Review and Herald, Vol. 21, No. 23. (5/5/1863)

Review and Herald

May 5, 1863

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 5, 1863

Paul’s Offer for Onesimus

2. THE offer of Paul to assume the pecuniary responsibilities of Onesimus to Philemon, proves that the former was not a chattel slave. His words are, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account. I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand. I will repay it." Verses 18, 19. The thing supposed here, is utterly impossible in the case of a chattel slave. A slave cannot owe. The assumed right of property in a man, so swallows up every right, power and interest that can attach to the party thus held as property, that he must be incapable of owing. Power and obligation must be co-ordinate, and cotemporaneous, hence, the assumption of a debt or an obligation to pay, expressed by the term, owe, implies a power to act, to accumulate, to own, and to transfer for one's self and own benefit, which cannot be true of a chattel slave, or him who is the property of another. St. Paul, therefore, by assuming that Onesimus might

owe Philemon, as clearly and positively assumed that he was not his chattel slave. This one consideration is of itself sufficient to settle this controversy. There are other reasons which might be rendered in proof that Onesimus was not a slave, but I will not urge them, but pass to take another and final view of this epistle.

III. If it were admitted that Onesimus was a lawful chattel slave, when he ran away, it would be clear from the language of the epistle, that Paul did not send him back as a slave, but commanded his freedom to be given him. To contend that he was a slave, must prove fatal to the right of slavery, since Paul clearly and unequivocally ordered his emancipation upon the supposition that he was a slave.

The apostle specifies to Philemon too plainly how he was to receive Onesimus, to be misunderstood, and in such terms as to forever exclude chattel slavery from the relation.

1. He was to receive him "not now as a servant, but above a servant." Suppose then that he was a slave, and that the word here used, doulos, means slave, and the whole clause will read thus: "Perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; not now as a slave but above a slave." Is not this making an end of all slavery in the case? It certainly is, unless it can be proved that a man can be a slave, and above a slave at the same time, which strikes me as impossible, unless a man can get above himself. Paul cannot have sent him back as a slave, and Philemon cannot have received him as a slave, unless a man can be received as a slave, and not be received as a slave at the same time; for the words are, "that thou shouldest receive him, not now as a slave." Such is the fatal consequence to slavery if it be admitted that Onesimus was a slave, and if we, accordingly, render the word doulos slave.

2. Paul instructed Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive him. His words are, "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself." Verse 17. Here it is plain that Philemon was exhorted to receive Onesimus as he would have received Paul himself. Then must he have received him as an equal, as a Christian brother, as a fellow laborer, and if so, he could not receive him or regard him as his slave. It is not possible that he should receive him as a fugitive slave returned, and at the same time receive him as he would have received Paul. The expression, "if thou count me a partner," places Onesimus on a perfect Christian level with Philemon. Paul here places himself before Philemon as his partner, and then requires him to receive Onesimus as himself. The Greek word koinonos here rendered partner, occurs ten times, in the Testament, and is translated as follows:

It is translated partners three times, twice besides this text. James and John are said to have been partners with Peter in the fishing business. Luke v, 10. Paul declares that Titus is his partner and fellow laborer. 2 Cor. viii, 23.

It is rendered partaker five times. Matt. xxiii, 30; 1 Cor. x, 18; 2 Cor. i, 7; 1 Peter v, 1; 2 Peter i, 4.

It is translated fellowship once. 1 Cor. x, 20. Once it is rendered companions. Heb. x, 33.

In every case in which the word is used, it implies equality in a sense which renders it impossible to conceive of a slaveholder and his chattel slave as partners, yet this is the relation which Paul marked out for Philemon and Onesimus.

3. With the above agrees the few facts known of Onesimus. The subscription to the epistle to the Colossians reads thus, "Written from Rome to the Colossians, by Tychicus and Onesimus." From this it appears that the same person was one of the bearers of that important letter. This is confirmed in Chap. iv, 7-9. Here both are said to be sent by Paul. Of Onesimus it is said, "With Onesimus a faithful and beloved brother who is one of you." The most obvious sense is that Onesimus was a member of the Church at Colosse. He could not have been so when sent with the letter to Philemon. He must then, after his reconciliation to Philemon through Paul's intervention, soon have returned to Rome, and been sent as a messenger to the Colossian Church. This proves clear enough that he was not a chattel slave, and here I rest my argument on this epistle.

