not so learnt Christ. But he said, when he declared to them their errors, "I speak this to your shame." "Awake to righteousness and sin not.”

The fair inference from these facts is, that Christ and his apostles had fellowship in worship, with all who worshipped the one living and true God. And we have the evidence of precept and example, that the only requisite for admission into the church was, repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; or in other words, confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

That a uniformity of faith should be required, or supposed possible to exist, in a church, is repugnant to reason as well as scripture. To understand the various and conflicting opinions of Christians, requires much reading and reflection, as well as powers of discrimination. These all have not. The means of information are not within the reach of all, and of those who have the means, all are not endowed with the same capacities for investigation, nor with the same love of truth, nor with equal diligence in the pursuit of it. In all these respects men differ. And the inevitable consequence is, a difference of opinion. A whole church may declare their faith in certain articles, or propositions, and thus may be said to be of one faith. But the question is, after all, do they all believe the same truths, or hold the same opinions for truths? It is probable that nearly all this church, if asked, do you believe in the doctrine of the trinity? would answer yes. But if asked separately and apart, what do you mean by the trinity? no two would give the same answer, nor would any two understand the same supposed truths by the word trinity. How then could they be said to be of one faith on this subject? What greater burlesque upon seriousness and truth can be imagined, than to ask a black, who knows not his letters, or any other person, equally uninformed, on presenting himself to a church for admission, whether he believes in "a trinity in unity," or a "triune God," as some call it, or original sin, and the other of the five points of Calvinism, as they are usually termed? And yet this burlesque is actually cast on seriousness and truth, by all those who require members, on admission into a church, to subscribe certain articles of faith. Such members may assent to the articles, and profess to believe them, but do they be

lieve the truths which the articles are supposed to express? Certainly no more than though they were expressed in Latin or Greek, unless they understand the meaning of the words contained in these articles. I am happy to learn, however, that many of our churches have become ashamed of their articles, and prudently keep them out of sight. To the honour of the founders of this church, and to the founders of every baptist church in this State, untinctured with the peculiarities of the Genevan apostle, they, as far as I can learn, cast no such contempt on seriousness and common sense. Not one of them had any covenant or articles, other than the scriptures. They knew that men must, and would, and had a right to differ in opinion, and that though, at one time, they might all agree, it was no pledge for future agreement. This difference of opinion has existed, and now exists, in the members of this church, and that without any breach of charity, on points of as much importance, in the opinion of many, as those now in question. To suppose a constant uniformity of sentiment in a church, is to suppose that each member is miraculously and instantaneously brought to the knowledge of the whole truth, and that forever thereafter they are to remain stationary, as to all improvement. I cannot sufficiently express my contempt for him who has the means of information within his reach, and yet neither hopes, nor desires, nor uses the means, to know more to-morrow than he knew yesterday. Such may well be content with articles, and shackles, and hand-cuffs. They are out of all danger of being convinced to-morrow, that they were in an error yesterday. Others however know, that an increase of knowledge renders it possible, at least, to produce a conviction of error in past opinions. They know it from experience, as well as the dictates of reason. They know also, that the commission given by Christ to the apostles to preach the gospel, supposes an increase of knowledge after conversion, and a capacity in the teacher to communicate that knowledge. The order of the commission is, to convert, baptize, and teach. To the reproach of many teachers and churches, this order is completely inverted. With them it says, make converts, learn them the creed, and if they say it right, then baptize and receive them into the church;

otherwise not. But this is not the wisdom of Jesus, but the perversion of his authority.

The reasoning here laid down is fully confirmed by the apostle Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Philippians. In the former, especially, when he says, "Who art thou that judgest another man's (Christ's) servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth." Fairly implying, that he who has confessed Christ, and thereby become his servant, is answerable at no other tribunal, unless he revolt from the

service of his master. Also when he says, "the kingdom (or reign) of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost; for he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men. ." What confidence in their own knowledge and holiness must they have, who will reject him who is acceptable to God and approved of men? Be it remembered, that it is not here said, he that believeth this creed, or that creed, but he that serveth Christ. And until it be shewn that those of my opinion cannot serve Christ, I ask by what authority will you reject that precept of Paul, which says, "receive ye one another as Christ also received us, to the glory of God?" The same writer informs us, that "circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." I have not yet been told that I am less capable of this service than my brethren.

