E. R. PINNEY'S “THREE SABBATHS” REVIEWED.
By R. F. Cottrell
Recent numbers of the Advent Harbinger contain an article written by E. R. Pinney, under the caption of “The three Sabbaths,” in which the writer labors to make it appear, by most positive assertions, that the Bible teaches three weekly Sabbaths; viz., the Creation Sabbath, the Jewish or Law Sabbath, and the Gospel Sabbath. Let us look a moment at the course of the Harbinger. It is well known that its Editor, not long since, stood forth boldly upon the position of no Sabbath for the gospel dispensation; representing that Christians who keep the seventh day were Judaizers, and fallen from grace. Presently Z. Campbell comes out with a tract in which he takes the position that Sunday is the true original seventh day—the real Jewish Sabbath. The Harbinger publishes an “extract” from it, and recommends it for circulation. He seems to see no danger now of falling from grace by keeping the “Jewish Sabbath,” and warns not his brethren of their danger. But last of all he publishes the article before us, which declares most positively that Christ instituted a gospel Sabbath for Christians, which is the first day of the week. There has been a complaint that the Harbinger would not give both sides on the Sabbath question; but he has given three sides of it, at least, and, for aught his readers know, approves them all. Two of them he certainly has commended; but perhaps the last is given because his paper is open to free investigation. If so, he will please copy this review of the article into his columns. In his exordium Pinney says, “I have always found that truth was simple, and easily defended. Long, labored arguments, far-fetched deductions, and doubtful inferences, are always to me, an evidence of error.” From words like these one would naturally expect something forthcoming supported by positive testimony from the Word of God, and that doubtful inferences would not be resorted to. We shall see how far his effort will justify such expectation. He says, “If the Jewish Sabbath belongs to the gospel dispensation, let it be shown by the New Testament, and if not, let them cease endeavoring to drag us into the bondage of the law. For one, I supposed that old husband dead and buried; and therefore I married Christ, and feel perfectly satisfied with him, and the ordinances of his house. I propose a brief examination of the three Sabbaths revealed, their origin, design, &c.” To this I reply, 1. We have never claimed that the Jewish Sabbath belongs to the gospel dispensation, but that the only weekly Sabbath of the Bible belongs to the human race. The Sabbath which the Jews observed, when Jesus was on earth, was made for man. Mark ii, 27. He could not mean the Jewish sabbath; for, if there existed such a sabbath, it must have had its beginning and end with the Jews. 2. I inquire, How much more bondage is there in resting from labor and worshiping on one day of the seven than another? To rest and worship on the day that God has set apart is counted bondage; but to do the same things on “the day the Pope has sabbatized,” is consistent with perfect gospel liberty! 3. Some cannot be persuaded to read Rom. vii, 2, rightly. They read that the woman is bound by the law to the law, as long as the law liveth. [See Review, Vol. V, No. 2—Art., Reply to E. Miller, Jr.] 4. “The three Sabbaths revealed.” Revealed where? P. does not mean the three yearly sabbaths of the Jews; but three weekly Sabbaths. The first and second of these came on the seventh day of the week. They were both Sabbath, or Rest-days; and yet they were but one day. How did P. come to distinguish between the two? I should think he had discovered a new illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity, but that his third Sabbath, contrary to all precedent and analogy, comes on the first day. I presume it was this “fact” that led him to the discovery that the day on which God rested, and that on which the Jews rested, though one and the same day, were two Sabbaths. “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Eccl. vii, 29. One would have thought that inventions to get rid of the Lord’s Rest-day were exhausted; but still they come! Scarcely two champions of the first-day observance can agree. If they had anything better than doubtful inferences on which to rest, could they not speak the same thing? Like the false witnesses that appeared against Jesus, they all seem willing that the Lord’s Sabbath should be crucified; but their testimony does not agree. “From this brief history we learn two facts:
1st, The design of the institution, which was commemorative of the great work of creation. ‘On the seventh day God ended his work . . . and he rested from all his work which he had made.’ For this cause ‘he blessed it and sanctified it.’
