Elder Vogel's closing of the last proposition calls for a notice. I would suggest that his “untamed blood” be subjected to some cooling process; he may discover that I shall do no very “naughty thing.”
I deny his charge that my brethren have interfered with this discussion. Not a sentence has been written or published with any reference to it. I have the best of reasons for believing that my brethren are as fully satisfied with it as his are. I may refer to this again.
And his ninth paragraph calls for explanation. Although it is too obscure to be understood, it contains an insinuation, which I insist on having cleared up. I have noticed, in many cases, his tendency to cover up with words, professing to answer points when no answer was given. I demand as a right that he shall tell what he means by my forgetting the “position which at least some of my brethren used to occupy.” If he wishes the “last word,” he must not crowd such things into a closing article. A man who clamors so much about “honor,” ought to set a good example. Now to our proposition.
The question is, in one sense, a limited one, and in another sense, very extensive. In one view it concerns only the supposed existence of a certain positive institution; in another, it involves a consideration of the objects of the new covenant, and the relation or position of its mediator, the Son of God. This a negative argument may embrace these points:
I. Sunday observance is no part of the spiritual (moral) law which is written in the heart in the new covenant.
II. The Sunday does not bear even a single mark of a positive institution.
III. Sunday-keeping stands opposed to one of the precepts of God's moral law, and is false worship, by which its institutor is honored above the true and living God.
The first point will not be contested. If it shall appear that the second is truth, that Sunday has no just claim as a positive institution, then the truth of the third point will follow as a necessary conclusion; no obligation then exists for Sunday: it is “will-worship.”
Here I take decided exceptions to his proposed use of his five methods of proof, as not being applicable to this question. But it was well understood that they were framed for the benefit of this proposition.
1. Express command; no such exists for Sunday.
2, 3 and 4. Inference and implication, either probable or less than probable. These are not admissible as evidences to establish a positive institution.
5. Approved precedent or example. Nothing of the kind can be shown for the Sunday. Moreover, to prove a positive institution by example there must not only be a declaration of continuous action, but a specific declaration that the action related to the institution. Otherwise the very existence of the institution depends upon mere inference, which is never sufficient to establish a positive institution.
He quotes approvingly my remarks on the “evidence required,” but falls almost infinitely short of what I volunteered to (and did) give for the Sabbath. I repeat my words:—
“I inquire, What is sufficient proof of the obligation of an institution? Two things are necessary:—
“1. The act of instituting.
“2. The record of appointment.”
If neither of these exists, we have no right to infer the existence of the institution. Why does he not follow my example, with such proof for the Sunday? Because it does not exist. He cannot produce the act of instituting, or any reference to such an act, or any law of the institution, or any example of obedience to such a law. When I compare the proof offered for the Sabbath and Sunday (which is the summary to which I referred), these facts will be fully appreciated.
Eld. Vogel (and others for him) claims that he has “something new” and very important on this subject; but as he has laid out his argument, this is not true.
(1.) His position on the “genius of this dispensation,” that positive duties may rest on principles, rather than on specific declarations, has been often argued by those who plead that infant baptism may be inferentially established. Thus an old work from the Pres. Bd. of Pub. says of Sunday-keeping that doubts “arose chiefly among the same people who denied, because there is no command in the N. T. enjoining it, the propriety of infant baptism.” In the same work, it was declared that the glory and power of Christ were most strikingly manifest in that he could bring into use ordinances without precept! I commend this idea to Eld. Vogel for his adoption. He has re-produced the old Pedo-baptist argument, but has not improved it.
(2.) His argument on “a Lord's day,” is nothing new, only the writer who first employed it, gave a more euphonious title—“a Lordly day”! But what is effected by it? There is no practical difference between “the Lord's day” and “of” or “pertaining to” the Lord; the common translation stands undisputed. But his position is one of great difficulties, resting on an unnecessary inference, viz., that the term “Lord” belongs exclusively to the Son, which I might admit without detriment to my position. I prepared a rejoinder to his previous contradictory assertions on this point, but he removed it to the present proposition, saying that he would “show in the proper place,” &c., and I therefore waived it till he shall develop further. When he does that I shall show the nature and bearing of his inference, and also expose his other inference, that it is a new institution.
