6. “Ye are not under the law, but under grace,” wrote Paul to the Romans (chap. 6:14). I know not how language could be more explicit than this. The gospel is here called “grace,” as in John 1:17, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The antithesis in either case is between the law and the gospel. To be “not under the law” does not mean not to be under condemnation, as we have already seen, but freedom from the law. This sense the context requires. The exhortation is (verse 12) not to let sin encroach upon us. In verse 14, the conclusion is given that even if we should inadvertently sin, it need not have a permanent or protracted sway over us; “for ye are not under the law” which could not make “perfect as pertaining to the conscience” (Heb. 9:9), and where there was “a remembrance of sins every year” (Heb. 10:1–4), but we are under the gospel, a system of such “grace” that God says: “Before they call I will answer, and while they are yet speaking I will hear;” and again, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jer. 31:34.
Here Paul anticipates an objection: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?” If “under the law” meant “under condemnation,” this would be a strange question. It would presuppose condemnation so desirable as to be courted! But take it that the law with its death-penalties in this life is removed, and no question is more natural. Paul replies to this question that to sin (intentionally, hence habitually) would make us the slaves of sin (verse 16), and that this would ultimate in death hereafter (verse 23).
I am asked, “Are the ‘children of wrath’ under grace?” Since grace here means the gospel dispensation, I answer, Yes; but the benefits of this grace are conditioned upon repentance and faithful obedience, hence not “very comforting to Universalists,” or to unrepentant children of wrath.
It appears further that Paul considered it quite possible to sin, though the law be abolished. He evidently understood the abolition of the law to be consistent with the retention of the moral principles which underlie it. These he called “the law of God,” in chap. 8:7, because God is their author, and with reference to these do we read of “repentance toward God.” Hence also “the Gentiles which have not the law,” but had to some extent these principles—“a law unto themselves”—could sin. Though “sin is not imputed where there is no law,” it may be imputed (and in the case of the Gentiles was, Rom. 2:12–15) without “the law.” That sin may be “imputed on principles without the law,” Paul avers when he speaks of “as many as have sinned without [revealed] law.” The same principle is involved in finding a man guilty of covetousness with such certainty as to be able to exclude him from the church (1 Cor. 5:11), though no percentage is named. This is the fatal point which my brother evades. Nor do “principles without precepts” make “revelation a nullity”; there needs to be a “revelation” of principles, since but few of them are so near the surface as to be apprehended without such aid. It is here where the O. T. Scriptures are largely “profitable.” We have, moreover, under the gospel, specific revelation or legislation covering cases which general principles could not reach. Liberty and license, however, are essentially different. It is liberty to be free from the multitudinous specific enactments of the legislative dispensation of Moses, and to be governed by general principles in all possible cases. But this liberty is not to be turned into license, and Paul warns us against doing so: “Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by [the principle of] love serve one another.”
With an air of triumph my brother says: “If Eld. Vogel has any other means than the law to prove men guilty in the sight of God, let him produce the text, or cease his vain speculation.” I would answer that the terrors of Sinai are weak to condemn sin, compared with the matchless love of the cross. “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Rom. 8:3.
7. The law spoken of in Rom. 7—which in my view is the entire law, but in my brother’s only the ten commandments—is the same law mentioned in chap. 6:14. There Paul said, “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace,” and here he takes up this thought again, having turned aside to consider an objection. “Or,” he continues, and this or is suppressed in the common version—“Or know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?” Paul proceeds to prove what he before had only asserted, namely, the abolition of the law. He draws an illustration from the marital state (verses 2, 3), where the wife is under obligations to her husband while he lives, and cannot marry another without adultery till he is dead. So with the Jews—the “brethren who know the law”—they were once married to the law, but are now joined to Christ. If the law is not dead, this is an adulterous union. But that their former relation to the law is destroyed, Paul surely asserts: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye are become dead to the law by the [coming or crucifixion of] the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another” (verse 4). “Now we are delivered from the law” (verse 6). To be “dead to the law,” then, does not mean to be in a state of forgiveness or union with Christ, but that the Jews’ relation to the law, as given by Moses, was first destroyed “by the body of Christ,” that there might be saving union with him.
