Title: Seventh-day Adventist pioneers Understanding of Original Sin by Luther Bendanillo

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Original sin is one of the most debated issues in the area of Anthropology from

the history of the Christianity until this modern time of Christianity.1 As history unfolds,

there are two most common line of thought among the theories of original sin, these are

the “Augustinian and non- Augustinian”, in other words, whether we inherit sin or not

from Adam after the fall.2 Both are the contending line of thinking in the history and even

in the modern times.

The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) is in one of the non-Augustinian’s realm of

thinking when it comes to original sin even to its early period of systematizing the

concept of original sin.3 However, having commonality that flows through the way they

think, they may have some differences the way they expound, which are a lot helpful in

our formation of understanding in these area.

1 One of the best examples is the historic debate between Pelagius and Augustine.

2 The Augustinian line of thinking is that, man inherited sin and guilt after the fall and non- Augustinian is that, man did not inherit sin and guilt. What is being inherited from Adam is the corrupt nature as a consequence but not sin itself in the proper sense.3

Most SDA scholars agree that the systematizing of our early period of understanding of Original sin is mostly influenced by the New Haven Theology. See Gerhard Phandl, Some thought on Original Sin, http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sinoriginal-web.pdf; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, vol., 2, ( Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 1965), p. 307.

1

Statement of the Problem

This paper would attempt to evaluate the early Seventh-day Adventist, especially

on the first decade of formation of thought from 1850-1860 on their understanding about

original sin and its effect to human race. What are their commonalities or how are they in

common with in their understanding. And this paper would then evaluate in an effort to

look on the biblical concept of the theological word “original sin” and its effect to human

race.

Purpose of the Study

My coursework (Doctrine of Man) undeniably necessitates the need of the

accomplishment of this study. However, this study is purposely brought up to

reexamination in connection of the author’s interest and willingness to know more about

the early Adventists understanding of. And would also be helpful enough for whoever

wishes to learn the same.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant in the sense that it helps us understand and show some

clear connections on how and what the early Adventists’ understanding about the issue of

original sin in the history of Seventh-day Adventism. It helps us also give an idea on how

are they mutually in common with, specifically in defining the meaning of original sin in

biblical perspective.

Limitation and Delimitation of the Study

This study is delimited to the early Adventist concept of “original sin” within

1850-1860. The researcher is duty-bound to do this well enough in giving more evidences

2

and theological information in the final submission or presentation as to what the main

purpose of this paper, though seems unmanageable due to the limitation of time, to read,

and to gather some materials.

Methodology

This paper is systematically arranged or organized in the manner basically

following the AIIAS standard of writing. This paper comprises only two chapters. The

first chapter includes the introduction and the statement of the problem, which primarily

meant to introduce the topic and the problem. It is also defined in this chapter the scope

of the study. This study employs historical-theological investigation on the matter cited

in the statement of the problem.

3

CHAPTER 2

EARLY ADVENSTIST ON ORIGINAL SIN:

Short Historical Background

Original sin in the early Seventh-day Adventist understanding had been

influenced initially by “New Haven theory of Original sin”4 respectively in New England

context, as Gerhard Pfandl states.5 However, one of the reasonable and most probable

starting points of Adventist involvement in this area is through George Storrs.6 It is by

then they adopted and started to make their own theological formation according to the

firsthand knowledge they had acquired and through the influenced of George Storrs.

George Storrs View

4New Haven developed at Yale University under the leadership of Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) and William Taylor. See Walter Elwell, ed., “New Haven”, Evangelical dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), p. 828. It teaches that sin is not viewed as a state, but merely a voluntary act. Physical death is the result of Adam’s sin, and spiritual death is the result of one’s individual sin. For infants, it teaches that they have a predisposition to sin, but this predisposition is not called sin since it doesn’t involve a voluntary act of transgressing a law. Hence man does not sin until he reaches the age of moral consciousness. See Gerhard Phandl, Some thought on Original Sin, http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sinoriginal-web.pdf

5 Phandl, http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sinoriginal-web.pdf

6 A Methodist Minister, who accepted the concept of conditonalism, withdrew in 1840 from his church and wrote an article to get a public reaction entitled, “An Inquiry: Are the Souls of the Wicked Immortal? In three Letters. See LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, 2 vols., ( Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 1965), p. 307.

4

Since Storrs had contributed in the understanding of our early pioneers on the idea

of original sin. It is therefore then reasonable for me to have a quick view on Storrs,

concept. It can be found in his six series of sermons in his book entitled, “An Inquiry:

Are the Souls of the Wicked Immortal?”7 But before we are going to touch his

understanding on original sin, let us consider first his understanding about Adam before

the fall.

