The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

As to the truthfulness of my state- .ents, I have to say that my inform- ation was obtained from Standard Authorsâ€"authors who are regarded as reliable all over the English-speak- in; worldâ€"authors who had ample opportunities of sifting all the avail. this original documents and records, except perhaps those possessed by neuter. They were men of undoubt- od scholarship, most of whom spent yous of labor upon their works. Dome of them were Anglicans, some of them were even Anglican Clergy- .on. It is curious that it was left to: Reader in these brilliant essays‘ to find out how utterly unreliable shone historians were-what " frothy conjectures ” some of them wrote. It is curious how his ipse dixit, without a word of supporting testio .ony brushes away, as utterly worthless, the results of their pains- taking labors. It is curious too, thati Reader kept all these things from the! world so long. How innocent I havei been to rely upon these monumental stores of learning and research when I had near at hand the fountain head 0! all past and future (see his pr0phe- 4:, of the "old Boat”) knowledge! Bow extremely foolish I was to be-. lisve these scholarly Anglicans of? other days! How foolish to accepti the translations of experts “hen be- '.ide me was the " only and original”' . . . l (a. they say of patent medicines) mu urpreter of all patl‘lstic and classical! )iturature! If I had only known!: I humbly acknowledge tn) mistake; But lest there may be other innocent : ”ople like myself who still believe} in these standard authors Reader? VIII pardon me if I refer to some of; 00m to confirm what he says is un-‘ V”. I til)! at a I089 t0 ltlltletstatitl; “’y these noble Anglicans ol the past ! not reliable and if n0t leIiableE melons not truthful. But Rt-ade'i , _' I that some of my quataticns from i ' and statements hast-d on themi _ not true. What can be the re»- ., “it pQOple in the same church ‘ ict each Other so flatly? I.- «' . . there hate been in the Au- 3 M noted theolosml l It is true I have not so much faith in the Fathers as Reader has. I be- lieve with the early Reformers “ that the inspired word of God being the pure and only fountain of wisdom and truth, it was from thence alone that the rules and directions were to be drawn. which were to notify the discipline and worship of the church; and that the ecclesiastical institu- tions of the early ages. as also the writings of the ancient doctors. were absolitely destitute of all sort of authority.” I can sympathise with Reader. Knowing the weakness of} his support in the Word of God. hei naturally turns to any available source (or arguments to bolster up a “ poor dying cause ” even though that source be absolutely destitute of authority. This accounts for his rev- ounce for the Fathers. a reverence I contess I hold only for the pure Word of God. tor treatment and were it not that he asserts (without proof) that some of my statements are untrue, and oven insinuates that my quotations are not faithfully transcribed I should not waste time in discussing the matter further. I thought I had for Opponent an ordinary gentleman who would respect the amenities of debate but I find I have “ run up against ” a very common specimen of modern Tappertit who has little if any regard for the decencies of controversy. I can scarcely believe that any person, who will deliberately substitute words for others in a quotation and pervert the truth to make a point (witness " BishOp ” for “ ministry ” July 10); who shifts his own base of? argument almost in every letterl (witness. his treatment of “ religious feeling ”); who villifies the best scholarship and the ablest writers, when they do not concur with his theories, without an iota of proof to the contrary (witness, his gibe at Macaulay. July 10); and who pub- liahes his own mistaken inferences as historical facts (witness those from Dr. Raffles and Dr. Edersheim), I can scarcely believe,l repeat,that