catholic Church by Pope Clement the 
 Seventh, 1534. Accepting the situation as an 
 opportunity to rid himself completely of all poli- 
 tical alliances with the Pope, Henry immediately 
 convened his Parliament, and on November 23rd, 
 of the same year, 1534, caused his parliament to 
 pass an act known as "The Act of Supremacy," 
 which declared Henry the Eighth to be "the Pro- 
 tector and Supreme Head of the Church and 
 Clergy of England." Thus it was that on the 23rd 
 day of November, 1534, "The Church of England" 
 was set up, with the profligate, adulterous, mur- 
 derous Henry as its founder and head. Brought 
 into existence in a day by the power of a political 
 fiat, the Episcopalian Church started on its car- 
 eer as a "Christian" denomination. 
 
 The next denomination to come into existence 
 was the Presbyterians. The same little book we 
 have been quoting has the following to say about 
 the origin of the Presbyterians: "The success of 
 Luther's Protestantism on the continent gave 
 liberty for other like movements. John Calvin, 
 who was born in the year 1509, the same year 
 that Henry the Eighth was crowned King of Eng- 
 
 63 
 
land, who was educated for a Catholic monk, 
 joined hands with Luther and aided the Reforma- 
 tion. In some respects, Calvin's ideas of both doc- 
 trine and policy were different from those of 
 Luther. For this reason, Calvin's reform fell into 
 distinct channels and crystallized into an inde- 
 pendent organization, and because of their form 
 of church government, Calvinists became known 
 as Presbyterians. The Presbyterian Church be- 
 gan its separate denominational existence in the 
 year 1536." 
 
 Thus begun the leading denominations of the 
 world and all of the others have come out of these. 
 They came into existence as follows: Dutch Re- 
 form 1619, German Reform 1563, Adventist 1671, 
 Six Principal Baptist 17th century, German Bap- 
 tist 1708, German Seventh Day Baptist 1728, 
 Dunkards 1708, Methodist 1729, Universalist 
 1779, Free Will Baptist 1780, Methodist Protest- 
 ant 1830, Associate Reform Presbyterians 1782, 
 Cumberland Presbyterians 1810, Christians 
 (Campbellites) 1829, Christians (O'Kellyites) 
 1739, Mormons 1830, Congregationalist 1586, 
 Primitive Baptist (Hardshell) 1832, Quakers 17th 
 century, Greek Catholic 1054, Seventh Day Bap- 
 tist 1671. No man can give a date for the origin of 
 the Baptist denomination as the above. They begun 
 while Jesus was on earth and under his leadership. 
 
 Reader, lay down predjudice and study de- 
 nominational history long enough to get all of 
 this important data straightened out in your 
 mind. More will be said about this matter in the 
 last chapter of this little book. 
 
 64 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 Let us notice the following Scriptures to be- 
 gin with: 
 
 "The baptism of John, whence was it, from 
 heaven or of men?" Matt. 21:25. 
 
 "Beginning from the baptism of John." Acts 
 1:22. 
 
 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph. 4:5. 
 
 "And I knew him not : but he that sent me to 
 baptize in water, the same said unto me." R. V. 
 John 1 :33. 
 
 "In those days came John the Baptist, preach- 
 ing in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Re- 
 pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 
 * * * Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all 
 Judea, and all the region around about Jordan, and 
 were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their 
 sins." Matt. 3:2, 5, 6. 
 
 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan 
 unto John, to be baptized of him. But John for- 
 bade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
 thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus an- 
 swering said unto him. Suffer it to be so now; 
 for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. 
 Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was 
 baptized went up straightway out of the water, 
 and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and 
 he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, 
 and lighting upon him : and lo a voice from heaven 
 saying, this is by beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased." Matt. 3:13-17. 
 
 65 
 
We can clearly see by the above Scriptures 
 that baptism began with John. No one baptized 
 before him. I know that some try to claim that 
 there was Jewish proselyte baptism before him, 
 but it can not be proven. It is only an assertion 
 and not a historical fact. Now, since we are to 
 look into this question very carefully, let us notice 
 the following : 
 
 1. Baptism originated with John. 
 
 2. John was sent from God. 
 
 3. Then John was God's agent. 
 
 4. John was a God-commissioned man, sent 
 to baptise. 
 
 5. John's Baptism then was Christian Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 (a) It belonged to the Christian dispensation. 
 
 (b) The New Testament begins with John's 
 ministry. 
 
 (c) John was sent directly from God. John 1 :6. 
 John 1 :33. 
 
 (e) John baptized all the members of the 
 church Christ organized. Acts 1:22. 
 
 (f) The Apostles recognized John's baptism. 
 
 (g) There is not the slightest intimation that 
 any of John's disciples were re-baptized after 
 they became disciples of Christ. 
 
 (h) No one was eligible to the office of an 
 apostle but those that were baptized by John. 
 Acts 1 :22. 
 
 (i) Christ submitted to John's baptism, thus 
 endorsing it. 
 
 Now, will we not have to conclude that John's 
 baptism was Christian baptism? I do not see 
 
 66 
 
what more it would take to make it Christian, 
 do you? 
 
 6. The next question before us is, Was He im- 
 mersed or Sprinkled? 
 
 We say that he was immersed. That nothing 
 but immersion would suit the purpose Christ had 
 in baptism. 
 
 Some want to say that his baptism does not 
 mean anything to us, and that it was not an ex- 
 ample for us. They claim that this was simply 
 the anointing of him into the priesthood. Now, 
 can that be true? Was he a priest while here. 
 Could anyone be a priest but a Levite? Was he 
 not out of the regular order? He certainly did 
 not come to originate a new order of priests. We 
 say that he was not, and we say that if he was 
 continuing the old dispensation, he fell dead in 
 the Jordan. Num. 3:10. 
 
 We say emphatically that he was not sprinkled 
 but immersed. 
 