There is a marked uniformity of faith, as to what is necessary to establish a positive institution. The principles governing this question are so plain that almost all men agree in their statement, however much they may differ in practice; each applies the principles without hesitation when arguing on the nature of positive obligation. On this subject, I can confidently appeal to Eld. V. and to all his brethren, in the words of the apostle: “For I write none other things unto you than what ye read or acknowledge;” for every sentence which I shall write or quote on positive institutions will be acknowledged and indorsed by him, and then, when baptism is the subject; but when the Sunday is to be sustained they ignore these same principles, well knowing that they literally cut up their Sunday arguments by the roots. All who are conversant with theological literature have read as plausible inferences for infant baptism as can be furnished for Sunday. Eld. Vogel's list of learned authorities, without which his inferences would have been too bald to be presentable, may be rivalled by authorities for infant baptism.
His illustration of his position by the want of “direct legislation” in regard to the Lord's supper is peculiarly defective, and contains the very root of all error on positive institutions. (1.) The Lord's supper was plainly instituted. (2.) It is plainly commanded. (3.) It is plainly revealed in what it consists; that is, the action is described. But, (4.) the frequency of its observance as he admits, is not revealed; of that nothing is said, and of course that is no part of the law of the institution, and there is no obligation in respect to it. Only two instances are given: its appointment by the Saviour, and its observance at Troas; and these were on different evenings, without a word connecting it with either. No matter if a thousand great names are given in its favor, it yet rests solely on human and uninspired testimony, and is therefore of no authority. In advocating stated periods for its observance, Eld V. makes faith come without the word of God (Rom. 10:17), and imposes duty where nothing is revealed. In this he has not stopped on Pedo-baptist ground—he occupies the ground of the Roman Catholic.
In his argument I, Isa. 56 is used in a manner which may be made to subvert the prophecies. He rests altogether on the hypothesis that if one text of a prophecy is used in an accommodated sense, the whole prophecy or context must be; or if one part is literal, the whole must be. A prophecy may apply partly to that which is immediately before the reader, and partly to that which is remote. His rigid method applied to Ps. 69, would either prove Christ a sinner or deny its literal application to him, contrary to the express statements of the N. T. I have before shown that the Sabbath is, by the prophecy, thrown forward into the gospel dispensation. I also proved that it is “recognized” in the New Testament. And his point II, is that a “sacred day” is recognized in the gospel. But notice, it is recognized, not instituted. We meet on the common ground of its “recognition,” but he cannot show any act of instituting. And therefore his III, is not an argument, not susceptible of proof, but only an inference. There is no new institution. It has been abundantly proved that the moral law of God is the rule of right and of action in this dispensation, and the Sabbath of the Creator is a part of that law. To this the prophet refers, and this the New Testament “recognizes.”
And no man ever assumed a more inconsistent position than he takes right here. He affirmed that it must take as plain and direct testimony, to transfer an existing institution to this dispensation, as it took to institute it, but now insists that an entirely new institution may be erected without any direct testimony! Let him prove the existence of a new institution, and I will allow all that he claims of allusion or recognition. But I deny the right to claim its existence by allusion or recognition, when there is another well-known institution to which the allusion refers. The very allusion is proof of the continued existence of the old institution, unless the existence of the new is proved outside of the allusion. But every one knows that an inference from the allusion, is his only proof of the existence of his institution!
Again, he admits that, so far as the direct testimony of “the Scriptures” is concerned, it is not revealed whether his new institution is the first day or some other day; or the first day of the week, or the month, or the year. That is to be settled by inference and human authority! Let the reader note the proposition, “Do the Scriptures teach,” &c., and then consider how much of his argument would be left if he should strike out his quotations from uninspired writers. His quotations from “The Christian System, by A. Campbell,” serve him a much better purpose than any he could make from “the Scriptures” by the inspired servants of God.