Paul to Titus does not Justify Slavery.

"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." Titus ii, 9, 10.

But little need be said on this text, after what has preceded, for nearly every point has been treated, and it appears only necessary to remark that not a word is said which is not applicable to more or less persons in every community, where slavery has no existence, and of course, it cannot prove the existence of slavery.

It will be observed that in the ninth verse the translators have added four words not found in the original. They are, "exhort," "and," "them," & "things." Leaving these words out the verse reads, "Servants to be obedient unto their own masters, to please well in all; not answering again." This might all be said to hired laborers as has been shown in remarks already made upon other texts.

But the language of the tenth verse clearly implies a state of things very different from slavery.

"Not purloining." This is much more applicable to a free agent with his own property interests, who has charge of another man's business and funds, than it is to a slave, who can have nothing which he can call his own, and whose crime would be established, if aught was found in his possession. The Greek word occurs in but one other place, Acts v, 1, 2, where it is found twice in the same connection, and is rendered, "keep back," and "kept back." The sense is plain; in the connection in which it is applied to servants, it forbids the appropriating of the property of their masters to their own use, which is a crime to which free hired agents are more exposed than slaves.

The matter is made still more clear by the antithesis, "Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity." The word fidelity is not a true rendering of the original, it should be faith. Fidelity implies a simple discharge of obligations on the part of any accountable agent, but "good faith," as it ought to read, implies a mutual treaty, covenant or trust reposed. "Good faith" is kept between two parties, and implies mutually and voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust reposed. That the word here used should be rendered faith, is very clear from the fact that it occurs two hundred and fifty-nine times in the New Testament, and is rendered faith in every case except two. Acts xvii, 31, it is rendered "assurance," and in this place, it is rendered "fidelity." In the other 257 cases it is

translated faith. Calling it faith, the clause should read thus: "Not purloining, but showing all good faith." There is no proof of slavery in this, for "good faith implies voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust in each other. It implies the very relation that subsists between the employer and employed, where both parties are free.

Peter does not Justify Slavery.

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps." 1 Peter ii, 18-21.

We here meet with a new word rendered servant, not found in any of the preceding texts. It is oiketai, and its first and literal meaning is, "an inmate of one's house." It is derived from oikos, a house, and hence an inmate of one's house, a household servant. The words of the apostle apply to such servants as were employed as domestics, servants, whose business was in the house. It does not prove that they were slaves, but only that they served in the house, whether bond or free.

Most of the terms have been explained in remarks made upon other texts. The expression, "subject with fear," has been explained sufficiently, in remarks offered upon Eph. vi, 5, where the expression "fear and trembling" occurs.

An examination of what is peculiar to this text, will show that it does not prove the existence of slavery, and that it does not justify it upon the supposition that it did exist. No directions are given to masters, and hence it is fair to suppose the class of persons referred to, were not members of the Church. Some of them we know were not, for they are represented as "froward," and as inflicting grief upon their servants' "conscience toward God." Such persons were not Christians, and if they held slaves, it would not prove it to be right. But some are represented as "good and gentle," and were not they members of the Church and Christians? There is no proof that they were. The Greek word agathos, good, does not mean a Christian, nor goodness in a high moral sense. It is applied to all kinds of nouns, and means only that the noun is good in its kind, as "good gifts, good tree, good things, good treasure, good fruits, good works, good days, good ground." In this text it qualifies masters, understood, and good masters are not necessarily Christians, or members of the church. Nor does the word "gentle" imply that they were Christians. The Greek word epieikees, means not only gentle, but mild, moderate. It occurs five times in the New Testament. Once it is translated "moderation;" Phil. iv, 5; once it is rendered "patient;" 2 Tim. iii, 3; and three times it is rendered gentle. These three cases are Titus iii, 2, and James iii, 17, and 1 Peter ii, 18. There is then no proof that the masters referred to were members of the Church, but evidence that they were not. If they were slaveholders, therefore, it is no proof that slavery is right. If we look at the directions given to the servants, they neither prove the existence of slavery, nor yet that it is right, if it did exist.

The only point involved in these instructions, which has not been sufficiently met, is the fact implied that the servants were liable to be buffeted. This word, kolaphizo, buffet, more properly means to box the ears with the hand, but may denote beating of any kind. The fact that they were liable to be beaten does not prove that they were slaves, for the following reasons:

1. Beating was a common punishment inflicted for minor offenses, upon free persons as well as upon slaves. That custom has come down to our own times, and though it is now nearly abolished, persons are still punished at the whipping post for minor offenses in some of these States.