Adam Before the Fall

Storrs’ understanding is explained well by Gerhard Phandl which states,

In his original creation man was made neutral both in his character and his essential constitutive nature. He was neither holy nor unholy, neither mortal nor immortal. Character (good or bad) is the result of choices in relation to God’s will. Mortality is the result of Adam’s disobedience. By the same token immortality would have been the result of obedience and access to the tree of life in Eden.8

Let me state in four points about this concept, (1) man was neither holy or unholy

(neutral) or even so man is neither mortal or immortal, (2) man is neither good nor bad,

(3) God has given him free will, so goodness and badness would only be determined

upon the result of their choices, (4) Adam disobeyed God so the privilege was forfeited.

So in this idea the good privileges are yet to be given upon the result of their everyday

good choices. Adam’s every good choice would contribute to their to-be-acquired

privileges. In contrast, if they disobey God they would no longer commit the privileges.

Adam’s Sin and Its Effect to Human Race

7 Gerhard Phandl, cited in the book, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, LeRoy Edwin Froom, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1966), 2:307.

8 Some Thoughts on Original Sin,p. 15

5

In the same way let me quote from Phandl about Storrs concept of Adam’s sin

and its effect to human race. It states,

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam’s sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death-the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualized as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character-children included.

Finally, the “corrupt” nature that all of Adam’s posterity inherit from him is not to be perceived as depravity but as a dying nature - “dying to die”, or doomed to die - mortality. Original sin does not mean spiritual death for man, rather it means a dying condition or state of man. 9

Let me again do in the same way by pointing out some major points of Storrs’

understanding of Adam’s sin and its effect to human race as explain by Phandl. There are

four points to consider, (1) Adam’s sin is the “Original sin”, (2) the result of Adam’s sin

is only in physical dying nature which in reality the cessation of life, (3) it did not result

to spiritual death or a deprave nature, (4) corrupt nature only means dying condition

which we inherit from Adam.

The Early Formation of Seventh-day Adventist Thought: 1850-1860

This period is very remarkable to our early Adventists understanding of original

sin due to the strong influence of the concept of inherent immortality of the soul. During

this time our early Adventist theologians are involved in this strong issue about the

inherent immortality of the soul which they are strongly against, and that had shaped

them to define original sin in more anthropological perspective.10 Their emphasis on

original sin was presumably shifted to soteriological after the 1888 Minneapolis history.

9 Phandl, p. 14.

10 Ibid.

6

Since Storrs was one of the strong figures adhering to the conditional immortality view,

he became the central figure of the SDA understanding in anthropological perspective.

They accepted the view of Storrs which was published in the Review and Herald (RH) by

Stephenson, D. P. Hall, and J. N. Loughborough.11 Storrs then became the central figure

in the Adventist treatment of original sin.12

James M. Stephenson View of Original Sin

Stephenson’s13 treatment of this topic is published in the Review and Herald in the

year 1854. He argues in his understanding by pointing out original sin or Adam sin and

the individual sin and its penalty.14 He states,

Not that all have sinned "after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" but by, or through Adam, as our representative, all have sinned. Adam sinned personally, whereas, his posterity sinned by proxy, or by their representative.15

It’s is clear that Stephenson in his understanding states that Adam’s posterity did

not commit the actual sin that Adam had committed.

However, his posterity had committed sin by proxy (which means it were not

themselves). So in other words the sin that Adam had committed is considered personal

11 Phnadl, p. 14

12 Ibid.

13 James M. Stephenson was and had been a first day Adventist minister. He just served a very short time on the SDA church. He became a great antagonist of the SDA Church. Giving up the Sabbath and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy. He then divorced his wife and married a younger woman under his no law liberalism. He died very poor in his poor house. See LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny, (Washington, DC : Review and Herald, 1978), p. 152.

14 James M. Stephenson, “The Atonement” (Rochester, NY: The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug., 22, 1854), p. 10, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540822-V06-02__B.pdf#view=fit

15 Ibid.7

sin not universal sin for it only belongs to him in the real sense. What makes it universal

is the effects to human race.

In his understanding of the effects of Adam’s sin is quite the same with Storrs. He

did not believe that we inherit sin. He says that Adam, being the representative of the

entire human race have transmitted or incurred corruptible or dying nature.16

Though it seems that Stephenson did not question that man was lost spiritually however

in his final analysis he understood that spiritual lost is the result of the individual sin not

because of Adam’s sin.