His quotation of 1 Cor. 16:2, as of a day of meeting, or stated day of worship, is worthy of the purpose for which it is used! Even Dr. Justin Edwards, the chief of all Sunday-tradition theorists, is constrained to admit that this laying “by him” is “at home,” and not in the meeting-house. And this is so clearly the sense of the original that he could but admit it.
Eld. V. also admits, what I before proved, that “the Lord's day” must refer to some “mutually-known time,” but infers that it was Sunday! Let him show that anybody knew that Sunday was the Lord's day; that anybody knew that John alluded to that day. If supposition must settle the terms of positive institutions, the Disciples may disband and unite with the Pedo-baptists.
On such a course as he pursues in this argument, we will hear A. Campbell:—
“Be it then emphatically stated that their method is not to produce either a precept or a precedent for infant baptism, but to infer it from sundry passages of Scripture, never presuming to find in any one passage premises for the whole rite, but for a part of it. Then, by putting these parts together, supposed to be logically inferred from sundry sayings, they construct positive authority for a positive rite. This is, most certainly, as unprecedented among men, as it is illogical in point of propriety. Who ever heard, in any other case, of inferring one part of an ordinance from one sentence in another passage, referring to something else, and then, by converting these two inferences into one, make it a positive and explicit authority for a Christian institution?”—Chris. Baptism, pp. 384, 5.
These words apply with most cutting force to the course of Eld. Vogel; for even his inferences depend for plausibility on the thick glossing they receive from uninspired testimony. I shall quote much further on this subject. For the present, let the reader weigh well the following words:—
“All commemorative institutions are positive, and dependent as to obligation on the will of the institutor, and HENCE NOT BINDING ON MAN, TILL FORMALLY PROCLAIMED.”—P. Vogel, in his first article in this discussion.
“Of course,” he will now proceed to give us the formal proclamation of the institution of the Sunday! or cease to teach it as of obligation. Eld. V. is not an ignorant man; he well enough understands the laws of evidence to know that his affirmation calls upon him (1) to give proof of the formal proclamation of the Sunday; or (2) to deny that it is a positive institution, and give it a moral basis; or (3) to renounce his affirmation and yield the question. This is so reasonable, that I have a right to insist on his taking well-defined ground on these points.
As his affirmation says nothing of the reason or ground of Sunday obligation, I requested him to define his position, to which he replied:
“The first day is with me a sacred day, in a similar sense that the Sabbath was a sacred day.”
He should then give similar evidence of its sacredness. Let us compare the two:—
1. The divine blessing was placed on the Sabbath. Did God bless the first day? Give the proof.
2. God sanctified the Sabbath day. Did he sanctify the Sunday? Chapter and verse asked for.
3. He claimed the seventh as his own—the holy of the Lord—the Lord's day. Did he ever claim the Sunday as his? Where is it found?
4. He explicitly gave a reason for the sacredness of the Sabbath. Did he ever give any reason for Sunday sacredness or observance? Where, and what is it? McGarvey (a Disciple Prof., Eld. Vogel's own denomination), in his Commentary on Acts, says, “The day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended, has been celebrated from that time till this; though no formal reason is given in the N. T. for its observance.” The reason is all of man's devising; it is will-worship.
5. God expressly commanded the seventh day to be kept as holy time. Did he command to keep the Sunday? When, and where?
6. God uttered severe threatenings against those who refused or neglected to keep the seventh day. Did he threaten those who do not keep Sunday? Where and why?
7. God gave promises of rich blessings to those who keep the seventh day. Did he ever promise anything for keeping Sunday? What, and where found?
If the first day is to be sacredly kept, it is sin not to keep it; but
a. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.”
b. “Where no law is there is no transgression.”
c. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
I do not keep Sunday. Will Eld. Vogel please to show what law I transgress; by what I am proved a sinner therefor.
Every positive institution must have its limits well defined; otherwise, there is confusion. Eld. Vogel dodges this by saying that he is not to inquire if the worldling is under obligation to keep Sunday. True, the terms of the proposition do not compel him to do so; but the inference is unavoidable, that, if it is a positive institution of the gospel, they who reject Christ have no more right to keep Sunday than they have to be baptized, or partake of the Lord's supper!