2d, For whom the Rest-day was instituted. For God. ‘God rested on the seventh day from all his work.’ It was to this end that he ‘sanctified it,’ &c., ‘because that in it he (God) had rested from all his work which God had created and made.’” It was God’s Rest-day. There was no one to keep it but Adam, and he had no occasion to rest; for it was his first day’s existence; and if it had not been, he could not have kept it. None but the Creator could keep it. God never required any other being to keep it, and no other being ever did or ever will keep it, so far as we have any revelation upon the subject. Let us compare these two “facts.” The first is, that the Sabbath was commemorative of the great work of creation. The second is, that none were ever required to keep it, or ever could keep it, but God. In his next sentence, P. says, “That rest still continues.” Does he mean that the Creator still continues to labor six days and rest the seventh? If so, where is the proof? If he has none, I should think it a far-fetched deduction. But if he means that God rested not only the seventh day, but has continued to rest ever since, I ask, Where is the record? The Bible tells us, that he made the world in six days and rested the seventh. Not that he labored six days and rested six thousand years. It is a commemorative institution, but none but God ever kept it. Commemorative, according to Webster, means to celebrate. Who can tell how much greater the resurrection of Christ is, than an event that Jehovah himself has been six thousand years without cessation, celebrating?! How much easier it is to understand the text as it reads, and see that the seventh day was set apart for man, that he might celebrate the great work of creation, and thus remember his great Creator. God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested. “It was God’s Rest-day,” and it was in the past when it was blessed and sanctified. He had rested was the cause, the consequence was, he blessed and sanctified the seventh day. After making these bold and positive assertions, which will be tested in another place, P. tries to show, from Heb. iv, that the Sabbath was a type; and then gives some quotations from ancient sages, (which show that the ancient Gentile nations had a knowledge of the Sabbath,) then says, “And here we leave this point, having shown that creation Sabbath never was, and could not be observed by any but God the Creator. Nor is there a word of any Sabbath being known until Israel left Egypt.” All his Bible proofs on this point are found in Gen. ii, 1–3, and Heb. iv. Reader, can you see sufficient testimony, in these scriptures, to justify the conclusion that none but God can remember his Rest-day to keep it holy, even if he himself command it? The fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned in other places in the record of the book of Genesis weighs nothing, if men are commanded in the book of Exodus, to keep that same Rest-day. But time was reckoned by weeks before the exode from Egypt. A week is an arbitrary division of time; there is nothing in nature to mark it. The year is marked by the revolution of the earth around the sun, causing a regular succession of seasons. The month, or moon, was naturally suggested by the revolutions of the moon around the earth, and its consequent changes. The day is bounded by the turning of the earth on its own axis. An hour is an aliquot part of a day, a minute of an hour, &c. But a week has no natural boundary, and it is not an aliquot part of any natural division; and the fact that the patriarchs reckoned time by weeks, or sevens of days, cannot be accounted for, in any way that human ingenuity can invent, but by supposing that they had114a knowledge of the creation week, and consequently of the Rest-day at its close. There is more ground to infer that Cain and Abel observed the Sabbath, by rest and worship, when they brought their offerings “at the end of days,” than there is to infer a first-day Sabbath in the whole Bible. It was not at the end of the year nor month; nor yet at the end of the day, but at the end of days. But I will not enlarge here as I have something to present which is better than doubtful inferences. But next, under the title of “The Jewish or Law Sabbath,” P. says: “This Sabbath was instituted expressly to commemorate the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, for thus it is written: ‘And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore (for this reason) the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day.’ Deut. v, 15. Let this fact be remembered, that the Jewish Sabbath was especially appointed by God to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt.” Upon this I remark, 1. There is one reason, and only one, given in the Book, for the institution of a weekly Sabbath; but there may be many reasons why men, in different ages, should keep it. It is reasonable to suppose that the Israelites, while groaning under oppressive task-masters in Egypt, had been compelled to work on the Sabbath till they had lost, in a measure, their respect for the day. But when God had brought them out where they were free, and also given them bread from heaven, they had not the shadow of an excuse remaining, why they should not keep the Rest-day. Thus at the giving of the manna [Ex. xvi, 4] the Lord says, “I will rain bread from heaven for you: . . . that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare . . . twice as much as they gather daily.” They certainly had two new reasons for honoring God by keeping his Rest-day. 1st. He had brought them out of the house of bondmen. 2d. He had given them bread from heaven, so that there was no necessity for labor on the Sabbath. We have as many reasons for keeping the Sabbath. 1st. We live under laws which do not prevent it. 2d. The true light is now shining on this subject. But who would ever have thought, had God said to us by some prophet, You live under a free government, therefore the Lord commands you to keep the Rest-day; that your freedom was the reason of the institution of that Rest-day, when a plain, simple and appropriate reason had previously been given? 2. This text does not command them to keep the deliverance-day, or the escape-day, but the Rest-day. (Remember, sabbath means rest.) 3. It was not the Jewish Sabbath, or Jews’ Rest-day that they were here commanded to keep; but “it was God’s Rest-day.” “But the seventh day is the Sabbath (Rest) of the LORD thy GOD; in it thou shalt not do any work . . . nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, . . . nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant, &c.” 4. “The Jewish Sabbath was especially appointed by God to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt.” If P. means by this the passover sabbath, I will not contend with him about it. That the passover and feast of unleavened bread were instituted expressly to commemorate that deliverance, is a truth clearly revealed. We do not rest this upon doubtful inferences, but the Word declares it; and also how often they should be observed. “Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.” Ex. xiii, 10. This deliverance was also kept in memory continually by the redemption of every first born male in Israel. Verses 12–15. There was a fitness in all these observances, they had a resemblance to the thing signified. But what resemblance has working six days and resting one, to these things? And if it was necessary for God to be so particular in giving the reasons of these observances, which reasons were so obvious from the resemblance between the institutions themselves and the events commemorated, how much more explicit ought he to have been to instruct them, that laboring six days and resting the seventh should bring to mind all event to which it had no resemblance? “The Sabbath a memorial we admit,
But not of actions which it will not fit,
To try and make it signalize events,
To whose resemblance it has no pretense,
To use it where no meaning it conveys,
Stretched and distorted in a thousand ways,
Shocks every law Propriety e’er gave,
And finds for Fitness an untimely grave.
Rightly applied, harmonious and fair,
The Sabbath stands, and there is beauty there.
Grant it the place for which it was designed,
And it has lessons for each honest mind;
For thus our actions speak, while we protest,
After six days of toil, a day of rest,
In stronger terms than language e’er unfurled—
Jehovah rested when he made the world.” P. next asserts that, “This Sabbath was instituted in the wilderness of Sin,” He quotes Ex. xvi, 4, 5, and says, “here we have the institution of the Sabbath.” Reader, can you see how these verses set apart a Sabbath—verses which do not mention it at all? But it would be too tedious to notice all his remarks, on this chapter, which have not the least weight in the controversy, or the shadow of an argument, so far as I can see, about them. Suffice it to say that he seems to feel satisfied that he has demonstrated beyond controversy, from this chapter, that the people were totally ignorant of the Sabbath before, and that it was here instituted. We will notice a few points here which approve themselves to every unprejudiced reader. 1. The Lord told Moses that he would give the people bread from heaven, and would prove them, whether they would walk in his law or no. Verse 4. He does not here tell him to command the people any thing about it, but informs him that “it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.” 2. The Lord then informs the people, through Moses, that he had heard their murmurings, and that he would give them bread. Verses 5, 12. 3. When the manna was given, Moses told them, this is the bread which the Lord hath given you, and instructed them to gather it according to the number of their persons, but gave them no directions respecting the sixth or seventh day. 4. Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning; but some disobeyed and the manna bred worms and became putrid. 