Being an account
of fifty-one years
of the journey of
a poor sinner.


Pastor Old School Baptist Church and Editor
of Zion's Advocate, Luray, Va.

Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a strang▾
er with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.-----Ps. 39:12

Pause, Christian pilgrim, journeying on
Through life's long day of toil and pain:
Here is a staff to lean upon,
And rest thy trembling, wearied frame:
'Twill be thy comfort, thy delight--
"At evening time it shall be light."--F. Turner.


Those who may chance to read the contents of this book will be greatly rewarded, if indeed they are
spiritually minded. Herein will be found an enormous amount of doctrinal truth from the Word of God,
as well as an interesting account of the travels of a dear, faithful servant of the Lord.
Elder John R. Daily was an eminent scholar of the Bible and was perhaps as near to being a scholar of
the Greek language as any minister of the Primitive Baptist faith in America. He was a highly esteemed
preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ and was a staunch defender of the Faith. As an outstanding repre▾
sentative of the Truth, he engaged in many debates with those of other religious persuasions. Among
some of the debates held which were printed in book form, the DAILY-THROGMORTON DEBATE
(Throgmorton was a Missionary Baptist), will stand as a monumental victory for Primitive Baptists.
Another debate which was printed was the DAILY-HUGHES DEBATE (Hughes was a Universalist).
There may have been other debates printed - other than what is contained in this volume - which we do
not know about. (We have plans to reprint the "Daily-Throgmorton Debate" in the near future.)
Four of Elder Daily's sons followed him in the ministry, all of them being men of good ability and
reputation. They were Elders Oliver L. Daily (deceased), J. Harvey Daily (deceased), Earl Daily (de▾
ceased), and William T. Daily. Elder Wm. T. Daily served as editor of the ADVOCATE and MESSEN▾
GER for several years and has up until recent times been active in the ministry, but is now in poor
health. Elder Earl Daily served as editor of the PRIMITIVE MONITOR for some time. Elder J. Harvey
Daily was also a good writer and composed several hymns. Likewise, he served as associate editor on
some of the Primitive Baptist publications.
Elder Daily served as editor of ZION'S ADVOCATE, a Primitive Baptist publication, for some eight
years during the early part of the 1900's. This periodical was founded by Elder John Clark. Later, he
served as associate editor on the staff of the PRIMITIVE MONITOR and GOOD WILL publications, and
he may have served on some others, I am not sure. He also compiled and published a hymnal which was
used rather widely among the Primitive Baptist churches and is still in considerable use. The hymn book
is titled PRIMITIVE BAPTIST HYMN AND TUNE BOOK by Elder John R. Daily. He also composed
several hymns, some of which are found in several song books.
Although this family was stricken with the faults of humanity, as all men are, they will long be re▾
garded as an outstanding example of Christianity. May God be pleased to give us more like them.
We commend the readers of this book to the God of all grace, trusting that He shall bless its contents,

- Elder S. T. Tolley
March 23, 1978


I have written this book, and of course those who read it will expect a preface. This seems to be the
most difficult part of the task, but like all other difficult duties it must be done. I will say first that my
primary object has been to supply my dear children with the narrative of such events as will be interest▾
ing and useful to them. Believing that my connection with the church of Christ during an important
period of her modern history has been such as to enable me to record matters that should be preserved
and handed down to coming posterity, I have endeavored to give as full an account of those matters as my
observation and experience would enable me to do and as the limits of this work would allow. I am grate▾
ful to the Lord for the doctrinal views herein given, for it is from him and his blessed word that I have
received them. I have not the least doubt that the positions I have taken in regard to the salvation of poor
sinners are not only tenable but absolutely impregnable. As to my imperfect life, I am aware that it is not
of sufficient importance as to render an account of its events of interest to any outside the circle of my
family and immediate friends. My greatest fear is that the readers will be led to think more highly of
me than they ought to think by the perusal of "The Pilgrimage of a Stranger." I beg all to remember that
I am only a poor sinner, that "few and evil have the days of the years of my life been" thus far, that I am
full of faults for which I can frame no excuse, and that if I am saved at last it will be alone through the
abundant mercy of God and by his rich, sovereign grace.

LURAY, VA., JUNE 2, 1905.


Jesus, my Lord, I love His name,
Oh! how it makes my heart rejoice!
He died to rescue me from shame,
Now in His praise I lift my voice.

Renewed by grace from day to day,
I now by faith the cross sustain;
Lord, guide me in the narrow way
Each hour I live till heaven I gain.
Yea, let Thy Spirit in me shine,

Dwell with me while I sojourn here,
And lead me by Thy love divine
In all Thy ways to me so dear.
Lo! here my name is spelled in full;
You spell from J to Y and see.

But I must add two extra lines,
Before my rhyme complete will be.



Of my ancestors I know but little. My great-grandfather came from Ireland to America and settled in
New Jersey before the Revolutionary War. Two of his sons, Charles and James, the latter being my
grandfather, went to North Carolina, and from there to Washington County, Indiana, where they both
reared large families. My father, Peter Daily, was born in that county in December, 1822. My mother's
maiden name was Zelia Nettie Gray. Her parents were from Connecticut. She was born in Washington
Co., Indiana in December, 1820. My parents were both reared in their native county.
My father had several brothers and sisters, but they became much scattered and I can give but little
account of them. One of his brothers, James Daily, located on a farm one mile north of Michigantown,
Clinton Co., Ind., where he raised five daughters: Delilah, Mary, Rhoda, Adaline and Emeline. The last
two were twins, the latter of which died when she was about grown. The first three married and moved
with their husbands to Gage Co., Nebraska, when that country was very new. They underwent many
hardships incident to pioneer life on the wild prairie, but they met them with persevering determination,
and succeeded in procuring good homes in a rich country. Adaline married Sanford Bryant. She died
near her father's home, leaving her husband with two little children. Uncle James' first wife died when I
was quite young, and he married Mrs. Rachel Wood, a most estimable woman whom to know was to love
for her noble qualities. I have given this account of my uncle's family because I frequently visited his
home in youthful days, so that many fond memories cluster about that place which was lit up by the kind
words and smiles of an affectionate aunt.
Two of my father's brothers, David and Wiley, went to Missouri when I was about two years old, and I
never knew anything about their families. Aunt Nellie, one of my father's sisters, married a man by the
name of Lucas by whom she had four children, Thomas, Jackson, Indiana and Mary. Her husband died,
and she married mother's brother, Ambrose Gray, as his second wife. He had two children by his first
wife, Jane and Joseph. Jane married an old sailor by the name of Levi Bailey. Their oldest child, Na▾
than, was just three weeks older than myself, and as we were so near the same age and were thrown
together a great deal we were very fond of one another as playmates. The names of their other children
were Monroe, William, John and Alice. I was with this family a great deal in my childhood, and was
much attached to them.
The first burial I remember of attending was the burial of my Aunt Nellie. I was then very small, but
I remember distinctly how my Uncle Ambrose looked as he wept by the side of the coffin. the scene was
very frightful to me. They had three boys born to them, Ambrose, Loomis, and Peter. These boys were
likewise my devoted playmates in early life. My uncle then married Mrs. McMillen, whose daughter,
Virginia McMillen, afterwards became the second wife of Uncle Ambrose's oldest son, Joseph. The latter
had one daughter by his first wife, whose name was Viola.
The general reader will please excuse this brief account of my relatives, as I give it for the satisfaction
and benefit of my own family. My parents were married in the year 1842, In 1843 my oldest brother,
Wiley, was born. While he was still a baby they moved to Missouri, where they underwent many hard▾
ships of which I have often heard them speak. At one time they were all sick with Measles, during which
time unavoidable exposure resulted in so effecting my mother's lungs that she never regained her former
health. In subsequent years she contracted that dreaded disease, Consumption, in its lingering form, and
was a suffering invalid for a long time. When they became able physically and financially they returned
to Indiana and located in Clinton County.
There were seven children born to my parents, six boys and one girl, of whom I was next to the
youngest. They all died in infancy or early youth except my oldest brother and myself. He and sister
Malinda were the only children living at the time of my birth. My sister was then about six years old, but
she did not live long and so I do not remember her. I was born one mile north of Michigantown, Clinton
county, Indiana, near my Uncle James', on the 21st of May, 1854.
The earliest period to which my memory reaches back was when I was three years old. We then lived
on Mr. Hueston Davis's farm, a wealthy farmer, four miles east of my birthplace. My father labored very
hard all his life, but never succeeded in accumulating property. He was an honest and industrious man,
kind and charitable in his disposition, and provided well for his family. I have heard him say he could
sleep better than rich men, for he didn't have to lie awake at night scheming how to cheat some poor
man out of his earnings. In the summer of 1857 our family, accompanied by some of Uncle James Daily's
daughters, went on a visit to Washington county, Indiana, the former home of my parents. Though only
three years of age, I remember quite distinctly many events of that trip.
In those sunny days of childhood, disturbed only by occasional shadows of imaginary trouble, my
tender mind knew nothing of real care. Not a ripple of distress came to agitate the peaceful sea of life.
With true parental devotion my father and mother cared for me, while the bountiful hand of Providence
was outstretched to preserve me and open to supply my needs. In apparent innocency I lived, not being
guilty of any outward vices. The casual observer might say that I was then pure and holy. This notion is
assumed as a basal principle of the doctrine of conditionalism. But revelation teaches differently, and
even human reason, by employing the well known laws of cause and effect, is able to see that the Bible is
Hence, though not guilty of immoral conduct, I was a sinner by nature even then, for all are "by
nature the children of wrath." Eph. 2:6. I was a descendant of Adam, whose disobedience made all his
descendants sinners. Rom. 5:19. Having an unclean source, I was unclean like all the stream that flows
from that unclean fountain. Job 14:4; 5:14; 25:4. I had a fleshly and not a spiritual nature, because I had
been born only of the flesh. John 3:6. Spiritual or eternal life, which is the divine life, comes only in
being born of the Spirit. Natural birth and the innocency of childhood does not lift us up into the spiritu▾
al life and qualify us for heaven. We are qualified by the natural birth to live in the realm of nature only,
in which state we are polluted by the transmission of guilt as the fruit of a corrupt tree. Matt. 7:18. All
are under sin, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom. 3:9-23. David, in confessing
his great sins, traced them to his sinful nature, which he derived from his very conception, not to seek an
excuse for his crimes but to show their great magnitude. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity," said he, "and
in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5. Thus I confess that I have been a sinner all my life, all
my sinful thoughts and acts coming from a sinful nature that I have always had.

"I from the stock of Adam came,
Unholy and unclean;
All my original is shame,
And all my nature sin.

"Born in a world of guilt, I drew
Contagion with my breath:
And, as my days advanc'd, I grew
A juster prey for death."



My mother joined the Campbellites in southern Indiana before she was married, but she had an
experience that contradicted the teaching of that sect. She was in deep trouble over her sinful condition
for some time, how long I do not know, and while in that troubled state she went one day to the spring
for a pail of water. On the way to the spring she felt so miserable that she thought she must surely die.
All her sinfulness arose before her mind as a dark cloud, and she felt that she was justly condemned and
could see no way of escape from an impending destruction. On the way to the house her trouble all left
her and she found sweet peace in the Saviour's love. I have heard her relate this exercise, while her face
would be lit up with a halo of delight and her cheeks wet with tears of joy. Father made no profession of
religion and I suppose he was not deeply concerned about it until the winter of 1857-8.
An Old Baptist church had been constituted in 1853 near where we lived at the time of which I am
writing. It was constituted at the home of William Oliphant, who was chosen and ordained a deacon. He
was a son of Eld. Thomas Oliphant, who came from North Carolina and located in Monroe Co., Ind., in
an early day. The new church was named Little Flock. Eld. John Kinder was its first pastor and
preached for it nearly twenty years. A log meeting house had been erected by this church one mile north
of our home. My parents attended the meetings of this Baptist church, and occasionally went to the
United Brethren church and the Methodist church, both of which were near us.
One day father took me with him to the Methodist meeting, and as I was sitting by his side I looked up
into his face and saw the tears flowing down his cheeks. I was somewhat frightened at that unusual sight
and began to cry. When prayer was offered father knelt down and I knelt with him. I seemed to think it
was proper for me to do whatever he did. What I saw that day made a very serious impression on my
young mind. I heard some who were present speak to my parents about my peculiar actions that day, but
I only attribute it to a keen observation and sympathetic feeling which were manifested in me even at
that young age.
In mid-winter father and mother joined the Little Flock church and were baptized by Eld. Kinder. It
was very cold the day they were baptized, so I was left at home with brother Wiley. I knew they were to
be baptized that day, however, and studied and talked about it though I was not yet four years old.
My parents attended their meetings regularly and took their children with them. This is the duty of
all Baptists who have children. So many neglect this important duty. They don't seem to care about
their children attending the public worship of God, and, in fact, they seem to care but little where they
go. Children who are thus shamefully neglected are apt to conclude either that their parents care but
little for them or that they have very little regard for their own religion. The probable tendency of this is
to cause the children to think but little of the church of their parents. My heart has often ached as I have
observed this lamentable neglect on the part of parents. Christ's only provision for the public instruction
of the people in the teaching of the holy scriptures is in the proclamation of his word by his chosen and
qualified ministers, and parents who neglect to train up their children to attend the worship of the
church of Christ and respect his gospel are themselves guilty of disrespect toward him for which there is
no excuse.
I went with my parents to their church because they took me with them, and I always took my seat
with them in the house and listened quietly to the preaching because they carefully trained me to do so.
Though I did not understand the spiritual import of the gospel till I was about fifteen years old, yet I
learned many useful lessons, and when I became concerned on the subject of religion my mind turned to
the minister and membership of the grand old church to which father and mother belonged.




In April, 1858, a baby brother was born. My parents named him James Henley. As Wiley was about
eleven years my senior I had been without a playmate at home, so when my little brother was old enough
and strong enough to run about and play with me my felicity seemed complete. Oh! those cloudless days
of childhood! The open field, the shady wood, the ragged clearing, all were mine! Though our home was
but a log cabin of one room, and that only rented property, yet no earthly prince could have more than I
had of air and sunshine, of health and peace, of parental affection and childish joy. The hum of my
mother's spinning wheel and the clatter of her loom mingled with her clear, sweet hymns of praise to our
Creator, formed the music of our humble but happy home through the busy day. In the quiet hours of
evening two voices often joined in singing,

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word."

The notion that wealth will purchase happiness or that earthly fame will procure peace is a mistaken
one. The happiest people in the world are the honest and industrious poor who live at peace with God
and their fellow men.

"Let not Ambition mock their useful toil.
Their homely joys and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor."

In the Spring of 1860 we moved about eight miles north-east to the farm of Elder John A. Thompson
and near his home. He was a son of Elder Wilson Thompson. His aged father and mother had their
home with him. So I then lived near one of the ablest Baptist preachers of this country, and I might say
two of the ablest, for Elder John A. Thompson was also a very able minister. I remember the old Elder
Wilson Thompson quite distinctly. He was always kind and gentle with me, but there was a kind of
majestic appearance and manner about him that always filled me with awe in his presence. Elder John
A. Thompson's children, George W. and Eoline, were near my age, and I was frequently there. It was our
delight to get grandfather Thompson to tell us a story. His aged wife was not right in her mind at times,
and I very much feared her. Mr. James L. Thompson, another son of Eld. Wilson Thompson, also lived
near us, two of whose sons, Robert W. and John M., are now Baptist preachers. Both are much esteemed
for their zeal and ability. They were then young men, Robert W. being twelve years and John M. ten
years older than me. Elder Gregg M. Thompson, the oldest son of Elder Wilson Thompson, then lived in
Georgia. He was another able defender of the Baptist doctrine. Perhaps no preachers have ever excelled
the Thompsons as expounders and defenders of the grand old Baptist doctrine. A division had taken
place in the Baptist church years before in the White Water Association in Eastern Indiana, which ought
never to have occurred. The two factions were led in the separation by Elders Wilson Thompson and
John Sparks. The latter was an eloquent preacher. There was some difference in the views of these two
leaders, but the division was really caused by other parties who sought to produce jealousy on the part of
each toward the other. These designing men had personal difficulties, and when they found these able
ministers differed on some points they sought to gratify their own evil and jealous hearts by bearing tales
from one to the other until a division was produced in the above named association. Years after this
unhappy division these two veterans of the cross labored hard to get the two factions together, but could
not succeed in healing the dreadful breach thus caused. They made mutual acknowledgements to one
another, however, and tendered mutual forgiveness, and as individual soldiers of the cross their closing
labors were among the same people.
My parents were members of the Danville Association, which belonged to the Sparks faction. Elder E.
D. Thomas, who then lived in Hendricks county, Ind., was a prominent minister in that association. He
was a son-in-law of Elder Wilson Thompson. Thus many good people and able ministers were separated
by a little fire that had grown to immense proportions through fuel added by designing men.
In the Spring of 1861 I attended my first school. It was a twenty-days term of subscription school, and
was taught by Martin Morrison, Methodist preacher. The short public school had just closed, and the
people of the neighborhood paid Mr. Morrison to teach this additional twenty days term. I was a very
bashful boy, and my parents feared I would not learn on this account. So they had Mr. Morrison to call
on me before the term opened. His kindness at once won my confidence and affection, and I had but little
fears of him when I started to school. I began with the alphabet, and made rather surprising progress.
At the close of the twenty days term I could spell quite well in words of four, five, and even six syllables.
"Daguerreotype" was one of my favorite words.
I became wedded to my books at once, and a burning thirst for learning raged in my youthful mind.
Books were scarce and the public school terms in the country were short, but I eagerly read every book
and paper I could procure. I was not above the level of mediocrity in point of ability to learn rapidly, but
my unusual thirst for information enabled me to overcome this disadvantage. It was a common thing for
me to secrete a book under my coat and take it with me to the field where I was sent to labor in order
that I might employ the resting moments in study. Often these resting moments were prolonged far
beyond what was proper when duty to my dear parents was considered. I often hurried through my
morning task to get just a few minutes to read before I was called to breakfast. At night I would study till
my father would tell me I must retire. This was carried on, not only during the short terms of country
school, but all through the vacations intervening.



It is well known that in 1861 war broke out between the North and South. The excitement ran high
in our community. Father was a Douglas democrat in politics, and was opposed to the opening measures
of Lincoln's administration, but when the crisis came he thought, like many northern democrats, that the
rebellion of the south should be put down. My older brother had grown to be a strong young man.
Governmental agents came to our house repeatedly to solicit my father and brother to join the army,
especially the latter. This gave mother much distress as she was in delicate health, and for both to leave
us would reduce us to a state of abject poverty. The drums could be distinctly heard as they were beating
for volunteers at Russiaville, about three miles to the North-east. I often stood in the yard and trembled
with alarm as I listened to the doleful sound.
One day in early Spring brother Wiley went to town, and on returning home informed us that he had
joined the army and would start for the South in a few days. This sad information spread a deep gloom
over our little home. I remember seeing him start away. Dear Mother walked the yard and wrang her
hands in agony, while Father's manly breast heaved with emotions of grief and the tears rolled down his
cheeks. This was the first trouble I had ever witnessed. The bitter that is sure to mingle with the sweets
of life had to begun to show itself.
Soon after this sad event another hard trial came. My dear little brother was taken very ill with
Inflammatory Croup. He grew rapidly worse from the start, and in a short time we stood by the bed and
saw him pass away. This first scene of death impressed my young mind very seriously indeed. I saw that
I must also die, and I thought death might come as suddenly and unexpected as it did to my little brother.
I felt that I was not prepared for it, and shuddered at the thought of having to be ushered into the
presence of the great God who knew how sinful I was. The next day, as I stood by the open coffin and
looked at that sweet little face for the last time, the awful reality of death and the uncertainty of life were
made indubitably true to me. I saw, too, that my sweet brother and playmate had gone from this world
forever, never more to gladden the passing hours by his innocent play, childish prattle and happy laugh▾
ter. Keenly did I feel the irreparable loss. Sorrow had fallen with twofold force upon my dear parents.
The oldest son was in the war, and the youngest was taken away by the hand of death. I know now what
I did not then; that is, that an unseen Power supported them in the storm that had thus gathered o'er
their pathway.

"When through the deep waters I call thee to go.
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress."



"An alien from God and a stranger to grace,
I wandered through earth, its gay pleasures to trace;
In the pathway of sin I continued to roam,
Unmindful, alas, that it led me from home."

Father possessed a restless disposition which caused him to change his place of living quite frequently.
He moved only short distances, each time thinking he could gain financial advantages by doing so. Soon
after the death of little brother he moved one mile south to a small farm owned by David Wagerman. We
had lived there but a few months when my soldier brother came home on a parole of thirty days. His
regiment, the 89th Indiana, had been captured at Richmond, Ky., and sent home. As I saw him dressed
in his full uniform, with musket in hand, a feeling of pride mingled with patriotism swelled my heart.
Those few days sped swiftly by, and the heart-rending experience of seeing him depart for the bloody
conflict had to be repeated. This was in the Autumn of 1861. On New Year's Day, 1863, the news was
received that he was at Fairfield, about twelve miles away, lying in a critical condition. Father drove out
there and brought him home. He had taken sick from fatigue and exposure, but had not informed us.
The comfort of a home and the tender care of a fond mother soon restored him.
The following Spring we moved to a farm of Dr. L. H. Oilar, two miles west of Russiaville. About this
time I became very religious, my religion being of a pharisaical character. I prayed every night and
morning, read the Testament and memorized some of the old hymns. I verily believed I was good, and
that I would continue to be good, and that God would finally save me for my own goodness. How natural
is the Arminian doctrine! For this reason it is easily understood by the natural man, who receives not
the things of the Spirit of God and cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned. I was able
to understand the theory of conditionalism perfectly well, which is unmistakable proof of its falsity. I
then possessed all necessary qualifications for membership in any church of the world, and would have
been regarded by natural religionists as a truly pious boy.
Brother Wiley volunteered again as soon as he was able to pass the examination, and re-entered the
service for a term of one year. Peace was declared before his term expired, but he was retained until his
year was out. How cheering was the glad news of peace, and how happy and thankful we were to greet
the returning soldier, and to know he would never again depart for the dreadful fields of war. In the
Summer of 1867 he was married to Miss Louisa Foster, of Howard Co., Ind.In September, 1865, the
Danville Association met with Little Flock, the church of my parents. I attended the three days, sat well
up in front and listened attentively to the preaching. I remember the preachers and some of the texts
used by them. This was when I was an Arminian Pharisee. Much of the preaching of the Old Baptists
was dark and mysterious to me. I was bewildered when they talked about the new birth and change of
heart. The new birth taught by other preachers was a conditional matter, and bore no resemblance to a
birth. They taught that being saved was left to the choice of sinners, and that any one could be saved by
accepting the offer. This set aside the necessity of being born again. I could understand this and believe
it. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Prov.
In the Spring of 1866 we moved one mile west to Nicholas Trobaugh's farm. The next year we moved
to a farm owned by Dr. Oilar one mile east. The Doctor was a prosperous farmer as well as physician.
He was rather rough in some ways, but a kind-hearted man, and I spent much of my time at his home
playing with his boys, the youngest of whom was near my age. He remarked to a friend, who told me,
that if he wanted to put $1,000 into safe hands he would risk me with it. This remark taught me the
importance of honesty and uprightness.
While living at this place I was allowed to attend a Sunday School which was conducted at our School
House. Mr. Rivers, a leading member of the Methodist church, was the Superintendent. Though I was
but thirteen I was chosen as teacher of a class of boys. How proud this made me feel! The Superintend▾
ent patted me on the head and remarked sanctimoniously that I was such a good little boy and would
make an excellent teacher. My heart swelled with pride at these flattering words.
It is the tendency of Sunday Schools to cultivate the kind of religion I then had. That institution is of
the world and the world loves it own. The churches of the world would abandon it if they could invent
anything better, but they must have something to ensnare children and bring them into their ranks. The
Sunday School was not necessary to the perpetuation of the church of Christ. If it had been he was wise
enough to know it and to establish it or authorize its establishment. But it or something else like it is
necessary to the perpetuation of the churches of the world. Worldly teachers, such as I was, can teach in
a Sunday School, because it is a worldly organization and its religion is of the world.
The following text is sometimes quoted as favoring Sunday Schools:-"Ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Eph. 6:4. Now can it
be possible that Paul meant to advise the brethren at Ephesus to send their children to Sunday School
when there was none? Did God inspire Paul to advise parents to send their children to Sunday School
when He knew there would not be any Sunday School for hundreds of years? How preposterous! But
this is not an admonition to fathers to send their children away from home for others to train. On the
contrary it is an admonition to them to train them up at home. This is the duty of parents as taught in
the word of God. I am opposed to Baptist parents allowing their children to attend Sunday Schools. To
do so is to patronize and encourage a worldly institution and a worldly religion. Some say that Baptists
ought to have a Sunday School of their own. Baptists don't need any of the religious institutions and
inventions of the world. If they were to adopt such unscriptural things they would cease to be Bible
Baptists. Those who really desire to show forth the praise of Him who has called them into His marvel▾
ous light will be satisfied with what is furnished them in His sacred word. To adopt what He has not
authorized would be to cast reflection upon His wisdom, for that would say He was not wise enough to
know what the church needed and therefore failed to provide for her needs.
Early in the year '69 we moved about six or seven miles south, to J. T. Oliphant's farm, who was a son
of Deacon William Oliphant, and was then just entering upon the work of the ministry. He was also a
teacher in the public schools. He lived near us on the same farm. I attended a term of school taught by
him. He organized a debating society for the benefit of his pupils. It was in this society that I made my
first attempt at public speaking. The first question discussed by us was, "Resolved that we see more
pleasure in Winter and Spring than we do in Summer and Autumn." I was in the affirmative, and when
my turn come to speak I arose, but for a few moments I stood speechless and blind. Finally the darkness
cleared away and I went on with a line of arguments I had prepared. Mr. Jefferson Hodson was on the
opposite side, and was a young man who was beginning to preach for the Campbellites. I at once became
much interested in this society and soon learned to speak with ease and composure.
I wish to say here that while we were living on Dr. Oilar's farm I attended a term of school taught by
R. W. Thompson, who was then a young man. His brother, John M. Thompson, was a pupil in the same
school. These are both now (1903) able ministers. The former is Editor of the "Primitive Monitor," and
the latter is editor of the "Youth's Guardian Friend."



My pharisaical religion became very troublesome to me. It was so hard to keep! Resolution after
resolution was broken. I tried to think that my good deeds would overbalance my bad ones in God's
account, but all the time had great fears that the bad ones would be far in excess. One day I saw clearly
that my efforts to live right, up to that time, had been an utter failure, and I formed a renewed determi▾
nation to turn from my sinful career and live a holy life. I was really happy with the thought that I could
do so. But soon I found that "it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps." It began to dawn upon
my benighted mind that I was a vile sinner. At times my guilt appeared as a thick cloud over my mind,
and at other times I sought to banish such dreadful thought from me and to seek relief in the thought
that I was not so bad as many others and that God would yet find me worthy of his favorable notice.
At a regular meeting of Little Flock church in the fall of 1869, John T. Oliphant was ordained to the
ministry. In the afternoon of that day there was a total eclipse of the sun. I knew the nature of the event,
of course, but it was to me a fresh lesson of the sovereignty of that great Being who established the laws
of nature and perpetually reigns in the exact execution of those laws.
All matter in the material universe is controlled by physical laws which are never disobeyed. That
government shows the wisdom and power of God, but it gives no opportunity for a display of his justice
and mercy. In order to display these qualities as well as his wisdom and power he established the moral
government by creating man and placing him under moral law. This law is not like that which governs
the material elements, for its subjects are not compelled by an irresistible force to obey it. If they were
compelled to obey it no disobedience would be chargeable to them. The disobedience of the subjects of
God's moral government is not the result of an irresistible cause, such as the wreck of a train or the
explosion of a boiler, for if it were no blame could attach to the transgressor.
I did not understand this important distinction between the physical and moral laws that govern the
two kingdoms. Had I understood this, many questions that were puzzling to me would have been plain.
I could see, however, that the sun was not to be blamed for the darkness that resulted from the eclipse as
I was for the sins I had committed and the darkness into which I was plunged. This knowledge was no
aid to me in my condemned state, neither would a greater degree of knowledge have assisted me in my
In the night of the 27th day of February, 1870, I dreamed the day of judgment had come. Dark clouds
seemed to cover the skies and thunders appeared to roar as a threatening omen. I expected to see the
Saviour appear, and my heart was filled with terror at the thought of being banished forever into endless
despair. I thought I started to run from the wood lot in which we lived to a field on the east, in which I
saw a company bowed in prayer led by a pious old neighbor by the name of George Evans, who was a
leading member of the United Brethren church. I started to join them but something seemed to say,
"You are not fit for such company," and I turned away. Just then I awoke. To be sure I was glad it was
only a dream, and that I was allowed a short respite, but I fully believed this would be my inevitable fate.
The following day I went to a public sale at my cousin, Thomas B. Lucas's, one mile north of where we
lived, who was selling out to move to Colorado. It was a sad, sad day to me. Toward evening father told
me to hurry on home and build a fire. He and mother had gone to the sale on horse-back and I had
walked. I did as he told me, and as I sat by the stove that was fast heating I mused over my sinful state
and the dreadful dream of the preceding night. A picture of the resurrection of Jesus hung upon the
wall. In it Jesus was represented as standing near his sepulcher facing the beholder, while the Roman
guard were lying as dead men upon the ground and the angel was seated upon the stone that had closed
the tomb. I looked up at that picture and saw the wounds in the hands and feet of Jesus, and his sweet
face, which seemed to beam with the radiance of meekness and love. I thought of my life of sinfulness,
and concluded that those wounds had not been made for me and felt that the look of love only spoke my
condemnation. I left the house intending to try to banish those dreadful feelings by cutting some wood. I
took up the ax but paused with a sad heart and downcast face. I stood in this attitude for a few moments,
then sat down upon a log, covered my face with my hands and cried, "Lord, have mercy if thou canst?"
My burden of guilt and condemnation all left me, and in my mind, by real faith I trust, I saw Jesus
hanging upon the cross, and I fully believed he had died for me. I arose and began singing that hymn
which has ever been so dear to me,

"Oh, how happy are they
Who their Saviour obey,
And whose treasures are laid up above;
Tongue cannot express
The sweet comfort and peace
Of a soul in its earliest love!"

I know I was happy then. I am sure that I loved Jesus and his people, and John says, "He that loveth
is born of God." What sweet comfort that text has afforded me along the strange pilgrimage--the pilgrim▾
age of a stranger sure enough! Life here would be heaven were I always as happy as I was then.

"'Twas a heaven below
The Redeemer to know,
And the angels could do nothing more
Than to fall at His feet,
And the story repeat,
And the Saviour of sinners adore!

"On the wings of His love
I was carried above
All sin and temptation and pain;
And I could not believe
That I ever should grieve,
That I ever should suffer again."

Seven years after this happy circumstance I composed the hymn on my experience which I here insert:

How sweet to reflect on the day when my Saviour
Released my poor soul of its burden of grief;
My spirit rejoices to think of the favor
Which Jesus bestow'd when he gave me relief.
My heart takes delight in the fond recollection
Of peaceful repose and the joy that I felt,
When first my Creator's parental affection,
On me was bestow'd as before Him I knelt.

When I was a youth in the broad path of folly,
In sin and rebellion, an alien from God,
I view'd not myself as a sinner unholy,
I knew not to death led the pathway I trod.
I trusted alone in good works for salvation,
I look'd not to Jesus for life, light and peace,
I though by obeying I'd shun condemnation,
And gain heav'nly favors that never should cease.

But when my dear Lord, in his sweet loving kindness,
Revealed unto me my condition in sin,
I found I had always been dwelling in blindness,
Contrary to God had my steps ever been.
I found I was left in a helpless condition,
My sins all arose like a vast gloomy cloud,
My heart sank within me in humble contrition,
To God for assistance I shouted aloud.

I cried in despair, If Thou canst, Lord, have mercy,
A light show within me--the tempest was calm;
I arose singing praises to God for His mercy,
I shouted, "Oh, glory to God and the Lamb!"
My burden was gone and my sorrow was ended,
My spirit rejoiced in the love of the Lord,
I felt that my heart with His people was blended,
And claimed the sweet promises found in His word.



"I am a stranger here below
And what I am 'tis hard to know:
I am so vile, so prone to sin,,
I fear that I'm not born again."

I thought I would tell my dear parents as soon as they arrived home that their poor, sinful boy had
been graciously received into the favor of God and forgiven, but a fear entered my mind when I saw them
that this was not a true christian experience, so I did not tell them. I had thought I could tell my school-
mates of Jesus and his love, and how a poor sinner is saved by him, but I had nothing to say to them the
next Monday morning as I met them at school. The happy circumstance described in the preceding
chapter occurred on Saturday. About a month after this, Eld. Oliphant and I, one Saturday morning,
were preparing to haul some feed from the field. He may have noticed some change in my countenance,
though I had tried very hard to conceal my feelings. However that may be, he asked me if I had ever
obtained a hope in the Saviour. He was always so fatherly to me. I cannot forget the deep interest he
took in me and the encouragement he gave me by his kind attentions. I hesitated to answer him, but
finally shook my head and said I was afraid I had not. He noticed my hesitation and asked me if I had
ever felt any better over my condition at any time since we had last conversed about it. I could not speak
falsely, and so had to tell him I had, and related a little of my happy change. The tears flowed from his
eyes, and he clapped his hands together and exclaimed, "Thank the Lord, that is just what I have been
wanting to hear.: This relieved me, for I felt that I had opened my mind to a true friend and christian
minister. I was happy that day as we worked together. It is a relief to tell one's feelings to a confiding
friend who can share the sorrow and the joy. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the counte▾
nance of his friend." Prov. 27:17. A fear came soon, however, which broke the tranquility and joy of my
heart. I feared I had deceived that godly man, and this distressed me very much.
The next fall, after our Summer's work was principally over, I worked a few weeks for brother Wiley
and cousin Levi Bailey at a Saw Mill owned and operated by them at a village called Shanghai, in the
corner of Howard County. Not being accustomed to that kind of labor I soon grew tired of it and engaged
to work for a Quaker farmer by the name of Edmund Newby, near there. There was some bad society in
that vicinity, and I was thrown in company with wicked boys. The only dance I ever attended was held
near that village at a picnic in the woods. I took no part in it as I had no relish for it, besides I felt a deep
respect for my parents. The fiddle music was fine, and the gay whirl of the boys and girls as they stepped
to the flowing measures really looked beautiful, and yet I saw the wickedness of it. Music is grand when
employed for a good purpose, but by the wicked world it is only employed to deaden the conscience and
made to serve as a charm to the dazzling service of sin.

"Employed to serve the cause of sin,
A good is rendered evil;
Music, alas, so long has been
Pressed to obey the Devil!
Drunken, or lewd, or light, the lay
Flows to the soul's undoing,
Widens and strews with flowers the way
Down to eternal ruin."

The following winter our school was taught by Miss Maggie Oiler. I had attended two schools taught
by her while we lived on her father's farm. I loved her as a teacher and progressed rapidly under her in▾
structions. She was not a member of any church, but was a believer in the doctrine of the Old Baptists,
and as I was very studious she took great interest in me, assisting me at home in my studies. The latter
part of January, 1871, a series of meetings were held at Little Flock church by Elds. John Joseph, of
Boone county, Ind., and Levi T. Buchanan, of Putnam County, Indiana. Elder J. T. Oliphant, the pastor,
assisted in conducting the meetings, but the two visiting ministers did the preaching. It was a very inter▾
esting meeting to me, and I took great delight in attending it. It was cold, a fine sleighing snow covered
the ground, and our two-horse sled seemed almost to fly as we went to and fro over the two miles to the
On Monday night, January 23rd, Miss Oiler said she was very tired and would stay at home and keep
up the fire while we were gone. Elder Buchanan preached that night, and my soul feasted on the ser▾
mon. At the request of the pastor, Elder Joseph extended the invitation for members. While they were
singing the invitation hymn Alonzo Nichols crowded past me and went forward. It seemed to me that I
would sink in my place. He was received by the church as a candidate for baptism. They sang another
hymn, giving him the hand of fellowship and again extending the invitation. The music seemed heavenly
as they sang,

Jesus, my all, to heaven has gone,
I can no longer stay,
He whom I fix my hopes upon,
I can no longer stay away.

I can no longer stay away,
I can no longer stay;
The gospel sounds so sweet to me,
I can no longer stay away.

With a feeling I cannot describe I stepped into the aisle and rushed forward. I grasped the hand of
dear Brother Joseph, and my heart leaped for joy as I stood before him, while tears flowed from his eyes.
As I took my seat, Alonzo Nichol's wife presented herself for membership. When called upon to relate
my experience, I arose before the crowded house and told what I trusted the Lord had done for me with
unexpected liberty and calmness. The voice of the church was unanimous for our reception. The hand of
fellowship given by the dear members thrilled me with inexpressible emotions. My sainted mother
dropped on the seat beside me, took me in her arms, and together we rejoiced in the Saviour's love.
What a heavenly place that was!
Many of my young associates were in that audience, who were not effected as I was. They did not
taste the sweetness of the gospel as I did, nor did they see any beauty in his service. I was so willing to
give up the world and its sinful pleasures for the delightful service of the Lord, while they cared nothing
for the latter but ran greedily after the former. What caused this difference? Paul asks, "Who maketh
thee to differ from another? and what has thou that thou didst not receive?" I Cor. 4:7. This is an
argument, in an interrogative form, that the grace of God makes saints to differ from others.

"Why was I made to hear His voice,
And enter while there's room,
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

"'Twas the same hand that spread the feast,
That sweetly forced me in.
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin."

Thus the glorious doctrine of election, so plainly taught in God's word, shines forth in the experience
of his heaven-born children. The difference I have referred to can be accounted for only on the ground of
the grand old doctrine that God has chosen his own people "in Christ before the foundation of the world,
that they should be holy and without blame before him in love." Peter calls these favored people "a royal
priesthood an holy nation and a peculiar people," and bases the whole on the fact that they were "a
chosen generation," the object of it all being that they should show forth the praise of him who had called
them out of darkness into his marvelous light. When we arrived at our home that night mother went
into the house and father and I put away the team. On entering the house I found my dear teacher in a
flood of tear, and I knew at once that mother had told her the good news. My heart swelled with grati▾
tude to God as I lay down upon my bed, and I seemed to sleep more sweetly than I had ever done before.
The next morning my teacher told me that she would excuse me that day if I wished to attend services at
the church, but I told her that I would go to the school house and build a fire, as I was doing this for her
regularly, and that I thought I would remain at school as I so much regretted to miss my lessons. As I
neared the school house that morning I sang, as I never had sung before,

"Jesus I my cross have taken,
All to leave and follow Thee;
Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,
Thou from hence my all shalt be."

I had actually taken my cross to leave all else and follow Jesus, who was my all and would be my all
forever! I had possessed many a fond ambition, had sought and hoped for a great name and brilliant
success, and knew what it was to thirst for knowledge, but these things appeared as nothing while I sang
with a joyful heart,

"Perish every fond ambition,
All I've sought or hoped or known,
Yet how rich is my condition,
God and heaven are still my own."

The possession of all this world would have been nothing compared with my riches that morning. Ten
thousand such worlds, could they have been offered me in exchange for my hope, would have been re▾
fused. I had found my Saviour's yoke easy and his burden light, while everlasting bliss awaited me at the
end of a short race.