D. P. Hall View of Original Sin

It is quite clear that Storrs had influenced Hall so much in his understanding

regarding the origin of man. In his articles he argues in the same way with Storrs when

referring to Adam before the fall. He states that man was created neither moral nor

immoral, neither mortal nor immortal.17 It can be understood in his statements saying,

But what was Adam's condition previous to transgression?. . . . Very good was pronounced upon man. . . But what was his character and nature? Was he holy or unholy, mortal or immortal, or in a state of susceptibility? Moral character is not the subject of creation: it is the result of action towards law. . . .

Were they immortal? We answer most unhesitatingly, No! That which is immortal cannot die. If Adam was immortal, of what possible use could the tree of life be? . . . .

But was Adam mortal? No, if mortal, he must die, as a necessary consequence; and death in that event, could not be the penalty; but it was the penalty, therefore Adam was not mortal. . . .18

16 Ibid.

17 D. P. Hall, “The Mortality of Man,” vol., 6, (Rochester:NY, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug., 29, 1854), p., 18, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540829-V06-03__B.pdf#view=fit

18 Ibid.

8

It clearly reechoes Storrs concept in Hall’s understanding, that man created by

God neutral. For everything is conditional, unless the man past the test, he could not have

received the price set for him which is immortality. Though it seems he did not explicitly

explain regarding the nature of man as holy or unholy. It is still understandable that he

agrees with Storrs.

Furthermore, Hall relates Storrs understanding also when it comes to the effects

of Adam’s sin to his posterity. He argues that what has been transmitted is the dying

nature, or corruptible nature. And death is the penalty which for him is a physical death

not the spiritual death. Citing from the Biblical passage, “for out of it thou was taken; for

dust thou art; for dust thou shall return.19

J. N. Loughborough View of Original Sin

In his treatment about this area, his argument is quite the same with the three

guys, Storrs, Stephenson, and Hall. Loughborough started to say that the image of God in

man should not be thought in terms of character for man has no character like God’s.

Rather, he was left to form his own character. Furthermore, Adam was created neither

mortal nor immortal for his nature was contingent on his passing the probationary test.20

When Adam fell into sin, he became subject to death. This death also is inherited

by his posterity and they die as well. And this death, as Loughborough understands is

physical death or the first death not the second death. Spiritual death for him is “a state of

19 Ibid.

20 Loughborough, “Is the Soul Immortal?”, vol. 7, no. 6, (Rochester: NY, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept. 18, 1855), pp. 41-42, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18550918-V07-06__B.pdf#view=fit

9

being dead to sin”.21 Furthermore, he argues that the corrupt nature that man suffers is to

be understood as dying nature. He believes that there is no transmission of guilt involved

since all men are responsible for their actual or personal sins and are only mortal through

Adam’s sin.22

James White

James White, the founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the first editor

of the Review and Herald, did not deal with this topic especially with Adam’s sin as a

separate topic. Instead he writes about children’s salvation and its penalty which also

gives some significant inputs about his understanding about this topic. In his basic

understanding he is still in agreement with above concept when he suggested that

children are innocent and born in a state of grace.23 And though he admitted that they are

born with fallen, corrupt and sinful nature, he did not believe that they are guilty of it.

“Christ has cancelled the guilt of Adamic transgression, and in the resurrection of the last

day, all the effects of the fall on the innocent, or justified, will be removed, not before24

In his treatment of Adamic sin can be found in his writing series entitled the

Kingdom of God.25 In his understanding, Adam’s fall meant deprivation for his posterity

21 “A person dead in sin must be the one that is lost to all sense of obligations he is under to obey God. . . if a man commits sin and he continues to sin he is spiritually dead.” Ibid.22

Ibid.

23 James White, “The Kingdom of God,” vol. 5, (Rochester: NY, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, June 13, 1854), p. 153, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540613-V05-20__B.pdf#view=fit

24

Ibid.25

“The Kingdom of God,”vol. 5, no. 19-20, (May 30 & June 13, 1854), pp. 145-146, 153-155.

10

on two levels. (1) “He was deprived of his territorial through the revolt of all creatures”,

(2) he was deprived of his dominion of life.” Mortality was not part of the original but

was the result of transgression. 26

This concept can be traced back to Storrs, Stephenson, and Hall the way they

expound original sin. Though there is no clear literal resemblance in his expression of

words to Storrs and other, yet it is implicitly clear. However, it is also still clear that the

influenced is from the New England context especially the Arminian line of thought.