 Let us now see what Christian baptism is : 
 
 1. It must be of divine origin, divine import, 
 and divine significance. 
 
 2. It must be an act and not a mode. 
 
 Let us lay down this hypothesis: Christian 
 baptism is the immersion of a believer in water 
 into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 And for it to be valid baptism, four things 
 are necessary. 
 
 1. A scriptural administrator. 
 
 (a) He must be a twice born man. No one 
 can administer the ordinance as God intended it 
 
 67 
 
without knowing its deeper meaning. 
 
 (b) He must be a Scripturally baptized man. 
 If the administrator cannot stand flat-footed on 
 the twentieth century and look into the Jordan, he 
 is not a legal administrator. We must have a 
 good chain of title or we cannot transmit the ordi- 
 nance. He who has no title can make no title to 
 anyone else. There is quite a difference between 
 a deed made by a lawful grantor and an unlawful 
 one. If a man cannot trace hs baptism to that 
 of John and Christ, he most assuredly is not a 
 legal administrator. I cannot transmit a thing 
 that I do not have a legal right to myself. Some 
 say they will immerse you if you desire it. Now, 
 we wish to say this about such baptism. It is 
 not only unscriptural, but it is sinful. Whatso- 
 ever is not of faith is sin, says the Book and 
 for one to administer an ordinance he does not 
 believe in, and besides argues against and ridi- 
 cules is very sinful. Can a man be consistent who 
 does such things? Can a man be honest and do 
 such a thing? We think not. We must conclude 
 that a man must be scripturally baptized to be 
 a propert administrator. 
 
 (c) He must be a scripturally ordained man. 
 This cannot be done without the authority of a 
 New Testament church, and of course anything 
 originated this side of His ministry is not in it, 
 for it can lay no claim to divine origin. That 
 church that cannot trace its origin to Christ is 
 too young for me. 
 
 (d) He must be a God-commissioned man. 
 "How can they preach except they be sent ?" The 
 
 68 
 
first administrator was a God-commissioned man 
 and every one since that time has had to be the 
 same to administer scriptural baptism. 
 
 (e) He must be in fellowship with a New Tes- 
 tament church. He may be legally baptized and 
 still not be a legal administrator, because bap- 
 tism must be administered under the authority 
 of a church. The church is the custodian of the 
 ordinances, and she must say to whom it must 
 be administered, and who shall administer it. 
 
 2. There must be a scriptural candidate. 
 
 The candidate has much to do with the ordi- 
 nance. We differ very widely from our pedobap- 
 tist brethren on this important point. They con- 
 tend that children are eligible to the ordinance, 
 but we contend that they are not. Children were 
 not baptized in the days of our Master and can- 
 not be now, because they are not believers. 
 
 (a) The candidate must be a believer. 
 
 This is shown by the following Scriptures: 
 
 "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." 
 Matt. 3:8. 
 
 "But when they believed Philip preaching the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God, and the 
 name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both 
 men and women." — Acts 8:12. 
 
 "And as they went on their way, they came 
 unto a certain water, and the eunuch said, See 
 here is water; what doth hinder me to be bap- 
 tized. And Philip said, If thou believest with 
 all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered 
 and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God." Acts 8:36, 37, 38. 
 
 69 
 
"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- 
 gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; 
 and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, 
 and were baptized." Acts 18:8. 
 
 "Then they that gladly received his word were 
 baptized." Acts 2:41. 
 
 We might add many more Scriptures, but is 
 this not enough ? Possibly we had better mention 
 the case of Lydia and her household and the jailor 
 and his household. All we ask of you on this 
 point is to read them carefully and see if they 
 were not believers too. There is not a single ex- 
 ample of baptism in the New Testament where 
 they did not believe they were baptized. 
 
 (b) The candidate must be a willing subject. 
 
 Baptism is administered upon demand and not 
 by coercion as my Pedo brethren have it. 
 
 3. It must be a scriptural act. 
 
 Baptism is a picture, and since it is, just any- 
 thing will not do. Pictures may be misleading, 
 and when we change the ordinance entirely, we 
 change the picture. Suppose you have a picture 
 of your dear old mother hanging upon the wall 
 of your home, and some one comes in and takes 
 it down and hangs the picture of a harlot in its 
 place, will that do just as well? Suppose they 
 hang the picture of your sister or another woman 
 would it do? No, no, a thousand times no. They 
 are not pictures of mother. Hers may not be 
 as beautiful as the others, but there is nothing 
 that can take the place of mother's. Let us see 
 further about this matter. 
 
 The candidate must be immersed in water or 
 
 70 
 
there is no baptism at all. Anything else is solemn 
 mockery. It is misleading to try to change one 
 of the Lord's solemn ordinances. My friend, will 
 you be so irreverent as to try to change such 
 a sublime ordinance as baptism? Now, let us see 
 why we say that it is immersion and nothing else. 
 
 We want to argue this from three points. 
 
 (1) Scripturally. (2)Philologically. (3) His- 
 torically. 
 
 All three of these witnesses prove the act to 
 be immersion and nothing else but immersion. 
 
 1. Scripturally. 
 
 Let us examine the following texts of Scrip- 
 ture: Matt. 3:6, "And were baptized of him in 
 Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5, "And 
 there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
 and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of 
 him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." 
 Acts 8:38, "And he commanded the chariot to 
 stand still: and they went down both into the 
 water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he bap- 
 tized him." Rom. 6:4, "Therefore we are buried 
 with him by baptism into death: that like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life." Col. 2:12, "Buried with him in 
 baptism wherein also ye are risen with him 
 through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised him from the dead." Read these 
 scriptures carefully and see if they do not teach 
 that the ordinance was immersion. You will find 
 that "Much water" is mentioned; "buried," and 
 they both went down into the water and he bap- 
 
 71 
 
tized him." Whatever the act was in olden times 
 it was performed in the water. Nothing but im- 
 mersion will fit in where baptism is mentioned. 
 