2. Christians generally were liable to be buffeted at that time, and even the apostles themselves were buffeted. Paul says, "Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and are buffeted." 1 Cor. iv, 2. At a time when all Christians, and especially ministers were liable to be buffeted, the fact that servants were liable to be buffeted, cannot prove that they were slaves.

3. The advice of the apostle has often been applicable, and called for, in our day, where no slavery existed. Children and apprentices have often been buffeted in the free States of this free country, on account of their religion, not only by infidels, but by members of churches, because their children persisted in attending the meetings of a different denomination from the one they preferred. I know a young lady who was most severely buffeted by her father for attending a meeting contrary to his orders, he being a member of another church. I am well acquainted with a minister of the gospel, who, when a youth, was buffeted and dragged out of the house, by the hair of his head, by his own father, because he persisted in attending the meetings of a different denomination from the one the father preferred. If such things can occur in a Christian community, it must be plain that the fact that servants were liable to be buffeted among heathen, cannot prove that they were slaves.

But allowing that they were slaves, there is not the slightest proof that slavery is right. The apostle does not endorse the buffeting in any case, not even when it is inflicted for wrong doing. The buffeting referred to is of two kinds, that which is inflicted on account of the wrong doing of the servants, and that which is inflicted on account of their well doing, or without their fault.

Suppose then slaves do wrong, and are buffeted for it, still the buffeting may be as wrong as the conduct for which it is inflicted. A wrong act may be wrongfully punished. The directions of our Savior, in relation to smiting and resisting evil, must settle the question that no Christian can be justified in smiting a fellow Christian, the buffeting therefore must be wrong though provoked by the wrong doing of the servant. The liability therefore of slaves to be buffeted, if slaves they were, or the fact that they were buffeted, cannot prove that slavery is right. The fact that Peter cautioned them against provoking the wrath of their wicked heathen masters, nor yet the fact that he gave them to understand that there would be no special virtue in bearing the buffeting patiently, after having provoked it by bad conduct, cannot be construed into a justification of slavery nor even of the buffeting.

But they were liable to be buffeted when they did well, and this proves that it was wicked men and a wrong state of things of which the apostle was treating, and no justification for slavery, or anything else, can be inferred from the conduct of such men. This further appears from the fact that Peter appeals to the suffering of Christ as an example, which was wrongfully inflicted. Allowing them to have been slaves, the fact that the apostle exhorts them not to provoke punishment, and to bear it patiently when they do well and yet are buffeted, appealing to the sufferings of Christ to enforce his exhortation, no more proves that they were rightfully held as slaves, than the fact that Christ suffered patiently proves that his sufferings were rightfully inflicted.

I have now done, for though I have not examined every text that some may be disposed to urge in support of slavery, I have examined all the most important ones, so that, if those I have examined do not prove the rightful existence of slavery, it cannot be pretended that there are other texts that will prove the point without them. In the argument I have kept two points in view, namely, the texts relied upon to support slavery, do not prove that it ever existed in the church, and that, if it did exist, they do not prove it is right. Here I rest, and will close my argument with the words with which a more brilliant writer commenced his.

"The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible of its own accord. It grasps the horns of the altar only in desperation—rushing from the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved. Goaded to frenzy in its conflicts with conscience and common sense, denied all quarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over the sacred enclosure, and courses up and down the Bible seeking rest and finding none. The law of love glowing on every page, flashes around it an omnipresent anguish and despair. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons quailed before the Son of God, and shrieked, 'Torment us not.' . . . Its asylum is its sepulchre; its city of refuge the city of destruction. It flies from light into the sun; from heat into devouring fire; and from the voice of God into the thickest of his thunders."

“God is Love.”

By F. C. Castle

THE following lines were written some years ago by my sister, Lucretia M. Castle, who now sleeps in hope. They were composed before she made an open profession of faith in Christ. Hoping they may be acceptable to the reader, I furnish them to the public.

F. C. CASTLE.

Grass River, N. Y.

THE zephyrs sighing through the trees, With perfumes wafted on the breeze, The sun that shines so bright above, All speak to us that God is love.

The waving grass and fields of grain, Wide scattered o'er the broad domain, The birds that warble in the grove, Do all proclaim that God is love.