Ellen G. White

In the early decades E. G. White (1827-1915) said little on the subject. She had

not written specifically about this issue during this period of time. However she had

shared his ideas that were published in the Review and Herald but not directly touching

the topic of original sin. She had written about the children or infants in relation to the

effects of Adam’s sin. Notably, she differed from her husband in regard to little

children.27 She states,

Children are the lawful prey of the enemy, because they are not subjects of grace, have not experienced the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus, and the evil angels have access to these children; and some parents are careless and suffer them to work with but little restraint.28

26 James White, “The Better Times, or the Earth Redeemed,” RH, vol. 3, no. 21 (March 3, 1853), p. 165.

27 E. G. White, “The Duty of Parents to Their Children,”vol., 6, no. 6 (Rochester: NY., The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Sept. 19, 1854), p., 46, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540919-V06-06__B.pdf#view=fit28

Ibid.

11

In this understanding of Ellen G. White it is the responsibility of the parents to

care for their children. In her understanding children is dependent in their parents for they

are not subject to grace for they are not capable enough to use their freedom of choice. It

is here that seems their salvation depends on their parents. She even states that parents are

to recognize that “they stand in the place of God” to their children and must therefore be

faithful to their trust.29

Uriah Smith

Uriah Smith is considered the most prolific writer on the subject of Adam’s sin.

He is a long-time Adventist editor of the Review and Herald. In his treatment of the

subject Smith agrees with Storrs and Stephenson. Smith believed that Adam had a middle

nature - created without morality - and that the penalty of Adam’s sin was physical not

spiritual death. He states that man was created under a covenant of works and had he not

sinned, he could have been justified by obedience.30 Nevertheless man did not pass the

probationary test and thus must need a savior. He understood that it was the passing of

the test or keeping God’s law that produced character and implicitly says that man was

created without morality.31

He understood spiritual death to be a reality of man’s sinful existence, but he

viewed this as a result of Adam’s sin not as the penalty for it. 32 Furthermore, Smith’s

29 Ibid., 45.30 Uriah Smith, “Righteousness by Law,” vol. 13, no. 6 (Rochester: NY., The

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, March 24, 1859), p. 140, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18590324-V13-18__B.pdf#view=fit

31 Ibid.32

U. Smith, “Perpetuity of the Moral Law,” vol.,14, no. 6 (June 30, 1859):45, http://www.adventistarchives. org/docs/RH/RH18590630-V14-06__B.pdf#view=fit

12

definition of “total depravity”, i.e., “our inability to render, unaided by Christ, acceptable

obedience to God”, reflects the moderate views of the New Haven theology.33 The state

of sin is really the actual sinning of the individual and only personal sins not his nature

decide the fate of man.

Interestingly enough Smith states that the ultimate destiny of man does not lie

with Adam, since original sin comes to all “irrespective of age, character or condition.34 It

is personal sin that decides man’s fate for it is here that man can rectify what Adam did

by electing to accept the work of Christ.35

The corrupt nature is “dying” state and a dead condition. Man was good as dead

when he sinned and would have died that very day had it not been for the plan of

salvation. However, the first death claimed him because it was an unconditional penalty.36

It is this corruptible nature, dying nature that Adam’s posterity inherits from him.In his

treatment of the penalty for Adam’s sin, Smith incorporates the argument of Storrs,

Stephenson, Hall and Loughborough. He understood spiritual death to be a reality of

man’s sinful existence. However it was not the penalty for Adam’s sin it was just the

result of it. 37

J. H. Waggoner

33

Ibid.34

Uriah Smith, “What is the Penalty of the Law?” vol., no. 23 (April 9, 1857), p. 180, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570409-V09-23__B.pdf#view=fit

35 Ibid., p. 181.36 Ibid., p. 180.

37 Uriah Smith, “Our Old Man”, vol. 13., no., 3 (December 9, 1853), p. 20, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18531220-V04-24__B.pdf#view=fit

13

Another competent Adventist writer of the early Adventist days was J. H.

Waggoner. Before tackling to his understanding about original sin let us consider first

how he understands Adam’s nature before the fall. It is not explicitly stated about his

understanding of Adam’s nature before the fall, but can be deduced that he agrees with

his predecessors like Storrs, Stephenson, Hall on his idea of “had he kept the law he

would have saved by that action.”38 The essence of covenant of works is clearly present,

and also probably the middle nature of Adam. In his understanding about the effects, he

states that Adam brought into the world a curse on the earth, through his sin and the

dominion of man was lost to his posterity and handed over to Satan.39 However, for man

the most serious consequence of this was that “all”, without any distinction of age or

character die in the consequence of Adam’s transgression.40

Furthermore Waggoner says that Adam was man’s representative head.41 But he

did not elaborate it to the extent of what Federal theologian had in their understanding.