one who does this and more is anything less than a Jesuit in disguiseâ€"at least 8 " Jesuit in argument.” Besides all this, since his second letter. he has lost his temper, indulged in per- sonalities and tried to play a huge game of blufl to silence the voice of criticism by ridicule and sophistry. Bis weak and futile efl'orts to support by honest argument or substantiate by historical facts, the large preten- tions of his earlier letters reveal toall the circumscribed limits of his capac- ity, and the nairowness of his per- spectn‘e. A. BX: Reply to Reader’s Letter of August 14th. Dnaa Rowanâ€"From this letter of my esteemed friend, Reader, it is manifest he is not yet in a mood to discuss quietly and without efierves- canoe the questions under consider- ation. " She’s riled jes’ nowâ€"plain proof her cause ain’t strongâ€"The one that lust sits mad’s ’most ollers wrong.” He reminds me of a very voluhle speakerin the British House of Commons. who made a bitter at- tack accompanied with violent ges- tieulations. upon an inofienaive umber of the House. The said umber listened till the storm had luhaided, then quietly stood up, ad- dressed Mr. Speaker, and for two or three minutes waved his arms and hands in imitation of his denuncia-1 tor and then sat down without a word further This was his reply to the attack upon him, implying that nothing else was worth answering. This letter of Reader’s merits no bet Religious Corner. The Tallilh is the Epiacnpal Chi- mere. The Kelboneth is biblical. Ergo. 'l he Chiuwre is priestly. This may he louin in Readvr's bane- tum or in a JPaUHiL‘fli ('oilege but "among men of aetme and honur. it is [0“) or HUM.) in the extreme.” This is the kmd uf "plows” {sine the. mark 3) which this °° “izald h.- L'irian” trip» '0 palm 09' Upon the pnblir. It. was hmdh- fair to mat-P Dr. Ederfiheim rvsponsihle forllaa' wondoflul cnnclnsion. “Our Lord «No sound out His Apmulvs habived in a plirally gunman." for he ”snarled nothing of the kind. i The third paragraph contains the ' prettiest piece of Jesuitical reasoning which Reader has yet produced. If “ speech was given to man to conceal his thoughts ” then Reader has used it with considerable skill in this pas- sage. But his purpose is ill conceal- ed. It is to lead his readers to be- !lisve that the chimere and other lecclesiastical vestments are derived from the garments of the Levitical Priesthood and are therefore symbol- al of “ purity. honesty," etc. His method of accomplishing his purpose is characteristic. It may be stated thus :â€"First. the Biblical Tallith “ exactly corresponds to the EpiscOp- al chimere of to-dsy " Therefore, the chimere i.- priestly, and therefore ,symbolical. etc. But the Tallith l was not a priestly garment and Dr. Edersheim nowhere says it is. hence Reader's conclusion is void. Sec. ondly. The undergarment which our Lord wore was according to Dr. Edersheim, the Biblical Kethoneth. Therefore. “ Our Lord did send out His Apostles habited in a priestly garment." But the Kethoneth was nor a priestly garment and Dr. Eder- sheim does not say it is. hence his conclusion is as void as before. Dr. Kitto (Cyclo.) says that the Kethon- eth was a “ robe worn by women and men alike.” hence it could not be priestly. Dr. Faiibairn (Imp. Bible Dicty. Vol. II p. 173) says the Kutonâ€" eth, ” was, first of all, and common to both sexes. the covering by way of eminenceâ€"the uiidergarment. which protected the body from utter nu- dity.” How could it then be priesrly? Reader’s argument may be briefly put thus .