From an eight page
tract published in London by Horace Randle in 1901.
You can see his picture
and read details of his acceptance of Millennial Dawn further down this blog.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wikipedia
The Wikipedia articles relevant to Jehovah’s Witnesses and
related groups and personalities are incredibly inaccurate. We do not support
their conclusions or the research behind them. While some sections contain no
or few faults, Wikipedia cannot be relied on for consistently accuracy.
This problem is endemic on Wikipedia. Neither Mr. Schulz nor
myself allow our students to use it as a reference in any paper or assignment.
Wikipedia is the habitation of religious trolls and abusive personalities who
consider themselves “expert” but who are neither expert nor particularly
talented.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The Russell's Baptism
Today someone commented on a post from 2009. They claimed that Storrs baptized the Russells in 1874. Because the comment is now burried in the archives, I'm posting my relpy here too:
There is no evidence that Storrs baptized the Russells. That is mere speculation. It's also wrong.
Storrs did not see water baptism as important. He wrote against it. Stetson, on the other hand, saw water baptism as vitally important.
There are three good candidates for personage who baptized the Russells. Storrs is not one of them.
While we're glad you read our blog, posting unfounded speculation as fact detracts from our efforts to document the real history. This claim is an example of many speculations given out as fact that find there place on Watch Tower history sites. It is without documentation. You swallowed it whole simply because you read it somewhere.
We are very skeptical historians. If we cannot document something, even if we belive it, we won't include it. This, Russell's "gold mine," claims about his fortune and business, and similar things are usually presented as fact but are at best speculation. Some of the claims made are lies.
Good history is a well documented, connected story. Your claim is fantasy fiction.
There is no evidence that Storrs baptized the Russells. That is mere speculation. It's also wrong.
Storrs did not see water baptism as important. He wrote against it. Stetson, on the other hand, saw water baptism as vitally important.
There are three good candidates for personage who baptized the Russells. Storrs is not one of them.
While we're glad you read our blog, posting unfounded speculation as fact detracts from our efforts to document the real history. This claim is an example of many speculations given out as fact that find there place on Watch Tower history sites. It is without documentation. You swallowed it whole simply because you read it somewhere.
We are very skeptical historians. If we cannot document something, even if we belive it, we won't include it. This, Russell's "gold mine," claims about his fortune and business, and similar things are usually presented as fact but are at best speculation. Some of the claims made are lies.
Good history is a well documented, connected story. Your claim is fantasy fiction.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
J. F. Rutherford's first book
I have the date 1895 in my files for this, but without consulting
the Boonville Advertiser cannot verify that.
This is J F Rutherford’s first book. The forward reads (in
part)
“It has been the aim and intention in the preparation of
this book to give a brief analysis of the Laws of Missouri in a form easy to be
comprehended by every one. THE ADVERTISER has had Mr. J.F. Rutherford, one of
the leading members of the Boonville bar, to compile and arrange the laws
herein. His fitness for such work is a guarantee of its usefulness to the
farmers and business men.”
About a dozen different firms of lawyers are listed in the
directory. JFR was part of WRIGHT AND RUTHERFORD, lawyers, Office in the
Windsor Block.
The small book of about 128 pages was given away free with
the Boonville Advertiser. It may have curiosity value, but has nothing to do
with JFR’s later writings for the Watch Tower Society.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Pastor Russell in the Critics Den
Much reprinted picture that is found in some editions of Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens and also the Finished Mystery.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Russell v. T. T. Shields
Russell lectured in London, Ontario, in 1908. The Essex, New York, Free Press of February 28, 1906, reported:
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
The sort of documentation we use ...
Our Research
We don’t post key material or chapter extracts here anymore.
Because of harassment from some who believe all research into this subject is
the province of a small group of men who primarily live on the American east
coast but who felt free to ‘borrow’ our work without credit, we’ve moved all of
our detailed research to a private, invitation only blog. This was not the only
issue. You will find bits of our research on a web page that bills itself as
the best short history of the Watch Tower took material from here and mixed it
in with stupid, unfounded speculation and outright error.
Still, it may be worthwhile to tell those who still stop
here where our research stands. We now have a significantly detailed, nearly
finished (we’re waiting on a microfilm) chapter on Russell’s young years. It
details his parent’s early years, his education, and his religious struggles.
It contains details you will not know. It also puts the lie to most everything
written by a recently published author who replaced research with imagination.
We present significant and new detail about Russell’s
interactions with Adventists, age-to-come believers, Methodists and others.
Almost none of this has been published before. It is drawn from original
letters, contemporary magazines and the papers of the individuals involved. As
with most of what you see on the internet, the commonly held picture is simply
wrong. The story is in the details; we present the details.
We have a nearly 80 page chapter discussing the early Bible
Study Group in Allegheny. We tell you what doctrines they accepted and why. We
tell you whose books they read, who they corresponded with and what groups
influenced them. You will find that the commonly held belief that they were
primarily influenced by Adventists is wrong.
We have finished a detailing Russell’s entry into the
Barbourite movement. This includes the most detailed biography of John Henry
Paton found anywhere. Some of that is drawn from his private letters. We have
one year of his diary. In this chapter we give you biographies of Benjamin
Wallis Keith, and we include photos of him you will not have seen. We discuss
S. H. Withington; you will probably have never heard of him. We profile L. A.
Allen, one of the first Watch Tower contributors, and her father. We tell you
of Lizzie Allen’s troubled life, taken from her own words. We tell you
something of Avis M. Hamlin’s life. It’s almost certain you know nothing of
her. Yet, she was important in the early years of Zion’s Watch Tower.
One of the most significant chapters details Russell’s early
ministry with Barbour. We know where they preached, what their message was, who
they met, what they said. This chapter draws on early newspaper articles, an
issue of the Herald of the Morning almost no one has seen, and Russell’s own
words.
We follow this with a chapter on the fruitage garnered by
their ministry. Names that may appear only once or so in Zion’s Watch Tower are
given biographies and put in their proper setting. These include Caleb Davies,
a merchant from Cleveland, William I. Mann, an engineer and inventor, Joshua
Tavender, an industrialist, J. C.Sunderlin, a Methodist minister and
photographer, and others. Among the others is Arthur Adams, Methodist minister.
We draw his story from pages of original archival material. This is a good
place to observe that no matter how much you might want something, stealing
from an archive is wrong. And if the person who stole Object and Manner of Our
Lord’s Return from the archive holding these papers has a conscience at all, he
will return it. In this chapter we tell in Sunderlin’s own words about his
opium addiction and how he overcame it. We draw parts of his story from letters
he wrote. We own some of the originals. A number of seldom seen or never seen
photos show up in each of these chapters.