In verse 5, Paul calls the state of the Jew under the law being “in the flesh,” because the law chiefly a fleshly or political institution, and says that the passions which were by the law made men commit sins punishable by death. For two reasons, then,—(1) because it was thought best to free those under it from the law, and (2) because the passions by the law brought forth sin punishable by death—he proceeds to consider an objection naturally raised, namely, whether the law, as the Jew had it, is “sin,” or sinful (verse 7), and concludes that it is “holy, just, and good.” “Holy, just, and good,” is therefore the negative of “sin,” or sinful, and as such may be predicated of the entire law—of that which is purely positive and ceremonial, as well as of that which has a moral basis. If, therefore, Eld. W.’s argument from this predicate in favor of the decalogue is worth anything, it equally proves the binding force of every ceremonial precept! Will he abide by his logic? So, also, the predicate “spiritual” of verse 14 stands apart from “carnal” only when “carnal” is used in the sense of “sold under sin,” but not as used in Heb. 9:10, and 7:16; for God never enjoined a “sinful” ordinance. “Spiritual,” in the sense of Rom. 7:14, is, therefore, not equivalent to “moral,” as Eld. W. erroneously concludes, but is affirmable of even ceremonial law. Moreover, the “carnal” (sarkos); of Heb. 9:10, and 7:16, is predicable of the law mentioned in Rom. 7, for it is called, in verse 5, sarks, “flesh,” or “carnal”; and this is further proof that the law is mostly political.
I ought, perhaps, to say here that Rom. 7:7–25, describes an actual experience, but not a constant Christian experience. No Christian can say of his life, as a habit, that “that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.” Nor does it refer to Paul’s conversion. The scene is laid in Judaism, when the law was in full force, and describes the conflict of the moment when Paul committed his first sin. “I was alive [sinless] without the law once,” namely, before I came to the years of responsibility; “but when the commandment came [when it came to my understanding, when I became responsible], sin revived [sprang up to life] and I died.” This locates the event. The conflict is, for the sake of vividness, described in the use of the “historical present,” of which we have brief examples in John 3:4; 4:7. Hence all comfort drawn from the use of the present tense here, is hollow.
My brother’s talk about the fact that the ten commandments are the will of God was not “conveniently” evaded. All law, which God has ever given, was an expression of his will, but that does not prove its permanency, since it may have been his will that it should be changed. As for Christ’s coming to do his Father’s will, it simply means that he came to obey instructions; and part of this will was that he should abolish the law.
With reference to my use of Webster’s definition of statute, I stand corrected. I indeed knew better, yet, for the moment, I was strangely misled by the term “positive,” having my mind pre-occupied with its theological sense.
As to Paul’s meaning by “as it is written” (Rom. 3:10) that he had proved both Jews and Gentiles sinners by the Old Testament, Eld. W. is clearly wrong. (1) All of the passages quoted, when examined in their O. T. connections, are written only of the Jews. (2) If we regard the last member of verse 9 as a parenthesis, connecting the “as it is written” with “No, in no wise,” we obtain a sense in harmony with the Old Testament, also with Paul in verse 19, and in my favor.
Heb. 9:15, does indeed speak of Christ’s atoning for some of the sins committed under the former dispensation (I say “some,” because others were then and there sufficiently atoned for, verse 14), but this does not argue against the abolition of the law. For example, a few years ago some parties in Reading, Pa., produced a will made by a lady, and claimed that it was worthless, because not in accordance with the law, and so claimed exemption from dividing property as it directed. The will, however, was in accordance with a law then abolished, but in force when the will was made. A course of litigation showed that the abolished law was in force as to that will. Thus pardon and abolition go together.
