Lessons from Restoration History

Introduction. Alexander Campbell said: “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me; and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views of yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority or system whatever.”

These words are worth keeping before us in attempting to glean lessons from Restoration history. The lessons we learn from a study of the movement are worth learning only to the extent that they are consistent with what we read in the word of God.
The principles of the Restoration are valid because they are Bible principles. However, the men who advocated them were fallible. They were subject to prejudices, inconsistencies, cultural influences, reasoning flaws, and their own circumstances. Furthermore, the pioneers modified their views. What they said or did at one time might be inconsistent with what he said or did at another. So perhaps the first lesson we should learn from the restorers is that we should be very careful about the lessons we learn from them.
The Restoration Movement from the beginning has been dynamic, not static. To overlook this fact will result in missing some of its greatest lessons for us.
Restoration history is not what happened in the past but the record of what happened. “No historian can write without bias, and he who professes to do so is either deceiving or self-deceived. The very selection of facts out of the endless and infinitely multiple stream of daily happenings itself involves judgment as to what is significant.” (Kenneth Scott LaTourette.) We confess to a conservative bias in selecting and arranging the material in this work, but we have sought to be objective and to let facts speak for themselves.
There are so many lessons to be gathered from Restoration history that it is impossible to consider all of them. We trust that the things selected do not crowd out more important matters. For the sake of convenience, we will group the lessons under three headings: conceptual lessons, practical lessons, and tragic lessons.

I. Conceptual Lessons

Conceptual lessons are those areas of learning that have to do with principles, ideas, or basic truths. The lessons in this study are not necessarily given in the order of their relative importance to the restoration of the apostolic order.

The Bible is all-sufficient for all matters of teaching, faith, and practice in the religion of Christ. This is undoubtedly the most important concept that arose in the minds of the restorers and it is characteristic of all significant segments of the movement.
“We will . . . that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. . . . We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven. . . . for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell.” (The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.)

“That rule, my highly respected hearers, is this, that, WHERE THE SCRIPTURES SPEAK, WE SPEAK; AND WHERE THE SCRIPTURES ARE SILENT, WE ARE SILENT.” (Thomas Campbell.)
“Opinions of truth, substituted for the truth itself, and made tests of fellowship, must

be denounced as mischievous and wicked.” (Barton W. Stone.)

The Bible is authoritative in religion to the extent that it is rightly divided. The restorers saw that the church is bound by the authority of Christ and the apostles in the New Testament, not by the authority of Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament.
They understood that all authority rests with Christ and that it is conveyed to us only in the New Testament.
“We will, that the Church of Christ resume her native right of internal government . . . and admit no other proof of their authority but Christ speaking in them.” (Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.)
“That . . . nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion . . . but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church.” (Thomas Campbell.)

The Bible teaches by command, approved example, and necessary inference. Unless the Bible can be understood and applied, its sufficiency has no significance to us. One may accept the Bible as the supreme and sole authority in religion, and yet so fail in his understanding of it as to make a practical application of it impossible.

The truth of the Bible should be spoken in the language of the Bible. Alexander Campbell advocated the use of New Testament nomenclature in the vocabulary of the church. He encouraged the use of “Bible names for Bible things.” One of the slogans of the movement said: “Call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things the Bible way.”

The Bible can be understood, believed, and obeyed without special help. The restorers believed that there is no need for specially endowed men, whether the endowment is divine or naturally acquired, to tell the Christians or the churches what to believe and practice.
“We must believe that the Bible was addressed to rational creatures, and designed by God to be understood for their profit.” (Barton W. Stone.)
The denial of the need for special helps and insights does not mitigate the fact that those who know the truth can help others to see it (Nehemiah 8:8.)
Alexander Campbell saw no need for special rules of interpreting the Scriptures. He thought they should be interpreted like any other book by “the rules of common sense.”
One reason the Restoration Movement spread so rapidly on the American frontier, among people who were often limited in education, was that the restorers spoke in the language of the Bible, which the people could read and understand.

