yet he is morally obliged to consult his reason and conscience to learn his duty and to act agreeably to the dictates of these intellectual powers, which he knows he ought to obey. There is no man in this world, who is in his right mind, that cannot know what he ought to believe and what he ought to do, in any given instance. It is absurd for Christians, who have the Bible in their hands, to plead in excuse for believing and doing wrong, that they could not know what to believe, or what to do; for they always may have evidence, which makes it their duty to believe, or not to believe; and to act or not to act.

2. If men ought to exercise their right of private judgment, in the manner which has been mentioned, then they may not only know that they have acted right in forming their religious sentiments, but know that they have formed them according to 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 do 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 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 alledging, 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

*President DWIGHT.

†NOAH WORCESTER.

ments.

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 sentiWherever 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 sceptics, 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 be 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 instructors 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 a 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 believe and embrace the gospel without any reason. They reasoned out of the scriptures, that Christ was the promised Messiah and Savior 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.