Published Monthly by
T. R. Burnett
Entered at post-office at Dallas, Texas, as second class mail matter. Office of publication, 417 Page Street, Station A, (Oak Cliff,) Dallas.
Three subscribers for one dollar.
Bro. McGary's deluded followers, who fondly hoped that their old leader could "come back" and defend their poor hobby when all others had failed, have seen his utter overthrow in his recent fizzle of a debate with the BUDGET editor, and they are now trying to pull him out of the contest. And he is ready to be pulled. Listen:
"Ever since the first mention of Bro. Burnett's name in this paper some of my readers have been remonstrating against the paper's paying any attention to him. The consensus of opinion among the brethren is, that he is too uncandid; punic-faithed and treacherous to be worthy of notice in a paper that stands for what is written--that the game is not worth the candle. Only a few days ago one of my associate editors wrote me about the matter, saying, You know he is dishonest.' He had written me before, I advise you to leave Burnett out of all consideration, because the brethren as a rule regard him as being too dishonest to be worthy of attention.' ... I can't understand why these brethren single out Bro. Burnett from among the near-Baptist scribes as the black sheep in the near-Baptist pen, or the most dishonest cult. I don't know that he is any more dishonest than others of that gospel-perverting gang, of which he assumes to be the near-Baptist Ajax of the push. In fact, I don't know that any of them are dishonest."
McGary knows that his opponents are not dishonest, and he knows that is not what is the matter with his associate editor. That editor has some "painful recollections" of his own, and then he sees McGary has not met Burnett's arguments nor answered his questions, and that the old hobby is wrecked, but (like his boss) he is too cowardly to express the true reason. McGary has often said that Burnett is honest, and he knows it is his honesty that causes him to combat the semi-infidel re- baptist theory, which disputes dozens of plain texts of the Scriptures. Talk about "a paper that stands for what is written." Was Daniel's prophecy written? Whose thunder are you stealing? Also tell that associate editor that if he will have the honesty to subscribe for the BUDGET, (instead of borrowing it,) Burnett will give him free space to defend his hobby, and if he will answer the questions that McGary can not answer, he shall have a medal as big as his two ears!
"But I would rather cease mention- ing Bro. Burnett's name in the paper than to lose a lot of my readers, which it seems I will do if I continue paying attention to him."
A short while ago Bro. McGary boasted that he had received a lot of new subscribers, who had paid for the paper in order to get his answers to Burnett's questions. I then stated that if they knew McGary as well as Burnett knew him, they would not spend their money for that which was not bread, that they would get no answers, and that they ought to prosecute him for obtaining money under false pretenses. Now he says he is likely to lose subscribers if he does not stop the debate! Well, he ought to lose them. All who paid their money for answers (which they have not received) ought to quit, and all his old hobby readers ought to quit because he has made such a poor, cowardly defense of their idol.
"But I feel that it is my duty to such of Bro. Burnett's readers as have subscribed for my paper since he went to the wilderness' to hide out his interpretation of Dan. 2:44, and his puny subterfuge, Where was the church when Campbell was born?" to put the finishing touches upon his effort before I quit him. So I will in this administer those finishing touches, and will then give him from now till Gabriel blows his trumpet to crawl out from under the ruins of his collapsed castle of sophistry and nonsense. He interprets the "shall never be destroyed" of Dan. 2:44 to mean that there shall never be a time when there are no flesh and blood subjects of the kingdom. According to his interpretation to destroy the flesh and blood of the subjects of the kingdom is to destroy the kingdom itself. He turned to be a rank materialist when he discovered his subterfuge, Where was the church when Campbell was born?' Hence his contention is, that if there were no flesh and blood subjects of the kingdom when Campbell was born, there was no kingdom. This is all the same as contending that when Christ destroys the last enemy (death) he will have destroyed the kingdom, as according to him (Burnett) the kingdom can not exist without flesh and blood subjects. But Paul teaches that after Christ has destroyed death he will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father. But according to Bro. Burnett's interpretation of Dan. 2:44 there will be no longer flesh and blood subjects, and Christ will have no kingdom to deliver up."
