Newspaper Page Text
2
(Dir Ccrmpifreitfai,
For the Index and Baptist.]
ROMANISM IN GEORGIA.
The Origin of the “Mystery of lolqnlty.”
“Was St. Peter ever in Rome, and
vras he the founder of the Roman
Catholic Church ?”
These questions have been giving
Catholics trouble ever since the begin
ning of their apostasy. Nineteen cen
turies have not been able to settle eith
er of them in their favor. The barren
testimony which they have been able
to produce, shows nothing more plainly
than the utter falsity of the monstrous
claim which they so arragently parade
before the world.
An editorial is just published in the
Southern Cross, which will give our
readers a fair specimen, both of the
desperate cause which they are striving
to maintain, and of the desperate re
sources which they have been able to
command in its behalf. This writer is
evidently acting the part of the drown
ing man who catches at straws, and yet
would make his witnesses believe that
he is nobly buffeting the waves, and
certainly making the shore. Hear
him as he sets out to answer his ques
tions :
“We are prepared for such like questions,
when we hear of infidels having the .mdicity to
ask, did there ever exist in Judea such a man
as Jesus Christ? Skeptics are the most unrea
sonable of men. They are unwilling to be
lieve any truth from teaching authority, yet
they would be teachers of all the world beside.
The testimony that declares St. Peter to have
been at Rome, and to be the founder of the Ro
man Catholic Chnrch, is simply overwhelm
ing.”
The writer can hardly bo surprised
that there are “skeptics” on this sub
ject, when ho can produce no item of
this “overwhelming testimony” from
the Scriptures, except that controvert
ed text of St. Peter, “The church at
Babylon saluteth you”—l Peter, v:l3.
This may or may not have anything to
do with Peter’s being at Rome, but
can have no bearing upon his being
the founder of the Roman Catholic
Church. It would never have been
employed for either purpose, if any
thing could have been found on the
subject in the writings of the New
Testament.
If the Pope of Rome should, to-day,
go before a jury of intelligent and un
prejudiced men, and giveoidy this text
in answer to the above questions, the
jurors would find great difficulty in be
lieving that he was not trifling with
their reason. They would say
't. Your Holiness (!) claims that St.
Peter was the first Pope or Bishop of
Rome, and yet you give us no proof
from his own numerous writings, or
from the writings of his fellow-apos
tles, that he was ever in th&t city. wt.
Peter calls himself an apostle and an
elder, (I Peter.v:l,)i but never a
Pope or a Bishop - r and we are not sur
prised at this, seeing the absurdity
that an apostle should become a Bish
op. St. Chrysostom, whom you and
your advocate are fond of quoting, re
marks as follows : “ The apostles be
ing rulers, ordained by God, rulers not
taking several nations or cities, but all
of them intrusted with the whole
world”—Tom. viii, p 15 ; but Bishops
do sit and are employed in one place”
—in Eph. iv:ll. These statements
are Scriptural and true, yours are uu
scriptural, and hence are untrue.
2. To suppose that St. Peter could
apostatize from his high commission as
an apostle, is not to bo believed by
sincere enquirers after the truth. How,
then, shall we believe that he appoint
ed a Pope or a Bishop as his successor ?
This is not only contrary to Scriptural
evidence, but is obnoxious to all the
rules and precedents of your own Ro
man See, for it has never allowed a
Pope to appoint and install his own
successor.
3. Moveover, your Holiness (!)
claims that St. Peter was Bishop of
Antioch for seven years, before his
transference to Borne, but when, in
the history of the Papacy, has it been
known, or allowed, that a Pope should
be transferred from any other city to
Borne, or from Borne to any other city ?
One such transference would destroy
your identity and subvert your claim,
The admission of that one instance
proves your boasted origin to be an
abortion. If St. Peter was founder of
the Papacy at Borne, how does it ap
pear that he was not its founder at
Antioch ? If he was its founder and
first Pope at Antioch, who authorized
him to move his See to Borne, and
build it upon the foundation laid bv
St. Paul ?