I was to be baptized the first Sunday in February, which was the fifth day of the month. On Saturday,
the 28th, I visited Brother Wiley to tell him what I had done and invite him to the baptism. He said he
was glad I had taken that step and hoped I would be faithful and not turn back like some who had "joined
church" in his vicinity. I felt that I had a stronger power to trust in than my own strength, and fully
believed I would be sustained by that power to the end.
All went well with me until the following Friday. That was my first dark day after I started in the
pathway of duty. That day I feared I had been deceived and had deceived the church. Evening drew on,
and the cloud that hung over my poor soul seemed to thicken with the fading of the twilight. I went to a
fodder pile to get feed for the stock. I fell upon my knees there and begged the Lord for a return of my
departed joy and a fresh evidence of my acceptance with him, promising that if this was not given I would
go to the church next day and tell them of the great mistake they had made in receiving me and ask them
to rescind the act.
As I arose from a praying posture I thought of a meeting that night at Swamp Creek Chapel, a Meth▾
odist Church one half mile away, and at once resolved to go. Eld. Oliphant, my dear pastor, was there,
and being requested to take part spoke of heaven. It was as honey to my soul. On the way home I
praised the Lord, and when I went to my bed I again dropped upon my knees and poured out a strain of
thanksgiving and praise for the Lord's goodness and mercy to me.
The day of my baptism was an inclement one. The air was cold and a disagreeable sleet was falling.
Five were baptized, I being the first to go into the water. With my hand in that of my dear pastor I gladly
went with him into the stream, and was buried after the plain example of my own sweet Saviour. How I
loved my pastor and the blessed King we were serving as we returned together to the shore, where
awaited my parents and the other brethren and sisters to greet me!
I will not undertake to describe the sweet rest I found in the Lord's delightful service. The following
argument has often suggested itself to my mind, from which I have taken great comfort. If we take de▾
light in any service it is because we love it. If we love the service it is certain that we love him who re▾
quires the service of us. Hence those who take delight in the Lord's service love the Lord who requires it
of them. John says, "He that loveth is born of God." It is certainly true that none but those who are born
of God can love his service and take delight in it, because all others are enmity against him, are not
subject to his law and cannot be. I know my early love and joy were not imaginary. I longed for our
meeting time to come, for my greatest enjoyment was to meet with the children of God and join with
them in worship.
Within a few weeks after I was baptized my mind became loaded with further duties. I realized that
active service was required of me, that merely to abstain from immoral conduct and fill my seat in time of
public service was not all that was required of me. How much was really required of me I did not know,
but I wanted to do my full duty. One night I was at the home of my pastor. His family had retired, as his
wife wasn't well and his two children were quite small. He and I sat up and talked until a late hour.
Before we retired he said to me, "Brother John, I would like to hear you pray if you will." I consented,
and together we bowed while I offered a prayer to God. It was a relief to me, and I went to bed with a
light heart.
In a few days after this father was away from home and I knew he would be away at meal time. It was
deeply impressed on my mind that I ought to offer thanks at the table. It appeared like a great task to
undertake such a thing, but the duty weighed upon me so heavily that I resolved to do it. When mother
and I were seated at the table I bowed my head and thanked the Lord for the blessings we enjoyed and
implored him for a continuation of them. I remember distinctly the look of that mother's face as I looked
up at her. What a relief that was to me! From that time on I performed that duty at our table in my
father's absence. Some of our brethren seem to think it too much for them to do to thank the Lord
audibly at the table for his blessings of providence and grace, so they do not practice this important duty.
I remember that when I was still a mere youth I was visiting at the home of Deacon William Oliphant
one Sunday night. At his request I read a lesson from the word of God and led in prayer. We sang a
sweet hymn after prayer. The dear old brother then spoke of the great blessing of doing our duty, and
told of a circumstance that took place that day which had pained his heart so much. A brother had come
home with him from church, who appeared uneasy after they had gone into the house. Finally he asked
Brother Oliphant to walk out with him, and as they did so he asked him if he had ever found it difficult to
do his duty. Brother Oliphant acknowledged he had at times. He then told him he had never practiced
returning thanks at the table, and requested him not to call on him to do so. Brother Oliphant was thus
compelled to endure the unpleasant task of asking the blessing at his own table while a Baptist brother
sat by him with several others present. He said, with tears in his eyes, that he was glad I was not afraid
to try to do my duty. I have experienced the same embarrassment many times myself. It is such a pity
that some of our people are so timid. There is no excuse for it.
One night, soon after I was baptized, I was returning home from church with a dear friend by the
name of John B. Loury, who lived near us. He was a member of the United Brethren church, but was
very religious, and he and I often talked together of the mercy and love of God. That night our conversa▾
tion was so interesting. When we came to the place to part he said that I had heard him pray but he had
never heard me. So he asked me if I would lead in prayer. Together we bowed by the road-side and I
lifted my voice in prayer to God. None but he and I and our God could hear the sound of my youthful
voice as it rang out in the stillness of that sweet night. We embraced one another with a kiss of love as
we parted for the night, and each went to his home with a light and joyous heart. Ungodly sinners think
they find enjoyment in the service of sin, but they don't know what true and lasting enjoyment is.
I was frequently called on by my pastor to lead in prayer at our meeting. Sometimes I enjoyed liberty,
while at other times I seemed shut up almost entirely in my feelings, and felt much distressed over what
appeared to be a failure. I was impressed a great deal of the time with a sense of duty, but scarcely knew
what my duty was.
I was the only Baptist that attended our school. Nearly all the larger pupils were members of the
Methodist and United Brethren churches. We could not agree in doctrine, of course, and so we had many
disputes, our teacher taking sides with me. I remember one afternoon, at recess, we were arguing about
the final perseverance of the saints. Just before the bell rang for order, Nathan Evans, a United Breth▾
ren member, referred to the going out of the unclean spirit who returned into the man with seven other
devils worse than himself, and asked me if that did not prove the doctrine of apostasy. The bell stopped
the controversy and we hurried to our seats. I saw many of the pupils laughing, and Nathan seemed
especially delighted over what he considered an unanswerable argument.
I sat musing, and "as I mused the fire burned." Oh! how precious the grand old doctrine of God's holy
word seemed to me! As soon as school was dismissed that evening I began speaking. Liberty came as I
spoke, and my very soul was filled with joy. I showed that the unclean spirit found the house, from
which he had gone out, empty, swept and garnished. I asked if he would have found it empty if Jesus
had been in it, and urged an answer until it was admitted that in such a case it would not have been
empty. I then asked if Jesus could have been driven out by the unclean spirit and the seven other devils
united, if he had been in that house. None dared to say that all the evil spirits in the universe could
overcome the Saviour, cast him out of his dwelling, and take possession of it.



In April, 1871, we moved to the farm of Elder John Kinder, on the Twelve Mile prairie, six miles south
of Frankfort. We lived there only one year, and then moved to my Uncle James' farm near the place of
my birth. I had thus circled around to enter the stage of manhood in the same neighborhood where I had
started upon the journey of life.
I saw it was now time for me to enter upon some kind of employment for my own support. My mind
had already turned to the profession of teaching, and I decided to make it my life work. So after helping
my father raise a crop of corn, I borrowed fifty dollars of my Aunt Rachel to enable me to attend school as
a further preparation for my chosen calling. I attended the County Institute at Frankfort, after which I
entered a term of school taught by Mr. Horace G. Woody at Mortonsvile, five miles north east of our
home, boarding at the home of Deacon William Oliphant. His son Albert and I studied together and
attended the school. Mr. Woody was an excellent teacher, and I progressed more rapidly under his in▾
structions than I had ever done before. My mind became deeply enlisted in school work, and I did all in
my power to prepare myself for teaching. I passed the teacher's examination with credit, receiving eight▾
een month's license, the highest granted then being for two years.
The people of the school districts then elected their teachers, and I was so fortunate as to be elected
unanimously to teach the country school near our home, known as the "Gooseberry School." I thus
entered upon a work which I followed a part of every year until 1894. I loved this work, and studied very
hard while engaged in it to advance myself in my studies and prepare myself for a higher position.
Midnight would often find me at my studies, after laboring hard in the school room all day.
I taught seven terms at the place where I began the work. I taught in many other neighborhoods and
towns, and conducted three Normal terms for the training of teachers and those preparing to teach. I
was so much attached to teaching school that for many years I struggled to rid my mind of the burden of
preaching, that I might give myself wholly to this delightful work, but was never able to free myself from
ministerial work after I entered upon that calling. I accepted this change because "necessity was laid
upon me," and not from real choice.



On the fourth day of May, 1873, I was married to Miss Mary C. Laughner, the daughter of a widow
who lived near us. We were married by Eld. John T. Oliphant, at his home, and were accompanied by
my parents, her brother William Laughner, and Miss Eliza Wood, my Aunt Rachel's daughter.
Mother was quite weakly and it was very convenient and proper for us to live with my parents. We
were both happy in this new relationship, and I felt stimulated to labor more ardently by the new respon▾
sibility I had thus taken on myself. I assisted Father in the farm work, and my wife was a great help to
Mother in the work of house-keeping.
But oh! this pleasant state of things was destined to be broken up so soon! On Friday, July 14, she
was taken ill with a severe headache. She continued to grow worse, and on Saturday I went for Dr.
Strange who began treating her at once. She was very sick during Sunday and Monday, but seemed to be
much better on Tuesday so that I went to the field and worked with a hopeful heart. On Wednesday
morning she was worse and suffered severely until Friday night when she passed away. Her affliction
was Brain Fever.
This was a severe stroke. My earthly prospects seemed blasted and my future life looked dark. Being
young and inexperienced in the disappointments and sorrows of the world, I was impatient under the
trial. Yet at times I found solace in the sweet promises of God, and felt resigned to his will.
I worked a part of the fall for brother Wm. Oliphant, and spent a few weeks in working as a wheat-
threshing hand. I attended the Danville Association as a messenger the first of September, which was
held with Abners Creek Church, in Hendricks County. All this time I was a sad, broken-hearted wan▾
derer, feeling I had little to live for. The following winter I taught the school at "Gooseberry."
It was my intention to enter school at Lebanon, O., as soon as that term closed, so I refused to teach a
Spring term there. At the close of my school the Trustee of the township did not have the money to pay
me, but promised to get it soon. He put his teachers off with promises until an investigation was held,
when it was disclosed that he was a defaulter to the amount of over three thousand dollars. As the
matter had to go through a process of law, I was compelled to abandon the idea of attending school. The
great "panic of '73" was on, and everybody seemed afraid of his neighbor. There was no sale for anything,
and it was impossible to borrow money.
My plans being overthrown, I taught a Spring term of two months at a school house two miles west of
our home. During this term I walked to school, taught till 4 p. m. each day, studied Natural Philosophy
and Algebra until 6, and then walked home. Every third day I had an Ague chill. As a result of my teach▾
ing, studying, walking and chilling, I came out of that school about the slimmest and palest specimen of
humanity that could be found in all the country.




On the 10th day of September, 1874, I was united in marriage to Miss Caroline Laymon, a daughter of
Eld. John Laymon, a prominent minister of the Separate Baptist church. Her home was the next house
beyond the house where I had obtained my first wife. This was an exceedingly happy union, and proved
to be a very fortunate one for me. She was the very picture of health, and was unsurpassed for zeal and
industry. In addition to this she possessed an amiable disposition which rendered her an agreeable
companion. I am sure that no two were ever more closely united in affection than we have been, which
has enabled us to share the cares of life together with a great degree of patience and submission.
William Laymon, my wife's brother, and I, rented a farm two miles east of Michigantown, and I se▾
cured a school one and one half miles from the farm we rented. That winter, I became deeply impressed
with a sense of my duty to the Lord. I did not want to become so engaged in teaching that I would lose
sight of the goodness and mercy of God to me and of my great obligation to him. I went with my wife to
the meetings of her church, at "Gooseberry," near her father's. Her mother's brother was the pastor that
year. The preaching was so far from being what I believed that I often sat in deep distress as I saw the
people listening to what I regarded as dangerous errors. One night, while a protracted meeting was being
held, I took her to church, and while listening to the preaching the emotions of my soul became almost
uncontrollable. How I wished for the ability and privilege of telling the people of the true plan of salva▾
tion! I returned home in a troubled state of mind and could hardly sleep that night.
The next morning, on my way to school, as I was passing through a grove, my soul seemed full of the
love of Jesus. All nature seemed to join me in praising his dear name. I thought of the preaching I had
heard the night before, and instantly this prayer occupied my mind: "Lord, send forth true servants into
thy vineyard who will preach the truth in its purity." The impression came like a flash, "Would you be
willing to go if you were called?" I was astonished at the thought, and tried to banish it from me as a
thing impossible. But it followed me day by day till I was made willing to go if I could only know I was
called. After this, "Go preach my gospel" was repeatedly impressed upon my mind. In my dreams at
night I often seemed to be preaching to the people. While at my work on the farm the next Spring, I
frequently started and looked around me to see if any one was in hearing distance, when I found myself
expounding the word of God aloud. The burden grew heavier, while my unworthiness arose before me as
an apparent barrier to the great undertaking.
In the year 1890 I composed the following hymn on my call to the ministry, composing and writing it
while riding in my buggy.

One bright and lovely morning,
While passing through a grove,
My theme of meditation
Was Jesus and his love:
His name to me was precious,
His glorious presence sweet,
While nature seemed to join me
His praises to repeat.

While thus with peace enraptured,
False teachers came to mind;
I thought, "How many leaders
Are ignorant and blind:
They practice false religion--
False doctrines they proclaim,
And cause so many christians
To follow in the same."

With sincere intercession
My heart was moved to plead:
"Lord, send out faithful servants,
In this dark hour of need;
Attend them by thy Spirit,
And aid them to proclaim
Thy everlasting gospel
And glorify Thy name."

In answer to this pleading,
A small voice seemed to say,
"Would you, if you were chosen,
Be willing to obey?
Would you be one to publish
The gospel full and free,
To put the world behind you
"And follow after me?"

With sad surprise I answered,
"Oh! this can never be,
That such a holy calling
Is meant for one like me!
I am so weak and sinful,
My talents are so small,
I fear than none will heed me,
If on them I should call."

At once the Lord assured me
That I should never fear;
That in my every trial
His presence would be near:
That He would not forsake me
But aid me to proclaim
His everlasting gospel
And glorify His name.

The burden was so heavy
My weakness seemed so great,
My Saviour I entreated
To rid me of the weight:
But Christ said, "I'll go with you,
And aid you to proclaim
My everlasting gospel
And glorify My name."

For many months that followed,
These strange impressions came,
Until at last I yielded
To publish Jesus' name;
Though oft I made excuses,
I no relief could find,
I could not cast the burden
From my distressed mind.

Since then I've tried in weakness,
To preach the precious word;
Wherever I'm directed
My trembling voice is heard:
'Mid trials and temptations,
I've labored to proclaim
His everlasting gospel
And glorify His name.

Ofttimes in gloom and sorrow,
I've gone away from home,
And parted from my loved ones,
In distant parts to roam.
In all my weary wand'rings,
It's been my only aim,
To preach the precious gospel
And glorify His name.



Among other things that disturbed my mind and caused me to fear that I was not called to preach was
the inherent disposition to dispute with others. I feared my impressions arose from this disposition and
that I only craved to preach Christ of envy and not of good will. See Phil. 1:15.
I will now relate a circumstance that took place while I was teaching my first term as an example of
this controversial spirit. The reader will remember that I was then but eighteen years old. I attended the
dedication of a new Campbellite church in Michigantown, of which Mr. Hankins, a resident of the town,
was the pastor. I was quite well acquainted with Lorenzo Hankins, a young man and brother to the
preacher, who lived at his home. He very kindly invited me home with him for dinner. I accepted the
invitation, and was thus thrown into the company of the preacher and a large number of his visiting
members. The conversation, up to the time the meal was ready, was about other denominations, princi▾
pally the Methodist, of whom many very cutting remarks were made. I was a silent listener to all this,
the fire burning in my soul while I mused. At the dinner table Mr. Hankins looked across the table at me

and said, "I don't know what that young man is. We may be hitting him." I replied at once, "Oh no; you
are not hitting me at all. I am an Old Baptist - a regular Old Hardshell. I am a member of Little Flock
church over in the country." It would be difficult to describe his surprise, but with manifest self-conceit
he remarked, "I want to talk with you after dinner, young man." I replied with as much composure as I
could command. "Very well; I shall be glad to talk with you." My thoughts flew heavenward, and I se▾
cretly implored the Lord to give me wisdom and words.
The meal being ended we went back into the sitting room and became seated. Mr. Hankins took a
small Bible from the mantel and sat down beside me. Laying his hand upon my knee and looking me in
the face he asked, "Can you tell me the difference between Christians and Baptists?" I said, "Before I
answer your question I want to ask you one." "All right," said he, "go on." "I want to know," said I, "whom
you wish to designate by the term 'Christian.'" "Oh, us Campbellites!" he said. "Yes," I said, "I can tell you
the difference between Campbellites and Baptists." I then went on to tell the difference between the
doctrine of the two denominations in regard to the condition of the unregenerated sinner, regeneration,
the design of baptism, the Lord's Supper, election and predestination, &c. He remarked that I under▾
stood it and had stated it correctly. We then entered upon a controversy which occupied the entire after▾
noon. Great liberty was given me to meet his arguments and to back up mine with the scriptures. We
discussed the nature of the new birth, which finally led him to the position taken by the founder of his
doctrine, Alexander Campbell, that the sinner is invariably born again in the act of being baptized in
water. We agreed that baptism is intended to represent the burial and resurrection of the dead. As a
final effort to defend his theory he argued that as there must be a death before a proper burial, there
could be no life until the resurrection, and urged that this implied beyond contradiction that the sinner
received divine life in being raised from the water. He said if I would prove that there would be any life
before the resurrection he would yield the controversy and admit his defeat. I called his attention to the
rich man and Lazarus, both of whom died. It is not said that Lazarus was buried. The Saviour tells us
that the rich man was buried, and lifted up his eyes in torment and spoke to Abraham. This was before
the resurrection, for he requested that Lazarus should be sent back to preach to his brethren who were
yet on the earth. I showed that death was an immediate change of state, and that as a life beyond is
entered at the same time the body dies, so divine life is given at the moment the sinner dies to his former
state. It matters not, in the literal, corporeal death, whether the body is buried or not, as the resurrec▾
tion will be from a state of death, and not from the grave merely. As baptism is a figure of this, it mat▾
ters not, so far as the gift of life is concerned, whether the sinner is baptized or not. Believers only are to
be baptized. He that hears Jesus' words, and believes on him that sent him, has everlasting life, and
shall not come into condemnation again, but is already passed from death unto life.
Mr. Hankins looked at me for a moment, and then expressed surprise that it was dark and time to go
to church. He made no attempt to reply to my argument against his position, nor did he acknowledge his
defeat as he had said he would. This is only one of many incidents of this nature. The opposition against
which I so zealously contended seemed to cultivate a burning desire within me to defend the doctrine
that was so dear to me and refute the erroneous notions of the Armenians. As I have said, this gave me
fears that all the call I had came from that source.
The next fall I moved into a house on my father-in-law's farm and engaged in teaching the school at
"Gooseberry." I felt a strong desire to preach at my father-in-law's church, which stood by the school
house. I had no license, however, and had not yet attempted to speak from a text. At our January
meeting that winter, the first Saturday and Sunday in January, 1876, on Saturday night, our pastor, Eld.
John T. Oliphant, asked me to talk. I introduced the services and took for a text this beautiful passage:
"Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit sear▾
cheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." I Cor. 2:9-10. I did not occupy much time in that first
sermon, but what I then taught I believe now. I showed that no man, however talented or learned, could
know spiritual things by mere natural power of discernment; that as we must have natural power of
discernment to know natural things, so we must have spiritual power of discernment to know spiritual
things. The power to discern spiritual things comes by being born of the Spirit. The natural mind
cannot be changed to a spiritual mind by any process of instruction. The natural eye cannot see the
things of the Spirit, the natural ear cannot hear them, neither can the natural heart receive them. The
unchanged sinner has no eyes to see them, ears to hear them or heart to receive them. The change
necessary to qualify one to see, hear and receive them, therefore, cannot be produced by means of seeing,
hearing or feeling. It is a matter of divine revelation and not of human instruction or human sympathy.
God reveals them to his heaven-born children by his Spirit, which searches and brings to their under▾
standing all the deep things of God. This cuts down the boasting of man and lays his pride in the dust,
but it exalts the grace of God and gives him all the glory.
An appointment was made for me at the Separate Baptist church at "Gooseberry," for the following
Sunday, at 4 o'clock. A threatening storm kept many away, but there was a nice little audience of young
people, my associates and pupils. I addressed them from the passage, "Remember now thy Creator in the
days of thy youth." Soon after this I was invited to speak to a crowded house at the same place. I took for
my text, "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we
draw nigh unto God." Heb. 7:19. The opportunity I had long desired was then afforded me, and my soul
seemed lit up with love to God and his precious truth. All fear and embarrassment faded away, and my
tongue was loosed to proclaim the ancient doctrine of salvation by grace. I was as happy as I ever expect
to be in this world.
I said, in the beginning of my discourse, that the text clearly implied a state of imperfection in saying
that the law made nothing perfect but the bringing in of a better hope did. The original creation or
making is not there referred to, but the making perfect of that which is imperfect, the changing of imper▾
fection into perfection. This shows that man, the thing spoken of as being thus changed, is imperfect.
This imperfection is universal, for it is said that "God looked down upon the face of the earth to see if
there was any that did good." In that survey he viewed the entire race of Adam. His decision declared
that "there is none good; no, not one." Paul proved that all, both Jews and Greeks, were under sin.
Solomon asserts that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
Imperfection not only pervades the entire human race, but pervades the entire being of each, so that
all are wholly imperfect. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot
even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." Isaiah i.
5,6. "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is
under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruc▾
tion and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God
before their eyes." Rom. 1:13-18.
It is from this awful mess of corruption that perfection is proposed to be brought. This cannot be done
by a process of law. The ceremonial law, that was given through Moses, was never intended to do it. It
could not make the comers there unto perfect. The moral law could no more effect this wonderful change
than could the ceremonial law. There never was a law given that could give life, a perfect, holy life, for if
it had been, righteousness would have been by the law.
A great many are trying to live by a law hope, but such a hope is vain. By a law hope is meant a hope
of being saved by what we do for the Lord. Such a process and such a hope can never make any one
perfect. This is a natural hope and it is all the unregenerated sinner has. A better hope is mentioned in
the text, which does make something perfect. That better hope is "Christ in you the hope of glory." Col.
1:27. The bringing in of this hope makes the soul perfect, but the body, being yet unchanged, is still
imperfect. It is for this reason that Paul said, "I know that in me (that is in my flesh), dwelleth no good
thing." Rom. 7:18. This causes the flesh to lust against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that
the child of God cannot do the things that he would. Gal. 5:17.
Perfection in the flesh will never be reached till the resurrection of the vile body, when it will be
changed and made like the glorious body of Christ. Phil. 3:21. A perfect body will then reunite with a
perfect soul, and the entire sinner, made perfect by Christ the better hope, will ascend to a perfect home,
there to sing the perfect praises of a perfect God throughout the duration of endless perfection.
The delivery of this sermon occupied about one hour. During this time I was favored with the undi▾
vided attention of the entire audience, and at the close many eyes were moist with tears. My brother-in-
law, William Laymon, who was boarding with us and going to school to me, said that if one's call to the
ministry could be judged by the effects of his preaching, there could be no doubt about my call. I received
may other encouraging compliments over the effort of that night. Some say that a preacher, and especial▾
ly a young preacher, should never be complimented to his face, for that might give him the "big head."
This is wrong. If a preacher succeeds and deserves to be encouraged speak to his encouragement. Never
mind about the "big head." If he gets afflicted with that, the Lord will most likely take out the swelling as
he did in my case. I thought I had preached well after being told I had, and I confess I was a little inflated
over it. I resolved at once to prepare a sermon on some good text and excel that effort and get myself
more praise. So I selected the passage recorded in John 4:10, "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it
is that saith to thee, give me drink; thou wouldst have asked of him and he would have given thee living
water." I carefully studied my lesson until I thought I could recite it well. Soon the opportunity was
given me to speak to a crowded house at the same place. I tried it, but it just would not go. I was left in
the dark and could stand only a few minutes. My feelings, as I took my seat, are known to those only who
have had a similar experience. I did not understand it then, but I know now that it was a useful lesson to
me. I have been such a dull pupil that I have needed a repetition of such lessons to teach me that without
the Lord I could do nothing, and though I have learned this, yet I am often forgetful of what I have
The church of my membership liberated my to use my gift wherever God, in his providence, might
cast my lot. I had appointments at school houses and churches, wherever the way opened to me and
whenever it seemed advisable, and soon the demand for my services seemed beyond my ability to fill. I
sometimes wondered how or why I had entered upon such a great and high calling, and even yet it is a
wonder to me.



I was, like my father, a wanderer. I moved often, teaching each winter in the neighborhood where I
lived, and preaching almost every Saturday and Sunday, and doing some farm and garden work during
the Summer months. I will not tire the reader by following these meanderings, but confine myself prin▾
cipally to my labors in the ministry, relating only such incidents in the common affairs of life as may be of
special interest. I made some financial mistakes that kept me very poor, though I succeeded in meeting
my obligations and was always blessed with food and raiment and a host of warm friends.
My wife soon became much interested in the Old Baptist church. She often accompanied me to my
appointments and went with me to my church meetings to hear Eld. Oliphant, who was still pastor. She
was anxious to go to hear the visiting preachers who came there to preach. Her love for the cause grew
stronger and stronger, which was the cause of much rejoicing on my part.
At this point in my life the sad news reached us that my dear mother was seriously ill. We then lived
on the farm of Eld. Oliphant, at the very place where I experienced a hope in the Saviour. My father
lived on the farm of my uncle, near "Gooseberry," four miles and a half west. My wife and I went to
Father's and found Mother very low. The Consumption, that had preyed upon her for so many years,
was finishing its work. My wife and I nursed her for one week, and the end came peacefully as the set▾
ting of the sun at the close of day. When I saw that she could not live I hitched my team to a borrowed
spring-wagon and went after Brother Wiley and his family, who lived about fifteen miles away. On my
way, when two miles from Frankfort, one of the spindles of the spring wagon broke, and the wheel
dropped. I put the wheel in and trudged along in the mud and held up that end of the axle till I reached
Frankfort. It was raining hard and very muddy. When I reached a blacksmith shop where I could have it
repaired I was completely exhausted. This delay compelled me to stay over night at my brother's during
which time I was very uneasy, but when we arrived at Father's we found Mother still living. She died on
the morning of the 3rd day of March, 1879, and her funeral was preached by her devoted pastor, Eld. J.
T. Oliphant, in the Separate Baptist church.
Mother was a noble, pious woman. Her devotion to me had been all that a true and faithful mother's
could be. Oh, I am so glad now that I loved her as I did, and that I never brought disgrace upon her
spotless name! My brother and his wife were received into the fellowship of the Thorntown Church of
Old Baptists, and were baptized by Eld. John Kinder, soon after my marriage. Thus Mother had seen
five of her children called home to a Saviour's loving presence in infancy, and had lived to see the other
two received into the fellowship of her church, one of whom she was permitted to hear proclaim the
gospel she loved so dearly. The day before she died I was sitting on the bed beside her, and she looked up
into my face and said, "John, tell the brethren and sisters of Little Flock church that there is no good in
me; that I die a sinner saved by grace."
Volumes could be written on this dying testimony of my sainted mother. "There is no good in me."
Was not Mother a good woman? Surely there could be no better. If her neighbors had been questioned
in regard to her, their united testimony would have been that she was a good woman. If my father had
been asked about her, he would have said, "A better woman never lived." If I had been asked, "Is your
mother a good woman?" I could not have satisfied my mind in extolling her excellent qualities. But all
this testimony would have been given from a mere human standpoint. Jesus himself said, "There is none
good but one, that is, God." We generally acknowledge this, and are willing to admit that all are sinners.
Mother, however, spoke from what she felt to be true in her individual case. "There is no good in me; I
die a sinner," she said. She was soon to be ushered into the presence of the great Judge. Was not this
acknowledgement strong evidence against her? Had it not been for the grace of God in Christ, it would
have been fatal to her eternal interests. But her hope was expressed in the closing words of her testimo▾
ny: "Saved by grace!" Sinners can be saved in no other way. All who feel themselves to be sinners will be
saved in this way. Not one will be left out, and Mother is among the number. Now she chants the
praises of King Immanuel in heaven, to whom all the glory will be forever given for saving sinners by his
That spring I became much discouraged over my poor success, as I thought, in the ministry, and re▾
solved to give it up. I told my wife of my resolution, and reasoned with her that if I could quit preaching
it would prove I had never been called to the ministry; and it would be so much better for us if I could
quit, for we were poor and all my time was needed to make a support for her and our little children,
having three at that time. She appeared to agree with me in this, and I was stimulated to fully determine
never to speak in public any more. The next meeting at my church, the first Saturday in June, 1879,
while we were singing as an invitation hymn, "Grace 'tis a charming sound," she walked forward and
asked for a home in the dear old church. How my poor heart rejoiced in the love of Jesus and overflowed
with praises to his dear name! He had brought my sweet companion to see the true way of Christian
obedience and to become a companion with me in the very church he himself had set up in the world. I
forgot the resolution I had so recently formed, and felt that I would spend my life in proclaiming the
The next day a large audience assembled. Brother Oliphant urged me to preach. I consented to do so,
as I felt so full of the love of my dear Master. I took for my text, Psalm 59:16, "But I will sing of thy
power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the
day of my trouble." I was wonderfully blessed in this effort. The Lord's power was felt in my soul, and
my voice was tuned anew to sing of it, for I knew he had been my defence and refuge in the day of my
Eld. Oliphant's wife had been a member of the General Baptist church, in Southern Indiana, in her
girlhood. After her marriage she was received by Little Flock church on her baptism. The members
were not acquainted with the faith and practice of that order which accounts for her having been received
in that way. Later they learned that the General Baptists were rank Armenians, but as Sister Oliphant
had been received no question was raised in the church about it. A short time before the meeting of
which I am now writing she heard a sermon delivered by Eld. W. M. Benson on the disorder of receiving
members on the baptisms administered by other denominations. That sermon convinced her she had
never been properly baptized. So she requested Eld. Benson to come up to Little Flock and baptize her.
It was agreed to, and the time set was Tuesday after this meeting.
Meetings were appointed on Monday and Tuesday. Brother Oliphant preached on Monday from the
text: "Be ye therefore steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." 1 Cor. 15:58. I followed him, dwelling on the thought,
"Forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." The next day Eld. Benson was there
and preached, after which we went to the creek, to the very place where I had followed Jesus in baptism,
and he baptized my wife and Sister Oliphant. It was, of course, another happy day to me.
We stopped at the home of Sister Mary Davis, Hueston Davis' widow, for dinner. Brother Oliphant
asked me to walk out with him after dinner, and we did so he remarked that he was fully convinced at
the meetings just held that his work in that part of the country was at an end, and that I was to take his
place while he would seek another field. I was greatly shocked at this, and told him it surely could not be
so. I was already acting as assistant with him at Little Flock, Bethel in Tipton County, and Honey Creek
in Howard County. He traveled quite a good deal, so I was frequently left to fill his place at all these
churches. I was made very sad by his remark, believing myself utterly incompetent to the burden of the
churches, but I consoled myself with the thought that he might be mistaken and that he would change

his mind.
I then began to move out farther from home. I frequently visited Salem and Paint Creek churches, in
Carroll County, where I was always joyfully received and very kindly treated. My visits to those churches
in the time of my youthful ministry were so pleasant. The dear brethren and sisters there gave me so
much encouragement. Many of them have since been called home and now sleep the peaceful sleep of
After Mother's death Father frequently went with me to my appointments and seemed to enjoy my
preaching very much. But his separation from Mother was not destined to be prolonged. The next
February he was taken down with Pneumonia. My wife and I went to his home and nursed him as we
did Mother. On the 3rd day of March, he, too, was called away by the hand of death. My brother re▾
marked to me, as we stood weeping at his grave, "It will be one of us next." Oh! it is so hard to give up
dear parents, but they fell asleep in Jesus, and I could not - I dared not wish them back in this world of
suffering. In about one week from that time my Uncle James passed away. My Aunt Rachel, his wife,
had died about four or five years before.
In about two weeks after Father's death Brother Wiley was taken down with Pneumonia. I visited
him and stayed with him over night. He seemed to be recovering and I returned home. A few days
afterwards I received the sad news of his death. He died on the 22nd day of March. I had taken a deep
cold which settled on my lungs, and when I attended his funeral I could scarcely speak above a whisper.
Some thought I would go as the others had, but the Lord ordered it differently, and I am still spared. I
am much stronger physically now than I was then, though I have gone through much exposure and have
labored hard both mentally and physically. Brother left a widow and two children - a little girl and little
boy, whose names were Nettie and Willie. His widow was left very poor, but she soon succeeded in get▾
ting a pension. She received considerable back pay, with which she purchased a home in Howard Coun▾
ty, where she raised her two children and where she still lives the widow of my brother.
The following autumn Elder J. T. Oliphant moved to Fort Branch, Gibson County, Indiana, leaving
me to serve the three churches in that section. Brother Randolph Calhoun was a licensed preacher of my
church, who had begun preaching before I joined the church. He and I preached together quite a good
deal at various points. Little Flock church called us jointly after Elder Oliphant left, and I served Bethel
and Honey Creek alone.



I was ordained to the full work of the gospel ministry on the first Saturday in September, 1881. The
following ministers formed the presbytery: Elder J. T. Oliphant, Elder John Kinder, Elder H. P. Hays,
Elder Allen McDaniel and Elder Peter Keeney. It was to me an exceedingly solemn service. I realized
something of the additional responsibility it was placing me under, and felt sensible of my weakness to fill
the high position to which I was thus set apart. I was very critically examined by Brother Oliphant, who
also delivered an impressive charge to me after prayer and laying on of hands by the presbytery. In the
examination any others were given permission to interrogate me who might wish to do so. Elder McDan▾
iel asked me if I believed the doctrine known as the Eternal Vital Union between Christ and his people. I
replied that I did not. He then asked if I believed the Absolute Predestination of all things. This I also
answered in the negative. My views in regard to these extreme doctrines have never changed.
I was then living in the town of Forest, one mile north of the church. I taught the school there the
following winter and served the three churches I have mentioned. I held an interesting meeting at Eagle
Creek church, in Boone County, during the holiday week. I will here insert a circumstance I published in
Zion's Advocate, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 32-34. The reader will observe that no names are mentioned. I was
the preacher, Forest was the town in which I lived, Bethel was the church to which I walked, Deacon
William Oliphant's wife was the sick sister to whom I preached.


A Primitive Baptist preacher, who was a poor man, was teaching school in the town of F___. He was
also serving three churches as pastor during the school term and four during the summer vacation. One
of these churches was eight miles from F_____. One cold Saturday morning he walked to this church,
and, though tired in mind and body, tried to preach that day, that night, and the next day. He rested at
the home of a member who lived near only long enough to get his dinner, and took up his weary march
On the way, about one mile and a half from F_____, there lived an old brother and sister - deacon and
deaconess of his church. To the poor preacher these two were as a father and mother. Their pleasant
home had long been a sweet resting place for him. In early life there was no other place he preferred to
go. As he had been received and baptized into the fellowship of their church, and had been ordained to
the ministry in that church, the tie of affection had become as a three-fold cord. The sister was very ill.
It was thought by her physician and friends that she could not recover. She desired services to be held at
her home, but her physician thought it inadvisable.
The weary, plodding preacher could not pass this dear home without stopping to see the precious
mother in Israel, so he turned in. To his surprise his wife and children were there, and to his much
greater surprise he was told, as he dropped into a seat, that an appointment had been made for him to
preach there that night. He sighed and sank back in the chair saying, "I don't see how I can." He had
labored hard in school all the week, and had walked sixteen miles and preached three discourses. All this
had so fatigued his body and mind that he could scarcely refrain from weeping when told that he must
preach again that night.
However, there was no getting "excused," so when the neighbors had gathered in he sang a hymn or
two, offered a short prayer, and then read this text: "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about
many things: but one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken
away from her." The old sister's name was Mary. The tired preacher stood at the foot of her bed. Before
him was a crowd of attentive listeners. The dear one, for whose special benefit the services were held, lay
near him, with her pale and emaciated face lit up by a calm expression that told of a sweet communion
with Mary's dear Saviour, her eyes intently fixed upon her pastor whom she dearly loved. The over-
taxed mind and toil-worn body of the preacher were stimulated by these surroundings, and he forgot
that he was tired. Love for Mary and her Saviour filled his heart to overflowing, and he felt that Mary's
Saviour was his Saviour too. Her humble position at the feet of the precious Jesus was pictured to the
audience, but no other's present saw the scene so plainly, perhaps, as did the sick Mary. Finally her joy
became uncontrollable, and she burst forth in eloquent strains of rapturous praise. Tears streamed from
many eyes as the dear sister spoke of the preciousness of her Saviour and of his faithfulness to her. The
preacher sat down, being overcome by emotions of gratitude and joy. As he had journeyed along that
afternoon his spirits had sunk within him and hope seemed to have vanished. The world opposed his
doctrine, and it seemed to him that his own brethren cared but little for him. But a new evidence of his
call and a fresh assurance of his acceptance is now given him, and he feels that he is richer than horses
and chariots, houses and lands, and gold and silver, could have made him.
When the praises that flowed from the mouth of the sick sister were ended the preacher arose and

"O how happy are they
Who their Saviour obey,
And whose treasures are laid up above."

The congregation joined in the exulting hymn, but above the other voices was heard the musical voice of
the sick sister, whose heart was tuned to her Redeemer's praise, and whose frail body was so strength▾
ened that she sang all of that long hymn. From that time she gradually grew better till she regained her
former health to the surprise of her earthly physician, whose medicine seemed not adapted to her case.
I will now give some account of the state of Honey Creek Church. This church was situated two miles
south of Russiaville, in Howard County, and about six miles north east of Forest. Eld. Wilson Thompson
had preached there in his day, and also Eld. John A. Thompson. It was at one time a strong and flourish▾

ing church. It was in the Paint Creek Association. They had called a preacher to serve them by the name
of Jesse Jackson, who lived in Tipton County, and was the pastor and member of Providence Church,
near his home. This church was in the Conn's Creek Association. Jackson refused to accept the call of
Honey Creek unless she would withdraw from Paint Creek Association. The pretended ground of his
objection to Paint Creek Association was that a church belonged to it that been in the Danville Associa▾
tion. Elder Jackson was an exceedingly "straight" man, so much so that he leaned a little the other way.
I have already mentioned the Thompson-Sparks division. Elder Jackson was on the Thompson side, but
was an extremist on some points. He held and advocated the Eternal Vital Union doctrine, and the
Absolute Predestination of all things.
A part of the members of Honey Creek were in favor of severing connections with Paint Creek Associ▾
ation while others opposed it. Those who were in favor of it withdrew from the church and joined the
Providence church. They built them a house one-half mile east of the old place of worship, and an arm of
Providence church was extended there, and Eld. Jackson preached for them once a month. This division,
brought about by a designing man, almost ruined the church. There were but two male members belong▾
ing to it when I took charge of it. They were well-to-do farmers, who lived near, by the name of Luke Fry
and Thomas Gifford. I loved these brethren and their families very dearly, and always found a welcome
at both their homes. Eld. J. M. Thompson had been ordained in that church after this separation, but
after serving the church a short time he moved to Ohio. Eld. R. W. Thompson lived on the old home
farm, not far from there, but he had joined Providence church, and so he was associated with Eld. Jack▾
son. This unhappy state of affairs put a barrier between him and me that was very distressing to both.
We agreed perfectly on all points of doctrine and practice. There was an extreme element with him on
one side, and an extreme element with me on the other. There were some preachers and members in my
association who were Armenians, and they afterwards gave us great trouble. At one of my meetings at
Honey Creek Elder R. W. Thompson was present. I preached from the text: "Ye have not chosen me, but
I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should
remain." He followed me and remarked that in what he should say he did not want to deviate one hair's
breadth from what I had said. He and I talked about the bars that separated us, and united in the hope
that the day was not far distant when those bars would be removed. I loved him dearly and am sure my
love was reciprocated on his part.
When my school was out in Forest I moved to Tipton County near the school house in which Bethel
Church held her meeting. Soon after moving I made a tour among the churches of Hendricks County.
Brother William Oliphant accompanied me, and a better companion with whom to travel could not be
found than he was. I visited Friendship, Mount Moriah, Danville, Abners Creek, Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Zion
and Providence (North Salem) Churches.
Bethel Church had only been organized a few years, and had worshiped in a country school house ever
since the organization. The brethren built a new brick house on the corner by the house in which I lived
the following year. My congregations were large and attentive, and the churches seemed in a fair way to
prosper. My preaching was well received by the Baptists, and others treated me with great respect.
Elder John Kinder became so anxious for me to preach for his church (Thorntown) that I finally
consented to do so. He said that as he had been preaching for that church for over fifty years he was sure
they needed a change and he assured me that I was his choice and also the choice of the church. I agreed
to preach for that church during the summer, but as I taught school in winter it was impossible for me to
go there all the year, as it was about twenty eight miles from my home. Elder Kinder treated me with
great kindness, always taking the pains to meet me at Frankfort, seven miles from his home, and taking
me there on Monday morning if no one else arranged to do so. That church built a large brick house for
worship the first year I served them. The audiences were very large, and several additions were received.
Notwithstanding these favorable indications I became discouraged over my poverty, and decided to
move to Scircleville, Clinton County, where a good position in my profession of teaching was offered me.
My secret design was to get so situated as to rid myself of the burden of preaching entirely. Oh, what a
rebellious heart I had! Accordingly I moved to Scircleville in the fall of 1883, and took charge of the
graded school there. I struggled with all my might to turn my mind from preaching to teaching. Instead
of finding the ease I was seeking my mind was plunged into the deepest darkness I had experienced since
I made a profession of religion. I became so miserable that I walked about the house and yard of
evenings, seeking relief but finding none. My wife's brother, Rufus Laymon, boarded with us and at▾
tended my school. He often enquired about the cause of my trouble, but I could not explain it to him.

While in this dark state of mind I went on horseback to my meeting at Little Flock, which was about
eight miles north of Scircleville. I had no liberty in speaking, and on my way home I was in a miserable
condition. Night came on as I rode along, and with it there seemed to settle over my mind a deeper
darkness than ever. In this state I entered the prairie in which my town was situated. It was two miles
away, but I could see the light shining out from the houses. I thought of my own sweet family at home,
and knew that a lighted room and kind hearts awaited me there. Instantly I thought of the dark way of
life and of a sweet home in heaven awaiting to receive me when the toilsome journey was ended. The
darkness was immediately gone and my very soul melted within me. While riding the two remaining
miles I composed the following hymn and wrote it down when I arrived home.


I'm but a wandering pilgrim here,
This world is not my home,
I seek a rest beyond this sphere,
A city yet to come.

Beyond the vail by faith I see
A calm and heavenly rest,
Where I shall be eternally
With saints and angels blest.

My journey through this vale of tears
Is fraught with trials sore,
My heart is often filled with fears,
As dangers hover o'er.

Though thus oppressed with heavy cares,
At times the Lord appears,
Delivers from the tempter's snares,
And drives away my fears.

Sometimes dark clouds shut out the light
And gloomy is the hour,
My way is lost and I seem quite
O'ercome by Satan's power.