As the above wild splurge is the only real effort McGary has ever made to meet Burnett's position, it is a pity to demolish it right before his naked eyes. Especially, as it is his DYING GROAN. But truth requires that it shall be done. In our old contest, (of twenty years,) I never let McGary save a jot or tittle of an argument, and I am not going to let him save a half jot of this hobby nonsense. His effort is to show that the kingdom may exist without flesh- and-blood members, since (when Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father) the saints in their glorified state will not be flesh and blood. But, hold your horses, Jehu! We are not debating about the glorified kingdom, and that cuts no figure in our controversy. Nor was Daniel talking about the glorified kingdom, but the kingdom that was set up on earth, "in the days of these kings," viz., the church of Christ on the day of Pentecost. It was a flesh-and-blood concern, and he said it should never be destroyed. Did he tell the truth? He said the little stone cut out without hands would "fill the whole EARTH" --not heaven. That is a false prophecy, according to your wild doctrine. The stone did not fill the earth, but was destroyed soon after Pentecost, and had no existence for 1260 years, till Beelzebub and his billy-goats cut out a new one down in Pennsylvania! And by some kind of hocus-pocus, the new thing became the old thing, and McGary became a member of it, (a flesh-and-blood concern too,) although it died a thousand years before he was born! But if Daniel is false, and McGary is true, and the flesh-and-blood subjects were all dead when Campbell was born, I want to know who started the flesh-and-blood church that McGary belongs to? Say, Mack: Are you still singing Amazing Grace to Satan for permitting his servants to establish you a church? But if the kingdom can exist in Paradise or the glory land without flesh-and-blood members, can it so exist in this world? And if it was dead (on earth) when Campbell was born, who preached the gospel to re-establish it? Your splurge up into glory (you see) has not touched the difficulty, and you will have to do it all over again!
"He says, Bro. McGary says he adopts Burnett's statement, and says the church was in the wilderness' when Campbell was born, and that a wilderness is a region where there are no human beings. But he applies the definition of a literal wilderness to a symbolical wilderness, and makes a blunder. How could the church be FED 1260 years in a region where there were no human beings, and how could Campbell be born in a place like that, and how could McGary's goat-pen institution be started there? Eh?' Yes, I adopt his statement that the church was in the wilderness during those 1260 years and that therefore the church was in the wilderness when Campbell was born, because according to Campbell's own teaching he was born within the time of the 1260 years. But he says I said a wilderness is a region where there are no human beings. Why did he not tell the whole truth about this, which is that Webster thus defines wilderness? Because he never indulges in the whole truth about anything. Besides, he has trumpeted so much about the necessity of a dictionary that he did not want his readers to know that he was now repudiating the dictionary to try to save his near-Baptist cause."
Burnett does not repudiate the dictionary, but McGary's misuse of it, and he let his readers see both sides of the question. McGary applies Webster's definition of a LITERAL wilderness (a region where there are no human beings) to the symbolical wilderness in which the church was FED 1260 years. His object is to prove that the church was extinct when it was in the wilderness, and when Campbell was born. When I catch him in his own trap, he grows furious and says Burnett does not tell the whole truth. Yes, Burnett tells the whole truth, and prints it too, and not a one-sided perversion such as McGary gives his readers, trusting to their ignorance to help him out of his blunder. Has he told us how the church could be FED in a region where there were no human beings? No! Has he told us how Campbell could be born there, and how his goat-pen church could be established there? No! How does he escape his blunder? Through the ignorance of his readers, and by printing only one side of the debate! Isn't he a darling, to talk about "the whole truth!"
"He says I apply the definition of a literal wilderness to a symbolical wilderness. Why then does he not give us a definition of a symbolical wilderness? He started with a great swelling promise that he was going to tell where the church was during the 1260 years, but wound up by saying it was in a symbolical wilderness."
Yes, Burnett gave you a definition of a symbolical wilderness, and told you where the church was in the wilderness, but you were such a coward you would not let your read- ers see either article. I gave the statement of commentators, that the true church disappeared from public view (in its humble state) as completely as if it had gone into a literal wilderness, while the world looked upon the false church as the true one. I gave the statement of the prophet Daniel, as to how long the horn would prevail against the saints. They were there while the prevalence continued, (of course,) and they were there at the close, for the dominion was then given to the saints. The saints composed the church, and the church was not dead, as the hobbyites affirm. What did McGary do with all this? Nothing! What does he ever do with anything he debates about?