â€" ” advocates ” referred to above who have not cast it aside. Reader should know. If not he should ask his own clergyman. ' “ holy” without Divine sanction be- trays a superstitious reverence for relics,and symbolism and fetishism of all kinds more in harmony with the Romanism of the tenth century than with the Protestantism of the twen- tieth. We shall have next, I suspect the supposed teeth, and hair, and rags andbones of supposed Saints described as ” holy.” We can allâ€"true Pro. testants at any rateâ€"fervently and reverently pray, “ From all such, Good Lord deliver us.” Again Reader is very positive that imy statement with regard to the Chimere being laid aside is untrue. I did not say " since the days of Bish- op Hooper ” as Reader afiirms but “of late years ” (letter of July 17). Surely Reader did not mean to mis- represent. My authority for this isi the brilliant and scholarly Dean‘ Stanley quoted above. His words are, ” but which (the chimera) now is apparently cast aside by advocates of the modern use of clerical Vest- ments ” to which he appended a foot. note as followszâ€"“See the recent account of the inStallation of the Bishop of Capetown ” Christ. Int. p. 170. [supposed that Dean Stanley had special opportunities for know- ing and that he spoke the truth. Perhaps there are others besides the In this conm-ctiou also I may add 1n the last sentence Reader’s cred- ulous assumption comes again to the surface. He has not proved, nor can he, that God appointed the Stole for any clerical purpose whatever much less for “ glory and beauty.” It is not therefore profane to give the true origin of the ” Vestment.” But to apply the words of Scripture as he does, in such aconnection, is profane and to describe any such garment as The quc tation I used (July 17) de- scribing the original use of the Stole was from the learned Dean Stanley, an Anglican Clergyman who would doubtless duly appreciate the elegant phrase “ vile wretch ”: so forcibly ap- plied to him by Reader for telling the truth. It is perhaps well for the good Dean that he has gone to his rest for he could scarcely survive the explosion of polite language which accompanied Reader’s discharge of temper. “ Christian,” He rightly conjectures that “ Christian ” was meant. Prob- ably it would be idle to tell him it was a mere slip for he does not be- lieve anything I say or any author I quote. The general reader of the Chronicle is however far too intelli- gent to misunderstand the passage hence the blunder is “serious ” only to one of inordinate critical propen- sity. In the first paragraph Reader makes a mountain out of a molehill regarding the u~s_e of ‘_‘ Scriptqre ” for “ Stars ” who approved of the teach- ing that a Christian “ both thinks and speaks the truth except when careful treatment is necessary, and then, as a physician for the good of his patients. he will lie, or rather utter a lie, as the Sophists say.” It is to be feared that these pernicious doctrines have exerted their balel’ul influence upon the moral-rectitude of some of thesons of the church. Reader will not dispute the fact that such teaching was given, but confess with sorrow that in the best churches men will arise who do honor to the church when they forsake it. But to come to some of his arguments: St. .lampsu But even if Bishnp Lightfont had not amply (Pililupimm. p. 252) proud lhal 'his is a meme mn'aphor. it, would not avail. for a gnldvn plate hasvwvvr been adaptvd as part of tho- Erclvsias'ical orna- ments 2. lhe menlinn in n... Pr ”gr-s symbolized 1)" ““333 “The malv indivalmns addm'Pd to thv ('Oll- Mary are :-,â€"- l. The golden time mid to Lava hue" worn hySL John and In the fourth paragraph, Reader gives quotations from some ancient writers to prove that some of the Apostles wore the °° plato- ” or diadem of the Jewish High Priest. The fol- lowing from Dean Stanlpy (C l p. 175) disposes autisfm'tmin‘y of thus. After proving that the Et'clesmatu'n! Vt-stments "originated simply in the fashions common to the Whole com- munitv n! the Roman Empire during the three first centuries ” and ~how- im: how them w-stwents “'PI'P in Int- ill “He (Jesus) would. we may safely 3g . assume, go about in the ordinary, al- DW though not in the more ostentatious. ill dress, worn by the Jewish teachers ch of Galilee.” Life of Jesus, Vol. I p. as 624. But Christ “ wasnot of that time,” nor like other men. He did er'not belong to the rabbinical class, ”prior to the priestly