Though for awhile my way I grope
In darkness and dismay,
Returning light restores my hope,
And drives my doubts away.

Sometimes my pathway seems to lie
Through deserts bleak and drear,
For want of sustenance I sigh,
And death seems very near.

Yet now and then a fertile place
Where living waters flow,
Assures me that redeeming grace
Meets all my wants below.

But soon I'll reach that heavenly land,
My journey will be o'er,
And with the ever blissful band
I'll dwell forever more.

Eternal rest in heaven above,
From sin and sorrow free;
I there shall bask in seas of love,
In blest eternity.

I then resolved to give myself to the Lord's service more fully than ever. I thought I had to toil with
mind and muscles to support my family, but I intended to do all the preaching I could outside of making a
bare living. The brethren and sisters were very kind to me and held me in high esteem, but they had
never been taught that it was their "duty" to support their pastor and let him loose to give his entire time
to his high calling, and I was too cowardly to tell them their duty. I confess I then thought for one to be
an acceptable and successful Old Baptist preacher he must work like a slave to show his industry, and
preach all he could in addition to that, sacrificing his time and talents on the altar of the Baptist cause, in
order not to appear miserly and to prove his devotion to his divine Master.
To show the practical manner in which I worked out this idea, I will say that during the summer
vacation I worked by the day or by the job at anything I could find to do. I dug wells, dug ditches, dug at
everything that I considered honest toil that came in my way. I was an excellent wheat binder. During
the harvest season I always worked at that as long as it lasted, receiving my pay in wheat or money as it
suited the convenience of my employers. The first summer I lived at Scircleville, I engaged with a
wealthy farmer to bind wheat for him that harvest. A few weeks before harvest time Elder Benson, of
Hendricks County, made a visit to our church. He insisted on my visiting his churches at the time I had
agreed to be in the harvest field. I made all the excuses I could, telling him I had agreed to bind wheat,
and that as soon as harvest was over I had a Normal term to teach for the benefit of teachers and ad▾
vanced pupils, and after that my winter school would begin. He could not be put off with excuses, and
said I must make a tour among the churches of his county, for I had a different kind of harvest to work at.
I finally consented to accept his warm invitation. The tour was made and was very pleasant indeed.
I now see the great mistake of my life. I was spending about five- sevenths of my time in hard mental
toil or muscular labor, when I ought to have been devoting the most if it to the study of God's word and
the proclamation of the gospel. I ought to have been careful and economical and industrious, but my
industry should have been directed toward the improvement and use of the ministerial talent the Lord
had conferred upon me. I am sure God never intended that any one man should do more than one man's
work, and it is all that one man can do to preach the gospel successfully. To our young ministers I will
say, Your talent will make room for you as your usefulness becomes known and felt. Do not rashly throw
yourselves upon the Baptists for them to support you before you have had time and opportunity to bring
yourselves before them and impress them with the profitableness of your gift. You can afford to wait for
the room that is sure to come if you are worthy of it. In the meantime study the Bible earnestly and
prayerfully, not neglecting to be prayerful. Then when the cause demands your time give yourself wholly
to the work, teaching the churches their duty toward you. A preacher who preaches for three or four
churches deserves a support from them. A denial of this is sheer folly.
After teaching two years at Scircleville, I moved back to the place I had left at Bethel Church. I was
then poorer than ever, having neither horse nor cow. My scheme to rid myself of the burden of preach▾
ing had proved a complete failure, and my plan to make money had been completely overturned. I had
good health, however, and there was a great demand for my service both as teacher and preacher, so I felt
encouraged to press on. I had given up Honey Creek Church, but I accepted the care of Friendship
Church, at Center Valley, Hendricks County. I went to this church by railroad, usually walking to the
station which was eight miles from home. I could only serve this church through the summer seasons. I
often walked to Little Flock which was eight miles.
One Friday evening I dismissed my school until the next Tuesday, as I had an engagement to visit
Union Church, in Jasper County. After eating my supper I walked to Kempton, which was six and one-
half miles away. I took the train for Frankfort and arrived there in due time, but I had to wait there till
one o'clock for a train to take me on to Surrey, Jasper County, the point I wanted to reach. I arrived at

Surrey just before day-break, and when the train went on I found myself alone on the station platform
with not a light in view. It had been raining and the air was very damp and chilly. I had never been
there before, so I did know know where to go. There was nothing for me to do but wait, and waiting was
anything but pleasant under the circumstances. I was tired when I left home, and the walk to the station
and the loss of the night's sleep had added to my fatigue until I felt more like dropping than walking.
After some time spent in walking the platform I heard some one whistling, and I perceived by the sound
that the whistler was coming toward the depot. Soon a man stepped upon the platform and accosted me
with, "I suppose this is Brother Daily." Of course I was glad to tell him it was.
I preached that day, that night, and the next day and night. On Monday I returned, arriving at
Kempton about 8 o'clock at night. It was raining quite hard when I got off the train, and was as dark as
night gets to be, save when the lightning flashed. It was very muddy, and my overcoat soon got wet
through and then my undercoat, and - well, but I was wet. Occasionally I stepped into a deep horse track,
and the way the muddy water played up my pants leg was not funny to me at all. As I was walking along
the last mile these sweet words came into my mind:

"I'll suffer on my three score years
Till my Deliverer comes,
And wipes away His servant's tears,
And takes His exile home."

Oh, how happy I was in the full confidence that the dear Lord, whom I was trying to serve, would
sustain me through all my trials here and take me home to dwell with him at last!
Little Flock Church was still using the old log house, erected when I was but an infant. It was so out
of repair that it was uncomfortable, and looked so old and dilapidated that it became an object of sport for
our enemies. So that church made a move to erect a new house. The site became a question of much
controversy. A majority of the members wanted it built on the old ground, which was indeed a beautiful
place, while a few of them wanted it located at the town of Forest. Finally a vote was taken by the
church, which resulted in the choice of the old site by a large majority. The clerk of the church, Brother
R. T. Carter, was very strongly in favor of erecting it in Forest. After a vote was taken and he saw how it
had resulted, he arose and demanded a letter of dismission from the church. This was very startling, as
he owned a good farm where he lived, there was no other church nearer, and he had made no arrange▾
ments to move. By motion and second and vote the church decided to refer the matter until the next
The next day I tried to preach to a good sized audience which assembled, but felt so in the dark that I
was discouraged over my effort, so much so that I said, We will sing a hymn and be dismissed, not even
extending the privilege for any one to join the church. While we were singing, old Sister Finney, Brother
Hawkins Finney's wife, came forward and said she wanted to join. She was Brother Finney's third wife,
and had not been married to him a great while, and had belonged to the Quakers, I think. She was re▾
ceived amid much joy, and her baptism was set for the next meeting.
At the next meeting I offered the following resolution for the consideration and action of the church:

Resolved, That it is gross disorder for a member to ask for a letter of dismission, or for the church to
grant one, on the ground of any dissatisfaction existing between the member and the church or any
member of the church; and that a request made for a letter to he held in the midst of the church is evidence
of such dissatisfaction.

There was a motion made to adopt the resolution, but there was no second to the motion, and so it
failed. The members were so confused that they did not know how to proceed. Hands had already been
employed to tear down the old house, and they were at work at it, so this meeting was held in a school
It was then moved and seconded to grant Brother Carter a letter, the second being made by a sister,
but a large majority voted against it. At the close of the service Brother Carter threw the book down on a
desk and said he would serve no longer as clerk and was done with the church. Much bitter feeling was
manifested by some of the members. I was to preach a funeral the next day of a babe and baptize Sister
Finney. It was a sad, sad time to me. I could hardly sleep that night. Sunday was a beautiful day and a
large crowd assembled. The cloud broke from my mind and my heart was once more enlarged and my
tongue was liberated to speak of the Saviour's love and mercy as manifested in the salvation of both
infants and adults. The baptism was a very impressive scene. The aged sister was happy and every eye
was wet with tears. I felt a reassurance that day that the Lord had called me to the noble work of feeding
his sheep and watching over them. Brother R. T. Carter attended the service that day, but made a vow
he would never be at any service of the church except on funeral occasions. He stoutly kept this vow and
ever afterwards treated the church with great contempt. The church erected a large house. The congre▾
gations became large and some additions were received.



In the spring of 1886, the Thorntown Church requested me to serve them that summer, but I decided
to serve a little church at New Britton, Hamilton Co. The church at New Britton was very weak and
had no preacher, while Thorntown was large and prosperous, and Eld. Kinder lived there. I felt it to be
my duty to go where my services were needed the most. Thorntown Church then secured the services of
Eld. J. W. Shirley, of Boone County. We have already referred to an Armenian element in the Danville
Association. Eld. Shirley was a leader of that element. Though Eld. Kinder was a great friend of mine
and enjoyed my preaching, yet in doctrine he was unsound. He often admitted that he was not a doctri▾
nal preacher, but he claimed to believe the doctrine of the Old Baptists. It was evident, however, that he
neither fully understood nor endorsed the ancient faith.
The summer of 1886 was devoted to the service of the four churches, Little Flock, Bethel, Liberty
(New Britton), and Friendship (Center Valley). To reach the two last named churches I had to walk to
the station eight miles east of my home to take the train. As I have said, Little Flock was eight miles
west. So I usually walked forty-eight miles a month to serve the three churches, and walking was not
always good. When not thus employed I worked for the brethren in the neighborhood at anything I could
get to do. That was rather a dark period, but I succeeded in getting out of debt and purchased a cow. I
then had six children, who were all bright and healthy, and my home was a happy spot. In my toils I
often rejoiced in the sensible support of the Lord's hand. I received the highest price paid to country
teachers, during the winter, and my work was greatly appreciated and commended by pupils and patrons
and school officers. So I had the satisfaction of knowing that I was devoting myself to the service of the
Lord and my fellow men in every way that I was capable of doing. As I now look back to that period I
think I could not have done more.
In September of that year, the Danville Association was held with Bethel Church, near my home. In
the letters from three of the churches it was stated that they had Sunday Schools in a flourishing condi▾
tion. How startling this sounded when read publicly at the stand! These churches were Mt. Union, (Eld.
Shirley's home church) Mount's Run, and Cynthiana, all of Boone County. This was done to see what
the association would submit to in the way of Armenian innovations. Great distress was produced by
this effrontery. A resolution was drawn up and adopted by the association declaring against the organi▾
zation and maintenance of Sunday Schools, and all other institutions of the world by church authority.
The next January, the Thorntown church adopted the following resolution by a small majority of the
members present:--

Resolved, That we believe the immersion of the believer in water, in the name of the Father, and of the
son, and of the Holy Ghost, in scriptural baptism and that such believing persons are eligible to member▾
ship into the Thorntown Church whether such baptism has been administered by the Regular Baptists or
by other denominations.

A man and his wife had just been admitted from the United Brethren church without baptism. All
this was done under the supervision of Eld. J. W. Shirley. At the February meeting, in the absence of
Shirley, the church rescinded that resolution by a small majority of the members present. Elder Kinder,
who was then acting moderator, became angry, went around and shook hands with the members, declar▾
ing he would not serve them as moderator anymore, put on his hat and went home without even dismiss▾
ing the meeting. The brethren then appointed a committee to see me and request me to be at the March
meeting. They called upon me with the request, but I told them I could not be there at that time but
would try to attend the April meeting. Eld. Shirley was present at the March meeting, and as the
Armenian party was out in full force the act of rescinding the resolution was rescinded and the resolution
was re-adopted.
I had purchased a horse in the mean time, and so I drove to the April meeting of the Thorntown
church, Brother W. S. Vail, who lived near me, accompanying me. We found the church in a state of
confusion. The congregation was assembled when we arrived on Saturday. Some of the brethren told
me about the re-adoption of the heretical resolution before we reached the church. Eld. Kinder was there
and met me in a gruff manner, so different from his former treatment of me. Hatred of the Old Baptists
is so characteristic of Armenianism, that those who once walked with them in love and sweet fellowship
show the strongest spirit of enmity when they begin to slide upon that broad way of error. However, he
asked me to select a hymn and lead the singing, which I did. He took me into the stand with him and
invited me to preach, which invitation I accepted without hesitation.
A large audience had assembled. A small part of it was composed of grief-stricken brethren and sis▾
ters who wanted to maintain gospel order and hold up a standard of truth. Many were there who were
exulting over having lifted the floodgates for the admission of the world and its legion of heresies. Curi▾
ous spectators sat far back, who had been enticed there by the confusion that was known to be disturbing
the peace of the church. The vanity and curiosity of the world feed upon a disturbance in the church of
Christ as flies feed upon sugar. As I arose and faced this motley crowd, a sense of the responsibility of my
position stimulated me, and I felt the assurance that God would not forsake me at that trying hour. My
text was, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath
made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know
this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
I think Elder Kinder must have seen the application of my text to the circumstance at hand when I
read it. He became much excited, and interrupted me a number of times in a boisterous way during the
delivery of my discourse. With a feeling of love for the dear old cause, and with as much calmness as I
ever possessed, I pointed out the way of truth and the way of error. I showed that Paul's address, of
which my text was a part, was delivered to the Elders. In it he admonished them to take heed first to
themselves and then to the flock of Christ. In taking heed to themselves and then to the flock of Christ.
In taking heed to themselves they should see that they were sound in the doctrine of God's word and
contented with the practice established by Christ and his apostles. I briefly reviewed the doctrine of the
foreknowledge and predestination of God; of the personal, eternal and unconditional election of all his
saints; of the atonement of Christ; of the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit; and of the final perseverance
of all who were thus foreknown, predestinated, elected, atoned for and called. In showing what is con▾
sistent and scriptural practice, I took the position that in the apostolic day none but members of the
church of Christ ever administered her ordinances, and we could not be apostolic and allow any who are
not members of that church to administer her ordinances. At this point Eld. Kinder spoke up and said, "I
would like to hear you prove that the Old Baptist Church is the church of Christ." I said, "Brother Kind▾
er, what do you profess to belong to? If I didn't claim to belong to the church of Christ I would quit
preaching." I said I was surprised that I was required to prove to Baptists that they belong to the church
of Christ. I argued that no one is entitled to church fellowship and the communion of the Lord's table
but such as have been baptized by an ordained minister in the church of Christ. I illustrated this by
referring to the steps required in the process of naturalization, by which a citizen of a foreign country
becomes a citizen of ours. Here Eld. Kinder interrupted me by saying, "They are citizens of the church
by being born again." I replied that if that were true then all who are born again are members of the
church, which sets aside the utility or necessity of the visible church.
At the close of my sermon Eld. Kinder arose and said, "Well, we've had a very pointed sermon today,
and not much to the point either. I think he missed the mark badly, but it's no more than I expected
when he came." Thus he had anticipated the course I pursued, which proved that he felt guilty. He then
said, "I offered my resignation as moderator of this church one month ago but it wasn't accepted; so I
guess I'll have to serve." The fact is, as reported to me, that he said he never would serve them again. He
knew if he did not serve that day I would, so he preferred to set his vow aside. "I don't suppose," said he,
"that it is any use to ask for joiners today after hearing such a stirring sermon, but I'll not deviate from
our custom." These remarks were made in a gruff manner, indicating a feeling of anger. I started a
hymn which many helped to sing, all standing while we sang.
When the business was finished, nothing of importance being transacted, Elder Kinder dismissed the
people. He took his hat and started down the aisle toward the door without saying a word to me. He met
Brother Vail in the aisle and asked him to go home with him. Brother Vail told him he was going wher▾
ever I went, as he was with me. So he turned and came back to me and said, "Are you going to my
house?" I told him I was not going there then, but would call on him before I left. He went off without
saying any more.
Brother Vail and I went to Brother Robert Smith's that night. How sad I felt as I thought of the happy
seasons I had enjoyed at that church and of the state of confusion I then found it in! God is not the
author of confusion but of peace. The true gospel teaching and practice always tends to bind the people
of god together. The introduction of heresy into the true church of Christ never fails to bring confusion.
The next morning Brother Vail and I rode to Elder Kinder's home. We found him and his family
preparing for church. Not much was said until they were ready to start, when he said to me, "Are you
going to meeting this morning?" I replied in a pleasant way, "Oh yes, Brother Kinder; I am going to
meeting. That is why I came." The large house was well filled that morning. My subject was, "Be ye
therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given
himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor." I can't praise God enough
for the liberty I had that day. Refreshing showers of heavenly blessings flowed out to us, and our hearts
were knit together in love. Elder Kinder wept as I proclaimed the glorious gospel, and when I took my
seat he arose and wept aloud. Not many eyes were dry in that audience. He said, "We have had the
truth preached to us today." He then turned to me and said, "Brother Daily, can't you preach again
tonight?" I told him I could not, as I had to return home that afternoon. Elder Kinder was a good man,
and never would have given any trouble had he not been influenced by others. He had baptized my
parents and I had known him since my earliest recollection. He had been so kind and good to me that it
grieved me to find him so shaken in his old age. All these considerations arose in my mind as I parted
from him that day and stirred my soul with inexpressible emotions. I loved him, for I was sure he was a
child of God, and I was so grieved that he was in favor of disregarding the ancient landmarks. How I
wished he could understand the truth and believe it!
Brother Vail and I went to Brother Sanders' home that day for dinner. Several others went there, all
of whom were much hurt at the turn the church had taken. After dinner a sister requested me to sing
the following hymn before I took my sad leave of them:

Well may Thy servants mourn, my God,
The churches' desolation;
The state of Zion calls aloud,
For grief and lamentation,
Once she was all alive to Thee,
And thousands were converted,
But now a sad reverse we see,
Her glory is departed.

Her pastors love to live at ease--
They covet wealth and honor;
And while they seek such things as these,
They bring reproach upon her,
Such worthless objects they pursue,
Warmly and undiverted;
The church they lead, and ruin, too--
Her glory is departed.

Her private members walk no more
As Jesus Christ has taught them;
Riches and fashion they adore--
With these the world has bought them.
The christian name they still retain,
Absurdly and false-hearted,
And while they in the church remain,
Her glory is departed.

And has religion left the church,
Without a trace behind her?
Where shall I go? Where shall I search,
That I once more may find her?
Adieu, ye proud, ye light and gay,
I'll seek the broken-hearted;
Who weep when they of Zion say,
Her glory is departed.

Some few, like good Elijah, stand,
While thousands have revolted;
In earnest for the heavenly land,
They never yet have halted.
With such, religion doth remain,
For they are not perverted;
O, may they all through them regain
The glory that's departed.

During the singing of that hymn sobs were heard from many in the room. I bade farewell to those
dear ones that afternoon, and it has never been my privilege to visit the church at that place again. Elder
Benson, I was told, afterwards went there and got them to rescind the resolution.
The 16th day of March, of that year (1887) was rendered memorable in our family by the birth of a
pair of twins, a boy and a girl, whom we named Earl and Pearl. We then had eight children, Oliver
Lewis, John L., Alice, James Harvey, Clara Belle, Iva Mae, Earl and Pearl. Our children went with us
regularly to our meetings. Their place in church was near the pulpit on the same seat with my wife. Her
devotion to her children, her care and management of them, is something of a wonder as I now look back
to those days, and I am sure it is no exaggeration to say that she was an exception among women.
I had been impressed for about six months that I ought to change my location. I had made a tour
among the churches of Hendricks County the preceding September, at which time I thought I saw a
necessity for my locating in a more central field. The Danville Association, at that time, numbered thirty
churches with an aggregate membership of over eighteen hundred. The majority of these were in Hen▾
dricks and Boone counties. I was located at the northern limit of the association.
A division of sentiment existed, which was manifesting itself like a threatening cloud. At every associ▾
ation some of the preachers and members showed that they were dissatisfied with the doctrine and prac▾
tice of the Old Order of Baptists. This dissatisfaction was not a local matter, but in other parts of the
state and in other states it was showing itself in a manner not to be misunderstood. Elder E. H. Burn▾
ham in Kentucky and Virginia, Eld. W. T. Pence in Kansas, Eld. James Bradley in Missouri, and Eld. J.
E. Lee in Ohio, were concerting their efforts in trying to lift the Old Baptists out of the "old ruts." Eld. J.
W. Shirley and Eld. W. M. Benson and a few others of Indiana were in this move, and it became evident
that a division could not be averted long. I contended that there had never been any ruts formed along
the track of the apostolic church: that the doctrine was so firm and solid that the wheels of Zion would
never make ruts if kept on the track, even if they should run over it for ages to come. The Armenian
doctrine and practice is so soft that ruts are soon formed by their machinery running over it. That
accounts for the necessity of their continually inventing something new.
At one of the associations, a few years before this, I was sent with Eld. Wm. T. Hamrick, of Boone Co.,
to preach at a schoolhouse at night. We went to a brother's home near the school house for supper. The
preaching that day at the stand had been very able and comforting, but Eld. Hamrick was displeased with
it. He accosted me in the lot as I was conversing with some of the brethren, and asked how I liked the
preaching that day. I told him it was grand. He began to offer objections to it, and asserted that he be▾
lieved the Spirit of God did something for everybody, so that everybody had a chance at salvation. I asked
him if the Spirit of God regenerated or quickened sinners. He said it did. Then I asked him if it regen▾
erated or quickened all sinners. He did not dare to say it did, but he thought it did something for every▾
one, and he could not tell what it did do. I preached him a little sermon from the text, "I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast
revealed them unto babes." He offered no reply and so the controversy ended.
I spoke first that night. I cannot recall my text, but I remember that I commented on this language in
the Saviour's prayer, "Father the hour is come; glorify now thy Son that thy Son may glorify thee: as
thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given
him." Elder Hamrick followed, and in the course of a few minutes talk he declared in loud tones that the
apostles were given to Christ and no one else. The views of Elder Hamrick furnish a fair sample of the
doctrine of the Armenian element in our association at that time.
I felt it to be my duty, in view of the gathering storm, to locate where I could render more efficient
service to our suffering cause. Accordingly I moved to Hendricks County in the latter part of April, and
located near Pittsboro. My wife and I took our letters from Little Flock Church and put them into the
Big White Lick Church near our home. I continued to serve Little Flock and Liberty and Friendship
churches that summer, and preached also for Big White Lick Church. To reach the three distant church▾
es required a round trip drive of nearly two hundred miles a month. In addition to this I planted and
cultivated about ten acres of corn. Thus my horse and I were kept very busy.
One Friday I started in the afternoon to New Britton, which was thirty miles distant. I knew I could
not reach home before Monday afternoon. I was rather reluctant to leave, as my corn needed plowing
again, and I feared it might rain and cause the weeds to get the advantage of me. But I never allowed
anything like that to deter me from my sacred duty, so I went and filled my appointment. On my way
home the next Monday, I felt much cast down. I saw farmers at work in their fields, and wondered why I
could not remain at home as they did and labor for the support of my dear family. When I came in sight
of my home I saw some teams and hands in my field. On arriving I found that Brother William Sym▾
monds, who lived near me, and his two sons, Brother Barton and Brother John Symmonds, were just
finishing plowing my field. The next morning I hitched my horse to the plow and plowed with Brother
Symmonds in his field a few days in repay for his kindness. My work was done as voluntarily as his.
Brother Symmonds was well informed in the Bible and loved to talk about it, so we had many delightful
conversations in the field.
I had secured a position as a principal of the Pittsboro school for the following winter, so I had to give
up Little Flock Church at the close of summer. I had been going there on the first Saturday and Sunday
in the month so long that when the first Saturday in September came, and I could not go, I had that dear
church in my mind all day. The brethren and friends came that day and cut me some wood for the
winter. After they left I thought more about the old church of my youth. The next morning I went to
Abners Creek Church, it being the regular meeting of that church. Eld. Rufus Reed was pastor. That
morning before starting and while on the way I composed the following hymn, writing the last lines while
on the hill near the church:


I am thinking today of the church of my youth,
Where first I rejoiced at the sound of the truth.
Where once I assembled with those that I love.
And joined them in praising our Father above.

Well do I remember when youthful and gay,
In mirthfulness sporting, while time sped away,
With my parents I went to the house of the Lord,
And wondered what made them rejoice at his word.

But when Christ the Saviour, so precious to me,
My blind eyes did open, my sins all to see,
With fearfulness trembling, too great to express,
I went to that house in the deepest distress.

When Jesus my Saviour revealed unto me,
The way of salvation and set my soul free,
I longed with his saints to assemble once more,
To join in with them his dear name to adore.

And when in that dear place of worship and praise,
My voice I attempted in weakness to raise,
My heart filled with love and my hope bright and clear,
I thought surely trouble no more could appear.

When deeply impressed with a sense of his love,
When this world could no longer a resting place prove,
I went with a feeling I could not control,
And told what my Saviour had done for my soul.

With love's tender greeting they welcomed me home,
And bade me no longer in darkness to roam;
The joy I experienced I never could tell,
When I with such friends was permitted to dwell.

Though now sundered far from that blessed abode.
I know I am still with the children of God;
Dear brethren, I love you in deed and in truth,
Yet my heart oft reverts to the church of my youth.

How loving and kind were they always to me!
In my memory yet their great kindness I see,
Wherever my lot is to publish the truth,
I'll never forget the dear church of my youth.

Elder Reed requested me that morning to preach on the specialty of the atonement, saying that he had
just been in an argument with a "soft" member on that question. Strange as it may seem, when the divi▾
sion came a few years later, Elder Reed went with the side who advocated a "general atonement and
special application."
The association met the next week with Abners Creek Church. I had been appointed at the preceding
session to write the Circular Letter. I wrote on the subject of Election. After I had read it, the associa▾
tion referred it to a committee to be reported on at the next day of business. When it was called up again
a second reading was called for, and after it was read the second time a portion of it was requested to be
read the third time. There was a strong feeling against its adoption, but the committee reported in favor
of it, and it was adopted and ordered printed in the minutes. The question of receiving alien baptism
(baptism performed by other orders) was warmly discussed. Eld. J. W. Shirley uttered the following
remarkable statement in a speech made by him: "If the devil himself should transform himself into an
angel of light, and deceive and baptize one of the Lord's children, that baptism would be valid." Old
Brother John Tharp arose and slowly remarked, "I don't see how a child of God can render acceptable
service while in a deceived state." This old Brother Tharp became so deceived by this Armenian faction
that he finally went with them, and died an excluded member from the Old Baptists. How very strange
this is!
The next December I was called to serve Abners Creek Church, which I accepted. I served that church
as a pastor continuously until I moved to Virginia, baptizing many of the Lord's children into her fellow▾



In February, 1888, my daughter Alice was taken down with a severe affliction in her left limb. She
had been troubled with a swollen knee for more than a year, which was thought to result from a fall. The
physicians pronounced it Synovitis. She was taken with fever which settled in her knee, causing inex▾
pressible suffering. Her entire limb became badly swollen, and Erysipelas set in. I went to Pittsboro one
evening for Dr. Cloud, an old physician, but told him I only wanted him to examine my child and inform
me who was the ablest physician in the state. As we were riding home in my buggy, he became insensi▾
ble and I had hard work to hold him and drive. I carried him into the house when I arrived home, and he
did not recover so as to be able to examine Alice until the next morning. On examining her he confessed
that he could not treat her case and advised me to send at once for Dr. Duzand, of Zionsville. I tele▾
graphed for him and he came immediately. He said she was near the point of blood poison, but he
thought he could bring her out. He prescribed a course of treatment, which we carefully followed. The
swelling could not be reduced, and her limb drew up until her heel was near her hip. She lay in this
condition for some weeks, when the limb bursted. A running sore was thus formed which was followed
by others until the limb was nearly covered with sores from the knee to the ankle. She was a great suf▾
ferer for five years. Her case became extensively known, and great sympathy and kindness was shown
her by the large circle of friends who came to know and love her.
Little Pearl, our twin baby, was taken with a severe illness the next spring which greatly puzzled the
physicians. We did all that we could do to effect her restoration, but all in vain. On the 18th day of
March, 1888, her spirit took its flight from the little form, and we were compelled to lay the lifeless body
in the silent grave. How sweet it has been to know that one of our dear offspring is forever at rest in the
presence of its Creator and Saviour!
Afflictions serve a good purpose. They humble our nature and make us to realize our dependence
upon the Lord. As we see the protecting hand of God in the midst of them, our confidence in him is
strengthened. Clouds are necessary to exhibit the rainbow, so across the dark clouds of sorrow bends the
beautiful bow of God's promise and love and mercy. When the tempest rages and the troubled waters
dash high, he has only to say, "Peace be still," and all is calm, for the winds and sea obey him. Even in
the dismal valley of the shadow of death his children need not fear any evil, for He is with them there. It
is in the fiery trials of life that God proves his faithfulness to us. It is in the furnace of affliction that our
dross is consumed and the gold is made to shine.

"The flames shall not hurt thee, I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine."

The more we have been tried and oppressed, the more we have increased and multiplied in the expe▾
rience of the love, faithfulness and truthfulness of our God. Out of weakness we have been made strong,
and, having obtained help of our gracious Lord, we continue to this day as monuments of his tender care,
never-failing compassion, and never-ceasing regard. Though often in the darkness, yet our faith has
occasionally caught glimpses of the future inheritance, and we are favored with a transforming sight of
him who is the Desire of all nations, the everlasting portion of our souls, and the support of our lives.
Affliction will be estimated by us according to the standpoint from which we view it. On the mount of
Christ's sufferings, in the light which radiates from his cross, it will appear as the great disciplinary cause
by which God's humble servants are favored, the same being a blessing rather than a curse. It is well for
us sometimes for the world to look dull, for our faith will then glance upward and heaven will appear all
the brighter by it.
It is true that sometimes only the dark side of the cloud is visible to us, and our faith is not strong
enough to pierce it and see the light that shines beyond. We are then compelled to wait for the appear▾
ance of the silver lining. Even this waiting works good for us in the end, for when the light appears we
know it was only shut out for a season by the cloud. It was shining all the while, and the cloud could
have no effect upon it further than to hide it from our view.
Afflictive dispensations visit alike the cabin, the cottage and the palace. No discrimination is made
between classes of society and no favor is shown to positions in life. Money cannot bribe diseases, human
skill cannot ward them off, neither can beauty charm them. Our own lot seems the hardest, because it is
seen and felt by us while the lot of other is more or less hid from our view. "Every heart knoweth its own
bitterness." Afflictions and sorrows are more common than we imagine. This world is properly called "A
wilderness of woe." To the children of God it is represented as a desert through which they pass, leaning
upon their beloved.




In September, 1888, the Danville Association convened with Danville Church, Hendricks County,
Indiana. I preached the introductory sermon from St. John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father but by me." It was evident that the doctrine I preached was displeasing
to those present who were in favor of the popular idea of a general atonement and of the employment of
means and instrumentalities in the work of regeneration.
In the organization of the association Eld. E. D. Thomas was elected Moderator. In the election of
Clerk the sound party were divided, not having a proper understanding, while the soft party were united.
As a result of this, Eld. J. W. Shirley was elected Clerk. Elder W. M. Benson wrote the Circular Letter
that year, which was read and referred to a committee consisting of the writer, Moderator and Clerk. It
was written on the "Gospel." In it was some unsound sentiment to which Elder Thomas objected, while
the other two insisted on its being reported back without change. Elder Thomas told them that if the
objectionable part was not struck out he would enter his protest against it as a member of the committee,
so they agreed to the change. They knew the majority of the messengers were against them, and that a
vote in the association would result in a change in the Letter. So it was adopted by the association with
the objectionable part taken out.
I had requested Friendship Church to release me, as I could only attend there during the summer
months. They did so and called Eld. Charles M. Reed, of Connersville, Ind. Mt. Zion Church was located
about six or seven miles southwest of Pittsboro. The members of that church learned I had given up
Friendship and was free on their meeting days. Eld. W. M. Benson had been the pastor for several years.
He evidently saw that a division was coming, and he had great hopes of carrying that church with him.
At the December meeting there was a good attendance of the membership. The vote for pastor was
taken privately, as was the custom, and resulted in my election as pastor of the church. When the result
of the vote was announced there was a visible stir of disappointment and uneasiness on the part of Elder
Benson and his friends, I was told. Some very unbecoming conduct was shown and some hard things
were said by his admirers, who no doubt saw that Mt. Zion was destined to stand upon the old platform.
A committee was appointed to inform me of the choice made, who also told me something of the
confusion that existed. I promised to be with them at their next meeting and give an answer to the
church. I studied and prayed over the matter, and finally decided that it was my duty to accept the call.
Nothing occurred of any note at the January meeting. At the February meeting one was received for
baptism. The audiences were large and attentive, and I saw that the indications were good for a revival of
the cause there. At the March meeting, Elder W. O. Parker, of Rushville, Indiana was with me Saturday
and at night, Sunday and at night. On Monday he went to fill other appointments, while I continued the
meetings at Mt. Zion Monday and Monday night, Tuesday and Tuesday night. Two more were received
for baptism. The congregations were very large and the interest in the meeting was general. Those who
had shown such a spirit of malice and envy when I was called, attended the meetings and seemed to enjoy
them. All trouble appeared to be healed over, and the church was in a fair way to prosper.



The Mt. Tabor Church, in Boone County, then reported a membership of 168. A large majority of the
church were strong Armenians, while a small minority were strong believers in the doctrine and practice
of the Old Baptists. There were two ordained preachers in the church, Elders Peter Keeney and Allen
McDaniel. The former was an Armenian in faith, and the latter was a strong Old School or Primitive
Baptist. Elder Keeney was the regular pastor of the church and Elder McDaniel was the assistant pastor.
These two preachers, of course, could not agree in their preaching, Elder McDaniel opposing the Armeni▾
an sentiments advocated by Elder Keeney.
At their regular meeting, the third Saturday in June, 1889, the minority offered a protest against the
doctrine and proceedings of the majority. A large crowd was present and great confusion followed the
reading of the protest. The protest was read by Albert F. Smith, and is as follows:

We, whose names are annexed, being members of Mt. Tabor Church, finding ourselves in the minori▾
ty, our conscientious rights and privileges taken away by hearing and seeing for three years or more a
constant departure from our expressed constitution contained in our covenant that Mt. Tabor Church was
constituted on, as expressed in our Articles of Faith and Rules of Decorum, which Articles we believe are
in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures; and we feel in covenant bound to keep and maintain
in the fear of God. Therefore, we enter this our solemn protest against further oppression, and appeal to
all brethren of like precious faith to aid us in obtaining our liberty and rights as church members. We
charge them, the majority of said Mt. Tabor Church - First, Of virtually denying the election of grace
according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world; that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ
unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will. Second. Of teaching and holding that sinners
dead in their sins receive the new covenant by a process of teaching, denying that they are quickened or
born again by the direct contact of the Holy Spirit, which is contrary to our Article which says that sinners
are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by a divine and supernatural operation of the
Holy Spirit. Third. Of advocating and receiving Alien Baptism and Free Communion, and holding
Union Meetings with those not of our faith and order.

A large majority of the members present refused to take up and consider the protest, not only treating
it with contempt but in a riotous and clamorous way disturbing any attempt to speak in its favor.
At the July meeting, a charge was preferred against Eld. Allen McDaniel that he, as the representative
member of the dissatisfied minority, had been guilty of disorderly conduct in promoting dissatisfaction,
and he was formally excluded by the majority. The minority then added the following to the protest
given above and reread the whole to the church:

Fourth. Of riotously and disorderly refusing to take up and investigate this our cause of complaint
when presented to the church at our regular meeting of business on the third Saturday in June, 1889. We,
the minority, further petition said majority to join us in calling an impartial council of brethren from
sister churches of our Association to hear our complaint and decide whether the majority or minority is
the church walking in gospel order according to our Articles of Faith and Rules of Decorum.

The members whose names are here given agreed to stand together on the original doctrine of the

Eld. Allen McDaniel T. K. Smith
Samuel G. Schenck Nancy J. Schenck
James Shirley William Schenck
Mary F. Schenck Anna Schenck
Leanner Shirley Elizabeth Roberts
Clara L. McDaniel Nancy Smith
Albert F. Smith Delphia Pennington
Geneva Smith Laura Pennington
Eli Smith Anna Poiner
Patsey A. Smith Henry E. Smith
Elizabeth A. Todd Amilda J. Smith
Elijah S. Williams Henrietta Smith
Lavina Williams James Todd
Mary E. Schenck Thomas Gibbs
Thomas H. Shepherd James N. Stoker

Brother James Shirley was one of the Deacons and Brother Eli Smith was the regular clerk of the
church. This minority then withdrew to Brother James Shirley's home and organized in a regular way,
retaining Eli Smith as Clerk and electing Elder Allen McDaniel, Moderator. They had the church re▾
cords from the date of organization, August, 1835. The minority, at this meeting, called upon six church▾
es of the Danville Association to send representatives to form a council to be convened at Deacon James
Shirley's on the 21st day of August, 1889. Notice of this was served on the majority at their stated
meeting, on the Third Sunday in August, and they were requested to be present at the meeting of the
council and present their side of the case. They paid no attention whatever to this request. The council
met in Brother Shirley's grove, at the time above mentioned, and after introductory services organized by
electing Elder E. D. Thomas moderator and myself clerk. The council deliberately heard and considered
the minority's protest against the majority together with the evidence offered, and decided that Elder
McDaniel had been wrongfully expelled from the church, and that, if the evidence was correct, the major▾
ity had departed from the faith and practice of the gospel, and appealed to them to return to the faith and
practice of the church of Christ.
The majority, at their meeting, the third Saturday in August, prepared a letter to the Danville Associ▾
ation and appointed messengers to bear the same. The minority met on the 28th of August and also
prepared a letter and appointed messengers. The Association met in September with Friendship and Mt.
Moriah Churches in Hendricks Co., these two churches having agreed to take it jointly. Elder E. D.
Thomas was elected moderator and I was elected clerk. The two letters, one from the minority and the
other from the majority of the Mt. Tabor church, were presented to the Association, but the Moderator
ruled that they should be read before the body of assembled messengers and not publicly at the stand.
The association declined to recognize either set of messengers as proper representatives of Mt. Tabor
Church, and adopted the following advice to them:
"By motion and second, the association sent back both letters to the parties claiming to be Mt. Tabor
Church, and advised them to become reconciled if they can, and if not, to call a council of the churches of
the association to decide their duty."
On the first Saturday in October, the minority organization assembled in regular meeting and ap▾
pointed a committee of five to visit the majority at their meeting, on the third Saturday in that month, to
see if a reconciliation could be effected, and if not, to pray the majority to unite with them in calling an
impartial council of sister churches to decide which was right. At a meeting of the minority organization,
held on the second Saturday in November, 1889, the committee reported that they had performed the
duty assigned them, but that they were unable to bring about any reconciliation with the majority, and
that the majority refused to unite with the minority in calling a council of sister churches. It was then
agreed that a council of representatives from eighteen churches should be called to decide whether the
minority or majority was the Mt. Tabor Church adhering to the doctrine and practice upon which that
church was constituted, the council to meet at Eli Smith's on the 26th day of December, 1889. Another
committee was appointed on the second Saturday in December to visit the majority party and notify
them of the proposed meeting of the second council. The majority again refused to meet with the council.
This second council met at the time and place above mentioned, and organized by electing Elder E. D.
Thomas moderator and myself clerk. All available evidence was heard, in the absence of the majority.
The council, after due deliberation, decided that the minority party constituted the Mount Tabor Church,
and were walking in gospel order, and were contending for the Articles of Faith adopted by that church;
also, that the majority party, having had every opportunity to meet in council, and having refused to do
so, had evidenced an unwillingness to come to the light of investigation, and had thereby made it appar▾
ent that they had departed from the faith and order of the gospel.
Fourteen churches were represented in this council. The messengers who sat in the council reported
the decision of the council to their respective churches, and all of those churches ratified the action of the
council. Two other churches approved and ratified the action of the council, making sixteen in all.
On the first Saturday in February, 1890, the minority, then recognized as the Mount Tabor Church,
opened the door of the church house with a filed key and held a meeting, at which time they elected three
trustees of the church in accordance with previous notice. The three trustees elected were Albert F.
Smith, Samuel Schenck and Thomas Shepherd. I had given up the care of the church at New Britton for
the reason that I could not attend them during the winter season and teach school. This liberated me on
the Second Saturday and Sunday. Elder Allen McDaniel accordingly urged me to accept a call, which he
said the Mount Tabor Church would make, to serve her as pastor. I insisted that I was not the proper
one for the place, but he and other brethren begged me to consent to it, assuring me that they considered
me the right one to serve them. They made the call and I accepted.
On the second Saturday in February, at the time the church agreed to meet in regular service, the
church met in the meeting house, and among other business transacted they excluded the majority party
from fellowship for their departure from the Articles of Faith and Rules of Decorum of the church. I
could not be there on Saturday, on account of a Teacher's Institute which I was compelled to attend on
that day. I met with them on Sunday and preached to a large audience of attentive listeners. This faith▾
ful band of Christian soldiers showed such love for each other that I was convinced they would stand
together in defence of the truth they had espoused and that I so dearly loved. My heart's affection was
drawn out to them, and I thanked God for such noble witnesses in the midst of a perverse people.
The brethren had procured new locks and put on the doors and secured the windows, so that on the
third Saturday in February, when the majority party met there for their service, they found all avenues
of entrance securely fastened. Some of them, after consulting a while in the yard, took a large fence rail
and bursted in the door. They held their services in the house and then locked it against the church.
The trustees then sued the majority in the county court for rights of church property. The Trial was
held at Lebanon, Boone County, Judge Hadley, of Danville, presiding. The case occupied several days
and was hotly contested. The decision was rendered in favor of the church (called the minority). A new
trial was granted, however, and the suit was withdrawn before its termination.
As I recall and record these proceedings my heart feels sad. Good brethren and sisters had been
poisoned, I am sure, by the baneful influence of erroneous teaching. Much bitterness of feeling had been
engendered by the strife that had raged in church and court. Alas that such a stroke should ever befall
the Church of Christ!