I will now endeavour to shew, that however unscriptural my opinions may be, in the view of this church, they are such as an honest man may entertain, without the charge of ignorance or irreligion: and that so far from demanding immediate condemnation, they merit a candid and serious examination. First, however, as the present difficulty commenced with my objecting to the singing of Watts' doxologies to the trinity, permit me to make a few remarks on that subject. It has been the boast of this church, that it admits of no other creed but the scriptures; that it adopts no practice not warranted by apostolic example or authority. The language of our pastor has been, "unless you can produce a thus saith the Lord, for your practice, reject it." In vain have I inquired for precept or precedent, for singing a doxology to the trinity. None such is pretended. Whether

1

there be a trinity or not, it must be admitted, that we have no more authority for this practice, than for any of those in use in the stupid church of Rome. More than this, it is admitted that there is no authority (unless the council of Constantinople and the formularies of ecclesiastics be an authority) for offering prayer, praise or thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit, either as a distinct person, or in union with the other supposed persons of the trinity. But the evidence in this case is not all of a negative character. We have two positive precepts, giving explicit directions in this case, and in direct opposition to the practice of this church, and of every other church, which is in the practice of singing doxologies to the trinity. In the epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul thus expresses himself: "Be filled with the spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the LORD. Giving thanks always and for all things, unto God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here is a rule for the direction of Christians in giving praise to God. It is to God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. Not as is our practice, to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in the name of nobody. The same precept is given in relation to the same subject, in nearly the same words, in the epistle to the Colossians. Also in the epistle to the Hebrews.

Indeed, a precept in conformity with our practice, must, I think, appear strange to an unprejudiced reader of the bible. Did God select the Jews, as a people, to preserve the knowledge of the one true God, and does this one true God consist of three persons, one of whom is called the Holy Ghost, and did he never explicitly reveal this truth to them? Did he commission Jesus Christ" to bear witness to the truth," to "bring life and immortality to light,” and has he declared that this life, eternal life, consists in the knowledge of the Father, the only true God, and himself; and is there a person in the Godhead called the Holy Ghost, who forms an essential part of the deity, equal with the Father in all respects, and has Christ given us no intimation of this? And if he has not, and this doctrine be true, has he not failed in the execution of his commission? Indeed,

if it be true, has he not denied the truth, by asserting that the Father, called by trinitarians the first person in the trinity, is the only true God?

That neither Christ nor his forerunner taught this doctrine, is inferrable from other considerations. The case of the twelve baptized by Paul at Ephesus, proves that they had heard no such doctrine. Yet they were disciples, believers in Jesus; but when questioned whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed, they declared that they had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost. Is it possible that this could have been the case, had they been taught that there was a person in the Godhead called the Holy Ghost, equal with the Father, and equally with him an object of worship, of praise and thanksgiving? John told his disciples, when he baptized them, that he baptized them in water, but that he that should come after him, would baptize them in the Holy Ghost. That this did not imply a person, called the Holy Ghost, is manifest from the case of these twelve. Further, what Jew would have been baptized into the belief of a triune God? Such, they had not been taught to be the God of their Fathers.

That this doctrine was not taught by the apostles, is further evident from the declaration of Paul before Felix. "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers." And from the charge of the Jews against him before Gallio, that he persuaded men to " worship God, contrary to the law." Not that he worshipped any but him whom they considered the true God. Nowhere is he, or the other apostles, or Christ or the disciples, charged with worshipping the Holy Ghost, or any other than him whom the Jews believed to be the true God. But when have the Jews acknowledged a triune God, or a dual God, or a person, or subsistence, or being, called the Holy Ghost, as an object of worship, or praise?

On the whole, it is to me most evident, that all praises offered to God, as a trinity of persons, is not only not warranted by scripture, but is a direct violation of positive precept, and what no Jew would have submitted to, and what neither Christ nor the apostles could, with safety to themselves, have either taught or practiced.

2*