4. Will your Holiness (!) inform us
how St. Peter oould be the special
Apostle to the Circumcision—the Jews
—(Gal. ii:B, 9,) aad yet he settled as
Bishop of the Gentile city of Rome ?
Did he desert the Jews when he bo
cam- Pope among the Gentiles? If
so, let us be informed bow we are to
believe the apostle Paul, when he says
that Peter was the apostle to the Cir
cumcision ?
5. Furthermore, your Holiness (!)
knows that St. Paul was one of the
founders, if not the sole founder, of
the church in Rome, and that he lived
there, in his own hired house, for the
space of two years ; (Acts 28:30) will
you explain to us how it is that St.
Peter was his Pope, and yet that he
says nothing at alt about him as such,
in any of his five or six letters from
that city, nor in that one addressed to
the church there located ? And why,
in all of them, he sends not one salu
tation to him, or from him, either as
Pope, or resident, or visitor? Can
you explain this fact upon any other
ground than that your claim is false—
that St. Peter was not Pope at Rome,
and that he was not in the city of
Rome during the lifetime of the apostle
Paul ?
6. If your Holiness (!) cannot give
us any explanation of the above diffi
culties, then will you tell us how St.
Peter could be Pope of Rome for
“twenty-five years,” as you claim, and
yet never say one word about it him
self ? Are you serious when you tell
us that Bt. Peter could be your found
er, and your first Pope, and yet, in all
his epistles, never make any allusion,
even the most casual or remote, to so
important a fact; nay, that he wrote
so many things which prove the con
trary ?
7. Does your Holiness (!) mean to
insult us by calling for a verdict in
your favor, upon the ground that St.
Peter said, “The church at Babylon sa
luteth you ?” Will you not prove cer
tainly (1) that the church at Babylon
means the church in Rome ; (2) that
Peter was Pope of that church ; and
(3) that he could not, by request, make
known that salutation, without either
being Pope of Rome, or being in the
city at the time, or before the time of
that writing ? , When you shall have
made it certain that he wrote that let
ter in Romo, and sent that salutation
therefrom, then we shall be convinced
that be was in Rome ; but we shall be
lieve that bis visit there was of short
duration, for his apostolic office re
quired that bo should go and preach
the Gospel to every creature, especia'ly
to the Circumcision.
8. The “ overwhelming testimony,”
so far as obtained from the New Testa
ment, proves that your claim is a fic
tion, and it is very strange that your
own mind and heart do not revolt at
a pretense so groundless and so pre
posterous.
9. But you say that you have histori
cal evidence, and your advocate in the
Cross says, “The historical evidence is
more than any sincere man coulc. de
sire.” You will be surprised, however,
when you read this testimony in ex
tracts like the following :
“Irenarus, of the second century, declared
that Bt. Peter and Paul preached the Gospel
at Rome, and established the church which
lie calls the greatest and most anoient, known
to all, founded anil established by the most
glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, and he
adds the list of Bishops of Rome, from the
apostle St. Peter to his own time.”
If this extract is genuine, it proves
nothing more than that in the opinion
of Irenarus, St. Peter bad been in
Rome, and bad been one of the minis
ters of that church ; but Irenarus would
hardly say that that win the most, an
cient church ; and if ho did say all, it
is mere probable that he was mistaken
than'that his statement should be true,
in relation to so important a fact, en
tirely ignored by all the New Testa
ment writers.
Hear him again:
“Dionysius, of Corinth, a writer of the
second century, says that both apostles, St.
Peter and Paul, instructed the Corinthians,
aud afterwards, having passed into Italy,
pl&uted the faith among the Romans, ami
consummated their faith by martyrdom in
that city.
What Las this to do with St. Peter’s
being the first Pope ?
