Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 21, No. 17.

The Bible no Refuge for Slavery

Review and Herald

Mar 24, 1863

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 24, 1863

The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.

(Continued.)

[The preceding articles on this subject from Mr. Lee, have given a thorough refutation to all the arguments which some attempt to draw from the Old Testament in favor of slavery, or by which they would endeavor to stigmatize the sacred record as endorsing that heinous sin; with the exception of that founded on Lev. xxv, 44-46. But as his argument on this was given in numbers 24 and 25 of last volume, we conclude not to insert it again, but pass on to his consideration of the New Testament.]

The New Testament no refuge for slavery.

It remains to be proved that slavery finds no sanction in the New Testament, and the argument will be finished. It is a strange position which affirms that He who came to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison-doors to them that are bound, and who gave himself a ransom for all, made provision in his system of government for leaving one portion of his people the absolute property and slaves of others, from the dark hour of life's opening sorrows, until they find a refuge in the arms of death and in the darker sleep of the grave! But as strange as this position is, it is attempted to be maintained, and needs to be met and refuted.
Let it be understood, the present argument is not to be based upon those scriptures which are supposed to condemn slavery; those have been urged in direct arguments previously advanced. The only point that remains to be examined is, does the New Testament teach in any text or texts, in the use of any words or forms of speech, that slavery is or can be right? As slavery is a positive institution, an arbitrary and unnatural condition, sustained by force on one hand, and involuntary submission on the other, it is not a sufficient justification to say that Christ or his apostles did not condemn it, were that true; it must be proved that they authorized it. We may demand of the slaveholder, who appropriates his fellow beings to his own use as chattels, "by what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?" In reply to this they point us to certain texts, and words, and forms of speech which were used by Christ and his apostles, and tell us that they justify slavery. We will now examine them.
It is well known that the words slave, slaveholder, and slavery, are not found in our English translation of the New Testament; and if the thing is found at all, it must be in the original Greek, and not in the translation. The word slave occurs once in the English translation. Rev. xviii, 13: "Slaves and souls of men." Here the word rendered slaves, is soma which literally signifies bodies, and should have been translated "bodies and souls of men."

Consideration of the several terms used.