Obituary Notices.
Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.
DIED, at Malone, N. Y., April 30, 1873, of consumption, Sybil Whitney, aged sixty-six years. She was born in South Hero, Vt., June 27, 1806. Her father, A. Landon, was a Methodist clergyman; and one of her brothers, Seymour Landon, has been an active Methodist preacher in the N. Y. East Conference for upward of fifty years. She embraced religion at the age of twelve years, from which time she was a church member until her decease. She was married to Sealand Whitney, who survives her, in 1827; and was enabled to do her part, with him, in bringing up a family of five sons in the fear of the Lord, who are all professors of religion, three of whom joined with their mother thirteen years ago in receiving the doctrine of the second advent near, and in keeping the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and are actively interesting themselves in the furtherance of the cause of their heavenly Master.
Sister Whitney was naturally very conscientious, and endeavored to adhere to the truth on all points. For three months before her death, she was a great sufferer; still she manifested great patience and fortitude, and seemed to have much of the grace of God to help her to the very last; and, having made a clean survey of her own case before the Lord during her sickness, she was enabled in her last moments to say in the triumphs of faith, “All is well.”
Funeral discourse on the occasion by the writer, from 1 Cor. 15:21.
“Angels shall guard thy sleeping dust,
And as thy Saviour rose,
The grave again shall yield her trust,
And end thy deep repose.”
A. C. BOURDEAU.
DIED, in Allegan, Mich., April 28, Sarah E., wife of S. P. Clark, aged thirty-eight years and eight months.
In the death of sister Clark, the church has met with a great loss. Not only was she a firm believer in all the truths of the third message, but such was the consistency of her life and the meekness of her spirit that she recommended her faith to all who enjoyed her personal acquaintance. Though a great sufferer in her last hours, she not only bore patiently that which she was called upon to endure; but, in the midst of her suffering, she spoke calmly of her approaching end, and triumphed, even on the very verge of death, at the thought of soon meeting her coming Lord. She leaves a family of four children, the youngest of whom is but an infant.
Discourse by the writer at the S. D. A. house of worship, April 29.
W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
DIED, at Lapeer, Mich., April 16, 1873, after an illness of one week, Dearborn H. Sanborn, elder of the Lapeer church, in the forty-eighth year of his age. He leaves a wife and four children to mourn the loss of a kind husband and father. His counsels, admonitions, and reproofs, are a great loss to the church. He was a peacemaker and beloved by all who knew him.
Discourse at the funeral by I. D. Van Horn.
Wm. POTTER.
I was called to attend the funeral of two boys, one about fourteen, and the other eleven, years of age, sons of Bro. Fisher of Blendon, Mich. His house was burned (supposed to be set on fire by his wife, who was not in the truth, and had, for some time, manifested insanity) with all its contents, and these two boys were consumed in the flames. Himself and two daughters barely escaped, with only their night robes. His wife was fully dressed, and gave him notice of the fire, but too late to save the children.
J. BYINGTON.
DIED, in Wright, Mich., April 19, 1873, of inflammation of the lungs, Everts F., youngest son of Henry W. and Lydia A. Gordon, aged nine months. Our Saviour has said, “Of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” Funeral discourse from Colossians 3:2.
J. BYINGTON.
DIED, in Hebron, Jeff. Co., Wis., April 24, 1873, Lena, youngest child of Wm. L. and Lucinda Blakely, aged one year, eight months, and twenty-eight days. It is thought by some that her disease was consumption.
DIED, four miles west of Palermo, Kan., April 28, 1873, Charles Nicholas, infant son of T. H. and D. E. Wakeman, aged seven weeks and four days. Discourse by the writer from Psalms 144:3.
C. H. CHAFFEE.
Western Camp-Meetings
Appointments.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand
** Services in Chicago, every Sabbath (seventh day), at 269 West Erie St. All Sabbath-keepers spending a Sabbath in Chicago, are invited to attend.