The next chapter considers the aftermath of their 1878
failure and the separation into two movements. We note several times from
original sources the lack of doctrinal unity and explain the significance of
that.
I have summarized just the first few chapters. We continue
to find new material, often thanks to interested parties. We have thousands of
pages of new material. It came our way through the kind efforts of one of our
blog readers. We’ve just arranged to acquire about seventy pages of original
letters and such by one of the first Watch Tower missionaries in China. We have
a poor quality photo of him and his wife and several of his children. So we
continue to work. The real history is far different than we first believed.
We still consider requests to see the invitation only blog,
but we tend to limit access to those who can help in some significant way.
Curiosity alone may not get you access.
A Mystery?
Here is a mystery from
a 1928 convention report. The Messenger for July 31, 1928, spread across pages
4 and 5 - The Bethel family at meal-time. You can see W E Van Amburgh and J F
Rutherford at the head of tables on the far right of the picture. Below the
center pillar is a young Nathan Knorr. Two figures directly below him on the
table nearest the camera is a figure that has been drawn in. Who was in this
seat originally? Was it just an empty space that someone decided to fill with a
bit of art work? Whoever did the drawing gave the character hardly any
shoulders.
I will grant readers
that this is not the most important question in the world.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
1913 Convention series booklet
A 16 page program of the train tour from 1913. The booklet
lists all the places scheduled for meetings and gives some handy hints for travellers.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
THE HOUSTON-DAVIDSON DEBATE Part 1
by "Jerome"
PREFACE
There are three posts
on this subject which I have published in reverse order – simply so that
readers can read them in the correct order. Inevitably, they will knock other
material off the front pages of this blog, but readers can easily go to the
archives to check past posts on other aspects of Watch Tower history.
This research started
with a review of The Day of Vengeance published in ZWT (reprints 2278) which
mentions a debate in north-east Scotland featuring Bible student Charles
Houston and clergyman Donald Davidson. More on the actual debate is found in an
earlier ZWT (reprints 1965). Houston shared in colporteur work, and his efforts
in Scotland are also detailed in ZWT (reprints 1884).
Two local newspapers
for Houston’s home area of Wick gave him considerably publicity. He organised
wide distribution of the tract Do You Know? He also organised a series of
public meetings. This attracted criticism that prompted Davidson, then minister
of Canisbay Free Church, to challenge him to debate. The resulting event was
reported in some detail.
The newspapers in
question are not available on the internet, and the relevant issues could only
be found in the Wick Public library. I am very grateful to the member of staff
who checked four months of papers and sent me full scans of all the material.
This is an excellent example for other libraries, which sometimes seem to
delight in thwarting researchers’ efforts, especially those who cannot actually
physically walk through the door. I transcribed all the newspaper references
(which came to over 100 pages) and at the library’s request have sent them all
the transcripts with a special introduction.
To get an overview, it
would good to read through this introduction which follows. It should be noted
that, since this was written for the library, it is designed for the general
public rather than Watch Tower historians. It assumes that readers are not
familiar with Zion’s Watch Tower, Pastor Russell, Millennial Dawn, future probation,
etc. Hence, the explanations about beliefs and the personnel involved, and the
attempt to maintain a neutral tone.
Following this preface
and general introduction, the two separate transcriptions of the debate are
reproduced in full.
All the other material
– acrimonious correspondence trying to organise the debate, the aftermath, plus
separate debates with local worthies on subjects like the trinity – has not
been reproduced here. It would have swamped this blog with far too many pages. However,
the whole story, totalling 114 pages, can be downloaded as a pdf free of charge
from Lulu.com. Simply type in “Houston-Davidson debate” in the search box.
Please feel free to copy on this download for any who may be interested.
Read. And I hope –
enjoy!
INTRODUCTION
CHARLES NEAVE HOUSTON OF WICK – AN EARLY
CONTROVERSIAL EVANGELIST
For the first four
months of 1896, hardly an issue of the weekly John O’Groat Journal and the
weekly Northern Ensign (both published in north-east Scotland) went by without
a letter or a reference to one C N Houston – full name Charles Neave Houston.
Houston, a draper in Wick, had become a convert to the Bible Student movement
spearheaded by the writer Charles Taze Russell, who published a magazine Zion’s
Watch Tower. The magazine still continues today, now named The Watchtower,
published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As an enthusiastic
convert Houston took time out from his business to spread his new views,
culminating in a public debate with the minister of Canisbay Free Church. This
was reported in detail in the papers. The surrounding correspondence – often
quite acrimonious – can be quite entertaining for a modern reader. In those
days before instant communication, people were not prepared to wait a whole
week before responding to comments they objected to. So, a letter in the John
O’Groat Journal (published Fridays) would often be answered in the Northern
Ensign (published Tuesdays) and vice versa.
Some background
would be in order. From genealogical records, the business news in the
Edinburgh Gazette, and then the actual correspondence in the JOGJ and NE, a
little bit of Houston’s personal history can be established.
He was born in Canisbay
in 1854. He was apprenticed to Peter MacKenzie, a draper in Wick, and
ultimately married his daughter, Alice. No children are mentioned in his
obituary. He eventually became sole proprietor of the drapery business in 1895.
He took a keen interest
in religious matters. When the Pulteneytown Mission Hall was opened in 1887, as
an appendage to the Wick Free Church, Charles Houston was reported as one of
those giving an address at its first evangelistic meeting. But around 1893
(“some three years ago” as he expressed it in the February 1896 debate) Houston
“saw the light” in what he called “that blessed book ‘Millennial Dawn.’”
His obituary mentioned
that he had spent time in America where “he became acquainted with several
thinkers and writers whose friendship he greatly valued.” This may have been
connected with his interest or even his introduction to Zion’s Watch Tower and
Millennial Dawn. Or he may have discovered this theology in Scotland. Russell’s
evangelistic efforts had reached Scotland first in 1881 – when an American
visitor J J Bender had hired boys to circulate over fifty thousand copies of
Russell’s small book Food for Thinking Christians in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee
and Aberdeen. Glasgow in particular became an early centre for what became the
Bible Student movement. When Houston made an evangelical trip in 1895 he spoke
of visiting “the friends” in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Russell expanded his
original small book into a much larger one entitled The Plan of the Ages (later
The Divine Plan of the Ages), first published in 1886. This became the first of
a series known as Millennial Dawn.