In the Greek language, there are three words which may mean a slave, andrapodon, arguronetos, and doulos. The first of these, andrapodon is derived from aneer, a man, and pous, the foot, and signifies a slave and nothing but a slave. If this word had been used, it would have been decisive for it has no other signification but a slave; but this word is found nowhere in the New Testament.
The second word, arguronetos, is derived from arguros, silver, and oneomai to buy, and hence it signifies to buy with silver; or a slave, doubtless, from the fact that slaves were bought with silver. This word is nowhere found in the New Testament.
The third word is doulos. This word occurs more than one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, and may mean a slave, or a free person, who voluntarily serves another, or a public officer, representing the public or civil authority. As the word occurs so frequently, it will be necessary to notice only a few instances in which it is used in its several senses. If the word properly means slave, it would be true to the original to translate it slave, where it occurs. I will first give a few instances in which it cannot mean slave. "On my servants, [doulos] and on my hand-maidens [doulos] I will pour out in those days, of my spirit." Acts ii, 18.
Here the word is used to denote christian men and women in general as the servants of God. It would read very strange to translate it slave; upon my non-slaves, and upon my female-slaves will I pour out in those days of my spirit.
"And now Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word." Acts iv, 29. Here the word is used to denote the apostles or preachers. It would be no improvement to translation it, grant unto thy slaves, &c. "Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." Rom. i, 1. Would it improve it to read, Paul the slave of Jesus Christ?
"We preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." 2 Cor. iv, 5. We preach ourselves your slaves for Jesus sake, would not only be without warrant, but it would make it conflict with Paul's declaration, that he was the slave of Jesus Christ. To be the slave of two distinct claimants at the same time is impossible.
"James a servant [slave] of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ." James i, 1.
"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants, [slaves] of God." 1 Pet. ii, 16.
"Simon Peter a servant [slave] and an apostle of Jesus Christ." 2 Pet. i, 1.
"Jude the servant [slave] of Jesus." Jude i, 1.
"And he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant [slave] John." Rev. i, 1.
"Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants [slaves] of our God in their foreheads." Rev. vii, 3. It is not impossible but this text may be urged in justification of the practice of slaveholders' branding their slaves with the name of the owner.
Enough has been said to show that the word doulos, does not necessarily mean slave, in the sense of chattel slavery. Indeed it is only in a few instances, out of the one hundred and fifty times in which it is used, that it can be pretended that it means slave. These cases shall be examined. But before reaching that point, the facts amount to almost a moral demonstration, that the inspired penman did not mean to spread a justification of human bondage upon the record. There was a word which appropriately expressed a chattel slave which they have never used, but have always used a word which properly expresses the condition of free persons in the voluntary service of another, whether as a common laborer, a personal attendant, an agent, or a public officer, representing some higher authority, human or divine.
Is it not clear then that they did not design to teach the rightful existence of human chattelship?
As the writers of the New Testament have not used the word andrapodon which most specifically signifies a slave so have they not used the properly corresponding word, andrapodismos, which is the specific word for slavery. As they use the word doulos, for the man, the servant, which may denote a voluntary servant, one employed for pay; so they use the derivative word doulou to denote the condition, the service, servitude, or bondage, which may also be voluntary.
So, when speaking of rightful relations, they have never used the word andrapodistes, which signifies a slaveholder, one who reduces men to slavery, or holds them as slaves, and which corresponds to andrapodon, a slave; but have used the word despotees, which signifies lord, master, or head of a family, without at all implying a chattel slaveholder. The proper word for a slaveholder andrapodistes, occurs but once in the New Testament, 1 Tim. i, 10: where it is translated man-stealers.
Despotees, the only word used which it can be pretended means slaveholder, occurs in only ten texts in the New Testament, in six of which it is applied to God, or to Jesus Christ, and in four to men as masters. The cases in which it is applied to God or to Jesus Christ, are as follows:
“Lord, [Despotees], now lettest thou thy servant, [doulos] depart in peace.” Luke ii, 29.
“Lord, [Despotees] thou art God.” Acts iv, 24.
“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for his master’s [Despotees] use.” 2 Tim. ii, 21.
“Denying the Lord [Despotees] that bought them.” 2 Pet. ii, 1.
“Denying the only Lord [Despotees] God.” Jude 4.
“How long O Lord, [Despotees] holy and true.”
The above use of the word shows that it does not signify a slaveholder, and from the examination of the several words concerned, it appears as though the apostles were so guided as to employ none of the words which belong properly to the system of chattel slavery. The four remaining texts in which the word despotees occurs, are the texts which some suppose describe slavery, and these shall all be examined in their place. I have thus far proved that the inspired writers have not used one of the words which unequivocally express chattel slavery, and the fact that there were such words in the language in which they wrote, and that they always avoided them, and used words which properly denote free laborers, is very conclusive evidence that they never designed to endorse the system, if they knew anything about it, and lived and labored among it.

Christ in no instance taught or justified slavery.