 (2) Let us look at the meaning of baptize 
 Surely the meaning of the world will lead us into 
 the light of what they did that was called bap- 
 tism. 
 
 We will say in the beginning that baptizo 
 cannot mean anything but immerse or something 
 similar. 
 
 To get at the real meaning and to see how 
 strong the term baptizo is, let us examine every 
 Greek word used in the New Testament with any 
 shade of meaning bordering on sprinkle, pour, 
 wet, wash, or anything like that. 
 
 1() Nipto — to bath hands or feet. John 13:5, 
 "After that he poureth water into a basin, and be- 
 gan to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them 
 with the towel wherewith he was girded." 
 
 (2) Brecho — to wet, to moisten, Luke 7:38, 
 "And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and 
 began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe 
 them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his 
 feet, and anointed them with ointment." 
 
 (3) Duno — to sink. Mark 1 :32, "And at even, 
 when the sun did set, they brought unto him all 
 that were diseased, and them that were possessed 
 with devils." Luke 4 :40, "Now when the sun was 
 setting, all they that had any sick with divers 
 diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his 
 hands on every one of them, and healed them." 
 
 (4) Katapointizo — to sink, to go down to the 
 bottom. Matt. 14 :30, "But when he saw the wind 
 
 72 
 
boisterous, he was afraid: and beginning to sink, 
 he cried, saying, Lord, save me." 
 
 (5) Buthizo — to plunge into the deep. Luke 
 5:7, "And they beckoned unto their partners, 
 which were in the other ship, that they should 
 come and help them. And they came, and filled 
 both ships, so that they began to sink." 
 
 (6) Pluno — to wash clothing. Rev. 7:14, "And 
 I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said 
 to me, These are they which came out of great 
 tribulation and have washed their robes, and 
 made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 
 
 (7) Louo — to wash the body. Heb. 10:22, 
 "Let us draw near with a true conscience, and our 
 bodies washed with pure water." 
 
 (8) Apopluno — to wash off. Luke 5:2, "And 
 saw two ships standing by the lake: but the 
 fishermen were gone out of them, and were wash- 
 ing their nets." 
 
 (9) Spendo — to pour out, a libation. II Tim. 
 4:6, "For I am now ready to be offered, and the 
 time of my departure is at hand." 
 
 (10) Proscheo — to pour upon. Heb. 11:28, 
 "Through faith he kept the passover, and the 
 sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the 
 firstborn should touch them." 
 
 (11) Cheo — to pour. 
 
 (12) Rantizo — to sprinkle. Heb. 9:13, 19, 21, 
 "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
 ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sancti- 
 fieth to the purifying of the flesh." 19, "For 
 when Moses had spoken every precept to all the 
 people according to the law, he took the blood 
 
 73 
 
of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet 
 -wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, 
 and all the people." 21, "Moreover he sprinkled 
 with blood both the tabernacle, and all the ves- 
 sels of the ministry." Heb. 10:22, "Let us draw 
 near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, 
 having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
 science, and our bodies washed with pure wa- 
 ter." Heb. 12:24, "And to Jesus the mediator of 
 the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, 
 that speaketh better things than that of Abel." 
 I Peter 1 :2, "Elect according to the foreknowl- 
 edge of God the Father, through sanctification 
 of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of 
 the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and 
 peace, be multiplied." 
 
 (13) Baptizo — to immerse, to submerge, to 
 sink. It is used a great many times in the new 
 Testament, and not a single time without the 
 idea of a complete submerging of the entire sub- 
 stance. 
 
 This word is derived from Bapto, to dip, to 
 dye. 
 
 Now, you can see at a glance that there is 
 no word in the Greek language that means to put 
 an object into the water and bring it out at once, 
 but BAPTIZO. 
 
 And more, you can see that if the Lord had in- 
 tended us to dip sometimes and then sprinkle 
 when it suited us best, then pour, or wet, or do 
 as we pleased about it, would he not have used 
 Baptizo and Rantizo interchangeably ? Surely he 
 would. But he did not do that, and since he uses 
 
 74 
 
but one word, and that word means to immerse, 
 we can see just what he meant for us to do. It 
 then is not a matter of choice with us, but a 
 solemn command which we can obey and honor 
 him, or disobey and dishonor him. 
 
 We might take our readers through the Greek 
 lexicons and show that every one of any note 
 gives the same meaning that we have given here, 
 but we deem it unnecessary. If you are not 
 satisfied about this matter, then we will give 
 other proof. 
 
 3. Now, let us see what history says about 
 the practice of the early church. The first his- 
 torian we wish to bring up is Moseheim, and let 
 me say here that he was not a Baptist. 
 
 "And those who professed repentance and re- 
 formation, he initiated in the approaching king- 
 dom of the Saviour, by immersion in the Jordan." 
 Matt. 3:2. Vol. 1, page 42. 
 
 "The first of all the Christian churches found- 
 ed by the apostles, was that of Jerusalem; and 
 after the form and model of this, all the others 
 of that age were constituted." Vol. 1, page 46. 
 
 "In this century baptism was administered in 
 convenient places, without the public assemblies; 
 and by immersing the candidate wholly in water." 
 Vol. 1, page 87 ; Century one. 
 
 "Twice a year, at Easter and Whitsuntide, 
 baptism was publicly administered by the 
 BISHOP, or by the presbyters acting by his com- 
 mand and authority. The candidates for it were 
 immersed wholly in water, with invocation of the 
 sacred Trinity, according to the Saviour's precept, 
 
 75 
 
after they had repeated what they called the 
 creed, and had renounced all their sins and trans- 
 gressions, and especially the devil and his pomp." 
 Vol. 1, page 137. 
 
