title for a book to be written, and what a book to be read and received by a Chriftian man! If the contents answer the title, which by your account feems to be understood, permit me freely to fay, that nothing short of eternal danger can attend embracing them: for, if my religion flows from my heart as its fource, then my Bible becomes an ufelefs book, and the Holy Spirit's teaching is a thing of nought.

Look at our state of innocence. Did the nature, the object, the end, of religious worship proceed from man? It would be as modeft, it would be as true, to fuppofe his exiftence to be of himself as his religion; for in that cafe, all the revelation which the Creator might choose to make of himself, or of his will, to his creature, would at once be fu perfeded by the previous sclf-sufficiency of man. It may not be intended by the author of your book, but, if allowed, this would be carrying the principle of Deism to its highest pitch indeed; for, if my heart be the fountain of religion, then all my fupernatural revelation comes too late for my service. Yes, it is even more than this-it is Atheism in embryo; for, if my religious principles be drawn from my heart, and not from his perfections and his will, then the most high God can be neither the efficient nor directing cause of the worship I offer him. And though, by prefent fuppofition, I am not tainted with fin, and therefore my foul and all its powers are at full liberty to offer him the best and the higheft which a creature can produce; yet, can any man foberly fuppofe that the self-originated religion of a creature, even though innocent, can poffibly be fuitable to the majesty, the goodness of God; to the holiness of his nature, the wildom of his government, and the riches of his grace? The idea, if admitted, fupplants his exiftence altogether. I have long believed, nor is it hard to prove, if any argument can be made conclufive, that the true object of worship is effentially and infinitely fuperior to the holiest and happiest of all his worshippers; that all worfhip, which is worthy of and acceptable to him, muft neceffarily proceed from himself; and that, therefore, it is the province of the creature to receive from him, and not devise from his own heart, the principles of his religion. The higheft end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. But this cannot poffibly be experienced, unless the bleffed God be HIMSELF the fole efficient and directing caufe of our religion, both in principle and practice. If, therefore, the heart of man, when innocent, cannot be the fuppofed origin of religious worship, without fuch dangerous abfurdities and confequences, what is to be expected of him now he is a fallen creature? A moment's reflection will inform us.

That he is a fallen creature has been virtually confeffed by heathen moralifts, and is openly declared in the facred page; and ftands confirmed by the conftant evidence of experience and of fact. Can fuch principles of religion as are acceptable to God be educed from an understanding that is totally ignorant of him; from an heart that is an enmity against him? This fuppofition, if poffible, is more dangerous than the former; for this idea fuppofes him to approve that which is not only contrary to his word, but alfo contrary to his na ture! Look at the Pagan, the Mahometan, the Papal religion, and you will fee what principles the heart of man produces fince the fall. Perhaps it will be faid, "This book was written for Protestants." Be it fo. A very fuperficial view of the religion, even of proteftants, will afford us abundant proof that its principles, as drawn from the heart of man, are in friendship with every vice, and with every error? but in opposition to every doctrine of Gospel truth, and all experience of its gracious power. And yet let his creed and his conduct be as they may, what Proteftant does not confider himfelf a good Chriftian? Nor is the deception, however alarming and awful, at all furprising; because the heart of every man, the fuppofed origin of his religion, is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jerem. vi. 9. It calls evil good, and good evil; puts darkness for light, and light for darkness. But there is a woe denounced on the man that is governed by fuch a principle, which fhall not fail of its execution, Ifai. v. 20.

You will fay, "The author does not imagine that good principles of religion can be had from the dregs of mankind, but from reason, which is our guide in religion." Let this be fuppofed. Muft we be determined by your reafon or mine? You add, "I mean that reason, or light, which God gives to every man, and which every one ought to use for himfelf.-'Tis from hence that his religious principles are to be drawn to direct his ways." I would beg leave to ask here, How is it then, that this reason difbelieves, that this light denies, the leading truths of revealed religion, if it be of God? Can God implant in man a principle to oppofe himfelf? But, where is the man, who walks by this faid light or reason, that receives the Scripture account of original fin? By whom is not the cross of Chrift efteemed foolithnefs? 1 Cor. i. 18. Who approves the things of the Spirit of God? 1 Cor. ii. 14. Why fhould an avowal of the diftinguishing doctrines of grace be deemed bigotry, and a practical profeffion of them become offenfive? And yet, do you not know, do you not feel, that these things are facts?

But what, I would wish to know, what has reason fubftituted in the room of these divine truths? what religious princi ple that is capable of healing a guilty confcience,-of fupporting the foul in the struggles of a dying hour,-of giving boldnefs in the tremendous day of judgment? What falvation, what Saviour has it provided? What regard has it thown for the honour of God in faving finners? Or, are there no finners to be fayed? Or, is not God to fave them? Thefe queries deferve an honeft, an earnest attention.