classâ€"being of or the tribe of Judahâ€"and there is not es sword of Scripture to say that He b- dressed difl’erently from others of it His own class. He was the “Car- e- penter of Nazareth” and we have yet . I to learn that he dishonored His craft ,9 by adopting the clothing or dress of i- those whom he so severely denounc- .9 ed on more than one occasion. But [’y granting that our Lord wore the or- n- dinary dress of a Rabbi or Teacher. that does not prove that the clothing e- was priestly. The Rabbis were not Is priests, nor did they belong to the prieStly class, in other words, to the ld Jewish Hierarchy. The clothing worn by the Rabbis had its origin in the secular dress of the ordinary citizen the same as that of all other classes in the state except the Levit- m ical Priesthood. It would thereforej ‘6 not be priestly clothing. It would‘ have no sacerdotal meaning or sig- nificance. It would not be symbolic as the garments of the priesthood were. It could not connect the dress of our Lord and His Apostles with that of the Levitical Priesthood which was so soon to cease forever hence Reader’s claim again falls completely to the ground. Dr. Edersheim has no intention in the passage from which Reader quoted to connect the clorl.ing of our Lord with that of the Priesthood. Not one sentence in the whole passage can be properly construed as having any such inten- tion. That he connects it with the r dress of the Rabbis no one will deny. f Reader says that ”Dr. Edersheim as- e serts that these garments were sym- n bolical.” I fear Reader has again " made a mistake. In this whole pas- t sage of some half dozen pages there 3 is no mention that the garments i were symbolic unless the distinguish- ° ing of those wearing them from oth- ers be symbolism. That will hardly serve his purpose. But Dr. Eder- sheim does say that the Targum in t referring to the filaments of the a. “ fringe ” of the Tallith ‘° seems even . to imply the peculiar symholical - mode of knotting them (the filaments) t at present in use. Further symbolic details were, of course, added in the - course of time.” This is the only i passage(p.623)in which Dr.Edersheim ‘ mentions symbolism at all and any one can see that the garments are not symbolic. An examination of Ex. xv, 38-41 will convince any one - that even the “fringes” referred to were not originally symbolic buta ; warning that the Children of Israel “remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them.” The symbolism, as pointed out in my let~ , ter of July 31, and confirmed by Dr. Edersheim. above, was a thing of later growth and originated in the superstition and ignorance of the middle ages. Again Reader forgets that when Christ. the great Antitype of all the types and symbols of the old Jewish ceremonial appeared, all r that was typical in that service pass- c ed awayâ€"the temple itself, the altar, the candlesticks, the Priests with all c their robes, hreastplates, mitres. etc. all passed away from the Christian Church for ever. Christ was the Great High Priest, the temple of the new Service was to be a temple made without handsâ€"the service itself was to be spiritual not symbolical. The Greek word “ Presbuteros ” is never translated “ priest " in the New Tesa- ment. Is that not suficient proof that in the Christian Church all that pertained to the priesthood of a sim- tl bolic or sacrificial character vanished cl for ever and Christ Himself was to be u the High Priest not after the Aaronic ti order but after the order of Melchis- ju edec. Is it not dishonoring to the is Founder of the Christian religion to le attempt, without His authority and is contrary to His visitation, to estab- gt lish any dependence of the Christian 1,. Church upon the ancient Levitical hi Ceremonial which it displaced. I B will close this point with a sentence 3. from Canon J. C. Ryle. Vicar of ' Strauhroke. a true and loyal church- tuauand the reader will make his I“ own inference. "'l he gorgeous so dress of the high priest in the