 "The usual form of baptism was immersion. 
 This is inferred from the original meaning of the 
 Greek BAPTIZEIN and BAPTISMOS; from the 
 analogy of John's Baptism in the Jordan; from 
 the apostles' comparison of the sacred rite with 
 the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, with the 
 escape of the ark from the flood, with a cleans- 
 ing and refreshing bath, and with burial and res- 
 urrection ; finally, from the GENERAL CUSTOM 
 of the ANCIENT CHURCH, which prevails in 
 the East to this day." Schaff. His. Christian Ch., 
 Vol. 1, page 468. 
 
 To this we wish to add his footnote on the 
 same page. It surely will have some bearing 
 since he was a great Presbyterian scholar. 
 
 Note 1. — Compare the German "taufen," the 
 English "dip." Grimm defines BAPTIZO (the 
 f requentive of BAPTO) "immergo," "submergo ;" 
 Liddell and Scott : "to dip in or under the water." 
 But in the Septuagint and in the New Testament 
 it has also a wider meaning. Hence Robinson de- 
 fines it : "to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing." 
 And again he says, "Unquestionably, immersion 
 expresses the idea of baptism as a purification 
 and renovation of the whole man, more completely 
 than pouring or sprinkling." Cf. page 469. 
 
 Let us now examine Neander. He is admit- 
 ted as one of the foremost historians of the past 
 century, yet he was not a Baptist. Let him testi- 
 
 76 
 
fy as to the original act of baptism: 
 
 "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in 
 conformity with the original institution and the 
 original import of the symbol, performed by im- 
 mersion as a sign of the entire baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the 
 same." Neander, Vol. 1, page 310. 
 
 We will quote at length from William 
 Wall, the historian that undertook to justify in- 
 fant baptism by history. In speaking of the an- 
 cient church and the customs of it, he says. 
 "Their general and ordinary way was to baptize 
 by immersion, or by dipping the person, whether 
 it were an infant, or grown man or woman, into 
 the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite 
 number of passages, that as one cannot but pity 
 the weak endeavors of such pedobaptists as would 
 maintain the negative of it; so also we ought to 
 disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs 
 which some people give to the English anti-pedo- 
 baptist merely for their use of dipping. It is 
 one thing to maintain that circumstance is not 
 absolutely necessary to the essence of baptism, 
 and another to go about to represent it as ridicu- 
 lous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent, 
 when it was in all probability the way by which 
 our blessed Saviour, and for certain was the most 
 usual and ordinary way by which the ancient 
 Christians did receive their baptism. I shall not 
 stay to produce the particular proofs of this. 
 Many of the quotations which I brought for other 
 purposes, and shall bring, do evince it. It is a 
 great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, 
 
 77 
 
to refuse to grant an adversary what is certainly- 
 true, and may be proved. It creates a jealousy 
 of all the rest that one says." His. Infant Bap., 
 Vol. 1, pages 570 and 571. 
 
 Now, will any pedobaptist try to contradict 
 the above? 
 
 We feel that Wall was an honest scholar 
 whether he was honest in his religious convictions 
 or not. We will quote but a few more historians 
 on this point. It seems that we have already 
 brought enough proof to convince anyone. We 
 feel sure we have if they want to know the truth. 
 Men are not hunting for the truth as they should. 
 
 We will now call the founder of Methodism, 
 John Wesley, on the stand and see what he has 
 to say about it. His notes on Romans 6:4, says 
 this: "We are buried with him." Alluding to the 
 ancient manner of baptizing by immersion. Is this 
 not plain enough? 
 
 We have proven beyond a doubt that the 
 apostolic church immersed. The Scriptures justify 
 immersion and nothing else. Greek literature jus- 
 tifies immersion. The Greek word, as explained 
 by the lexicographers, say that "Baptizo" means 
 immerse, and last, the entire Christian world en- 
 dorses it. Is this not conclusive? 
 
 We want to offer one more argument, that 
 is, Immersion is the side of the least doubt. How 
 many have become dissatisfied with sprinkling 
 and pouring as baptism and have gone to Bap- 
 tist preachers and have been immersed to sat- 
 isfy their conscience. I have baptized dozens 
 of them myself. Now, did you ever hear of a 
 
 78 
 
Baptist becoming dissatisfied with immersion as 
 baptism? By no means, but rather to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 The next question before us is: If the apos- 
 tolic custom was immersion, where did sprinkling 
 come from ? When and why the change ? I think 
 we can settle this question also. I feel that I 
 ought to do this as so many are trying to get rid 
 of the ordinance as it was given by Christ himself. 
 We will refer to Dean Stanley's Christian Institu- 
 tions, page 21 : 
 
 "We now pass to the change in the form itself. 
 For the first thirteen centuries the almost uni- 
 versal practice of baptism was that of which we 
 read in the New Testament, and which is the very 
 meaning of the word 'baptize,' — that those who 
 were baptized were plunged, submerged, im- 
 mersed into the water. That practice is still, as 
 we have seen, continued in Eastern churches. In 
 the Western church, it still lingers among Ro- 
 man Catholics in the solitary instance of the 
 cathedral of Milan; among Protestants in the 
 numerous sects of the Baptist." This tells of the 
 change, and is it not strange that he admits this ? 
 Yet he was honest enough to do so, and at the 
 same time try to defend what Rome did. Some 
 men have enough cheek to do anything, but still 
 we are glad he admitted this fact. Since he does, 
 we can see one thing very clearly and that is that 
 the pedobaptist world is following Rome in their 
 practice of sprinkling and pouring. As for my 
 part, I had rather follow Christ and the apostles, 
 had you not, too? 
 
 79 
 
(We will say something about where sprink- 
 ling came from in another article on Infant Bap- 
 tism. It will come later.) 
 
 4. We now pass to its symbolism or the de- 
 sign of baptism. 
 
 We do not need to say very much about this 
 point, but will try to make it very clear so that 
 everyone reading this may understand what we 
 are trying to prove. 
 