Western Camp-Meetings.
Near Centerville, Kan., May 29 to June 2, 1873.
Washington, Iowa, “ 5-9, “
Milton Junction, Wis., “ 19-23, “
Medford, Minn., “ 26-30, “
The Iowa and Neb. Tract and Missionary Society will hold its first annual meeting on the campground in connection with the camp-meeting at Washington, June 5-9, 1873. All the directors and as many of the librarians and members as can attend should be present, as officers for the ensuing year are to be elected, and other important matters pertaining to the interests of the society will be considered. H. Nicola, Pres. T. and M. Society.
Iowa and Neb. State Conference.
The Iowa and Neb. Conference will hold its next annual session in connection with the Iowa Camp-meeting to be held at Washington, Iowa, June 5-9, 1873. We hope all the churches will immediately take the steps necessary to represent themselves fully at this meeting. Churches wishing admission should present their request and send their delegates. Let all the reports required by the constitution of the Conference be prepared by ministers, licentiates, and delegates. And especially let every church in the Conference be prepared with its pledges for the coming year, by at once re-arranging their S. B. Let all the churches represent themselves by delegates if possible; if not, by letter.
H. Nicola,
J. T. Mitchell,
Iowa & Neb. Conference Committee.
The next quarterly meeting of the Waukon and West Union churches will be at West Union, Iowa, on the 31st of May, commencing with the Sabbath. Nason Hoyt.
Greenbush, May 17, 1873.
Bunkerhill, “ 31, “
Locke, June 7, “
Genoa, “ 14, “
Aliadou, “ 21, “
Hillsdale, “ 28, “
Ransom, July 5, “
C. Stoddard.
Monthly meeting at the Crabb school-house in Monona Co., Iowa, beginning May 31, 1873. The Soldier Valley church and all the scattered brethren will please attend. Come, brethren, praying that God's blessing may rest upon us. J. Bartlett.
The next quarterly Tract and Missionary Society meeting for each district will be held as follows:—
Dist. No 1, Bordoville, June 7, 8, 1873.
“ “ 2, West Charleston, “ 14, 15, “
“ “ 3, Wolcott, “ 21, 22, “
“ “ 4, West Bolton, “ 28, 29, “
“ “ 5, Jamaica, July 5, 6, “
It is greatly desired that there may be a general rally of the friends of the cause at each of these meetings. Come prepared to make the several reports required, and to work for the Lord as the wants of the cause may demand.
A general State quarterly meeting will also be held at Bordoville, Vt., July 12 and 13. A general attendance of the brethren and sisters is desired, as important matters in reference to missionary work will be attended to at this meeting. Meetings to commence Friday evening. It is greatly desired that Bro. S. N. Haskell should meet with us at the quarterly meeting in Jamaica, and at the general quarterly meeting in Bordoville.
A. C. Bourdeau, Pres.
The Conference Address.
By Geo. J. Butler
We are very glad that the readers of the REVIEW have the privilege, this week, of reading the excellent and stirring Conference Address delivered by Eld. White at our last General Conference. The thoughts and suggestions contained in it are just such as our people need to consider at the present time. They are emphatically “meat in due season.” We hope they will have the thoughtful consideration of every friend of the cause. Stirring times are before us. Let us closely consider our present position, and act like sensible men in reference to it. If we do, we shall be greatly in earnest.
The sentiments contained in this address were those with which the heart of Bro. White was filled when he arrived here, from his long journey from the Pacific coast. And if his heart has been chilled somewhat at times, by the little progress which has been made here at Battle Creek, since the Conference, and by feebleness of health, and by a lack, on the part of many, of earnest faith and ardent labor in the good cause, yet we are thankful he has had strength sufficient to revise and prepare this important address for the readers of the REVIEW to peruse.
We are happy to say to the brethren generally that Bro. White has not had better hope and courage for years than at the present moment. We expect to hear a cheering testimony from him from time to time as God shall give him strength. We trust our brethren everywhere, will remember him in their prayers, that he may have strength to labor in the cause he loves. GEO. J. BUTLER.
