thrown the whole harmony of the scriptures, in our past history, into confusion. As I have said, I will here repeat it, that unless you follow the Bible rule as I have stated here and in the _Way Marks_, you never can harmonize the scriptures with the _past_ nor _present_; and I think I shall make it plainer still, before I lay down my pen. One thing more: Much derision is made about those of our company that have joined the Shakers. I say it is a shame to them first, to have preached in clearly and distinctly the speedy coming of our Lord Jesus Christ _personally_ to gather his saints—and then to go and join the Shakers in their faith, that he (Jesus) came spiritually in their Mother, Ann Lee, more than seventy years ago. This, without doubt in my mind, is owing to their previous teaching and belief in a doctrine called the _trinity_. How can you find fault with their faith while you are teaching the very essence of that never—no never to be understood, doctrine? For their comfort and faith, and of course your own, you say “_Christ is God, and God is love._” As you have given no explanation, we take it to come from you as a literal exposition of the word; and although the editor of the Herald, of Dec 4th, endeavors to justify you in your published view of the Unity in 1842, and thinks he has made it clear that you have not changed your views on this subject, just as he is in the habit of doing without your knowledge, but still you have not confirmed it, and your having changed your views once at least since 1844, leaves us in doubt about the editor’s remarks. We ask, then, where you find this passage, and if ever love was seen; and if that is what we are looking for from heaven, to come the second time? If so, how will it look, and where is the scripture that describes it? It seems to me that the shakers have a better claim to you than we have.