We are now prepared to enter upon an examination of the texts which it is affirmed justify slavery.
“There came to him a centurion, beseeching him and saying, Lord my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but speak the word only and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man go, and he goeth; and to another come, and he cometh; and to my servant do this, and he doeth it.” Matt. viii, 6–9.
There is certainly no slavery in this text, and I should not have considered it necessary to have introduced it but for the purpose of presenting a specimen of each class.
Slavery is not found in the fact that as a Roman officer he had soldiers under him, that he said to one go, and he goeth; and to another come and he cometh. These soldiers were not his slaves. Nor is slavery found in the fact that he had servants, for the word here translated servant never means slave. The word is pais and signifies “a child male or female, and of any age from infancy to manhood, a son or daughter, a boy, youth, girl, maiden.”
A few examples will show this. Matt. ii, 16. “Herod sent forth and slew all the children.” Here the same word is translated children. Matt. xvii, 18. “And the child was cured from that very hour.” Here the same word is rendered child. Matt. xxi, 15. “The children crying in the market.” Here the same word is translated children. Luke ii, 43. “The child Jesus tarried behind.” It will not be pretended that the words Jesus ho pais, “the child Jesus,” denotes a slave, and yet the word here rendered child, is the same that is rendered servant where the centurion said, “My servant lieth at home sick.” It was probably the centurion’s child that was sick; at least it would have been just as faithful a translation to have so rendered it.
“Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom the Lord when he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But, and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken: the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. xxiv, 45–51.
This is as strong a text in support of the idea of slavery as any thing found in the teachings of our Lord. I will then examine it as a decisive text by which the question may be settled.
1. Here the word rendered servant is doulos, which does not of itself prove the existence of slavery. This has already been proved. If then the text proves the existence of slavery it must be from some other circumstances.
2. If there is any slavery in the case, the ruling servant was a slave in common with the rest, for he is represented as smiting his fellow servants. This furnishes strong presumptive proof that none were slaves. It is unknown to the history of slavery for a chattel slave to be left in sole charge of such an immense estate as is involved in this illustration of our Lord. The management of a plantation or an estate of slaves is never left to one of the slaves, during the long and uncertain absence of the proprietor, as must have been the case if our Lord borrowed his illustration from slavery.
3. The smiting his fellow servants is no proof that they were slaves. It was a wrongful smiting, a wicked smiting, and cannot prove that either party were slaves. A hired overseer would be just as likely to smite hired laborers, as a slave overseer would be to smite slave laborers, there being nothing to justify the smiting. Moreover the smiting in this case is associated with drunkenness, and hence, it is clearly just that kind of assault and battery which a drunken overseer would commit upon those who might be under his direction.
4. The punishment inflicted upon the unfaithful servant proves that he was not a slave. It is clear that he was executed, or cut off, which is in perfect harmony with the customs that prevailed among eastern petty tyrants. But as a general rule, men would not treat an unfaithful slave in such a manner, but would rather sell him upon some cotton or sugar plantation, or send him into the chained gang.
5. If it were admitted that the lord was a slaveholder, and that the servants were slaves, it would be no justification of slavery. It is only an illustration, and does not prove the rightfulness of the facts and circumstances from which it was borrowed. If the fact that our Lord used the conduct of masters and slaves to illustrate his truths, proves that slavery is right, much more must the cited fact that the master cut his slave asunder prove that it is right for slaveholders to cut down their slaves, when they disobey them, or when they do wrong. The two strong points in the parable are, first, the servant was unfaithful and violated his charge; and secondly his lord or master, severely punished him for it. Allow this to have transpired between a slaveowner and a slave; and if its use by our Lord, to illustrate the wicked conduct of sinners and the punishment which God will inflict, proves that slavery was right, it must prove with equal certainty that the punishment inflicted by the master was right. That was capital punishment; he cut him asunder. The truth is, the use our Lord makes of the facts is no endorsement of slavery or of the particular conduct of the master, upon the supposition that there is any slavery in the case. Christ often employed facts and transactions to illustrate the truth, without endorsing such facts and illustrations. A few examples will show this. The parable of the vineyard recorded Matt. xxi, 33–41, is of this class. It does not endorse the act of the proprietor in destroying the husbandmen. The parable of the marriage supper recorded, Matt. xxii, 1–14, is of the same class. It does not prove the rightfulness even of making such a feast, much less does he justify the conduct of the king in dealing so severely with the man who had not on the wedding garment. That man was merely guilty of an impropriety, which could not justify such severe punishment; but our Saviour could use the fact to illustrate a righteous administration without endorsing it. The case of the unjust steward, recorded Luke xvi, 1–9, is entirely conclusive on this point. It cannot be presumed that Christ intended to endorse the conduct of that steward as morally right.
Enough has been said, not only to show that the text with which I started contains no justification of slavery, but also to show that no other like text found among our Saviour’s parables and illustrations can be tortured into a support of chattel bondage. We may therefore leave the gospels and turn to the epistles and see if slavery can be found in them.
(To be continued.)

Reflections,

By V. O. Edson

ON VISITING THE GRAVE OF ELD. C. W. SPERRY.

HERE lies beneath this earthy mound, A faithful servant of the Lord, Waiting the last loud trumpet's sound; Then to receive a rich reward.
His trials o'er, his work is done; Thos aching lungs are now at rest. Each conflict past, each victory won, He sleeps in Jesus, O how blest!
Now from his lips no more we hear, In earnest tones the truth proclaimed; Nor words the sorrowing heart to cheer, For death hath him a victim claimed.
Ah! yes, that voice is hushed in death, Which oft God's counsel did declare. Blest of the Lord, the Spirit saith, In Jesus sweetly sleeping there.
We mourn his loss, yet not as those Who're left to sorrow without hope; But short will be his calm repose, For Christ, death's portals soon will ope.
Triumphant then he will arise, With shouts of victory he will sing, "Where, boasting Grave, is now thy prize? O cruel Death, where is thy sting?"
Immortal, clad in spotless white, A glittering crown his brow shall wear, With many a star 'twill sparkle bright; And conquering palms his hands shall bear.
Forever free from death and pain, Beyond the reach of anxious care; If faithful, soon we'll meet again In heaven, to dwell forever there. V. O. EDSON.
Hubbardsville, N. Y.