The Michigan State Conference S. B. Fund.
By Geo. I. Butler
We feel called upon to make a brief statement through the REVIEW in reference to paying out funds from the S. B. Treasury. The constitution of our State Conferences makes the executive committee of each Conference responsible for the disbursement of funds during the interval between the sessions of the Conference. We feel that this is an important and sacred responsibility. It is the duty of the executive committee to see that money is not paid out lavishly or for labor that has been of no value to the cause. Calls are coming in from licentiates for money, from time to time, where there is no means of knowing that they have any just claims upon the treasury. And we learn of instances where individuals are drawing means directly from the churches with no order from the Conference Committee. And we judge that some licentiates are going out to labor with the expectation of receiving full pay for their time whether their labors really amount to anything to the cause or not. And we fear there has been too much laxity in settling heretofore, so that this impression is fixed in the minds of some, that the amount of time spent will be fully paid for regardless of results or the character of the labor expended.
In view of these things, and seeing the responsibility of disbursing means is placed upon the committee, we shall expect hereafter that all church treasurers will forward their means directly to the Conference treasurer, and that not one dollar shall be paid out without being so ordered by the committee. We advise the licentiates also, not to found their ideas of pay upon past settlements. In the future, more care must be taken or our S. B. fund will stand in danger.
Licentiates should study economy, and labor with faith in God for perishing souls. Every one who thus labors will no doubt be cared for when the auditing committee settles, if their labor proves to be of value. But let them first prove their gifts before expecting remuneration. Let them show their ability to bring into the cause souls converted to God. Not merely those who are taught a little theory, but such as have hearts filled with love to God, who are Christians in deed and in truth. Then it will be time to think about pay.
GEO. I. BUTLER, Pres. Gen. Conf.
We fully indorse the sentiments stated above, and shall endeavor to see them carried out to the letter.
E. H. ROOT, } Members of Mich.
S. H. KING, } State Conf. Com.
To the Churches in Minnesota.
By H. F. Phelps
Our camp-meeting is now appointed for June 26—30. But before that time, we need to hear from every church in the State, in order to have our report ready. Some have failed in their quarterly reports. Shall we not hear from them? Your fourth quarterly report needs to be sent in immediately. Will you send it? Besides this, there is the report of the financial condition of your church. The clerk should make this out immediately. This report should tell us your standing as to whole number of members, number paying s. B., amount of s. B. pledged for the year, amount pledged to the State Conference. Next, the elder, deacon, and clerk, should make out a report of your standing, as to additions by letter and by baptism; losses by death, by apostasy, and by removal; number of members at the commencement of the year, and the present number; and number of Sabbath-school scholars. We believe you all have blanks; if so, it will be an easy job for you to fill them out; if not, do the best you can, and send in these reports immediately, to my address. Those laboring with us desire to see us coming up in better working order, and shall we not take hold with them? I pledge myself to do all I possibly can. H. F. PHELPS, Sec.
Pine Island, Minn.
Iowa Camp-Meeting.
By H. Nicola; J. T. Mitchel
This meeting will be held three-fourths of a mile south of town, near the fairground, at Washington, Washington Co., Iowa, June 5-9, 1873. Those coming on the cars will be met at the depot with teams to carry them to the camp-ground. It is hoped that an earnest effort will be made by the brethren in all parts of the Conference, that there may be a full attendance at this meeting. Our friends in Illinois are also cordially invited. Come, dear friends, one and all; and if any are thinking of staying away because the distance is too great, or simply for want of time, please read Testimony No. 19, pp. 93-96. These meetings come only once a year, and none of us can afford to miss them if we possibly can attend.
Let all who can, furnish themselves with tents for their own accommodation and that of their friends. But none need hesitate to come who are unable to provide tents, as arrangements will be made for such. Bring empty bed ticks and plenty of bedding. Straw will be furnished on the ground. Provision and horse feed will be furnished at reasonable rates. Let it be remembered that the meeting is to commence at the time appointed. Be sure to be in season so as to have your tents pitched and all ready to commence with the meeting, and come prepared to stay till its close.