I know not why my brother should put into my mouth the words, the law is “only political” and the Jews “but a political body.” He wrongs me in this, for I distinctly said, “politico-ecclesiastic,” “mainly political,” &c. That there is a religious element in the law, I never denied, but that it is of the high order found in the New Testament is quite another question. Not only Jacob, before the law, had such poor religious ideas as to think when he had wandered a few miles away from home that he was out of the jurisdiction of God, but even the inspired Jonah thought to escape him by a journey across the Mediterranean. No wonder that the law for such an age and people was mainly political and had even its moral precepts given as though they were positive.
If in the gospel dispensation the Gentiles were made “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,” it is because the two is made “one new man,” Eph. 2:15; and the covenant made with Judah and Israel, of which the Gentiles partake, is a “new covenant,” Heb. 8:8. Of similar import is Rom. 11. Paul says that he is laboring to convert the Gentiles (verse 13) that he might stir up emulation among the unbelieving Jews (verse 14) to their salvation. And that the unbelieving Jews are fit to be saved, he teaches by two illustrations—a lump of dough and an olive tree, and the converted Jews are “the first-fruit” and “the root.” If a part of the dough has been offered to the Lord (Num. 15:18–20) the rest may also be used, and if the root of a tree is not poisonous, the branches cannot be obnoxious for use. But the converted Jews were “the first-fruit” of the “new covenant,” and to this the Gentiles stood related as a wild olive tree, only in the sense that it was promised to be made with the Jews and then the Gentiles were to be “grafted in” (Acts 3:26).
To show that I am not alone in holding the law to be largely political, I wish to quote from Jews themselves, who certainly would make the most favorable showing of their side the case will admit. “The Hebrew commonwealth was neither a plain religious institution, nor an administration purely civil, but partook of both at once. As in your forms of government, the church and the state are distinct, so, on the contrary, in ours, they formed but one thing. . . . In this government, Jehovah was not only the object of religious worship as the only true God, he was, besides, the first civil magistrate, and head of the body politic. . . . The worship of Jehovah only, and an inviolable attachment to it, were the first condition and basis of his alliance with his people: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ To worship strange gods was, therefore, a breach of this alliance, a rebellion against the sovereign; in a word, the highest act of treason.”—Jews’ Letters to Voltaire, pp. 192, 3. Thus we see that even the Jews look upon the ten commandments as largely a political document. And in substantial accord with this are our best commentators, and most learned theologians.
That the “first” or “old” covenant has been abolished is so undeniably plain that Eld. W. is constrained to admit it. But he tries to save his cause by calling the preliminary conference of Ex. 19 the covenant, instead of the ten commandments. The word covenant, in its Bible use, is indeed of such width that this may be called a covenant, yet, it is so clearly a preliminary interview to see whether a covenant would be kept if made (verse 5) with a statement of some of the benefits to be enjoyed in the event it is lived up to, that I am surprised to see my brother calling it the “old” covenant.
But grant, for the argument, that Eld. W. is right, and that the ten commandments are the condition of the “old” covenant, what then? Clearly, with the abolition of a covenant, its conditions cease. Thus the very issue Bro. W. would avoid is unavoidable. The case of Josiah (2 Kings 23:3) is no parallel to this; it was only a vow to keep a covenant already made, but long neglected; for, properly speaking, man alone can make no covenant with God. If he urged that the ten commandments were in force before the “covenant” of Ex. 19, I answer, yes, but not as given on Sinai. It is only as then given that I maintain their abrogation.
Let us now examine Ex. 24:8. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord made with you concerning all these words.” I would place a comma after “you,” and render the last clause “on all these words,” construing or in amity with “blood,” or sprinkled understood. The same word, di is rendered on in the fore-part of this verse and also in verse 6, which is its primary meaning. “Concerning” is only a remote meaning, not to be thought of when the primary one will make sense. This furnishes us the fact that Moses “sprinkled both the book, and all the people” (Heb. 9:19), from which Paul reasons. And so long as I have Paul with me, I am fearless. The covenant, then, of Ex. 24:3–8, is that of “all these words”—the ten commandments together with their amplification in the three following chapters—and they are the “old” covenant which was done away. I must repeat my conviction that, Deut. 5 is in full accord with this. Indeed I am utterly unable to see how it can possibly be otherwise construed. The parenthesis of verse 5—“I stood between the Lord and you”—cannot refer to Ex. 19, but must to Ex. 20:19; 24:3–8, for the “standing between” is in connection with being “afraid by reason of the fire.”