"As he can not tolerate the idea that the kingdom can possibly exist without flesh and blood subjects, he asks, How could the church be fed 1260 years in a region where there are no human beings?' The answer to that is too easy, why did you not ask something harder to answer? Turn to Rev. 7:17 for the answer. Was that feeding done in a region where there were no human beings? Eh?"
There you go again into another blunder! The feeding of Rev. 7:17 will be done in heaven. It was not done while the church was in the wilderness, and the horn was wearing out the saints. Why did you not read the preceding verse? "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore, neither shall the sun light on them, or any heat." Did that take place when the saints were hiding in the caves and dens of the earth from the Papacy, and a million of them were put to death? Be careful, Mack, or you will get the HORN into glory! Now let us sum up your blunders. The little stone did not fill the earth, but was exterminated, and Daniel is a false prophet. Blunder No. 1. The kingdom did not stand forever, but was soon overthrown. Blunder No. 2. The gates of hell prevailed against the church, and Christ told a falsehood. Blunder No. 3. The devil's goats re-established the church at Brush Run, and a bad tree produced good fruit. Blunder No. 4. When the church died in the wilderness, the Spirit left the dead body, and he never found the way into the new body, hence we have a body without a spirit. Blunder No. 5. Stop debating with Burnett, and suppress Bible truth, but save the hobby. Blunder No. 6. Is that enough? McGary rips and snorts like Burnett had started a new interpretation of Dan. 2:44, (embracing a flesh - and - blood kingdom,) when he knows it is the old doctrine taught by Campbell, and Stone, and Lard, and Franklin, and Milligan, and McGarvey, and Fanning, and Lipscomb, and Larimore, and all the great lights of the reformation, while his new speculation of a sky-kingdom was never heard of till the semi-infidel re-baptism hobby was sprung upon the churches of Texas. He calls Burnett a Russellite. Well, Russellism is better than McGaryism. Russell says the kingdom has not been set up, and thus disputes the Bible; McGary says the kingdom was set up, but fell down, and thus disputes the Bible. Shake them in a bag, and they will come out at the same time. Farewell, Mack. Do not try to debate again. A man who knows nothing should not tell it.
A Texas fellow-citizen has discovered the cause of the hard times. It is the can opener. He wants a law passed to abolish the can opener. Then times will be good again.
The editor of the Wichita Beacon, in reply to the Distillers' Associa- tion, tells how it was done:
The grape industry is not the only thing ruined by prohibition in Kansas. In fact, prohibition has killed about every industry in Kansas, except the raising of wheat, and corn, and alfalfa, and fruit, and live stock, and potatoes, and peas, and cabbage, and garden sass, and chickens, and ducks, and geese, and horses, and mules, and blooded cattle. It busted up quite all of our flourishing saloons, and beer gardens, and paralyzed many of our most prominent gamblers. It has absolutely killed the Bar Tenders' Union. Where once the thriving saloon sent the clamorous odor of its prosperity out upon the side-walks, and clear across the street, we find nothing but shoe stores, dry goods stores, meat markets, clothing stores, grocery stores, and other sordid activities of an unhappy people. Where once you saw long strings of men on Saturday night, going joyfully into rooms where the doors were closed securely, where there was sawdust on the floor, and a merry crowd at the mahogany bar, treating all round, and a man could get his salary check cashed and spend it all right there on his boon companions, and go enthusiastically home and break up the furniture and give his wife a black eye; instead of all these manifestations of a prosperous and thrifty citizenship, as in our saloon days, we see men go quietly into the butcher shops and grocery stores and then go lugging home great bundles of supplies for their wives and children--beefsteak for supper, Sunday dinner, etc. Ah, what a sad result of the banishment of saloons! Prohibition has left very little of Kansas, except her fields, and factories, and schools, and stores, and pens of fat cattle, and her sober and happy and prosperous people!