I was called to the care of Union Church in Montgomery County, of the Sugar Creek Association, in
1889. I consented to serve that church every alternate month. Their meetings were held at the same
time ours were held at my home church. This took me away from my church half the time, but as there
were two ordained ministers in my church, Elders T. J. C. Sparks and J. F. Keeney, I thought this would
be best for the church.
The Sugar Creek Association had not been in fellowship with the Danville on account of an extreme
element in the latter and an opposite extreme element in the former, but a resolution had been passed by
Sugar Creek to invite Old Baptist preachers to visit their churches and preach for them without any
regard to associational lines. I was the first preacher of my associational connection called to serve a
church of the Sugar Creek Association. There was some prejudice against me in the beginning of my
service, but I soon succeeded in destroying that. Many in that association did not have the opportunity to
hear me, however, and the brethren of Union Church urged me to make a tour among the churches,
which I did at the close of that year. The tour was very pleasant indeed, and I was warmly received and
endorsed wherever I went. I only preached for Union Church one year. Though I was urgently request▾
ed to continue with them, I felt it to be my duty to give my entire attention to my own association, being
convinced that the cause there demanded the united efforts of those ministers who were not willing to
surrender our sacred principles to the current of Armenianism. I visited the Sugar Creek Annual Associ▾
ation a few times afterwards, and was never treated better by any people than I was by them.




As it was well known that the issue between the opposing parties that had been formulating itself for
many years would be brought to the test at the session of the Danville Association to be held in Septem▾
ber, 1890; there was a strong effort made by the Armenian party to secure a majority of the messengers
in the association so as to carry the organization their way. An established rule limited the number of
messengers from each church to three. This was a wise provision, as it prevented any church from
taking advantage of an anticipated circumstance by sending a large number of messengers to the associa▾
The association that year was held with Vermillion Church, in Illinois. That was a strong Armenian
Church. The three messengers sent by my church (Big White Lick) were Elder T. J. C. Sparks, William
Symmonds and myself. We were instructed by our church to stand by the decision of the council in
regard to the Mount Tabor Church. We arrived in the neighborhood of the church the evening before
the association convened. That night we attended service at the meeting house, where an appointment
had been made for Elder John Kinder, who preached on the occasion. It was plain that a hard struggle
was on hand. How sad it was to see brethren pulling apart who had once walked together!
The rule of the association was to allow the church where the association convened to appoint some
minister that belonged to the association to deliver the introductory sermon. Eld. J. W. Shirley was
chosen, who took for his text 1 Cor. 2:1-5. In his discourse he quoted the language of Jesus in addressing
Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent
unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chicks under
her wings, and ye would not," and remarked, "They would not open their hearts to let the blessed Master
in." This is a fair sample of his doctrine and of the faith of those he represented. I give it here as proof
that the term, Armenian, which I am applying to them, is not a misnomer.
When the letters were called for, two were handed up which claimed to be sent by Mount Tabor.
Elder Thomas again ruled that those two should not be read publicly, but that they should be read to the
body of messengers in session, and the matter of their reception or rejection should then and there be
After an intermission the messengers went to the church house, where, after introductory service,
they proceeded to organize by electing moderator and clerk. The election resulted in the choice of Elder
E. D. Thomas moderator and me clerk. The attention of the association was then called to the reading of
the two letters claiming to be sent by Mount Tabor. I read the letter sent by the majority first and then
the letter sent by the minority. A motion was then made by Brother Symmonds to receive the letter and
messengers of the minority, recognizing that body as the real Mount Tabor Church and endorsing the
decision of the council in that case. The question was then open for discussion, and a number of speeches
were made on both sides. Finally the question was called for without further debate, and the discussion

was closed. Elder Thomas instructed the messengers, before taking the vote, to remain in the association
and fill the place their churches had sent them to fill whatever might be the result of the vote, and to
report the action to their respective churches at their regular meetings and let the churches declare
against it or in favor of it as they might deem right and proper. The motion was carried by a good majori▾
ty, and the messengers of the party once recognized as the minority were received as the messengers of
Mount Tabor Church.
It was a custom of long standing to allow the committee appointed by the church where the associa▾
tion convened to arrange appointments in the different parts of the neighborhood and select preachers to
fill them. The committee sent Elder W. S. Fisher and myself about six or seven miles away into a neigh▾
borhood of Methodists, to preach in a Methodist church. A Methodist friend was there with an old rick▾
ety spring wagon, who volunteered his service to convey us out to the appointment. By walking down
little hills we found on the way we avoided probable accidents, and finally we arrived safely to the
Methodist friend's house where we enjoyed a short rest and a good supper. The Methodist friend told us
that a protracted meeting was then in progress at his church, but that we would be expected to conduct
the service that night in our own way. He said that the Baptist Church where the association was being
held had gone too far in their picnics, Children's' Days, &c. He said he did not believe in so much fool▾
ishness as they practiced. It was truly horrifying to hear a Methodist criticize a church claiming to be Old
Baptist in their practice of worldly foolishness.
When we arrived at the church that night we found a few there and the crowd gathering rapidly. Two
Methodist preachers were sitting near the pulpit. Eld. Fisher and I took a seat a little distance back,
where we could observe what took place. As the Methodist people came in they dropped upon their
knees by the seats they selected and pretended to offer silent prayers. It was evident that they had been
trained to do this, and they acted their parts quite well. When the crowd had about gathered I said to
Brother Fisher, "Let us go forward." We approached the two men whom I had taken to be preachers, and
I said to them, "I suppose you are the preachers who are conducting the series of meetings here." They
seemed glad to tell us that they were. I then told my name and introduced Brother Fisher. I said that we
had been informed that an appointment had been made there for Old Baptist preachers, and that we had
come to fill that appointment. One of them said that I was correct, and told us to proceed in our own
Saying no more to them, we went into the pulpit, and Brother Fisher introduced the services. I took
the following words for my text: "When the strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace;
but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor
wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils." Luke 11:21-22. I was favored with liberty to preach the old-
fashioned truth that night and to lay the popular but false doctrine low with the divine sword. How my
heart glowed with love for the truth and cause of my Master as I stood amidst the idolatrous enemies of
his church and proclaimed his blessed word! Nothing more of importance took place at this association. I
returned home the next morning, as I was uneasy over the condition of my family, and Brother E. W.
Thomas was appointed to fill my place as Clerk.



In the spring on 1891 I moved into the neighborhood of Mt. Zion Church, and my wife and I changed
our membership from Big White Lick Church to Mt. Zion by letter. That summer I served Bethel
Church in Tipton Co., on the fourth Saturday and Sunday in each month, Mt. Zion on the third Saturday
and Sunday, Mt. Tabor on the second Saturday and Sunday, and Abners Creek on the first Saturday and
Sunday. As my two oldest boys were large enough to assist me, I had been farming some for about four
years. Thus, with my farming, teaching, serving four churches, visiting other churches, preaching funer▾
als, &c., &c., I was kept quite as busy as it was possible for me to be. I do not see how it was possible for
me to have done more, and yet I could not accumulate a thing beyond a bare living. My life had so far
been one of toil and hard study.
At Mt. Tabor, day services were held in Brother James Shirley's grove, and night services were held at
the homes of the brethren. At first the audiences were small and the outlook was rather discouraging,
but I labored on with the ability that God was pleased to give me, and soon the congregations began to
increase. Additions were received, the interest revived and our souls were made to rejoice at the evi▾
dences of the Lord's heavenly favors. At Mt. Zion and Abners Creek, large audiences attended the serv▾
ices and many were received into our fellowship.
The trustees of Mt. Tabor Church again sued the party known as the majority in the county court.
Another hard trial followed conducted by Judge Ralph Hill, of Indianapolis. In the decision of this able
Judge the following conclusions of law were given: 1. That at the time of the commencement of this
action, the plaintiff (minority or Mount Tabor Church proper) was entitled to the possession of the real
estate in its complaint herein. 2. That at the time of the commencement of said action, said real estate
was wrongfully held by the defendants from the plaintiffs. 3. That the plaintiff is entitled to recover the
possession of said real estate, and the sum of fifty dollars for the unlawful retention thereof from said
Thus the church, or minority as it was called in court, had gained two suits in court, was recognized
by the association as the true Mt. Tabor Church, and still the majority would not give up the struggle.
An application was made for a new trial, which was granted. Judge Wm. M. Franklin, of Martinsville,
was appointed to hear and try and dispose of the cause.
Eld. E. D. Thomas and I attended the White Water Association, held with the Village Creek Church,
near Connersville, Ind., beginning on Friday before the second Saturday in August, 1891, and continuing
over Sunday. We read the protest of the minority in Mt. Tabor Church to the messengers composing the
association in regular session, and stated the action and decision of the council, and of the Danville Asso▾
ciation in regard to that case. Accordingly, the White Water Association, by motion, second and vote,
endorsed the decision of the council and Danville Association. The White Water and Danville Associa▾
tions were in correspondence.
Elder Thomas and I attended the White River Association the next week, which was held with Little
Flock church, in Clay County, Indiana. We went to Terra Haute and changed cars for Farmersburg. It
was our aim to go out to the neighborhood of the church on a branch road that extended out into the coal
fields of Clay Co., but when we arrived at Farmersburg we found that no train went out on that branch
that afternoon, and that there was no train going out the next day that would enable us to reach the place
where the association was to be held in time for meeting. It was fifteen miles from Farmersburg to the
place we desired to reach, and it was about four o'clock. Elder Thomas suggested that we would walk out
into the country in the direction of the church, and stop at some farmer's home when night came on. We
acted at once upon his suggestion. It was a very warm afternoon, and we had two heavy valises, his
containing hymn books which he carried to sell and mine containing minutes of our association and arti▾
cles of apparel. I carried both valises, as I was young and strong.
We trudged along the dusty highway until it began to grow dark. Coming to a farmhouse, we stopped
to enquire if there would be an opportunity for us to rest there during the night. An old lady came out,
and when we told her who we were and what we desired, she at once invited us in, assuring us that we
were welcome to lodge at her home. She said that she was a "Baptist," that her husband, who had gone
to the mill but would soon return, was a United Brethren. She said she had to entertain his preachers
often and she was glad of the opportunity to entertain hers. We took a seat on the porch and our kind
host soon came out with a fine water melon and told us to help ourselves to that while she prepared us
some supper. Of all the water melons I ever tasted that was one of the best, and I think I never enjoyed a
supper more than I did the one to which she soon invited us.
After supper we conversed a while very pleasantly, ascertaining by the conversation that the kind lady
of the house had resided in a city and had married the farmer at whose home we had stopped, and thus
had come to the country to live. We found the "Baptists" to which she belonged to be Missionaries, but
we could not have been more hospitably entertained at any Old School Baptist home. Finally Elder
Thomas told her that we were very tired and would be glad of the privilege of retiring. She directed us to
our sleeping apartment and we lay down to rest. Before going to sleep we heard her husband drive up.
On waking up the next morning I heard Eld. Thomas and the man of the house talking out on the
porch. I soon joined them, and when breakfast was announced our kind host and hostess requested us to
hold prayer. I insisted on Elder Thomas leading and he did so, offering one of the sweetest and most
fervent prayers I ever heard. After breakfast, the man told us he had to drive about three miles that
morning in the direction we were going to get a load of corn. We were glad of the opportunity to ride, but
he was slow getting started and his mule team were slow travelers, so when we left his wagon we found
that it was too late for us to get an opportunity to ride the remainder of the distance, which was about
five miles. It was very sultry and the dust was unusually deep. We tugged along for about two miles
when we overtook a wagon loaded with melons, which we perceived was bound for the association
ground. The driver was wetting his wheels to keep the tires on, when we came up panting and perspir▾
ing like negroes in a cotton field. I asked if my aged friend could ride, and received more than I asked for,
being told we could both ride if we could sit on the edge of the wagon bed and let our feet hang outside.
Of two evils we chose the least, and soon we were moving slowly on in a comical and rather unpleasant
situation. On arriving at a well by the roadside, one mile from the association ground, our driver stopped
to wet his wagon wheels again. We insisted on walking ahead, assuring him of our appreciation of his
We arrived at the ground while the letters from the churches were being read. It seemed to me that
the dust had settled all over my face, through which the perspiration had made a number of roads.
Surely dirtier and tireder preachers never entered a congregation. We sat down on a seat in the outskirts
of the audience, greatly desiring to be unobserved, but Eld. J. H. Oliphant, who was the Moderator, saw
us, and called out, "Brother Thomas and Brother Daily will come to the stand." We obeyed the call and
were given seats in the stand. When the letters were all read, Elder Oliphant announced that the
Messengers of the association would assemble in the church house nearby for the transaction of business,
and Elder John R. Daily would preach to the people from the stand. I was hungry, fatigued and dirty,
but I kept my plight to myself and soon forgot about it as I stood and proclaimed the precious gospel.
Strength is often given under the most unfavorable circumstances.
White River Association was also in correspondence with the Danville Association, and the course of
Mount Tabor Church and of the council and of our association was fully and unanimously endorsed by
that body. Danville Association corresponded with five Associations in Indiana and one in Iowa, and all
of these stood with her in her struggle against the opposing element that sought to drag her into the
meshes of Armenianism.
A small faction was drawn off from the White Water Association by the influence of Eld. W. T. Pence,
who was backed and encouraged by the seceding preachers of the Danville Association. Parties were also
drawn off from the old order of Baptists by the influence and leadership of Eld. E. H. Burnham in Virgin▾
ia and Kentucky, of Eld J. E. Lee in Ohio, and of Eld. James Bradley in Missouri. Nine of the thirty
churches of the Danville Association declared their opposition to the association. These nine churches
were not all unanimous in their departure, however, as members in some of them refused to go with
them and joined our churches by relation.
On Friday before the fourth Saturday in August, 1891, the dissenting party from the Danville and
White Water Associations and a little church headed by Eld. Pence in Kansas, and some from Ohio, met
in the Mount Tabor Meeting house. The name chosen for it was, "The Mount Tabor Means Baptist
Association." They changed the Articles of Faith of the Danville Association to suit their notion, and
adopted the articles so changed as their Articles of Faith. The articles as adopted by them were different
from any that had ever been adopted before by any religious body, and the name, "Means Baptists", was a
name that had never before been seen in print as assumed by any organized religious order. Thus a new
denomination sprang up in opposition to the old church, adding one more to the number of the beast.
Many of the Lord's children were ensnared by this departure and lead off from the old doctrine and
practice of the church. How sad it was to be compelled to give them up! This has been true of every
great departure. The apostle saw this by revelation and declared to the Elders of Ephesus, "Of your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch,
and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
Acts 20:30-31. I repeat that many who went out from us were children of God, and all I wish to say
regarding their course is that they were drawn away as disciples of men who had taught perverse doc▾
trines and practices. The most harmful enemies the church can have are those who rise up in her ranks.
Such are not usually willing to withdraw and leave the church unmolested. They want as much company
as they can get, and so they strive to carry as large a crowd with them as they can.
As I have said, a new trial in court was asked and granted, and Judge Wm. Franklin was appointed as
special judge to hear the case. This judge was a member of the Campbellite church. The new trial began
Nov. 25, 1891. As at the former trials, many expert witnesses were there from different parts of Indiana
and other states. The majority used some prominent witnesses of the Missionary Baptist order, among
whom was D. B. Ray of St. Louis, who was editor and publisher of a religious magazine, "The American
Baptist," and President of the "National Publishing Company and Book Concern."
The main defence made by the majority in all these trials in court was on the ground that they were
the majority in the church, and that the majority always constitutes the church proper. We contended
that when a majority departs from the doctrine of the church and a minority adheres to that doctrine,
such minority constitutes the church proper. At this trial Elder James Bradley's testimony was read in
evidence from the preceding trial. I give the following question and answer from his testimony as found
in Transcript of Evidence, page 400:

QUESTION--Suppose the majority should renounce Christianity altogether, as has been the case in the
books. Do you think the majority would have any right to continue to keep the church and use it, notwith▾
standing their apostasy of their organization? Would it be the rule? Do you think they would be entitled
to keep the church property and consider themselves the church, notwithstanding they had repudiated the
tenets of the church and the principles upon which it was organized?

ANSWER--I think they would.

In the same testimony are found the following questions and answers, which I give to show the extreme
position they took on this point to sustain their cause.

QUES.--I understand you to say that if a Baptist church should adopt by a majority vote the principle,
as a part of their creed and a part of their belief, that there was no necessity for immersion and that sprin▾
kling would be sufficient, that, in your opinion, by Baptist usage, that majority, notwithstanding it had
repudiated the Baptist faith, would still be entitled to hold the church property and conduct its worship
on that system?

ANS.--Yes, you understood me. The idea is this, that there is no power to unchurch a church.

QUES.--That is not the question I am asking. What I want to know is whether, as you understand the
Baptist doctrine, it would be right of the majority to hold possession of the property under such circum▾
stances and conduct its worship in its style?

ANS.--I think so.

QUES.--That would be in strict accordance with Baptist doctrine?

ANS.--The other churches could not fellowship with them, of course.

QUES.--Though she had to fellowship them?


QUES.--Would they not cease to be a Baptist church?

ANS.--The other churches might cease to recognize them on that point.

QUES.--I don't ask what they might do, but whether they would necessarily do that?

ANS.--I don't know that it follows as a necessity.

QUES.--Do I understand you to say that a Baptist church exists on a theory and conviction of faith
that recognizes sprinkling as baptism instead of immersion?

ANS.--I don't think that the Baptists would recognize it as a Baptist church on that point.
QUES.--Suppose a Baptist church, regularly organized, adopting the Philadelphia Confession Faith,
regularly admitted into an association, and after coming to that point it adopts a Confession of Faith
declaring that there is no God, no hereafter; that man perishes as a brute. Suppose an organization of that
kind should be created out of a Baptist church by a majority vote of the society. Do you mean to be under▾
stood that that would be regarded by the Baptists as an organization entitled to hold the property that the
Baptist church had purchased and occupied?

ANS.--I want to explain.

QUES.--I would be glad to have an answer to that question, "yes" or "no".

ANS.--Well, I would say "yes" from a legal standpoint. There is nothing among Baptists to unchurch a
church, or take the rights of a church away from it.

The same witness gave the following remarkable testimony:

The word church, in "Upon this rock I will build my church," means Christ's Spirit in the church. I
understand it to be Christian principle. It might be a Baptist, it might be a Methodist. We fellowship each
other as brethren and not as organized bodies.

Elder W. T. Pence gave the following testimony, which I copied from the Transcript of Evidence:

The word church cannot mean anything else that the local assembly. Page 171. So far as my ac▾
quaintance goes the majority always rules in the reception of members. Page 182.

QUES.--Suppose the Mount Tabor church should have gotten together and resolved by majority vote
that baptism by sprinkling was sufficient, what position would the church have occupied then?

ANS.--I would say it was a church in disorder.

QUES.--Who is to deal with that church?

ANS.--There is no association to deal with it that I know anything about. If there is any ecclesiastical
power on earth to deal with it I have never known anything about it. The majority may do wrong and the
Lord calls upon his people to come out from her.

QUES.--Suppose those who consider themselves called upon by the Lord to come out say, "We protest,"
and that it was only a minority of the church; would not the minority be recognized as the old church?

ANS.--They would not be recognized by well informed parties as being the church. They would be
recognized as right as christians, but they would not be considered as the church. They could go and
organize a church. Page 183.

I give these sworn statements from two of the leading witnesses for the defendants, to show the
extreme position they took to hold the property over which we were contending. Judge Franklin gave
the decision in favor of the majority. A new trial was asked for, which was refused, and the trustees of
the church appealed to the Supreme Court of the State.



In the winter of 1890 and 1891 a contention over religious questions arose between Brother Barton C.
Symmonds, who was a schoolteacher, and others, in a debating society. A member of the Campbellite
order proposed to get one of his friends to aid him in a joint debate with Brother Symmonds and myself.
Brother Symmonds came to see me about it, and I told him to inform the Campbellite aspirant after
polemic honors that I did not load for small game; that I could not afford to do that, as the ammunition
would be worth more than the game; that if he wanted a debate he must bring out some man that I could
afford to meet. The place at which the debate was asked to be held was Clermont, about nine miles west
of Indianapolis and about fifteen miles northeast of my home. About three years prior to this time I had
preached a sermon there on the doctrine of election in reply to a Campbellite discourse which had been
delivered at that place. Brother Barton C. Symmonds was then the principal of the school at Clermont,
and the Campbellite sermon was preached for his special benefit. He claimed the right to have it replied
to, and I delivered the reply at his request. The Campbellites, I am sure, had not forgotten that circum▾
The challenging party sent me word by Brother Symmonds that if "big game" was what I wanted he
would procure Mr. Aaron Walker of Indianapolis. Mr. Walker was a strong man, having held over sixty
religious discussions. A brief correspondence with the challenger and with Mr. Walker resulted in an
agreement to discuss four propositions, the debate to last four days of four hours each one, day being
given to each proposition. The time agreed upon was the latter part of June, 1891.
I realized that I was assuming a new responsibility of great weight. Mr. Walker was an experienced
debater. He had debated with many able men, among whom were Eld. G. M. Thompson, Eld. John A.
Thompson and Eld. Harvey Wright, of the Primitive Baptist church. In addition to his acquaintance with
the tactics of public disputation, he was known to possess a good stock of sarcasm and ready wit. I at
once began a preparation for the discussion in which I became more and more interested as the time
drew near. I seriously considered my motive in the undertaking. Sometimes I feared that it was all flesh▾
ly, and that I only craved a name. Whenever this thought arose in my mind, I felt depressed in spirit, and
regretted that I had been so rash as to rush into a combat that might have been avoided. I well knew that
if the Lord was displeased with the matter he might withhold his aid. In such a case I was certain that all
my preparation would avail me nothing. Again, I wondered if it was really right to engage in debates
with the world on the sacred themes of the gospel. I heard some say it was, while others said it was not.
If it was not right, I did not want to do it. A failure to succeed in the defence of our cause, I knew, would
be very detrimental, and my dear brethren and sisters would share in the shame and disgrace of the
failure. I was much disturbed by all these considerations.
I applied myself to the study of the Bible, however, with a new zeal. I carefully framed every argu▾
ment into a logical syllogism, and arranged the passages upon which I relied as proof in the most careful
manner. Many sleepless hours of the night were spent in meditation on the work that was before me,
and often I arose from my bed to write down a new though that came to my mind. My misgivings in
regard to the propriety of discussions of this nature left me, and I became settled in the belief that it is
right to defend the cause whenever it is assailed by its enemies. I was fully convinced that it is right to let
the world know that we are not ashamed of our doctrine, and that we are not afraid of the modern Go▾
liaths who challenge the armies of the living God. My opinion in regard to that matter has never
changed. God will honor and bless those whom he has "set for the defence of the gospel," if they wield
the sword of divine truth in cutting down error and rearing in its stead, by the strength he gives them,
the glorious banner he has placed in their hands.
When it became known throughout the country that the debate was to come off, the Campbellites
expressed their regrets that the Baptists would not be represented by an abler man. They said the
debate could not be very interesting, as I was inexperienced in that line and Mr. Walker would have
nothing to do. They circulated the report that it would only last one day, and some of them who attended
declared they had arranged to stay only that long.
My wife and I went in our buggy to the place where the discussion was held early on the morning of
the first day. At Brownsburg, on the way, a friend called out to us jocularly, "It is reported here that the
debate will last only today." I replied as I drove on, "That depends altogether on Mr. Walker's wind."
Some of Walker's friends were in hearing of these remarks. As we were driving into Clermont we say a
number of gentlemen sitting in a yard, and I remarked to my wife that I was sure they were Campbellite
preachers and that one of them was Mr. Walker. Passing on up the street, I saw an old man sitting in
front of a store whom I at once recognized as Elder Harvey Wright. I called to him and he came to us,
being delighted to see us. I put up my horse at a Baptist home, left my wife with some sisters there and
went back to where Eld. Wright was, who took me to the yard in which the Campbellite preachers were
sitting, the ones we had passed, and introduced me to Mr. Aaron Walker and Mr. Henry Pritchard. Mr.
Pritchard was Mr. Walker's Moderator in the debate. After chatting awhile with them, we all walked
together to the Campbellite meeting house in which the debate was to be held. Eld. R. W. Thompson had
been chosen as my Moderator, and I learned he was in the neighborhood of the Salem church, which was
one and one-half mile south. The hour of ten o'clock came before he arrived, and I appointed Eld. Wright
to occupy his place till he came, and the debate commenced.
Mr. Walker affirmed the following proposition that day: "The scriptures teach that water baptism,
administered to the penitent believer, is in order to his salvation, being a condition of the pardon of his
past sins." He opened with a speech of a half hour, during the delivery of which I prayed for divine aid.
As I arose to reply a timidity was felt that was unusual for me, but it soon left me and I felt my strength
coming as I proceeded. In about fifteen minutes I replied to his arguments, and spent the remainder of
my time pouring in negative arguments which I had carefully prepared. I presented them with a confi▾
dent feeling that he could not refute them, which gave me great courage and added force to my delivery.
I could see that I had produced some degree of surprise when I took my seat. In Mr. Walker's next
speech he devoted nearly all of his time in an attempt to answer my negative arguments, so that I had
little to do in my second speech in the way of replying to him. This gave me time to deliver many strong
negative arguments of which I had a good supply. In the afternoon I was in the lead, Mr. Walker doing
but little except to ridicule the doctrine of election and abuse those who believed it.
The second day I affirmed this proposition: "The scriptures teach that God chooses or elects his people
prior to any act of obedience on their part as a condition." I cannot now give the wording of the proposi▾
tion discussed on the third day, but it affirmed the freedom and power of the will of every sinner to
choose salvation for himself, to come to Christ and accept salvation on the terms of the gospel. The last
day I affirmed the following proposition: "The scriptures teach that all who are regenerated and born
again in time will be saved in eternity."
I cannot give a synopsis of the arguments made in that discussion, as the manuscripts have all been
destroyed by fire. I never felt more sensible of the Lord's presence with me in preaching than I did in
that work. I carefully avoided the use of ridicule or abusive language, and in this way I am sure I won the
respect and love of a large majority of the audience. Some admissions were made by the Campbellites
which showed how they felt over the debate. On the third morning, Brother John L. Goben, a Baptist
brother of Crawfordsville, arrived, who had not been there the first two days. He was very anxious to
learn how the discussion was progressing, so he approached a group of Campbellites and enquired of
them about it. They supposed him to be on their side and told him that it was getting along pretty well,
but they had the wrong man. They said Mr. Walker was getting too old to debate, and that if they only
had a young preacher in it who had preached there the night before they could have defeated Daily. This
greatly elated Brother Goben, who was a warm friend of mine. The County Superintendent of Schools of
Hendricks County was passing by the town on the train the evening of the first day, and Mr. Henry
Pritchard, Mr. Walker's Moderator, got on with a number of others to go to Indianapolis. The Superin▾
tendent enquired of Mr. Pritchard about the debate, and he told him that Daily was a strong man and
was giving Walker a hard battle. He said that Walker was once an able debater, but he was too old and
ought to quit. Other admissions were made by them, and as far as I could learn the people of other
denominations and those who made no profession gave the victory to me.
I rejoiced to know that the truth had triumphed, not simply over a man, but over false doctrine. Eld.
Thompson's aid as Moderator was of great service to me. My soul glowed with love and praise to God for
the strength I knew he had given me, in this conflict, to hold up the banner of truth.
I hope the reader will not take this account of my first religious debate as exhibiting a spirit of egotism
on my part. I am very sensible, I am sure, of my own weakness. I detest self-praise, and do not wish to
be understood as extolling myself in the least. I was successful, but my success was due to the fact that I
was on the side of truth, and that God enabled me to stand there.

"Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again,
The eternal years of God are hers;
But error, smitten, writhes in pain,
And dies amid her worshipers."



After the dissatisfied party had left the Danville Association, most of the churches began to prosper
and perfect peace abounded. At Mount Tabor we were without a church house in which to worship, and
the brethren were involved in law suits over the rights of property, yet the congregations gradually in▾
creased and the church experienced occasional ingatherings. The use of a good brick school house was
given to us, where we had glorious meetings. Often the house was insufficient to accommodate the large
crowd that assembled.
Our annual associational meetings were love feasts. In September, 1891, the association met with
Mount Zion, our home church. Elders Charles M. Reed, of Connersville, Lemuel Potter, of Ft. Branch,
and J. M. Thompson, of Indianapolis, were in attendance, with others who were likewise able in the word
of truth. Showers of heavenly blessings fell upon us as the sweet doctrine of grace was proclaimed. We
had experienced a long war with Armenianism, but it was all over and we met together in union and
love. We felt what David expresses so beautifully in the one hundred and thirty-third Psalm: "Behold,
how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." Many things are good which are not
pleasant, and many things are pleasant which are not good; but the unity of brethren is both good and
pleasant. It is good because it is right, and because safety and prosperity depend upon it. It is pleasant
because mutual love and fellowship produce delight and fill the hearts of the united ones with joy. To
dwell together in unity is to dwell together as one man, as if one soul actuated all. It is not only to dwell
in one house, and have a name and place there as inhabitants, but it is to be associated in love and
harmony and to serve the Lord with one consent and one mind. Such a union will be complete in heav▾
en, and a degree of it here gives a fore-taste of what heaven will be. Such union and love had not been
known before at our associations since I had been a member, as existed at the time to which I am now
referring. The next session was held with Mount Tabor Church. The two divisions of the White Water
Association had opened correspondence. These had been torn apart in the days of Elder Wilson Thomp▾
son and John Sparks, which is mentioned earlier in this book. There had arisen a two-seed element on
the Thompson side, but that element had been excluded from the fellowship of the churches in the White
Water and Conn's Creek Associations. So when we got rid of the Armenianism that had been troubling
the Danville Association, there was nothing to keep us apart. Elder R. W. Thompson, of the White Water
Association, was at the association at Mount Tabor. He and I were sent to preach together at night at a
school house near Elder Allen McDaniel's. He preached first, taking for his text: "Ye have not chosen
me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit
should remain." I followed him and spoke of a meeting at Honey Creek Church held several years before,
at which I spoke from the same text. Elder Thompson had followed me and remarked that in what he
should say he did not want to deviate one hair's breadth from what I had said. That meeting is men▾
tioned on page 83 of this book. I then said that I did not want to deviate one hair's breadth from what
Elder Thompson had said. I spoke of us having always believed and preached the same things. The
barriers that had kept us from each other's association in the Lord's sweet service had fallen down, and
we came together like kindred drops of water. What a blessed feast it was to our souls!
In December, 1892, I was called to the care of Salem Church one and one-half miles south of Cler▾
mont. I accepted the call, and preached for that church while I stayed in Indiana. I was then serving
Abner's Creek, Mount Tabor and Mt. Zion and Salem churches. These churches seemed to hold me in
high esteem and I was very much attached to them. I labored hard for the promotion of their peace and
prosperity, and there was a gradual growth by accessions to their numbers. I made occasional tours into
other parts of the state and into other states. There was a church in Lynn Co., Iowa that belonged to
Danville Association, called Cedar Creek. The charter members had moved from Indiana to that section,
and as there was no other association very convenient the church went into the Danville Association.
The members of that church became very anxious for me to visit them, and the clerk, Brother John T.
Roy, wrote me several letters urging me to do so. Finally I arranged to go there and spend two Sundays
and the week between preaching to that church. The trip was made in the spring of 1892, The diphthe▾
ria had been raging there, and many little children had died of it. Among them were two of Brother John
T. Roy's. He wrote me that he wanted me to preach their funeral on the first Sunday of my visit. The
church had no ordained preacher. Three preachers had been ordained, but through trouble that had
risen in the church they had all been excluded. A young licensed preacher, Homer G. Andrews, was
preaching for them, and I was informed that I would be requested to ordain him if he was found to be
I went by way of Chicago to Cedar Rapids, arriving at the latter place about 11 o'clock at night. I took
lodging at a hotel, and the next morning went back to the depot and got on the train that I was told
would take me to Centerpoint, the place I wanted to reach. On entering the car I asked a man if that
train went by Centerpoint, and was told it did. I remarked that I was alright and took my seat. A man
then approached me who was sitting in the rear end of the car, and asked me if I was going to Center▾
point. I told him I was, and he asked for my name. When I gave it to him a broad smile spread across his
face, and he took me by the hand and told me his name was Roy. He said he had come to Cedar Rapids
the evening before to meet me there and be in my company at a Baptist home in the city. He expected
me to come by way of Burlington, and he waited until the last train came in from that city, and concluded
I had not come. The next day was Saturday, the time for their regular meeting. It had been published
extensively that I would be there, that I would preach the funeral on Sunday, and then hold meetings all
the week until over the next Sunday. He had not slept any, he said, and had given up all hopes of seeing
me, when he heard me enquire if that was the right train to take for Centerpoint.
This was a glorious trip. I preached at the church that day and night, and the next day preached the
funeral of Brother Roy's children, and continued the meeting as had been arranged and announced.
Toddville was about five miles from the church and as many of the members lived there some of the
services were held at that place. One sister joined and I baptized her, and two who had been excluded
were restored to fellowship. On the next Saturday the Deacon of the church and I ordained Brother
Homer G. Andrews to the full work of the gospel ministry. On the last Sunday I preached the funeral of
five children that had died of diphtheria, three of one family and two of another. My text that day was,
"A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentations and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children, refused
to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from
weeping and thine eyes from tears, for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and they shall come
again from the land of the enemy." I think there were more tears shed that day under my sermon than I
ever saw flow at any other time. Many parents who were there had lost children by the diphtheria which
had raged so dreadfully in that country. Some of them came to me at the close of the meeting and said
that it seemed I had preached the funeral of all their departed children.
On my way home I stopped off at Bentley, Illinois, and filled some appointments that had been made
for me. I preached at the church in Bentley and at the Middle Creek and Providence churches in the
country. I met Elder Frazee and old Elder Warren, both of whom I esteemed very highly. I visited that
section twice afterwards, and was warmly received there at every visit made.
I visited that church again in the holidays in December, 1892, at which time I preached several days.
Old Sister Roy, Brother John T. Roy's mother was very ill at that time. It had not been expected that she
would live until I got there, and she had requested them to have me preach her funeral. But she lived for
some weeks after I made the trip. However, old Brother Roy and the children wished to carry out her
desire, and I was requested to go back and preach her funeral. The time appointed was the first of June.
The World's Fair was going on in Chicago. I arranged to go to Iowa and preach the funeral the first
Sunday in June, hold services there Monday and Tuesday, return to Chicago Tuesday night, attend the
World's Fair Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, come to Salem Church in Carroll Co., on Saturday and
preach there Saturday and Sunday, and then go home.
When I arrived at Toddville, I found there had been a misunderstanding in regard to the time, and
that I was not expected until a week later. The word was circulated, however, and I preached Sister
Roy's funeral on Sunday, filled appointments there Monday and Tuesday, and returned to Chicago on
Tuesday night, arriving there about daybreak. I went on a steamboat on Lake Michigan to the Fair
Ground, which was about seven miles from the wharf near the depot. The sun had just risen when I
arrived at the Fair Ground, and on stepping inside I could but stand and gaze with wonder and admira▾
tion at the beautiful "White City." It is impossible for me to describe it as it appeared to my view. The
large white buildings glistened in the early sunlight. They looked like white marble structures, but I had
read enough about their construction to know that what appeared to be marble was only wood and plas▾
ter paris painted white.
I started in to see all I could in one day. I went through the Manufacturer's Building, the Machinery
Hall, the Transportation Building, the Floral Hall, down Midway Peaisance, &c., &c. When the sun was
nearly down I discovered that my strength was gone. I was tired of walking, tired of standing, tired of
seeing, tired of hearing, tired of the whole Fair. The vanity of the world appeared in its full force to my
tired mind. I was sick of it all, and longed for the quietude of my own sweet, humble home. I thought of
my dear wife and children, and decided I would rather see them than all the great Fair. So I boarded a
boat and returned to the wharf, whence I had sailed that morning, went to the depot and took the train
for home, arriving there the next morning to the joyful surprise of my family and the delight of my own
tired mind. I never could content myself visiting or sight-seeing away from my wife and children. Aside
from the public worship of God, home has always been the sweetest spot to me on earth. How often have
I gone away with a sad heart, and how often have I returned with inexpressible joy after performing my
sacred duty! Thank God for a good and loving wife and affectionate children! Fidelity to them is a duty
next to fidelity to my Maker. How I wish I had been more faithful in my duty to both! Already the home
circle is broken, and some are far away. The sweet children that so recently cheered my heart at home,
are becoming scattered. Home will never again be what it has been in the past, and soon it will not be
what it is now. But I can look up to God with a heart full of thankfulness for a family that has rendered
home sweet here, and it is my humble hope that when I am taken from my home below I will be admit▾
ted into a better home in heaven.

"A home in heaven! What a joyful thought!
As the poor man toils in his weary lot!
His heart oppressed, and with anguish riven,
From his home below to his home in Heaven

"A home in heaven! when our pleasures fade,
And our wealth and fame in the dust are laid,
And our strength decays, and our health is riven,
We are happy still with our home in heaven."



The joy and peace of my sweet home, referred to in the preceding chapter, was not unbroken by afflic▾
tions and trials. I have referred to the severe affliction of my daughter Alice. She was a great sufferer
indeed. In the summer of 1892 I was persuaded to try Prof. Wilson's "Magnetized Clothing." I did so as
an experiment, having no faith in it whatever. A full suit of it was presented to me, and I thought I could
afford to give it a trial. At first the running sores on her limb seemed to flow more freely, but I regarded
this as a good indication. In a few months they began to heal, and at Christmas that year they were
mostly healed up. She went to school in a rolling chair the good sisters bought for her, and seemed in a
fair way to recover. The next summer she became able to go on crutches, a thing she had not been able
to do for five years. She started to my school that winter. One night she went home with a schoolmate,
and while at play she hurt her limb. She grew worse again, and suffered continually.
The second Saturday and Sunday in Oct. 1893, I attended the constitution of the church at Haugh▾
ville. I delivered the charge to the church in the form of a sermon, and baptized two candidates into the
fellowship of the new organization. On returning home, Alice told me she was willing to submit to the
amputation of her limb if I thought it best. I wrote to Dr. John L. Marsh, of Brownsburg, who came to
examine her the next Saturday. He was our physician, and had known much about Alice's condition. He
told me the only remedy was amputation. He said her blood was in the best condition it had been since
she was taken down, and that the chances for her recovery were good if the limb was amputated. I told
him I could not decide that day what to do, and promised to let him know the following Monday.
It was the time of my meeting at Mt. Zion. I preached that day and at night, Sunday and Sunday
night. It was with a heavily burdened heart that I labored, but I am sure I had the aid of a power above
my own, else I could not have spoken at all. On Monday morning I was still undecided. I walked the yard
in deep distress, asking, "Lord, what shall I do?" I thought if I had the limb taken off and my dear child
should die as a result of it, it would surely kill me. Then I thought if it should result in her complete
restoration to health, I would be so happy and thankful. Finally I decided to have it done, and I so wrote
to Dr. Marsh. He set Thursday, October 20th, for the operation. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of
that week were the saddest days I ever spent in the school room, especially Wednesday. I went home that
afternoon with a sad, sad heart.
Passing over the struggles of soul I endured that night and the next morning as being beyond my
ability to describe, I will say the operation was performed in our dining room by Dr. Marsh, who was
assisted by four other physicians. It was a successful operation, though most of the limb had to be
removed to get rid of the diseased flesh and bone. Just two weeks from that day, when I approached the
house on my return from school, one of the children met me in the yard and cried, "Oh, Pa! Alice is sit▾
ting up!" How my heart leaped for joy as I entered the room and was greeted by her sweet, smiling face
as she sat in the rocker! She continued to improve, and grew into a fine looking young lady.
At one of the White Water Associations, Brother D. H. Goble, of Greenfield, started a plan to raise
money by subscription with which to purchase her an artificial limb. The brethren and sisters at that
association, and others, and my churches, subscribed until $83.00 were raised for that purpose. I added
$7.00 to it, which paid for an artificial limb, but she could not use it, and so had to be content with the
use of her crutches.
We passed through this severe affliction in our family, and through others less severe. The promise of
God was fulfilled in all these, and now why should we not trust Him? He says to his own tried children,
"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not over▾
flow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle
upon thee." Isa. 43:2. Passing through the waters, the rivers and the fire, signifies a coming out as well
as a going in. When his people go in, while they are in, and when they come out, He is with them. He is
with them all the way, and that accounts for their getting out. No water has ever rolled so high, no river
has ever been so deep, no fire has ever been so fierce, that the Lord did not bring His children out of
them when they had been plunged into them. We know he has never forsaken us, though we have been
so unworthy of His faithfulness. He has been our only support, and He is now our only hope.

"I'll praise for blessings I enjoy,
And trust for all the rest."