That the ten commandments as given in covenant at Sinai were “the condition of the promise to Abraham,” I cannot admit. “The law,” as such, was “four hundred and thirty years after” the days of Abraham (Gal. 3:17) and “was given by Moses.” (John 1:17). That Abraham had and obeyed “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” was on that account favored, I believe on the testimony of Gen. 26:5; but that these were in every respect the same as the law from Sinai, I beg to be excused from believing. To construe the poetic expressions of 1 Chron. 16:15–17, so prosaically severe as to contradict both Paul and John, as quoted above, is too absurd for refutation. There were, however, some common elements in the laws which Abraham had and that one which was “four hundred and thirty years after,” and this is the basis of David’s poetic outburst. In all this I say nothing of the fact that Abraham never saw the Sabbath.
Men Like Pyramids: Broad Base, Narrow Summit
Some men are like pyramids, which are very broad where they touch the ground, but grow narrower as they reach the sky.
A Girl Who Shared Her Tract
A YOUNG girl being led to Christ through a tract given her, was seen very carefully folding it. “What are you going to do with it?” asked an observer. The eyes, brimful of tears, looked up wonderingly for a moment, then came the reply, “Do with it? give it to others, that they may find what I have.”
The Work Must Be Thorough.
By H. S. Zoiler
THIS is a peculiarly trying hour for those who claim to be the “remnant” people of God. If God had not determined to cut his work short in righteousness, Rom. 9:28—if the labors of his servants were to progress in no greater ratio—and the increase of piety in the future were only proportionate to that of the past, there would be little ground for hope that a company would ever be prepared for the coming of our Saviour. But “a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” This is the “day of his preparation,” nor will he fail to accomplish that which he undertakes.
Deep humility and repentance must subdue every feeling of pride and obstinacy. Many confessions will need to be made, and, on account of their imperfection, will have to be renewed. The heart is very deceitful, and will hope to get along with partial and fretful confessions. This will not do. There must be such a deep and cleansing work as will forever debar the return of old sins. Genuine repentance needs not to be repented of.
To attain to this royal standard of excellence is the privilege of every one who will forsake the world and press on toward the mark of eternal life. H. S. ZOILER. Douglas Center, Wis., Feb. 10, 1873.
Learn Resignation.
Learn resignation under afflictive dispensations, either in crossing your schemes, or in reducing your resources. “Because they have no changes, therefore, they fear not God.” It was said of Moab, “Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity; therefore his taste remains of him, and his scent is not changed.” The prodigal was more favored—a famine drove him home. Manasseh was mercifully ruined—in his affliction he sought the Lord God of his father, and he was found of him. And he gives you the valley of Achor for a door of hope. Do not think hardly of him, under whose discipline you now are. He knew your danger; and interposed to prevent it. He has hedged up your way with thorns; but it is to keep you from following lying vanities and forsaking your own mercies. He tries you; but it is for your profit. He sees what you can bear. And he who loved you, so as to give his own Son for you, will suffer you to want no good thing.
A Good Example
By Editor
The girls in the first class of the High School in Portland, between thirty and forty in number, have agreed, with only two exceptions, to adopt for a school dress a plain, substantial and not expensive material. Overskirts, laces, and velvets are to be wholly discarded; and ribbons used only to a limited extent. No jewelry except a plain pin and one plain ring is to be worn. The girls agree to wear no other costume to school between this time and their graduation next June. Many pupils in the lower classes are following their example, and it is hoped that it may become quite general in the schools. Among the things discarded, slang talk may be mentioned, which they agree to drop entirely. All sensible parents must rejoice in this movement, which we hope may be adopted in many other schools. In Portland, as elsewhere, the passion for dress in the high school, in which are four hundred pupils, has been far too much a ruling passion, and teachers and committee have attempted to check it, but as the blame lies about as much with the parents as with the young ladies this has been no easy task. Should the experiment prove a permanent success here, we suspect the well-known principal of the school, Mr. A. P. Stone, formerly of Massachusetts, will have abundant inquiries, “how to do it,” from other places.