As noted above,
sometime in the early 1890s Houston came into contact with Millennial Dawn. He
was well-known in his area, and his conversion attracted some attention. He cut
down on business to make more time for circulating literature, including the
aforementioned tour in 1895, which was written up in Zion’s Watch Tower. He
arranged for a widespread tract distribution to promote his new views in his
own area; and when Charles Russell suggested that supporters might organise
public meetings, Houston did that as well.
The newspapers
published fairly polite and neutral reviews of Houston’s efforts, but they
attracted negative publicity from offended supporters of orthodoxy. A debate on
the trinity ensued (Millennial Dawn did not support the trinity) – and feathers
were ruffled. It was suggested that merchants should stick to selling their
wares rather than becoming teachers, unless it was a plot to advertise the
drapery business not available to competitors. As often happens in debates of
this sort, Houston was also accused of misrepresenting his opponents’ position,
setting up and demolishing straw men. This correspondence petered out as
Houston’s opponents withdrew.
But the main
controversy that drew the Reverend Mr Davidson into the fray was a doctrine
commonly known as “future probation.” Millennial Dawn taught that countless
dead would come back in a future resurrection to receive a chance of accepting
Christ and gaining salvation. This was not the orthodox position, which dubbed
Houston’s views as “second chance.” The argument then developed along familiar
lines – one side insisting this was not a second chance but the real first
chance for those affected. A variation on this as taught by Houston was that it
was really a second chance for everyone, because everyone lost their first
chance through the sin of Adam. The other side accused “Future Probationists”
of being Universalists; then “Future Probationists” responded that this was not
universal salvation, but universal opportunity. And so on. Questions that orthodoxy
would sometimes sidestep by saying that it was not for us to know, were
answered with irritating certainty by the non-orthodox.
Houston and Davidson
met for the first time in the local newspaper offices in Wick. Houston was
accused of spreading Millennial Dawn theology amongst Davidson’s flock by
paying a man to circulate a tract called Do You Know? Houston not only agreed
he had done this, but was adamant he would continue to do so. The tract in
question carried the imprimatur – “’Millennial Dawn’ had done more for me as a
Christian, and to make the Bible clear to me, than all other books and
pamphlets combined. I will supply this Society’s tracts free, and the book
mentioned at one shilling, or the reading of it free – C.N. HOUSTON, Wick.’
Houston was quite
unrepentant and the exchange between the two men was described as “exceedingly
vehement and declamatory.”
However, it was agreed
that a debate could take place. For weeks thereafter the two men wrangled
through the pages of the newspapers on the exact wording of the debate. Houston
wanted to debate the doctrine called the “ransom”. This was too general for
Davidson, who wanted to pin Houston down to exact Yes and No answers on matters
where Houston believed he needed to give qualified answers. Eventually, they
hit on a formula acceptable – just about – to both men, and the debate finally
took place on Wednesday, February 26th, 1896, at the Canisbay Free
Church where Davidson was minister.
Both the John O’Groat
Journal and the Northern Ensign sent reporters. And the two accounts give quite
a full picture of what went on. The church of course was full of Davidson’s
supporters, quite capable of cheering their man and booing and hissing Houston.
Modern readers can make up their own minds on the balance of truth and error
expressed on the occasion, but I think it is fair to state that Houston (a bit
of a Daniel in a lion’s den) held his own very well. Davidson actually seemed
to run out of steam – running short on his allotted time, and eventually declining
to argue further, saying that others could debate Houston – there were subjects
on which he, Davidson, would not dream of commenting, whereas Houston seemed to
have all the answers (even if all the wrong answers as Davidson saw it).
In the aftermath, one
paper published an anonymous write-up that gave Houston lavish praise and
strongly criticised Davidson. Unsurprisingly, Houston sent the clipping to
America to Charles Taze Russell who published it in full in his journal.
Houston was also quick to complain that a long list of worthy gentlemen who had
put their name to a document condemning Millennial Dawn had now admitted they
had never read the book in question – other than selective quotes as provided
by Davidson and taken out of context.
Ultimately, and fairly
quickly, the newspapers’ correspondents grew tired of the subject and asked for
a line to be drawn.
Charles Houston might
have become quite well known in the fledgling (Millennial Dawn) Bible Student
movement had he not died quite unexpectedly from pneumonia in December 1902 in
his late 40s. The newspapers gave a sympathetic obituary. They mentioned his
earlier religious affiliations, and a friend took the main funeral service,
with support from several local clergy. His funeral did not take place in a
church but rather in his house. He was buried in the Wick New Cemetery.
Note on spelling, punctuation and paragraphing etc.
I have decided to let
the formatting stand as originally printed. In the actual transcriptions of the
debates there is occasional inconsistency in capitalisation for He, Him etc.
when talking about God or Christ. This would be down to the reporter, who is
trying to make sense of shorthand notes on a subject he may not properly
understand. And as often happened in newspapers of the time, there are very
long passages where paragraphing is non-existent. However, if readers in
Scotland could understand the printed page as presented in 1896, I am sure
modern readers can do the same. And spelling has not been adjusted. It is
generally very good, but is of course UK spelling rather than US spelling. So
any American readers will have to get used to “centre” “honour” etc.
THE HOUSTON-DAVIDSON DEBATE Part 2
Transcript of debate in the Northern Ensign for
March 3, 1896
THE debate between the
Rev. Mr Davidson and Mr C.N. Houston on some of the doctrines taught in the
book “Millennial Dawn” took place in Canisbay Free Church on Wednesday evening.