Again: Caius, a Roman priest, of
the third century, says :
“1 can show you the trophies of the apos
tles, for whether we go to the Va*icanor the
Ostian way, we shall meet with the trophies
of the founders of the church.”
May it please your Holiness (!J this
is from one of yourown witnesses of the
third century, but what has it to do
with Peter’s being the first Pope of
Rome,! No wonder your advocate
scents to be ashamed of his own “over
whelming testimony,” when he adds
the following conclusion:
“We must, then, conclude that St. Peter
had preached the faith, since all antiquity
recognized no o‘iier founders of the Roman
church but these two apostles I”
Of course, your advocate is net satis
fied, aud he goes on to the fourth and
fifth centuries to find some little evi
dence that St. Peter was Bishop of
Rome, and then makes the following
melancholy admission. “It is difficult
to affix with certainty the precise date
of the visit of St. Peter to Rome!”
Alas ! for Pope, Peter, Alas ! for the
claim of your Holiness. (!) What does
your advocate mean ? Is he, like your
self, trilling with the common sense
of your readers ? Such is the opinion
of your jury, and it is much strength
ened by the following further admis
sion : “The apostle was uot stationary ”
(strange Pope!) “at Rome, since he
must have returned to Jerusalem, where
he was present at the council held in
the nineteenth year after the resurrec
tion of our Lord.” Now, your Holi
ness (!) must confess that if St Peter
was Pope is any sense of the word, he
was not in any sense which it conveys
at the present time.
Your advocate, notwithstanding his
“overwhelming testimony" virtually
yields the whole question and stultifies
himself; and then scandalously ob
serves, “Soma people caunot be per
suaded that St. Peter was in Rome and
founded the great visible Church of
Christ.”!!
People of Georgia, what do you think
of the claim of the Pope of Rome and
of the so-Btyled Bishop of your own
State, and of their satelite priests and
people, who are now striving to fix their
shackles upon you, aud are giving you
no better reason for doing so than is
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX AND SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST.
found in the above testimony ? What
do you think of a religious system like
that ot Romanism, which has nothing
scriptural or honorable to commend it
to your attention; whose history has
been written in the blood of the Mar
tyr’s, in civil and social strife and ruin,
in the burning of Bibles and the teach
ing of apocryphal traditions ; and which
is now threatening the overthrow of
your cherished institutions, undermin
ing your civil authorities by secret
“auricular confessions,” sending your
negro criminals directly to Heaven,
without the fear of man oriGod before
their eyes, and thus making easy the
path of the murderer andassassin to
his victim and to eternity? What do
you think of the tempting baits which
they throw to you in’, the fortn of Special
invitations to attend their church and
Cathedral dedications, their fairs and
conceits, by which they obtain your
money to work your ruin? What do
you think of their schools and colleges
and convents, into which they allure
your children, under the false pretenses
of cheapness and superior advantages,
when their known paramount object is
to estrange them from yo 4, and to fix
on them the thrice deadly spell of Ro
manism ? What do you think of their
imported Bishops and Priests, and
banished Jesuitical Fathers,, who come
among you with no sympathies for any
thing American, whose only allegiance
is to the Pope of Rome, a jforeign reli
gious despot, and whose sole object is
to feed their bodies with your money
and your souls with their blasting here
sies ? What think you of Romanism
in Georgia ?
God grant that the blight suns of
Georgia may never set, as do those of
Italy,on a Priest-ridden, Priest-destroy
ed people 1
] n another article, we will give you
some counter historical testimony on
the above questions.
T. B. Cooper.
For the Index and Baptist.
M. 8. CARLILE.
The Baptist church of Christ, at
Pleasant Valley, met in conference,
when the following preamble and reso
lutions were adopted:
Whereas, This church at her confer
ence, on the 25th day of April, 1875,
received M. S. Carlile into fellowship
on a regular letter of dismission from
the Baptist church at Enon, Brooks
county, West Virginia, signed by C.