There was an Old Baptist church that held services in a school house near Advance, Boone, Co.,
Indiana, about ten miles northwest of where I lived. It was called Mt. Calvary, and had for its pastor a
worthy elder by the name of W. S. Fisher. The church was weak in numbers, but was strong in the
ancient faith. There was a Campbellite church in Advance. The preacher of that church was compara▾
tively a stranger in that country, having been there only a year or so. He came from Texas, I think. His
name was William Weatherford. He was a man of considerable wit, and possessed some ability. He
gained the name of "The Cyclone Preacher," and was generally spoken of by his people as being fully
entitled to the name, as they considered him able to sweep everything before him.
Mr. Weatherford boasted of being a very successful debater, and appeared exceedingly anxious to
prove his ability in that line at Advance. Accordingly, he attended one of the meetings at the school▾
house, and after Elder Fisher had preached he arose and said, "I rise to know if you can find a man in the
State of Indiana who will meet me in debate on the doctrine you preach." Brother Fisher coolly replied,
"If a debate is what you want, we can find a man and not go very far." He replied with a boasting air,
"Well, I want him, and I want him quickly." "Now, I am not a prophet," he continued, "nor the son of a
prophet, but I prophesy you will fail to find a man in Indiana or the United States who will meet me in
discussion." Brother Fisher said, "Save your breath, sir. Just write out your propositions, and we will
show you that we can find a man to meet you." The arrogant challenger then wrote two propositions and
gave them to Brother Fisher.
The next Tuesday morning, I went into the field near the road to assist my boys in plowing corn. Just
as I was ready to take the plow handles, Brother Fisher drove up and called me to come to the road. He
at once told me of the challenge and of their acceptance of it, and said he had come to get me to defend
the cause that had been thus assailed. I told the boys to put up my horse and go on with their part of the
plowing, at the same time inviting Brother Fisher to drive in. He thought he could not take time to stop
with me, but I insisted that he must take time, for the matter of which he had spoken was of so much
importance that time must be given to it. We went into the house, and I told him that the first thing I
wanted to know was if the debate was considered an actual necessity, and if the brethren had expressed a
desire for me to represent them in it. He assured me that the cause in that locality would suffer unless
that boaster was met and silenced, and that I was their choice to meet and refute him, telling me what
had taken place at their meeting the Sunday before as herein related.
I examined the propositions that Weatherford had submitted, and told Brother Fisher that they were
unfair. I also wrote a letter to Weatherford, stating my objections to his propositions and suggesting that
a day be given to each proposition. A brief correspondence between us resulted in our agreement on four
propositions covering the points of doctrine I had suggested in the propositions I had submitted.
I chose Eld. D. T. Poynter as my Moderator, and Weatherford selected Mr. Johnson, of Lebanon. The
debate was held at Advance, Boone Co., Ind., in August, 1894, continuing four days. The propositions, if I
remember the exact wording, were as follows:

Prop. 1. The scriptures teach that water baptism, administered to the penitent believer, is for or in
order to the remission of sins.

Prop. II. The scriptures teach that God chooses or elects His people unto salvation or eternal life prior
to any act of obedience on their part.

Prop. III. The scriptures teach that God uses the preaching of the gospel as a means in the regenera▾
tion of sinners.

Prop. IV. The scriptures teach that all who are born again in time will be saved in eternity.

I affirmed the second and fourth, and Weatherford affirmed the first and third. My wife, my son Ollie
and daughter Alice attended the debate. A large tent that would seat several thousand was rented and
set up at the edge of the village. The discussion created so much enthusiasm that nearly all the people
for miles around attended it. The large tent would not accommodate the vast throng of people that
flocked to the place from all directions.
In Mr. Weatherford's first speech he showed that he was very sanguine of success. It was the ablest
effort he made. Soon he began to weaken, and by the third day he could scarcely make a speech that the
audience could understand. His first speech after dinner that day was the weakest thing I ever heard.
When I arose to reply I told him publicly that he was unable to speak with any force, that he was not
doing his cause justice. I said that I was not there to defeat a man merely, but to oppose error, and as
there was a number of Campbellite preachers present he was at perfect liberty to fill his place with any of
them. When I took my seat Mr. W. H. Williams arose to reply. He was an uneducated man, but very full
of conceit. His speech consisted mostly of noise at which he was capable of making a great showing.
When the day's debate ended my moderator and I were asked if we objected to their sending a dis▾
patch for some one to come and conduct their side of the discussion the following day. We told them to
get anyone they wished, that we did not care who they procured. The Campbellite preachers went
immediately to the depot and sent a telegram to Mr. Henry Pritchard, of Indianapolis, to come at once
and help them out. Mr. Pritchard refused to do so, and they were left to continue the struggle or give it
up. The latter alternative was too humiliating, so they concluded to go on and do the best they could.
The next day Mr. Johnson, of Lebanon, took the stand and tried to hold up the Campbellite cause. He
was a weaker disputant than Weatherford.
At the close of the debate a little band of Campbellites approached me, and one of them said that they
considered me successful. He said that my arguments had not been met, and he could not see how they
could be. I told him that they did not have a preacher in the world that could refute my arguments. Mr.
Weatherford was evidently very despondent over the failure he had made. In a year or so afterwards he
took to drinking, and was finally dismissed by his church and left the country.
I was happy and thankful that truth had again triumphed over error. I was fully convinced that it is
right to stop the mouths of those who defiantly challenge the armies of God. If the Baptists of that locali▾
ty had shown a cowardly spirit and refused to accept the daring challenge of Weatherford, they would
have been ridiculed and abused by their enemies, and the world around them would have said they were
afraid to allow their doctrine to come to the light of investigation. As it was, everybody admitted that we
were sincere in our convictions and that we had no fears for our doctrine to be held up beside the theory
of Campbellism. I have never been in favor of showing a war-like spirit by challenging others and seek▾
ing discussions with them, but I am in favor of defending the cause against the assaults of its enemies
and showing the world that we know our doctrine to be true and are not afraid to have it investigated.
There is a great difference between the right use of anything and the abuse of it. No doubt many evils
have grown out of religious controversies, but this is the result of an abuse of the right of controversy. A
proper controversy or investigation to obtain clearer light on the doctrine of the Bible, and to determine
whether one is holding correct or incorrect views of that doctrine, is perfectly proper. Such an investiga▾
tion is no more responsible for the evils that grow out of the abuse of disputation than truth is responsi▾
ble for error. Every point of the doctrine of Christ has been assailed and disputed, and if the right and
justice of a fair investigation is denied, and we are not allowed to defend that doctrine against the assaults
made upon it, then we might as well stop preaching and lay our pens aside. The truths as proclaimed by
the gospel are constantly disputed by the world and by Armenian professors of religion, and still it must
be preached and defended. This is one form of controversy. If the gospel of Christ was never assailed,
perverted, mystified or abused, so as to lead Christians astray, no defense would be needed. But as long
as there are some who walk in craftiness and handle the word of God deceitfully, corrupting it with their
traditions and false constructions; a defense will be needed, and there will still be faithful soldiers, who
are set for its defence, who will dispute every inch of ground. Paul declares in his letter to the Thessalo▾
nians, that after his shameful treatment at Philippi, he and his associates were bold to speak to the
Thessalonians the "gospel of Christ with much contention." 1 Thes. 2:2. It is said of him in Acts 17:17,
that "he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and with devout persons, and in the market daily with
them that met with him." Perhaps some brethren then opposed controversy, but Paul had to defend the
truth of God in spite of the whims and weakness of friends, or the censures and assaults of foes. A Bap▾
tist elder once told me he was opposed to our brethren engaging in public debates, for he did not believe
in them. I replied that the only difference between him and me was, I was not afraid of the other fellow,
while he was continually debating with him in his preaching but was too big a coward to give him an
equal chance in the controversy.



In the fall of 1894 I moved to the farm of Brother Billy Smith, at the line between Boone and Hen▾
dricks County, about two miles southeast of Whitelick, commonly known by the name "Fayette," which
was near Mt. Tabor Church. I had baptized Brother Billy Smith and his wife and a number of others into
the fellowship of that church. I had given up teaching, having taught my last term the preceding winter.
I found that to carry the work required of me in that profession, preach for four churches, and attend to
the other duties that belonged to the ministry, was entirely too arduous. My nerves were breaking down
under the heavy strain, my appetite was failing, and I could not rest at night. I had succeeded in procur▾
ing some cows and horses and hogs, so I concluded to try farming on a little more extensive scale. My
older boys were large enough to assist me, and so I decided to rid myself of the burden of teaching which
had been weighing me down for so many years. In fact the strain had become so great that I was com▾
pelled to give that work up or give up my churches.
My wife and I changed our membership by letter from Mt. Zion to Mt. Tabor Church. I have always
been convinced that is wrong to live near one Old Baptist church, and hold membership in another of the
same faith and order more distant. It looks wrong and is wrong to do so. I want membership in the
church where I live, so that what influence for good I possess may be given to the cause in my own vicini▾
ty. I continued as pastor of the four churches, Abner's Creek, Mt. Tabor, Mt. Zion and Salem. The
congregations at these churches were generally good, and there was a steady growth in membership. At
Mt. Tabor there was a fine interest. We still held our meetings in the brick schoolhouse, one- half mile
west of Fayette. The cause of that church in court, as we have already stated, had been referred to the
Supreme Court of the state. The unanimous decision of that court was in favor of the church (Minority).
The judge who prepared the decision (James McCabe) was a member of the Old Baptist Church at
Crawfordsville. When this was ascertained by the Majority party, they appealed to the court for a recon▾
sideration of the case, and this was granted. This caused another long delay.
I had a good opportunity on Brother Smith's place, but it seemed that I was not designed for a farmer.
I knew how to do the work, and had no fear of hard, muscular labor, but I could not keep my mind on it
so as to be interested in it. For this reason I was never a success at the business, but I fully determined to
do the very best I could at it, for there seemed to be no other means by which I could support my depend▾
ent family. I then had nine children, the names of which I will here give, with the dates of their births.
Oliver Lewis, born August 27, 1875; John L., Born December 3, 1876; Alice, born November 6, 1878;
James Harvey, born February 17, 1881; Clara Belle, born April 18, 1883; Iva Mae, born February 24,
1885; Earl, born March 16, 1887; Lemuel Potter, born September 21, 1890; William Thomas, born
October 20, 1892.
A large family of children who grow up respectable is a blessing to parents. My children were not free
from faults. It is impossible that human beings should be. That my wife and I were greatly burdened
with anxious concern for them is freely admitted. That we both labored hard to support them and care
for them is very true. But still I pity those who never know the happiness of having a band of sweet,
loving children to gladden the passing days and to render life something more than a blank existence. To
live for one's self only is to live for little purpose and to miss the joys of useful service.



Mr. W. H. Williams, whom I mentioned as making a speech on the third day of the Advance debate,
was very anxious to obtain notoriety as a public disputant. He had been favored with some notice and
given some chance to exhibit himself notwithstanding his great lack of scholarship. He was stung over
the failure that was made at Advance by him and his party, and was so full of conceit as to think he could
turn the tide of public feeling. So he wrote me a daring challenge to engage with him in a public discus▾
sion at New Maysville, Putnam County, Ind. Many of the words in his letter were misspelled, and his
sentences betrayed his lack of acquaintance with the simplest rules of Syntax. I replied that he lacked
scholarship and ability to represent his cause and refused to engage with him for that reason. He replied
in a very sarcastic style, declaring that I was afraid of him, and that my reference to his lack of scholar▾
ship was only a pretext. I did not believe that his people would endorse him, and so to get rid of him I
agreed to debate with him if he would secure the endorsement of three leading preachers of his denomi▾
nation. To my surprise and great displeasure he secured the endorsement of about nine or ten leading
preachers, some of whom were the best talent his order could afford. I was then tied and could no longer
refuse. I learned what I did not know before, that the Campbellites are so full of conceit that they will
put anything up to represent them.
We agreed to discuss the two following propositions:

1. The church of which I, W. H. Williams, am a member, was founded by Christ and his apostles, and
has existed on earth ever since.
2. The church of which I, John R. Daily, am a member, was founded by Christ, and has existed on
earth ever since.

Williams affirmed the first, and I affirmed the second of these propositions. Two days were devoted to
each proposition. The Campbellites at New Maysville became uneasy over the coming conflict, and
refused to allow their house to be used for that purpose, thinking, I suppose, that this would defeat the
plans we had laid. However, the Missionary Baptists of that place were exceedingly anxious for the
discussion to be held, so they offered to open their house to us. This kind offer was accepted, and the
debate was held in their house. It was held in the month of December, 1894 and was well attended. I
failed in one respect. My aim was to take the conceit out of Williams, but I found it as difficult as it would
be to take the iron out of iron. While he still held up his head, however, the members of other orders
there as well as our people assured me that great good was accomplished. As one direct result, a man
was convinced at that debate that the Old Baptists are right and he and his wife were afterwards baptized
by me into the fellowship of our cause.
I was afforded constant opportunities to criticize the language of Williams, and I did so to try to get
him to have a less exalted opinion of himself, but it appeared that my efforts were futile. In one speech
he said, "It revolves on me to answer some of the gentleman's question." This was repeated with great
emphasis. In my next speech I said, "The denomination represented by my opponent boasts of the
education of its ministry. Its preachers have made sport of Old Baptist preachers all over this country for
their supposed lack of education. Yet this man, endorsed by a number of leading preachers of that
denomination, said before this intelligent audience, 'It revolves upon me to answer some of the gentle▾
man's questions.'"
Eld. D. T. Poynter was my moderator, and Wm. Weatherford, who failed so ingloriously at Advance,
was Williams' moderator. Among those who attended this discussion was the esteemed Eld. Lemuel
Potter, who encouraged me very much by his warm commendation and hearty approval. In the fall
preceding the time of this debate, after Elder Potter had preached one of his able discourses at the Blue
River Association, in Washington Co., Ind., the Baptists were challenged by the Campbellites to select a
man to debate with a representative to be selected by them. Elder Potter wrote out four propositions and
advised the brethren to get me to meet the Campbellite representative. This was agreed to, and elder
Charles W. Radcliff, who was pastor of the church there, wrote me about it. I sternly refused on the
ground that Brother Potter was such an able defender of the cause and insisted that he should fight his
own battle. Soon after this I attended the Salem Association, at Ft. Branch, Eld. Potter's home. He
insisted on my accepting the call to engage in the discussion, but I still refused, reminding him that that
was his work and not mine.
I was in correspondence at that time with the brethren at Asherville, Clay Co., in regard to a challenge
that had been accepted there. E. G. Denney, the Campbellite preacher at that place, had crowed and
boasted until the brethren thought it was time to put a stop to it, so they wrote to me. Denney and I
agreed to discuss the questions of church identity in the two following propositions:

I. The church of which I, John R. Daily, am a member, is apostolic in its origin, doctrine and practice.

II. The church of which I, E. G. Denney, am a member, is apostolic in its origin, doctrine and practice.

Elder Potter and the Campbellite representative agreed to hold their debate in Washington Co., in
October of that year. I went to that debate, not knowing who the Campbellites had selected till I arrived.
To my surprise it was E. G. Denney, the very man I had agreed to meet. Elder Potter chose me to serve
as his moderator. This gave me a good opportunity to study Denney's tactics as a disputant. He was of
an excitable temperament, while Elder Potter was calm and deliberate. There was a striking contrast
between Elder Potter's eloquence and gentility, and the rough, sarcastic manner of Denney.
At this debate Denney and I agreed on the 9th of January, 1895, as the time to begin our discussion.
It was agreed that we would continue it four days, giving two days to each question. Accordingly, we met
at Asherville, Clay Co., Indiana, at the time agreed upon. Eld. R. W. Thompson was my moderator, and
Mr. Denney chose W. H. Williams.

At the close of the first day Eld. Thompson received a telegram calling him home to attend a funeral,
so he left the next morning. Eld. D. T. Poynter was present and served the remainder of the time. The
debate was held in the Campbellite church.
Mr. Denney showed anger from the very first, which appeared to increase as the discussion pro▾
gressed. On the morning of the third day the discussion of his proposition began. I had every evidence
that could be given by an audience that I was regarded as successful in maintaining and defending my
proposition during the first two days, and I knew that I had easy work for the remaining time, as the ire
of my opponent had rendered him incompetent, especially as he had to labor under the great disadvan▾
tage of trying to establish and defend a proposition that was absolutely destitute of proof. I was enter▾
tained and provided for at the home of Brother Payne in Asherville. That morning, before we went to the
meeting house, he told me that a short time before, he heard Mr. McCullough, a prominent merchant of
that place, ask Mr. Denney if he was intending to preach for the church there the next year. Mr. Denney
replied that he could not say about that, as he was offered more at another place than they were giving
him there. He then said to the merchant, "If you could get ten cents for your calico you would not sell it
for five, would you?" Mr. McCullough replied that he would not. "Well," said Mr. Denney, "I work on that
plan." When Brother Payne told me that, I remarked that I could use that in my work that morning.
Mr. Denney occupied one hour in opening the discussion. I replied to his speech in about one half
hour and the remainder of my hour was given to the presentation of negative arguments. My first nega▾
tive argument was that as the church of which Mr. Denney was a member was founded in 1827 by
Alexander Campbell, it was not apostolic in origin, as the church of Christ was founded by Christ in the
first century. I proved by the Encyclopedia Britannica that Alexander Campbell, in 1827, was expelled
from the Baptists, and that he founded a denomination which he called the "Disciples of Christ," "better
known as Campbellites." I gave this as my authority for calling his followers Campbellites.
My next negative argument was that the church of my opponent was not apostolic because it was the
teaching of that church that there can be no children of God except where the gospel is preached, and as
they claim to preach the gospel there can be no children of God, according to their teaching, except where
they preach. I then asserted that the preachers of that order usually preach where they can get the most
pay for it. It follows from these facts that they must believe that the children of God will be found mostly
among the rich who have the money to pay for the gospel, whereas the Saviour taught that the poor have
the gospel preached unto them. I then remarked that they worked on this plan: "If a merchant could get
ten cents a yard for his calico he would not sell it for five." "That statement," said I "was made not a
thousand miles from here." Mr. Denney spoke right out, "I am the man that made it, sir." I said, "An
open confession is good for the soul. Mr. Denney says that he is the man that said it. Now suppose that
Mr. Denney is preaching here for the salvation of the people, as he claims. If the people here are poor
and unable to pay him as much as the people of some other locality can pay him, he will leave the people
here, who might be saved by his preaching, to go to hell, and go to the other locality to get the money the
people offer him. He don't care for the people; it's the money he wants. I would as soon stand in the
shoes of Judas who betrayed the Saviour for thirty pieces of silver, as to stand in the shoes of a man who
pretends to peddle his blood to the highest bidder."
When Mr. Denney arose to reply his anger was thoroughly aroused. The first thing he said was, "Daily
is a liar! I brand him as a liar before this intelligent audience! Alexander Campbell never founded any
church." That was the only reply he made to my negative argument. He then said, "The merchant who
told Daily about what I said in regard to his selling calico is a tattler, a low tale bearer, and I intend to
skin him and Daily both. Some of my brethren here have been trading with him. I want you to quit it.
A man who will not attend to his own business is unworthy of your confidence." He continued in a bois▾
terous and unguarded way through his entire speech.
When I arose to reply, I said with a smile, and in the best of humor, "Mr. Denney calls me a liar, but I
am not. It is like his doctrine; we only have his word for it; he can't prove it. Now, I am sure he is mis▾
taken, but I shall not call him a liar, for I profess to be a gentleman, and no gentleman will use such
language in a public discussion." I then told the audience that Mr. Denney was entirely mistaken in
regard to Mr. McCullough's telling me about what he said in that conversation to which I had referred. I
told them that Mr. McCullough had not said one word to me about it; that there were three present
when that remark was made: Mr. McCullough, Mr. Denney, and Brother Payne; and that Brother Payne
had told me. I said that Mr. McCullough was not a mean talebearer as Mr. Denney had represented him.
I said that he was not a member of either church represented in the discussion, and that I was sure he
was a good man, and that those who had been trading with him ought to continue, and he would treat
them right.
At the close of that day's discussion Mr. Williams arose and said, "It has been told here at this debate
that this man Daily ate up three of us preachers at Advance last August." I said, "I haven't said that."
He said, "I don't say you have, but it has been said by others, and I intend to explain how it was and you
can correct me if I am wrong." Turning to the audience again he said, "Last August Mr. Daily and
Brother Weatherford had a discussion at Advance. On the third day Brother Weatherford's voice failed
him and I made one speech for him. I then had to return home and Brother Johnson spoke in his place
the last day. Isn't that true, Mr. Daily?" I arose and said, "Yes; that is true as far as it goes, but it is not
all the truth, so I will tell more of it. The evening of the third day of that discussion they dispatched for
Mr. Pritchard, of Indianapolis, to come and help them out, and he wouldn't come." The house fairly
roared with cheers. Williams turned to me, shook his fist at me and exclaimed, "That's a lie, sir; that's a
lie!" Almost the entire audience arose to their feet with excitement. I calmly replied, with a smile, for I
was really amused, "Mr. Williams, what I said is true, every word of it, and you know that I can prove it."
He roared out in an angry tone, "Didn't I tell you I couldn't stay the last day; that I had to go home?" I
said, "Yes sir; you told me that; but the dispatch I spoke of was sent in the evening while you were yet
there, and you were in the office when it was sent and you know all about it." He said, softening some▾
what, "Well, that let's me out of it then." I said to the audience, "That let's me out of it too; I didn't lie!"
My moderator then called to the presiding moderator to dismiss the people, saying that the debate for
that day was over and that such proceedings were altogether out of order. The president called out,
"Order! Order!" but the house was roaring with the confusion of voices. Williams yelled out so as to be
heard above the din, "I am going to preach here tonight on the operation of the Holy Spirit. Come out
and hear me, and I'll tell you just how it is, so help me God!" A woman back in the audience, who was
not a church member, screamed out, "You haven't any God!" Some one then pronounced the benedic▾
tion, though his words could not be understood for the uproar. Mr. McCullough, the merchant whose
name had been used publicly that day, went immediately to Mr. Denney and said that what he had said
about him that day was untrue, slanderous, and intended to injure his trade, and that he would have him
arrested if he didn't take it back and apologize for it. Mr. Denney began to beg his forgiveness, express▾
ing himself as sorry he had said anything about him. Mr. McCullough told him that he must apologize
for it publicly in his first speech the next day, or he would have him arrested. The next morning the
required confession and apology was made by Mr. Denney, and thus further trouble was averted. He was
more composed, but was still so stirred up that he could do but little in the way of effective arguments,
and so the debate closed with the Baptists feeling elated over its result. The anger of the Campbellites
and the insults offered by them were matters of deep regret and rendered the occasion unpleasant, but
that made it all the more apparent that they were on the wrong side and couldn't stand before the truth.
In all that confusion I did not lose my balance, and never felt calmer in my life than when lifting up the
glorious doctrine of grace amid the works of Babylon.



I arranged to attend the Sandusky Association, held with the Eagle Creek Church, Hancock County,
Ohio, beginning on Friday before the second Sunday in August, 1895. I agreed to go from there to Salem
Association, at Albion, Indiana, beginning on Wednesday following. Elder William Rupard, of Kentucky,
wrote me requesting me to be at the North District Association, at Lulbegrud Church, in Montgomery
Co., Ky., beginning on Friday before the fourth Sunday of the same month. I promised to do so, though I
did not know how I could travel so many miles in that month, as my financial tide was then at a low ebb.
When the time came to start to Ohio I had only money enough to take me there and back. So I told
my wife that I would go, and if they helped me so I could go to Albion, in Northern Indiana, I would do so,
and if they did not I would return home. I had made many a trip of faith, and so I ventured upon this one
with a full reliance upon the Lord. Elder George A. Bretz had promised to be at the Sandusky Associa▾
tion and accompany me back to Albion, which was then his place of residence. I went to the association
where I met Elder Bretz and many other worthy ministers, some of whom I had never seen before. The
Lord blessed me with liberty in preaching. Eagle Creek Church was near the home of Elder J. B. Smith.
I had been there before and had become much attached to him. The good brethren and sisters contribut▾
ed liberally to my financial aid, so that I was able to accompany Elder Bretz to his home at Albion on
Monday. I attended the Mt. Salem Association of Wednesday and Thursday. I was helped on my way by
liberal gifts. I returned to my regular meeting at Mt. Zion the next Saturday, and after the meeting on
Sunday I went home.
That night I went to Mount Tabor meeting house with my family where we witnessed the marriage of
my son John L. to Miss Effie A. Smith. The marriage ceremony was performed by Eld. James W. Shir▾
ley, who was pastor of Mt. Tabor Majority, or "Soft Shells" as they were then called. John L. was quite
young, not being nineteen, but he was securing a fine young woman for a wife, who was of a nice family,
and we could not object to the union. Her parents had gone with the Majority in the division though her
father was a brother of Eli Smith, the Clerk of the church, who was so established and formed such a
firm stake in the church. Effie had joined the Majority after the division, and was baptized by Elder W.
M. Benson. This was the reason that the marriage was performed at that meeting house and by a
preacher of that order. I advised John L. to let her have her choice in the matter, as I thought it was
The next week I took leave of my dear family and started on my way to Kentucky to attend the North
District Association. I arrived at Winchester, Ky., about eleven o'clock at night, and as no one seemed to
desire to make my acquaintance I went to a hotel and took lodging. I did not know who to enquire for. I
had only been directed to go to Winchester, and was not informed who would meet me. I was much
puzzled the next morning. The proprietor of the hotel did not know any of the Baptists, it seemed; at any
rate he could not tell me where any of them lived. I did not know how far it was out to the place where
the association was to meet, and did not even know the direction. I went to the post office and enquired
for Eld. J. J. Gilbert, as I knew that Winchester was his post office. I was told that he lived some distance
in the country, and that he would drive through there on his way to the association. That was some
relief to me, and still I felt uneasy for I feared I might not see him pass. Finally the postmaster pointed
out a man in the street, who, he said, was the son of R. P. Scobee, a Baptist who lived in the town. I was
taken to Brother Scobee's , where I met with a hearty reception. This dear brother had arranged for a
bus driver to bring me to his home if I came in on the train in the night, but the driver failed to do as he
had promised, so it was supposed I had not come.
I met Elder T. C. Williams at Brother Scobee's. We were conveyed to the association where I met, for
the first time, Eld. C. H. Waters, of Maryland and other precious ministers. After the association, I
preached at Liberty Church, in Estill Co., Cane Spring Church, in Madison Co., and Goshen Church, in
Clarke Co. I was greatly blessed on this tour, and was well received by the churches.
On the 23rd of November, 1895, my house was burned with all its contents except two chairs, one
stand table, and a picture album. It is supposed that it caught from a defective flue. My wife and I had
gone to Fayette that morning to deliver some turkeys which we had sold. We left our two youngest chil▾
dren at Brother Billy Smith's, the others being in school. On returning we went to Brother Smith's for
dinner. We had just set down to the table when a loud cry startled us. We ran out and saw that our
house was on fire. It was all aflame inside, and so we were compelled to stand by and see it reduced to
ashes with all its contents except the few articles above mentioned. All our best clothes were lost, and all
our provisions for the winter except our potatoes. Sister Smith threw her arms around my weeping wife
and said, "Sister Daily, you shall not want for a home while I have one." We went to Brother Smith's
where we enjoyed a hearty welcome for four months. The Lord alone can reward such kindness, and we
desire to praise him for having given us such friends in time of need.
I was then very poor. I had not succeeded at farming and debts had accumulated to the amount of
about two hundred dollars. Winter had set in, and I had nothing with which to support my dependent
family. Not one of us had a change of clothing, and what clothing we had was the poorest we had pos▾
sessed. Yet I was inexpressibly happy in the confident assurance I had that the Lord would take care of
me and my precious wife and children. My faith in Him was so strong that my heart leaped for joy. I
thought I just knew He would not forsake me, and I feared no evil. The rod and staff of my dear Shep▾
herd was my support and comfort. Over and over I sang these beautiful stanzas:

My times of sorrow and of joy,
Great God, are in thy hand;
My choicest comforts come from Thee,
And go at thy command.

If thou shouldst take them all away,
Yet would I not repine;
Before they were possessed by me,
They were entirely Thine.

Nor would I drop a murmuring word,
Though the whole world were gone;
But seek enduring happiness
In Thee and Thee alone.

The news of my great misfortune spread over the country with surprising rapidity. I was astonished
at the zeal manifested by the members and friends of my four churches, and at the liberality with which
they contributed to my assistance. A new suit of fine clothes was sent me by Brother Smith, a clothing
merchant of Lebanon, who was a brother to Brother Billy Smith. The sisters came in with dry goods and
made clothing for the children. Appeals were made for aid by Eld. R. W. Thompson, editor of the Primi▾
tive Monitor, and Eld. Lemuel Potter, editor of the Church Advocate, through their magazines, and as▾
sistance was sent from many parts of Indiana and from six other states. Clothing, bedding and dry goods
were brought in from the neighborhood and shipped to us in boxes from a distance, one large box coming
from Marlborough Church in Ohio, about two hundred miles away. My flying trips, just subsequently
made, proved a blessing. Financial aid was sent by the brethren and sisters in Kentucky, where I had
made only the one trip mentioned in this chapter.
Brother Billy Smith secured a carpenter at once to build me a new house. The brethren came and
helped us cut logs and haul them to the mill. I assisted in the building all I could. But the winter was so
severe and inclement that we could not get it ready to move into until March. All this time we lived with
Brother Smith in peace and love. I did not miss an appointment nor did my children miss a day of school
on account of the fire. I received renewed strength and preached with greater liberty than usual. I
learned in this trial the true value of friends and the great blessing of God's protecting and supporting
hand. I was enabled to pay off my debts and furnish my house with new furniture. The loss of my books
and papers, however, was one that could not be fully replaced, besides many highly prized articles which
had been gathered during our twenty years of housekeeping.




A boasting Campbellite of St. Louis, Mo., wrote a letter to Brother W. C. Frazee, one of the deacons of
Salem Church, challenging the church to put me up to debate with W. H. Williams at Clermont, and
wrote the same challenge in a letter to me. At the regular conference meeting of that church both letters
were read to the church, and I asked the brethren if I ought to meet that man again in public debate.
They decided that it would not be right to refuse under the circumstances, and urged me to accept the
challenge. It will be remembered that Clermont was the place of my first religious discussion. The breth▾
ren visited the Elders of the Campbellite Church in Clermont to ascertain if they were willing for the
debate to be held in their house, but they stoutly refused its use for that purpose. They said they did not
want any more debates there. My brethren promised to pay all expenses and stand good for all damages
but they said they would not submit to it under any circumstances. Our church, being one and one-half
miles from town, was too inconvenient, besides it was certain that the Campbellites would not attend it if
held there.
In the meantime I wrote to Atkisson, the challenger, insisting on his procuring an abler man than
Williams. He promised finally to get Mr. Treat to represent his side. Treat was an able defender of his
doctrine. He had held two discussions with Elder Potter and one with Elder R. W. Thompson. He saw
the latter at the dedication of the Campbellite church in Greenfield, and enquired of him about my abili▾
ty. Eld. Thompson gave me such a hearty endorsement and high commendation as a disputant that I
suppose he thought it best not to risk his reputation by engaging with me. It is likewise certain that his
experience with Elders Potter and Thompson was such as to satisfy his curiosity in that line of work. At
any rate he wrote to Atkisson a refusal to engage in the discussion, giving reasons which Atkisson would
not disclose. As no one else could be found who was willing to represent the Campbellite side, it was
again insisted that I should engage with Williams. I begged the challenger to excuse me, but he would
take no excuse. Williams secured the endorsement of a number of leading preachers of his order, and
also of the members of his church at Belle Union. My brethren thought it best not to have it in that
house, as they said it was small and would hold but few people. Some of them wrote me in that way, but
I had fully decided to go into the struggle even if I had to do so before an audience of Campbellites alone.
It was agreed that we debate six propositions, giving a day to each. The propositions were as follows:

I. The Bible teaches that sinners are regenerated by means of the gospel - the spoken or written word.

II. The Bible teaches the total depravity of all mankind in a natural or unregenerated state.

III. Reason and the Bible teach that man is a free moral agent, endowed with power and free volition
of will to come to Christ and obtain eternal salvation by the performance of certain conditions.

IV. The Bible teaches that God chooses or elects all his children to salvation or eternal life, prior to
any act of obedience on their part as a condition.

V. The Bible teaches that water baptism to the believing penitent is for the remission of sins in the
sense that it is a condition of pardon.

VI. The Bible teaches that all who are regenerated and born again in time will be saved in eternity.

Eld. D. T. Poynter was my moderator, and E. G. Denney was moderator on behalf of Williams. The
discussion was held in the Mill Creek Primitive Baptist Church, near Belle Union, the Baptists deciding
they would prefer that house as it was so much larger than the Campbellite house. The debate opened
on Tuesday, December 17, 1895, and closed Sunday following.

My house and contents having been consumed by fire a short time before, my library was lost with all
my former manuscripts and preparations. As I was very busy up to that time, I had made but little
preparation. Miss Emma Combs was sent there to take down the debate for "The Miner", a weekly
newspaper published at Brazil. She was out of practice, however, and we spoke so rapidly that she could
not get the speeches in full. What she did get was printed in "The Miner", but it was so incomplete as to
render it very unsatisfactory.
I will relate one circumstance connected with this debate. On the day that we were debating the
question of baptism, I remarked that the Campbellite theory of Baptism was not found in the Bible, and
could only be found in the Campbellite creed. At this Mr. Denney sprang to his feet shouting, "Sit down,
Sir! Sit down!" I calmly took my seat, requesting my moderator to mark my time. Denney, in tones that
indicated intense excitement, said, "What do you mean by our creed?" I replied, "I mean that false doc▾
trine you advocate." He then faced the audience and began to speak in favor of their side of the question.
I interrupted him by saying, "Mr. Denney if you think that Mr. Williams is insufficient, wait till we are
through and I will debate with you again." He said, "All right, sir; name your time and I'll meet you." I
said, "Mr. Denney I would much prefer to meet an abler man than you. Your people have abler men."
He exclaimed in a loud voice, "I can furnish all the recommendations you want, sir." I pointed to Wil▾
liams and said, "I have found by sad experience that your people will endorse anything." At this the
audience set up a shout and would not allow Denney to speak, though he turned and attempted to do so.
I then arose to speak and perfect order was restored. The debate proceeded without further interrup▾
tion to its close on Sunday afternoon. That was the last of my experience in debating with the Campbel▾
lites to date, and I have not heard of one that I engaged with ever having another discussion. The Bap▾
tists have had other challenges from them, and engaged me to defend the cause, but when the test came
the challenging party backed down. An arrangement to debate with the United Brethren denomination,
in Benton Co., Ind., terminated in the same way. A bishop of that order, who resided in Dayton, Ohio,
had been selected by his people in the above named county to engage with me in a three day's discussion
in their own church. Three propositions were agreed upon and the the time was set. I went, but the U.
B. Bishop failed to put in an appearance, and I preached two days and nights in their church with great
liberty. I proclaimed our doctrine in as kind a manner as I could, carefully avoiding the use of any offen▾
sive language. I was treated with great respect by them and all among the large audiences that attended
these services. Brother J. L. Foster lived there. He was the principal agent on the Baptist side in the
affair, and hospitably entertained all on our side who went to hear the discussion and remained to attend
the meetings. My opponent was expected by his brethren until the evening of the first day and they
received no word from him while I was there. I never learned whether he ever let them know why he
failed to put in his appearance at the time agreed upon.
In the summer of 1896 quite a stir was created at Cincinnati, Greene Co., Ind., by George H. Cramer.
He was a leader of a sect that called themselves "Pentecostians" or "Free-gospelites." He resided at
Martinsville and was editor and publisher of their paper entitled "The Free Gospel Advocate." He advo▾
cated the theory that Christ did not organize any visible church, that the only church He has on earth is a
general one that embraces all believers, and that all the denominations are of human origin, including
the Old Baptists of course. He taught that there are now no church ordinances required to be observed;
that Baptism and the Lord's Supper were Jewish ordinances which were blotted out and nailed to the
cross when he was crucified.
Mr. Cramer had held a number of discussions. At Cincinnati he had succeeded in getting quite a large
following, some from the various denominations around having flocked to his standard. He was quite a
boaster and boldly challenged the whole world to debate with him, including the Old Baptists with the
others. Eld. P. T. Oliphant, who was also a practicing physician, lived near. His church, Union, was
situated not far away in the edge of Monroe County. The Baptist brethren consulted over the matter and
decided to accept Cramer's challenge, and selected me to represent them in a discussion with that defiant
boaster. Eld. Oliphant wrote and informed me of the decision of the members of his church and urged
me to accept the call. I decided to do so, and after a short correspondence with Mr. Cramer it was agreed
that we would debate the following proposition four days, which placed Mr. Cramer in the affirmative
during the entire four days:
The Scriptures teach that Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper were Jewish ordinances, which were
blotted out and nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ.
The followers of Cramer bore all the expense of preparing for the discussion, and became very anxious
for it to come off. They seemed to entertain some fears that I would fail to show up at the time agreed
upon, and a letter was sent me signed by several of them, in which they urged me not to back out, prom▾
ising to pay my expenses to and from the place if Mr. Cramer did not meet me there. I paid no attention
to this, but when the time came, in the month of September of that year, I was there. I selected Eld. P. T.
Oliphant to serve me as my moderator, whose able assistance contributed much to the success of the
I will give Mr. Cramer's principal arguments in a condensed form to show what peculiar ideas he held
and what passages he relied upon to prove his positions.

I. The old covenant had divers baptisms, Heb. 9:8-10 & Heb. 6:1-2.

In reply I denied that the divers washings and carnal ordinances referred to in Heb. 9:10, and the
baptisms spoken of in Heb. 6:2, were acts of one person baptizing another, and challenged him to show,
by sacred or profane history, that it was the common custom of the Jews to administer baptism as John

II. Water baptism was a part of the old covenant law, Lev. 11:29-32, & Num. 31:21-24.
I argued in reply that under the old covenant law no one but the priests had authority to administer
the rite or ceremony of purification, Neh. 12:30. Where there were priests under the law to officiate, not
even Jesus could do so, because he was not of the tribe of Levi, Heb. 8:4. Jesus said, "Take my yoke
upon you....for my yoke is easy and my burden is light," promising rest in doing so. Under the yoke of
Jewish ceremonies they grew tired; under the yoke of Christ they rest. If John had been administering
an old Jewish rite, the Scribes and Pharisees would not have left Jerusalem, where they could have
received that rite at the hands of their priests, and gone out to John in the wilderness and asked him to
baptize them.

III. John was the first prophet sent especially from God to baptize with water, to make Jesus manifest
unto Israel or the Jews. But the handwriting of carnal ordinances was blotted out by the death of Christ,
Col. 2:14-15 & Eph. 2:11-15. John's mission was properly ended when he had baptized Jesus and thus
introduced him to the Jews by his fulfilling the law of baptism, John 1:33-34 and Matt. 3:15.

I denied that fulfilling righteousness, in Matt. 3:15, means observing Jewish rites and fulfilling them.
I read Dr. Griesbach's translation of that text which is as follows: "Permit it now; for thus it is becoming
to us to establish every ordinance." The word "righteousness" in this text is from the Greek dikaiosune,
which is usually translated righteousness, but which may be translated ordinance as it is in this text by
Dr. Griesbach. "Fulfill" is from the Greek plerosia (plerosoo), which the same learned Dr. translates
supply. This is one definition given by Dr. Parkhurst. Thus Jesus supplied an ordinance by giving it his
own sanction and setting an example to be imitated by all his followers.

IV. The law of purification by water baptism as a sign of repentance which John's disciples and the
Jews disputed about, was to decrease, while Christ and his new covenant law was to increase, John 3:25-
30. He argued from this that John's baptism belonged to the old Jewish economy and not to the new
covenant dispensation.

In reply I showed that Jesus baptized, or had it administered, reading John 3:22-23, and John 4:1, and
argued that John the Baptist did not say that his ordinance and service should decrease while that of
Jesus should increase, but that he said that he should decrease and Jesus increase.

V. John promised every Jew he baptized with water the baptism of the Spirit not many days hence,
Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and Acts 1:4-5. He argued that water baptism, as contrasted with the
baptism of the Spirit in these scriptures, was a part of the old covenant law and a type of the Holy Ghost

In replying to this I showed that the baptism of the Holy Ghost as prophesied of by Joel (Joel 2:28-31)
and fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4 and 16-20), was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a
peculiar sense, by which the disciples were enabled to speak with tongues, work miracles &c., and that it
was a seal or token of divine authority conferred upon the disciples as shown in Eph. 1:13-14, compared
with Acts 19:1-6.

VI. John's baptism was good enough for Jesus and the thousands of Jews before Pentecost, and Peter
preached the same things as John. Peter promised to everyone Holy Ghost baptism at Pentecost exactly
as John did at Jordan, but they must all obey the law of purification first, because every part of the law,
even circumcision, was running in full force for many years after Pentecost, simply because none of the
Apostles knew that these things had been nailed to the cross.

I offered this reductio ad absurdum: Baptism had been nailed to the cross and thus blotted out, so that
it was no longer binding upon the disciples, but their great ignorance of that fact made it necessary for
them to administer that ordinance and made it necessary for the people to obey it. Peter's discourse on
the day of Pentecost taught baptism to the penitent Jews, and the one preached at the house of Cornelius
taught the same thing to the Gentiles, and these discourses form a part of the inspired word of God, yet
baptism had been blotted out and nailed to the cross of Christ! What shameful ignorance!

VII. John's baptism was still running among the Jews twenty-three years after Pentecost, A. D. 56,
when Paul planted the church at Ephesus; see Acts 19:3, and 18:25. Apollos had known only the baptism
of John, but was instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly. Also the disciples mentioned in Acts
19 had been baptized unto John's baptism. Mr. Cramer urged that these facts proved that the baptism of
John was a Jewish ordinance, which was blotted out by Christ on the cross.

