REESE LIBRA,

truth. Many imagine, because men may err in forming their religious sentiments, that they never can know whether they have formed them right in any case whatever. But they have no right to draw this consequence from human fallibility; for though men may judge wrong in some cases, yet they may judge right in some cases. When they judge wrong, they cannot know that they judge right; but when they do judge right, they may know that they judge right. Though they may sometimes think that they judge right when they judge wrong; yet when they do judge right, they may not only think that they judge right, but know that they judge right. It is easy to see why they so often think that they judge right when they judge wrong, in forming their religious sentiments. They may judge under the undue influence of tradition, or education, or the opinion of others, which directly tends to lead them insensibly into error. But if they would exercise their own private judgment in forming their religious sentiments, they would generally judge right; and of course might know that they had judged right. Men are naturally unwilling to take the trouble of examining religious subjects, and of using the proper means of discovering the truth, by properly exercising their right of private judgment. Not one in ten among the learned, and not one in fifty among the unlearned, properly exercise their private judgment in forming their religious sentiments. People are taught at this day that it is in vain for them to exercise their right of private judgment in matters of religion. One celebrated divine* asserts in a sermon he has published, that no christian can certainly know that the gospel itself is of divine inspiration; and another ingenious divine † has stated that he himself does not certainly know that any one of his religious sentiments is certainly true. But is not this a false, groundless and dangerous opinion? and did it not spring from the neglect of exercising private judgment? The Bereans acted a wiser part. They exercised their private judgment, and examined and determined for themselves whether the doctrines they heard Paul preach were really true. They judged right, and no doubt they knew that they judged right. Paul first formed a wrong opinion of Christ, and verily thought it was a true opinion; but after he had formed another and true opinion of Christ, he knew that his present opinion was right, and his former opinion was wrong. The right of private judgment in matters of religion would be of no service, if, by the proper exercise of it, we could not discover the real truth respecting religious subjects, and know that, we discover it.

3. If the right of private judgment in matters of religion be such as has been described, then it may be greatly abused. Under the pretext of this right, men may take the liberty of judging very erroneously, unreasonably and wickedly. This liberty of judging of Paul's preaching at Thessalonica, the Jews grossly abused. After he had reasoned with them three Sabbath days out of the scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead, and that he was the real Christ, they maliciously rose in a body, and by violence drove him out of the city, charging him with the guilt of breaking the peace and rebelling against Cæsar, by preaching the spiritual kingdom and authority of Christ. Thus the Jews, under the influence of tradition, education and prejudice, disbelieved and rejected the pure doctrines of the gospel which Paul preached, while at the very same time a multitude of the Greeks candidly believed and cordially embraced them. This is far from being a solitary instance of men's abusing their right of private judgment in forming their religious sentiments. Wherever the gospel has been preached since the apostles, it has been opposed, rejected, or perverted by the great majority of the hearers, under the pretext of the right of private judgment, unless this right has been restrained by civil or ecclesiastical tyranny. This right we know is generally enjoyed in Europe, and universally enjoyed in this land of freedom. But what have been, and what are now the fruits and effects of men's enjoying the liberty of forming their own religious sentiments? Have not the great majority abused this liberty, by becoming skeptics, or deists, or universalists, or embracing error under some name or other? But though the right of private judgment has been, and still is so extensively and grossly abused, it is far better to tolerate it, than to restrain it by any other means than those which are rational and spiritual. Christ's kingdom is not of this world; and all his cordial subjects ought always to act on the pure principles of truth and benevolence.

4. If the right of private judgment be such as has been described, then we may easily see how those who judge for themselves on religious subjects, and with the same degree of light before them, may judge very differently. Different causes may operate differently on different men, to restrain them from weighing the arguments for or against any religious truth in an even balance. One may pay more attention to the arguments on one side of the question, and another may pay more attention to the arguments on the opposite side of the question; or one may seek for arguments on one side of the question, and another may seek for arguments on the opposite side of the

question; or one may wish to find the truth in the case, and another, for some sinister motive, may wish not to find it. These men, therefore, will form different opinions on the subject examined. Such cases as this very frequently occur in religious disputes. Men of equal abilities and apparent candor very seldom convince one another in a religious dispute; though they may convince others of what is truth and what is error. It is not strange, therefore, that so few religious disputes are finally settled by those who are engaged in them. But still these religious disputes tend to exhibit truth and to expose error, and give an opportunity to all the impartial to form their religious opinions according to truth.

5. If the right of private judgment be such as has been described, then it is consistent with all those things which have been thought and said to militate against it.

