Turn, brethren, to the seventh chapter of the prophecy of Daniel, and twenty-fifth verse. You there find one spoken of who "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, _and think to change_ TIMES _and_ LAWS." You have had no difficulty in finding in this prophecy a reference to the law of baptism, as one of the _laws_ which this great power has changed; but you have not shown satisfactorily what are the _times_. You have usually referred them to the numerous festivals and holy-days, which have been multiplied by the church of Rome. But these were _times_ ESTABLISHED; not _times_ CHANGED. Will you please to expound this passage a little more clearly? Will you tell us whether, under the gospel, there is any sacred time except the Sabbath? We will not be unreasonably confident, but we are much mistaken, if you can give any clear and satisfactory construction to this prophecy, without finding that something of Rome still cleaves to you. Suffer us here to declare our conviction, that you could take no more effectual step toward converting the Christian world to right views about baptism, than to embrace the Sabbath of the Bible. In your discussions with Pedobaptists, you are constantly referred to the change of the Sabbath, as proof that some things may be binding which the Scriptures do not expressly enjoin. You have never met this argument fairly and fully. To be sure, you always make an attempt to meet it. But how do you do it? By proving that Christ expressly enjoined his followers to _sabbatize_ on the first day of the week? By showing from express Scripture testimony, that the apostles _did actually rest from their labors_ on that day? No. Neither of these things have you ever shown; nor can you show them. The whole head and front of your proof--if proof it may be called--amount only to this; that the apostles and primitive Christians _met together for worship_ on that day. It is true, by such a course you have generally talked your opponents into silence, because by exposing fully the defect of your reply, it would only render their own transgression the more glaring. But while you _silenced_ them, you did not _convince_ them. While they saw that for one of _your own_ customs you could not plead a "thus saith the Lord," they felt comparatively easy under all your rebukes, and naturally enough thought it not _very_ important, that _they_ should have a "thus saith the Lord" for the sprinkling of babes.