Obituary Notices.
By H. S. Gurney
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.
DIED, of chills and inflammation, in Greenwood, St. Clair Co., Mich., Celinda, wife of Bro. Wm. Kearns, aged twenty-six years. Sister Kearns embraced the present truth in all its parts about three years ago and was considered by every one to be a consistent Christian. She died in full hope of a part in the first resurrection.
Funeral discourse by the writer from Isa. 25:8. H. S. GURNEY.
Appointments.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand
Quarterly meeting of the Hundred Mile Grove church, Wisconsin, April 5 and 6, 1873. It is hoped that the friends of the cause will make an especial effort to attend this meeting.
N. M. JORDON.
Quarterly meeting of the Allegany church will be held at Niles Hill, Sabbath and Sunday, April 5 and 6. Hope all the scattered brethren and sisters will be present.
D. OVIATT, Clerk.
Meeting of the T. and M. Society will be held at Little Prairie, Wis., in connection with their regular quarterly meeting Sabbath and first-day, April 5, 6. Members of the Society will send in their reports at least one week before the meeting. We hope to see a general gathering at this meeting. Bro. Sanborn is invited to attend. Bro. Olds and self will be there if possible.
O. H. PRATT, Vice-pres. T. & M. Society.
Providence permitting, we will meet the friends in Flushing and vicinity, on Sabbath and Sunday, April 12, 13, 1873. First meeting Sabbath at 10:30 A. M. Baptism can be attended to on Sunday if any wish:
I. D. VAN HORN,
S. H. LANE.
Quarterly meeting at Johnsonville, Wayne Co., Ill., last Sabbath and first-day in March. Also at Clark Center, Clark Co., first Sabbath and first-day in April. Let all the scattered brethren make an effort to get out to these meetings. Come prepared to take care of yourselves as far as possible. Preaching to commence in both places Sabbath at 11 A. M.
C. H. BLISS.
Quarterly meeting for the church of Hillsdale Co. at Ransom Center, Mich., April 5 and 6, 1873. Cannot some minister attend, as there are some who wish to be baptized at this meeting. We extend an invitation to the brethren and sisters of West Unity and vicinity. By order of the church.
E. O. WOLCOTT, Clerk.
Hutchinson, Minn., beginning Thursday evening, April 10, and holding over Sabbath and Sunday in the school-house. We want to see a general turnout of all the friends in McLeod County, as our stay there must be short. Hope Eld. Curtis will be with me.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Our next quarterly meeting in Illinois will be held in the Gregory school-house, March 29, 30.
WM. H. SLOWN.
Monthly meeting for Western N. Y. at Olcott, Niagara Co., April 12, 1873.
E. TARBOX, Clerk.
Quarterly meeting for Little Prairie, Johnstown, and Oakland, Wis., will be held April 5, 6.
H. H., Clerk.
Answers to Correspondents.
By J. H. W.
Does Jer. 33:10, 11, Eze. 20:40, 41, and Amos 9:14, 15, refer to the national restoration of Israel in their persistent adherence to their Jewish faith and to be fulfilled previous to the first resurrection? or will these prophecies have their fulfillment in the earth renewed? W. W. L.
To say that any promise of restoration, in either an individual or national sense, can be fulfilled “in their persistent adherence to their Jewish faith,” which means their rejection of Christ, is to do violence to the plainest and most essential doctrines of the gospel. The covenant under which the natural seed of Israel had special promises has passed away, and when the new covenant was made, the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the Gentiles were constituted fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the same promises, Eph. 2 and 3. Therefore no promise can now be claimed for one born a Jew which cannot be claimed also for one born a Gentile, unless we build again the things which were destroyed, in doing which we make ourselves transgressors. Gal. 2. All the promises of God are now through Christ, the mediator of the new covenant. This is considered at length in the pamphlet on the Age to Come.