Saving faith is belief in Jesus Christ based on divine testimony that is fully given in God’s word. Faith in the religious world of the nineteenth century was viewed as miraculously imparted by the Holy Spirit apart from the word of God and attended by some kind of exceptional experience to prove its reality. Coming to the Bible concept of saving faith was a major step in the progress of the Restoration Movement.
The brethren in the Brush Run church, in their restudy of the Bible apart from the traditional creeds, saw that faith, as preached by the apostles, was a simple trust in Christ as the Lord and Savior (John 20:30,31; Romans 10:17). They further saw that this is the only faith required for salvation and discipleship and that its validity is attested by a willingness to obey the divine commands and as expressed in a regenerated life.
While their faith was based on the word of God, it centered in the person of Jesus Christ. They saw him as the focus of revelation.
In 1804, Barton W. Stone wrote that faith is “admitting testimony on the authority of the testifier,” and that the word of God, which is the foundation of faith, “has sufficient evidence in itself to be believed in the same manner as we believe the testimony of one another.”

Faith and submission to the will of Christ are essential to salvation. The restorers adopted the necessity of obedient faith before they fully concluded that baptism is for the remission of sins. They, at the beginning, recognized that baptism is by immersion, that is it is for believers, and that it is done in obedience to Christ.

The church according to its divine arrangement, by independent congregations and individual Christians, is responsible to evangelize the world. As the denominational system of conversion gave way to the apostolic order, the restorers saw that the Bible can be believed and obeyed, that saving faith is based on divine testimony, and that faith and submission to the will of Christ are essential to salvation.
This led to an understanding that the church is obligated by God to preach the gospel to the world.
This caused Walter Scott to be chosen to evangelize on the Western Reserve of Ohio in 1827, an event that gave a much-needed missionary impetus to the Campbell movement.
The Stone movement had been missionary from the beginning.

The church can be restored only in the sense that the organization, work, and worship of a congregation can be patterned after the New Testament order. When the restorers spoke of restoring the church, they usually referred to the congregation, not the church universal.
They knew that Christ had established but one church, in the universal sense, and that it was made up of all Christians everywhere. They did not contemplate restoring that body of redeemed souls for which Christ gave his life.
It was the divine order of the local church, together with its worship, discipline, work, designations, spirit, and hope of eternal destiny that these men sought to restore.

The New Testament provides the means for unity among Christians. The restorers were interested in Christian unity and it was vital part of their Restoration plea.
They firmly believed that the “restored gospel” (“restored” in the sense that it was understood and accepted) would conquer the world for Christ.
The ideas of the restoration and unity were intermingled in the mind of the restorers.
It was apparent before 1840 that the preaching of the “ancient gospel” was not going immediately to dissipate all religious division and social sin.
Changes in the Restoration vision resulted in defeat and apostasy.

Unity and restoration require the abandonment of all human names for names that are found in the New Testament. It did not occur to the leaders of the Restoration that their goal of unity on the Bible alone could be achieved by bringing another sect into the world.
Barton W. Stone called the church the “Church of Christ” or the “Christian Church.”
Alexander Campbell preferred “Disciples of Christ” to the name “Christian.”
In practice, “church of Christ,” “Christian church,” and “disciples of Christ” were used interchangeable but they strove to use only Scriptural terms for the church.

Each Christian should read, study, and interpret the Bible, where it needs interpreting, for himself. This was another idea that had been advanced in the sixteenth century Reformation, but which was not put into general practice until it was revived in the Restoration. However, it was essential to the movement’s success.
The idea of private study was the most shocking (to the religious world) aspect of the Stone revolt in the Presbyterian Church.
“The emphases of the Declaration are upon each man’s right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures . . .” (W. E. Garrison.)

Worship must be rendered to God in spirit and truth, that is, from the heart and in keeping with divine revelation. By the time the churches associated with Stone and Campbell began to merge in 1831, there was a general agreement among them in regard to the New Testa-ment order of Christian worship.
They saw that in the New Testament Christians met on each first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper and that became their practice.
Singing among the restorers until after the Civil War was almost universally without the accompaniment of instrumental music.
The worship services were member oriented, contrary to the practice, especially among the Presbyterians, of having an ordained minister to conduct the services.

