fess to believe it. The doctrine is so very fast riveted to them by tradition; having had it beat into them in their tender years, and having lived under the continual sound of it ever since, that I suppose it really seems to them to be one of the principal pillars of christianity. Wherefore, we must treat them with charity and brotherly kindness, until they can get their eyes open, which many of them no doubt would have done long ago, seeing it is so very contrary to all reason and common sense; had it not been that somebody or other happened to have the ingenuity to smooth it over, by calling it a mystery. I think it is very wrong in them to be so extremely tenacious of a doctrine that the Bible does not teach, and hold everybody at arms end who cannot adopt their creed; and some of them will go so far, as to say the man cannot be a christian, for he denies the divinity of Christ; when at the same time that man says he believes every word the Bible says about it.

And now, in conclusion, I will just say that I believe just what the Bible says; and that is, that although there be many that are called Gods whether in heaven or on earth, but to us there is but one: God the FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him; and one Holy Ghost, which is the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, and is sent into the world to reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Now I would not be understood to assert that the Holy Ghost is not a person, for I have not the means of knowing whether it be so or not. I only say that I think the Bible gives us no certain evidence that he is a person. But even if it was proved that he is a person, all that would not prove him to be in all respects equal with the Father, any more than the Son is proved to be equal with the Father, and we know that the Son himself said his Father is greater than he. Yes, he said his Father is greater than all. So that be there ever so many persons, yet the Father is greater than they all put together. And in reality, to us there is but one God the Father, although there is another that is called God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom God made all things.

But now there is one thing more that the Bible tells us, which I had thought to mention, not knowing but it might reflect some light respecting the Trinity. The Bible tells us that God has seven Spirits that are sent forth into all the earth.--Rev., 5: 6. Now whether these seven Spirits are all comprehended in that Spirit

of Truth, which is called the Holy Ghost, the Bible does not tell us. But if they are not, and each one of these seven is a distinct personage, (and I see not but it is as likely they are so, as it is that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person), and if they are, then it would seem there would be at least nine persons in the Godhead, instead of three. Come on, ye wise men who know so much about things not revealed, and tell us whether there be a Trinity or a ninity, for I should think that all the Spirits that God possesses, must belong to the Godhead.

A LETTER TO A CORRESPONDENT, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE SABBATH.

DEAR SIR:

Your communication on the subject of the Sabbath, was duly received, and perused with gratification and regret. It was truly gratifying to find you acknowledging the importance, the perpetuity and immutability of the Sabbath law, and its early institution, and that it ought to be promulgated by all christians. When all this is admitted (which I suppose you know denied by a large portion of professed christians,) we think our course is pretty well established, without further comment, had it not been for those numerous windings which you say we must expose in order to establish the truth. We are well aware, sir, that to expose the numerous erroneous and even contradictory windings of our opponents, is the main part of our business on this subject. This sir, is what renders our task so very laborious. A great part of our labor has been to convince christians of what you so frankly acknowledge, viz: that the fourth commandment is perpetually binding on all men in all ages, and under all dispensations. Yet, sir, we cannot but very much regret that after admitting just what we contend for, you should attempt to avoid it all in the manner you do. You say you find in all your travels almost all religious communities agreeing with you in the day; but if you had taken notice, you would have found that they differ widely in their arguments by which to justify their practice.

Those different ways and windings, we consider altogether irrelevant and erroneous, and seem calculated to evade and draw us off from the question in dispute, and most of them we consider to be of very modern invention, and even the one used by yourself, I believe was never heard, nor even thought of until within a very few years. I supposed I had heard almost if not quite all that could be said in favour of first-day keeping; yet I never heard or conceived of such a method of defence until within about ten years, when one of my neighbors, a clergyman, said he should have been a seventh day Baptist long ago, if the fourth commandment had said the seventh day of the week.

I confess I was utterly astonished, for I could not have thought that a man of common sense and common honesty, would have betaken himself to such a miserable subterfuge; for what in the name of common sense could it be but the seventh day of the week? But you, like him say, "it meant the next day after six days labor, be it whichsoever day of the week it may." Suppose then the commandment had been worded just as you say you understand it to mean, i. e.: remember that always when you have labored six days together, you must rest the next, for that will be the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, whatever day of the week it may happen to be. This, sir, I understand to be exactly the amount of your supposed fourth commandment, which you hold to be binding on all men. Now, I ask you who in the name of common sense would ever have thought from such a command as that, that any one particular day in regular order was required to to be kept sacred. One man might begin to labor one day of the week, another the next, and so on through the week, each working just six days: pray tell me, sir, which of their seventh days would be the sabbath of the Lord?