Thoughts on Immortality.

Being a Selection of Brief Testimonies on Man’s Present Condition, the Intermediate State, Future Punishment, &c., from the Pens of Reputable Authors.

VERY CONSISTENT.

GEN. ii, 17. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
LocKE, the great Mental Philosopher and Christian, says: "It seems a STRANGE way of understanding a law which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death, should be meant eternal life IN MISERY."

FRANK ADMISSION.

OLSHAUSER, in his comments on 1 Cor. xv, 19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ," &c., says, "The doctrine of the IMMORTALITY of the SOUL, and the name, are alike unknown to the ENTIRE BIBLE."
And in explaining Luke xvi, 24–26, he also states: "The Bible knows not either the expression, ' Immortality of the soul,' (God is he 'who alone hath immortality,' 1 Tim. vi, 16), or the modern doctrine of immortality."

IT’S JUST SO.

Eld. J. BLAIN, Baptist minister of Buffalo, makes use of the following sarcastic paragraph: "It is a notorious fact that in our theological works a nondescript dictionary is made with definitions, as follows: To be dead, means to be more conscious. To die, is to live on in woe. To lose life, is to preserve a miserable existence. Life means happiness. To burn up is to make a living salamander. To destroy, is to preserve whole. To devour, perish, consume, &c., mean to make indestructible and immortal. Not to be, to be without end!"

PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING.

BISHOP NEWTON, the noted writer on the prophecies, justly remarks: "Nothing can be more CONTRARY to the divine nature and attributes, than for a God all-wise, all-good, all-powerful, all-perfect, to bestow existence on any being whose destiny he foresees and foreknows, must terminate in wretchedness and misery, without recovery or remedy, without respite or end. God is love, and he would rather have not given life, than render that life a torment and curse to ALL ETERNITY. Imagine such a state of misery you may, but you can NEVER seriously believe it, nor reconcile it to God and goodness."—Newton’s Works, v. 6.

A HEATHEN’S CONCLUSION.

In Siam a priest came to our missionary, and asked "how long his God tormented bad men in a future state," and when answered, "Forever," he replied, "Our god torments the worst of men only one thousand years, so we will not have your American God in Siam!" The doctrine is a barrier to the gospel to the heathen as well as to us.

ANCIENT TESTIMONY.

JUSTIN MARTYR, who was born A. D. 89, and suffered martyrdom for Christ A. D. 163, in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, says: "Should you happen upon some who are called Christians, . . . and say there is no resurrection of the dead, but instantly when they die are received up into heaven, do not count these among Christians."

AN ILLUSTRATION.

It is said, "The terror of eternal woe is greater than that of destruction, and so more salutary." This might be partly true if men believed it; but in our day it affects sinners just as a child ten years old is affected by the parent’s saying, "Obey, or I’ll cut your head off!" It is the certainty and justness, and not the severity of threatened punishment which is salutary.

LUTHER’S VIEW.

This great Reformer, "Defense, Prop. 27," says: "I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as, the pope is emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth, (that) the soul is IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions found in the Roman dung-hill of decretals!"
Audlin, in his "Life of Luther," speaking of Italian reformers, says: "They left Wittemburg and went to Geneva, where we find them in 1561, sustaining in a crowded school and in printed theses, that all which was said about the immortality of the soul was invented by anti-christ, for the purpose of making the pope's pot boil!"

TYNDALE’S ARGUMENT.

This great man and translator of the Bible, while writing to Sir Thomas Moore, a Catholic, says: "In putting departed souls in heaven, hell, and purgatory, you destroy the argument wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection. . . . If the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?"

A GOOD WITNESS.

Mr. DARBY, in his "Hopes of the Church," frankly admits what many others now begin to see. He says: "We would express our conviction that the immortality of the soul HAS NO SOURCE IN THE GOSPEL: that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists. . . . The immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection."