Summary. The thirteen items given as conceptual lessons from the Restoration Move-ment as it emerged in the nineteenth century are by no means exhaustive. Other facts essential to the restoration of the ancient order are included in the other parts of this study. There are also facets of each of these thirteen items that are open to related or clarifying details, which are necessarily omitted in keeping with the brevity of this work.

Practical Lessons

We turn now to some practical, or common sense, lessons from the Restoration Movement. These lessons are drawn from observing the principles and ideals of the Restoration in practice. While these lessons are also conceptual in nature, or based on Restoration ideals, the lessons derive primarily from the practice, rather than from the principles themselves.

Restoration is not synonymous with perfection in individual Christians or in New Testament congregations. While perfection was the aim of the restorers, as a practical matter their achievement fell short of their goal.
There was never a time when restoration ceased to be a quest.
“There is an unlimited progression towards perfection in intellectual attainments; and no man can say his acquisitions in any one department of human sciences, and much less in the knowledge of things divine, that they are incapable of augmentation.” (Alexander Campbell.)
The early unity between the “Christians” and “Reformers” came in spite of differen-ces between the two groups, some of which were deeply rooted matters of faith.

Unity among the churches of the Restoration Movement can never be achieved on anything like a “brotherhood” level. Without some means of cementing the Christians together in a “brotherhood,” such unity is impossible to achieve. There can be a union of sentiment in adhering to the Bible alone that may exist as a common bond among all Christians and churches who adhere to it, but without some cohesive organization, such as characterizes denominations, organic unity on a brotherhood scale cannot be obtained, either theoretically or practically.
The nearest the movement came to a united brotherhood was in 1830-1860.
The theological differences between Stone and Campbell were never resolved.

The every-present danger of following uninspired men in religion should be constantly avoided. Putting too much confidence in uninspired leaders in religion has always been a detriment to apostolic Christianity.
From the earliest days of the Restoration, the idea was advanced that we must not follow men in religion.
It is a fact that men in positions of power and influence will often use these, sometimes ruthlessly, to squelch the influence of those whom they deem to be out of order.
One of the greatest dangers in the institutions of men is the power they invest in the men who run them.

Moral and spiritual character is essential to leadership in restoring or maintaining the ancient order. Each of the major leaders of the Restoration Movement, and most of the minor ones, were men of exceptional Christian character.
Men who knew Barton W. Stone intimately testified to his goodness.
Thomas Campbell in spirit was much more like Stone than his own son.
Walter Scott was also more like Stone than Alexander Campbell, but while Alexander Campbell was of a different disposition, he was their equal in moral integrity.
There was not a person among the leaders of the Restoration in the nineteenth century who was not a man of high moral integrity.

The church needs, and can profitably assimilate, different temperaments in its leaders. Any biographical or anecdotal study of the Restoration, will show that the movement is characterized by men of different temperaments.
The difference in the temperament of Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell is remarkable.
Campbell was critical of Stone, and some of the criticism arose from differences in their temperament.
Stone’s language was frequently filled with terms like “love, peace, and unity.”
Without the temperament of Barton W. Stone, the unity achieved between churches associated with the two branches of the Restoration Movement may not have taken place.
The complementary nature of Stone and Campbell made possible the successful union of their respective movements

The right to study the Bible free from ecclesiastical, journalistic, institutional, or any other kind of human pressure, or by following some written or unwritten creed, or by commitment to any consensual majority agreement, should not be abridged.
“The churches were not bound together by an authoritative creed, or by a dictatorial association.” (Barton W. Stone.)
No sentiment was more often declared or more firmly held than this.
Brethren wanted to be free to read and study the Bible for themselves without any set of man-made rules being imposed upon them or limiting their individual study, nor intimidating the conclusions they reached. Individual study is meaningless, if the student is not also free to draw his own conclusions from his study.

The move to restore New Testament Christianity tends to attract some that are factious, speculative, or otherwise unstable in regard to divine truth. This inevitably leads to sectarianism, defections from the faith, and harmful extremes in religious teaching and practice.
There is always the danger even of good, well intentioned men being too exacting in their requirements for fellowship.
While extremes are a liability, the concern here is more in the nature of unsound men who damage the cause of Christ by their speculative teaching or erratic behavior.
Some defections in the church in the early days of the movement arose from the speculative views and personal neuroses of some men who united with it.