The circumstances which led up to the debate are well known to our readers and
need not be recapitulated here. A good deal of interest was manifested in the
event, and it came off in the presence of an audience which quite filled the
church. The weather which had been very stormy for a whole week previously had
become settled. The bitterly cold wind had ceased to blow, there was a fine
serene sunset, and a clear sky and nearly full moon made night almost as bright
as day, while a sharp frost converted muddy roads into as pleasant paths as
were ever trod upon by shoe leather. The people gathered to the place of
meeting from far and near. A party drove from Wick and another from Halkirk,
and other districts beyond the Persian frontier sent contingents – one of those
from a distance being the Rev. Mr Brims, Keiss – while the parish itself was,
as a matter of course, largely represented. When the audience was assembling
the strangers who had taken their seats had leisure to take a look round and
mentally express satisfaction with the internal alterations and improvements,
in virtue of which it may be said that the church has quite renewed its youth
and been removed far and forever from the class of sacred edifices which are
characterised as belonging to the barn type. Reflections on this subject were
distracted for a time by the appearance of a plump and every way well appointed
cat – not black – which inspected the elders’ platform, reserved for the
chairman and the debaters; and from thence it sprang up in the direction of the
pulpit, where for the rest of the evening it is supposed to have watched the
interesting proceedings which were going on below. When the hour came – seven
o’clock – almost every seat in the large building was occupied. Dr Macgregor
acted as chairman, and discharged the duties of his office with ability and
fairness. It was bruited abroad that lively episodes might be looked for before
the debate was over, and there was even a rumour that extra police were to be
in attendance to make sure that all things should be done decently and in
order. One preserver of the public peace was in evidence, but one only, and as
might have been anticipated, no occasion arose for invoking his intervention.
The chairman kept the audience well in hand. At one juncture when there
appeared to be some disposition to interrupt Mr Houston, the doctor said that
if anything of the kind happened again he would name the interrupter. This,
however, was more easily said than done. In a crowded meeting it will often
baffle the keenest-sighted president to “spot” every individual who hisses or
interjects an unfriendly remark, and this was found to be the case in the present
instance. Therefore at the next threatened outbreak, Dr Macgregor said that if
order was not maintained he would leave the chair, and this intimation had the
effect for a time of allaying the discordant elements. Personally Mr Houston is
held in high esteem in his native parish, but there was evidently something
more than curiosity to know about “this new doctrine” of which he appeared as
the setter forth. Coupled with the feeling of curiosity there was apparently
among some an uneasy suspicion that the doctrine in question marks a perilous
deviation from the old paths which they and their fathers before them have
hitherto been content to keep in their Zionward pilgrimage, and orthodox
religious folk are sensitive to nothing so much as meddling with matters which
vitally concern their hereditary beliefs. Mr Houston, however, got throughout a
patient hearing, and his arguments were closely followed by the meeting. Both
gentlemen paid the audience the compliment of coming to the debate well
prepared; and although an hour was allowed each for his opening speech, neither
had half exhausted his arguments when time was called. After that, each had
half an hour in which to reply, but the time limit was not rigidly insisted on;
and it was half-past ten o’clock before the debate came to an end. A full
report of the proceedings would fill about fourteen columns, and as that is a
much larger order on our space than we can meet, a severely condensed summary
must suffice. Mr Houston and Mr Davidson, accompanied by Dr Macgregor, emerged
in due time from the vestry, and were quietly received. Mr Davidson read four
verses of the 19th Psalm, commencing, “God’s law is perfect, and
converts The soul in sin that lies,” and these having been sung, led by Dr
Macgregor, Mr Davidson engaged in prayer. Thereafter
Mr Houston said he had
pleasure in proposing that Dr Macgregor to take the chair. The doctor was known
to them all, and he presumed he would have no interest in favouring one side
more than the other. (Applause.)
Mr Davidson seconded
the motion. In doing so he wished to explain that Mr Houston had the choice of
the chairman, and three gentlemen had been named, without, however, consulting
them, viz, the Rev. Mr Macpherson, Dr Macgregor, and Councillor A. Sinclair,
merchant. Mr Macpherson declined because he had to go from home; and Dr
Macgregor also declined on account of his professional duties. He (Mr Davidson)
then went to Mr Sinclair, who was willing to take the chair; but Mr Houston
preferred the doctor, and that gentleman ultimately consented to undertake the
duties of the office. (Applause.)
The Chairman asked the
audience to give each gentleman a patient hearing. Truth, he said, could not
suffer permanently from anything that was said or done, and they had evidence
of this in the history of the past and in the record of quarrels on questions
of opinion which had taken place. The chairman then read the terms of debate as
follows; - “I, C.N. Houston, affirm that according to the Scriptures, the ‘ransom for all’ given by the ‘Man Christ Jesus’ does not give or guarantee everlasting life or blessing to any more. It only guarantees for every man an opportunity of life everlasting.”
“I, Donald Davidson,
affirm that according to the Scriptures, the ‘ransom for all’ given by the ‘Man
Christ Jesus’ does give and guarantee everlasting life and blessing to some
men. It does not guarantee ‘another opportunity or trial for life everlasting’
as taught in ‘Millennial Dawn,’ vol 1.”
MR HOUSTON OPENS.
Mr Houston introduced
his opening speech by saying that he appeared before them that evening with
great pleasure. He was one of themselves; they knew him altogether; and he need
not therefore make any apology about himself. If they believed half that had
been said in connection with this controversy, he could not wonder if they had
some curious feelings in their hearts; but he hoped to be able to disperse some
of the more erroneous ideas which had been formed and which had possibly been
crammed into them. He spoke of the changes which had taken place in various
departments of life – changes wrought by science and changes in theological
opinion, and remarked on the opposition which everything that was new
encountered for a time, although by-and-by it came to be accepted as a matter
of course and regarded as indispensible, notwithstanding the deceivableness of
Satan’s power in getting people to keep back truth by prejudice and religious
hypocritical cant. If people charged him with disseminating error, he was sorry
for it; but they had known him all his life, and they knew that he had ever
sought to do that which was considered good. He described how he had been led
to study the question which was to be discussed that night, and how he found
that there was not a single iota of the doctrines which he now believed could
be gainsaid by the word of God. After his brother-in-law’s death, he had after
prayerful consideration and most earnest thought resolved to give up business
and devote his life to the study and proclamation of God’s truth alone, independent
of any creed, sect or system, but just as he saw it pointed out to him in that
glorious book, “Millennial Dawn,” which is the word of God expounded. He got a
person to distribute the sample tract, “Do You Know?” and he had every right to
be challenged for doing that; but he had an equal right to hold and expound his
own opinions. Truth was every man’s possession’ and that was the stage they
were at now. He read the proposition which he was to affirm, and said that the
latter part was not exactly according to what was in “Millennial Dawn,” but Mr
Davidson would not agree to it in any other way, therefore let it go. When Mr
Davidson did at last agree on the terms of debate, he was greatly rejoiced, and
he was there that night, as the result, to make known the truth of God. What
they had to consider was “the ransom.” And what was the ransom? Dr Young of
Edinburgh defined it as a corresponding price – an equivalent of some kind –
something that you would not take gold for – you must get back for it the same
thing – you life or that thing. He drew a picture of the garden in which Adam
was placed. It was arranged by God that Adam should be the father of the race;
and a law was given him to keep, but he disobeyed and died, and all his
posterity with him. But the Second Adam gave his life a ransom for the first
Adam and all in him – and that ransom will be testified by God to every living
soul in due time. Therefore no man could perish except by refusing with full
knowledge and opportunity the Second Adam’s doings. The heathen had not heard
the glorious news of a ransom, but still they are responsible; and God condemns
them in one – the first Adam – that he may redeem them all in One, and tell
them some time or other what has been done for them. He gave his reasons for
believing that this would happen at the end of the present dispensation when
according to the beliefs of the Jews and the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel the
patriarchs would be brought back to the earth; and Paul said, “Why think ye it
a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?” The Jews had carnal ideas,
and thought they were to be the power in the earth; but Christ had first to die
for their sins, and in virtue of his death they shall yet be taken back to the
land and shall inherit the earth and be the power in the world. It is God’s
fiat that they shall possess the land because they are ransomed. The ransom was
paid two “days” in advance, otherwise two thousand years in advance, and when
the time is fulfilled, those counted worthy in the Jewish age will be brought
forth and constituted the rulers among men in the day of the world’s trial.