The moon's calm, placid light, so fair, The stars that brightly glimmer there, All seem like spirits from above, Aud all are speaking God is love.

The rainbow's tint, the lightning's glare, The tulip bright, and lily fair, On all we gaze wher'er we rove, All things declare that God is love.

The earth, the ocean, and the sky, And all things spread before the eye, With all things on the earth that move, Are ever speaking, God is love.

The Christian's prayer, the Christian's faith, The smile upon the face of death, These too do plainly to me prove There is a God, and God is love.

We see but dimly through the glass That hides us from the Saviour's face, But when we reach our home above, We there shall know that God is love.

The Genealogy of Christ.

It may have been to us a matter of wonder, perhaps, in early childhood, at our first reading of the New Testament—and perhaps in later years also—that the Gospel of divine grace and human salvation should begin with a genealogical table. Of all places in the word of God, this may have seemed to be the last in which one would expect to find such a long list of hard Jewish names. And we may have turned from the passage as being altogether unprofitable; marveling that the commencement of the Gospel was not more spiritual in its character, and that, instead of detaining us from its glories with the names of men of a former dispensation, concerning many of whom we know nothing, it did not enter at once upon its revelations of divine mercy and the loveliness of the character of Christ.

This wonder is but one of many instances in which men have undertaken to be more spiritual than the word of God. It is nearly related to the practice of what is called "spiritualizing the Bible"—that is, giving to passages of Scripture a meaning which is not properly in them, but which seems to be more spiritual and more edifying than the sense which they were designed to convey. This practice may be in some cases harmless, possibly even profitable; but, it also betrays an uneasiness, a dissatisfaction with the plain teachings of Scripture, which is not a profitable state of mind. Does it not really amount to this, that we are not contented to receive God's word just as he has given it; that in its true signification we do not find enough that is spiritual; and that we can sometimes give to it a better meaning than that which God himself intended to impart? Would it not be wiser, as well as more modest, to let God teach us in his own way and when he has given to us a simple historical fact, to believe that it is more profitable for us to know that fact than to torture his words in which it is stated into some meaning that seems to us more spiritual, but which God never designed to teach in those words? Even when we find such a passage as the genealogy of Christ—a mere roll of hard and mostly unfamiliar names—instead of putting upon it some fanciful meaning of our own, or wondering that something relating more directly to spiritual religion is not there in its place, is it not better to find out, if we can, why this passage was actually put there, and what its real meaning and value to us may be?

We may observe, then, that this table of Christ's genealogy, standing at the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, gives the book an air of reality which perhaps nothing else could have done so well. No one who was writing a fiction would have dared to give it a beginning seemingly so dry and repulsive as this list of names. He would rather have taken pains to make it as attractive as possible, hoping to enlist the sympathies of his readers in his favor at the outset, and thus induce them to receive without question what he wished them to believe. But the writer of Matthew's Gospel is too much in earnest and too simple-hearted to do this. It is not a cunningly devised fable that he has to tell, but a simple narrative of the facts in the history of Jesus Christ, and so he begins in the most quiet and businesslike way—as if it were a real person whose life he is writing, and as if he were only telling facts which he personally knows. He does not with great parade call men to listen to the wonders he has to tell, but calmly writes, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob;" and so he proceeds, closing the long line with "Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is called Christ." Then he sums up the generations from Abraham to David, and from David to the captivity in Babylon, and from the captivity to Christ. Perhaps the strongest impression which the reading of the narrative makes upon us is this: "How perfectly real it is." We could not imagine it to be a fable. And it is easy to see what an advantage the Gospel has in

this appearance of reality, this air of businesslike honesty, which it wears at the beginning; and how it fixes in our minds the impression that we are reading the history of a real person, who actually lived here in this world of ours.