Standing on the Bible alone in faith and practice will bring opposition, ridicule, and persecution from the world. It required almost unbelievable faith, courage, and persever-ance for the Restoration to be successful due to the degree of persecution suffered by the leaders.
We take courage in the example of the pioneers.
We are indebted to them for what they endured to restore the teaching, faith, spirit, and practice of the apostolic church.
We see the danger that comes from seeking to avoid persecution.

“Men are fond of their own devices; and praise their own works more than the works of God.” These words from the pen of Alexander Campbell were published near the beginning of the Millennial Harbinger, in 1830.
Campbell’s words point up a grave danger of the human appendages that were no part of the church itself, but which became attached to the churches in the movement.
So long as Bible schools and religious papers functioned as private businesses operated by individual Christians, they remained separated from the church.
Missionary societies, unlike other forms of institutional adjuncts to the church, were regarded by their proponents as a function of the church universal through a centralized agency.

All men have faults and they achieve whatever they do in the service of Christ in spite of them. God uses men with faults; if he uses any at all, for all have faults.
Stone had faults that can be easily seen, although the boundaries of some of them cannot be clearly marked in every case.
Not only do all uninspired preachers have faults, but their reasoning and under-standing of the Scriptures, no matter how honestly and ably pursued, are not without fault.

Any degree of success in restoring the ancient order must be recognized as the work of God and the glory for it must be given to him and not to the men whom he uses to bring it about. Anything that is accomplished in the world by the word of God is the work of God and Christians should acknowledged as much.
In urging the Philippians to obey God in all things, Paul said: “. . . for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
There is always the danger of students of the Restoration becoming so captivate by great men in the movement that they tend to “canonize” them.

Summary. A careful study of the Restoration Movement from the standpoint of the practice of New Testament Christians and churches can show these and many other practical lessons that can be helpful to us today in the application of the apostolic order to teaching, faith, spirit, and practice to our own service to God.

III. Tragic Lessons

The congregations that were striving to follow the apostolic order grew rapidly in the decades before the Civil War, numbering at least 180,000 by 1839. This was a time of growth, unity, and spiritual prosperity, sometimes called “the Golden Age” of the Restoration. But some principles and practices in the movement then and during the rest of the nineteenth century resulted in tragic consequences. Noticing some of these is the point in this part of our study.

The failure to go “all the way” in following the Restoration ideal in search for the ancient order leads to spiritual disaster. “All the way” is not used in the sense of perfection for no church or individual Christian ever achieved the ideal. The perfection or completeness of the apostolic order rests in the teaching of the inspired apostles, not in the practice of those who embraced it.
Most of the many restoration movements in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, both large and small, were abortive in nature.
The churches associated with the Stone-Campbell movement succeeded to the extent they did because each of the two branches aimed for a complete restoration and contributed essential elements that, when combined by their union, motivated the whole movement to seek a complete restoration of the apostolic order.

Extra-congregational organizations have no place in God’s plan for the church and their existence violates God’s will and poses a danger of apostasy. One of the most common aims of each of the restoration movements with which we are familiar was the rejection of all extra-congregational organizations and the insistence upon congregational independence.
“Each congregation should have its own internal government of elders and deacons (and be) regarded as an independent body” (Thomas Campbell).
The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery stated the signers’ belief that “the church of Christ resume her native right of internal government.”
However, the leaders of the Restoration themselves embraced ideas that contributed to the rise of organizations among the churches.

The failure to retain the all-sufficiency of the local church leads to a surrender of the original Restoration ideal of returning to the New Testament order. Congregational independence and autonomy are perhaps no more important than any other essential feature of the apostolic church, but to disregard God’s plan for the congregation opens the door for introducing many other innovations.
“The controversies though which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time (1932) have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission” (A. W. Fortune).
Close on the heels of the first missionary cooperatives to carry out the mission of preaching the gospel to the world some began to see a “need” for a church college.
The line between “brotherhood” educational institutions and the church have rarely been as distinct as they should be.
The extra-congregational organizations arose from a fallacy in the thinking of breth-ren: the denial of the all-sufficiency of the congregation to do the work God requires it to do.