Again, in examining prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel, we must consider two things. 1. When they were written; 2. How they may be fulfilled. Some were written long before the Babylonian captivity, and were fulfilled in their return therefrom. And some, though written before that time, could not possibly have been fulfilled then, as their expressions clearly show. This we shall presently see.
ANSWERS desired to the following questions on the prophecy of Jeremiah 48:47. Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter days, saith the Lord. Thus far is the judgment of Moab. What is the nature of the return of Moab? Is it religious or political? individual or national? Has it been accomplished? If so, how was it fulfilled? If not, how will it be? Are there any people, tribe, or nation, now existing, which are considered as descendants of the Moabites?
Similar information is desired concerning the Ammonites, to whom a return is promised in Jeremiah 49:6. G. E. F.
It would be very unreasonable to claim for Moab and Ammon, in either a national or individual sense, more than we have a right to claim for Israel in the same sense. If Israel “according to the flesh” has no promise of a restoration, neither can Moab or Ammon have. The restoration or “gathering” of all is in the same sense and at the same time. See Eph. 2 and 3; Gal. 2; and compare Rom. 11; 2 Thess. 2:1; Isa. 27:12, 13; Matt. 24:30, 31, &c.
How do you understand Hosea 3:4, 5? It is supposed by some to teach the restoration of the Jews, or world’s conversion.
This differs materially from the first question, for, though it was written before the first restoration, its terms are such as to prove that it could not have its fulfillment there. To seek “David their king” could not be fulfilled literally then, for David was then dead. It must refer to David’s seed or heir, that is, to Christ; and is, therefore, a prophecy of gospel times. To the term “Israel” we must apply the words of Paul in Rom. 9. The work referred to in the text in question is also given to the gospel in the most positive manner by the apostle in Acts 15. This setting up the tabernacle of David, or restoration of his kingdom, embraces the whole work from its inception to its completion; from the presentation of David’s son to the Jews, the gathering of the true seed out of all nations, to the giving “unto him the throne of his father David,” the destruction of the nations, and the establishment of his kingdom “under the whole heavens.” The throne is given to Christ, and the nations are destroyed under the seventh trumpet. Rev. 11. It cannot refer either to a return of the Jews as such, or to the world’s conversion; both these popular doctrines contradict the very plainest principles of the New Testament. J. H. W.
R. M. KILGORE
By R. M. Kilgore
Iowa.
I WOULD say to the friends of the cause in Hamilton Co., that it is impossible for me to visit you at present. I now expect to labor near Siam, Taylor Co. Providence permitting, I will meet with you in May, of which due notice will be given.
R. M. KILGORE
Battle Creek, Mich., March 23, 1873.
Michigan Conference Quarterly Reports Due April 1
By I. D. Van Horn
Notice.
THE churches in the Mich. Conference will remember that on the 1st day of April their first quarterly report is due for this year. Let every one be prompt and do the work up at once. Quite a number have not yet sent in their financial report and pledge for the year. Hope they will do so immediately. I. D. Van Horn, Secretary.
Simplicity, the Friend of Nature
SIMPLICITY is the great friend of nature; and if we might be proud of anything in this world, it should be of this happy alliance.
STRAWBERRY
By W. C. White
Fruit! Fruit! Fruit!
W. C. White, Battle Creek, Mich., offers for sale small fruit plants, roots, and vines, at the following very low prices, cash to accompany all orders, excepting in the cases of personal acquaintances and friends, and those who can give good references. In such cases he will fill orders on six months’ time, adding, in all such cases, twenty per cent. His object has been to encourage the cultivation of small fruits, and not to obtain large profits, hence his low prices. And he would here have it understood that he would be glad to hear from all who may not have been fully satisfied (if any there be) with the manner in which he has filled their orders, and he will, with pleasure, satisfy them by either filling orders free of charge, or in any other proper way. He designs to give perfect satisfaction to all, if possible.
