Review and Herald, Vol. 21, No. 15. (3/10/1863)

Review and Herald

Mar 10, 1863

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 10, 1863

The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.

(Continued.)

II. THE example of Abraham, and other patriarchs, is the next resort of slaveholders to obtain a sanction of American slavery.

In discussing this claim of the advocates of slavery, I shall confine myself principally to Abraham, as his case will prove decisive for or against slavery. As to the conduct of Laban, in selling his daughters to Jacob, and in giving them Zilpah and Bilbah to be their handmaids, no effort is necessary to prove that there was nothing analogous to American slavery involved in the transactions. If it were clearly slavery itself, it would not prove that, or any other slavery to be morally right, since the transactions lack the endorsement of heaven. The transactions are recorded as facts transpiring in the life of Jacob, but there is no endorsement of the character or conduct of Laban, and his conduct cannot be plead as an example to be followed, or as a justification of any system or practice. The same is true of much of the historical part of the Bible.

But in the case of Abraham, the subject wears a different aspect, as he is clearly presented as a representative man, an example to be followed, and the friend of God. If it could be clearly proved that such a man was a slaveholder, it might have the appearance of an endorsement of slavery. Now what are the facts? They are as follows:—"He had sheep and oxen, and he had asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses and camels." Gen. xii, 16.

"And when Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." Gen. xiv, 14.

"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with thy money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised." Gen. xvii, 12-13.

"And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and women-servants, and gave them to Abraham." Gen. xx, 14.

We have now before us all the essential proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, for if the above texts do not prove it, it is not proved by any other circumstance that may be mentioned in his history; as the transactions in the case of Hagar, Gen. xvi, 1-9; and in his swearing of his servant, in relation to procuring a wife for his son Isaac, Gen. xxiv, 1-4.

The question is, can there be found in any or all of these facts, the slightest justification of American slavery? No; must be the decisive answer.

(1.) It is not found in the word servant, for this is applied to all classes of laborers and dependents. It is not necessary at this point to resort to criticism, but only to show how the word is used generally in the language of those times. Abraham called himself the servant of the three angels that visited him. Gen. xviii, 3. He could not have designed to express the idea of a slave. Lot called himself the servant of the angels which led him out of the city. Gen. xix, 1-9. Jacob called himself the servant of Esau, Gen. xxxiii, 5. But the reverse of this would be true if the word servant meant slave. "And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants." Gen. xxvii, 37. The children of Esau were not given to the children of Jacob as slaves, and servant means only inferiority or political subjection. Pharaoh is said to have made a feast to all his servants, Gen. xl, 20, but it will not be pretended that slaves are intended. Kings do not make feasts to slaves upon their birth days. All subjects were the servants of their kings, and even the highest officers of the army, were, in the language of the times, the servants of the sovereigns; it is plain therefore that the fact that Abraham had servants, does not prove that he was a slaveholder.

(2.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had servants bought with his money. In those times all the people were the servants of their petty kings, and persons might be transferred from one prince to another for money, without supposing they were chattel slaves. During the Revolutionary war, the English Government hired an army of Germans, for which they stipulated to pay a given price per head. They were as much bought with King George's money, as Abraham's servants were bought with his money, but they were not chattel slaves. Abraham, possessed of such great wealth as he was, was compelled to have servants, and leading a wandering life, amid hostile nations, it was necessary that he should have servants that were truly attached to him and his interests. To secure such servants, he may have purchased captives, to make them his free attendants, which would attach them to him. This is much more rational than to suppose he could buy them as chattel slaves, and hold them against their will, in his circumstances.

(3.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had servants born in his house. Abraham had no house in our use of the word, but dwelt in a tent and led a wandering life. By being born in his house, it meant, born in his family or among his attendants. With attendants enough to take care of his flocks and herds, and to protect, as a guard, his person and great wealth, there must have been many servants born in his house; that is, among his attendants and followers, but where is the proof that they were his personal property, his chattel slaves?