Not all extra-congregational organizations that adversely affect the church take on the nature of church enterprises. They may remain completely independent of the church, as any private business, yet exercise the same kind of power over the church that is wielded by representative institutions.
The corporate religious journal whose primary mission is to influence preachers and churches has at times become the voice of powerful confederations of brethren
When it comes to religious papers, other than those published by a congregation, there is no such thing as “the voice of the church.”
Much can be learned from Alexander Campbell’s conduct as a religious editor.

Failure to recognize the place of the preacher in the plan of God results in numerous problems in the church. In some ways the restorers retained denominational concepts of the ministry, and in other ways they developed troublesome peculiarities of their own.
There was, especially among Stone’s associates, the belief that preachers must be formally ordained by preachers who themselves had been duly ordained.
Alexander Campbell made a distinction between preaching and teaching that created some significant problems.
The issue of “the settled pastor,” hiring a preacher to work with one congregation as minister and “overseer,” may have been a reaction to the earlier itinerate ministry.

The failure to maintain the spirit of Christ in the advocacy of New Testament Christianity creates problems. One of the first weaknesses among the pioneers pertains to an attitude contrary to that exemplified by Christ and the apostles.
“Here, pride, that busy sin, imperceptibly began to inflate us on account of our successes.”(Barton W. Stone.)
It was “the scourge of Shakerism,” which invaded the Stone movement and carried off many members, that Stone credits with saving the movement from destruction by its pride.
“I have long been the advocate of reformation, but I review with extreme regret the spirit that to me seems to prevail among many of those who profess to be reformers.” (James E. Matthews.)

Closely connected with the failure of some to restore the spirit of Christ is the failure of many to temper the spirit of controversy. The Restoration Movement was born and advanced in controversy. By its very nature it was and will always remain controversial, so long as it is true to the basic principles of the New Testament.
While the Restoration was born in controversy, the early leaders offered a spirit of conciliation against the distress they felt over the bitterness of denominational strife and division.
Bitter controversy was such a part of pioneer society, that it was difficult for religious journals of moderate temper to succeed.
Of the four major leaders of the Restoration, only Alexander Campbell was of the fiery spirit in his earlier days.
Both Stone and Campbell witnessed with misgivings the spirit of contention that prevailed among their brethren.

Summary and Conclusion. The advantage of studying the nineteenth century Resto-ration Movement for valuable lessons is that it can be done more objectively than a study of the actions of men closer to our own time. Yet, all the principles involved in our service to God now were present then and we can see them as they were worked out to their pragmatic end, whether good or bad. While conditions of the time naturally affect some things that brethren said and did, valid restoration principles do not change because they are divinely given. Otherwise they are of little value.

From our study of the Restoration we see how the basic concepts of Biblical restoration were reached and the practicality of their operation in the lives of people committed to them. The lessons we draw from them can be helpful in avoiding pitfalls and following right courses. We have tried to set forth some conceptual lessons, some practical lessons, and some catastrophic lessons that we can draw from the experiences of our brethren in the nineteenth century.

By way of putting this study in perspective, we notice the view of F. B. Srygley, whom I regard as one of the great preachers of modern times. Srygley had but little use for Restoration history. While he was familiar with the movement, he said little about it in his copious writings. He was so completely committed to Bible authority that he made scant reference to anything the pioneers had said or done. He said: “If I had the privilege of drinking from the Jordan River, I would desire to drink at its source rather than to drink of it after it flowed through several Arab camps.” C. R. Nichol paid tribute to Srygley when he said: “Before I tried to preach I heard him say: ‘I endorse Jesus Christ and the apostles, but I tie my faith to no mere man; no man is authority for me in religion.’ Possibly that statement from him so reacted on me that I have never quoted a word from Alexander Campbell or David Lipscomb in writing or preaching.”