Mel“ saic dispensation was never meant to .1; be a pattern to the Christian Church. Cl It was part of a typical system. ah which was ordained for a special pur- of pose, and was intended to pass away.” an (The Distinctive VeStmt-nts par. 1), 11 that the quotations from Dr. Eder- sheim do not prove that the clothing of our Lord was identical with the Rabbis of the Jewish Schools. Nor does Dr. Edersheim attempt to prove such a thing. He merely as- sumes, after examining the whole question, that Christ would probably dress like all the rest of the teachers of His time. His own words are, -â€"vv V m» brclwsms'icul nrna-Wehr again“ Hallam’s C lhe mention in the p 134. ”All the rm t» ” or diadem Again. in my letter cf July 311st, I west. The fol- ' . nulpy (C I [Ll JIiZKbetb. They wen» (‘ tolii) of Humlshe who compelled thP eEt'clvsmaru-a! , Invll's and (ii) that 1 ha Isimply in theifaith in her religion. he who!» com-3(.-\l-g. 14) is truly ch Empire during! his pruficieucy iu lOgic '9" and ~huw- h-unt tu dasprove ts “PI‘P in Int. Not. any, word, only P Says: " The} had an opportunity (*6 l0 thv «'on- Chluuicifl of my " mistake.% or mis- Iden lln'e snid ; leprrbeutmimss " of hH-spu’ 1° would St, John andjkm'ni) realiz , etc, If Elizabeth en if Bishnpiuele lwl‘P She chm know that I _v (Pilinpiatm. i made- uo-ither a mFstake nor )is is a meaeilesvldaticn 0' he'rst-H She WmaM Ie »t avail. for a5bmtpr iufmmm‘] than Read”. As '0‘ hp?" adopth:thn fir8t 0' ‘11“ above “t‘tem’ntOI iafl‘il‘ul nl'hn_ ' ”A .. -,_-.O_ - n .. _ Dues he at. my assprlionv? that if Elizabeth of Wtiliuu m the a micro-p- Reader says that my “ assertion that Hooper was imprisoned for his opposition to Vestments is not a fact.” Let us see. Since I was not there I can only quote authorities. Hallam (anglican) has these words (Const. History p. 86)-" Hooper an eminent divine having been elected bishOp of Gloucester. refused to be consecrated in the usual dress. It marks almost ludicrously the spirit of those times. that instead of permitting him to de- cline the station the council sent him to prison for some time until 'oy mu- tual concessions the matter was ad- justed.” Green (anglican clergyman) is still more pointe â€"“ HOOOper the leader of this party (the anti ritual- istic party) refused when made bi- shop to don his rochet ; and had only been driven by imprisonment to vest himself in the ‘ rags of Popery.’ ” Bug Hist. Book VI chap. 11. Dean Stanley (anglican Clergy man) speak- ing of tho- chimere. says.â€"“The chunere of which the trace still lin- gers in the bishop’s satin robe. which so vexml the soul of Bishon Hooper. and which had to be forced on him almost at the point of the sword.” Again take the Stole. My conclus- ions are as abundantly verified here also. See Smith’s Dicty. of C. A. pp. 1934 6 Dr. Smith traces the history of the vestment and the derivation of the word up through the centuries and sums up the whole as follows :â€" “ More reasonable than any of these latter views is that first given and we thus obtain the meaning of hand- kercheif in the point of view of a primary use of wiping the face.” (p. 1835) Again on p. 1936, "the ,Christian Orariuni (the original of l the Stole), like the chasuble, the dal- matic and other vestments. is but the old secular ornament. modified and adopted to its new use.” But why continue this disagreeable task! If Reader intended this as a part of his blufi game, he should be careful not to leave himself open to the charge of imbecility or untruthfulnessâ€"The other authorities cited may just as fully be verified to prove their re. spective parts of the conclusions ar- rived at and no insinuation of Reader can delete the passages referred to from their works or laugh them out of Court as unreliable evidence. I shall confine one or two quotations to the latter of these to see how far Reader has a capability of finding mv conclusions therein for I still believe (though my faith is badly shaken) he would not wilfully falsify facts Take