This right is consistent with the duty of parents to give religious instruction to their children. It is said by many that children ought not to be instructed in religious duties and doctrines till they come to maturity in their rational powers, and are able to judge for themselves whether the Bible is the word of God, and its doctrines and duties are true. This doctrine was taught in France by Voltaire and Helvetius, and had a pernicious influence on the rising generations for a time. The same doctrine has been maintained and propagated in this country, and actually led parents and schoolmasters to lay aside the Assembly's Catechism and every religious book, the Bible not excepted; and even the very form of religion. But God, who knows the capacity of children, commands their parents to teach them the duties and doctrines of Christianity, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Children are not required to exercise their private judgment until they are capable of it; but as soon as they are capable, whether at four years old, or at seven, or at ten, they are required to exercise it, and judge whether their parents or other instructers teach them the truth. The duties of parents and of children are perfectly consistent with the right of private judgment in things of religion.

The right of private judgment is consistent with the duty of preachers. They are to declare the whole counsel of God, and exhibit every doctrine and duty revealed in the Bible as plainly and intelligibly as possible. But their hearers, like the noble Bereans, are to exercise their private judgment, and form their own opinion whether their religious teachers exhibit truth or error. Preachers have no dominion over the faith of their hearers. Paul disclaimed all such authority, and commended his hearers for judging for themselves.

The right of private judgment is consistent with the divine command to believe and embrace the gospel immediately, or without the least delay. Christ did command his apostles and their successors to go and preach the gospel every where, and call upon sinners to repent and believe it immediately. The author of "Christianity not founded on Argument," presumes to argue from this injunction that Christianity is not founded in reason; for if it were founded in reason, men might and ought to reason upon it and judge for themselves, whether it be true. or false religion. Dr. Doddridge calls this author one of the most subtile enemies of Christianity. His argument is both false and sophistical. The apostles and all their faithful successors have preached the gospel argumentatively. They did not call upon men to embrace the gospel without any reason. They reasoned out of the scriptures that Christ was the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world. And after his resurrection, they stated public, notorious facts, to prove that he had suffered and died the just for the unjust. And then they called upon men to believe and trust in him for salvation upon plain and infallible evidence, which was sufficient to convince every hearer whose mind was not barred by the depravity of his heart. The apostles required men to believe upon the evidence they exhibited, and not to believe without evidence, and without judging for themselves, whether the gospel were true or false.

The right of private judgment is consistent with the duty of christians to be entirely united in their religious sentiments. Paul enjoins this duty upon them. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." The proper exercise of private judgment is so far from being a bar to the entire union of christians in their religious sentiments, that it is the only thing that can bring them to think, to speak, to judge alike, and to be perfectly joined together in the belief of the same essential doctrines of the gospel. The proper exercise of private judgment is like a magnet to draw them together in their religious sentiments, without the least condescension to each other.

The proper exercise of private judgment is consistent with the duty of those who are sound in the faith to censure and reject such heretics as run into gross and fundamental errors, that are subversive of the gospel. Those who properly exercise their private judgment know how to distinguish fundamental errors from fundamental truth, in the professors of religion, and therefore can consistently perform the trying duty of censuring and excluding from their communion such as make shipwreck

of their faith. Those who abuse their right of private judgment, have no reason to complain of others for censuring them for the abuse of it.

I may still farther observe, under this head, that it is consistent for God to condemn those who abuse their right of private judgment. He does condemn those who are under strong delusions to believe a lie. They never would have run into such fatal errors, if they had properly exercised their right of private judgment. Though God allowed them to judge for themselves, yet he never gave them a right to judge wrong. All the doctrines and duties which God has revealed, and all the precepts and prohibitions he has given in his word, are entirely consistent with the right and duty of private judgment. And no man who really understands the nature of this right and duty, can raise a solid, or even a plausible objection against it.

6. It appears from the whole tenor of this discourse, that none who believe the right of private judgment in matters of religion can believe the too common and prevailing notion of universal catholicism. This notion is altogether unscriptural and unreasonable. It is built upon three false principles. One is, that the doctrines and duties of Christianity are not consistent with each other. A second principle is, that if they are consistent, no man is able to see their consistency. And a third principle is, that it is not necessary that any man should see their truth and consistency, in order to embrace the gospel and be saved. Every one of these principles is false. It is false that the doctrines and duties of Christianity are not consistent; for they are perfectly consistent. It is false that no man can see their consistency; for every man can, if he would properly exercise his judgment and conscience, see their consistency. And it is false that it is not necessary that any man should see their truth and consistency in order to embrace the gospel and be saved; for it is only through sanctification and the belief of the truth that men can be saved. As all these principles are false, so the notion of universal catholicism, which is founded upon them, must be equally false. Nor is it merely false, but extremely dangerous. It naturally tends to lead men into deism and downright skepticism. For if men cannot know that the dictates of their own reason and conscience are true, they cannot know that the Bible is true, or that any of its doctrines and duties are true. They must be infidels. The notion of universal catholicism is a false and dangerous opinion, greatly prevailing at the present day, and producing the most fatal effects.

Finally, this subject calls upon three classes of men to do their duty immediately.