While I greatly admire Srygley, and sympathize with his attitude toward the Restoration, insofar as authority is concerned, I believe there are advantages to knowing at least a little about the movement. We today are indeed privileged to drink from the pure water of life, but the problem is that we have to filter out all the pollution of the many “Arab camps” through which it has passed. By studying the Restoration Movement, we can learn how to filter out all of the sectarian pollution and we can learn what happens when brethren fail to filter out all of it or what happens when they add pollution of their own. So while we hold no lesson from the movement as authoritative, we can profit by observing the struggles of men in the movement had to establish the authority of God’s word in their hearts and lives. That is our object in studying Restoration history.

Earl Kimbrough, July 1999

“The controversies though which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time (1932) have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission” (A. W. Fortune).
Close on the heels of the first missionary cooperatives to carry out the mission of preaching the gospel to the world some began to see a “need” for a church college.
The line between “brotherhood” educational institutions and the church have rarely been as distinct as they should be.
The extra-congregational organizations arose from a fallacy in the thinking of breth-ren: the denial of the all-sufficiency of the congregation to do the work God requires it to do.

Not all extra-congregational organizations take on the nature of church enter-prises. They may remain completely independent of the church, as any private business, yet exercise the same kind of power over the church that is wielded by representative institutions.
The corporate religious journal whose primary mission is to influence preachers and churches has at times become the voice of powerful confederations of brethren
When it comes to religious papers, other than those published by a congregation, there is no such thing as “the voice of the church.”
Much can be learned from Campbell’s attitude and manner as a religious editor.

Failure to recognize the place of the preacher in the plan of God results in numerous problems in the church. In some ways the restorers retained denominational concepts of the ministry, and in other ways they developed troublesome peculiarities of their own.
There was, especially among Stone’s associates, the belief that preachers must be formally ordained by preachers who themselves had been duly ordained.
Alexander Campbell made a distinction between preaching and teaching that created some significant problems.
The issue of “the settled pastor,” hiring a preacher to work with one congregation as preacher and “overseer,” may have been a reaction to the earlier itinerate ministry.

The failure to maintain the spirit of Christ in the advocacy of New Testament Christianity creates problems. One of the first weaknesses among the pioneers pertains to an attitude contrary to that exemplified by Christ and the apostles.
“Here, pride, that busy sin, imperceptibly began to inflate us on account of our successes.”(Barton W. Stone.)

It was “the scourge of Shakerism,” which invaded the Stone movement and carried off many members, that Stone credits with saving the movement from destruction by its pride.
“I have long been the advocate of reformation, but I review with extreme regret the spirit that to me seems prevail among many of those who profess to be reformers.” (James E. Matthews.)

Closely connected with the failure of some to restore the spirit of Christ is the failure of many to temper the spirit of controversy. The Restoration Movement was born and advanced in controversy. By its very nature it was and will always remain controversial, so long as it is true to the basic principles of the New Testament.
While the Restoration was born in controversy, the early leaders offered a spirit of conciliation against the distress they felt over the bitterness of denominational strife and division.
Bitterness was such a part of pioneer society, that it was difficult for religious journals of moderate temper to succeed.
Of the four major leaders of the Restoration, only Alexander Campbell was of the fiery spirit in his earlier days.
Both Stone and Campbell witnessed with misgivings the spirit of contention that prevailed among their brethren.

From our study of the Restoration we see how the basic concepts of Biblical restoration were reached and the practicality of their operation in the lives of people committed to them. The lessons we draw from them can be helpful in avoiding pitfalls and following right courses. We have tried to set form some conceptual lessons, some practical lessons, and some catastrophic lessons that we can drawn from the experiences of our brethren in the nineteenth century.

While I greatly admire Srygley, and sympathize with his attitude toward the Restoration, insofar as authority is concerned, I believe there are advantages to knowing at least a little about the movement. We today are indeed privileged to drink from the pure water of life, but the problem is that we have to filter out all the pollution of the many “Arab camps” through which it has passed. By studying the Restoration Movement, we can learn how to filter out all of the sectarian pollution and we can learn what happens when brethren failed to filter out all of it or what happens when they add pollution of their own. So while we hold no lesson from the move-ment as authoritative, we can profit by observing the struggles of men in movement had to estab-lish the authority of God’s word in their hearts and lives. That is our object in studying Restor-ation history.

Earl Kimbrough, July 1999

2212 Malibu Drive

Brandon, Florida 33511

kimbroughe@aol.com