 1. Our baptism is a public profession of our 
 faith in Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and 
 King. It shows that we have received Him into 
 our hearts, and now we desire to maake public 
 what we have done privately. Baptism and faith 
 are very closely allied. Baptism has no saving 
 power, but is wonderful evidence of a changed 
 heart. The regenerated life seeks to follow its 
 Lord, and one of the first things that it is called 
 upon to do is to show its loyalty by obedience to 
 His commands. 
 
 2. It is not only an open profession of our 
 faith in Jesus Christ, but shows our entire sub- 
 mission to His will. There is no greater sign of 
 discipleship than entire obedience to His com- 
 mands. You cannot make me believe in your re- 
 ligion until you show me that you are striving to 
 obey the Master's commands. "Why call ye me 
 Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?" I do 
 not think that the Holy Spirit will lead men in 
 opposite directions when it comes to the com- 
 mands of our Saviour. But when we see how peo- 
 ple are trying to evade the Lord's commands, 
 we are pained and made to lose confidence en- 
 
 80 
 
tirely. There is nothing that shows our entire 
 submission to the Master and a pledge of our ser- 
 vice to His cause as baptism. When the Jewish 
 fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 
 they were pledged to Moses as their leader. 
 
 3. Baptism also shows that we have been 
 freed from sin by the death of our blessed Lord. 
 It is an outward sign of inward purity. 
 
 4. Baptism is a sign of the fact that we are 
 buried and risen with Christ. We show to the 
 world that we are dead to sin and since we are 
 we must be buried ; therefore, we are baptized. 
 
 5. Baptism also shows that we believe in the 
 burial and resurrection of Christ. Notice Ro- 
 mans 6:3-4. "Know ye not, that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
 into his death?" Therefore we are buried with 
 him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
 was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
 of life." Baptism is the only living witness of 
 His resurrection. Just so sure as we make it 
 sprinkling and pouring, we destroy the witness of 
 His resurrection. What a sublime picture ! Dead, 
 buried, and praise God, resurrected by the power 
 of God ! What a wonderful picture ! 
 
 6. In the last place, it is not only a monument 
 to the resurrection of our Lord, but a pledge of 
 our own resurrection. Every time the solemn 
 ordinance is administered, it reminds us that we 
 are going to rise from the dead. There is no doc- 
 trine in the Bible dearer than that of the resur- 
 rection. And since it means so much, it is so im- 
 
 81 
 
portant then that we carry out our Lord's com- 
 mands in regard to this sublime ordinance. 
 
 Now, since we have shown what Christian 
 baptism is, let us examine a few concluding 
 thoughts : 
 
 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
 the doctrine." John 7:17. 
 
 "And all the people that heard him, and the 
 publicans, justified God, being baptized with the 
 baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers 
 rejected the counsel of God against themselves, 
 being not baptized of him." Luke 7 :29, 30. 
 
 "For there are three that bear record in heav- 
 en, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; 
 and these three are one. There are three that 
 bear witness in earth: the spirit, and the water, 
 and the blood; and these three agree in one." 
 John 5:7, 8. 
 
 "We ought to obey God rather than man." 
 Acts 5:29. 
 
 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole mat- 
 ter: "Fear God and keep His commandments." 
 My brother, have you done so? If not, why not? 
 
 82 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 SHOULD BAPTIST EXIST AS AN INDEPEND- 
 ENT DENOMINATION, OR SHOULD 
 THEY UNITE WITH PEDOBAPTIST 
 DENOMINATIONS? 
 
 We have undertaken a very important dis- 
 cussion in this chapter, but we hope to handle it 
 in such a way that our readers may be convinced 
 that the Baptist position is right. Through all 
 the ages of Christianity Baptist have refused to 
 unite with other denominations. Many of them 
 have been burned because they refused to have 
 their babies christened, and because they would 
 not recognize sprinkling as baptism. Have they 
 been right in their contentions, or was it mere 
 fanaticism that caused them to do as they did? 
 We do not believe that it was anything but a de- 
 termined adherence to truth that made them do 
 as they have done in many instances. Truth to 
 Baptist means everything. They take nothing 
 but the Bible as their rule for faith and practice, 
 and when they do this, they must discard many 
 things others practice. They do not believe that 
 this multiplicity of denominations is a blessing, 
 but that it is an evil of the most dangerous type. 
 Nothing has so confused the world as this array 
 of isms. Every one of them has different char- 
 acteristics and different doctrines. You can har- 
 monize the doctrines of infidels as well as you can 
 
 8^ 
 
the doctrines of the different denominations of 
 the world. Everyone of them believes that it is 
 right and that all the others are wrong. Some 
 say when you get them hemmed in, that there are 
 some good people in all denominations; yes and 
 there are many good people in the world who do 
 not belong to any church. This is no argument 
 at all. What we want to know is who is right 
 about this question. Has one denomination as 
 good a right to exist as another, or should there 
 be a difference? Now, remember, we have no 
 abuse for any one. It is not our business to dis- 
 cuss persons, but creeds. All we wish to settle 
 here is the one question as to whether we should 
 unite with others and form a union. Can we 
 hold union meetings with other denominations 
 without sacrificing our principles and without 
 endangering our position? or should we steer 
 clear of all of them? If we should, have we a 
 right to do so? Let us discuss this as carefully 
 as anything can be and settle it once and forever. 
 We do not believe that the honest Christian, 
 wherever he may be will find fault with us for 
 our attitude in this matter if he understands 
 why we do as we are supposed to do. Some Bap- 
 tist preachers, so called, are not Baptist, and you 
 cannot tell what they will do. Some of them 
 will receive members from other denominations 
 if they have been immersed without baptising 
 them. Just as well receive those who have been 
 sprinkled. Baptism, as you will see in the chap- 
 ter on it in this book, must be administered by a 
 proper administrator to be valid, but let us go 
 
 84 
 
into this discussion. Should a Baptist be allowed 
 to exist and preach the doctrine they do, or 
 should they be put out of existence ? If they can- 
 not show a good reason why they should be allow- 
 ed to exist, then let us obliterate all of their 
 churches, tear down all of their schools, and erase 
 their name from the earth. 
 