Smith, Moderator, and W. W. Jones,
Church Clerk. And this church at
Pleasant Valley, licensed said M. S.
Carlile to preach ou the 26th of June,
1875, and on the 11th day of Septem
ber, file church preferred a charge
against said M. S. Carlile for uncbris
tiku conduct, and on khji 9th of Onto.
:bflklß76, thfe elfurrfb, after discussion*
wT|pirew the charge and on Saturday,
O-ytober 23d, 1875, the church preferred
a charge against said M. S. Carlile for
unchristian conduct at her last confer
ence ' in refusing the counsel of the
Moderator, as laid down in the 18th
chapter of Matthew, and contempt of
the body in leaving the bouse in a con
temptuous manner; and excluded him
from the fellowship of the church ;
and, whereas, the church having
learned officially from Brooks county,
West Virginia, through the clerk of
the circuit court, that there has been
no citizen of Brooks county for twelve
years, by the name of Carlile, neither
is there any such church as Enou in
said county, nor such moderator as C.
Smith, or W. W. Jones as clerk, aud
further, that said Carlile married a
respectable woman in this vicinity about
the time of his exclusion and went to
Tennessee, and has been there preach
ing, and left his wife secretly, she not
knowing where he has gone. Therefore,
Resolved , That we, the Baptist church
of Christ, at Pleasant Valley, Bartow
county, Georgia, from the above facts
feel it to be our duty to make known
publicly, that said M. S. Carlile by
fraud, got into our fellowship, and was
excluded for unchristian conduct, and
that we, as a church, are not amenable
for his conduct. And, be it further,
Resolved, That the above preamble
and resolutions be placed upon our
minutes and a copy of the same be sent
to the Editors of the Christian Index
and one copy to the Editor of The Bap
tist, with a request that they publish
the same, and all papers friendly to the
cause of Christ, to notice the same,
that the imposter may be detected.
Done in conference, this 27th day of
May, 1876.'
P. Blanton, Moderator.
J. D. Reagan, Church Clerk.
N. B. —The above named M. S. Car
lile is about 30 or 35 years old, about 6
feet high, dark hair aud eyes, has
sound, well set teeth, professes to be a
school teacher and writing master.
It is announced that an important
change is to be made in the mode of
education and living at Girard College.
The old congregate system is to be
abandoned, and the boys are to be di
vided into family groups of thirty, each
group occupying a separate house, aud
having its own study-rooms, play
ground, and workshop. At chapel ex
ercises, at dress parade and at certain
stated games, all the pupils will be
brought together. It is believed that
the family system will better lay the
foundations of moral character, and is
also better adapted to secure thorough
intellectual and physical training. If
the experiment succeeds, the capacity
of the college will be increased so as to
accommodate two thousand pupils.
For the Index and Baptist.]
AX ADMIRABLE LETTER.
Richmond, Va., May 26,1876.
Dear Index —lnclosed I send you
an admirable letter, just received from
our excellent brother Root, of New
York. His views are so sensible and
correct, I ask that you will give it to
your readers. Indeed, it is of such
general interest, that I would be glad
to see it in all our denominational pa
pers. Yours most truly,
E. W. Warren.
My dear brother Warren : There
seems to be considerable stir and ex
citement on the communion question
at this time, and apparently, some an
xiety among our Baptist friends in the
South, for the security of our time
honored faith, because a few have
abandoned it, in the North and West.
I do uot share this alarm ; lor more
than twenty-five years I have been in
timately associated with the Baptist
denomination, and have known but
very few who have left it. Some hon
orably, and from an honest change of
belief, for whom all respect and Chris
tian benediction. No doubt there have
been others, of whom I have never
heard, which, however, should cause
no surprise, for, among all the denom
inations, ours has been foremost in ad
vocating entire freedom in religious
opinion.