SUPERSTITIOUS.

Says ELD. BLAIN, "Death not Life," p. 114: "An old Baptist minister lately told me it would be impossible to convert sinners by preaching destruction!" This is the same as saying, We must preach error for fear God will not, or cannot, bless the truth; and so join hands with the heathen, who go on the principle of doing evil that good may come!

AN IMPORTANT FACT.

Dr. McCULLOH, an author of Baltimore, says: "There is no word in the Hebrew language that signifies either soul or spirit in the technical sense in which we use the terms, as implying something distinct from the body."—Credibility of the Scriptures, vol ii, pp. 466–8.

A LITTLE BOY’S OPINION.

The doctrine of eternal woe has a pernicious effect even upon children. This is well illustrated by the following authentic fact: Said a pious minister, "The first I ever heard of a God was by my mother’s telling me when two years old, that there was a God, and if I was bad he would burn me forever in such a fire as I saw on the hearth. My reply was, 'If God does so, he is a bad man!' I grew up an infidel, and remained so till converted by those who preached destruction."

HORRID TEACHING.

The Am. Tract Society published a tract, No. 277, by REV. JAMES SAURIN, which says: "The wicked (in the fire of hell) utter as many blasphemies AGAINST God as the happy souls in heaven shout HALLELUJAHS to his PRAISE!" To such teaching we answer in the words of the prophet: "Wo to them that utter error against the Lord," "Wo unto them that put darkness for light," "Wo unto the blind guides." Give us the "mind of the Spirit," if it tears every creed in christendom to atoms.

CUTTING RETORT.

It is contended by the advocates of endless woe, that "the eternal sufferings of the lost will give the intelligent creation, as a whole, a higher knowledge and ENJOYMENT of God." That is, "The woes of some will make others happy." So teaches DR. BEECHER. To this slanderous sentiment the REV. S. COBв retorts: "Now be it known that I, Sylvanus Cobb, will consent, and even petition to be permitted to forego that extra share of happiness which was to be added to me by the infinite sufferings of my brothers and sisters, and so put up with that moderate degree of happiness which I may enjoy in the divine love and grace in common with all, for the sake of having them too, reformed and blessed." This sarcastic reviewer adds, we should "have a unanimous petition from the righteous to be disencumbered of that enormous surfeit of ENJOYMENT which should be derived from the endless misery of others!"

AWFUL SLANDER.

Speaking of the miseries of the lost, MR. BENSON, the commentator, says: "God will exert all his divine attributes to make them as wretched as the capacity of their natures will admit." The "Rev." Mr. VINCENT adds: "The wicked will always be roaring and never breathe out the last; always sinking and never come to the bottom; always burning in the flames and never be consumed; the eternity of hell will be the hell of hell!" And PRES. FINNEY of Oberlin outdoes them all, by saying "this torment will eternally INCREASE!" May we not suppose with MR. JOHN FOSTER of England, "that if so trandcendently DREADFUL a doctrine had been meant to be taught, there would have been such forms of propositions as to render all doubt a palpable absurdity." But the devotees of this doctrine may find relief in the remarks of PROF. STUART. He says: "Perhaps God may in mercy extinguish our social susceptibilities in heaven!

A PREDICTION.

The great and godly DR. VINET once sagaciously observed, that "Even now after eighteen centuries of Christianity, we are very probably involved in some ENORMOUS ERROR, of which Christianity will at some future time make us ashamed." The doctrine of endless woe is just such an "enormous error," and many in the churches are beginning to be ashamed of it.

CLOSING TRIBUTE.

MR. PANTON HAM, of Bristol England, in writing of the Immortality of the Soul, says: "Let it be registered as the genuine genealogy, that Pagan Plato was its father, and the profligate Pope Leo its foster-father. Born and bred by the Pagan philosophy, the protege of Popery, this notion of the soul’s immortality has become a pet dogma of popular Protestantism, which with a strange forgetfulness of its low lineage, openly declares it to be the honorable offspring of a true orthodoxy!"

WHERE THE JEWS GOT THE DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY.