We showed that the twelve disciples mentioned in Acts 19 were Gentiles, and that in the same year
(56) Paul baptized both Jews and Gentiles at Corinth. See 18th chapter of Acts. In the year 52 the apos▾
tles and elders came together at Jerusalem to decide whether Jewish rites were binding upon the Gentile
believers. It is said that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the apostles that Jewish ordinances were
not to be administered to the Gentiles. As Paul afterwards administered baptism to the Gentiles it is
clear that he did not regard baptism as a Jewish ordinance.

VIII. John's baptism was in the name of Jesus, because they must be baptized into the name of the
one whom they believed into; hence in every instance where the scriptures tell us what name was used in
water baptism it is simply the Lord or Lord Jesus, as follows: Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts
19:5. As baptism was to be in the name of the Lord Jesus where water baptism is referred to, and as the
baptism spoken of in Matt. 28:19 was to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it follows
that in that passage water baptism is not meant, but Holy Ghost baptism.

I argued that to baptize in the name of either one of the Trinity was equivalent to baptizing in the
name of all three, for these three are one, besides when it is said that baptism was performed in the
name of Jesus Christ it does not signify that it was not performed in the name of the Father and Holy
Spirit also. If the baptism mentioned in the commission was Holy Ghost baptism, and this came through
teaching, as Mr. Cramer had argued, then the baptism would have preceded believing; but baptism was
to follow believing, for Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized." Therefore the baptism mentioned
in the commission was water baptism and not Holy Ghost baptism. In that commission the same ones
were commanded to do the baptizing that were commanded to do the teaching. The apostles could not
baptize with the Holy Ghost. Therefore the baptism mentioned was not Holy Ghost baptism but water
baptism. As Jesus commanded his disciples to go into all the world and baptize, and as they could bap▾
tize with water only, water baptism was not abrogated by him on the cross.

IX. There never was any water baptism commanded of God but John's, and he was the only one who
ever received the direct commission from God to baptize with water. See John 1:33. After that any of
John's and Christ's disciples could baptize without any special commission because it was a part of the
Jewish law of ceremonies, yet in force, and all the ceremonies of the law were being practiced in the year
60 A. D. Acts 21:25.

I asked him why John had to have a special commission to baptize when the disciples of John and
Christ could baptize without a commission. No answer was given.

X. Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. I. Cor. 1:12-17.

This does not prove that Paul had no right or authority to baptize, for he says he did baptize Crispus
and Gaius and the household of Stephanus. He baptized these after the council at Jerusalem had set the
Jewish ordinances aside as not binding on the Gentiles.

XI. Paul withstood Peter to the face for baptizing Gentiles under the law. See Gal. 2:11-18.

I denied that baptism was referred to in the passage quoted, and sustained my denial by reading the

XII. Baptism as a part of the law was practiced among the Jews for thirty years after Pentecost the
same as circumcision, &c.
These were all law customs and extended by practice among the Jews for thirty years. Every Jew who
was circumcised was a debtor to keep the whole law. No instructions were given by revelation directly
from God stating that all the law of fleshly rites was nailed to the cross and thereby abolished until the
year 64, when Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians and the one to the Collosians. See Eph. 2:15, and
Col. 2:14.

I admitted that circumcision and other Jewish rites were in practice among the Jews, but denied that
baptism was a part of the Jewish law. I showed that not only were the Jews baptized, but that the Gen▾
tiles were also, and that after the council at Jerusalem had decided that the Jewish rites were not binding
on the Gentiles.
It will be remembered that the proposition embraced baptism and the Lord's supper. Mr. Cramer
devoted all of three days to the discussion of baptism and nearly half the fourth day. He repeated the
arguments given above over and over as I answered them, trying to make them stand before his audi▾
ence. I will now give my principal negative arguments.

I. No one, from Moses down to Christ, ever administered a Jewish rite in his own name or in the
name of any other person. If Paul had been administering an old Jewish rite when he baptized the
Gentiles at Corinth, would he have feared that they might think he had baptized in his own name? The
decision of the council at Jerusalem, in the year 54, declared the Jewish rites not binding on the Gentiles.
After this Paul baptized Gentiles at Corinth, and the twelve disciples of Apollos were baptized at Ephe▾
sus. Acts 18:8, and 19:5. Therefore baptism was not a Jewish rite.

II. Christ had promised that the Spirit of truth should guide the disciples into all truth when he came.
See John 16:13-14, and 14:26, compared with Acts 1:1-4, and 37-38. The Holy Spirit came upon the
disciples on the day of Pentecost. It would not have led them to practice a Jewish ordinance that had
been abrogated by Christ on the cross. Therefore baptism was not a Jewish rite.

III. Peter baptized Cornelius and his household. Acts 10:47-48. The Lord was here introducing the
gospel to the Gentiles. It was very important that it should be introduced right. The angel told Cornelius
to send for Peter and he would tell him what to do. The Lord directed Peter in a vision to go. The Spirit
would not have directed Peter to preach baptism to Cornelius if it had been a Jewish ordinance. There▾
fore baptism was not a Jewish ordinance.

IV. Spiritual baptism in regeneration brings us into Christ, after which we are to be buried with him
as a figure. Rom 6:3-4 and 1 Peter 3:21.

V. Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize people of all nations when he gave the commission to
them, which he would not have done had he blotted out baptism on the cross. Therefore baptism was
not a Jewish ordinance, blotted out and nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ.

VI. Water baptism was not a Jewish purification.

1. John's baptism was not a Jewish purification, for the priests alone could administer an ordinance
of that kind. Neh. 12:30. Not even Christ himself could officiate in offering gifts according to the law.
Heb. 8:4.

2. It was not a Jewish purification, for Jesus was holy and needed no such rite. A rite of purification
was a confession of guilt.

3. Repentance was a prerequisite to baptism but not to Jewish purification. Matt. 3:7-8.

4. Faith in Christ was a prerequisite to baptism but not to Jewish purification. Mark 16:16, Acts 8:37,
Acts 18:8, Acts 8:12.

5. The question asked by the Jews shows that it was not a Jewish purification. John 1:21.

6. There arose a dispute between John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. John 3:25. If John's
baptism had been Jewish purification there could have been no dispute over it, for his disciples could
have told them that it was an old Jewish rite and they would have understood it.

If John and Jesus were both administering an old Jewish rite, why should John say, "He must in▾
crease, but I must decrease."

8. The word purify is from the Greek catharizo, while the Greek for baptism is baptizo, and these two
words are found in the same connection in John 3:25-26. Two words of entirely different meaning would
not be used to describe the same ordinance.

9. The Pharisees and Sadducees went twenty-six miles into the wilderness to be baptized by John. If
baptism had been an old Jewish ordinance they would not have gone out there to receive it, for they
could have received it in Jerusalem at their own temple.

10. The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves being not baptized of
John. Luke 7:30. Being so zealous in adhering to the law and traditions, they would not have refused to
submit to baptism had it been one of the old Jewish rites.

11. Jewish purification was for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but Peter teaches that bap▾
tism is not for that purpose. I Pet. 3:21.

VII. The Jews were expecting a new order of things to be set up. They were expecting God to set up
the new kingdom prophesied of by Daniel, and were looking for the Lawgiver promised by Moses - the
Shiloh mentioned by Jacob - to make his appearance. Their expectations were intensified when John
came baptizing in the wilderness, which would not have been the case had he been administering an old

VIII. Jewish ordinances were never administered in the name of Christ.

Water baptism was administered in the name of Christ.

Therefore water baptism was not a Jewish ordinance.

These are not all the arguments offered on this part of the proposition, but I have given the principal
ones. We expected Mr. Cramer to devote two days to each point, but he was not ready to leave the ques▾
tion of baptism at the close of the third day. He tried repeatedly to fix up each argument as I tore it
down, so that the work of the third day was mostly repetitions of arguments already gone over. On the
morning of the fourth day he attempted a recapitulation of his arguments and made a strong effort to
regain the ground he had lost. I replied to that speech in a few minutes of my time, and devoted the
remainder to some new negative arguments. These required his notice in his next speech, so he only had
a part of that speech and two more speeches to notice the Lord's Supper. His main argument on that
point was that the Saviour and his apostles ate the Passover only in the upper room. He contended that
there was no other supper eaten by them or described in the New Testament. We proved that two
suppers were eaten, and that Paul in the 11th chapter of 1 Cor., referred to the Lord's Supper and not
the Passover. We will give a few of our negative arguments.

1. The Passover was eaten by families, Ex. 12:3.

The Lord's Supper was eaten without any regard to family relation, I. Cor. 11:17-22.

Therefore the Lord's Supper was not the Passover.

II. The Passover was observed in remembrance of that night in Egypt when the angel of death passed
over the houses of the Israelites and spared their first born.

The Lord's Supper was to be observed in remembrance of Jesus.

Therefore the Lord's Supper was not the Passover.

III. The Passover was an Old Testament or covenant ordinance.

The Lord's Supper was a New Testament ordinance, Mark 14:21; I Cor. 11:25, and Matt. 26:28.

Therefore the Lord's Supper was not the Passover.

IV. Paul received a direct revelation from God how Jesus administered the Lord's Supper; but if it
had been the old Jewish Passover he would have needed no such revelation, for he undoubtedly under▾
stood the ordinances of his own nation. I Cor. 11:23.

V. Paul delivered instructions which he had received by revelation concerning the Lord's Supper to
the Gentile church at Corinth in the year 59, while the Jewish rites and ordinances had been declared
not binding on the Gentiles by the council at Jerusalem in the year 52. Therefore the Lord's Supper was
not the Passover.

VI. The Passover contained a lamb.

The Lord's Supper described by Paul contained no lamb.

Therefore the Lord's Supper was not the Passover.

I have not intended to give even a synopsis of this debate, but have given only a few of the leading
arguments to show the strange positions taken by this leader. The discussion was a great triumph of
truth over false teaching, and the victory was accorded to our side by the large audience that attended.
At the close my Moderator, Eld. P. T. Oliphant, asked all who considered me victorious to come and give
me their hands. The eager rush of the people attested to the public sentiment in no mistaken manner.
The debate crippled Mr. Cramer's influence in that locality, in fact almost destroyed it.



During the years 1896 and 1897 I served the four churches I had been serving for some time, Abner's
Creek, Mt. Tabor, Mt. Zion and Salem. At the close of the latter year I was called by the same churches.
I had made such poor success at farming that I saw I would be compelled to give up that occupation, and I
thought of returning to my old occupation - teaching the next fall, if I did not succeed better at farming.
This I did not want to do, for since I had given it up I felt no desire to take it up again. I was sure I could
not carry that work and preach for four churches, as teaching required so much more labor than it had
required that I knew I could not carry it and preach every Saturday and Sunday. So I decided that if I
had to go back to that work I would resign all my charges but the one in the neighborhood of any school I
might be able to procure. I also thought some of locating closer to Indianapolis, and engaging in garden▾
ing and raising poultry.
While in this undecided state of mind, I received a letter from Brother John W. Grove, of Luray, Va.,
asking me to move to that country and take charge of Zion's Advocate as its Editor and Publisher. Eld. T.
S. Dalton, its last Editor, had given it up and had moved to Illinois. Four churches in Virginia had thus
been left destitute of any pastor, and I was asked to take charge of them and the magazine. Eld. Geo. A.
Bretz had been asked to take the place and had promised to do so, as he had been there on a visit and the
people were well pleased with him, but when the test came one of his churches in Indiana persuaded him
to abandon the idea. He recommended me as a suitable person to take the place, and it was on his
recommendation that Brother Grove wrote to me. I was at once pleased with the opening, for I had really
wanted to engage in editorial work, but I so doubted my competency and felt that I was so poor in this
world's goods, and thought my ability as a preacher was not what it should be to occupy such a position.
In answering Brother Grove I told him I greatly doubted my competency for the place he had invited me
to take, told him that I was a very poor man, had a large family, and was sure my brethren had greatly
overestimated me as a preacher. I thought this letter might end the matter, but I soon received another
from him stating that he had shown my letter to representative members of the churches that wanted a
preacher, and that they all had united in saying for me to come. I then began to consider it more serious▾
ly. It seemed like a good opportunity for me to escape the drudgery of the schoolroom which I so much
dreaded, dreading it all the more because I knew it would take me from my ministerial work to a large
extent. In answering Brother Grove again I told him I would not think of locating there without first
visiting the churches. He agreed that that was the better course, and made appointments for me in the
month of May, of that year (1898).
I left my home for that tour the 30th day of April. I went to New Bethel Church, in Fayette Co., Ind.,
where I preached the next day (Saturday) and twice on Sunday. Going by way of Cincinnati and Park▾
ersburg, I reached Great Cacapon, West Va., Tuesday morning. Eld. T. N. Alderton met me at the train
and took me to his home in that town. I had never met him before but I loved him at once, recognizing in
him a sincere and devoted minister of the gospel of Christ. I spent the day very pleasantly with him at
his home, and preached in his church at night. The next day he and I started to Luray, where we arrived
that evening. We were met by Brother J. W. Grove with whom we spent the night. I preached that night
my first sermon in the Old Baptist Church in Luray (Thursday, May 5th). Friday, Saturday and Sunday
I attended the Union Meeting at Mill Creek Church, two and a half miles from Luray. On Monday night
I preached again at the church in Luray. On Tuesday, I preached at Hawksbill Church, on Wednesday at
Alma, on Thursday at Naked Creek, and returned to Stanleyton on Friday, where I witnessed the death
of an aged brother, Samuel Varner. The family requested me to preach the funeral the next day, which I
consented to do. As some of the family had gone with Eld. Burnham in the same unpleasant division
that had taken place in Indiana, it was requested that Burnham take part also, to which I readily con▾
sented. The next day was the regular meeting of the church in Luray. I was present with Eld. R. T.
Strickler and preached. After preaching the church went into the call of a pastor, and I was unanimously
chosen. I declined to accept at that time, but told them that I had decided to locate there, and would
answer them when I came. I preached the funeral of Brother Varner at Hawksbill Church that after▾
noon, Eld. Burnham assisting according to request. I preached that night and the next day and night at
Luray. I left on Monday for home, reaching there on Tuesday evening. I told my family I had decided to
locate in Virginia, all of them seeming to be delighted with the idea of changing to another state.
As for me, this was a matter of serious thought. I had baptized a great many in the churches I was
serving, and had become so attached to all the brethren and sisters that I realized that it would be a great
task to break loose from them so suddenly. The days I spent on my tour in Virginia were days of unre▾
mitting struggle to me. To decide to make the change was one of the most difficult problems that had
ever confronted me. I just could not know what was right, and so I weighed the matter over and over,
trying to look on all sides of the question. I think if I ever sought to know the Lord's will I sought to
know it in this case. My decision was reached only after the most ardent wrestling of soul I had ever
experienced. When I reached the decision I felt relieved, and I fully determined to carry out the plans
that my mind framed, the steps thus taken being one of faith and not of sight. My name first appeared in
the June number of Zion's Advocate as its Editor and Publisher. My first editorial is here given.


Under a realizing sense of our unworthiness, and greatly distrusting our competency, we have con▾
sented to accept the responsible position of Editor and Publisher of Zion's Advocate. In assuming the
responsibilities of this new position, we trust we are actuated by a sincere desire to glorify the precious
name of our divine Master, and to edify and comfort his dear children. Any service rendered to the Lord,
to be acceptable, must be unselfish. His penetrating eye looks through the surface of all our actions, and
sees the very motive that prompts us. If we have in view our own promotion and glory, we may rest
assured that our service is displeasing to him. Desiring to be prompted by disinterested love, and to be
clothed with the garment of humility, we now enter upon the work before us, praying that God may bless
our feeble efforts to the good of His cause and the glory of His name.
In our attempts to step along the pathway of duty, we have desired to keep this great and noble end in
view. We have no idea that anything we may say, or write, or do, will result in the eternal salvation of a
single sinner, or exalt us to the right hand of God. His grace alone can save poor sinners like we are, and
not one particle of glory of this salvation will ever belong to mortals:

"Grace all the work shall crown
Through everlasting days;
It lays in heaven the topmost stone,
And well deserves the praise."

Zion's Advocate is a magazine dear to the hearts of many of the Lord's children. To hundreds of them
it has long been a precious, welcome visitor. The name of its founder, Eld. John Clark, is still a house▾
hold word in many homes. We hope to continue to make it what its name imports and what its respected
and beloved founder intended it to be - an advocate of the cause of Zion. To this end it is our purpose to
contend with earnest and unabating zeal for the long cherished Abstracts of Principles found on the
second page of its cover. These we believe to be taught in God's word, and confirmed in the life and
experience of all His heaven-born children. The self existing, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omniscient character of Jehovah, with His eternal perfections, is the unshaken support of all his fore▾
known, chosen and redeemed family. In this everlasting and neverfailing rock they find a shelter and a
support that defies the combined powers of existing foes. This to them is a refuge amid the tempest, a
security against the scorching flames. This is the inexhaustible source of all their supplies, and the rich
fountain of all their comfort.
Such is our God, who has been pleased to give us by inspiration the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as a standard of faith. This teaches us all we ought to know, or believe, or practice religious▾
ly. Being thorough in its instructions it is the only infallibly correct book that has ever been written. As
it furnishes us with all good works, whatever we practice religiously not found in it, cannot be reckoned
in the catalogue of such works. As it is the only standard of our faith, anything we believe not contained
in its teachings, is erroneous. In conducting Zion's Advocate we propose to keep these important facts
constantly in view, for we are sure that this course only will tend toward drawing the Lord's children
together, and building them up in our most holy faith. We desire to make this paper a blessing to the
cause of our beloved Zion, and wish to avoid publishing anything that will sow the seeds of discord and
produce confusion. It will not be, therefore, the organ of those heretical doctrines that have disturbed
the peace of God's people, prominent among which is the "Absolute Predestination of all Things" in the
sense that God has predestinated wickedness just as he has the good that results from his own doings.
That doctrine we do not believe, and the only reference allowed to be made to it will be the exposition of
its fallacy. Whatever is so difficult to explain that few if any of God's children can understand it, had
better be omitted entirely, as a paper of this kind is designed to benefit them, and nothing can benefit
them that cannot be explained or understood.
We urgently solicit our readers to write for publication in the pages of our Advocate, thus aiding us to
make it a welcome visitor to all our homes. The evidences of Christianity as taught in Christian experi▾
ence is especially desirable as reading matter, while your views upon the teaching of God's word, when in
harmony with the general tenor of the same, will be gladly accepted. If you wish your manuscripts
returned please enclose stamps for that purpose.
Finally pray for us that grace may be given to enable us to unfurl the banner of truth to the joy and
consolation of the precious saints of God, and the glory of His adorable name.



In September, 1895, some Baptist brethren, of Carroll County, Indiana, were at my Association and
told me that the Universalists of their county were challenging the Old Baptists for a discussion, and they
said they wanted me to meet them. I refused to do so, assigning as my reason that I did not think a
debate with them was at all necessary. The next September, they came to me with the same request, but
I again refused. The next year they insisted still stronger, reporting that the Universalists had become so
boisterous that nothing would do them but a debate, and they said I was their choice but if I would not
defend them they would call on some other one of our preachers to do so. I then told them that if the
Universalists would not be satisfied without a debate I would meet them. I requested them to tell the
Universalists to select the best man they had and have him write to me, as I would not waste time in
corresponding with anyone except my opponent in the proposed discussion. Mr. T. E. Ballard, of Craw▾
fordsville, was chosen by them, and after a brief correspondence we agreed to two propositions to be
discussed two days each. At Mr. Ballard's request the debate was postponed until the following June.
When the time came, my son Harvey and I drove in a buggy to the place, a nice grove in Carroll
County, where preparations had been made by the Universalists. The debate opened May 31, 1898, and
lasted till June 3d. inclusive. The first two days we debated the following proposition: The scriptures
teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of the dead of the Adamic race, some of them to
endless life and some to endless punishment.
I will give a brief synopsis of this debate as published in Zion's Advocate soon after I became its editor.
The first speech is almost as it was delivered, but the others are given only in brief outline.


Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: - In opening the discussion to which I am now commit▾
ted, I beg leave to offer a few remarks relative to myself, and I trust, in doing so, no one will think that I
am departing from the proprieties due this occasion. I have never regarded myself as possessing that
peculiar gift or talent necessary to qualify one to engage in public debates. To conduct discussions of this
kind successfully requires a mind characterized by the power of ready comparison, quick apprehension,
and close discrimination, together with that facility of expression that would enable one to present his
thoughts in a free and forcible manner. These qualifications I am sure I do not possess to the extent that
a successful debater should, but my weakness in these respects is fully compensated by the strength of
my cause, and so I enter this debate fearlessly, without any disposition to shrink from the responsibilities
of the position I have assumed. In engaging in discussions of this kind I do so in opposition to the notion
of some of my best and most valued friends whose opinions I am bound to respect. They think that such
discussions are unprofitable, and I confess that I have had doubts myself in regard to their propriety. I
am sure that unless they can be properly conducted they had better not be held at all. My mind is set at
ease, however, and my sense of duty enables me to rise superior to the judgment of friends, when I
remember that Jesus did not hesitate to dispute with the Scribes and Pharisees, and thus expose their
fallacies in the hearing of the people, and that Paul disputed with the Jews and Greeks.
There are some considerations that render this occasion one of pleasure to me. It is a pleasure to me
to believe that I appear before an audience of candid persons who have come here to learn what is the
truth relative to the questions in dispute. It is also a source of pleasure to me that we have been able to
secure the services of the gentlemen who are to act as our moderators. I have the utmost confidence in
their intelligence and believe that the whole business of this debate, so far as they are responsible for its
conduct, will be carried on to the satisfaction of all parties. It is also a source of great pleasure to meet as
an opponent, Mr. T. E. Ballard of Crawfordsville, the acknowledged champion of Universalism of this
county. His ability is admitted by all to be of a superior order, and if his cause is not sustained in this
debate it will not be because of the weakness of the man chosen to sustain it.
I shall now proceed to define the terms of my proposition. By the term Scripture I mean the revealed
word of God, including the Old and New Testaments; the sacred canon containing the books found in the
translation of King James. This is to be my only source of direct proof. While I may draw arguments
from other sources, and occasionally refer to the opinions of men for the sake of argument, yet for proof
of my positions I propose to rely solely upon the sacred word of God. By the term "general resurrection" I
mean the bringing to life that which had died; the raising up from a state of death the very thing that had
gone down in death. By the term "bodies of all the dead" I mean the material bodies; that which God had
created of the dust, into which he breathed the breath of life; and all these visible, tangible bodies that
shall have died will be raised according to the preceding definition. By the term "Adamic Race" I mean
the progeny of Adam in contradistinction of the brute creation. By the expression "Some to endless life" I
mean that in a future state they shall be made spiritual like Christ the second Adam, and that they will
then possess a holy and spiritual life in a glorified state that shall never end. By the term "endless pun▾
ishment" I mean punishment that will never cease. As to the nature of the life or punishment I shall
have nothing to say as that is no part of the issue. The issue is whether or not they will be raised to
endless punishment, and that they will is what I am to affirm and what he is to deny. This punishment
is expressed in the Scriptures by various terms, such as contempt, punishment and death.> The term death, when thus employed, I understand to signify sepa▾
ration from God and from holiness, and not destitution of vitality. I shall argue that this state will be one
of wretchedness and misery that will never end. In thus plainly and boldly defining the terms of my
proposition, I throw myself frankly and fearlessly upon its merits to sustain me. If the Bible does not
teach what is stated by the terms of this proposition, I wish to know it. If it is true we all ought to believe
it; if false, none ought to believe it.
As an introduction to my regular line of argument, I propose to show that man proper, the man of the
Bible, is the natural, earthly man that God created in His own image and in His own likeness; that even
those recognized as God's children were thus created of the dust of the ground; that the only people that
inhabit this earth are Adam and his progeny, the beings thus formed who are called earthly; that man
thus formed received the law and transgressed it; that it is this earthly man who has thus become a
sinner, that dies, having involved his entire posterity in sin and death; that in order to have a resurrec▾
tion there must first be a death; and that such resurrection means raising up from the dead the very man
that had died.

1--Man proper, the man spoken of and addressed in the Bible, is the natural, earthly man. In proof of
this read the passages: Gen. 2:7; I Cor. 15:45-47; Gen. 3:19; Gen. 5:1-2; and Gen. 1:26-28. These passages
show that the first man was natural, of the earth, earthly, and was made of the dust.

2--Even those recognized in the Scriptures as the children of God were thus created of the dust of the
ground. In proof of this I ask your attention to Isa. 64:8-9; Job. 33:4-6; and Job 10:8-9.

3--The only people that inhabit this earth are Adam and his progeny, the beings thus formed who are
called earthly. Acts 17:24-26.

4--It is this earthly man that has received the law and transgressed it, and dies as a result of his trans▾
gression. Ps. 103: 4-16; Job 21:32,33; Job 14:10; and Eccl. 1:3-4.

5--The earthly Adam involved his own posterity in sin and death by his transgression, as a result of
which they all die. Rom. 6:23; I Cor. 15:21; and Rom. 5:12.

6--Resurrection to life signifies a pre-existing state of death, and that the very thing raised had been in
a state of death. The death of the body is a separation of the spirit from the body. Eccl. 12:6-7.

7--In this separation the Spirit does not die but the body does. James 2:26. As it is the body that dies it
follows that it is the body that is resurrected if there be any resurrection. In explaining the nature of the
resurrection Paul says in I Cor. 15:36: "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."
It is here clearly taught that death is absolutely necessary to a resurrection and that no creature or being
can be resurrected except it first die, and that the thing that is thus quickened is the very thing that had

I now present the foregoing arguments and proofs in a syllogistic form, and wish my opponent to
notice it:

1--In the resurrection the thing that had died is quickened or made alive.

2--In the separation of the spirit from the body at death, it is the body, and not the spirit, that dies.

3--Therefore the body is quickened or raised to life in the

To meet this argument and overthrow the conclusion my opponent will be required to prove one or
both of the premises false.

If he admits any resurrection at all I confess I do not see how he can meet this argument.

To present this in a form that will approach more nearly the language of the first part of my proposi▾
tion, I submit another syllogism:

1--Resurrection is the revival or raising up into life of the dead of the Adamic race.

2--The bodies only of the Adamic race lie in a state of death after the separation of the spirit from the

3--Therefore resurrection is the revival or raising up into life of the bodies of the dead of the Adamic

It follows from these arguments that if I succeed in proving a general resurrection, I shall succeed in
proving that the bodies of the dead will be raised.

ARGUMENT I. My first argument in proof of the general resurrection is that the inspired writers
directly and positively assert that doctrine in the Old Testament. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:1-2; Hosea 13:14;
Ps. 17:15; Job 19:23-27. The last passage proves that, after the body is destroyed by worms, we shall see
God in our flesh. This establishes the resurrection of the body beyond successful disputation.

ARGUMENT II. My second argument in support of this part of my proposition is that the Jews
generally believed in the resurrection which further confirms my first argument that the doctrine is
taught in the Old Testament. Matt. 14:1-2; John 11:23-24. The fact that Martha believed in a resurrec▾
tion of the body at the last day, is good evidence that she was taught it by the Old Testament. If (p.243)
she had been in error concerning it Jesus would have corrected her. But so far from doing so he sanc▾
tioned it in his conversation with her, and demonstrated it by raising Lazarus from the dead.

ARGUMENT III. Jesus gave assent to this doctrine and plainly taught it in the following passages:
Luke 20:21-38; Luke 14:13-14; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; John 6:44.

In Luke 20:35-36 the resurrection of the righteous only are referred to, for it is said, "They which shall
be accounted worthy to obtain that world." This shows that some will not be accounted worthy to obtain
that world, and those who shall be accounted worthy are under consideration here. As these were all
dead corporally, and as they had already been resurrected in spirit, and as the resurrection spoken of
here was future, it follows that the resurrection of the body was referred to. This proof is most positive
and cannot be set aside.

ARGUMENT IV. The doctrine of the resurrection is affirmed by the Apostles in most unmistakable
terms. Acts 24:13-16; Rom. 8:10-11; II Cor. 1:8-9; Phil. 3:20-21.

ARGUMENT V. I base my fifth argument on the connection of two passages, viz: Hosea 13:14, and I
Cor. 15:54-56. Paul, in quoting the prophecy of Hosea, shows it was not fulfilled when he wrote to the
Corinthians. As it was subsequent to that time, I argue it has not since been fulfilled, and that it will not
be until the dead are ransomed from the power of the grave.

ARGUMENT VI. Paul, in speaking of the resurrection of all those who are Christ's at his coming in
the 15th chapter of I Cor., teaches that the body will be raised. I Cor. 15:42-44. This states that the very
body that is sown in corruption, in dishonor, in weakness, and a natural body, is raised in incorruption,
in glory, in power, and a Spiritual body, since the pronoun it, every time it occurs in this passage, has the
same thing for its antecedent. This argument is unanswerable. The proof formed in this plain passage
cannot be set aside or overthrown. Take the sentence, "It is sown a natural body." The antecedent of it is
natural body, since the verb is sown is copulative in its use and it is merely introductory. The plain
meaning is, "A natural body is sown." Now the same natural body that is sown, is raised a spiritual body.
The language will admit of no other exegesis.

I now pass to the second part of my proposition, which is that some of these bodies will be raised to
endless life and some to endless punishment. I admit that the word "endless" is found but twice in our
common version, in neither of which places is it applied to the punishment of the wicked. For this reason
Universalists insist upon having this word in propositions for discussions which relate to future punish▾
ment, thinking thereby to have the decided advantage of their opponents in the wording of such proposi▾
tions. They are in the habit of treating the words eternal, everlasting and forever and ever as mere
temporaries, as applying to time only, while they insist that the word "endless" is necessarily of infinite
duration. I propose to show that this is incorrect. If I succeed in proving that eternal, everlasting and
forever are used in the scriptures to denote the duration of the joys of the righteous, and, also, the pun▾
ishment of the wicked, I shall succeed in proving my proposition. That these terms are sometimes used
in a figurative, appropriated, or accommodated sense, I frankly concede, but this does not argue that they
have no specific meaning, and that they do not express endless duration in their primary sense.
In my arguments and proofs of the second part of my proposition I shall refer to a number of passages
that contain these words. I anticipate some dispute regarding their (p.246) scriptural signification, so I
propose to show that the primary, grammatical signification of the Greek works from which these words
are translated is duration without end.


We regret we are not able to give Mr. Ballard's arguments in full just as made by him. The best we
can do is to give a synopsis of his speeches as gathered from notes taken at the time of the debate.
He said, "I am here to dispute that the body is the being that is raised. I admit there is a resurrection
but deny that it is the literal, material body that is raised. Paul speaks of a resurrection in Eph. 2:1, but
that is not a resurrection of the body. Brother Daily's first argument was that the only being that is
dead, or that dies, is the body. Does he mean by this that man is composed of a body only; that he has no
spirit or soul? What is meant by the word "dead?" His argument is that it applies only to the body. To
prove the falsity of this position I call attention to the following facts:

1. The father said to his elder son on the occasion of the return of the prodigal, "This thy brother was
dead, and is alive again." He could not have meant that his body was dead.

2. "Let the dead bury their dead." Luke 9:60. This shows there is more than one way in which people
may be dead.

3. "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth."

4. "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and in sins." Eph. 2:1.

5. "Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

6. "Thou hast a name that thou livest and are dead." Rev. 3:l.

7. "If one died for all then were all dead."

From these passages Mr. Ballard argued that there must be more than one sense in which people may
be dead, and that we would be required to prove the kind of death referred to in the quotations we made.
He then read Luke 20:27-30, and argued that all who were the children of the resurrection were the
children of God, and that it is taught in that passage that the dead are raised, not will be in the future,
and that God is the God of the living and not of the dead, being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He argued that all that are resurrected are worthy to obtain that world, and are the children of God,
being the children of the resurrection.
In speaking of the spirit and the body, of their separation at death, he said he was interested in the
spirit and not the body; that this body, so afflicted here, would go back to the dust from which it came,
and we would need it no more. He argued that the children of the resurrection including Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, are now equal to the angels in heaven, declaring that the Bible always meant just what
it said, and that when it said the dead are raised and that they are equal to the angels in heaven, it meant
that it is a fact now and not that it will be.
He based his first argument on I Cor. 15:22, and contended that all that died in Adam shall be made
alive in Christ, and that this embraced the entire Adamic race. He proved that Christ must reign till he
has put all enemies under his feet, and showed the last enemy to be death. He argued that this proved
the final salvation of all.
He next took the position that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, that corruption
cannot inherit incorruption, proving it by I Cor. 15. He argued from this that man in composed of soul,
spirit and body, and that as the body was flesh and blood, and corruption, it could not inherit the king▾
dom of God and never would inherit incorruption. His next argument was founded on II. Cor. 5:1. He
argued that the "earthly house of our tabernacle" would dissolve according to the Apostle's language, and
that we would then have another "building of God, a house not made with hands," and that that house
would be from heaven and not from the earth. "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
upon with our house which is from heaven." In this connection he asked what clothes the spirit till the
body is raised.
"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent
from the Lord." After reading this passage he asked, "who are meant here?"
He then referred to the transfiguration of Christ on the mount when Moses and Elias appeared, and
asked who Moses and Elias were, and asserted again that we had argued that man was composed only of
He denied that in Isa. 26:19, reference was had to the bodies of the dead, and referred to Ezek. 37:11-
14 as proof.
In reply to my reference to Dan. 12:2, he argued that the prediction was accomplished at the destruc▾
tion of Jerusalem, when God had "accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people," as it is said in
the 7th verse, and referred to Matt. 24:15 as further proof. In regard to Job 19:26 he said that Job was in
a most discouraging condition, and when he said, "I know that my Redeemer liveth," he meant God and
not Christ, and that the destruction of his body was not the dissolution of the body, but the destruction
by disease, and that he meant that he would be cured of his malady and see God, which he did as he said
in Job 42:5. To prove a resurrection in this life he read John 5:21-30, "For as the Father raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will," &c. He argued that those who
hear the word of Jesus, and believe on him that had sent him, already have eternal life.
He said that the resurrection mentioned in the 28th verse is the same as that mentioned in the 25th
He quoted John 17:2-3, and applied it universally, arguing that God had given all to Christ and that he
was authorized to give eternal life to all. To prove that he did this he read John 10:27-28 and showed
that eternal life was given here.
He said the Bible is a book that treats of the present and not the future state. He said that the words
everlasting and forever do not necessarily mean endless, and asserted that Greek writers never used the
word aion, from which these words are translated in the New Testament, to express endless duration. In
proof that the word everlasting does not, in all cases, mean endless duration, he quoted Gen. 17:8, where
reference is had to Canaan as an everlasting possession, and Gen. 48:4, and Ex. 40:15, where the priest▾
hood of Aaron is spoken of as an everlasting priesthood.
Mr. Ballard was an able debater and made a strong speech, and we again express our regrets that we
cannot give his work in full. In what we have given, however, we have not aimed to weaken the force of
his argument.


In reply to the speech made by Mr. Ballard we admitted that there is more than one sense in which
persons are said to be dead, but argued that in corporeal death, the separation of the spirit from the body,
it was the body and not the spirit that died, so that if there was any subsequent resurrection it must be a
resurrection of the body - the thing which had died. We reminded the people that, so far from taking the
position that man was composed of body only as Mr. Ballard had accused us, we had said that, at death,
the body goes to the dust as it was, and the spirit goes to God who gave it, and that a subsequent resur▾
rection must signify a resurrection of the body and not of the soul or spirit. We called attention to the
statement made by our opponent that in Eph. 2:1, reference was had to the resurrection or quickening of
the soul, and admitted this to be true. We then showed that Paul addressed those who had already
experienced that resurrection in Rom. 8:11, where he said, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus
from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies
by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." We argued there was mentioned here a resurrection of the mortal
bodies after the souls had been quickened, and that this proved beyond doubt or question the resurrec▾
tion of the body as well as the soul.
In reference to Luke 20:27-38, we argued that the resurrection of the saints only was spoken of, be▾
cause it is said, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the
dead," signifying that some would not be accounted worthy to obtain that world and that special resurrec▾
tion which is the resurrection of the just. As he had said that he was interested in the spirit and not in
the body we asserted that we were interested in the entire man - the body as well as the spirit, and to
show that the work of atonement and redemption embraces both we quoted 1 Cor. 6:19-20: "What? know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are
not your own? for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit,
which are God's." We argued from this that the body as well as the spirit was God's by reason of having
been bought with the price of the blood of Christ, and that God would ultimately rescue and save all that
is his; that if the body were never resurrected so much of the purchase of Christ's blood would never be
redeemed. As to the tense of the verbs in the sentences, "They are equal unto the angels," and "The dead
are raised," we showed that the present tense form of the verb is often used to express a special fact
without any reference to the time of its occurrence or existence. All those mentioned in Luke 20:27-32
were dead corporeally and had been resurrected in spirit, but Christ said, "They which shall be account▾
ed worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead." This shows clearly that the resurrec▾
tion referred to was future and was the resurrection of the body.
In reply to the argument made on the passage, "As in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made
alive," we showed that two insurmountable difficulties attended the argument:

1. The resurrection of the body is here under consideration. If we grant that Paul speaks here of the
resurrection of all men, it does not follow that all will be made holy and happy. For as this relates to the
body only, that will not purify the soul.

2. But the context shows conclusively that the resurrection here spoken of is limited to the righteous
or just. In this chapter Paul speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam. Each of these is a representa▾
tive. And as all connected with the first die in consequence of his fall, so all connected with Christ the
last Adam attain to the resurrection of the just. Such is evidently the meaning of the Apostle for he
immediately explains, "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are
Christ's at his coming." This shows that Paul is speaking of the resurrection of those only who are
Christ's at his coming. But who are Christ's? "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with
the affections and lusts." Gal. 5:24. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." Rom.
8:9. These passages show that some are Christ's while others are not His. Since all are not Christ's and
Paul is speaking of those only who are Christ's, the conclusion is that he is not speaking of the resurrec▾
tion of all mankind, but of those only who are Christ's at His coming. The teaching of this passage is,
therefore, that as in Adam all (those who are his) die, even so in Christ shall all (those who are His) be
made alive.

In regard to the argument he made on the passage, "Christ must reign till he has put all enemies
under his feet," we quoted "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," and showed that death
would not be destroyed until the bodies of the saints were raised, and that as our opponent had denied
the resurrection of the bodies, he had denied that death would ever be destroyed. We asked the question,
Will death be destroyed if the bodies of the saints remain dead? In reply to his argument that "flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption," we called atten▾
tion to this language, "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall
have put on immortality," and asked him what part of man is mortal and corruptible.
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
upon with our house which is from heaven." II Cor. 5:1-2. Mr. Ballard's argument from this passage
was very able. He argued with much power that after the dissolution of this mortal body, we would then
have another body from heaven and not from earth. In reply we read the fourth verse which says, "For
we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed
upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." We argued that the body is "mortality" referred to
here, and that it would be swallowed up of "life," eternal life, in its resurrection from the dead. We asked
our opponent if he did not believe that the body was the mortal part, and if he did, we asked if he did not
believe it would be swallowed up of life. The eternal life to be put on by the body after its dissolution, we
argued, was the house from heaven, which would then swallow up mortality. We said that the eternal
life possessed by the soul would clothe it till the body was raised, when the body also would be clothed
with the same life, after which the entire man would be clothed and "mortality would be swallowed up of
In reference to the statement that Job meant that he would see God here on earth before he died, we
asked him to prove that God was standing on the earth in any sense when Job said, "Mine eye seeth
thee," in which he was not standing on the earth before that time, and asked if worms had then destroyed
Job's body.
In reference to the transfiguration of Christ and the appearance of Moses and Elias, Mr. Ballard asked
who Moses and Elias were. We showed that so far as the question in discussion was concerned it could
make no difference who they were and spoke of Enoch, and Elijah, and Christ, as having gone to heaven
in body, thus demonstrating to be true what he argued to be impossible. In regard to the passage, "The
hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
damnation," Mr. Ballard said that a moral, or rather a spiritual resurrection here in this life is meant.
We showed this to be unreasonable, in fact, impossible, by demonstrating that one class spoken of had
done good before coming forth, which proved they had already come forth in the sense spoken of by our
opponent, and were promised another resurrection.
In reply to his universal application of John 17:2 we called attention to the fact that the Saviour in that
passage restricted the number to whom he gives eternal life by saying, "To as many as thou hast given
me." This shows that some were not given to Him. If all the human family had been given to Christ He
would not have said, "as many as thou has given me." He said the Bible is a book about the present and
not about the future life, but we insisted that it taught about both the present and the future.
I shall now continue my affirmative arguments. The Greek words, most usually translated eternal,
everlasting, forever, and forever and forever, in the scriptures, are aion and aionios, the former a noun,
and the latter an adjective. These words are compounded of the two words aei and on, the first signifying
always or ever, and the second, being. By combining these two words we have aion,
always being. This my opponent can deny only at the peril of his reputation for scholarship, or honesty,
or both. I presume he will not deny it. In Grove's Greek Dictionary we find this word aion defined as
follows: aion, (from aei ever, and on being), eternity; an age; life; duration or continuance of time; a
period; a revolution of ages; a dispensation of providence; this world or life; the world or life to come.
Aionios, eternal, immortal, perpetual.
I now propose to show that the use of these Greek words in the New Testament indicates that the
inspired writers regarded them as the words best adapted to express endless duration. It is an estab▾
lished law of philology, the correctness of which is universally admitted, that a word must be taken in its
literal sense unless the context imperiously demands a different meaning. Aion always designates an
indefinite, unlimited time when it is employed merely for the purpose of designating futurity. I shall now
refer you to a few places where these words are found in the original, and where endless futurity is
necessarily expressed. I Tim. 1:16-17. In this passage aion is translated everlasting to describe the life of
the righteous, and eternal to describe the existence of God. In these two instances it means endless
duration. (We then read the following: Rom. 1:25; Rom. 9:5; Rom. 11:36; Rom. 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; 1
Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:18; Eph. 3:21; Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18.) Aion in these passages
is translated forever, forever and ever, and as these apply to the existence of the Deity there can be no
doubt but that endless duration is meant.
My seventh argument is that where the word aion is translated everlasting, forever and eternal, in
describing the future life and happiness of the righteous, they are declared to possess endless life. Life in
its lowest and most common signification means natural and temporal life. In a secondary and higher
sense it signifies morally spiritual life. Everlasting or eternal life must signify the perpetuation, or end▾
less continuance in heaven, of the spiritual life of love and holiness which is commenced in this life. This
life implies communion and fellowship with God (I John 1:3); the witness of our acceptance with God
(Rom. 8:16); the love of God in the heart (Rom. 5:5); it is enjoyed in this world (John 5:24); it is to con▾
tinue into the next (Rom. 6:22). I now invite attention to Daniel 12:2. It is here declared that those who
are raised to everlasting life are those who sleep in the dust of the earth. The phrase, "dust of the earth,"
is not used in a figurative sense anywhere in the Bible. "Dust" and "earth" are sometimes used figurative▾
ly, but "dust of the earth," NEVER! This proves the resurrection of the body, and that some will be raised
to endless life. As further proof that the righteous will possess eternal life in the world to come I quote
Mark 10:30. That the body, as well as the spirit or soul, will have endless life in the world to come I prove
by Luke 20:35-36. It is here said that they cannot die any more, which shows they did die once. Mr.
Ballard will not say that the spirit dies, and as we have already proved that it is the body that dies when
the spirit separates from it, it follows that the bodies of the Adamic race will be finally raised to endless
life. To prove it is the just only who are to be accounted worthy to obtain that world, I read Luke 20:35. I
now read Acts 24:15 to prove that all will not be just at the resurrection. The proof thus adduced may be
summed up as follows:

1. Some will be accounted worthy to obtain the world to come and will receive eternal life at the
resurrection of the dead, and these are described as the just.