I am sure you will share my regret
that there should have been any harsh
expressions because of the change of
sentiment, by our excellent brother
Behrends, (three years since one of the
strictest of Baptists,) which we are
surprised to learn, by a published let
ter of his, has been the case. Let us
hope that he will be as honest, useful
and happy among his new friends as he
was with us.
1 suppose we receive into our com
munion, at least a hundred ministers
annually, from other denominations, he
sides, a very large re-enforcement of
lay-members, without making any fuss
about it.
In the last few years, we have re
ceived several preachers for baptism,
and never cackled about it, regarding
it as a matter of course, and a simple
illustration of the power of truth.
But there are, perhaps, a dozen out
of more than 13,000 ordained Baptist
ministers, in the United States, who
avow a change of opinion on the com
munion question, and who prefer to
remain and “agitate” inside the denom
ination. Well, what of it ? The spirit
and structure of our organization
encourages freedom and independence.
True, many candid people might think
it more manly to go out from us and
join a branch of the great Baptist
family, sympathizing with them, and
Iready welcome them. But rthis al*
1 most imperceptible irritation on the cut
icle, in no way affects the sound health
of the body, and I venture the conjec
ture that the 21,000 Baptist churches
in this country, will permit our good
brethren of other denominations to
enjoy this unusual spectacle with ami
able tranquility.
All this outside stir and clatter gives
me no concern. May I adopt an old
Baptist usage, and relate my own “ex
perience” to tell you why ?
Having been well-raised by a noble
Congregationalist mother, I was pro
perly sprinkled in infancy. Some
twenty-eight years since, I believe, I
became, by the grace of God, a regen
erated man, and desired to be a public
follower of Christ. In commencing
my Christian life, I was anxious to be
right —if possible, to follow my Divine
Master. I loved my mother; I loved
her church, but I did not love the
Baptists, ignorant and bigotted as I
thought them to be. Several well
written books were given me by kind
Pedobaptist friends, to confirm my be
lief that I had been Scriptually bap
tized.
The Baptists gave me little help,
but suggested my reading the New
Testament. This I did, verse by
verse, and chapter by chapter, to as
certain what Christ taught, and what
He did. It is hardly necessary to say
that I “went down into the water.”
Meanwhile, I had patiently and
prayerfully studied the communion
question, and I learned that Christ,
who gave the command and set the
example, did uot invite His own moth
er, Mary Magdalene, or Mary, Martha
aud Lazarus,(whosehospitbaie home He
had just left,) to join in the solemn,
initial ordinance, which we still ob
serve. True, he was then celebrating
the historical passover, which, by the
direct command of God, was the most
exclusive and rigid of communions—
(Exodus xii,) but our Christ was also
God, and must have known whit He
was doing, when, in the new dispensa
tion, He perpetuated aud gave a high
er significance to the affecting ordi
nance, which His followers have, for
1800 years, found to be so pleasant
and comforting to observe.
So it came about that I became a
strict communion Baptist. That is
to say, the Bible taught me that my
Master was not sprinkled but was bap
tized, that He gave the command for
me to repent and be baptized, and that
He gave us the example of a very close
communion indeed —(Mark xiv : 17,
18.)
Subsequently, I learned by a more
exhaustive examination, and especially
by free conference with my Catholic
friends, how sprinkling came to be sub
stituted for baptism, but so far, I have
been unable to find precept or examp
in the Bible for free communion. The
Catholies themselves who claim to have
changed the mode of baptism, are abso
lutely exclusive in communion.