You say you have, for more than a half century, conscientiously observed the law, by resting on the seventh day after six days' labor. Well sir, I suppose I can with as much truth, say I have done the same; and yet you are keeping one day, and I another. Now do you think, sir, we are both right? that is to say, are we both observing the law, according to the true intent and meaning of it? Truly, sir, to say we are, is nothing short of saying, God is the author of confusion, and not of peace. And yet, according

to your theory, we are both exactly right.

In the village of Pawcatuck, where I live, there are two churches; one keeping the seventh day of the week, the other keeping

the first day of the week, by which means there is great disorder and confusion in the place, and they are all keeping the seventh day after six days' labor, and are all right according to your plan. Now facts are stubborn things; and surely you cannot but learn from these facts that your plan is wrong, or else God is the author of confusion; for if you are right, both keep the law, and yet this great disorder and confusion is produced by it.

But you say, where the word of the law does not clearly decide the question, it must be decided by other circumstances. Well then, what are the circumstances by which this question is to be decided? Why, sir, nothing can be plainer or more easily understood, than that when God ended the work of creation at the close of the sixth day, and rested the seventh day, and set it apart for a day of rest and worship for the benefit of man, his meaning and design was that it should be regularly observed every seventh day in regular succcession, from that time henceforth forever; and inasmuch as we have not the least hint, directly or indirectly, that any change or alteration should take place respecting it, it is not reasonable to suppose that any change or cessation was ever intended by the Creator, all the inventions of men to the contrary notwithstanding.

The imperative word of the command is, remember the Sabbath day, as much as if he had said, "since there is no natural sign by which the Sabbath can be known, you must be particular to keep it in mind and memory, by counting the days as they pass, and keep the seventh in regular order." This sir, I think you cannot but agree, is the most rational conclusion that can be drawn in the premises. Hence, every seventh day in order from the first Sabbath, has always been and always will be the Sabbath of the Lord, and no other; and all the wit and ingenuity of men can never constitute any other day of the week (or series), the Sabbath of the Lord. If the command had said the seventh day of the week, it would have been no more definite than it is now. I could not but notice how carefully you avoided the word week, when you said, "it seems natural that it should be the first or the last day of the series." It struck my mind immediately, whether you did not use the word series instead of the word week, lest you should betray an inward conviction that you had rather not expose. But pray tell me, if you can, what is the difference between a week, and a series of seven days.

G

If you had said "it seems natural that it should be the first or the last day of the week," you would have brought us directly to the point at issue, viz: has the Sabbath been changed by divine authority from the seventh to the first day of the week? I think, sir, if you have lived more than half a century, as you say you have, you cannot be ignorant that the great contest among christians, for some hundreds of years, has been whether the Sabbath has been changed by divine authority from the seventh to the first day of the week. This is what we deny; and that too because we cannot find anything of it in the Bible. We have nothing to do with the say-so of Ignatius, or Justin Martyr, or any other uninspired man, on this question; the Bible is our standard. Why do you not, then, come right up to the question, toe the mark, and show your Bible authority for the change? As soon as you do this, we are ready to unite with you in keeping the first day of the week, or the series as you call it, instead of the seventh.

What signifies all those different windings? You wind fifteen degrees east, and fifteen degrees west, and then you wind yourself half round the globe one way, and half round the other way; and there in the dream you seem to find two companies of missionaries, disputing about the Sabbath; and how, on the whole, they have concluded to settle the matter, I have not heard; and as it is a case that does not concern us here in this land of Bibles, we think it best to let them cook it to suit themselves, while we are minding our own business, which always ought to be to fear God and keep his commandments, just as they are given to us in the Bible.

It is hardly probable that such a case ever did, or ever will happen; and if it did, it would be nothing to us who live where day and night is always regular. Although some few may have trayersed the globe around, yet there has always been enough left at home to keep the day of the week aright; and when these few have gone round and returned home the other way, happening to have wit enough to know the reason why they differ one day from us, they would of course, as rational creatures, immediately return to the original Sabbath; so that we should have no difficulty about that. Extraordinary cases must have extraordinary considerations: but why should we build bridges, before we come to the water?

Such objections as these, bring to my mind what Solomon said of the slothful man-" He saith there is a lion in the way." Had