first the Surplice. This is Smith’s note in full Vol. II p. 1944. "The Surplice (superpellicium) is a late modification of the Alb with loose sleeves. There appears to be no trace of it before the end cf the 12th century so that the history of it does not fall within our period.” Is this not exactly my conclusion in letter of July 17 ? But Reader could not find this even when he "read carefully I” Did he want to find it? Then why try to mislead his readers? In the fifth paragraph, we have an- other beautiful example of Reader’s veracity. He says he cannot find my conclusions (of July 17 and 31) in either Smith’s Dicty. of the Bible or Smith’s Dicty. of Christian Antiquit- ies both of which he has apparently ‘_‘ read carefully.” For want of space “ laity.” The Editor will bear me out in this. The natural contrast in the sentence would suggest this to a person of ordinary educution were he not bent on making bricks without either clay or straw. Clementine Liturgy that the Bishop at a certain moment of the service puts on a white (clean, footnote) gar- ment. But this is an exception which proves the rule. Of all the Liturgies this is the only one that has any in- dication of dressâ€"and the Clemen- tine Liturgy is so saturated with interpolations of all kinds, some even heretical, that its text cannot be ser- iously used as an authentic witness.” This leaves Reader where he was be- fore. His inference from St. Athan. asius and Sozomen is at variance with his own Churchmen’s views in Smith Cheetham’s Dictionary p. 1033 where this passage occurs: ” One of the charges brought against Athanasius was that he had required the Egyptians to furnish contribut- ions of linen Sticharia. As, in de- scribing this incident, Sozomen speaks of chitonion linon phoronâ€" and Socrates of linen estheta, we may feel pretty certain that we are not dealing here with ecclesiastical vestments properly so called.” If this is correct. Reader’s idea that they were Ecclesiastical vestments must be erroneous. Reader’s derisive twin respecting “city dress” returns on himself when it is known that the word “pity” (July 17) was in the MS. y m legic Dues he at- sprove my assprlinnv? I, only that if Elizabeth :unity of Wtilinu m me my " mistakes or mis- vxs" of hers»)! [would , NC. I? Eiizabmh be chM know that I a m?stake nor a mint-n- 300nm His”- most emiuun SHOP Pumps of all Kinds. W. D. CONNOR Next Door to Chronicle omoo. Were it not for lack of space. I should like to prove, just here. for the proof as given by a learned and liberal Churchman is before me, that Queen Elizabeth or her Council, not the archbishops or bishops. was re- sponsible for the ” obnoxious clause” sin the 20th Article which reads as follows:â€"‘°The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith.” This clause was not in the Articles as they passed the convocation of 1562 for there is extant a MSS copy signed by the Archbishops and Bishops with- out the clause and it appears that no alteration was made in the lower house. The 29th Article sufiered in the same way. It would seem indeed that Reader is entirely ignorant of the fact. that many of the rites and ceremonies of his church have nol higher authority than the “secular queen or her secular council.” It is perhaps as well for his own peace of mind that he has not yet looked into some of these questions. It is hardly necessary to say that the claim put forth by the Church in this 20th article is unlawful. because her as- For Churchmen, such asJewell, Grimdal, Saudys, Nowell. were in favor of leaving of the Surplice and what were called the popish ceremonies. Whether their objections are to be deemed narrow and frivolous or oth- erwise,it is inconsistent with varacity to dissemble, that the Queen alone was the cause of retaining those ob- servances,” etc. See also pp. 135-6-7 and p. 167 with footnotes giving authorities. Mosheim,-â€"-â€"Ecclesias- tical History p. 106, note, has this sentencezâ€"“It is, however, certain, that instead of being willing