(4.) The proof that Abraham was a slaveholder is not found in the fact that he had men-servants and maid-servants given to him by Abimelech, as above quoted. Abimelech gave him sheep and oxen, and as Abraham probably had as many before, as he had servants to watch over, the attendants were transferred, and became Abraham's followers by their own consent; and as they were both kings, it was only a transfer of subjects from one government to another, and not a gift of chattel slaves. It is clear then that there is no proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, but it shall now be shown that there is proof upon the face of the record that he was not a slaveholder in anything like the sense of American slavery.

1. His three hundred and eighteen trained servants which were born in his house, could not have been slaves in the sense of American slavery. Whatever they were, their adherence to Abraham must have been voluntary. They constituted his army, and a brave army were they, under a brave leader, when he led them to the rescue of Lot and the other captives, and slew the armies of four kings, and took the spoils. It is mentioned in particular on this occasion, he armed the three hundred and eighteen trained servants "that were born in his own house." He doubtless had other attendants at this time, but these were taken as more reliable in the hour of danger in a foreign expedition, than those not born in his house, who had more recently joined him. The latter would most naturally be left as a home guard in the absence of the king and the principal army. Had any of them been chattel slaves, how easily could they have walked away? Would a slaveholder of the South presume to arm three hundred slaves and lead them into Canada, to recapture prisoners and goods that had been taken away? Abraham must have pursued those kings not less than a hundred and thirty miles, through a wild country. How easily could his slaves have escaped had they been held against their wills, as our American slaves; and how unsafe would an American slaveholder feel alone in the midst of three hundred armed slaves. Again how easily could those left at home have made their escape in the absence of their master. There were no

patrols then to pick them up, no bloodhounds to pursue and run them down, and no fugitive slave law to carry them back.

2. Abraham said to God, "To me thou hast given no seed: and lo, one born in my house is mine heir." Gen. xv, 3. This was before the birth of Ishmael.

Those born in his house then, could not have been slaves or they would not have been his heirs.

3. Once more, Abraham's oldest servant ruled over all that he had, and was charged with the important business of negotiating with his distant kindred for a wife for his son Isaac. The business was committed to him under the solemnities of an oath. Gen. xxiv, 1-5.

Was he a slave? Have southern planters slaves that can be trusted, not only with the care of all their estates at home, but who can be sent on a foreign embassy with a train of ten horses, and with jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, and other precious things? Gen. xxiv, 10, 53. It is perfectly ludicrous to suppose, that persons who were treated with such responsibilities, bore any analogy to southern slaves.

It is believed the record has now been purged from every vestige of Abrahamic slavery, and it remains to look after that said to have been established by Moses, the great law-giver under God.

III. The Jewish polity as established by Moses, under God, is the final resort of slaveholders to find an endorsement of American slavery within the lids of the Old Testament. That there is much legislation concerning masters and servants, and that servitude, of some sort is tolerated, modified and regulated, it would be vain to deny. But that American slavery is found upon the record, or anything analogous to it, is denied. Before entering upon the examination of those provisions which some suppose involve the principle of chattel slavery, it may be well to state a few general leading principles, which it will be necessary to keep in view during the entire investigation, as having a bearing upon the whole subject, and upon the exposition of each text in particular.

1. The system introduced by Moses, whatever it was in fact, was a great improvement on all former times and organisms. If there are what may be deemed vital evils in the light of the gospel, and which the gospel corrects, they were not introduced by Moses, but are the relics of a more barbarous state of things, which his system did not entirely blot out in its great work of reformation, though it curtailed and mitigated every evil. If any such supposed evil is found, it will be seen, not to have been introduced as a new thing, but to be there by way of a modification of some previously existing evil, the severity of which is averted by legislative restraints and protections.