2. Some will not be accounted worthy to obtain that world and are described as the unjust.

3. It follows that some of the dead will be raised to endless life.

Owing to the great length of this discussion we have concluded to condense our articles and give only
the principal arguments without regard to the order of the speeches. Having proved the resurrection of
the body, and that some will be raised to endless life, we proceeded to prove the endless punishment of
the finally impenitent and wicked. Our first argument on this part of the proposition was based on the
nature of the divine law. The law of God, which is the great law of right, is, like Himself, perfect, and
unchangeable, and eternal, and is a perfect transcript of the divine mind. It is holy, just and good, being
the embodiment of God's perfection, goodness, holiness and wisdom. As it relates to his created depend▾
encies, it is the outward and tangible expression of his own perfect mind and will. What the moral law of
God is now, it always has been, and always will be. It is as enduring as his throne and government, and
as unchangeable as his character. What it claims now it always will claim. This law as a rule of action,
must necessarily embrace the penalty of transgression. The penalty is a sanction eternal as the law.
There can be no such thing as a law without a penalty, and as God's moral law is never repealed, its
penalty must be endless. This law knows nothing of mercy, and makes no provision for the relief of those
who transgress it and incur its penalty. There is no provision in the law whereby the offender can be
justified or cleansed of his guilt.
Our next argument was based on the moral turpitude of sin. Sin derives its moral turpitude from the
nature of the obligations violated, and the evil at which it aims. Infinite obligations rest upon us to love
and serve that God whose character is infinite. An offence committed against such a Being is necessarily
infinite, as it is the violation of infinite obligations to love and serve him. The evil at which sin aims
shows it to be the direct opposite of holiness. If holiness be an infinite good, sin is an infinite evil. If
endless holiness would be an infinite good to any intelligent being, endless sin is an infinite evil, because
sin displaces holiness. Hence, the main points which concur in fixing the moral turpitude of sin are: it is
the transgression of an infinite law, the violation of infinite obligation committed against the authority
and goodness of an infinite Being, and displaces and opposes infinite good. Sin is, therefore, in its nature,
design, and results, an infinite evil.
Our next argument was founded on the scriptural contrast between the righteous and wicked. That
there is a contrast in this life between these two classes we presume will not be denied. The divine
record says, "The Lord is angry with the wicked every day" (Ps. 7:11), while he "loves the righteous" (Ps.
146:8). This contrast is as strongly marked at death as the following passages show: Ps.37:37 compared
with Job. 27:20-22; Ps. 116:15 compared with Prov. 11:7; Prov. 14:32, "The righteous hath hope in his
death," compared with Prov. 14:32, "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness;" Num. 23:10 compared
with II Peter 2:12; and Luke 16:22 compared with Luke 16:23. These (p.264) passages prove that the
wicked leave the world the subjects of God's manifest displeasure, in the enmity and strength of unholy
passions, with all the guilt of a corrupt and unholy life. On the principle of analogy the contrast which
exists at death will continue to exist after death unless there be an entire extinction of being or con▾
sciousness. Temporal death, being only a dissolution of the body, cannot affect it. The wicked man,
dying in the full strength of moral depravity, carries that depravity with him into the future state, and as
it has placed him in contrast to the righteous in this life, as to character and happiness, so it does in that
state which immediately follows death. No moral change can be shown to occur between death and the
resurrection, and the resurrection being a physical and not a moral change, it follows that the same
contrast that exists between the righteous and the wicked at death will exist after the resurrection. This
point is clearly and forcibly settled by the scriptures. A condition of happiness and reward is promised to
the just which is not promised to the wicked. Luke 14:13-14. This shows there will be a resurrection
peculiar to the just, distinguished from the resurrection of the unjust by blessings promised to the just.
We read Heb. 11:35 to prove there would be a better resurrection; that is, a resurrection better than
another resurrection. In further proof of this contrast after the resurrection we quoted Acts 24:15, John
5:28-29 and Dan. 12:2.
The only passages noticed by Mr. Ballard in the foregoing arguments were the last two. In regard to
John 5:28-29 he argued that the resurrection there mentioned was a coming forth from moral death in
sin, and that the word graves was used figuratively. In reply we showed that the Greek word eion> there translated graves occurs forty-two times in the New Testament, and is not once used figura▾
tively. As examples we read Matt. 27:52-53; John 11:17; and John 12:17. We further argued that if this
be figurative, "all that are in their graves," must mean all that are in sin and unbelief. Then, "they that
have done good," must mean that they did good while buried in sin. This is a contradiction of terms
equivalent to saying, "They that have done good in doing evil." He quoted Ezek. 37:12 as a parallel pas▾
sage, but we insisted that they could not be parallel, because in John 5:28 it is the graves, while in Ezek.
37:12 it is your graves.
In reply to my argument on Dan. 12:2, he argued that this had reference to the destruction of Jerusa▾
lem, and was to be understood in a figurative sense. To show it was literal and not figurative we read
Dan. 12:8-13, showing that there are features of this remarkable passage which were sealed up till the
time of the end. Daniel was to rest, his body was to sleep in death, and his soul to rest in the paradise of
God "till the end be," at which time he is to stand in his lot, according to his moral character. As Daniel
has not yet been raised up to stand in his lot, it follows that the prophesy is not yet fulfilled. On the
supposition that it is figurative, we showed that the following would be the true meaning: "And many
that sleep, figuratively, in the figurative dust of the figurative earth, shall figuratively awake, some to
everlasting figurative life, and some to figurative shame, and everlasting figurative contempt." Such an
interpretation is contradictory to reason and common sense. This passage can be explained away only by
the artful tricks of sophistry.
Having proved the contrast between the righteous and the wicked after the resurrection, our next
argument was based on the doctrine of a future and general judgment. To show that such a judgment is
taught in the scriptures we presented the following propositions and proofs:

1. It is represented as a judgment to come. Acts 24:25; Rom. 2:6-16; II Tim. 4:8; Rom. 14:10; II Pet.

2. As God is said to be judge of the quick and the dead, this judgment is to take place after death. II
Tim. 4:1; Heb. 6:1-2; Heb. 9:27.

3. This day of judgment was said to be appointed. Acts 17:31. This shows that God has given the
judgment a definite locality, a point that distinguishes it from all other acts of divine administration.

Our next argument was based upon the fact that there is revealed in the scriptures a place of future
punishment in the future state. The terms used to designate the place of future punishment are sheol,
hades, gehenna, and tartarus. Sheol, a Hebrew word, corresponding to the Greek word hades. That
these two words were sometimes used to designate the grave and death we frankly admitted, but we pro▾
posed to prove that they were also employed to represent a place of future punishment. Grove's Greek
Dictionary defines hades as the invisible world of spirits, the unseen place of the dead generally, but
commonly a place of torment, the abode of the damned, hell, death. This is good authority but the Bible
is better, and we now proceed to show by that infallible book that this word is thus used. Ps. 9:17 ["The
wicked shall be turned into hell (sheol), and all the nations that forget God"]; Prov. 15:24; Prov. 5:5. The
word hades is translated hell in Matt. 11:23. This did not take place in this life for two reasons: 1. The
city of Sodom as to its temporal destruction had already been judged and punished. 2. The destruction
of Sodom was to be more tolerable than that of Capernaum which could not be if it had been temporal.
The obvious meaning of the passage is that in the decision of the great day of judgment, the people of
Capernaum would be deemed more guilty, and deserving of greater punishment than those of Sodom.
This is referred to in Jude 6-7, where it is said that "Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." We next read Luke 16:22-23. We predicted that our
opponent would call this a parable, but argued that it could make no difference as to the argument, for a
parable is what occurs, as Christ never used a parable that was not a fact, so it proves a place of future
punishment after death. We then referred to Rev. 20:13-15 and showed that an important distinction is
here made between death or the state of the body, and hell the state of the soul. Death delivers up its
dead; that is, the bodies are brought up from death by the resurrection. Hell delivers up its dead; that is,
the place where the souls of wicked men have remained, deliver up those souls to be reunited with the
bodies. Thus death and hell (body and soul) shall be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death.
Mr. Ballard devoted quite a good deal of his time during this part of the debate in reading from an▾
cient authors to prove that the Greeks used different terms to express endless duration from those used
in the scriptures to designate the punishment of the wicked. He argued that all punishment was for the
reformation of the punished, and that we reap where we sow. As we sow here to the flesh he said we
would reap here. He showed that people were punished in this life by quoting Rom. 14:23. John 3:18-
19, II Tim. 4:1, Ps. 19:8-11, Isa. 43:3, Ps. 89:31-33, I Cor. 3:13-15, and Heb. 12:9-11. He said that the
circumstance of the rich man and Lazarus was a parable, and that there was not the slightest intimation
that the punishment had reference to the future. He said it was a parable brought from Babylon accord▾
ing to Dr. Whitby, and said it was a story invented by the heathen as a bugbear to frighten timid minds
with the idea of a future punishment. We had pressed him to tell us if he believed that all punishment is
confined to this world. We had trouble to bring him out on this point. We said we did not know whose
disciple he was: Murray's, Winchester's, or Ballou's. After being urged a number of times to answer he
said, "I will answer his question if he will tell us if he believes any sin will be committed in the future
world." He argued that the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, of which Jesus bade his disciples beware,
was their notion of an endless punishment. He brought up infant damnation, quoted a poem on that
subject with much fervor, and then admitted that we did not believe that doctrine. He read at length
from books concerning the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Bloody Mary's persecutions, with the evident
design of making the impression that such persecutions resulted from a belief of endless punishment.
In our reply we reminded the people that he had promised to tell us if the punishment was confined to
this world if we would tell whether or not sin was committed in the future world. We said that there was
no Bible authority for saying that any sin will be committed in the future world, but that sins committed
here, unless forgiven, will attach to the future state and be punished there. We again appealed to him for
an answer to our question: Is all punishment confined to this world? We admitted that punishment was
sometimes reformatory, but denied that it is always so. We asked him if the punishment of the wicked
antedeluvians by the flood was to reform them, and if the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire
was reformatory. In reference to the rich man and Lazarus, we defined a parable as a representation of
something real in life or nature from which a moral is drawn for instruction, and showed that if it was a
parable it must be something real, as our Saviour never used an unreal or unreasonable circumstance as
a parable. Mr. B. said also it was a fable invented by the heathens to frighten timid minds with the idea
of a future punishment. We said that the Saviour must have known that, if it were true, and kept up the
delusion by using it in his address to people who believed in a future punishment. This is a absurdum,> and proved the falsity of the statement made by my opponent. We denied that the leaven of
the Scribes and the Pharisees was their notion of a future punishment, and proved that it was hypocrisy.
Proceeding with our affirmative argument we spoke as follows:
The Greek word gehenna is the word most frequently employed in the New Testament to designate a
place of future punishment. I am aware that this term originally signified the valley of Hinnom, a place
near the city of Jerusalem where children were cruelly sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Amor▾
ites; afterward held in abomination, and used to cast carcasses of dead animals and malefactors, which
were consumed by fire that was constantly kept burning. As in process of time this place came to be
considered as an emblem of hell, the name gehenna is frequently used in the New Testament to desig▾
nate a place of punishment reserved for the wicked in a future state. In fact it is used only in that sense.
In Liddle & Scott's Lexicon it is defined as a place of everlasting punishment, hell-fire, hell. In Grove's
Greek Dictionary it is defined hell, hell-fire, torments of hell. It is translated hell in Matt. 23:33. "Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." The term "damnation of hell'
is from the Greek phrase kriseos tes gehennes. Krisis means judgment, condemnation, final punishment.
This passage teaches that the place where this final punishment is to be inflicted is called hell or gehenna.
I now read Luke 12:4-5 and Matt. 10:28. The latter passage teaches that the soul is not killed by killing
the body; that the hell here mentioned is entered after death; that it is not the grave, for those who kill
the body have power to bury the dead; and that it is not the valley of Hinnom, for those who killed the
body had power to cast it into that valley. These two parallel passages plainly teach that it is God who
will cast soul and body into hell, and that this will be done after death. Therefore there is revealed to us
in the scriptures a place of punishment in the future world.

The same conclusion is reached by the following process of reasoning:
1. Christ used this word hell or gehenna without any application or without any design and meaning
whatever: or 2. He used it without any honesty, intending only to frighten them with literal burning in
the valley of the son of Hinnom, an affliction they must have known they were absolutely in no danger of:
or 3. He intended to reveal to them the fact that the ungodly would be consigned to a place of punish▾
ment in the future world. No one can for a moment entertain the first two suppositions. We are com▾
pelled to adopt the last, therefore, or violate every principle of reason and consistency.
Moreover, it is well known that the Jews at this time believed in a place of future punishment, and as
they used this term in that way themselves, they must have so understood Christ. Their use of this term
must have been known to Christ, and if they had been in error he certainly would have corrected them,
but so far from this he used the term the same way himself. He would not have done this had he not
intended to confirm their views and press upon them with additional force the same truth. It does seem
to me that all who entertain the least regard for honesty and consistency will be compelled to accept the
conclusion that Christ did teach that there is in the future state a place of punishment to which the final▾
ly wicked and impenitent will be consigned.
Another fact I now desire to establish is, that the scriptures represent the wicked as sent away or
doomed to punishment at the same time that the righteous are blessed with future felicity. Matt. 13:40-
43. II Thes. 1:6-10, I am aware that the latter passage is generally explained by Universalists as applying
to the destruction of Jerusalem. What sense can there be in using such language, with that meaning, to
inhabitants of a Gentile city, that could not be affected by the destruction of Jerusalem? I leave this
question to be answered by the wise and sagacious. Surely such applications of God's word are too
absurd to merit a serious consideration.
I now invite your attention to Rom. 2:5-9. This teaches that eternal life will be rendered to some, but
to others will be rendered indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish, and this will be done at the same
time as the 16th verse shows. Surely no one would be so blindly inconsistent as to apply this to the city
of Jerusalem.
In reply to our question, "Does punishment extend into the future world?" Mr. Ballard said that, as
we had said there was no Bible authority for saying that any sin would be committed in the future world,
there was no Bible authority for saying that there would be any punishment in the future world. He
denied that there is to be a day of judgment, and asked if it will be a day of twenty-four hours. He argued
that as no such day is mentioned in the 15th chapter of 1 Cor., it is conclusive evidence that there will not
be such a day. He said that we had a number of "hells," as we had referred to a number of Greek words
as referring to a place of punishment. He said the word gehenna was used only twelve times, and was
not used by any except Jesus and James, and argued that if that word referred to a place of future pun▾
ishment all the sacred writers would have used it. He said that Paul, whose mission was to preach the
gospel to the Gentiles, did not refer to such a place in his writings.
We expressed ourselves as being highly gratified that he had at last taken his position in regard to the
extent of punishment, and had told us that he believed it is confined to this world. We then asked him to
tell us how the sinner is punished, whether the punishment is inflicted upon the conscience, or physical
body, or both. As he had asserted that all punishment was to reform the punished, we asked him to
prove that all are reformed by the punishment inflicted here. We showed that the fact of the day of
judgment not being mentioned in 1 Cor. 15, was no proof there was no such day, as it is said elsewhere
that God has appointed a day in which he would judge the world.
Proceeding with our affirmative arguments we spoke as follows: Having proved that there is a place of
punishment in the future world, and that the wicked will be consigned to that place at the same time that
the righteous are blessed with endless felicity, I now present my last argument on this proposition; viz,
The future punishment of the wicked is represented as their END, their PORTION, and ETERNAL.
First, I propose to show that their punishment will be their end. In 1 Peter 4:17, the question is
asked, "What shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" David learned their end. "When
I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood
I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: Thou castedst them down to destruction."
This shows the end of the finally wicked and impenitent to be death. No wonder Balaam said in poetic
strain, in view of the blessed end of the righteous, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last
end be like his." If Universalism were true there would be no difference between the end of the most
saintly man and the most ungodly sinner, and it would have been as well for Balaam to die the death of
the latter as the former, for the end would have been the same! I now ask your attention to Rom. 6:21-
22. "What fruit had ye in those things whereof ye are now ashamed! for the end of those things is death.
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness and the
end everlasting life." Death is here placed in antithesis to everlasting life, and it cannot refer to mere
temporal death, as such is the end of the most godly as well as the most ungodly. It shows, therefore,
that the end of a sinful life persistently followed here is a state of death in antithesis to everlasting life.
According to Universalism sin leads to punishment, and punishment leads to LIFE! To teach that doc▾
trine Paul should have said, the end of those things is life!
I now read Phil. 3:18-19. "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even
weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction." Universalism says,
"Oh, no; their end is not destruction. They will only suffer destruction temporarily, but the END will be
eternal life!" I pity the one who is so blind that he cannot see that such is a plain contradiction of God's
word. But we have still more on this point. Heb. 6:7-9. "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that
cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, received blessings
from God: but that which beareth thorns and briars are rejected, and is nigh unto cursing: whose end is
to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation,
though we thus speak." While the inspired writer represents some as bearing thorns and briars, and
asserts that their end is to be burned, he was persuaded better things of others, but Universalism teaches
that it will not be the end of any to be burned, and that all shall finally enjoy the "things that accompany
salvation!" What do you say Mr. Ballard? Will the state of burning be the end of any? If you say it will
not, you contradict God's word. If you say it will, you yield the field to me and admit your defeat. If you
say nothing about it, the audience will know you dare not try to meet the argument!
As a second step in this argument I intend to prove that the punishment of the wicked is their portion.
One's portion is the part assigned him in the final settlement of an estate. Ps. 11:6. "Upon the wicked he
shall reign snares fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." It
is not said in the Bible anywhere that the portion of the wicked will be salvation or everlasting life. This
argument will never be answered.
As the third and final step I propose to prove that the punishment of the wicked will be endless. My
first proof is Matt. 25:41-42. "Then shall he also say to them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting
punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." It is here taught, as plainly as language can teach any▾
thing, that some will be banished into everlasting fire, in which banishment they will go away into ever▾
lasting punishment. The Greek adjective aionios, here rendered everlasting, expresses the duration of
punishment, and is rendered eternal when applied to the life of the righteous. It follows that if eternal
life into which the righteous are said to go signifies endless life, everlasting punishment into which the
wicked are said to go signifies endless punishment! The words eternal, everlasting and forever are used to
signify the eternity or endless being of God, with all his glory and power; the eternal existence of the Holy
Ghost; the redemption of Jesus Christ; the habitation, inheritance, glory, happiness, and endless life of
the righteous in heaven. The wisdom of God in selecting and applying terms to the condition of man in
the future world is above all human criticism. It is blasphemy to say he has not used proper terms to
express the duration of the joy and happiness of the righteous. Now as the same wisdom has applied the
very same terms to express the duration of punishment of the wicked, we should bow in humble submis▾
sion to divine authority, and not presume to doubt its correctness.
Let us notice a few passages. Mark 3:29: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath
never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." If there is no eternal damnation could anyone
be in danger of it? Let my opponent answer. Matt. 18:8, "To be cast into everlasting fire." II Thess. 1:9,
"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." Matt. 25:41, "Depart
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." 46th verse, "And these shall go away into everlasting punish▾
ment." Jude 6-7, "And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going
after strange flesh, are sent forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
There is but one way to escape the force of these passages, and that is to impeach the wisdom and
character of God for using improper terms to express the duration of final punishment. To argue that
the word eternal and everlasting, in the above passages, mean "an age that is limited," is to argue that the
eternal power, wisdom, and glory of the Godhead, the redemption of Christ, the happiness, glory, and life
of the righteous, and heaven itself can last only for "an age that is limited." What an eternal blank God's
universe will be when this "limit age" of Universalism terminates! If Universalism attempts to meet and
sustain these consequences it must sink beneath them as the feeble moth beneath the ponderous wheel.


The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach the final holiness and endless happiness of all

Affirmative - T. E. Ballard
Negative - John R. Daily

We can do more than give a general outline of Mr. Ballard's arguments from notes taken during the
debate. He dwelt at some length on the sovereignty of God, basing an argument on the purpose, pleasure
and power of God. He read as proof Acts 17:22-28, and argued that all are the offspring of God. He then
read Eph. 1:9-10, and argued that the purpose of God is to finally "gather together in one all things in
Christ," meaning all the human family. From 1 Tim. 2:4, he argued that God will have all men, the
entire human family, to be saved. As further proof of God's sovereignty he read Isa. 14:24, Dan. 4:35, Isa.
46:9-14, Prov. 19:31, Job 23:13, Eph. 1:11, and Prov. 19:9. He quoted Prov. 21:1, "The kings heart is in
the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." He made a universal
application of this text and argued that God controls the hearts of all men causing them to do whatsoever
they do, just as the waters of rivers flow downstream in obedience to the law of gravitation. He next
argued that if any are not finally holy and happy it will be because God don't want them to be, or because
he wants them to be and can't have it so; and that the former position impeaches his goodness, while the
latter denies his power. He said that when God created man in His own image he knew the final destiny
of all, and argued that he would not have brought him into existence if he knew that countless millions
would go into endless hell. He quoted Rom. 8:20-21, and argued that it taught that God made man
subject to vanity in the original creation, and thus created in him inherent evil which caused him to sin,
and that the entire creation would be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of
the children of God.
His next argument was based upon the universal fatherhood of God. He argued that God is the father
of the entire human race, that the real man - the spirit - was his immediate offspring and that the body
was created as a mere tenement for the spirit in this world. He quoted as proof 1 Cor. 15:22, "As in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" Ezek. 18:4, "Behold all souls are mine;" Eph. 4:6,
"One God and Father of all;" Mal. 2:10, "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?"
Matt. 6:9, "Our Father which art in heaven;" and 1 Cor. 8:6, "But to us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we in Him." This was one of Mr. Ballard's strongest arguments and we wish
we could give it as he delivered it. He insisted that these passages prove that God is the Father of the
universal race, and that he would bring all his children through a course of disciplinary training to a state
of final holiness and happiness.
His next argument was based upon God's universal government. Texts quoted as proof: I Chron.
29:11-12; Ps. 98:1; Ps. 22:27-28, Ps. 24:1; I Cor. 7:4; Rev. 19:6; and Isa. 45:22-25. These passages prove
the realm of God's reign to be universal. Mr. B. dwelt with much fervor on the last, arguing that every
knee shall finally bow to God and every tongue shall confess to his glory, and that this means that all
shall be brought to love and serve Him. His next argument was that the law of God was a law of love,
that it was fulfilled by Christ and would be fulfilled by all when they are brought to love God. Texts
quoted as proof: Deut. 6:4-6; Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14; Matt. 5:17-18, and Isa. 55:8-13.
His next argument was founded upon the Justice and Mercy of God. Texts quoted as proof: Deut. 32:4;
Ps. 89:14; Ps. 57:10; Ps. 145:9; Micah 7:18; Ps. 136: Eph. 2:4; Rom. 11:32; 2 Tim. 2:13; Luke 6:35-36.
Mr. Ballard showed great power in delivering this speech which occupied one hour.
In our reply to the argument on the purpose of God, drawn from Eph. 1:10, we showed that all man▾
kind was not meant in the expression, "Gather together in one all things in Christ." There is a vast dif▾
ference between the prepositions in and into; and a similar difference between the Greek words en and
eis. En corresponds to in, and denotes position occupied and not entrance. The use of en here shows
that those to be collected together were in Christ. But all are not in Christ as we learn from I Cor. 5:17,
"If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." This proves that some are not in Christ. As it is said that
those who are in Christ are to be "gathered together in one," it follows that those who are not in him are
not to be thus gathered. But the next verse destroys Mr. B's argument, for Paul goes on and says, "In
whom we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who work▾
eth all things after the council of his own will." The pronoun we here used refers to the believers only, as
the address of this epistle shows: "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which
are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." This shows that it is the saints and faithful in Christ
who are to be finally gathered together.
In regard to I Tim. 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved," we reasoned as follows:

1. The term all men may be used here in a restricted sense, as it is often so used. The expressions all
and all men are seldom used to denote a mathematical whole. Gen. 3:20: "And Adam called his wife Eve,
because she was the mother of all living." This means all of her kind, while all other living creatures are
excepted. Paul says, "Even as I please all men in all things." I Cor. 10:33. Yet at one time he must be let
down over a wall in a basket to escape the wrath of his enemies. At another time a number of men
bound themselves under an oath that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed him. The fact
is Paul pleased but few in anything; truly none but the devoted followers of Jesus. Hence, when he said
he pleased all men in all things, he referred only to classes and nations; as, Jews, and Gentiles, and kings;
and not to all men individually. Again, speaking of the healing of the lame man at the gate of the temple,
it is said, "All men glorified God for that which was done." In the same connection it is said that some
threatened the apostles and charged them to speak no more in the name of Jesus. This shows that the
term "all men" in I Tim. 2:4, may mean God's people of all classes and nations.

2. But I propose to show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that such is the use of the term in that
connection. Acts 15:14. "Simon hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them
a people for his name." Since a people was to be taken out of the Gentiles all of the Gentiles were not
taken. In Rev. 5:9, the song sung by the four and twenty elders declares, "Thou was slain and hast
redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." These four
and twenty elders were emblematical representatives of the church or redeemed family of God. As they
were redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, some of all these classes were
not redeemed. Again, in Rev. 7:9, it is said, "After I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man
could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne." This
shows conclusively that the "all men" whom God wills to be saved are his people of all classes mentioned
in these passages.
We admitted the sovereignty of God, that his counsel should stand, and that He works after the
counsel of His own will, but denied that this proved the Universalist doctrine. We showed that if the
hearts of all men are in the hands of the Lord, and if He turns them wherever he will as the waters of the
rivers, none are responsible for the crimes they commit, and no one ought to be punished.
Mr. B. had argued that if any are not finally holy and happy it would be because God does not want
them to be, or because he wants them to be and cannot have it so. We applied this argument to the
present state of mankind thus: If all are not now holy and happy it is either because God does not want
them to be, or because he wants them to be and can't have it so. But all are not holy and happy, hence
the fallacy of the argument. As he had said that God would not have created the human race if he had
known that countless millions would suffer endless misery, we replied that he must have known that
countless millions would suffer here, yet he did create them.
In reply to the argument that God created man subject to vanity, and that all the race thus created
would be delivered from the bondage of corruption, we argued that the creation referred to in Rom. 8:20-
21, is the new creation in Christ, and not the original creation of mankind, referring to II Cor. 5:17 as
proof. To show that this is the creation referred to we read Rom. 8:14-18.
We presented two insurmountable difficulties that attended the argument made by Mr. B. on the
passage, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive:" 1. The resurrection of the body is
here under consideration. If it be granted that Paul is speaking of the resurrection of all men, it does not
follow that all will be made finally holy and happy, for the resurrection of the body cannot affect the state
of the soul. 2. But the context shows conclusively that the resurrection here spoken of is limited to the
righteous. In this chapter Paul speaks of the first and last Adam, and teaches that as all connected with
the first Adam die in consequence of his fall, so all connected with Christ, the last Adam, attain to the
resurrection of the just. Such is evidently the meaning, for the apostle immediately explains, "But every
man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming." It only
remains for me to prove that all are not Christ's. Gal. 5:24, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the
flesh with the affections and lusts." Rom. 8:9. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of
His." These passages teach that some are Christ's while others are not His. Since all are not Christ's,
and Paul is speaking of those only who are Christ's, it follows that he does not here speak of all mankind,
but of those only who will be Christ's at his coming. The teaching of this passage is, therefore, that as in
Adam all those who are his die, even so in Christ shall all those who are his be made alive. Paul does not
intimate that all that die in Adam are to be raised to incorruption, glory, honor, immortality, power, and
victory, and possess the spiritual body and the image of the heavenly. He refers only to Christians for he
says, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." In
the pronoun we Paul includes himself as the writer with those addressed. But he is not addressing the
entire world, for he says in the next verse, "Now this I say, brethren." Also in the 58th verse he says,
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast." It is the brethren, therefore, or those who are Christ's
at his coming, that will be made alive in Christ, and bear the image of the heavenly.
In reply to Mr. B's argument on the universal fatherhood of God, we reasoned:

1. If God is the father of all mankind because He created them, He is as much now their Father as He
ever will be. But all are not now saved, and sin and misery exist in the world now. As men are rebellious
now, and as God is punishing men for their sins now, according to Universalism, it follows that such a
state may always exist: for if God's being the Father of all men now does not result in their present salva▾
tion from sin and misery, there can be no evidence produced that his being their Father will ever result
in their salvation.

2. If God is the Father of all mankind by creation, he is as much the Father of the brute creatures, for
He created them. It follows, therefore, that all brute creatures will be finally holy and happy if Universal▾
ism be true.

3. Our being God's creatures enables us to share the blessings of His providence only, but spiritual
blessings are of a higher order and are to be enjoyed through the death and mediation of the Saviour, and
by reason of being born of Him. If being born of the flesh only, constitutes one a child of God, it is not
necessary to be born again.

4. But it is plainly taught that all are not children of God. Rom. 8:14-16. It is taught here that as
many are the children of God as are led by His Spirit. Then those who are not led by His Spirit are not
His children, and none can say, "Abba, Father," except those who have received the Spirit of adoption. If
all were children of god none would need the Spirit to bear witness with their spirits that they are his

Rom. 8:8, "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed." The first or natural birth constitutes us children of the
flesh; the second or Spiritual birth constitutes us children of promise, and hence children of God. John
8:41-44. "Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they unto him, We be not born of fornication: we
have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I
proceeded forth and came from God: neither came I of myself, but He sent me. Why do ye not under▾
stand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my words. Ye are of your father the devil, and his works
ye will do." These Jews were like the Universalists. They thought they were God's children, but Jesus
declared they were not.
Mr. B. had quoted Ezek. 18:4, in which God said, "All souls are mine." He dwelt on this at some
length, insisting that it proved the universal fatherhood of God. We replied by saying that there was a
buggy in the grove of which we could say, "That buggy is mine," but that would not imply that I was its
father. We admitted the universal reign of God in a sense, but denied that this proved the Universal
doctrine. It is true that in Ps. 22:27-28 it is taught that "all the ends of the world shall remember and
return unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him." But we argued that
this simply taught that his people of every nation, kindred, and tongue would return and worship. In
Isaiah 25:23, and Phil. 2:10-11 it is taught that every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess,
&c. In reply to the argument on these passages we reminded the people that Mr. B. had argued that the
body formed no part of the real man, so the real man has neither knee nor tongue. We showed that three
things are herein set forth: 1. The reason God exalted Christ; "He humbled himself, and became obedi▾
ent unto death." 2. The obligation to confess Christ, growing out of his character and exaltation; "that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow. 3. The nature of the confession: "Confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of the Father." This is not an assurance of universal salvation, but a pledge that God
will finally come to judge the world, when He will be seen and acknowledged in His true character, even
by those who have despised Him, who, having borne "thorns and briars," are "rejected," "whose end is to
be burned." Heb. 6:8.
Mr. B. had argued that God is love, and loves the entire human family alike. This argument refutes
itself at once. The reasoning is this: God is love, therefore all men will be finally holy and happy. But I
can as logically reason thus: God is love, therefore all men are now holy and happy. The latter conclu▾
sion we know to be false, and the presumption is that the former is also false, for they are drawn from the
same premise. Since God is love now, and all are not now holy and happy, there is no assurance that all
will be finally holy and happy as a result of his love, for He loves all as much now as He ever will. Love is
an attribute of God but not the only attribute, for while it is said that God is love, it is also said that
vengeance belongs to Him. Rom. 12:19, and Deut. 32:34-35. Furthermore God is said to be a consuming
fire in Heb. 12:29. So, while my opponent may argue that God is love, therefore all men will be finally
holy and happy, I might argue by the same parity of reasoning, that God is a consuming fire, therefore all
men will be finally consumed and lost.
But God does not love the entire human family exactly alike, for he said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated." As he is unchangeable, whom He loves in time He will love in eternity, and whom He
hates in time He will hate in eternity. Paul refers to Jacob and Esau to illustrate the doctrine of election,
and show that it is "not of works but of him that calleth." So Jacob represents the elect of God while Esau
represents the rest of mankind. Then Jacob represents those whom God loves, while Esau represents
those whom He hates. As God hates those represented by Esau in time, and as He is unchangeable, He
will hate the same persons in eternity. He must be opposed by nature to whatever is opposed to His
nature. It belongs to the very nature of things that just as any being loves one thing, in the same propor▾
tion he hates its opposite. Hence God hates sin in the same proportion that He loves holiness. As He has
infinite love for holiness, He has infinite hatred for sin. Now, as our nature opposes sin, our conscience
will, in the same degree, sanction its punishment. If we do not hate sin, we will oppose its punishment.
But as God is opposed to sin in an infinite degree, corresponding to the infinite holiness of His character,
He will punish sin accordingly.
In regard to the argument based upon the mercy of God, we showed that, according to Universalism,
God does not extend mercy to any. To be merciful to sinners is to treat them better than they deserve. If
all sinners are punished as much as they deserve, as Universalists teach, then none are treated better
than they deserve. Therefore no mercy is extended to sinners. Mercy has no application to this subject,
and, indeed, on these principles has no existence! We propounded the following questions: What do you
mean by saying sinners are saved: If all are punished as much as they deserve, from what are they saved,
who saves them, and what is done to save them? Can there be final salvation without forgiveness? If
sins are remitted or forgiven, is it before or after they are punished? If before, why are they punished? If
after, what benefit is conferred? You say sinners are punished in this life as much as their sins deserve:
is this punishment inflicted upon their physical bodies, or upon their conscience? What has the mission
or death of Christ to do with the final state of man? Are sinners lost in respect to final holiness and
happiness unless saved by Christ? Are you afraid to commit yourself on these points? If so your non-
committalism arises from the indefensible nature of your cause.
Having given the main points from which Mr. Ballard argued this question, and not being able to
reproduce either his arguments or our replies in a manner at all satisfactory, we beg leave to close our
review of this debate by giving a few of our negative arguments.
I. I base my first argument on the fact that the Universalist church is of modern origin. If the doc▾
trine of Universalism as stated in this proposition were true, the church founded by Christ would have
been a Universalist church; and as he said the gates of hell should not prevail against His church, the
Universalist church would have existed since the time of Christ. But the Universalist church was not
founded by Christ as I propose to prove. In a work entitled "Universalism in America," Vol. 1, by Richard
Eddy, D. D., a Universalist author, p. 175, is found the following statement:
"Thus cut off from former associates, and formally separated from other Christian believers, they
turned their attention to the creation of an organization for themselves; and on the first day of January,
1779, bound themselves together under the following Articles of Association." This was in Gloucester,
Mass. There were sixteen in this first organization, the followers of John Murray.
I will now read an admission made by Rev. H. R. Nye, a noted Universalist, in a work entitled "A brief
statement of Universalist belief." In the introduction, page 5, he says, "For an hundred years and more,
the doctrines of Universalism have been preached from the pulpit and widely disseminated by the press."
Again, on page 10, he says, "But there is a distinct, separate organized body of Christian believers called
the Universalist Church. It was organized a little over a hundred years ago. . . . The founders of this
church were not atheists." Also on page 16, he says, "At the beginning of the Universalist movement in
the land, some Universalists were Trinitarians."
My opponent cannot show by history that there existed any Universalist church as long ago as two
hundred years ago. The Bible is a plain book, given by a wise and holy Being for the express purpose of
furnishing information to men, of His own character, and the nature and plan of salvation, and yet, if
Universalism be true, the students of that book, during seventeen hundred years after it was given to
man, failed to find a single feature of the true gospel in it! They read it, wrote comments on it, suffered
and died for it, and yet not one of them understood a single gospel fact or principle announced by it! The
true church, if Universalism be true, did not exist during all that time!

Syllogism--1. If the doctrine of Universalism be true, as expressed by the terms of this proposition, the
Universalist church was founded by Christ at the beginning of the Christian era.

2. But the Universalist church was not founded till the latter part of the 18th century, as Universalist
historians themselves assert.

3. Therefore, this proposition, which states the distinctive doctrine of the Universalist church, is false.

II. My second argument is that the doctrine of this proposition falls in with the natural bent of the
human heart, and is understood, loved, and cherished by wicked men as well as good men.
The Bible declares the heart to be deceitful and desperately wicked. It is further declared that "out of
the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."
This being the moral state of the heart, it is wholly at variance with the purity of God's law, and the
principles of His gospel. A wicked heart will love only that which is assimilated to its likeness. The
gospel requires self-denial, renunciation of sin, and a course of holy obedience. Hence the wicked heart
hates the gospel. But the wicked heart loves the doctrine of this proposition, since it allows all that a
wicked heart can claim or desire, without any hazard of a final consequence. Let a wicked person be
persuaded this doctrine is true and he is at once happy in the belief of it, for it leads him to think that
though he loves the practice of sin here, and continues through life in the practice and enjoyment of sin,
yet in the end he will be made holy and happy.

Syllogism--1. Any system of religious doctrine that is loved and cherished by wicked hearts is false in
its character, dishonoring to God, and dangerous to the souls of men.

2. The doctrine asserted by this proposition is loved and cherished by wicked hearts.

3. Therefore the doctrine of this proposition is false in its nature, dishonoring to God, and dangerous
to the souls of men.

III. My third argument is founded upon the unpardonable sin. Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29.

Syllogism--1. No one can be finally holy and happy without

2. Those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost will never have forgiveness.

3. Therefore some will not be finally holy and happy.

The Saviour says some are in danger of eternal damnation. He would not have said this if there were
no eternal damnation. Therefore when He said some were in danger of eternal damnation He taught
there is eternal damnation.

Syllogism--1. A proposition that clearly implies that there is no eternal damnation contradicts the
Saviour and is false.

2. This proposition clearly implies that there is no eternal damnation and contradicts the Saviour.

3. Therefore this proposition is false.

IV. My next negative argument is that Christ taught that those who die in their sins cannot come to
Him. John 8:21. This passage teaches that some will "die in their sins," and that those who die in their
sins cannot go after they die where Christ went after His death. It will admit of no other interpretation.
This argument is unanswerable, and proves that the proposition affirmed by Mr. B. is false. (In Mr. B's.
effort to cover up this argument he said that all men die in their sins. In our reply we showed that if
what he and Christ said are both true universal damnation will take place.

Syllogism--1. Christ said that those who die in their sins cannot go where He went.

2. Mr. B. said that all die in their sins.

3. Therefore none will go where Christ went.

Mr. Ballard repeatedly asserted that men are punished in this life as much as they deserve to be, that
all punishment was for the reformation of the punished, that God predestinated all evil, and controlled
and directed sinners in the commission of sin, so that no one ever does anything contrary to His will.
The essential steps to a glorified state, according to his theory, are, 1st, Sin; 2nd, Punishment; 3rd,
Reformation; 4th, Holiness; 5th, Happiness.
We showed that the punishments of the Antediluvians by the flood, and the Sodomites by fire, were
not reformatory, and that those who were drowned and burned were not punished as much as Noah and
Lot, for they were taken up to heaven while the righteous were left to suffer here. We read a poem which
forcibly presents this argument. We give it to our readers with one more argument.

"Thus Pharaoh and his mighty hosts
Had God-like honors given:
A pleasant breeze brought them with ease
And took them safe to heaven!