Gee whiz! But every thing was fine
The cushin' seat I sat on wuz three
The preacher riz and red his tex, and
They passed around the baskits then,
He giv em fits from een to een, about
He closed with prar, then sung a hymn,
I'd ruther set and sing and shout, and
Jim sed when we got out o' thar, that
The subject may be introduced by stating that those who were favored to hear an apostle preach were sincere in following him by his guidance. Honest sincerity is attested by braving appalling deaths and patient endurance of protracted sufferings that might be easily avoided by dissimulation. Sincerity is truthful, and revels actuality. Theirs was an actuality of confessions by lacerated flesh till the bones were laid bare by the cutting lash; confession by unjointed bones and twisted limbs on the rack; exhibitions in the amphitheater of growling beasts mad-dened with hunger tearing the flesh and crunching the bones of those who gave up idols to follow Christ. Can you see sincerity? No human beings would so suffer for lies which they knew to be lies. It was impossible for a man like James the Just to be a false character. Let me introduce the elder Ignatius. He belonged to the church in Antioch. where the disciples were first called Christians. He was contemporary with Paul, Philip and John, but lived years after. He declared that he wished to suffer, that he might be a true disciple. His cruel sentence to galling chains and a frightful death is a monument in the world of martyrology. Here is one sentence from his prayer; "I thank thee, O Lord, that thou hast condescended to honor me with thy love, and hast thought me worthy, with the apostle Paul, to be bound in chains." Another excellent example is that of the venerable martyr, Polycarpe, who was personally taught by the apostle John. At the time of the apostle's death he was 31 years of age. When very old he was brought into the city court to confess or deny Christ. The proconsul adjured him: "Blaspheme the name of Christ, or I'll turn the wild beasts loose upon you." Polycarpe: "He died for me, turn them on." Proconsul: "The beasts are frightful, they will rend you to pieces." Polycarpe: "Eighty-six years have I served Christ, and he has never done me the least wrong, how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior!" Polycarpe was then sentenced to be burned to death. It would be unbecoming in any of us easy-going pilgrims to make sport of his prayer, much of which has been preserved to our day. "Almighty God, the Father of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have learned to know thee, the God of angels and powers, of every creature, and of all the just who live in thy presence: I give thee hearty thanks that thou hast vouchsafed to bring me to this day, and to this hour, that I should have a part in the number of thy martyrs. . . . among who may I be accepted this day before thee, as an acceptable sacrifice, as thou the true God, with whom is no falsehood, hath both before ordained and manifested unto me, and also hast now fulfilled. For this and for all things else I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee by the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, with whom to thee and to the Holy Ghost be glory both now and to all succeeding ages. Amen." Think you Polycarpe was a sincere man? He testified of things he knew, and things he had at first hands, directly from the apostles. Paul and John and Ignatius and Polycarpe are in the line of those who carried the word of life to our Druid forefathers, and to future generations.
GEO. HARE, M. D.
It seems to this editor that all the saints of Christ should be able to see that there can be no peace and har-mony among the disciples while hobbies and departures continue. Those of us who lived in the olden days remember what sweet peace prevailed, and what power we had before the world. With the advent of the organ came the war, then the rebaptism hobby, then the no-Spirit heresy, then the hired pastor. Now we are all to pieces! If we could all unite upon some one hobby, that would not bring peace, for some man would start another hobby right away. We must curb the spirit of speculation and invention. When a man mounts a hobby, he will ride it over everything human and divine. And there is not the value of a cent in all the organs and all the rebaptisms on the face of the earth--not half enough to pay the damage of one destroyed church of Jesus Christ. This editor has always opposed the new things, and has fought every false way, and today he bears the enmity of every speculator and inventor in the kingdom of God. He knows the old doctrine is right, and the old reformation was the true thing, for it was the Bible thing. The fathers had it right, but with your patch-work you have made a crazy-quilt out of the reformation. Stop and think, and come to the old ways, and the old doctrine.
He has gone to his reward, but he has a grandson who wears a thirteen-inch cuff at the bottom of his pants, and sucks a cigarette and lets the smoke come out through his nose.
Nevertheless, six thousand Baptists per annum lay down their unscriptural name and unite with the people you nickname Campbellites. It that so everlasting funny? But you are in error to say they ask you to unite on "our plea." They ask you to obey the Lord's plea, and be Christians only.
"I was not born into any human government on earth. I was born into my father's family, and into nothing else under the sun. The accident of my birth placed me within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, who, at my attaining the age of twenty-one years, thrust involuntary citizenship upon me, without consulting me about it. I was simply a victim of a brutal majority.'"