This period of about two thousand years is marked off for calling out the
church, the Bride of Christ, which is to accompany Him in the work of blessing
and restoring the world. The time for their favour began in 1878, at the end of
their double – the period of disfavour; and as they took 37 years in falling,
they take the same number of years in rising again, which brings us to 1915, at
which time they are due to possess the land and be the controlling power. Mr
Houston next spoke of the second chance, and said it was a great mistake if any
one thought that “Millennial Dawn” teaches that God excuses sin. Men could do
nothing without knowledge – knowledge to take of one’s free will the blessing
which God has provided and offers. Man is meant by God not to be a slave but a
noble being, a king; and in the restoring of the race the awfulness of sin was
shown in the destruction of those who fall away and remain impenitent, who have
possessed knowledge and opportunity, and have tasted the good word of God and
the powers of the world to come. For them is reserved the devouring fire which
shall devour the adversary.
MR DAVIDSON’S OPENING –
A CATECHETICAL INTERLUDE.
The Chairman said they
would all agree that they had listened to a very eloquent discourse from Mr
Houston, He would say no more than that. It was now Mr Davidson’s turn to speak
for an hour. (Applause.)Mr Davidson, who was received with renewed cheering, said he wished to centre his thoughts on the latter part of the proposition which he was to affirm, viz., “another opportunity or trial for everlasting life,” as taught in the first volume of “Millennial Dawn.” But he would first make one remark by way of answer to Mr Houston’s speech. From his letters and his present remarks his position seemed to be, there is a ransom for all, then why not should all receive blessing through that ransom? No doubt it was a little difficult to reconcile these two positions; but he (Mr Davidson) would endeavour to make it clear by a simple illustration. Mr Houston was a draper in Wick, and being in that line of business, he was quite willing and fully competent to supply all the servant girls who came into Wick at each terms with bonnets and dresses. (Laughter and some hisses.) But he supposed he was not exaggerating or stating what was untrue when he said that many of these persons when they went into Wick did not go into Mr Houston’s shop and buy bonnets and dresses notwithstanding his willingness to supply these articles. Many of them went to other shops – in which they were perhaps mistaken, but it was a fact. He could sympathise with Mr Houston in that position, for he was in the same position himself as regards spiritual matters. There was a ransom for every one in Canisbay, but alas, many would not come and avail themselves of it. The god of this world had blinded their minds, and that explained why though there was a ransom for all, all did not avail themselves of the glad tidings. Mr Davidson went on to say that before proceeding to discuss his proposition he had one or two questions to put to Mr Houston, and he might answer them now or he might decline to answer them. He would put the questions through the chairman. The first was, “Does Mr Houston sincerely believe that according to the Scriptures all who are unsaved in this present life will get a second chance or another opportunity for life everlasting after death?” To that he (Mr Davidson) said No.
Mr Houston – I will
answer that question afterwards.
Mr Davidson – You will
think about it. I have another question and Mr Houston may answer it or not;
but I venture to say that the meeting will demand answers from Mr Houston to
these two questions – answers that will be plain and straight. (Applause.) If
not intelligible and straightforward answers are given, I have no power to
extort them; but if such answers are not given we will have something to say.
My second question is, “Does Mr Houston acknowledge that the book ‘Millennial
Dawn’ teaches the doctrine of a second chance or another opportunity of life
everlasting to the unsaved after death?” I say Yes. (A voice, addressed to Mr
Houston, “Answer!”)
The Chairman – Mr
Houston does not need to answer the question now unless he chooses.
Councillor Sinclair – I
think it would save time if the questions were answered now. (Applause.)
Mr Houston – I have no
objection to answer them now, but it would lead the meeting to straighter issue
if Mr Davidson would go on with his address. (Cries of “No!” and cheers.)
The Chairman thought it
would be better if Mr Houston reserved his answers until a later stage.
Mr Davidson was quite
willing that this course should be adopted. He said he thought he would make it
clear to their minds that the doctrine of a second chance was plainly taught in
“Millennial Dawn.” Mr Houston would have them believe that he was as orthodox
as himself (Mr Davidson), perhaps more so; but it was not so much with Mr
Houston as with the book that he had to deal; and he asked them to bear with
him when he read extracts from its pages. The extracts were to the effect that
the Scriptures do not teach that death ends all probation; that the heathen and
infants will assuredly have an opportunity of being saved in the age or
dispensation to come, when all that are in their graves shall come forth, and
when they shall have a hundred years of trial during the millennial time; and
Mr Davidson further maintained that the book teaches that under certain
conditions a second chance will be given to those who have lived in a civilised
state and possessed the bible.
A TESTIMONY CONCERNING
A SECOND CHANCE.
Mr Davidson said he
would now read a document signed by twenty-one persons, including himself –
gentlemen who occupied honourable positions and were supposed to be honourable
and intelligent men. The document is as follows: -
“We, the undersigned, having read the book
‘Millennial Dawn,’ vol. 1., are decidedly of opinion that it plainly teaches
the doctrine of a ‘second chance’ or ‘another opportunity’ of life everlasting
to every man after death. (See pages
105, 108, 111, 129, 130, 140, 144, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 161.)
James Macpherson, E.C. minister of Canisbay.
Alex. Sinclair, C.C., Canisbay.
Andrew Munro, teacher, Canisbay.