H. NICOLA, } Camp-meeting
J. T. MITCHEL, } Committee.
Change of the Appointment of the Wisconsin and Minnesota Camp-Meetings.
We have recently received information that our S. D. Baptist friends who are numerous in the vicinity of Milton Junction, where the Wisconsin Camp-meeting will be held, have an appointment for an Association meeting at the same time. They desire to attend our camp-meeting, but cannot unless our appointment is changed. We therefore decide to reverse the order of these two meetings. They will now stand,
Milton Junction, Wis., June 19-23. Medford, Minn., June 26-30. Gen. Conf. Com.
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 received pays—which should correspond with the Numbers on the Papers. If money to the paper is not in due time acknowledged, immediate notice of the omission should then be given.
$2.00 EACH. R Cecil 41-1, O S Ferren 43-14, Daniel Sumner 43-28, William Barden 42-12, D T Bartlett 43-21, John W Ditto 43-1, I C Choate 43-23, Henry Sykes 44-1, L Arnold 45-1, Sarah Wilkinson 43-23, N H Simonds 43-22, Margaret Heslet 44-9, Daniel Bowe 43-22, Geo Heablen sen 44-1, Nathan Allen 43-23, Nancy A Beatty 43-24, Julietan Tompkins 43-23, Jane P Bowman 43-23, James Pierce 43-21.
$1.00 EACH. I Colcord 43-14, W H Loomis 43-22, Chas Osborn 43-6, Henry A Rife 42-23, John H Green 43-1, J F Bahler 42-23, Mary Grimes 43-1, S J Bostwick 43-1, N R Rigby 42-23, J Rhodes 43-23, W B Castle 42-22, Louisa Pancost 43-25, Archie Mc Nab 43-6, E M Weldon 43-1.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Theodocia Terry 50c 43-1, Almira Johnson $4 00 36-1, C Christman 1.50 43-22, Clara Wright 1 50 43-28, M A Robinson 5.00 43-1, J C Seale 2.34 43-1, Edwina Sevy 3 00 42-1, G H Bell 3.00 43-1, B Vandenburg 64c 41-11.
75 Cents Each, Paying to Vol. 42, 22. John Kundert, William B Willis, John Gorsline, Lee Smith, J S Cook, Martha A Dimock.
50 Cents Each, Paying to Vol. 42, 22. S R Lessing, Sarah Chapman, Joseph Langwell, S T Mills, Mrs E E Stedman, S Fifield, Harvey Northrop, E Whitmore, John Israel, Daniel Gilbert, Tim S P Miles, James Morrison, J E Gardner, J Harlow, William Vandenburg.
Books Sent by Mail.
S E Edwards 60c, John Reed 20c, J B Follett 50c, D M Canright 50c, H F Phelps $2 84, D Glunt 25c, A C Henderson 60c, F A Buzzell 25c, B F Lutz 2.25, D W Weigle 20c, H A Rife 35c, C B Fitzgerald 50, G R Starkweather 1.20, Eliza Rosseau 2.35, George A Shultz 3.70, R Glunt 10c, D T Fero 40c, Joseph Ings 10c, John H Bennett 6.00, E Mills 30c, Amos Amburn 1.00, Sarah Neass 25c, John G Templeton 13c, Isaac Zirkle 2.95, Mrs H G Andrews 60c, Jonas Engberg 15c, F Howe 25c.
Cash Received on Account.
R F Andrews $2.00, James Sawyer 5.00, H F Phelps 2.00.
Michigan Conference Fund.
Received from church at Orleans, $45.00 per S H King, Bunker Hill, 5.00.
Donations for the Danish Monthly.
Stephen B Craig, $5 00.
Watches Sent by Express.
R R Eastman, Lawler Station on a branch of the McGregor Western R R, $25.00, Jarvis Banks Pleasantville, Westchester Co., N. Y., 25.00, Orlo Rogers, St Paul, Dayton Hall, Minn., 25.00, G W Newman, Hart, Oceana Co., Mich., 15.00.