Geo. Douglas became a member of his father's family without any voluntary consent upon his part. He was simply a victim of a brutal majority.' It was thrust upon him without asking his choice. He protested lustily, (kicked and squalled with all his might,) but it did no good. He became reconciled, and retained his membership, though a little grumpy about it.
What is thought to be the most marvelous school record that has ever been made in Dallas is that of Waldo Burnett, who took his diploma from the Dallas High School last night. He was born and raised in Dallas, and has been in the public schools since he was old enough to attend, and has never missed a day from school during the school sessions, and has never been tardy a single time, and has never missed a promotion at the end of a school year. He graduated from the High School, and came close to making one of the highest honors, when he had a general average of 93 plus. He is 17 years old, weighs 222 pounds, and is a big, jolly fellow today, proud of the fact that the school records of Dallas haven't a single mark against him for lack of promptness for all the months and years in the public schools. -- DALLAS EVENING JOURNAL.
That is about as good as grand-daddy's record. Grand-dad attended school in the days when boys were educated with the rod, but he never received a lick, was never tardy, never missed a lesson, and stood at the head of his classes for six years in the old academy, and when he was through that school he entered Jeff Davis' University and spent four years, and during that term never missed a roll-call nor a day's duty, was never absent without leave or under arrest for misconduct, and never received a reprimand from an officer. It runs in the family. Waldo Burnett has mastered Latin and mathematics, but that is not all he has learned. He can milk the jersey cows, or make a table or bureau, or lay a side-walk or build a viaduct, or make a speech on the Monroe doctrine and the rights of neutral nations on the high seas.
Allow me to second the motion of Bro. J. E. Deupree, in regard to gath-ering your poems into one (or two) large volumes, and putting them in durable binding for preservation. If you will do so, I will now order six copies of the book or books. Let me know when you decide to begin the work, and I will forward you the money.-- A. W. JONES.
It will require a considerable number of orders to justify the re-printing and re-binding of all the rhymes this editor has written. It may be done some day, provided there is sufficient demand.
Do not fail to print the rhyme you read at the Gainsville reunion. -- J.E. DEUPREE.
It is pretty lengthy. Perhaps we can find room for it before long--if there are not too many debates.
What do you think about the inner man? Is the Holy Spirit in Christians the inner man? -- A READER.
No. The Holy Spirit dwells in the inner man. The inner man is the human spirit, and the outer man is the human body.
Now we claim that a congratulation is due us from T. R. Burnett, editor of Burnett's Budget. For twenty years Burnett has been trying to get those he calls rebaptist hobbyists to tell him where the church was before Campbell was born. We urged C. H. Kennedy, during our debate, to answer the question, and finally he said the church had been destroyed for hundreds of years, but that the word of the Lord, the seed of the kingdom, was preserved; that God locked the seed up in the archives of the Roman Catholic church, and that it remained there till Martin Luther broke the bars and went out and gave the people the word of the Lord. This answer may be amusing to Burnett, as it will be to all sensible people, but he can not say that the hobby scribes, as he calls them, have not answered his question. Of course Kennedy did not explain why God should have taken his word away from the world and locked it up with the old mother of harlots. . . But we claim a compliment from Burnett, for extracting the answer to his question. -- Baptist Worker.
You deserve a medal for extracting any sort of an answer from a hobby champion. But Burnett heard that old SEEDY subterfuge long since. It is Billy Richardson's old chestnut. It was exploded in Texas twenty years ago. A sensible man is ashamed to mention it today. It is an answer that does not answer--an explanation that does not explain. Did Kennedy tell you why God could not preserve his church, as well as preserve the seed? He promised to preserve the church, (said it should never be destroyed,) but broke his word, (according to these destructionists,) but he did not promise to lock up the seed and preserve it in readiness to start a new church. Did he? Did Daniel say: "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, THE SEED OF WHICH shall never be destroyed! And if the kingdom was destroyed, and the seed remained, who planted the seed to make the new crop? What spirit prompted this good work? The spirit that works in the children of disobedience would not impel to a good work, like Campbell's reformation. Can a bad tree produce good fruit?
Ah, a new thing beneath the sun,
The devil's goats at old Brush Run
Put in the seed and made a crop
Of Christian saints--but here I'll stop!