2. The above remark is peculiarly true and forcible in relation to servitude, as tolerated, limited, and modified by the law of Moses. The law of Moses nowhere introduces a system of servitude as a new thing, or a new element in society, but treats of it as a thing already existing, as an evil to be restrained, and modified. It is not possible for a reflecting mind to read the provisions touching masters and servants, without seeing, lying back of those mild provisions, a more oppressive system, which it corrects, modifies and softens. Take it as it stands upon the record, and in view of the condition of the world, and even the rude state of the Israelites, at the time it was introduced, and it must be admitted to be a most benevolent system, and greatly beneficial to all servile classes. It appears to have been introduced for the exclusive protection and benefit of the servile classes, and not for the benefit of the masters. American Slavery will have to be greatly modified before even as much as this can be said in its favor.

3. When we examine more particularly into the several provisions concerning servitude, we find that every regulation concerning it, is for the protection and benefit of the servant, and not one for the benefit of the master. Not one new right or privilege is bestowed upon the master; he possessed every right, and enjoyed every privilege, before the law was given which he can claim and exercise under it, but it throws around him many restraints, and many protections around the servant, and secures to him many rights and privileges which he would not be likely to enjoy without the law. It is safe therefore to say that the whole system was designed for the benefit of the servile classes, which leaves not a single analogy between it and American slavery, as the legislation which gives it existence, is altogether for the benefit of the master, conferring all legal rights on the master, and taking every legal right away from the slave, leaving the slave without a legal existence, and entirely unknown to the law, only as a personal chattel, only as a sheep or a horse or an ox has a legal existence and is known in law.

These remarks, if true, and they most certainly are, must of themselves settle the entire argument, and demonstrate, that no justification can be found in Jewish servitude for American slavery. I might with entire safety rest the argument on these points, but I propose not so to do, but only ask the reader to keep them in view, to carry them along through the investigation, for the sake of the light they will shed on the general subject, and the assistance they will render in coming at a right interpretation of the several texts to be examined.

The way is now prepared for an examination of those parts of the Mosaic code which some suppose teach the principle, and justify the practice of American slavery.

The method to be pursued is, first, to examine each text by itself, and then inquire into the general bearings of the whole system upon the subject of slavery.

It will not be necessary to examine every text in which the word servant occurs, but only such of each class of texts as are regarded as the strongest proofs of the existence of slavery.

The first allusion to servitude in the Jewish economy is as follows:—"And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." Ex. xii, 43-45.

This text was not designed to create or justify slavery, if slavery is implied in its language. The most that can be made of it, is that it takes for granted that there will be servants bought with money, and hired servants, without instituting, providing for, or sanctioning either system of service. It does not refer to servitude as a thing to be established by the new system, but as a thing already existing, without bestowing upon it either sanction or censure.

It does not necessarily imply the existence of slavery. The only proof that slavery existed, is found in the fact that servants were bought with money. It will not be pretended that hired servants were slaves; we have therefore only to settle the case of servants bought with money. The assumption that servants bought with money were chattel slaves is founded upon the supposition that the language of the Jewish law is to be interpreted by our usages. Their language was not borrowed from our usages, and cannot be safely explained by them. If it were first proved that slavery existed, then it might be safe to infer that the expression, servants bought with money refers to slaves. Such language in a statute in one of our slaveholding States, would doubtless be so construed. It being admitted that such a class as chattel slaves existed, the language might be conclusive evidence that the legislature referred to them; but the question is not to which of two admitted classes does the language refer? but was there any such class as chattel slaves? and on this question the evidence is entirely insufficient. The assumption that there was such a class, is necessary to justify such a construction of the law, and this very construction of the law, is the only proof there was such a class. This is arguing in a circle; it is assuming the main proposition to be proved, and then offering in proof of that proposition a conclusion drawn from the assumption. The language, "servant bought with thy money," cannot prove that a chattel slave is meant, only upon the supposition that no person can be bought with money, without being a chattel slave, which is false upon the very face of the record. It is only necessary to show that things and persons were bought with money, without becoming subject to the incidents of property or chattel slavery, to settle the whole question so far as the meaning of buy and bought is concerned.