But you inquire, "Is not every man at liberty to form an opinion for himfelf, and to act upon it when he has fo done?" I anfwer-(1.) No man is lord of his neighbour's confci ence; and therefore every man is at liberty to judge for him. felf; for every one of us shall give account of himself to God, Rom. xiv. 12, But-(2.) Opinion is not a religious principle: If it be, then there mult not be only diverfe, but contradictory principles of religion; which is abfurd and dif honourable to God, and therefore cannot be admitted. If the heart of man, his reason or his light, be defigned of God to be the fountain whence his religious principles are to be drawn, how is it that the capital doctrines of the Gospel are either denied, or candidly concealed, or explained away, for fear of confequences? As to God, what difhonour can arise to him from a cordial reception of all his word? As to ourselves, how can a fuitable practice be fupported, or even exift, without experience? And what fort of religious experience muft that be, which is not founded on a gracious knowledge of divine truth? The deity and fatisfaction of Chrift, the perfon and work of the Holy Spirit,-electing, fanctifying, and perfevering grace: no more enter into the religion of fome profeffors, than feven fenfes into the human frame. You may as eafily perfuade them to receive the one for truth as the other. Again, (3.) If men act on their own opinions, especially as they are fo various and inconfiftent, they muft, in fact, reject the Scriptures as a standard of truth, and the bleffed Spirit as a teacher of truth; because he is not yea and nay. This, you fee, brings us to the thought with which we began. And it is a truth which none can overturn, that, if the Bible be not the man of our counfel decifively, and the Holy Spirit our interpreter without appeal, our religion will not profit us in the day of wrath. As a guide to vital religion, our light or reason is blind, impotent, foolish. It ever fhows us our real ftate as finners, the importance and neceffity of the falvation of Chrift; For the certain, eternal happinefs of thofe who are partakers of it. No, my friend, it never leads the man out of him

felf for an object of trust and dependance; and therefore his hope is lo f, and his thoughts perith for ever, Pf. cxlvi. 4. Prov. xxiii. 26. Jerem. xvii. 5. Here, you obferve, the God of truth, without apology, declares fuch a man to be a fool and accursed. How awfully dangerous is it then to fend a man to his own heart for his religious principles; where nothing but darkness and destruction are found! "What! (fay you,) must my light and reason be subject to faith?" Yes, and faith itself must be fubject to the word and fpirit of God, or you will be forever a tranger to the enjoyment of his prefence. At all events, therefore, my foul has a more folid ground of hope than yours; for my reafon is the scholar, not the tutor. And, if my tutor be an infallible guide, and you cannot prove it is not, then I am safe; but where are you? You exift, but were? Whither has your light led you? If the light that is in thee be darkness, HOW great is that darkness! And you know who faid, Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. See Matt. vi. 23, Luke, xi. 35. The fact is, that religion, whofe principles are drawn from the human heart, is altogether repugnant to the word of God, wholly derogatory to the character of Christ, and perfectly oppofite to the experience and hopes of a gracious man. This, by the way, is no mean proof, in its place, that the Bible is not of man, but of God. Happy the man who is enabled to deny himself, and to reft his whole falvation on a juft and gracious God in Chrift Jefus. May this be your religion and mine!

I am,

MINOR QUAM NIL,

ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT,

DEAR SIR,

HAVING

66

Kett. May 29, 1795. AVING a little leifure, I now attend to the request of Scriptural and reasonable defence of the eternity of hell torments, in oppofition to the notion of the final redemption of both men and devils, from eternal fire to the enjoyment of God in glory."

If this correfpondent withes to fee the fubject thoroughly difcuffed, he should read Dr. Edwards' Anfwer to Dr. Chauncey upon it. I know nothing that I can offer more fuitable to the present occafion than the copy of a letter which was addreffed to a minister now living, who had embraced the univerfal fcheme.

K, Feb. 14, 1793,

"MY DEAR FRIEND, "It has afforded me fome painful concern to hear of your having embraced the fcheme of univerfal falvation. When you was at K, you appeared to me to be of a speculating difpofition. I have long thought fuch a turn of mind to be very advantageous, or very dangerous: Perfons of this defcription either make great advances in truth, or fall into great errors. I cannot, in this letter, enter deeply into the controverfy; nor is there any neceffity for it, as I am told that Dr. Edwards's Anfwer to Dr. Chauncey is in your hands. I earnestly with you may read that piece with care, impartiality, and opennefs to conviction. I think you ought to have read it before you advanced your change of fentiment; and I greatly with you had: For though I do not queftion your openness to conviction, any more than I fhould that of any other perfon in your fituation, yet I know fomething of what is in man; I know it is a very rare thing when we have once openly disavowed a sentiment, to return to it, and openly avow it again. There are many inftances of people changing their principles, and there may have been inftances of the other, but I do not recollect any. Falfe fhame, fupported by mistaken pride, forms here a very powerful temptation. The dread of being accused of verfatility and indecifion, infenfibly obtains fuch a dominion over the mind, as to blind it to one fide of the argument, and to give efficacy to every thing that looks like an argument, or the fhadow of an argument on the other.

"It is certainly a very serious matter that we do not err in our ministrations. Error in a minifter may affect the eternal welfare of many. I hope I may prefume upon the friendliness of your temper, while I expoftulate with you upon the fubject. I will not be tedious to you, but let me intreat you to confider the following things:

First, whether your change of fentiment has not arisen from an idea of endless punithment being in itself unjust. If it has, confider whether this does not arife from diminutive notions of the evil of fin; whether you be not too much infected by fin yourself to be a proper judge of its demerit; (a company of criminals would be very improper judges of the equity and goodness of a law which condemns them ;) whether you do not hold a principle, from which it will follow, that millions will be finally happy who will not be indebted to either the grace of God, or the death of Chrift, for their happinefs, and confequently must have a Heaven to themselves, not being able to join with thofe who afcribe