Alexander G. Macgregor, medical doctor.
James Sutherland, elder, inspector of poor.
George Manson, elder, Duncansbay.
David Kennedy, elder, Freswick.
Alexander Dunnett, elder, Brabster.
David Nicholson, deacon, Seater.
John Simpson, deacon, Moy.
Francis Sutherland, deacon, John
O’Groats.
William Dunnet, elder, Huns.
William Steven, elder, Gills.
George Malcom, deacon, Gills.
Matthew Dundass, deacon, Duncansbay.
Geo. T. Mackenzie, schoolmaster and
deacon, Freswick.
Arthur M’Connachie, divinity student,
Zion Chapel, Wick.
Daniel Sutherland, accountant, Wick.
Alex. S. Fullarton, teacher, Wick.
A. Phimester, clothier, Wick.
Donald
Davidson, Free Church Minister, Canisbay.
Mr Davidson proceeded
to say that he did not see the need of going on with a discussion of this
doctrine of a second chance if Mr Houston did not believe in it. Why discuss
points on which they were agreed? It would be better to hear Mr Houston himself
give plain, definite, intelligible answers to the questions which had been put
through the chairman, and leave it to him to say whether thee need be further
discussion. (Applause.)
The Chairman informed
Mr Davidson that he had still twenty-five minutes to speak.
DEBATE DEVELOPS INTO
LIVELY DISCUSSION.
Mr Houston rose and
commenced his reply when Mr Davidson asked for a plain yes or no to the
question whether there is a second chance for all who are unsaved in the
present life.
Mr Houston claimed the
right of reply in his own way.
The Chairman – Mr
Houston is entitled to do that.
Mr Davidson –
Certainly. Go on.
Mr Houston read from
the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning those who sinned after having received
the knowledge of truth. The point, he said, was based on knowledge, and
knowledge was the ground of condemnation. There was no more sacrifice for sin,
but God does purpose to give knowledge. (“Question!”)
The Chairman – The
question is, Is there a second chance for those who are unsaved in this world?
(Hear, hear and cheers.) Is there a second chance for those who go into the
other world, both for those who have heard and those who have not heard the
gospel. That is the point. (Cheers and cries of “Yes” or “No.”)
Mr Houston – I won’t
answer that. (Hisses and general disturbance, which brought from the chairman
an imperative demand for order.)
Councillor Sinclair – I
don’t see the use of coming here to discuss the subject if these questions are
not answered. (Applause.)
Mr Davidson – I said before
that I could not extort answers from Mr Houston unless he chose to give them.
Councillor Sinclair –
It is a fraud altogether. (Laughter, hisses and cheers.)
The Chairman – There is
another half-hour for each side.
Councillor Sinclair –
Is it truth we want and not words. (Applause.)
The Chairman – Mr
Houston may give us a lot of texts but leave us in the mist. (Applause.)
Mr Houston – If Mr
Davidson wishes me to say yes or not to an absurdity I will not answer that.
The Chairman – Mr
Davidson says that “Millennial Dawn” teaches that after death there is a second
chance for every man who is unsaved. I think Mr Houston should say yes or no
whether he believes that that doctrine is taught in the book.
Mr Houston – That is
true, but I dare not acquiesce in a proposition that is not stated as it is
stated in “Millennial Dawn.” You have heard the extracts read from the book,
and I might as well ask you what you think.
Mr Charles Dunnet,
Gills – Do you not believe in “Millennial Dawn?” (Laughter and cheers.)
Mr Houston – Every word
of it. Mr Houston said he would give an illustration. When a man was flogged on
board ship, a doctor stood by and stopped the punishment if he saw that the
culprit had not sufficient life and sense to make his conscious of what he was
getting. If God had provided a ransom which was as far reaching as the evil
that is in the world, would it be just or fair that poor creatures should be
cast into destruction because they had heard something about the ransom but did
not fully understand and acquiesce in it? That would be doing what the law of
this country would not do; and that was his answer. (A voice, “Not straight!”)
Councillor Sinclair –
Put the question again.
The Chairman – I
understand Mr Houston declines to answer it,
Mr Houston – I believe
no living soul will be condemned except those who have had full knowledge,
according to the question.
Mr Davidson – that is
not according to the question.
Mr Houston – No one
will be condemned, is my answer.
The Chairman put to Mr
Houston the second question as to whether the book teaches and he believes that
there will be a second chance or another opportunity to the unsaved after
death.
Mr Houston – Most
distinctly – to all and sundry.
The Chairman – That
there will be an opportunity for life everlasting for the unsaved after death?
Mr Houston – Yes; but
the manner of putting the question has a contingency in it. (Laughter.) The
gospel has been preached for nearly two thousand years, and there is no second
chance for those who have heard and rejected it; but the ransom secures eternal
life to all who will have it, either here or hereafter. (“Oh, oh!” laughter and
booing.)
Mr Davidson – May I
take it that Mr Houston sincerely believes that there will be a second chance
or another opportunity given to the unsaved after death?
Mr Houston – Most
distinctly, but I object to the word unsaved, as that implies that they had had
an opportunity.
Mr Davidson (offering
Mr Houston a document) – Will you put your initials to it?
Mr Houston – I would
not word it in that way.
MR DAVIDSON’S REASONS
OF DISSENT.
Mr Davidson said he was
opposed to the doctrine of a second chance for four reasons - (1), Because it
is unphilosophical and unreasonable; (2), Because it is a doctrine which is
repugnant to Christian thought and feeling; (3), Because it is highly dangerous
to morality; and (4), Because it is wholly unwarranted by Scripture. Mr
Davidson dwelt at considerable length on each of these objections to the
doctrine. It is, he said, an ingenious theory, but it is a theory spun out of a
man’s own brain. It is a human speculation and therefore has the value only of
a human speculation. He demanded plain Scriptural warrant for the doctrine; and
it lay with Mr Houston to find the proof. Such proof, he maintained, could not
be found. The Scripture doctrine is, “Now is the day of salvation;” and no one
of the human race could answer the question, “How shall we escape if we neglect
so great a salvation?” Let Mr Houston now stand up and give the Scripture
proofs which he demanded. (Applause.)
Mr Houston objected
that Mr Davidson had not read the whole of the passage in “Millennial Dawn”
which implied that there will be a second chance to some of those who live in a
state of civilisation. He repeated that it was only those who have had a clear
realisation of the terms of the ransom who will be condemned for refusing it.