 1. In the first place we wish to say that we 
 have a divine right to exist as an independent 
 organization. But you ask, why do you lay such 
 a claim to eternal things ? 
 
 1. Because we are not responsible for being 
 here. Elizabeth was passed the child-bearing age 
 when John was born. She had given up the hope 
 of having a child, but the angel came and gave 
 the promise that she should have a child born 
 unto her, and according to the promise the child 
 was born. He was named John and when he be- 
 gan his ministry, he was called The Baptist. This 
 was the beginning of the name Baptist. Some 
 say that is was his surname, but anyone knows 
 that this is not true. Why was the surname not 
 mentioned before his birth ? 
 
 2. Our name is of divine origin. You must 
 place it in revelation. It came from God. No man 
 can trace the origin of the Baptist back to some 
 schism, encumenical council, or revolution that 
 brought it in existence. It had its beginning with 
 God and no man can deny it. No historian at- 
 tempts to show that the Baptist originated this 
 side of John and Christ. Such would be an ab- 
 surdity of the basest sort. You cannot find any 
 nook or corner in ecclesiastical history where the 
 
 35 
 
Baptist took their rise because of some petty no- 
 tion of an ecclesiastic. Some want to say that 
 Roger Williams was the first Baptist preacher, 
 but no one with any degree of information will 
 undertake such an argument. Some men are bold 
 enough to undertake almost anything, and to 
 delude the ignorant, they make such assertions 
 to justify their positions in this world, but when 
 it comes to truth, they are not in it. Roger Wil- 
 liams never was a member of a regular Baptist 
 church, but was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman 
 because he thought that immersion was right and 
 he had no one to baptize him but one of the com- 
 pany who himself had not been baptized. Dr. 
 Clark who was a regular Baptist preacher came 
 here and was preaching eight years before Roger 
 Williams originated his church at Providence, 
 Rhode Island. (See Ford's Origin of the Baptist). 
 Mosheim the noted historian says that the Ana- 
 baptist originated in the remotest bounds of an- 
 tiquity. The Anabaptist were the Baptist of the 
 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The name 
 Baptist came with the people who followed Jesus 
 in the early centuries, but the name was mixed 
 to some extent during the dark ages, but it is as 
 clear today as it was when John was named the 
 Baptist. But what is there in a name any way? 
 Have you ever thought about it? God named 
 Adam, did it mean anything ? God named Jacob ; 
 did his name mean anything ? Christ named 
 Peter ; did his name mean anything ? John means 
 Jehovah is gracious; Baptist means baptizer. 
 Put the two together and what do we have? 
 
 86 
 
Jehovah's gracious Baptizer. Can anything be 
 better fitted than that? 
 
 3. God's providential care for them ought to 
 give them a place in this world. 
 
 Baptist have suffered untold hardships 
 through all of the past ages until the last cen- 
 tury. They have been laughed at, they have been 
 mocked, they have been scourged, they have been 
 burned at the stake, they have been fed to raven- 
 ous beasts, they have been jailed and tortured 
 in every conceivable way, but they have survived 
 it all by the grace of the eternal God. Their 
 foot prints have been traced over the Alps by 
 their blood, they have been hiding like beasts 
 of the forest, they have been hunted like wild 
 boars, but through it all God has taken care of 
 them and has brought their posterity down to 
 this good day when we have religious liberty so 
 that we can worship God according to the dic- 
 tates of our own consciences. Their sufferings 
 are recorded in heaven and some day they are go- 
 ing to be revealed. Terrible will be that day when 
 the secrets of all men's hearts will be made 
 known, and terrible will be the fear that will seize 
 those who inflicted so many wounds upon the poor 
 followers of Jesus Christ when that day shall 
 come. God's providential care is the only thing 
 that has brought us down to this good day. Had 
 he not cared for us, we would have become ex- 
 tinct long ago. 
 
 II. We have a Distinct Message for this world. 
 This ought to give us a right to exist as an in- 
 dependent denomination. We have a message en- 
 
 87 
 
tirely our own. No other people on earth have the 
 message we have, and if we do not deliver it, the 
 world will never hear it. With Baptist it is not 
 how much truth we hold in common with other 
 people, but how much we hold that the others do 
 not have at all. Baptists are not trying to har- 
 monize, but they are trying to show the difference 
 between heresy and orthodoxy. 
 
 Here is our distinctive message: 
 
 1. Absolute freedom in religion. Baptist do 
 not believe in coercion in matters of religion. 
 Baptist do not believe in proselyting in any way. 
 Let every man of his own free will and accord 
 worship God in his own way. This is the Bap- 
 tist message. No other people on earth have 
 this for the world. This is the plain teachings of 
 God's word. "But the hour cometh, and now is, 
 when the true worshipers shall worship the Fath- 
 er in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh 
 such to worship him," John 4:23; "But ye are a 
 chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy 
 nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show 
 forth the praises of him who hath called you out 
 of darkness into his marvellous light," I Peter 
 4:9. No service can be forced upon a people if it 
 be unwilling, according to the Scriptures. This 
 excludes infant baptism and the union of church 
 and state. Every man among us is a free man. 
 No church, no synod, no priest, no prelate, no 
 pope, no confessor can bend the human will, or 
 direct the consciences of men. Such is not the 
 teachings of God's word, according to the inter- 
 pretations of the Baptists, but this kind of re- 
 
 88 
 
ligion can be found in England, Scotland, Ger- 
 many, France, and in many sections of the New 
 World. Let every man be what he wants to be, 
 then his service will be willing. 
 
 2. The second message we have that is entire- 
 ly our own is membership all of their own free 
 will and accord. Repent, believe, join the church, 
 and be baptized all of their own free will and ac- 
 cord. We do not make Baptists out of folks. We 
 want that to be entirely of the Lord. When He 
 does the work, it is always joyous and the member 
 is always willing to render service worthy of the 
 name Christian. 
 