STRAWBERRY
per 100
per 1000
Agriculturist
$0.50
$4.00
Wilson’s Albany
0.50
4.00
Russell’s Prolific
0.60
5.00
Triomphe De Gand
1.00
8.00
Col. Ellsworth
1.00
8.00
RASPBERRY.
per 100
per 1000
Doolittle Blackcap
$1.25
$10.00
Miami
1.50
12.00
Philadelphia Red
2.00
15.00
Mammoth Cluster
4.00
—
BLACKBERRY.
per 100
per 1000
Lawton
$1.25
$10.00
Kittatinna
1.50
12.00
CURRANTS.
White Grape and Cherry Red, each One Dollar per dozen.
GRAPES.
Concord, 15 cents,
Delaware, 25 ″
Small lots by mail, post-paid, will be furnished at double these prices. Address immediately.
W. C. WHITE,
BATTLE CREEK, MICH.
FOR SALE
Notices.
FOR SALE.
Twenty-two acres of land, comfortable house, new barn, plenty of good fruit. Lies 4½ miles north of Allegan, Mich., on main road, ¼ mile from S. D. A. meeting-house.
For particulars inquire of J. S. Day near the premises. P. O. Allegan.
WANTED.—Two men wanted to do farm work by the month or year. Address Geo. T. Lay, Allegan, Allegan Co., Mich.
Wanted: Sabbath-Keeper for Six-Month Farm Work
WANTED.—A Sabbath-keeper to work on a farm six months. Address T. T. Wheeler, Brookfield, Mad. Co., N. Y.
A blue cross on the margin of your paper signifies that your subscription will expire with two more numbers. A renewal is earnestly solicited.
RECEIPTS
For Review and Herald.
Annexed to each receipt in the following list, is the Volume and Number of the REVIEW & HERALD to which the money receipted pays—which should correspond with the Numbers on the Papers. If money to paper is not in due time acknowledged, immediate notice of the omission should then be given.
$2.00 EACH. M J Bartholf 43-1, George Carter 45-1, James Mc Court 42-20, N M Jordon 43-14, Seth Cushing 43-9, Samuel Walker 43-20, H S Stipp 43-14, Clarissa Pigg 41-14, Mr Cowgil 43-14, E B Gaskill 43-17, Isaac Cornell 43-1, M A Hiestand 43-22, George Lambert 43-14, Wilber D Nelson 43-14, Cyrus Hill 43-12, S S Costin 43-14, Peter Erb 43-1, George Felshaw 43-14, M Brister 43-17, Samuel Whelply 43-14, Benj Hill 44-1, J D H Camp 43-14, T H Lindsay 43-14, S Brownsberger 42-1, A F Dungan 43-14, Reuben Greer 43-10, Thomas Greer 43-1, W H Kirk 43-14, L D Smith 43-1, Philip Payton 42-9, T Christiansen 43-14, Willard Maine 43-14, M Wilkinson 43-14, D T Evans 43-14, A H Vankirk 41-4.
$1.00 EACH. Mrs Kate Babcock 41-1, Sarah E Bates 39-1, Mrs E J Nanerth 42-14, C N Russell 42-3, M Wilcox 42-1, Wm Morehouse 42-9, S A Street 42-14, E J Hill 42-14, A Seymour 42-1, M C A Haws 42-14, Eld D M Canright 43-1, J F Carman 42-14, Mrs A Graves 42-14, S W Willey 44-1, Cornelia Mack 38-14, Mrs C Paul 42-8, Marion Covert 42-16, Jane Kirtley 43-1, Susan Currier 43-1, Mrs E M Emerson 41-1, Dr T Stringer 42-14, Nancy Brown 46-1, R C Cochran 42-18, B J Bonifield 42-14, W D McLaughlin 42-14, S C Lawson 42-14, J G Jones 42-1, Calvin Jewitt 42-9.
