About this time, some of the brethren in Providence, who were members of the church in Cranston, provided a room in the north part of that town, for the purpose of holding meetings, and it was proposed that brother T. and myself should alternately attend them. I accordingly commenced, but it was through much infirmity. My first visit, I remember, was attended with circumstances not much calculated to gain the applause, or approbation of the great. Having obtained the loan of a miserable looking old horse, I mounted, with apparel myself which tolerably well coincided in appearance with the almost worn out beast, who bore my weak and trembling frame. I proceeded with a slow pace to the place appointed, being saluted by sundry boys, as I passed along the streets, "that my horse had lost his tail!" The days had been, when I could not have endured this; but the scene which I had so lately passed thro' prepared me to suffer this shame and reproach without anger or repining. I knew that God looked at the heart, and that the time was not far distant, when all the splendour of this world would fade and pass away, and nothing but pure and undefiled religion stand before the great white throne!

I was about this time greatly distressed on account of the erroneous sentiments and practices of many professional Christians. The Farnum delusion, which I have before alluded to, prevailed to an alarming degree, not far from me. I was almost in an agony, considerable part of my time, for fear that I should either settle down into a dull formality, on the one hand, or in endeavouring to avoid that, run into an extreme of religious fanaticism and blind delusion.This brought me before God often, beseeching him that I might be "led forth in the right way, that I might go to a city of habitation.' "I well remember the places in the groves and swamps in Cranston, and after I removed from that town into Johnson, where I used often to resort and cry most earnestly to God to lead my mind into truth, and preserve me from dangerous errors, I think those prayers

have since been answered, (as I shall shew in the sequel,) but in a way the most distant from my expectations at that time. I believe these desires were begotten in my breast by the Holy Spirit.Howbeit, (says Christ) when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth."

At this time I had not the most distant idea but what my Arminian sentiments were true, nor did I think of examining them. I however began to doubt the propriety of some of the notions of the Six Principle Baptists, in respect to ordinances. The idea respecting the laying on of hands on private members of the Church, I endeavoured to examine candidly by the word of God, and was satisfied in the issue that ii was unscriptural. I will here transcribe a part of a letter which I wrote in answer to an anonymous one which I received on this subject some time after the Church to which I belonged, as well as myself, resolved no longer to acquiesce with the restrictions of the Six Principle Baptists, (that the laying on of hands should be a bar to the communion) which will give the reader a comprehensive view of the subject.

"You next come to the point in question; or rather, you undertake to prove, that the laying on of hands is required by the commands of Christ or his apostles, as it respects individual membership in the militant church of God, &c.

"This, Sir, was the very point which in the first place occasioned the controversy; and now, is it not surprising, that after all that has been said upon this subject by the Six Principle Baptist brethren; that notwithstanding they contend that no church, without conforming to this point, can be in gospel order, and of course, that there is not a denomination of Christians under heaven that is upon the gospel plan completely but themselves, and that because we have presumed to give fellowship to other denominations of Christians, who have not been in the practice of this ordinance, we must, by you, be considered as disorderly members, and be expos

ed to censure as such; that even upon this very ground the Six Principle Baptist preachers have taken the liberty to assemble in council in Cranston, without our consent, to consider the concerns of the Cranston Church; and after they have so assembled, to advise that about twelve members of said church, who had, as they termed it, continued steadfast in the principles of the doctrine of Christ, should be considered the standing church in Cranston, and thus to throw the great majority, consisting of about five sixths of the church, into their hands, to be disposed of as they should think proper; and that in pursuance with the aforesaid proceedings, the said twelve members (out of which number there were only four males) should presume in due form to excommunicate the whole of us, and to set us aside from the communion, until we should confess and forsake the errors of our ways and return to them, as they term it, in the faith and order of the gospel: I say, is it not surprising, that after all this and much more has been done and said on the part of our opponents, that they should not be able to produce one single passage from the Bible to support them in their proceedings?

As to our being set aside from the close* communion, or from the manner in which you hold, I do certainly, Sir, highly congratulate you and the rest of my brethren upon this auspicious event; and, Sir, it is my earnest desire, and I presume I shall have an hearty amen from the rest of my brethren who have had the good fortune to be sharers with me in this affair, that we may never be set into it again. But, as I said before, so say I again, that it is a matter of surprise, that you should pretend to say and do all these things, and after all that you can do or say, as to the point in question,

*What is here understood by the close communion, is, rejecting those who had not been under hands.

you can prove just nothing at all. I was sensible, Sir, of this before; I have travelled the road myself: I think that I have examined the subject thoroughly; I gladly would have caught at one straw of positive proof to have supported me in your ideas, before I would have been induced to renounce them. But, Sir, after I became thoroughly convinced that they could not be supported by plain scripture testimony, I candidly relinquished them, and from hence, I did not hesitate to say what I did say in my letter, that I invoked the genius of the whole of my Six Principle Baptist brethren to prove the position from the word of God. I have no doubt, Sir, but they have done their best to endeavour to do it. I presume that they consider you to be the most competent person who could be found, that would undertake to contend for the point; and, I presume that you said all that you conceived that you had to say in order to maintain the position. But, Sir, what does it all amount to? You ask if such were not the practices at the opening of the gospel day, &c. You make a great talk about idolatry, superstition, bigotry, common sense, reason, and scripture, and the such like; but, as to proving that which you have undertaken, you have fallen altogether short. You have not adduced, as I before observed, one single passage of scripture to shew me that the laying on of hands on private members, as a prerequisite to their becoming visible members of Christ's militant kingdom, is a command of the gospel.

I have never disputed that the writer to the Hebrews in the 6th chapter and 2d verse, mentions the laying on of hands; neither have I disputed that Peter and John laid hands on the disciples at Samaria, or that Paul laid hands on the twelve men; nor have I disputed the privilege of laying on of hands on private members of the church in this age. But observe, the idea which we have in this performance is the point which we differ upon. Your idea is, that a person is not a legal member of the visible church of Christ, un

H

til they have been under hands. You contend that this is the import of the passage above referred to in Hebrews; of course you make the conclusion, that no church or individual is in gospel order without conforming to it, and from hence you reject them from the Lord's Table, &c. Now, that you have nothing decisive to prove yourself correct, I presume has already appeared, and I do therefore contend, that, as far as you should go upon this subject, should be to say that that is your opinion respecting the point; but, you should remember, that other Christians have as good right to their opinions upon this passage as you have yourself, and not because they may differ from you in the ideas which may be drawn from a passage of scripture of the like nature with the above, to conclude that you have a gospel right to predominate your opinion over that of your brethren. Circumstantial evidence is all that you can produce to maintain your ideas, and I think if we were to gather the whole of this which is to be found in the acts of the apostles, and to weigh it in the balances, that even upon this ground you would be found wanting.

Now the question arises, that whether the apostles, when they laid hands on the disciples at Samaria, or Paul, when he laid hands on the twelve men at Ephesus, performed the thing with the views for which you contend, or whether they performed it as the means to obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost. That they did not perform it with the views and upon the principles for which you contend, appears rather evident from various circumstances. And, in the first place, when Peter preached at the day of Pentecost, and a multitude were pricked at the heart, and cried out, men and brethren, what shall we do, &c. it appears that Peter told them plainly what to do ; "to repent and be baptised, every one of them, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;" Acts 2, 38. He tells them nothing about the laying on of hands, to our knowledge, neither is there any thing mentioned relative to