 3. Believer's baptism is another doctrine en- 
 tirely baptistic. If we fail to preach this, it will 
 not be preached and believer's baptism will not be 
 known within half a century. The Bible is very 
 clear on this point, and Baptist try to emphasize 
 all that the scriptures declare. Infant baptism is 
 not according to the teachings of the scriptures, 
 and no honest pedobaptist tries to show that it 
 is. Baptist say that such is against the teachings 
 of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. 
 
 4. The final perseverance of the saints as it 
 is taught in the scriptures. There are some people 
 who believe in this doctrine, but it is not as dis- 
 tinctly a doctrine in other denominations as it 
 is in the Baptist program. There is no sweeter 
 doctrine in the Bible to Baptist. 
 
 5. A free and independent church govern- 
 ment. Every Baptist church is an independent 
 organization. No conference, no synod, no other 
 power on earth can say just what it shall do, 
 
 89 
 
or shall not do. Every member has a right to 
 speak for himself, and must be heard. A Baptist 
 church is a little republic all of itself. It is gov- 
 erned from within and not from without. It can 
 call any preacher it wishes and keep him as long 
 as they can agree. It has the right to receive and 
 exclude members as it wishes. No one can say 
 what it shall do or what it shall not do. There is 
 no lording it over God's heritage with the Bap- 
 tist. Our own republic was formed after the fash- 
 ion of a Baptist church. 
 
 6. Separation of church and state. This be- 
 longs entirely to the Baptist. True, many more 
 people believe in this truth now, but Baptist had 
 to champion the cause to bring it into existence. 
 They have had many a hard battle to fight to get 
 this idea in force here in our own country. One 
 of the Adams said that it would never be in the 
 United States, but Baptist have won out on this 
 point as they have on many others. 
 
 III. What they have suffered for truth's 
 sake ought to give them a place in the world 
 among the other people. Their history is a story 
 of suffering and bloodshed, and all of it for what 
 they have believed. They have always been a 
 law abiding people. They have never given any 
 government any trouble. They have always tried 
 to support the country in which they lived, but 
 they have not had the protection they should have 
 had in many cases. They have suffered untold 
 agonies in many instances because of what they 
 believed. Baptist have honored the world with mil- 
 lions of martyrs, but they have never persecuted 
 
 90 
 
a single person. All of this martyrdom has been 
 the out croppings of some fanatical religion. Eng- 
 land and all of Europe has caused the Baptist to 
 suffer untold agonies because the Baptist would 
 not submit to the dictates of pope and priest and 
 have their babies sprinkled, say mass for the 
 dead, confess to the priest, and similar things. 
 Baptist have always had a conscience that they 
 could depend on. They have been led by honest 
 conviction of truth, and they will give up their 
 lives rather than submit to something that they 
 believe to be wrong. We refer our readers to 
 Baptist Book of Martyrs, The Struggles for Re- 
 ligious Liberty in Virginia, and almost any good 
 eccelesiastical history that has the history of 
 religions in America. For the information of our 
 readers, we are going to give a few incidents from 
 history. 
 
 The Kehukee Associational History has this 
 to say: "A certain woman by the name of Daw- 
 son, in the town of Windsor, N. C, had reason to 
 hope that her soul was converted, saw baptism 
 to be a duty for a believer to comply with, and 
 expressed a great desire to join the church at 
 Cashie, under the care of Elder Dargan. Her 
 husband, who was violently opposed to it, and 
 a great persecutor, had threatened, that if any 
 man baptized his wife he would shoot him; ac- 
 cordingly baptism was deferred for some con- 
 siderable time. At length Elder Tanner was pres- 
 ent at Elder Dargan's meeting, and Mrs. Dawson 
 applied to the church for baptism, expressing her 
 desire to comply with her duty. She related her 
 
 91 
 
experience, and was received; and as Elder Dar- 
 gan was an infirm man, he generally, when other 
 ministers were present, would apply to them to 
 administer the ordinance in his stead. He there- 
 fore requested Elder Tanner to perform the duty 
 of Baptism at this time. Whether Elder Tanner 
 was apprized of Dawson's threatening or not; 
 or whether he thought it was his duty to obey 
 God rather than man, we are not able to say; 
 but so it was he baptized Sister Dawson. And in 
 June following, which was in the year 1777, Elder 
 Tanner was expected to preach at Sandy Run 
 meeting-house, and Dawson, hearing of the ap- 
 pointment, came up from Windsor to Norfleet's 
 ferry on Roanoke, and lay in wait near the banks 
 of the river, and when Elder Tanner ( who was in 
 company with Elder Dargan) ascended the bank 
 from the ferry landing, Dawson, being a few 
 yards from him, shot him with a large horse- 
 man's pistol, and seventeen shot went into his 
 thigh, one of which was a large buckshot, that 
 went through his thigh, and lodged between his 
 breeches and thigh on the other side. Elder Burk- 
 et was present when the doctor (who was im- 
 mediately sent for) took part of the shot out of 
 his thigh. In this wounded condition Elder Tan- 
 ner was carried to the house of Mr. Elisha Wil- 
 liams, in Scotland Neck, where he lay some weeks, 
 and his life was despaired of; but through the 
 goodness of God he recovered again. Dawson 
 seemed somewhat frightened, fearing he would 
 die, and sent a doctor up to attend him. And after 
 Elder Tanner recovered, he never attempted to 
 
 92 
 
seek recompence, but submitted to it patiently 
 as persecution for Christ's sake. — Burkett's and 
 Reed's History of the Kehukee, pp. 55-57. 
 
 Again : 
 
 "In 1643, Sir William Berkeley, Royal Gover- 
 nor of Virginia, strove by whippings and brand- 
 ings, to make the inhabitants of that colony con- 
 form to the established church, and thus drove 
 out the Baptists and Quakers, who found a refuge 
 in the Albemarle country of North Carolina, a col- 
 ony which 'was settled,' says Cancroft, 'by the 
 freest of the free — by men to whom the re- 
 straints of other colonies were too severe'." — Has- 
 sell's Church History, p. 523. 
 