He read from the Confession of Faith with regard to election and
predestination; and considering that that was the creed of Mr Davidson’s
church, he did not wonder at his vehemence in repudiating the doctrine that the
ransom for all must testified to all in due time, he asked where was the
justice and consistency, and where was the Scripture, for condemning men for
not accepting a ransom which was never offered to them or which they were
foreordained to reject. The words “As the tree falls so shall it lie,” bore out
his doctrine that as it falls so shall it rise again. No man would be condemned
until he had had a full and fair opportunity of accepting the eternal life
which God had provided for him. Mr Davidson preaches a universal gospel.
Mr Davidson – I do.
Mr Houston replied that
the Confession of Faith did not, notwithstanding the many passages of Scripture
which were in the same terms as the one which says that Christ Jesus is the
propitiation not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He
proceeded to say that the doctrine of a second chance was the good news which
would be unto all people. God had appointed a day in which He would judge the
world, and he would bring back man to it, as the Jews would be taken back to
the land and remain on it to all eternity. He (Mr Houston) had come to them
that night, and it was at their peril whether they received or rejected the
glorious truth which he had to tell them about. It would take a little while to
make everything clear to them – (laughter, and a voice, “Yer gettin’ more into
the mist”) – but what he had stated was God’s word and could not be gainsaid.
A MIXTURE OF ORTHODOXY
AND HERESY.
Mr Davidson said, with
respect to Mr Houston’s remarks, that he had never listened to such a mixture
of orthodoxy and heresy – (laughter) – of sense and nonsense, from the lips of
any man. (Renewed laughter.) That was his opinion and judgment. Mr Houston
appeared to have no shadow of doubt in his mind regarding those great and
solemn questions regarding the state of the heathen, the offer of the gospel
and the doctrine of election. He (Mr Davidson) had arrived at no such condition
of certainty; and he would like to be a little more humble. He could not
reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s free will while he was placed in the
condition in which he was. God was not in duty bound, as a mere matter of
justice, to send him the Gospel; and he might have been made an ape, a horse or
a worm instead of a human being. If he were cast into hell, he could not say
nay. If God had sent him the Gospel, he could only consider it a marvellous act
of mercy, condescension and love on His part, for which he trusted to praise
Him through all eternity. He had no ambition to continue this controversy any
longer. He freely handed it over to any other party who might take his place in
answering Mr Houston. He would tread his path humbly and confidently, assured
that God in his own time would bring all things to light. His answer as to the
present and future condition of the heathen was that a great sin and guilt lay
upon the Christian Church for not obeying the command, “Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature;” but he had this satisfaction to
his own mind, that unto whom much is given of them much is required. He
believed that there would be various degrees of punishment when the day of
judgment comes; and that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than
for the cities where the feet of the Saviour trod, that saw and heard and
rejected Him. He dare not go beyond God’s word. He left those matters which
were not intended to be solved in the hands of Him who, being a God of justice
and love, will not punish any individual beyond what he deserves; and if he, a
simple member of the human race, got strict justice meted out to him, he, at
least, would have no reason to complain. (Applause.)
MR HOUSTON’S LAST WORD
Mr Houston said that it
was because the Judge of all the earth would do right that he sought be there
that night; and he was there because he wished to show forth what was a
Scriptural, Godlike, philosophical and true doctrine. (A voice, “You’ve no
Scripture for the second chance.”) Mr
Davidson said he had spoken some nonsense. Well, he was not alone in that; for
it was written that the very wisdom of God had appeared foolishness to men. Mr
Davidson said that he (Mr Houston) had not a shadow of doubt; but why should he
doubt? for if God’s word said that a ransom is given to all, for all it is. Mr
Davidson might seem to be charitable; but when his Church declared against
God’s word that only a certain elect number are saved and that the rest are
passed by, he thought it behoved men who sought to maintain the honour of God
to see, if God had given a ransom, that that ransom ensures what it says, and
that it will be declared to all. The problem of God’s sovereignty and man’s
responsibility was solved by that doctrine – that God has appointed a day
whereby he will judge the world, so that every man who ever lived shall hear
the voice of the Son of God. God’s sovereignty in the ages and dispensations
was fixed and true and man’s free will was true also.
Mr Davidson proposed a
vote of thanks to the chairman for the admirable way in which he had performed
his duties. He was pleased to see such a good congregation, and he would be
glad if they all came out again next Sabbath. (Laughter and applause.)
Mr Houston seconded the
motion, and said the chairman had acted very fairly. He also thanked the
audience for the very patient hearing which they had given himself. He may have
talked a lot, but he had only said half what he might have done. (Applause and
laughter.)
The meeting then
dispersed. Hospitality to strangers was generously dispensed by the Rev. Mr
Davidson, Dr Macgregor, Councillor Sinclair and others.
The Wick party reached
home shortly after 1 a.m., after a comfortable drive in Mr Sinclair’s covered
‘bus, which was carefully piloted by Mr Hugh Falconer.
Immediately following
the above report, the column continued with A CRITICISM ON THE CANISBAY
DISCUSSION (by one who was present) which was reproduced in full in ZWT
reprints 1965.
THE HOUSTON-DAVIDSON DEBATE part 3
Transcript as published in the John O’Groat Journal
for March 6, 1896
“That, according to the
Scriptures, the ‘ransom for all’ given by the ‘Man Christ Jesus’ does not give
or guarantee everlasting life or blessing to any man. It only guarantees for
every man an opportunity for life everlasting.”
The last part of that sentence
was not exactly according to the book, but Mr Davidson would not take it up in
any other way, so let it go. He was glad that Mr Davidson had accepted it even
in this form, and here he was to try and make known just a little of what it is
to get an opportunity for life everlasting.
Now
Dr Young of Edinburgh defined it as a corresponding
price – an equivalent of the same kind. Let them now come to the Scriptures and
see God’s arrangement with the first man. He described the glory of the garden
in which the glorious perfect man was placed – God’s representative on earth –
a representative man of what God meant men to be. And had he obeyed God he
would have been there forever and ever, for God did not set him there with a
trap to fall into. God’s foreknowledge does not clash with His righteous
doings. If God did not intend something better for the race he did not think He
would have suffered the world to live down in misery for six thousand years if
there was no hope. Now Adam had laws laid down to him, and so long as he obeyed
he would be lord over the whole earth. But the moment he made any deviation –
and sin was just deviation – it was said to him he would die – “In the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Well he did die in one of God’s “days.”