He just simply says that Adam is the father of mankind and since he falls, the effect is

great that even his posterity cannot keep the law without the aid of Christ.42

38 J. H. Waggoner, “The Law of God”, p. 59

39 J. H. Waggoner, “The Kingdom of God,” vol. 8, no., 20 (Rochester: NY., The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, September 18, 1856), p. 156, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18560918-V08-20__B.pdf#view=fit

40 “Will the wicked have a Resurrection?” vol., 9, no. 14 (Feb. 5, 1857), p, 108, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570205-V09-14__B.pdf#view=fit

41 “The Sabbath”, p. 185, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18561016-V08-24__B.pdf#view=fit

42 Ibid., p. 185.

14

CHAPTER 3

SUMMARY AND CONLUSION

To summarize the whole information gathered in this paper, let me say that the

early thought of Adventist believers regarding original sin and its inescapable effect to

human race is influenced so much by Storrs. George Storrs heralded it to his colleagues

including the early Adventist believers and theologians. From the name stated first, like

Stephenson down to Waggoner they all have one common thought in expounding the

definition of original sin and its effect. For Storrs man was created in the middle nature.

The result is yet to be given should they pass the probationary test. If man had not fallen

into sin he would have received the price. For Storrs original sin is Adam’s sin. The

15

effect of Adam’s sin is the corruptible nature, meaning dying nature or physical death.

Spiritual death is not the penalty but the result of individual’s sin.

This was the shaping concept of our early Adventist in their understanding of

original sin and in their understanding of the effect of Adam’s sin to his posterity.

Though each of them expresses their idea differently but significantly flows in one major

thought.

Since Storrs is so influential that even Froom and Phandl admitted that Adventist

accepted His concept, it is safe to conclude that during the early thought of the Adventists

they express the same idea when it comes to the nature of Adam before the fall and

defining original sin and its effect to his posterity. Undeniably, during this time they

understand it through anthropological perspective only, but after 1888 there is a shift of

understanding. Thus, for early Adventists the result of Adam’s sin is original sin. And the

penalty was mortality - a dying nature - physical death. Sometimes Adventists referred to

this as the sinful nature: Remember that a dying nature and a sinful nature are identical.

Because of their adherence to conditional immortality, Adventists first studied original

sin from an anthropological perspective.

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter, ed., “New Haven”, Evangelical dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

Froom, LeRoy Edwin. The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, 2 vols. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 1965.

Hall, D. P. “The Mortality of Man,” vol., 6, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Aug., 29, 1854). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540829-V06-03__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

Loughborough, J. N. “Is the Soul Immortal?”, vol. 7, no. 6. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Sept. 18, 1855). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18550918-V07-06__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

17

Phandl, Gerhard. “Some thought on Original Sin”, http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sinoriginal-web.pdf (accessed 6 May 2012).

Smith, Uriah. “The Duty of Parents to Their Children,”vol., 6, no. 6. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Sept. 19, 1854). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540919-V06-06__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

.“Perpetuity of the Moral Law,” vol.,14, no. 6. (June 30, 1859). http://www.adventistarchives. org/docs/RH/RH18590630-V14-06__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

. “What is the Penalty of the Law?” vol., no. 23. (April 9, 1857). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570409-V09-23__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

. “Our Old Man”, vol. 13., no., 3 (December 9, 1853). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18531220-V04-24__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

Stephenson, James M. “The Atonement”, The Advent Review and the Sabbath Herald, (Aug., 22, 1854). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540822-V06-02__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

Waggoner, J. H. “The Kingdom of God,” vol. 8, no., 20. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (September 18, 1856). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18560918-V08-20__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

. “Will the wicked have a Resurrection?” vol., 9, no. 14 (Feb. 5, 1857). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570205-V09-14__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

. “The Sabbath”. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18561016-V08-24__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

White, James. “The Kingdom of God,” vol. 5. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (June 13, 1854). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540613-V05-20__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

18

. “The Better Times, or the Earth Redeemed,”vol. 3, no. 21. (March 3, 1853). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18530303-V03-21__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

White, Ellen G. “The Duty of Parents to Their Children,”vol., 6, no. 6. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (Sept. 19, 1854). http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18540919-V06-06__B.pdf#view=fit (accessed 3 May 2012).

19