 Again : 
 
 "Whereas many schismatical persons, out of 
 their averseness to the orthodox established re- 
 ligion, or out of the new-fangled conceits of their 
 own heretical inventions, refuse to have their 
 children baptized ; be it, therefore, enacted by the 
 authority aforesaid, that all persons that, in con- 
 tempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, shall 
 refuse, when they may carry their child (chil- 
 dren) to a lawful minister in that county to have 
 them baptized, shall be emerced two thousand 
 pounds of tobacco, half to the informer, half 
 to the public." — Foote, page 34. Hening, Vol. II., 
 pages 165, 166. 
 
 Again : 
 
 "The enemy, not contented with ridicule and 
 defamation, manifested their abhorrence to the 
 Baptists in another way. By a law then in force 
 in Virginia, all were under obligation to go to 
 
 93 
 
church several times in the year; the failure 
 subjected them to fine. Little notice was taken 
 of the omission, if members of the Established 
 church ; but so soon as the 'New Lights' were ab- 
 sent, they were presented by the grand jury, 
 and fined according to law." And again (on page 
 70) : "Soon they began to take other steps to de- 
 ter the Baptist preachers until they obtained li- 
 cense from the General Court, whose place of 
 sitting at that time was old Williamsburg. Until 
 such times that license was obtained, they were 
 exposed to be apprehended and imprisoned." 
 Again (on pages 79, 80) : "When persecutors 
 found religion could not be stopped in its prog- 
 ress by ridicule, defamation, and abusive lan- 
 guage the resolution was to take a different step 
 and see what that would do ; and the preachers 
 in different places were apprehended by magis- 
 terial authority, some of whom were imprisoned 
 and some escaped. Before this step was taken, 
 the parson of the parish was consulted (in some 
 instance, at least, and his judgment confided in. 
 His counsel was that the 'New Lights' ought to 
 be taken up and imprisoned, as necessary for the 
 peace and harmony of the old church. As former- 
 ly the high priests have conducted in latter days, 
 and seldom there has been a persecution but what 
 an high priest has been at the head of it, or exer- 
 cised influence." — William Fristoe's History of 
 the Ketocton Baptist Association, (beginning at 
 page 69). 
 
 Again : 
 
 "No dissenter in Virginia experienced, for a 
 
 94 
 
time, harsher treatment than did the Baptists. 
 They were beaten and imprisoned, and cruelty 
 taxed its ingenuity to devise new modes of pun- 
 ishment and annoyance." — Dr. Hawks' History of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia, 
 (page 121). 
 
 This is but a small thing in comparison with 
 what they had to suffer in Europe. They were 
 persecuted in every conceivable way. But we 
 must not linger longer on this point. We have 
 shown enough already to show that they deserve 
 to have a place in this world entirely distinct, 
 separate from all other people. 
 
 IV. What Baptist have done and are doing 
 for the world should give them a place in this 
 world. 
 
 1. They have done more toward preaching 
 the gospel in all the world than any other people. 
 It was Baptist who first conceived the idea of 
 modern mission, and from the day the new idea 
 was conceived, they have done their best to car- 
 ry out the plan. Hundreds of converts have been 
 made by our missionaries. They are still moving 
 forward with this work. They have their mission- 
 aries in every mission field in the world. They 
 have many more getting ready for the work. Al- 
 most every high school and college has 
 many of them. The world is calling for them and 
 we are trying to answer the call and supply 
 its needs. Baptist are doing all they can to 
 obey the Great Commission of our Master. 
 
 2. They are doing all that they can to educate 
 their people. A few years ago, they were called 
 
 95 
 
ignorant, fussy, and wet, but today the Baptists 
 have more educated people than any other people 
 on earth according to their numbers. They have 
 as well educated ministry as you can find, and 
 it does not stop at this, their laity is as well 
 educated as you will find. They are trying to get 
 the masses educated and to do this they are 
 supporting many high schools and colleges in 
 many sections of our country. 
 
 3. They are doing as much Sunday school 
 work as you can find any denomination doing. 
 They are stressing it as never before. They were 
 the originators of the Sunday school work and 
 today they are putting more stress on it than 
 any other people we have in North Carolina. They 
 are writing more books than any other denomi- 
 nation, and they have more men in the field than 
 the others have. 
 
 4. They have taken the lead in Orphanage 
 work in the south. They built the first orphanage 
 and they are supporting it as nobly as any in 
 the world. They now have the largest in the world 
 so far as we have been able to learn. 
 
 4. They are baptising more people than all 
 the others in the United States combined. Their 
 evangelists are the most aggressive the world 
 knows anything about. They are going into every 
 nook and corner of the world with the glad mes- 
 sage of life and salvation. Hundreds are being 
 won every day by our Baptist evangelists. 
 
 6. They are giving the world more real reli- 
 gious literature than any other people. They are 
 writing more books and spending more on litera- 
 
 96 
 
ture than any other religious denomination. 
 Their books have been translated into almost 
 every language on earth. They have gotten out 
 more denominational literature along doctrinal 
 lines than any other. All of this is worth while, 
 and deserves especial notice. 
 
 7. They stood behind the guns when the Rev- 
 olution was on hand, they were in the making 
 of the nation when Franklin and Washington 
 were in Washington, they have cooperated in 
 every good work that the world has undertaken, 
 and they stand ready today to do all that they 
 can to make our country the best on earth. 
 
 Now, this last word. Have we not shown that 
 the Baptist ought to exist? Have we not shown 
 that the world cannot carry on its work along 
 many lines without them? Have we not shown 
 that they are and have been a glorious asset to 
 the world in every age? What more need we to 
 say? 
 
 THE END. 
 
 97