There is another reason why the genealogy of Christ opens the Gospel. It serves to connect Jesus and his teachings with all God's revelations and promises that had been given before. It binds all generations together in one moral system, showing us that there is for all generations one God and one religion whose principles do not change. It proclaims that it has come, not to tell men of an unknown God, but of him "who made a covenant with Abraham, and an oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and unto Israel for an everlasting covenant"—the same God to whom David poured out his psalms of praise—the same God whose will, whose principles of government, all the prophets had made known. It introduces not a new religious system, but only clearer and completed revelations of that by which all good men in former ages had lived and died—demanding the same kind of faith which was imparted to Abraham for righteousness, so that all believers in Christ are called the children of Abraham—requiring the same kind of penitence as that which David uttered in the 51st psalm, and the same kind of obedience which God demanded of Israel, saying to them by the prophet, "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" The prediction that the seed of David should reign over all the earth, and that in the seed of Abraham all the families of the earth should be blessed, had waited long for its fulfillment; and at last we have "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and every one of those strange Jewish names is a link in the chain of evidence which demonstrates the truth of God's promises, and gives the world assurance that he will be faithful to his word.

The genealogy of Christ serves also to bring him into closer connection and sympathy with the human race. It gives meaning and force to those passages of Scripture which call him a brother of mankind. If God had merely created for himself a human body, and dwelt among us in it, this would of course have been a marvelous condescension and mercy on his part; but it would have left him still remote from our sympathies, and we could not have regarded him as a brother to our race. We should have said, "This is not a man who has come to us; it is God dwelling in a human body, but there is nothing to bring him into any close relationship with us. What can such a being know from experience, of our temptations and wants? or how can we trust in him as one who has felt the workings and the sorrows of a human soul?" But this genealogical table, with its long list of the human ancestors of Jesus, proves to us that the Son of God did something more than to take upon him the mere form of humanity; that he really became a member of our suffering, sinning, ruined race—like to us in sorrows, in temptations, in everything but transgression. And now we can be sure of his sympathy, for he is "a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmity;" now we know that God means to provide for every want of ours, for he has given us a Redeemer whose own experience acquaints him with all our needs; and we can go to him with all confidence as being not only God manifest in the flesh but a brother to ourselves; a descendant of the same first parents; having for his ancestors men and women of the same race; sanctifying all natural ties and relationships by taking part of the same; making all human troubles easier to be borne, since he has borne them, and all human duties easier to be done, since he has fulfilled them; brightening for us even the great mystery of the grave, since he, the man Christ Jesus—the book of whose generation is in our hands—has been partaker in this sad inheritance of mankind, and taken part of flesh and blood in order that he might die.

And thus, from this table of genealogy, which we perhaps have wondered at—considering it hardly spiritual enough to open the Gospel of our salvation—we may have impressed upon us this most precious lesson as we study the life of Jesus, that it is not a being altogether apart from us who brings us those glad tidings of heaven's mercy; that it is one of our own human family who bears this life and death of sorrow for us; and that if, as God, he is able to save unto the uttermost, as man, he knows exactly what is the salvation we need.

Outline of the Signs of the Times.

It is a generally acknowledged fact, that our lot has been cast in no ordinary times. Men immersed in worldly business, the politicians, and those engaged in the study of the Sacred Volume, are all alike sensible of this truth. Nay, even the unstored Turks, living in utter ignorance of what is going on in the civilized world, feel deeply that eventful times are at hand. They often express their feelings on this subject to the writer of these remarks by saying, "Our time is gone by now, the end of the world is coming!" Now, these ignorant men, who never see a newspaper, or come much in contact with the rest of mankind, appear to have an intuitive perception of an eventful future, merely from what little they hear by coming here and there in contact with travelers, or by what they experience in the change of customs handed down by their forefathers, and altered circumstances in regard to their rule and power. They would often ask the writer, "What do your books say shall come?" meaning our prophetic Scriptures; showing that they have no confidence in their Koran, nor in what their teachers tell them. In Asia Minor, on one occasion passing the Lord's day in a small town, a Turk visited us. We read to him certain portions of the New Testament, some of a prophetic character, and explanatory remarks were made as we proceeded. On taking leave, he said, "Were I able to read this book, I should beg you to let me have it; but this not being the case, I shall retire to my country house, and serve my God as well as I can." Such instances show plainly that there is an impression on the minds of these uninformed men of approaching events, inexplicable to themselves.

This foreboding of coming events, more or less met with among civilized and semi-barbarous nations, is a sure indication that the Lord is about to fulfill his yet remaining purposes with regard to this world. And according to the infallible and uniform voice of the prophets of the Old and New Testaments, these purposes will be accompanied with tremendous judgments and convulsions of nations, ending with the second coming of Christ. Whenever the Lord was about to visit this world in any unusual manner, he always gave some warning beforehand. We need only refer to his first coming, and the intimations of that event before it arrived.

