in giving to it that extensive operation which was contended for by bishop Hoadly and his adherents, and which has been ever since and is now relied upon by the great body of dissenters, and (if I were not afraid of giving offence, I would add too) of infidels.

It may be observed further, that to argue from the alleged sincerity of a teacher to the soundness of his doctrine, is to reverse the order of things. We ought rather to conclude that a man is sincere in proportion as we find that his doctrine is sound. In the former case we evidently found ourselves on presumption only; in the latter case we have at least something solid to build upon. After all, sincerity is a plea which every individual may, and must, make. No man indeed can be heard unless he makes it. Of the truth of it however God only can judge. Therefore, abstractedly taken, it can form no ground of reasoning, or at least can supply no proof.

If then the sincerity of its professors, though it were ever so well established, is no reason why we should cease to combat heresy, or to deprecate the continuance of any schism, we shall not neither be stopped, I apprehend, by that other proposition, which is sometimes urged either expressly or by implication, that there should be no distinction of communions among us, but that all persons who are called after the

name of Christ, whatever be their peculia opinions, should all be considered as belonging to the church; and all should be joined toge ther in the most general and comprehensive union. Now, if it were only meant by this that no over nice or captious inquiry, nay, that no inquiry at all should be made into the faith of those who come to attend at our established places of worship; if it be only claimed that all who are desirous so to do, should be allowed to join in prayer, and be admitted to the benefit of the sacraments as they are administered among us, this is, in fact, the prac tice of our church, whose terms of what is called lay communion are as easy and open to all descriptions of men as it is possible. There is no individual whatever who is rejected, if he will come and conform to the order which is established; and at a time when the old and stricter notions prevailed among the dissenters, we know that some of their teachers (Baxter among the rest) who declined themselves to minister according to the form prescribed in our liturgy, not unfrequently attended our service in the number of the congregation, and were known as occasional conformists.

But what is asked is something more, it is indeed much more; it is what, when we come to examine it more closely, we shall find it impossible for us to grant without, in fact, giving

up what we conceive to be the foundations of our faith; without prevaricating, or appearing to prevaricate upon points of the greatest importance. It is required of us that we should adopt such a service and mode of worship as should have nothing distinctive or peculiar : which, indeed, except that the reading of the holy scriptures might form a part of it, might as well suit a Deist as a Christian.

Now, we might first inquire how far such a project is in any degree whatever feasible; whether, when a number of persons assemble together, amongst whom there is a great variety of opinions upon that very subject which is the occasion of their meeting, it is reasonable to expect that such a wonderful degree of discretion shall be found among them, as shall keep every single individual from touching upon the disputed points; or if touched upon shall keep him within those precise bounds, which shall effectually prevent any breach of harmony and want of good-humour. I think we might rather expect to find, what indeed has always taken place under such circumstances, much dispute; much heat, and much wrangling; in short, what the apostle calls "confusion and ་་ every evil work*

But, in truth, it is not difficult to shew that

James iii. 16.

the ground upon which this is urged, has in reality, no existence; that there is no pretence for saying that such a state of things has ever existed. It is said by those who argue for this mode of proceeding, that in the early periods of Christianity, at its first preaching, nothing was required of men but the most general belief in Christ; that the disciples were not perplexed or harassed with the captious questions which have been since raised respecting the divinity of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, that these are all comparatively modern inventions, and therefore a belief in them or any of them is to be imposed on no man. Nay, there are not wanting those who choose to doubt whether even it was usual to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The command in St. Matthew indeed is express enough, but they find instances in the Acts of the Apostles, of persons who are said to have been "baptized in "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." From the peculiar mention of one name among the three, they would infer that the other names were not used, and this too against the uniform testimony and usage of all antiquity, and against the direct command of our Lord. What on the contrary would any fair man conclude; what would best reconcile all the texts but the natural

Acts viii. 16. x. 49. xix. 5.

inference, that as the name of Christ was that by which the converts were to be distinguished, it was deemed sufficient in those passages to specify that name only, without loading the narrative with the whole form at length; more especially as the only end of making any specification might be to distinguish this baptism from that of John, which is also referred to in the same book. I might ask too, if it be nut a singular mode of disproving the divinity of bur Saviour, to argue that in some instances his name only was used at the time when new members were added to the church by baptism?

But, not to go further into such disquisitions, and keeping to the main question, I say where can we, in any one point, find any such facility on the part of the apostles as is contended for in respect of the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? Where shall shall we trace any such indiffe rence upon matters which came into controversy before them, as can lead us to suppose that they would have tolerated any sort of heretical opinion upon the subjects which are in these days the great causes of dissention among Christians? We have already seen how St. Paul treated the false teachers among the Galatians, and how little he appeared inclined to suffer them to go on with practices that were indifferent in themselves except as they bore upon the very