5. “It came to pass,” as the Lord had previously told Moses it should, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread. They were not “astonished to find they had twice their usual quantity,” for they gathered twice as much. They did this without any directions from Moses, so far as we are informed, which proves that a preparation for the Sabbath was nothing new to them. 6. But a difficulty now arose. The Sabbath was approaching, but Moses had commanded them to keep no manna over night. They were in a dilemma. They remembered that Moses was wroth with them that laid up manna for another day, they also remembered the Sabbath-day—the day on which their Creator rested. In this perplexity, all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses, thus laying the case before the Lord. And Moses returned them this answer from the Lord: “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you, to be kept until the morning.” They did so, and it did not putrefy as on other days. As this is the first account we have of the Sabbath’s being mentioned to the Israelites, I inquire, Is there any evidence of its being instituted here? I answer, There is none. For in the first place, not a word had been said about it till they had prepared for it, contrary, apparently, to the will of Moses. 2. The Lord does not say, to-morrow shall be a rest, but to-morrow is the rest. 3. It is called the holy Sabbath, and no place can be found where it was made holy, unless we go back to the creation week, where God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. Some of the people went out to gather on the seventh day, and called forth the following rebuke from the Lord: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days.” If the Sabbath was instituted here, it never had been violated before. Can you think that a long-suffering God would reprove the first offence with How long refuse ye to keep my commandments? Again, for the reason that the Lord had given them the Sabbath, therefore he gave them on the sixth day the bread of two days. Now, if an effect cannot exist before its cause, the Sabbath was given before the double portion of manna was. “The Lord hath given you the Sabbath” is the cause; the effect, or consequence, is, “he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days.” But the double portion was given on the day before the Sabbath. Therefore the Sabbath existed before the giving of the manna; and as the meaning of the term is, rest, the Sabbath could not exist till some one rested upon it. But admitting that the “Jewish Sabbath was instituted in the wilderness of Sin, (and I believe that the idea of a Jewish weekly sabbath originated in transgression of the law,) does the fourth commandment enforce its observance? It certainly does not; for a commandment to enforce the observance of a weekly Sabbath, “instituted expressly to commemorate the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage,” should read very differently from this precept. It should read, I think, something like this: Remember the deliverance-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the deliverance-day of the Israelites, in it thou shalt not do any work. For Israel dwelt in Egypt 430 years, and at the end of 430 years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It is a NIGHT to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt. (Ex. xii, 40.) Wherefore the Lord blessed the deliverance-day, and sanctified it. It was on the night preceding the fifteenth of Abib that the Holy Spirit dates their deliverance, but P. thinks the Sabbath must have been given after they crossed the Red Sea. But what kind of rest did they enter into on crossing the sea? They sung the song of Moses on its bank, and then traveled three days without water. But the Sabbath of the fourth commandment commemorates a Rest-day. Remember the Rest-day to keep it holy. We cannot remember a Rest-day that nobody ever rested upon; therefore this precept requires the remembrance of a day on which some one had rested. Whose Rest-day must be kept? It was God’s Rest-day—the day of which P. says, “God never required any other being to keep it.” Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Rest of the LORD thy GOD. How must it be kept? By resting from thy labor. In it thou shalt not do any work. Why? What is the reason of this requirement? Because God rested on that day. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore (for which reason) the Lord blessed the Rest-day, and hallowed it. Thus it is clear that the fourth commandment requires the observance of the creation Sabbath, and not the Jewish. And if there was a weekly Jewish sabbath instituted in the wilderness of Sin, nobody was ever commanded to keep it, not even the Jews. If they were, show us the commandment. It was the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of which Jesus said, The Sabbath was made for man. But P. asserts that it was instituted “for God.” I cherish no ill-will to any afflicted fellow-creature115but I must believe Jesus in preference to any man. P. next proceeds to present those inferences commonly presented to prove that the law of God, the ten commandments, is abolished; and