The word buy, in scripture language, means to get, gain, acquire, obtain, possess; and when bought with money is the expression, it denotes merely the means by which the thing was obtained. A few quotations will settle this question.

1. The Jews bought and sold their lands for money, which lands were not, and could not be permanently alienated by such sale and purchase. They might be redeemed at any time, and if not redeemed, they must revert at the Jubilee. The price was to be according to the number of years before the Jubilee, when lands were sold and bought, as the following text shows:—

"And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buyest aught of thy neighbor's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:"

"According to the number of years after the Jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:"

"According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee." Lev. xxv, 14-16.

The land was sold and bought for money, and yet no title was given or obtained to it, but only a limited possession. That possession might be for one, five, or ten years or more, as the sale was distant from the time of the Jubilee. In Scripture language it was buying and selling, yet in our language, it was no sale, but a lease for a term of years. If then land could be bought for money, without acquiring the right of property, but only the right of possession and increase for a time; it follows that men could be bought for money without acquiring in them the right of property, but only a right to their labor. A man gave another possession of his land, with the right of all the increase for a given number of years, when it must return to him, and this is called selling and buying it, in Scripture language. So a man agrees to serve another for a valuable consideration, paid to him in advance, and in Scripture language he is said to sell himself, and the other is said to buy him. If land could be bought for money, without obtaining the right of property in it, men could be bought for money without acquiring the right of property in them. If land could be bought for money without subjecting it to all the incidents and liabilities of land bought for money under the laws of the United States, then men could be bought for money, without subjecting them to all the incidents and liabilities of men bought for money under the laws of the slave States of this country. The conclusion is perfectly clear that the simple fact that servants are said to have been bought with money, does not prove that they were chattel slaves.

(To be continued.)

Hebrews ii, 10.

PERFECT through suffering! Is this the path My Saviour trod? And shall I shrink to follow thee, Thou Lamb of God?

Perfect through suffering—the heart may faint Upon the road, And flesh and spirit both may fail, Yet hope in God.

Perfect through suffering—the gold refined, No dross remains; And o'er the furnace watcheth One, To guide the flames.

Perfect through suffering—a bright reward Before thee lies; Gird up thy loins to run the race, Then seize the prize.

Perfect through suffering—the countless throng Of saints in light, Through tribulations great have come, Affliction's fight.

Perfect through suffering—their robes made white, In Jesus' blood. The tears from every eye are wiped, They reign with God.

Perfect through suffering—the conflict o'er, The race well run; A crown of immortality And joy is won.

Perfect through suffering—is this the path My Saviour trod? Then welcome be its fiery cross, It leads to God.—Sel.

Signs of the Last Days.

The progress and the prevalence of even the gross-est forms of wickedness, in different places, and among diverse classes, are facts frightful to observe and more frightful to ponder. Every newspaper is laden with the record of such. Dishonesty, licentiousness, violence, murder—they do not meet us as exceptional instances; they make the staple of the news of the day; they load and darken the columns of all journals; till one trembles almost to take up the morning paper, is afraid to have it read in the family, and lays it down with a sense of heart-sickness, a saddening impression of the ineffectiveness of our means of public, moral and religious instruction, a keen apprehension of what is to be expected in the future.

“It is not the rich and luxurious, alone, among whom such evidences of viciousness abound. It is not those who are avowedly worldly and godless in their life. Mechanics, merchants, farmers, teachers, physicians, lawyers, ministers of the gospel, men high in social rank and in political influence, women as well as men, not only the young but the aged, in well-nigh equal measure, the refined and cultivated as well as the coarse,—all seem to be smitten with the foul contagion, and suddenly to break out with the vile and hateful leprosy of sin. Not crimes of dishonesty alone are common; but the murder of wives, of husbands, of children, of the most confiding and affectionate

friends, a horrible lustfulness, the most flagrant and fiendish violations of faith,—all seem as common as the blossoming of trees, and are coming to be spoken of as familiarly and frequently, and with nearly as little apparent concern, as are the most ordinary and trivial facts.