to strip religion of the ceremonies which re- mained in it, she (Queen Elizabeth) was rather inclined to bring the pub- lic worship still nearer the Romish ritual.” Hon. A. Elliott (Anglican) an expert on this subject, says, State and Church p. 12. “ It was due to her (the Queen’s) personal pre- dilections for Roman ritual and ex- ternal ceremonial prevailing over the wishes of her subjects. and even over those of her most distinguished bish- ops, that those observances were retained which led to the great non- conformist separation: from the An- glican establishment.” So Fisher p. 377 and Green. Book VI, chap. III in; ? much the same words. See also Bur-l net II ap. 2519-20â€"35] ; Strype's An- l nals I 298-300; Neil’s Hist. Vol. I. What does Reader say to these quot- ations? Let him verify their accu- racy. What about the “ churchmen who were according to his represent- ation more or less opposed to vest- ments ?” Was ever a sneering in- sinuation more fully flung back in the face of the sneerer? But have we not here the real cause why these Vestments were retained? It was because they were ”Roman.” And although the Anglican church never declared itself to be Protestantâ€"the word does not occur in its formular- iesâ€"yet it grew to be Protestant. Its members it seems to me should therefore follow the example of the founders of their churchâ€"the Re- formers aforesaidâ€"instead of Queen Elizabeth and cast aside these vest- iges of Romanism and superstition. Galvanized and Iron Pip.l ing; Br,ass Bmss Lined. and Iron Cylinders. 5 mr. IS. A. C. writes: “Your remediewa‘ have done me more good than Bot Bprln s and all the doctors and medicines I’ had pre- of the loathesome disease have entirely dis? ' r *d. NY 1131‘ ha. crown in fully “all ad I an: marned an Kigéy.” - OONWLTATION FR" M pg. . noon rm. mm was cannon m ““7““?- cunu communes no my. :0 YEAR. «4 Demon. VG nae only to break out wain when happy in domPSm‘ quack: experiment on on. Our New method "CC-oat 1| cnaranteed to cure you. 0:: guarantees are back ed ndn. that the disease wil . Th sands of been ahead 1 never retnrn nu 0 men used without written consent. V cured by nur New Method ‘l‘rrntmfll‘ Pumps from $2 upward. (Continued on Page Three ) Machine Oil,Ha.111ess Oil, Axle GIeaae and Boot Ointment, go to opon Mnmfacturor of And Dulor in ~â€" ovary afternoon. ’.SAUNDERS, W. D. CONNOR. nlrnorr. mci Au. Wm": Quantum-m» an "Live and IN live" Plums. le PUIPB AND REPAIRS. DRILL. CURB. Run-CURB. PRESSCURB WILLS. Allard!" rah-n n the old "at near “0007.03 Hill will In- ”only!!!“ tunic-d to. Pumps. UNDERTAKING PRICES CUT. Also a First Class Hearse always in connection. Em- balming a specinity. April 14th. OUR YOUNG BULLS FROM 12 to 20 months uld. Tm. reds and two roams chuicely bred. Jan. Nth. lyrâ€"pd A chase desirable building luts would do well to film a look at John A. Warren's Inn of nub-division 0t Park Lot number our, north of Chester street, in the Gov- ernment Survey, of the Town uf Durhun. Plan can be seen at the nttiee of J. 1’. Tel- ford. Durham. or at the office of the. under- signed. For turther particulars apply to Furn lture. KING LOT 03 C03 2%. SOUTH B Durham Road 'lmmship of (dead: 50 acres under good cultixatiun. mm; a nut brick house. Post barn and stables well andp pump. small orchard. ( fliumeniem to school, ch arch and K)st.ufl1(e~ For price and further particu rs apply to Or at this oflice. July 1, 1902. red and in first class state of cultj. vation. well fenced. well watereiwm1 good frame dwelling. and good out build. lugs. Frame barn mix“ on stone found, anon. another frame barn 25x50. Good bearing orchard at nearly 100 trees. will be sold reasonable and on easy terms. For particulars apply to the owner, GEORGE LAMB, Or at this office. “after. Mich l..l-- a IMil April 3ou..