MISCELLANEOUS. J W Blake $1.20 43-1, A McClure 3.00 43-18, P W Van Houten 5.00 43-1, Clara M King 50c 42-7, R Morgan 50c 40-1, Sarah E Travis 2.50 43-1, J Fargo 2.50 43-7, C S Glover 3.00 41-14, W Grant 3.60 43-1, Mrs L Spencer 5.12 44-1, D W Bartholomew 1.28 43-1, Lavina Butler 1.64 43-1, Mrs S Shively 50c 40-14, Mrs M H Davis 1.35 43-14, L N Lawrence 3.85 41-10, Mrs Sally Yunker 50c 42-1, H Walser 4.00 43-17, L M Chandler 50c 42-6, F R Richmond 50c 42-1, S G Chaney 1.50 43-1, Wm B Davis 43-14.
75 Cents Each, Paying to Vol. 42, 10. John Foster, A Wingate, C Puchet, Chas Newbury, Mrs E P Stewart.
50 Cents Each, Paying to Vol. 42, 10. Wm Burgett, A Downing, W P Elliott, S S Mathewson, A Cummings, E Hagerty, H H Hemenway, P Wright, Mrs R Loweree, Mrs John Lasher, Chester Nash, Mrs E D Maxwell, Mrs Philander Bailey, W S Noyes, Maria E Matoe, Israel Mudge, Daniel House, John Hornbeak, Joseph J Mathews, Jas J Shreve, Samuel L Mathews, Larkin Burkitt, M Montgomery, J B White, Josie & Martha Branson, M J Warren, Jacob Houser, E Chase, Mrs C Chamberlain, Sarah Reves, Mrs Clark Saunders, Stephen Tuma, Jane Higgins, George B Markham, Henry Coverdale, Dr E J Hall.
Books Sent by Mail.
M F Dibble 15c, Wm Harris 25c, C O Lindell 2.00, Wm B Smith 20c, Andrew Casler 30c, Mary Williams 1.10, Mrs M Knapp 50c, W W Williams 1.00, John Williams 1.00, Thomas H Moore 25c, Obadiah Brown 10c, Mrs P A Strand 2.50, Wm C Osborn 45c, A Pennell 1.00, Mrs M Thompson 1.00, M Wilkinson 50c, A C Hudson 1.50, D D Stevens 25c, Jesse Dorcas 50c, Benton Haynes 34c, Alfred King 5.00, Mrs H M Cox 40c, J N Loughborough 1.29, Wm W Smith 1.80, D R McCall 30c, Betsey Porter 90c, Daniel H Gould 30c, John W Snyder 60c, B Gifford 1.15, H A Rima 15c, C B Andrews 15c, H K Swett 15c, B F Belieu 25c, C H Chaffee 15c, Mary Phinsey 1.25, E P Burditt 15c, J W Blake 30c, J L Jordan 3.90, G W Mitchell 25c, John E Stowell 15c, F N Bartholomew 15c, J H Rogers 50c.
Books Sent by Express.
O F Guilford, Castalia, Erie Co., Ohio, $18.75, E P Giles, Jackson, Mich., 11.44.
Cash Received on Account.
D T Bourdeau $7.50, Jesse Hiestand 3.00, Judith Kelley 25c.
Review to the Poor.
Mary K Oxley (thank-offering) $10.00, M A Ashley 10.00, Betsey M Osgood 1.00, Mrs H M Cox 9.60, John Williams 6.00.
Instructor to the Poor.
M A Ashley $3.00.
Donations for the Danish Monthly.
Geo I Butler $5.00, Joseph Jellis 5.00, Thos S Bunger (thank-offering) 5.00, M J Eastman 5.00, Betsey M Osgood 1.00, Mrs M Thompson 5.00, Maggie Wilkinson 2.50.
Michigan Conference Fund.
Church at Potterville $20.00, Oakland 53.66, St Charles 25.00.