So all the filthy Sodomites,
When God bade Lot retire,
Went in a trice to paradise,
On rapid wings of fire!

Likewise the guilty Canaanites,
To Joshua's sword were given:
The sun stood still that he might kill
And pack them off to heaven!

God saw those villains were too bad
To own that fruitful land;
He therefore took the rascals up
To dwell at his right hand!

The men who lived before the flood
Were made to feel the rod;
They missed the ark, but, like a lark,
Were washed right up to God!

But Noah he, because you see,
Much grace to him was given;
Was forced to toil, and till the soil,
And work his way to heaven!

The wicked Jews, who did refuse,
The Lord's commands to do"
Were hurried straight to heaven's gate,
By Titus and his crew!

How happy is the sinner's state,

When he from earth is driven;
He knows it is his certain fate
To go direct to heaven!

There's Judas too, another Jew,
Whom some suppose accursed
Yet with a cord he beat his Lord,
And got to heaven first!"

V. I base my next argument on the following reasonable conclusion: - In as much as many sinners
continue sinful and miserable during their whole life, we have strong reason to believe they would con▾
tinue so were their earthly existence protracted to a much greater length. More than this: Were their
earthly existence to be eternal, instead of being removed from this to another state to spend eternity, we
have the conclusion forced upon us from analogy that they would continue sinful and miserable ad infini▾
tum. Facts connected with the history of the antediluvians, when the life of man was continued to little
less that one thousand years, go to establish this conclusion.
The existence of human depravity, I presume, will not be disputed. It is natural for this depravity to
become more inveterate the longer it is cherished, and increase its fruits with greater and greater facility
in a constantly increasing ratio. A tide of corruption rushes on against numerous and powerful legal and
moral checks and restraints. Now, as men are in a state of depravity, it follows they are not saved - they
are under condemnation and death. Hence as long as they remain depraved they remain condemned and
lost to real virtue and happiness. The bare fact that such a state exists is positive proof that it will con▾
tinue unless there be positive evidence that some power external to itself is employed to bring it to an
end. Depravity left to the operation of its own laws will perpetuate its own existence ad infinitum. It
shuts out moral light and love of virtue from the mind and promotes a love for sinful indulgences. Hence
the Bible says, "Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil," and "They will not
come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved." We are told of a class of sinners who are willingly
ignorant: they hate light to such an extent and depravity has such a strong hold on them that they "do
not like to retain God in their knowledge." Such a state is a pledge that it will continue unless removed
by a superior power. There is no fact more potent and clear to the human mind than the fact that pun▾
ishment cannot remove depravity. If we consider punishment in the sense of arising directly out of a
sinful course, we must admit it to be a natural consequence or effect of sin. Hence punishment in this
sense cannot remove depravity because an effect can never destroy its cause. If we consider it in the
sense of the positive infliction of a penalty for sin, it cannot destroy sin or depravity, because it is its
object to preserve the honor and stability of government. Punishment can never destroy a single inher▾
ent disposition of evil. We have abundant proof of this fact in the practical and moral results of the
systems of punishments established among men, and in the fact that thousands persevere and die in sin,
though they are subjects of God's penal dispensations and visitations in this world.
The stream of human depravity runs downward, and the farther it gets from its source the deeper and
more rapid does it become, till every moral barrier and restraint is swept away, and the sinner abandons
himself to the full power and influence of his vicious propensities. "Evil men and seducers shall wax
worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Look at the downward course of the drunkard, the liar,
and the thief, as practical confirmations of the truth of this position. One is a tippler at twenty, a drunk▾
ard at thirty, and at forty dies with delirium tremens. Another is a liar at ten, a thief at twenty, a mur▾
derer at thirty, and to escape detection ends his miserable life by suicide. Thus in various ways thou▾
sands live and die exhibiting no other feelings than hatred of God, and love of everything vicious.
As we trace man to the end of his earthly career we find him going from this world marked with the
blackest moral turpitude. Seeing he has not ceased to be depraved, that punishment has not so far
reformed him, we ask will he ever cease to be depraved? If so, when, where, and how? Give us a reason▾
able and logical demonstration, please, for the burden of proof rests upon you, and nothing short of posi▾
tive proof and actual demonstration will answer the inquiring minds of this audience or satisfy my mind.
Let my opponent prove that there will be a change in the state of such as I have described after they leave
this world, and that punishment will produce this change. Whenever he does this I promise to admit my
defeat and embrace his doctrine.
We have given only five of our arguments against this position, not one of which was there any at▾
tempt made to answer. While we could not give Mr. Ballard's arguments in full, we have given the main
lines followed by him in his attempt to sustain his doctrine.



After I had arranged to leave my native state and locate in Virginia, I found myself confronted by the
much dreaded task of resigning the pastoral care of my four churches. The third Saturday in May, 1898,
the next Saturday after my return from my Virginia tour, I went to the meeting at Mt. Zion. There was a
good attendance of the membership. With a heavy heart I offered my resignation, which was not acted
upon by the church that day, but was deferred at the request of one of the deacons, Brother R. J. Foster.
On Sunday the audience was large and there was much weeping as the dear ones bid me farewell.
On the fourth Saturday I went to Salem Church. My resignation was accepted by that church, with
expressions of the deepest regret, and Eld. J. M. Thompson was called. On Sunday, after preaching my
farewell sermon, two sisters came forward and requested baptism at my hand. One was a young sister
and the other was middle-aged. The young sister, Emma Myers, had obtained a hope only three months
before. The other sister said she had wanted to join that church for some five years, and she felt she
could not let me leave without baptizing her. I baptized the two after services, and bid farewell to the
weeping ones on the bank of the stream. Sister Myers soon passed away with consumption, and I never
saw her anymore.
The following week I held the debate with the Universalist. I returned home on Saturday, the first
Saturday in June. On Sunday I attended Abner's Creek church, where I held two services. The audience
there was very large. Weeping could be seen all over the house as the parting hand was taken. I visited
Danville and Mt. Pleasant churches in the following week. On Friday afternoon, on my way home from
Mt. Pleasant, I called to see Brother George Arnold, who I had heard was very low and not expected to
live. I found him in a dying condition, and remained till he passed away. I was requested to preach his
funeral next morning and as I had to return home that evening a conveyance was sent with me to bring
me back.
I rode there Saturday morning, preached his funeral, and returned to Mt. Tabor, my home church,
where I preached at four o'clock. I thus rode thirty-two miles that day and preached two sermons. Two
services were held on Sunday, at the last of which the parting hand was taken. During this sad ordeal a
young sister presented herself for membership. I announced that I would preach there at four o'clock the
next day and baptize her.
The following morning, Brother Billie Smith took his team and wagon and went with me to Lebanon
to get boxes in which to put my household goods. It was twelve miles to Lebanon. We arrived at the
church at four o'clock, and after I preached we repaired to the water, where another sister was received.
I baptized the two. I then talked for some minutes while tears flowed from every eye. Again we took the
parting hand. The next day we packed our things. In the afternoon while we were busy at this task, a
great crowd of brethren and sisters came in carriages and buggies. We sang and talked and wept togeth▾
er, and again bade each other good by.
The next morning, Wednesday, Sister Schenck, wife of Levi Schenck, drove up to Brother Smith's,
where we were stopping, and told me that her daughter, who was very ill, wanted to hear me preach once
more. So I agreed to hold service at her home on Thursday morning. It was also suggested that the word
be given out that I would preach at Mt. Tabor that night, to which I agreed. The brethren came with
teams and wagons that morning, and we hauled my goods to Zionsville and loaded them in a car. It was
seven miles to Zionsville. I preached at Mt. Tabor that night, and a brother joined, the husband of the
sister who was received and baptized on Monday. I preached at Sister Schenck's the next morning and
baptized the brother, bidding adieu once more to the members of Mt. Tabor church on the bank of the
Brother William Symmonds, who lived ten miles west of Indianapolis, came with his wagon and
surrey to convey us to his home. After taking dinner at Brother Billy Smith's we took our leave of him
and his dear family and went home with Brother Symmonds. The next morning (Friday) he conveyed
me to Indianapolis where I took the train for Columbus, Ohio. Changing cars there, I went to Morrow
Co., and attended the Yearly Meeting of Mt Pizgah church. On the following Monday I returned to
Indianapolis, to my son John's where I found my family waiting my return. On arriving there I learned
that my daughter Alice had decided to marry and not accompany us to our new home. She was engaged
to George Doyal, a farmer who lived a near neighbor to us, and in my absence he had come to see her and

her mind underwent the change. This was a sad stroke to me, but I recognized it as her legitimate right,
and so I told her she had my consent and well-wishes. We left her at John's and they were married a few
days after by Eld. J. M. Thompson. My family and I left there on Tuesday for Luray, Virginia, where we
arrived Wednesday afternoon. The month preceding our removal to Virginia was one of the busiest in all
my life. In addition to all I have mentioned we sold, in a private way, our stock and farming implements
and other things we did not care to take with us.
I moved the printing outfit from Stanley to Luray, where I at once entered upon the labor of editing
and publishing Zion's Advocate. I accepted the care of the four churches that called me, Mt. Carmel
(Luray), Hawksbill, Naked Creek, and Alma. I have how resided at Luray seven years, and have served
these four churches continuously during that time. I have also made tours into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. I have baptized quite a good
many into the fellowship of the four churches I serve here. In the year 1902 I edited a new hymn and
tune book, entitled, "Primitive Baptist Hymn and Tune Book." Eld. E. W. Thomas became an equal
partner in this enterprise by furnishing the money to have the work plated. It has met with a welcome
reception from churches in many of the states. In 1904, I reprinted an old English work entitled, "A
Defence of Particular Redemption, by Wm. Rushton."



I am sure my book would be very incomplete without an account of the dear children with which the
Lord has graciously blessed me. David said, "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the
womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is
the man that hath his quiver full of them." Ps. 127:3-5. What a blessed promise is this: "Thy children
shall be like olive plants about thy table. . . . Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon
Israel!" Ps. 128: 3, 6. God has let me live to experience that wonderful blessing.
Ten precious children have come to cheer the hearts of my companion and me, and to strengthen our
hands. I have spoken of them all, and have given an account of the death of one sweet babe. The other
nine are all still living. James Harvey was the first to join the church. He was received into the full
fellowship of Mt. Tabor Church, in Indiana, in August, 1897. On the second Saturday in September,
Clara Belle came before the church and was received. It was my sweet privilege to lead these two into the
water together the next day and immerse them. It is useless for me to attempt to describe the joys of my
heart that day.
The marriages of John L. and Alice have been mentioned. It was a hard trial to leave them behind
when we moved to Virginia. In January and February following our location my wife and I visited them
and the churches in Indiana. John L. came home with us with the intention of locating in Luray if
thought advisable. At the March meeting of our church here, he offered himself to the church and was
received. We sent for his family, and when his wife came I found her in a dissatisfied state of mind in
regard to her church relation. She had joined the party that had separated from us at Mt. Tabor after the
division. So on Saturday before the third Sunday in April she presented herself to the church and was
received. I baptized the two the next day. On Saturday night before the third Sunday in May, the follow▾
ing month (1899), Iva Mae and Earl united with the church and I baptized them the next day. Again my
cup of joy was made to overflow.
Oliver L. was married to Miss Mamie Campbell of Luray, Va., December 21, 1898. She was a member
of the Methodist church. After her marriage she attended our meetings, and soon became deeply inter▾
ested in the preaching. She quit attending her own church entirely, and became a regular attendant at
our services. The third Sunday in September, 1901, her younger sister, Lilith Campbell, who was also a
member of the Methodist church, came forward with flowing tears and was received for baptism. Ollie
and Mamie were at Front Royal at that time. The next meeting, Saturday before the third Sunday in
October, Mamie joined. Ollie had gone to Pulaski, Va., and so was not at home. On Sunday I baptized
the two.
In November, 1899. George Doyal moved to Luray, and he and I formed a partnership in a grocery
store. This did not prove profitable, and so after a brief stay he moved back to Indiana. In December,
1900, I received the following sweet letter which filled my soul with joy:

Norman Station, Ind., Dec. 11, 1900
Eld. John R. Daily; Dear Precious Brother. - I am at Seymour, en route for home after one week's
visit among the churches of the Danville Association. I attended a three days, Yearly Meeting at Mt.
Tabor Church, where we had a glorious good meeting. There were two additions to the church: one of
them from the Penceites - a Brother Smith by name; and the other one was our dear sister - your daugh▾
ter Alice. She came forward Saturday night and related her Christian experience, and was received
amidst much rejoicing. I had that night preached upon the subject of the marvelous cure of the lame
man at the pool of Bethesda; and as I looked at your crippled Alice as she stood holding Brother Watkins
by the hand, with tears streaming from her eyes, I thought, "How striking the resemblance between the
two cases!" I felt as sure that Jesus had cured her soul, as I did that he cured the "lame man's" body. I
thought of you, precious brother, and in my soul blessed God for the joy it would afford you. There was
hardly a dry face in the entire audience. I feel that the meeting will be long remembered by many of
those present. The church seems to be in a prosperous condition. The labors of Eld. Watkins have been
blessed to the good of that church. I love and esteem him dearly as a man of God. Dear brother, I would
love to see you again and hear you preach Jesus. I hope to have this privilege sometime. I would be
pleased to have a letter from you in the near future. It would be appreciated I assure you. Give my love

to your wife and children, and please accept this poor scribble as a token of my love and fellowship for
you. May the dear Saviour bless you and hold you by his mighty hand till your work is done.

Affectionately yours,

M. G. Mitchell

The next month the following letter was received adding still more joy to our happy hearts.

Montclair, Ind., Jan. 13, 1901
Eld. John R. Daily; Very Dear Brother: - You will find enclosed one dollar for the Advocate. I like the
Advocate better the more I read it. May the dear Lord bless you in sending it forth. Dear brother, last
Sunday; i. e., second Sunday, was a good day for the brothers and sisters and their humble pastor of the
old church at Mt. Tabor. After services Sunday a large concourse of people, perhaps two hundred or
more, assembled at the water's edge to witness the baptismal scene of your precious and loving daughter
Alice. It was just below the bridge in the woods pasture where you did your last baptizing for this
church. After singing "Salem's Bright King," and prayer, your daughter calmly met me at the water's
edge and was soon buried with her blessed Saviour in baptism to arise to walk in newness of life. There
was a loving smile came over her face as she came forth from the water that indicated to all around that
it is good to follow the Saviour in His holy command. Dear Brother, we longed to see you there and was
disappointed when we learned that you could not come. Eld. Thomas and myself desire you to visit our
churches again soon. Please let us know when you can come so that we can arrange appointments for
you. May the dear Lord bless you and your family in your labors of love and good works. I ask an inter▾
est in your petitions.
Your poor unworthy brother in a precious hope.

P. F. Watkins

At the Union Meeting of the Mill Creek church, Page County, Va., the second Sunday in May, 1902,
Ollie came forward, and told of his hope in the Saviour, and was received. I baptized him on the follow▾
ing Wednesday at Luray. On the 12th of February, 1902, Clara Belle was married to Mr. Charles H.
Stevens, of Huntington, W. Va. He was a plumber by trade, and as work in that line was very dull here,
they went to Indianapolis, Ind., where they located. He joined the Old Baptist church there on the 3rd
day of April, 1904, and was baptized on the first Sunday in May following by Eld. John M. Thompson.
On the night of the second Sunday in May, 1903, Lemuel Potter joined the church here at Luray, and I
baptized him the third Sunday in May, following. Thus all my children, except the baby boy, Willie, are
members with my wife and me, in the dear old church of Christ.
James Harvey was married to Miss Selena T. Marsh, of Greenfield, Ind., at her home, on Wednesday,
December 2, 1903. She united with the Old Baptist Church at that place on Sunday before, and was
baptized on the following Friday by Eld. J. M. Thompson. They arrived at my home the next Tuesday.
Harvey began exercising in public speaking, and was licensed by the church to use his gift on Saturday
before the third Sunday in October, 1902. Ollie commenced speaking at the same time Harvey was li▾
censed, and was also licensed on Saturday before the third Sunday in April, 1903. Ollie was ordained to
the full work of the gospel ministry on Tuesday after the first Sunday in December, 1903, and Harvey
was ordained on Saturday before the third Sunday in January, 1904. Harvey soon after located in Indi▾
Mamie, Ollie's wife, contracted that dreadful disease consumption, under which she gradually sank.
Everything was done for her that could be done, but all efforts failed. She peacefully fell asleep in Jesus
on the night of the 22nd of January, 1905. Her funeral was preached by Eld. T. S. Dalton, and we sadly
laid her form to rest in the cemetery in Luray. If we reach that better home in heaven we are sure we
shall meet her there.
At this date, June, 1905, we have ten grandchildren. John L. has four children, whose names are as
follows: Clifford Carroll, Vernon Lee, Mildred Caroline and Riley Thomas. Ollie has two, as follows:
Thelma Ward, and John Thomas. Alice has two: Harvey Arthur and Violet Essie. Clara has two:
William Riley and Eva Marie. Harvey and Selena lost an infant, only three days old, on Monday, March

27, 1905.
I am sweetly resting on this blessed assurance: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." That promise is the promise of
salvation. Salvation, then, is the fulfillment of promise. As salvation is personal, so was the promise
personal; that is, salvation was promised concerning particular persons. Those particular persons are as
many as the Lord our God shall call, even that many. The word promise, in this text, is translated from
the Greek word epaggelia, which means an announcement of a divine assurance of good.
"The children of the promise are counted for the seed." Rom. 9:8. All that are Christ's are "Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29. The promises were made to Abraham and his seed.
That seed is Christ. Gal. 3:16. The law, which was given four hundred and thirty years after the prom▾
ise, could not disannul that promise or make if of none effect. The law was added, not to bring about
transgression, but because of transgressions, "till the seed (Christ) should come to whom the promise
was made." Gal. 3:19. All the heirs of promise were promised to Christ in the everlasting covenant the
Father made with him, which is ordered in all things and sure. The promise of these heirs is referred to
in the twenty-second Psalm, in which the sufferings and humility of Jesus are so touchingly portrayed:
"A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation." Ps. 22:31. Paul says, "Now
we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Gal. 4:28. That is, the heirs of God were prom▾
ised to Christ, just as Isaac was promised to Abraham. That promise of salvation is sure to all the seed.
Romans 4:16.
I want to leave this grand old Bible doctrine, as it is here stated, as a legacy to my children and their
offspring. May the Lord enable them to embrace and defend it.


On page 150 I stated that an appeal was taken by the Mt. Tabor church from the decision of Judge
Franklin to the Supreme Court of the state. It was the unanimous decision of that court that the lower
court had erred, and that the property really belonged to the minority. Judge James McCabe wrote out
the decision and the other four judges concurred in that opinion. It was ascertained by the majority that
Judge McCabe was an Old Baptist, so a plea was made for a reconsideration of the case on that ground.
This was granted, and after it had lain for two years it was taken up again, and the court stood four for
the minority and one (a Catholic judge) for the majority. This reversed the decision of the lower court,
and threw the case back there for a new trial. A new judge was procured and a new trial was held. The
majority knew that no judge would decide contrary to the Supreme Court, so they demanded a jury as
their only hope of success. The trial lasted ten days. The jury disagreed, and so the matter was left
undecided. Finally a compromise was affected the minority paying five hundred dollars and getting the

ERRATTUM--On page 160, seventh line from the bottom, the word "Association" should be church.


(Written by Elder John R. Daily, editor of "Zion's Advocate" in May, 1902.)

It is recorded in John 14:16 that Jesus promised His disciples another Comforter. He had told them
He was going to leave them, but assured them that He would not leave them comfortless. They did not
then know the manner of His departure, and He knew that their hearts, which were already sad at the
thought of His going, would be much sadder when they should see how He was to pass out of the world.
Also, He knew He was leaving them in the midst of their enemies.
His disciples were unlearned, and the learning of the world was opposed to them. They were poor,
and the wealth of the world was arrayed against them. They had no influence with the legislative or
judicial bodies, and these powers had no love for the doctrine their Master had established and author▾
ized them to preach. They were in the world as sheep among wolves. What a failure it would have been
if the Lord had left the salvation of His people and the establishment of His spiritual kingdom to human
At the time the promise to which we refer was made, a vast multitude of Jews were gathering at
Jerusalem to observe the feast of the Passover. The Roman ruler was in his seat to hear and decide the
cases that might be brought to him. The Scribes and Pharisees were plotting the murder of the innocent
Lamb of God. Judas, the false disciple, was seeking the coveted reward for the betrayal of the Holy One
he had been pretending to follow. The eleven true disciples were with their beloved Shepherd, eagerly
listening to the sweet words that flowed from His guileless lips, little dreaming of the tragical scene that
was so soon to take place. What an evening that was! The dark cloud of Sinai, with its flashes of fiery
indignation, was gathering, the fury of which was to be spent on the innocent Son of God! The mighty
sword of divine justice was being drawn to smite the Shepherd with a blow, the most severe that had
ever been struck. What sheer nonsense to say this dreadful transaction was only to give sinners a chance
to be saved!
The presence of Jesus had been the comfort and support of His disciples. They knew He was the
Christ, for God had revealed this to them. What had they to fear while He was with them? They had
seen Him cast out devils, still the tempest, heal the sick, and raise the dead. Multitudes had been fed by
Him, when only a few small loaves and fishes were at hand. But best of all, they had been drawn to Him
by the Father; they had experienced His love in their hearts. After His departure they would greatly
need another companion, another comforter. One less than He would not suffice. Such a one He prom▾
ised to pray the Father to send them. It was not necessary for Him to utter a verbal petition, for His
presence in heaven is a continual prayer in behalf of all for whom He died, which is always effectual.
The comforter promised, the Holy Ghost, is called the "Spirit of truth." The mere truth, as proclaimed
by the ministers of the gospel, has been opposed and rejected by the world, and it always will be. The
natural man (the one who is not born again) does not receive the things of the Spirit and cannot know
them. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Such are said to love darkness (error) rather than light
(truth), because their deeds are evil. There can be no better proof that a doctrine is false than that it is
understood and believed by unregenerated persons. Armenian preachers call upon sinners to believe,
when they preach the very doctrine those sinners already believe! If to believe is to change one's belief,
then such sinners would have to believe the Old Baptist doctrine to comply with this requirement. The
truth may be cast off and trampled underfoot, and those who do this may turn, swine-like, and rend
those who publish it. But the Spirit of truth cannot be thus successfully resisted. Saul of Tarsus de▾
spised the truth and resisted it even when he heard the dying martyr, Stephen, proclaiming it. He cast it
from him and continued to persecute the church of Christ with greater zeal than ever. But when the
Spirit of truth came upon him and entered into him, all his armor was taken away and he was powerless
to resist.
The total depravity of the sinner may be preached as the Bible teaches it, but the dead sinner cannot
believe it to be a true description of his own case. He thinks there is some good about him, and all the
preachers in the world could not make him realize that there is no soundness in him. But when he is
convicted of sin by the Spirit of truth, he then sees himself as the Bible describes him. The world cannot
accept the truth that salvation is not by works of righteousness done by the sinner when that truth is
preached to them. They believe salvation to be conditional on their part. They think God is unjust if he
has mercy on whom He will have mercy and hardens whom He wills. The truth preached will not con▾

vince them of the truth. The Bible says they "call evil good, and good evil; put darkness for light, and
light for darkness; put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Evil, darkness, and bitter here represent
error or falsehood. When the truth is preached to them, then they regard it as evil, darkness, and bitter▾
ness. This shows that something more than the truth is needed to convince them. The Spirit of truth is
needed. When that Spirit enters the heart of a sinner, the sinner not only feels that he cannot save
himself, but he wonders how God can save such a sinner as he is. He then sees that God has a perfect
right to have mercy on whomsoever He will even though he should be left to suffer all the consequences
of his sins.
The prophet declares, and the Saviour repeats it, that all God's children shall be taught of Him. His
children are all pupils in the school of Christian experience, and the Spirit of truth is the teacher, and the
lessons taught are spiritual lessons which cannot be learned under any other teacher. The Saviour says
the world cannot receive this Spirit, and assigns two reasons. The first reason is, "It seeth Him not."
The second is, "Neither knoweth Him." If an offer of this Spirit could be made to the world, as Armeni▾
ans claim, the world would not receive the offer because it could not. The world wants something that
can be seen. The greater the display of earthly grandeur, the more is the world attracted. "The kingdom
of heaven cometh not with observation." For this reason that kingdom is not desired by the world. Why,
the King Himself is despised and rejected of men! Fashionable preachers, while claiming to be His
servants, represent Him as having made the same provision for the salvation of those who are finally lost
as for those who are saved. They thus hinge the salvation of sinners upon something done by them, and
reject the Saviour while they pretend to preach His gospel.
It is said in Revelation that "all the world wondered after the beast; and they worshipped the dragon
which gave power unto the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast?
Who is able to make war with him?" The religious orders that have sprung up since the apostolic day
have been established in opposition to the church of Christ, and will always be opposed to it. This is
necessarily so, for every new party. An effort is made by all these new, opposing orders to win the world.
To this end thousands of dollars are spent annually in making a worldly display, while their service and
doctrine is such as the world can understand and receive.
As the fact that the world falls in with Armenianism is proof of its falsity so the fact that the world
rejects the doctrine of sovereign, electing grace is proof of its truthfulness. Those who teach that an offer
of salvation is made to all must be preaching a true or a false doctrine for them to accept. They say the
world can receive the doctrine they preach, and this we cannot dispute for we see them receiving it. But
Jesus said the world could not receive what he taught, and Paul wrote that they could not know the
things that He taught. The Spirit that dwelt in Christ in all its fullness, that was given to Paul by
measure, was the Spirit of truth. The spirit that actuates those who preach what the world receives is
the spirit of error.

John R. Daily
(Copied from the "Advocate and Messenger" 1968)


The life of true Christians is only a pilgrimage. They are only strangers here. They may be surround▾
ed with outward enjoyment, have pleasant homes, and be favored with the delightful association of pre▾
cious friends whose kindness sheds its halo about the pathway of their journey, yet they should not rest
in these pleasures as their coveted portion. They should certainly use them with the view of being ready
to quit them when called to exchange this world for the sweeter, better world to come.
The traveler may often find pleasant places on the road, but he is not content to take up his perma▾
nent abode in them or gratify his craving desires with them. He is not enticed by them to put off the
thought of proceeding. The end of his journey is in his mind, and he can only be satisfied to proceed
though the walk may be toilsome. If he stops at a home or a place of public entertainment where many
accommodations are offered, he does not consider these things his own. He feels that he is only a strang▾
er, and having tarried for a night he is ready to go forward. If he is going to his own home he has that in
mind, and feels glad that so much of the journey is over.
Thus it was that the patriarchs "confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
Abraham said, "I am a stranger and sojourner with you." Jacob declared this to be the general sense of
those ancient worthies when he said to Pharaoh, "The day of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred
and thirty years; few and evil have the days of my life been, and have not attained to the days of the years
the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage." Gen. 47:9. Thus prayed the sweet singer in Israel:
"Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger
with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were." Ps. 39:12.
Our carnal nature tends to set its affections on things below instead of things above, and we are prone
to forget that we have no continuing city here. We should remember at all times that the agreeable
things of this life are only lent to us for a time to serve a present turn, and our hearts should be set on
the inheritance reserved in heaven for us. Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church should be kept
constantly in mind: "But this I say, brethren, the time is short. It remaineth that both they that have
wives be as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy,
as though they possess not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world
passeth away." 1 Cor. 7:29-31. Oh! If we could but remember that the fashion of this world passeth away,
and that owning and possessing not, rejoicing and weeping, having dear companions and having none,
are all only transient circumstances that are passing away like the fashion of the world, we would be the
better prepared to look forward to the end of the journey with increasing desires and longing expecta▾
tions. Our chief aim would then be to press forward to the end - losses and closses would be accounted
matters of small importance.
A pilgrim traveling through a strange land, often finds the journey a toilsome one. There are hills to
climb, there are waters to cross, there are deserts to traverse, there are rough places to pass over. But
the thought that home lies beyond it all stimulates him to press along the tiresome way toward the sweet
goal of his race. Animated with the hope of reaching that blessed goal, he exultingly sings,

"What though the tempest rage?
Heaven is my home;
Short is my pilgrimage,
Heaven is my home;
Time's cold and wintry blast,
Soon will be over past.
I shall reach home at last -
Heaven is my home."

It requires patience to journey on day by day, especially if there are difficulties to overcome, sorrows to
encounter, and afflictions to bear. Amid all these the pilgrim often feels a sense of weakness that tests
his little stock of patience to the utmost. He often feels tempted to relax his energies and give up the
struggle. He would no doubt do this were it not for the strong Arm upon which he leans. That is his
support and stay. When he falls, that Almighty Arm raises him up, so that he is not utterly cast down.
When his heart is faint and his limbs are weary, a fresh view of the fruitful land to which he is journey▾
ing is imparted to him by faith as thus described by the poet:

"The pleasant fields of paradise,
So glorious to behold,
The valleys clad in living green,
The mountains paved with gold:

The tree of life with heavenly fruit,
Behold how rich they stand:
Blow, gentle gales, and bear my soul
To Canaan's happy land.

Already to my raptured sight,
The blissful fields arise,
And plenty spreads her smiling stores,
Inviting to my eyes.

O sweet abode of endless rest,
I soon shall travel there.
Nor earth nor all her empty joys
Shall long detain me here."

God has made us for himself in creating us anew in Christ. When we are finally and fully brought to
God we shall have reached the great end for which He designed us. We will not be brought to Him in
this sense till we are brought to heaven the place of His personal and special abode. While we are on the
way to that celestial city, we will always know so little of Him and render such imperfect service to Him.
Our service here is mingled with sin which dishonors Him, but there we shall be fully conformed to Him
and shall serve Him perfectly and give up ourselves wholly to Him in a pure offering of flaming love.
This is so desirable that fresh strength comes with a view of the glorious prospect.
The best feasts of spiritual joy here are but shadows of which God is the enduring substance. These
are but scattering beams of which God is the sun, but tiny drops of which God is the boundless ocean.
This being our great end - the final and everlasting enjoyment of God in heaven - whatever provisions
and conveniences that are gathered by us as temporal supplies and seeming necessities on the way
should be regarded by us as only for the journey. All affairs should be subordinated to the great desire of
reaching home at last where none of these things will be needed.
None of us can afford to waste time in seeking to please the world. We should desire above all the
things else to please Him with whom we expect to live in our everlasting home. We cannot afford to
abuse others. Those who are heirs with us are of our own family, and we should love them too well to
abuse them. Those who will never reach our home demand our pity rather than our abuse. Then let us,
if possible, live peaceably with all men on our journey home.

J. R. D.


The force of the word "rest" is not realized by us at all times. It would serve no purpose in our vocabu▾
lary did we never become weary. The state of weariness is essential to an appreciation of an opportunity
to rest, in fact it is essential to the rest itself, for none can rest except those who are weary. Rest is sweet
to the weary. They rejoice in the privilege of resting from their burdens and toils, of laying aside their
cares and peacefully reclining upon the couch of rest. To those who are laboring and heavy laden, it is
such a relief to rest from the wearisome toil and oppressive burden.
Those who are in love and service of sin could not rest from the burden of their sins, because they are
not burdened with them. The Saviour did not address them when He said, "Come unto Me, all ye that
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." They are not laboring under a heavy load of guilt, for
they prefer a life of sin to a life of holiness. Much money is being raised and great efforts are being put
forth to save this class by human means, but it all ends in a complete failure. How very absurd it is to
invite those who prefer a wicked life to a supposed rest to be found in becoming religious. If such are
persuaded or excited to assume religious pretentions, it is only heaping a burden upon them. Those who
do not love holiness could have no greater burden than to attempt to practice it. To teach that the salva▾
tion of such is conditional is to teach that those who are burdened with the hatred and distress of sin
must engage in what is distasteful to them in order to be released from what does not burden them.
A hatred of sin and a burden of distress under its weight is never produced by gospel teaching, for
those who love sin and are not burdened with a sense of its real guilt are wholly unable to receive the
things of the Spirit. They are only foolishness to them, and they cannot know them because they are
spiritually discerned. Some of these may be persuaded to comply with what is taught to be conditions of
salvation, but this is adding the burden of what is really distasteful over a guilty conscience. The very
idea of doing something in order to be saved proves that one would not do it were it not for the end to be
attained, which proves that the doing of it is not really preferred.
From what we have said it appears that there are two classes of burdened people, one being those who
are trying to be religious for the reward they hope to gain by their labor, and the other being those who
are burdened with imperfections from which they are unable to release themselves. The former are
conditionalists, the latter are subjects of grace. Look at the burdens of a conditional system! See how the
people labor to "save" themselves and to "save" others! It is a wonderful task indeed! Much effort must be
put forth to keep up the work at home and to spread it into "heathen lands." Millions of dollars are re▾
quired to be raised yearly for this great work, and it is a work that many would fain be rid of. Some of
these burdened ones say, "If I believed in election and predestination, I would not be religious at all; I
would just go on and take my fill of sin." How burdensome a "religious" life must be to such a person!
The burden of a subject of grace is so different from that of a conditional worker. Look at the penitent,
heart-broken sinner! He grieves that he is a sinner, and longs to be justified, but cannot see how God can
justify him and maintain his own purity. He hungers and thirsts after righteousness, but feels that he
deserves not the favorable notice of God. Such a one is prepared to enjoy that rest which Jesus gives.
"Come unto me, and I will give you rest." How sweet these gracious words are! It is not a command, it is
not a condition proposed, it is the opening of a precious privilege. The Father is already drawing such
unto Jesus, so that the coming is by His drawing. All those laboring and heavy laden ones have been
given to Jesus and He says they shall all come to Him. In coming they receive a rest from their sorrowful
The Jewish Sabbath was a type of this rest. God rested the seventh day from all His works. The Jews
were required to work six days, but to rest on the seventh. This finds its fulfillment in the rest given to
the laboring sinner. He labors to rid himself of his burden of sin, but finds no rest until the Spirit gives
faith to trust entirely in Christ. "We which have believed do enter into rest." (Heb. 4:3) It is by faith that
God's children rest in Christ, when they cease from their own labors and trust no longer in their own
Those who have been brought to the enjoyment of this blessed rest are commanded to take the yoke of
Christ upon them, having the promise of a rest to be found in doing so. Everyone who has ever obeyed
from the heart, this form of doctrine, has found rest in doing so. The faithful one who has promised this
rest to His obedient children, never fails to fulfil the promises made by Him. But the rest promised in
obedience can never be found in the way of disobedience. That rest is so sweet. To feel conscious of
having done what Jesus commanded and to have His approving love in the service rendered, affords a

peace that is glorious indeed. Only give that peace, and the riches, honors, and pleasures of this sinful
world sink into nothingness.
A rest is given to the careworn saints when the toils of this weary life are over. That is by far the
sweetest rest of all, for it is endless and is unmixed with trouble. How many tears of sorrow are shed by
them here! But there all tears will be wiped from their eyes forever. How many afflictions befall them
on the journey! But there afflictions are forever unknown. How great are the disappointments of this
time state! But there perfect satisfaction is enjoyed in endless duration. How dark are the clouds that
here beset their pathway! But there the Lord is the unfading light of the city, and nothing can ever
intervene to cast a shadow. Oh! blessed rest! Come quickly, dear Lord, and take us to that rest.

Elder John R. Daily
Reprinted from "Zion's Advocate," January, 1904
Copied from "Advocate and Messenger," 1968


(An article by Elder John R. Daily, in the June, 1902, issue of "Zion's Advocate.")

Those who do not believe that God elected His people in eternity say that if He did so, He must have
reprobated all others, and that this act of reprobation must have been as much a sovereign act of decre▾
tive will of God as the act of election was. This objection to the doctrine of personal, eternal and uncondi▾
tional election urged against it by Armenians, gives it a very uncomely dress. When God elected His
people, His act of choosing them became the first great cause of their salvation, and if that act had repro▾
bated all others, then the same act that results in the salvation of His people results in the condemnation
of the lost, and God is as much the cause of the one as the other.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine of election which evidently results from a misunder▾
standing of the meaning of terms. Non-election, and not reprobation, is the opposite of election. Election
is the act of God. Non-election is simply no act at all. When God elected His people, which the Bible
teaches He did before the foundation of the world, He did nothing whatever to those He did not elect.
God did not choose them, neither did He reprobate them. To pass them by and not choose them is doing
nothing to them at all.
It is argued that God is unjust if He chose some and did not choose all. If that be true, then either He
did not choose any or He chose all, for He is not unjust. If He did not choose any, there was no election,
for election is choice; and if He chose all, there was no election for election is choice of a part. But the
Bible says He did choose some "before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without
blame before Him in love, having predestinated them unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto
Himself according to the good pleasure of His will." This is sometimes explained as referring to the
apostles only. But if it would be unjust for God to choose all that will be finally saved and to leave out all
others, it would be equally unjust for Him to choose the apostles and leave all others to the uncertainty of
chance, or pass them by without choosing them. But that He did choose some to eternal salvation is
proved by every passage that contains the words, "election," "elect," etc., and by many circumstances
recorded in the word of God.
We deny the charge as unjust made by the Armenians against the wise and good Ruler of the uni▾
verse. God did elect His people before the foundation of the world, long before any of them had a being,
and those not elected were left out, and God is not unjust. It is blasphemy to charge a God of purity and
justice with being unjust. It is a wonder that He allows His depraved creatures to live who utter such
vile epithets in denouncing Him while they pretend to worship Him.
While God did not choose the non-elect, He did not reprobate them. Reprobation is the opposite of
approbation and not election, and may relate to the state of a person, the frame of his mind, or the nature
of his conduct. To approbate is to approve or express approval of. To reprobate is to disapprove or ex▾
press disapproval of. Election is an act performed in eternity, and is not based upon any merit seen in
the persons chosen. Approbation and reprobation belong only to time and are based upon the state and
conduct of the persons approved or disapproved. Whatever is right in state or conduct is approved or
approbated, and whatever is wrong in state or conduct is reprobated or disapproved. All are reprobate,
therefore, in a state of nature, both the elect and non-elect.
In II. Corinthians, 13:5, Paul says, "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you,
except ye be reprobates?" This teaches that they are reprobates who have not Christ in them. The elect
have not Christ in them before they are regenerated. They are then the children of wrath even as others.
Being not approved, they are then reprobates, but when Christ is in them, the hope of glory, they are no
longer reprobates, for they are then approved in the imputed righteousness of Christ.
The approval of the children of God is through Christ who is in them. They are approved because He
is in them. The flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, so that the child of God
cannot do the things he would. When he does the things that he would not, it is explained not to be he
that does it, but sin that dwelleth in him. This sin, being not approved of God, is reprobated.
When the Lord's people are disobedient and rebellious, they are declared to be as "reprobate silver."
(See Jer. 6:30). The Lord visits their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with many stripes.
He takes away the joys of His salvation, and refuses to fight their battles for them. This, with them, is a
state of reprobation. Sad and dark are the hours of such a trial. There is a fearful looking for of fiery
indignation. The peace they once enjoyed is displaced by sorrow. The sweet light of the dear Saviour's

presence is withdrawn, and darkness hangs over their pathway.
They cry,

"Where is the blessedness I knew,
When first I saw the Lord?
Where is the soul-refreshing view
Of Jesus and His word?"

The non-election of the non-elect is not reprobation. As they are born into the world, and manifest by
a course of sinful conduct, the sinful nature they possess, God disapproves of them or reprobates them.
They are reprobates from the origin of their sinfulness, and continue reprobates because of their sinful▾
ness. All the blame of reprobation rests upon reprobates. Sin lies at the door in every case. None can
truthfully charge God with being accountable in any sense for their reprobation. All the elect may truth▾
fully ascribe all the glory of their election to God. If that act of election had reprobated others, then their
reprobation would have been as much the result of God's purpose and act as election, but it did not
reprobate any. We believe God, according to His own sovereign, eternal, and unchangeable purpose, in
eternity, ere time began, did make choice of His own elect, and that all thus chosen will dwell with Him
in glory and chant the praises of Him who saved them and called them with an holy calling, not according
to their works, but according to His own purpose and grace which He gave them in Christ before the
world began. But we know that God is not chargeable with being responsible for the reprobation or the
guilt of any.
In a debate we held several years ago with an Armenian preacher, he asked this question: "If the
sinner is lost, whose fault is it?" We answered: "It is the sinner's fault." We then showed that all the
blame of sinfulness rests upon the sinner, and that all the praise of salvation is due to Jesus Christ. The
Armenian idea of blame seems to be that the sinner who is finally lost is to blame merely for not having
believed on Christ. They say that the sinner cannot believe on Christ unless Christ is preached to him.
Surely, then, those who never hear Christ preached are not to blame for not believing on Him. They
cannot be to blame for not believing on Christ, who have had no opportunity to believe on Him. There is
no escaping the conclusion that all who die without hearing the gospel preached are lost without blame.
This theory represents more than two-thirds of the human family as being lost without blame! The great
difficulty is that the Armenian doctrine puts the blame on the sinner upon the wrong basis. The coming
of Christ and the proclamation of His gospel is not the cause of the condemnation of sinners in any sense.
If Christ had never come into the world all would have been sinners just the same. All being sinners, the
sentence of death would have passed upon all even if there never had been a gospel sermon preached.
The reprobation of those who are finally lost, then, is not the result, either directly or indirectly, of the
election of God's people, the coming of Christ to redeem them from all iniquity, or the preaching of His

Copied from "Advocate and Messenger," 1966

This page maintained by: Robert Webb - (