- -tf. . . ' ‘ ”U1\UAM 1 seven buildings lots on the we“ Side, of Albert street. being part of Lots Also buildinglots on the east side (f0 . fun street. being part of Lots 10 {I m Now is your tigne to secure building [on For further particulars apply to . A HOUSE AND LOT Street. the pruperty Browne. The house mum coveniently situated. and qu make an excellent boardiu; particulars apply to July 10th. 1901. l â€"â€"\J IOU-V” ." .“.‘v mums ml the public m'anx an: I N“ ”routed to furnish ACRES, LOT EIGHT, X113 50 Glonelg. Well fenced an .. . d w t ‘ and in 00d state of cultn'atiuu. IE: terms. fipplyto . April 1.. I BEG LEAVE T0 IXFHRM MY rnvrpc --A .LA -.-.L‘;- 4-. gin-An} Short Horn Bulls For Sale. N THIS __'1_‘OWN OF NY PERSON WISHING “m PL’R- EING LOT 53 cox EI_NG LOT 9, cox. 1.; Building lots For Sale. Building lots For Sale Thu is sure to pleuse can alwuys be purchased here. MRS. MARY MCNL'LTY‘ or to D. McCoumox, JOHN MCARTHL’R. Farm fur Sale. Farm for Sale ARCHI BALD DAY] 0803' GEORGE WHITMOBF. For Sale. JACOB KRESS. H. PAfRKER, Durham. t Clerk Diwsion Court tf. riceville P. 0.. Ont tf. ,- Dl mm: er BROWxE l)h0t02r.phn DURHAI' Monte An “vertiiemet appd any Globe. wd also in ‘ 3.91:0. of Monday's d“ dpul in our hifl'h school. 1, uncanny for us to 1 “oh advertisement was W. a uchange in we“ ‘ “I never been thong “Vt. i. the work (#1 flock, or: mistake by 1114 in fitting the name of xh1 latter nppou-s to be the (1 I. On spplicutions mm 2 ‘ Jame! Cruickshank. an u no person in “’iartuu W they will go to the dead ”d .0 b‘Ck t0 the appli(: ton Echo. [The present It. Jouph Snell. and V; 400‘ the Witrtonians ar him.â€"-Ed.] in u woman aWa Wind“). of Colliug“ 00‘ dc: «ruin circumstance of tho Durham (Shroud would just boil to hug, q 5 Wm. reward into “d tint he Will never re It. finds her. “'8 kn Irwin to be t very 3min “(I cannot understand w “I" (or him to go all 1 the tomhip of Calling“ swam. but if there iq In; nearer home. of couri him to tde the first stag bury, hunt up that worm work.--Ayton Advance. The Orsogeville Sun st 1.] Int u tough-looking mint“ 3 leg “did" {he wanted to purchase an a but intend he purchaee divers other liquors and un tdvurced state of i He spent the night 01.1 of the plunk platform at The Acton Prev I‘m-u «union the {0110 w . 1.; Nmuku regarding t .. “n, Which recent.) in that town: " 'l‘m 1i . Stone Psving Co . w «v g. bOOn engaged m .4“ ‘u‘ for two momm inf fl” fluent season's k a. “on “It Suturda)‘. t 0‘ thku baVv W't‘ '0!" excellent quainy .npfl‘indendence of M! .‘ Fuflu. the workuwn '9?! fine work hvrv Mai with justlfiuioir “Id to none laid mu ht ”kc-OI of walk lad ”Wadi“ find Fresh) Ivr 9“ there Mr. Quinn M“ attention to nil Molt il ceztainly (‘0 30d grutlh m; 10‘ I. t" ptobalpilit) My will hav~ lam? ‘ next year. 'l‘hv Council and all W1 It. C. II Cone l)’. . ‘ hon very satisfactd ‘ . '“ chic. sad the ”truly feel lik1 -- QWtious with 4‘ If... who can be I ‘ company 1: 33.00””: at” or INTEREST CLIP! VRITTEN FROM OUR 5x1 20 addition to 1w in” in some (‘h'ltn in the place wherv my. Windsor 3! dong the frontier :1" m with thesv via‘ an muriugur Brm of the phnk platform at depot. On Saturday he in; gun and quite early It was t ltd sight to 1 follow babbling aroun 1 \\ but he deserved no sym; no wonder that pcoylg w fooled by such fellow: H did to cripples. 610.. We needy circumstances. lhonld have been arxw-s to jeil. The editor of In.) ole ha ultimately f My nenr Thornbur object of his afim that in this way ' ha a. brother who r cinity of Thorn bury npuru containing wny home from t; fruition Genre}; {01 home crestfallen ‘1 (Met joy that his 2 thud of him. a lab end uoertaining f whole it was hastm m owner. The frankly confessed mnne of his pupa}.- thlt he could ling: htVe often heard cf first sight,” but 1'. been I. cnse witho:. even knowing the I; of his nflemiom- M v A \ Th6 matrinmn‘m Kuhn, the enw ,ouflk man, who commit bigamy i Ilrendy led In quences for him Free Probes copimi Bruce Herald. ‘ tanking things so {but he had m I. the prenent M I.“ View. In comm: of the Ontnrio ma Kuhn attempted purlinmenury Windsor. has u'w tuition to intrudw Cation of the Low the Inn-tinge of .\' h liconse alone. District N