But it was not enough to merely get people converted and brought into the church. They must be taught in the doctrines of the church, so as not to get their doctrinal ideas from other sources.
One of the strong churches of this community was of the Dunkard order, and mainly through its influence a strong immersion sentiment prevailed. At the close of the revival there were a large number of applicants for baptism. According to prevailing custom, all expected to be immersed. It was in order on such occasions for the baptismal service to be prefaced by a sermon on baptism. Rev. Mr. Newgent took advantage of the opportunity to make some remarks on the mode of baptism, which was the one live subject in religious circles. In his discourse he said:
“We often hear people say, ‘I want to be baptized as Jesus was.’ I do not share this sentiment. For in one essential respect Jesus’ baptism was different from ours. It was for a different purpose. He was baptized to fulfill the law; we, because we are sinners, either for the forgiveness of sins or because they are forgiven.
“But we may be baptized in the same manner in which he was baptized, and if you wish, I will tell you what that was. Paul said, ‘He was made a priest like unto his brethren.’ Jesus said, ‘I am come, not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.’ He fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law. The law required a priest to have the water of consecration sprinkled upon his head when he was thirty years of age. Hence, if Christ was made a priest like his brethren, it is easy to see that his baptism was the same as that of the priests, his brethren, and that the water was sprinkled upon his head at the age of thirty; otherwise he would not have fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law.”
A prominent Dunkard preacher present made a public statement at the close of the discourse to the effect that, while he had always believed and taught that Christ was baptized by immersion, he was now fully convinced that he had been mistaken. When they came to the baptismal service, all the applicants chose the mode of sprinkling, though they had come prepared to be immersed.
Under his capable and aggressive leadership the conference maintained a steady growth. At first its territory was confined to the eastern part of the State. But in the early nineties he, with some other ministers, advanced to the central and western parts of the State on a sort of missionary-evangelistic campaign. They held a number of meetings and were successful in winning quite a sprinkling of converts. The work thus accomplished made possible the organization of what was then known as the Tennessee River Conference in 1896.
One of the most important events in connection with the Tennessee Conference, and which was brought about mainly through his influence, occurred in 1895. It is referred to as follows in Berger’s History of the United Brethren Church, page 614:
“About two years ago a movement which had been for some time in process of development, began to take definite form, resulting in considerable additions both of ministers and laymen to the United Brethren Church. The greater number of these came from the Methodist Episcopal Church, some from the M. E. Church, South, and a few from other denominations. Those coming from the Methodist churches were attracted chiefly by the milder form of episcopal government in the United Brethren Church. There was for them no possible inducement in material or worldly considerations. They could not look for larger salaries or easier fields of labor or lighter sacrifices, nor was the prospect of official promotion better than in the churches from which they came. Nor could they bring with them any of the church-houses or other property which they had aided in building. No thought or hope of this kind was entertained; much less was any effort made to do so. Influenced by principle alone, and in the face of present loss, they chose to cast in their lot with us, and they have addressed themselves earnestly to the work in their new relations. About twenty-five ministers in all, with a considerable number of members, have thus connected themselves with the United Brethren. Among the leading ministers of the movement are: Dr. T. C. Carter, Rev. W. L. Richardson, J. D. Droke, and others. They have been given a cordial welcome by the United Brethren Church, not in any spirit of proselytism, for no proselyting was done, nor from any desire to reap where others have sown, but with an open heart and door to receive any persons who love our common Lord and desire to cast their lot with us.”
It seems a pity, however, that church history is so silent in regard to Rev. Mr. Newgent’s connection with this event, for it was he who turned this movement toward the United Brethren Church. Those who refused to tolerate what they considered abuses of episcopal supervision in the two great Methodist bodies were in the very act of forming a new church. In this movement Dr. T. C. Carter, now Bishop Carter, occupied a conspicuous place of leadership, as he did in every great religious movement in that part of the country. His name was a household word in all that realm, and when he spoke, multitudes reverently listened. Rev. Mr. Newgent met him, and showed him a Discipline of the United Brethren Church, believing that it set forth the very principles of church government for which these great souls were contending, and thus presented the alternative of connecting themselves with a denomination that afforded what they wanted, or of adding to the number of denominational organizations which many believed were already too many. Doctor Carter suggested that Disciplines and other United Brethren literature be sent to the leading ministers of the movement. This was accordingly done; and as a result they decided to connect themselves with the United Brethren Church.