DR. GEO. CAMPBELL, in a criticism on the word hades, in the Appendix to his translation of the gospels, says: "Before the captivity, and the Macedonian and Roman conquests, the Jews observed the most profound silence upon the state of the dead, as to their happiness or misery. They spoke of it simply as a state of silence, darkness, and inactivity. But after the Hebrews mingled with the Greeks and Romans, they insensibly slided into their use of terms, and adopted some of their ideas on such subjects as those on which their Oracles were silent." Here is a valuable historic testimony concerning the former dispensation. Said Christ to his followers, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

GEN. II, 7.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." This passage is clung to with much tenacity by those who believe in the popular theory of the soul. We are glad, however, to note the following concessions from the pens of those who hold the common view:
Dr. BAGNALL, a writer in the Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1852, makes the following frank admission on this text, though his article is an effort to prove the soul's immortality. The Dr. says: "Some have supposed that the account of the creation of the soul, Gen. ii, 7, contains an intimation of its immortality. If there be in this verse such an intimation, it must be found either in the expression, 'the Lord God . . . breathed into his nostrils,' or in the phrases, 'breath of life,' and 'man became a living soul.' If it be in the former phrase, then the idea is that God infused a portion of HIMSELF, of his own divinity, into the human body at that time. But few will admit this idea. Most of us think there is more poetry than truth in the line of one of our hymns: "'Our souls are his immortal breath.' "If the proof is sought in the phrases, 'breath of life,' and, 'living soul,' these do not prove anything, for both of them are applied, in the first chapters of Genesis, to brutes, and prove the same things concerning them. Thus the words in Gen. vii, 18, and Gen. i, 20, rendered life, are the same with those rendered in Gen. ii, 7, 'a living soul.'"
Says the Union Bible Dictionary (art. Adam): "It seems as if the most proper idea resulting from these words is, that Adam became a LIVING PERSON."
The Columbian Bible, in a foot-note at the bottom of its mammoth page thus explains: "Adam became a living soul—that is, a living man."
MR. KITTO, author of the Bible Cyclopedia, in speaking of those theologists who find an immortal soul in this text, thus frankly concedes: "We should be acting unfaithfully if we were to assume its being contained or implied in this passage."

DICK'S VIEW OF ETERNAL SUFFERING.

DR. THOMAS DICK, in adverting to the doctrine of endless misery, thus candidly expresses his convictions: "When I consider the boundless nature of eternity, when I consider the limited duration of man, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that the sins of a few brief years are to be punished throughout a duration that HAS NO END." Thus wrote that distinguished Christian Philosopher, and thus, kind reader, do we believe. Is it strange that a certain divine who held to this awful doctrine should say, "It renders society tiresome, pleasure disgustful, nourishment insipid, and life itself a cruel bitter?" We trow not.

THE TWO VIEWS CONTRASTED.

Some professed Christians (and for charity's sake, we say only those who have but superficially examined the subject) ask us, What matters it whether we believe in eternal misery, or not? Much every way; but especially would we be averse to any position which is derogatory to the character of God. We think, to use the language of another, that there is a vast difference between Jehovah's passing by and proclaiming, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and that will by no means clear the guilty,"—and the statement of some modern divine who "passes by" and virtually "proclaims," "The Lord, unmerciful, implacable, and who will preserve countless myriads of beings created in his own image, eternally, for the sole and only purpose of torturing them, without mercy, without intermission, without end, without object, and without aim." The doctrine of the destruction of the wicked speaks to us in these beatific words of Jehovah, but the revolting sentiment of eternal woe appears in the language of the other. "GOD IS LOVE," therefore we believe that sin and sinners will both ultimately cease to be.
(To be continued.)

Joy and Self-sacrifice.

WHEN the Son of God looked down from heaven and beheld the misery of our fallen race, the choice was before him, either to remain in his glory, leaving the world to its fate, or take part with us, and bear our sins in his own body. Then for the glory of the Father and our recovery, he humbled himself and entered into fellowship with our condition. He endured the cross, despising the shame, for the joy that was set before him. He knew what infinite good would result to the universe from his humiliation, and with an inward peace, beyond all understanding, he prosecuted the work of self-sacrifice and suffering. The grief with which he was acquainted, was not a dull, sullen, despairing pain; for it was mingled with respect unto the recompense of the reward. Now how should the members be but as their head? They must enter into fellowship alike of his sufferings and of his peace. Everything of joy in this sinful world is born of sorrow. The Christian must endure labour and self-denial, if he would follow his Master and come again with joy after his weeping, bringing his sheaves with him. To bear burdens for Christ's sake is appointed to him, and God has connected with it the truest enjoyment of life.—Sel.