And all his posterity was doomed the same way, and there had not been a man
able to redeem his brother. Now he wished them particularly to understand that
God meant Adam to live and obey Him. Here now came the Ransom. God does not
give or guarantee everlasting life or blessing to any man by His own eternal
fiat without a purpose, but He has guaranteed to all an opportunity for life
and for blessing. God’s order in Adam was repeated in the case of the Jews –
“Choose life that ye may live; refuse my law and it is death.” God does not
propose to give eternal life right off without our acquiescence, acceptance,
obedience; but neither does He propose to condemn if He has found a Ransom, not
one living soul but those who wilfully refuse the Second Adam, the Lord from
Heaven. The great principle laid down to Adam was to obey God, and he had the
ability to do so. But he did not. Now the Second Adam comes on the scene – the
Son of God, the Perfect Man – came and divested Himself of His glory, and the
Second Man’s life had to be given for the first man’s life – blood for blood,
life for life. And so they read that “as in Adam all die even so in Christ
shall all be made alive.” Paul beautifully reasoned out the whole transaction
in the 5th chapter of the Romans. The Second Adam gave His life for
the first and all that was in him, and that would be testified by God to every
living soul in due time. That was an arbitrary act of God decreed by Him before
the world was. There was therefore no man who could perish but by refusing,
after full knowledge and opportunity of knowing and understanding what the
Second Adam had done. That was the truth of God; that was the gospel, the
joyful message which shall be unto all people. But that did not of itself save
any man. There was just this little thing – you have it for nothing on
condition you take it. The Son of God by one offering took away sin for ever
and made reconciliation with God. Now, then, how many of the sons of men had
heard this glorious gospel? The heathen had not heard. It would be a moral
impossibility for God to suffer creatures to live on for ever if He had no
provision of love and mercy; but He condemned them all in one that He might
redeem them in One. Now is there to be a time when God shall show forth what He
has done for mankind? Yes. Whosoever will may have life. Two thousand years ago
the Jews had an idea that the promise that was made to Abraham was to have a
literal fulfilment and that Jacob and all the patriarchs and prophets were to
be brought back. Paul said “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with
you that God should raise the dead?” But
they forgot their life’s history and what they had been taught through the
blood of bullocks and goats. They forgot that the world had to be redeemed
first before one of them could get it. Christ had to die according to the
Scriptures, and but for that they could never possess the land. And they shall
possess it, for God had decreed it, and they had been ransomed by the Son of
God, and all the earth at the same time. But before that takes place God
purposed that the price should be paid two “days” in advance, 2000 years or so
before the purchase was taken possession of, and why? That a noble people might
be taken out of the world who would just believe all this, and as a reward for
their faith and their witnessing to the world and overcoming were to be over
yonder and made glorious beings like unto the Son of God. When that people is
taken out, after this, declares the Apostle James “I will return and will build
again this tabernacle of David...that the residue of men might seek after the
Lord, and all the Gentiles” – after the spiritual sons are first taken out to
be joint heirs with their Lord in restoring and blessing the world of mankind.
He could prove that from the Word of God. The Jews were gauge. They had a
carnal notion that they must be set up, and so they did not receive Him when He
came. And when He said “This day your house is left unto you desolate” from
that moment they began to receive their double – their period of disfavour,
which five or six lines of Bible testimony proved terminated in 1878. Their
rise, however, would be as gradual as their fall had been, and after that time
was up Jerusalem would be ready to receive Him and not till then.
It was knowledge that would be our condemnation if
the favour of God were rejected. Our wills were a factor that God had
recognised and if they doubted that or disbelieved it then the Scriptures were
broken. God meant man to be a noble being and not a slave, and the awfulness of
sin was shown in the destruction of those who fell away and remained
impenitent, who had possessed knowledge and opportunity, had tasted the good
word of God and the powers of the world to come. For them was reserved the
devouring fire which should devour the adversary. What a responsible thing it
therefore was to those who hear and do not obey.
Mr Davidson began by saying that in the time
allotted to him he would centre his thoughts and arguments on the latter part
of the terms of debate and would do his best to make his position clear and
convincing that the “ransom” did not guarantee “another opportunity for life
everlasting as taught in ‘Millennial Dawn,’ vol. 1.” He would first, however,
by way of argument and answer to Mr Houston’s speech, make one remark. From his
letters and his remarks his position seemed to be: there is ransom for all;,
then why should not all receive blessing through that ransom? No doubt it was a
little difficult to reconcile these two positions; but he (Mr Davidson) would
endeavour to make it clear by a simple illustration. Mr Houston was a draper in
Wick, and being in that line of business, he was quite willing and fully
competent to supply to all the servant girls who into Wick at each term with
bonnets and dresses. (Laughter and some hisses.) But he supposed he was not
exaggerating or stating what was untrue when he said that many of these persons
when they went into Wick did not go into Mr Houston’s shop and buy bonnets and
dresses notwithstanding his willingness to supply these articles. Many of them
went into other shops – by their conduct they showed they had no faith in Mr
Houston or his goods – (some hisses) – in which they were perhaps mistaken, but
it was a fact. He could sympathise with Mr Houston in that position, for he was
in the same position himself as regards spiritual matters. There was a ransom
for every one in Canisbay, and they knew that, but alas, many would not come
and avail themselves of it. The god of this world had blinded their minds, and
that explained why, though here was a ransom for all, all did not avail
themselves of the glad tidings. Proceeding, he said he had one or two questions
to put to Mr Houston, which he might answer or decline to answer. They could
not extort an answer.
James Macpherson, E.C. minister of
Canisbay.
Alex. Sinclair, C.C., Canisbay.
Andrew Munro, teacher, Canisbay.
Alexander G. Macgregor, medical doctor.
James Sutherland, elder, inspector of poor.
George Manson, elder, Duncansbay.
David Kennedy, elder, Freswick.
Alexander Dunnett, elder, Brabster.
David Nicholson, deacon, Seater.
John Simpson, deacon, Moy.
Francis Sutherland, deacon, John
O’Groats.
William Dunnet, elder, Huns.
William Steven, elder, Gills.
George Malcom, deacon, Gills.
Matthew Dundass, deacon, Duncansbay.
Geo. T. Mackenzie, schoolmaster and
deacon, Freswick.
Arthur M’Connachie, divinity student,
Zion Chapel, Wick.
Daniel Sutherland, accountant, Wick.
Alex. S. Fullarton, teacher, Wick.
A. Phimester, clothier, Wick.
Donald
Davidson, Free Church Minister, Canisbay.