which have been so often refuted. These I do not intend to review, as my object is chiefly to test the more novel idea of three Sabbaths. And having searched in vain for his Jewish sabbath, I will notice briefly his effort in favor of a Gospel Sabbath. But even here I do not deem it necessary to dwell at length upon those inferences for the first-day Sabbath, which have been often and thoroughly refuted; but would refer the inquiring mind to the works published at the Review Office, and particularly to one entitled, The First Day of the Week Not the Sabbath of the Lord. The subject of the “Gospel Sabbath” is opened as follows: “Having clearly demonstrated that the seventh-day Sabbath ended by statute limitation with Christ’s death and resurrection, we are prepared to look about for a Sabbath for the gospel dispensation.” A proposition that is clearly demonstrated must, of course, be true. But how is it demonstrated that the seventh-day Sabbath is no more? Your Jewish Sabbath, as well as Jehovah’s Rest-day, came upon the seventh day. How do you know but the gospel Sabbath will come on the same day? Again P. says, “The question then arises, Did Christ after his resurrection thus appoint or sanction any day for rest or worship? If so, then we have a Sabbath; if not, then we are without any. I answer, Christ did thus appoint a day. Was it the seventh day? If so, where is the history of the fact? Echo answers, Where? It is a remarkable fact that neither Christ nor his legates—the Apostles, (so far as sacred history gives any light,) ever mentioned the fourth commandment, a fact not to be accounted for on the supposition that Christ designed or ever desired its continuance or observance after his resurrection. . . . Why, when repeating the commandments to the young man, (spoken of in the Evangelists,) did he so sedulously avoid the fourth commandment, while the other nine are all mentioned?” On this I remark, 1. Nothing is clearer from the word of God, than that the fourth commandment requires the observance of Jehovah’s Rest—the Creation Sabbath. This Sabbath, P. says, still continues. Not being a Jewish law then, it did not pass away with Jewish rites. There is no necessity then for Christ to appoint a day. But P. says, he did appoint a day. If so, where is the history of the fact? 2. If we cannot account for the fact that the fourth commandment is not quoted in the New Testament, on the supposition that it is still binding, how can we account for the same fact in regard to the second? Though P. represents that Christ mentioned nine of the commandments to the young man, (only four too many,) yet the second is not repeated in the New Testament. But, say you, idolatry is frequently mentioned. So is the Sabbath; but the term is never applied to the first day. 3. But if the fourth commandment never was mentioned by Christ or the apostles, how did P. find out, from their words, that it was abolished? Could they declare it abolished and not mention it? But you reply, the Jewish law was abolished as a whole. So the commandments of God were affirmed as a whole. Christ said to the young man, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Matt. xix, 17. This expression—the commandments—refers to an entire code; and the five precepts quoted show conclusively what code it referred to. Now if the omission of the fourth precept of that law proves that Christ did not desire it should be kept, it follows that the omission of the first, second, third and tenth precepts equally proves that they are abolished. But there was a law existing, when Christ entered upon his ministry, every jot and tittle of which he affirmed. Matt. v, 17–19. It is vain to say that that law ended at the cross; for he says, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall (i. e., that they may break it,) he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. These words apply, with equal force, to every generation from that day to this, for they apply to the indefinite future and have no limitation. Fearful words! which pronounce the doom of the false teacher. He that breaks one commandment, and teaches men so, will be esteemed less than he that breaks them all, making no pretension to doing right. What commandments were these? They are spoken of as though they were well known with the prophets, and it is as evident that the law was already published, as that the prophets were. A published code then, is, by Jesus, handed down to his disciples. Where is it? It is the code presented to the young man as the condition of entering into life. The last blessing pronounced by Jesus, given to the beloved disciple, A. D. 96, agrees with this: Blessed are they that do his (the Father’s) commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. Again P. says, “Did Christ appoint a day? He did, and it was the first day of the week. . . . Its design was to commemorate the great work of redemption or new creation, which was secured by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, an event in comparison with which, all others sink into