“No one, we think, can feel that in this descriptive outline the case is at all overstated; that any slightest exaggeration of the truth is intended or allowed. The same impression must be made upon all whose eyes and ears are measurably open to what is publicly passing around them, and who contrast this present state of things, not against some ideal plan of the social state, some fancy of their own as to what might be but what never has been, or even against the comparative pureness of the manners of our fathers, but against the actual state of society as it was in this country only twenty or thirty years ago. That was not Arcadian, but it looks almost so in comparison with the present. It certainly is true that excesses of crime are vastly more common now than then, and that what would then have shocked a community so deeply and indelibly as to be remembered and recounted for years, is now forgotten, beneath the impression of that which follows it, in a few days or weeks. A sense of unsaferness begins to prevail throughout many circles. A sudden death can hardly anywhere occur without exciting the suspicion of foul means. Elopements and domestic infidelities are so common as hardly to excite any remark, unless perhaps a ribald jest. And no sense of strangeness is awakened in the public mind by the story of even a parricide or a wife-murder.”—Sel.

“The Plank Bears.”

A ship was wrecked some time in the last century on the coast of Cornwall. All hands went down save one sailor boy who was washed on the shore, barely living, and who lay, bruised and ready to perish, for weeks, on a sick-bed. He was visited by a young man—whether in or out of the pastoral office matters little—a young man who strove to lead the sinking sailor-lad to the cross of Christ as the anchor of the soul, sure and steadfast, in the storms which destroy both soul and body in hell. “Suppose,” said the missionary, “that when your vessel was in pieces round about you off the coast, and you felt yourself sinking, exhausted, under the surge—suppose you had caught hold of a plank as it floated by you, and felt that, as you clutched it it bore your weight and held you up till relief could come, you would thank God for that plank, would you not?”

“Yes, sir,” gasped the boy; and the boy was made to understand that that plank was Christ, bearing up the sinner in the tempest of wrath.

Many years rolled away, and the Christian missionary toiled on, miles after miles from the southern coast, in the midst of some northern city. One day he was again in a sick-room. Every thing showed that it was also a room ready for a death. They moved about silently and reverently, as men do when they expect the coming of the king of terrors. The sufferer was nearly, nearly gone. The visitor, true to his old calling, bent down to whisper to the dying man words about the great salvation, and the life after death. “Is it well with your spirit?” said the old missionary. And there was a sudden glance of the eye that had begun to fix, and the head turned round, and a last flush covered the white face, and then a smile—such a smile—“God bless you, sir! The plank bears, sir! the plank bears!” And so it did. It had borne him ever since, and clinging to it, he got safe to land.—Macedonian.

Be in Earnest.

THAT is, if you are yet in sin and intend, or even hope or wish to be saved. For,

1. God gives no promises, expressed or implied, save to such as are in earnest. He nowhere says—"O ye that dwell at ease in your sins, salvation comes to you." In all his holy word there is not a promise of this sort—not one.

But there are ample promises to those who are truly in earnest. For example: "And ye shall seek me and find me, WHEN ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord." Jer. xxix, 13, 14.

"Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find."

"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

"Strive [agonize] to enter in at the straight gate; for many shall seek to enter in (when it is too late) and shall not be able."

In all these and many similar words, God himself fervently exhorts you to be in earnest. It is safe to assume that he knows what you need to do to be saved. He understands the difficulties you have to surmount and the degree of energy you must summon to your own aid if you are to succeed.

2. God shows you that you should be none the less in earnest, but really the more so, because he works within you and you are dependent on him for your success.

That tempter who does not seek your salvation has often whispered in your ear—"If you are dependent on God for his holy Spirit, lie still, and let him lift you up to heaven in his own time." But God who really does seek your salvation, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," cries aloud—"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure." His working in you to will and to do, never can supersede, or supplant, or dispense with your own working toward your own salvation. The reasoning in God's plea is that you should work the more earnestly and solemnly, because it is God who worketh in you to prompt and to urge you to both willing and doing. And shall not such a plea avail?