That glorious event was very extensively known over the known world, else how could the magi from the East have come to pay their adorations to the newborn Saviour, "The king of the Jews?" They must have had some knowledge of it beforehand. The star could only point out to them the precise time, and show them the way. This knowledge doubtless was promoted through the dispersion of the Jews among the nations, even beyond the Roman Empire. And the second coming of our Lord, though constantly represented as taking place unawares, like the coming of a thief, is brought to our notice in these days more than perhaps ever before. Within these thirty years, numberless publications have issued from the press, in this country and elsewhere, calling upon the Christians of all classes to be ready to welcome their Lord. But who attends to these calls? The great masses of professing Christians are indifferent to these monitions, being satisfied, like the foolish virgins, in having the lamp of profession without oil in their vessels. The signs of the times have no meaning for them; they proceed with a light heart, and confident expectation of entering with the Lord to the marriage at his coming, though they have never seriously considered the necessity of being in a watchful and prepared state for that glorious event. Our Saviour's monition is, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour, wherein the Son of man cometh." The true followers of the Lord, however, who compare the signs of the times with what is written, will not be overtaken

by that day as by a thief. 1 Thess. v, 4, 5. They are looking for and hasting (unto) the coming of the day of God. They pray with the Spirit and the bride, and say, "Come." Yea, "come quickly." Amen. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."—Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

Spring Time of the Heart.

By H. W. Beecher

Nine parts out of ten of your griefs are cured the moment you accept with cheerfulness the lot which God has appointed you in this life. Nine hundred and ninety-nine parts out of a thousand of human trouble are only rebellion; and the moment a soul says "God, thy will be done," that moment its trouble is over, and the time of the singing of birds has come to it. . . .

Some of God's most heroic soldiers are bedridden ones. Look at that sweet child of eighteen, full of aspiration and hope, to whom has been denied, not loving father, not loving mother, not sisters and more than anxious brothers, but health. She has made a weary fight for one year, for two years for three years, and at last she says, "If God has planted me to grow as a night-shade here; if I am to be a flower in the forest, that knows no sun; if it is here that God wants me to show patience and zeal, then I am content with my lot, I accept it, and I will ask and expect nothing more. Let this be my sphere of duty, and let my life be spent on the bed, the couch, the cot, if God wishes it. If sickness be. God's will, even so. His will be done, not mine." The time of the singing of birds has come to such a heart. To such a heart spring has come, and summer is not far off. Such I have seen.—H. W. Beecher.

Talks About Health.

By Dio Lewis

ANOTHER WORD ABOUT DRESS.

He who would labor for the physical redemption of woman in America must begin with her dress. The prevailing modes constitute an insuperable obstacle to her physical devlopment. Every humane physiologist has argued, expostulated, and implored. If American women should squeeze their feet until those members were in Chinese fashion, or should place a flat stone on the head until the brains were forced into the back of the neck, we might keep silent; but while they compress that part of the body which contains the organs of vitality—the heart, lungs, liver, and stomach—we must continue to resist their madness. In this part of the body is the fountain of life. The slightest pressure immediately reduces the size and activity of that fountain. He who has thoughtfully studied the inevitable results of the prevailing style of dress at the waist, will affect no surprise at those cold feet, that constipation, weak spine, short breath, palpitation of the heart, and congestive headache, which are the average characteristics of the health of American women. Given a live woman, a corset, the average tight dress, and the physiologist will deduce the morbid conditions I have named.

Near my institution in Boston, are three shops—a rum-shop, a candy-shop, and a corset-shop. I do not know which is the greatest evil.

My practical suggestion is that, without corsets, the dress-waist should be full and loose; the skirt-bands buttoned about the waist much larger than the body, supported on the shoulders by suspenders, such as gentlemen wear, and attached to the bands at the same points. My own wife adopted many years ago the style I advise, and is greatly delighted with the results. The dress is more artistic and beautiful than the plain waist with the hard, ironlike ligature at the band. After twenty years' study of the subject of health, and the causes of disease, if I were permitted to select from our one hundred and one physiological blunders that one which I should most desire to see corrected, I should unhesitatingly name this feature of female dress. Dio Lewis. M. D.

The Joy of Winning Souls

MATTHEW HENRY was accustomed to say, "To win a single soul from Satan to Christ, would afford me greater joy than to possess a mountain of silver and gold."

Continue reading: Yearly Meetings