insignificance.” What strange work he makes with his three sabbaths? The first and second are seventh day sabbaths, the third a first day sabbath. The first and third are creation sabbaths, the second is a Jewish sabbath. The sabbath which commemorated the old creation “none but the Creator could keep;” while that which commemorates the new creation—which celebrates “events with which, ten thousand like that commemorated by the observance of the seventh day, bears no more comparison than a rush light to the fullness of the seven-fold glory of the new creation’s sun,” is kept by mortal men. The old creation sabbath commemorated a finished work, and the labor was followed by rest; the new, commemorates a promised, future work; and the rest precedes the labor. The Jewish, or law sabbath is abolished to make room for the gospel sabbath, and yet the gospel sabbath is successor to the creation sabbath; for he says, “if the old creation was worthy of a sabbath to commemorate it, is not the new?” Three sabbaths thus void of analogy, must be supported by the most explicit and positive scripture proof, to entitle the theory to any credence. But what testimony does P. present to sustain his third sabbath? What has he to support his positive assertion, that Christ did appoint a day? Nothing but those baseless inferences commonly used, the foundations of which are false, and which could not sustain their superstructure, provided they were sound and true. These, as I have before said, I do not intend to examine. But I can hardly refrain from noticing one assertion. It is this: “No instance can be found of their (the apostles) having met for worship and the observance of the ordinances of the gospel on the seventh day, but invariably on the first day.” Invariably! what a word! Every person that has examined this point knows that there is no instance, recorded in sacred history, of a Christian congregation assembling for that purpose, in the day-time of the first day. One solitary night-meeting is recorded, [Acts xx, 7,] but Paul started off on a long journey in the morning of the same day on which he had held the meeting and broken bread. But the three sabbaths “revealed,” where are they? We have failed to find the Jewish, but have known that the fourth commandment enjoins the observance of the creation Sabbath. It was this Sabbath that Jesus declared was made for man; and this is the only weekly Sabbath mentioned in the New Testament. On this day the followers of Christ, after the crucifixion, rested according to the commandment. Luke xxiii, 56. The Acts of the Apostles was written many years after the resurrection. If P.’s third sabbath existed at that time, Luke ought to have known it, and knowing it, he ought to have told the truth. He relates many incidents which he says occurred on the Sabbath-day. And no sane man will dispute, that what he calls the Sabbath-day was the very day on which the Jews were accustomed to meet. Now, if the seventh-day Sabbath ended at the cross, it was not, at that time, the Sabbath, and we must conclude, either that the unbelieving Jews had adopted the “gospel sabbath,” or, that this inspired writer told that which was not true, when he affirmed that Paul met with them on the Sabbath-day. He calls it the Sabbath-day without qualification, which certainly was wrong if it had ceased to be a Sabbath years before. At Corinth, Paul worked at his trade; but “he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Acts xviii, 3, 4. If the first day of the week was the Sabbath at that time, these meetings were held on the first day. But these Jews were not believers in Christ; for some of them began to oppose and blaspheme, and Paul shook his raiment and departed from the synagogue, to teach the Gentiles in an adjoining house. From facts like these it is evident that the first-day sabbath was instituted since the travels of Paul were committed to parchment. And here I leave the subject, praying God that this effort may prove a blessing to some one of his dear children. If I have said anything that seems hard to any one, be assured, dear reader, that I have not designed to injure the feelings of any person living; but only to present the truth in such a manner that the honest inquirer might see it. Would to God that the author of the article reviewed, could open his eyes and see, that his theory is a poor invention to evade one of the most obvious truths of God’s word; and that it is vain for any one to claim a marriage to Christ, till he become dead to sin, (transgression of the law,) and “henceforth not serve sin.” For the law of death hath dominion over him till that old man, Sin, is crucified—till he become dead to the law by availing himself of the offering of the body of Christ, not to abolish his Father’s law, but to atone for its transgression. Then he may claim to be under favor—married to Christ; but he must not serve sin any more. Rom. vi, 7. That the Lord may open the eyes of his honest, erring children, is my prayer, and I believe it will be answered. Mill Grove, Erie Co., N. Y., Apr., 1854.