3. Another reason why you should be in earnest is, because you have have to overcome yourself. Your worst adversary is your own heart.

In stating this matter thus, we do not mean to lead your thought to some mysterious, unknown power within that you have never heard from and seem to know nothing about. We think only of your impulses inclinations and passions, which love sin and do not love God and his law. You know that somehow your mind does not incline to seek God. You do not naturally love to come near to him and pray for his gracious presence and for the fuller knowledge of his will that you may do it. Strangely, it may seem even to yourself, something within you holds you back even when you know you had best come. That, dear friend, is what you must overcome, or you surely perish. It is a terrible adversary. Thousands, convicted of their duty as you now are, have been thrown down by it and slain. It has baffled many an honest but too weak endeavor, and thrust down many who were almost saved. This conflict with a proud and selfish will, is fearful. You might "meet a bear robbed of her whelps"—with hope. You might face all the demons from the dark pit below and come off conqueror—and with less peril to your soul than you must encounter in this conflict with your own depraved being. In this struggle your reason and your conscience must, with God's good help, prevail over the powers and impulses of sin—or you are surely lost.

Do not be stumbled because we put this case as one of civil war and rebellion in the town of Man-soul. Paul puts the case thus:—"That which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

But the most palpable evidence that you have such an adversary to your salvation is your own conscious experience. You have seen your duty more than once and thought you would do it; but you did not. You resolved; but you failed to do. Again you saw your danger and your guilt; again you made an effort and again you failed. That old enemy was still too strong and he triumphed.

And what is to be learned by all these failures? This:—that you must put forth a more determined effort; that you must really set yourself to ascertain what God would have you be and do, and then bend your efforts in precisely that direction. You must study the gospel plan to learn from it what God has done for your salvation and what remains for you to do. So studying, you will readily see that God does not ask you to make an atonement by sacrifice for your own sins; that made by Christ is perfect. He asks of you no more of that sort;—but only that you gratefully and with contrite heart, accept of that atonement. He does ask you to put away your sins and to set your heart henceforth on doing all his will. And he asks of you a grateful trust in his own mercy. Toward these things should your best endeavors be directed.

4. Need we urge you further to be in earnest because your soul is worth saving? It is too precious that you should consent to let it be lost. You cannot yet adequately measure the great depth of the ruin when one soul goes down to perdition. O it is a fearful doom to be an outcast from God and from all the pure and the holy! It is awful to lose heaven and its promised bliss forever! Can you afford to be lost?

Our Disappointment.

By J. Clarke

Conference was appointed in Ohio, Feb. 21 and 22, and by some misfortune we did not get notice till the afternoon of the 21st! Perhaps our Review got accidentally delayed in the post office.

About sunset, Bro. Phillips and I determined to walk out to Gilboa, and be present at the business meeting on Sunday morning—distance about thirty miles. Roads too rough for teams; and we found that the water was too high in the swamps for footmen; indeed it crossed the road in many places, washing deep channels.

Next, we repaired to Westfield Station, where we arrived at about one o'clock, distance eight miles, hoping to take the cars for Leipsic. The night was dark, and winds high. Our lantern was quite a help, but the wind blew it out occasionally.

We stood on the platform about half an hour, jumping and practicing gymnastics to keep warm; for by this time the wind was accompanied with snow, which came down thick and fast; when lo! the agent informed us that the coming train was coming from Leipsic instead of going that way! Imagine our disappointment!

Here we gave up going to Gilboa, and turned back; and, having had a few hours sleep, and a little social interview with a relative, we wended our way homeward, quite sad and disappointed. Thus on Sunday morning, while the brethren at Gilboa were having a blessed time of it, we were wading snow homeward, at about two miles an hour. We would have wept over it, but it was too practical and severe.