For when we sing Amazing Grace,
And our succession line would trace,
Sure as the world, if my head's level,
This church comes direct from the
Did Kennedy tell you he was still singing that old hallelujah anthem of the hobby saints of Texas, Amazing Grace to Satan, for permitting his billy-goats to establish us a church at Brush Run? And right on top of that, did he not claim to belong to the old Pentecost church, which he says was dead a thousand years before he was born! You ought to have asked him to explain his explanations!
DEAR BRO. BURNETT:
Here is a check for two subscribers. From a mere boy I have enjoyed reading your writings. You put no uncertain tenor in what you say. But I think you and other scribes are waging an unnecessary war on what you call the hired pastor. I believe you have convinced yourselves that there is such a character among the churches of Christ somewhere, but in fact no such character exists except in imagination. You are wrong also on the word evangelist. The idea of traveling form place to place is not necessarily inherent in the word, as it is in the word drummer. An evangelist is one who proclaims, or preaches, the gospel, whether he travels or remains at one place. Did Paul cease to be an evangelist when he made the long stay at Ephesus and at Corinth? If it could be shown that the word evangelist is on a par with the word drummer, then your case is still not made out. A man can be a drummer and never leave the limits of one city. There are perhaps dozens of drummers in Dallas that never leave that city. Why can not this same thing be true of an evangelist? If it be said that such drummers do not work at one house, that they go from store to store, the same is true of the "located evangelist," which you condemn. He preaches Monday, Tuesday, and every other day, from house to house, or from place to place, over the city. Now, I just thought I'd spank you that much, although it seems like a little boy spanking his daddy. -- ISAAC E. TACKETT.
This old daddy has been spanked so much, it doesn't hurt him. It doesn't even ruffle his feathers. Then he always gets his QUID PRO QUO (as the lawyers say) out of the boys. I love Bro. Tackett. He is a man of talent and of good spirit. If he were not a hired pastor, I think I could convert him. That great hymn, "Nearer, my Job, to Thee," has more music in it than the "Hallelujah Anthem." Why so much prejudice against the word pastor? The Baptists call their hired preacher the pastor, the progressive disciples call their hired preacher the pastor, and said pastors do the very same work that Tackett does at Troupe, that White does at Dallas, that Young does at Cleburne, that Whiteside does at Denton--they feed the flock when it meets on Lord's day to worship--and we all know that is the work of the bishops. What is the New Testament for, if not to instruct us how to worship on Lord's day? Robinson's Greek lexicon defines the word EUANGELISTES: "A mess- enger of good tidings, a preacher of the gospel not fixed in one place, but traveling as a missionary to preach the gospel and establish churches." The word gospel means good news, but the church has already received the good news, hence the call of the evangelist is not to the church, but to the world. Christ said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel," not, "Go ye into all the churches and get a job and a salary." That new name, LOCATED EVANGELIST, shows we have a new man among us. It is as contradictory as a cold fire. He is not in Burnett's imagination, but in the churches. If you can not find him in the New Testament, he is a usurper. Yes, Paul remained at Corinth a year and six months, but he did not pastorate a church. Listen: "Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized." Let Bro. Tackett do that kind of work, and nobody will complain. It is the SYSTEMATIC preaching TO THE CHURCH (for pay) when it meets to worship that destroys the eldership, and is condemned. The edification of the church is the function of the elders and members, (and not of a hired preacher,) and is a non-pay business. The drummers call themselves "commercial evangelists." They know the word better than the preachers do. They bear the gospel of trade from town to town.
Here is one dollar, and some names. The BUDGET is fine. I wish it could go into every family in Texas. I do not know what we could do without it, and when the good Lord calls Bro. Burnett over, I do not know who will fill his place, and contend for the old doctrine. It looks like a cyclone had struck the reformation, and twisted it forty ways. Things don't look like they did in the olden time. - JNO. C. WHITE.
Bro. White is one of the old pillars that the storms can not bend nor break. He was baptized nearly forty years ago, at the meeting where this editor delivered his first sermon. He was set square on the base, at first, and has never slipped off the foundation. He knows what the old doctrine was, before the apostasy, and he can not be misled by any of the new tricks. He commenced to preach with small advantages, but he kept growing -- and growing -- and growing. he can out preach any man in Texas, for his opportunities.
Back to T.R. Burnett Texts Page