General Conference.

By Editor

We are happy to give below, the harmonious testimonies of efficient and esteemed fellow-laborers, relative to the time of our General Conference. This, in the absence of testimony to the contrary, is sufficient to determine the duty of the Michigan State Conference Committee, to appoint the General Conference at the commencement of tent operations. We are not prepared to give a definite appointment; but will state that the General Conference will probably be held at Battle Creek, Mich., May 28-31.
We suggest that the General Conference be held before the State Conferences, that they may have the benefits of the doings of the General Conference to assist them in their deliberations. This might tend to greater unison of action than to hold the State Conferences first.

From Bro. Snook.

BRO. WHITE: Your remarks in reference to the propriety of having the General Conference before the tent season, I most heartily approve. I think we need the strength to be received in such a gathering, to go out upon. The Iowa conference committee, feel in union with your suggestion, that we send one of our tents to the brethren east. This we will do as a privilege for which we feel thankful. And let such act be a token of our regard for the dear brethren east, who sent us the truth. We therefore propose to leave the tent subject to the order of the General Conference, or any one who may be authorized to take charge of it.
B. F. SNOOK.
Marion, Iowa.

From Bro. Hutchins.

BRO. WHITE: We have received Review No. 15, and read your remarks in regard to the time for holding General Conference. And I would say that it seems to me that your view in the matter is correct. To hold this conference early in the season, just before the tents start out, would give united action of the brethren in laying out the work before doing it; which would seem much better to me, than to wait till the season of tent-labor had passed.
Yours in love of order.
A. S. HUTCHINS.
Peterborough, N. H. March 15, 1863.
P. S. I would further add that your suggestions relative to inexperienced and self-sufficient preachers, are worthy of our most candid consideration. It is to be hoped in this case that "a word to the wise is sufficient." With deep regret we have learned of the encouragement given by Sabbath-keepers to those of a boisterous, fanatical turn of mind, to preach, and what seems worse, they are sometimes carried away in their gales of fanaticism. What evidence some of these preachers can give of their call to the ministry, we know not, unless it be the same as that given by an individual some years since, viz.: "Because I have a strong voice!" "How shall they preach except they be sent?" Rom. x, 15. A. S. H.

From Bro. Sanborn.

BRO. WHITE: I wish to say that I am much pleased with your suggestions of a General Conference the first of June; and it will be the best thing to secure union of action that can be done.
I. SANBORN.
Whitewater, Wis.

From Bro. Andrews.

BRO. WHITE: Your proposition relative to holding a General Conference this spring meets my mind. I think it would be well calculated to promote the interest of the cause of truth. I trust that you will by no means fail to visit this State immediately after the General Conference. Our State Conference will be held if possible at such time as shall secure the presence of yourself and sister White.
There is some progress in the work in central N. Y.; yet I am pretty well worn down, and should be most thankful for some one to take hold with me.
J. N. ANDREWS.
Hubbardsville, N. Y.

From Bro. Waggoner.

BRO. WHITE: Review No. 15 is received, and I improve the first opportunity of responding to your remarks respecting a General Conference. Your suggestion for holding it this spring meets my mind. I think the cause demands it, and that the interests of the cause may be much better served by such a conference this spring, than to defer it till fall. Would it not be well to give early notice that other conferences may be held before it, and delegates appointed? A conference is expected in this State; and it will be pretty late to have it after the General Conference. I make the suggestion, that we may have time both to deliberate and act. I only suggest, that the Brn. may consider these things. Let us prepare for vigorous and united efforts to advance the truth.
J. H. WAGGONER.
Milan, Ohio, March 17, 1863.

From Bro. Hull.

BRO. WHITE: There are many reasons why the spring is preferable to the autumn for the General Conference. If we are going to organize a General Conference at all the sooner we do it the better. Whether I labor in the East or West the coming season, I hope to labor under the direction of a General Conference rather than the dictation of inexperienced brethren. But I did not take my pen to argue the point. I will only say that I am heartily in favor of the conference in the spring.
MOSES HULL.
Monterey, Mich., March 16, 1863.
Continue reading: Lessons for Bible Students