To-day, Thursday, I have seen Bro. Van Gorder, who was accidentally (rather, providentially) at Leipsic during the first of the week. He gives us so good an account of the meeting that we almost forget our disappointment, and feel more submissive.

Still we must say that, considering the uncertainty of human institutions, we think that in Ohio, at least, we ought to have three or four weeks' notice of a conference.

Our heart's desire and prayer to God is, that he would revive his work among us.

J. CLARKE.

DOING GOOD.

There is nothing that makes earth so much like heaven as doing good. Jesus left the joys and adoration of heaven to come down and show what the spirit of heaven was. And what was it? He went about doing good, and turned away from no case that appealed to his humanity. When they crowded around him in the wilderness, he magnified a few loaves, and fed thousands. The leper came and was cleansed. His delight was in ministering to the wants of the poor and needy. Nay, if we may be allowed so to speak, God himself is gratified to stand in the attitude of infinite benevolence, and show his creatures that he delights in doing good.

Believers, Sin, and Condemnation

If believers are condemned by the world, let them remember that they shall not be condemned with the world. Sin may live in a believer, but a believer cannot live in sin. It may lose its dominion, though not leave its habitation.

The Cause in the Eastern States.

By Editor

In the Review of Feb. 17, we remarked freely relative to the cause in the east. We will not repeat what we then said, but call attention to those remarks. Let those interested read them again. We returned from our tour east in 1861, greatly discouraged at the little progress made in the direction of organization. We resolved not to make another tour until there should be a united call for help on that subject. The response from Brn. Bourdeaus and Hutchins is full.

We do not propose to go east because there is nothing to do in Michigan. There never was so much to do in this State as now, and there never has been a time when judicious labor would accomplish half as much for the building up of the cause in Michigan as since our State Conference in October. Michigan has room and means for four tents. And what time we can leave the office, we cannot fill one-fourth the calls in this State. In view of the existing state of things in the State, the Michigan Conference, whether assembled or through its Committee, will not think it advisable to bestow labor in a field where there is not enough of the element of order and organization to secure the future prosperity of the cause. As a people we have too long worked at the miserable disadvantage of having the injudicious, inexperienced, self-sufficient workers tear down what the more experienced and judicious labored to build up. One man can tear down more houses than ten men can build. Two men can tear up more rail-road track than fifty men can put down. In Michigan all are trying to help each other build, and we are loth to labor where the chances of having our work torn down are nine out of ten.

Much labor has been expended in the east, and there is but little to show for it. If our friends in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut think themselves qualified to manage the cause, and choose to suffer inexperienced men, who are comparative strangers, to lead off, they probably will not be disturbed in their opinions. If the sad experience in the past, connected with men whose names we forbear to mention, is not enough to satisfy them of the folly of every man's running an independent train of his own, then let them have more of this kind of experience, but not at the expense of those who wish to labor where united brethren understandingly help each other to build up the cause.

Calls come in from Rhode Island. These calls make a deep impression on the minds of those who have read them. But we do not see how anything can be done to fill them till general conference convenes. These very calls constitute one reason why the Conference should be held soon.

If General Conference should appoint men to labor in those portions of the eastern States where there is no organization, to take the oversight of the work there, to encourage those who should preach, and discourage those who should not, then we could hope that something permanent would be accomplished. But should it be decided that every man should labor where he pleases, and as he pleases, without reference to the labors and views of others, and that the Review should be open to every man's appointments, opinion, and report, then hope of the prosperity of the cause dies, and we wish to make a timely retreat from the scene of confusion. At present we utterly refuse to publish appointments and reports of meetings and discussions of those who are not acknowledged as preachers by some organized body of Sabbath-keepers. As long as we have connection with it, we shall object to the Review's giving influence to self-called or untried ministers.

Brethren in the east, shall we have order? or shall we have confusion? Shall we have a General Conference this spring to which you can appeal, and state your choice, and set forth your wants? Let us hear from preachers and people.

Continue reading: Lessons for Bible Students