No doubt you will think this expe
rience of mine egotistical, but I venture
to relate it, because I know it corres
ponds with that of many thousands of
wiser and better persons than myself—
noble men and women who believe in
absolute freedom of thought, who hail
with enthusiasm all right advance in
the path of human progress, but who,
like myself, do not believe we can im
prove upon the teaching or example of
Christ in religious faith and practice
In these days of so-called “advanced
thought” —of liberalism in religion
and skepticism outside, I confess to a
hearty satisfaction in the belief that the
denomination of which I am an unwor
thy member still, with remarkable una
nimity, holds to the faith which was
once delivered to the saints —a denom
ination which with the fullest charity
for all and malice towards none, vet
claims the right of regulating the doc
trines and ordinances of its* churches
in obedience to the command ot our
Divine Master. In our own family
matters this would seem to be not
unreasonable. If, in this unquestiona
ble right we chance to meet the animad
versions of our good Christian friends
of other denominations, it must be con
sidered that we are not perhaps unlike
the people who 1800 years ago, were
everywhere “spoken against.” God
has most signally blessed us in all these
years past —I have entire faith He will
still do so.
The Ark of God may be occasionally
jostled, but it will not fall, even though
we fail to stretch out our excited hands
to steady it in its triumphant progress.
Hence, my brother, I can feel no anxie
ty as I occasionally hear that “the
Baptists are in trouble on the commun
ion question.” It is certainly not so
in New York. Our denomination was
never so sound or unanimous in the
lelief and practice of Bible doctrine
as it is at this moment. S. R.
Now York, May. 187 G.
For the Index and Baniist.
FAMILY RELIGION
It\ Rev. W. C. Wilkes, of Gainesville, Georgia.
NO. I.
The venerable and worthy Dr. Pierce,
on visiting the quarterly aud district
meetings of his denomination, when an
inquiry is made into the State of re
ligion among the churches, generally
asks, “ How rnauy families keep up re
ligious worship ?” His close observa
tion, sound judgment and faithfulness
as a watchman, have loug since satis
fied him, that no church can “ grow in
grace and in the knowledge of Jesus,”
without soßij appropriate family re
ligion.
Eight years ago, the writer was try
ing to serve as pastor of a church in M„
in middle Georgia. Piety was at a low
ebb ; only a few attended the prayer
meetings. The congregation each Sun
day at 11 A.M., was large, but small at
u,gilt. Brethreu and sisters were kind
aud courteous, aud ministered gene
rously to the wants of their pastor, but
the church did not grow; their “souls
did not prosper;” sinners were not
converted, and the pastor’s heart was
greatly troubled. What must he do;
what could he do ? were serious ques
tions. While in the closet bathed in
tears, and mourning over the religious
declension of his people, it occurred to
his mind that probably the members of
the church had abandoned family wor
ship. Diligent inquiry was made in
regard to this matter. Almost every
family of every denomination, was vis
ited. The Bible was read ana prayer
made for parents and children, and, to
the astonishment of himself and others,
it was ascertained that only about five
families, including *he pastor’s, kept
up family worship; and two of them
were quite irregular. A faithful ser
mon on family religion and neighbor
hood piayer-meetings in different parts
of the town, were blessed in stirring up
a number to a proper discharge of their
duty. A precious revival ot religion
was the result; backsliders were re
claimed, sinners were convicted and
converted, and a number were added to
the church by baptism.
Brethren—pastors, is the religious
thermometer in your church low ? Very
probable your members have no family
religion, “ Beoause inquity abounds, the
love of many waxes cold.” These “are
perilous times.” The faith of many is
sorely tried, and some “ fall avfav.”* O,
let us try to keep glowing, the spirit of
devotion upon the family altar.
It may be, that among the thousands
who read The Index, this humble letter
may arrest the attention of some fond
parent, who loves his children as dearly
as the writer loves his, but who has no
family a,tar around which he daily
gathers his family for religious worship.
Another may once have commenced
family devotion, hut, for some reason
or other, has abandoned it. Another
still, may be in doubt whether it is
duty, and n eds confirmation. It is
very dcsirab ) to fortify all such as
much as poss.ble, agaiust any and atl
temptations to discontinue family re
ligion. A fourth may be contemplat
ing the care and dignity of a master of
a, family. He desires to start out in
life aright; wishes to make a fair show
in the world ; has placed his mark high
aud is detei mined to reach it. He can
not safely neglect family religion. He
will find it, if faithfully kept up, like
the ballast to the ship, or the governor
to the steam engine.
It is thought that a few chapters
upon this subject, might not be out of
place. We wish to show that family
religion is a duty, and can he proved,
beyond a reasonable doubt, both from
nature and revelation, that the neglect
of this duty is a sin, and that this sin
has received signal marks of Divine
displeasure; thirdly, that peculiar
blessings have been bestowed upon
those who have faithfully maintained
family religion ; and lastly, a few
suggestions as to the best way to be
gin and continue this duty.
May 29,1876.
Hotcs of CrabeL
From the Homeward Star.]
A VISIT TO TEXAS.
Editors Homeward Star—Hav
ing heard the question so often ask
ed, “Is Texas a fit place for wo
man ?” I wish to give to the ladies a
woman’s experience of three months
travel in that grand and beautiful
country.
Much has been said and written,
but the half has never been told. I
traveled through Northern, Middle
and Western Texas, and one was the
most beautiful until the other was
seen. Western Texas is my favor
ite, it being the last portion of the
State I visited. The first thing a
mother says when asked to go to
Texas, is, “We cannot educate our
children there. ” That is a mistake;
there are as good schools there as
in any State. And the next com
plaint is, there is no society for our
daughters ; again you are mistaken.
Society there will compare favora
bly with any State in the Union,
and when they marry they will be
almost certain to get industrious,
energetic, enterprising men, not
fops.
I did not confine my travels to
large cities, but visited the small
and new towns, and found the good
there. The people seemto be con
tented and happy. Occasionally I
would meet with a man who was
not satisfied, but we often find the
butcher’s dog not content with his
meat, especially if the bone is not
taken out. He will eat, but growl
at the same time.
I visited the town of Trinity.
Here I expected to find the “ horn
ed people”—but was doomed to
disappointment. The hotel, which
did not look very inviting from the
outside, had an air of refinement on
entering, as the first things which
greeted my eyes were a piano,
books and flowers. I spent two
days very pleasantly there, and met
ladies who would grace the parlors
of the best society in any of the old
States.
I called on a family in San Anto
nio that went there from Kentucky,
the “brag” State of the Union. I
asked the lady how she liked her
new home; her enthusiastic reply
was, “I am more than pleased.” I
came knowing all the bad, to learn
there was good in Texas. I found
churches in the smallest places I
visited, and found them largely at
tended ; and, as for the health of the
State, I never saw a more rugged
looking people.
I attended the Democratic Con
vention which was held on the sth
January in Galveston. There were
from one thousand to twelve hun
dred delegates, having come from
all parts of the State, and a more
healthy and intelligent body of men
it was never my good fortune to see.
There were white-haired fathers by
the hundreds, and fewer walking
sicks, and, as an evidence of their
good sense, I did not see a man
with his hair parted in the middle.
The fashions do not differ from
fashions in older States; ladies dress el
egantly and in good taste. Gentlemen
dress well, but I did not see a man
overdressed while in the State. One
of the great beauties of the country
is the flowers. They bloom the en
tire winter, and fresh vegetables are
to be had ten months in the year.
Texas has her faults, but they are
few and wide apart compared with
other States, and how perfectly ab
surd it is to travel all over the coun
try, and settle down on her infirmi
ties to fret and growl, when, by go
ing ten or twenty miles either way,
you can find all the advantages that
any man could reasonably expect.
It reminds me of the man too near
the fire for comfort, awaiting for the
fire to be moved instead of himself.
In conclusion I would say, if your
husbands are not doingwell, and are
dissatisfied with their present homes,
and want to go Texas, go with
them ; you will meet with a kind
and hospitable people, and, if you
will help yourselves, they will help
you, and extend to you a brother’s
hand. Ella Hinkle.
From every direction comes a most flatter
ing report upon the crop prospects. Every
body expects to “square up” in the fall, and
lay by a surplus.