We must not then confound the vifibility of an object with the fense of the beholder, or with the apprehenfion or judgment he forms of it. If this be confidered, I think it is not, true to fay that to be a vifible faint is the fame as to appear to be a real faint in the eye that beholds. That none ought to be admitted but those who appear, and are judged to be true faints. That it is needful that a church have charity for one, or fuch a favorable notion of him, in order to their receiving him, or having a right or warrant to receive him. It is indeed the duty of the church to judge charitably of all who exhibit external holinefs. These have a right to the charity of the church, as well as to be receiv ed to communion. But furely, a church having charity for one is not what makes it their duty to receive him. They ought to receive all for whom they ought to have charity (except fome accidental bar lie in the way.) And they ought to have charity for all who hold forth fufficient fcriptural grounds for it. And external holiness, according to the gospel rule, is fuch evidence of inward fanctification as gives fufficient grounds for a judgment of charity,

SECTION II.

The Vifibility of invard Sanctification, and the Judgment of Charity further opened and ftated.

AS it is by means of light that outward objects are visible to the eye, fo it is by means of evidence that the mind can difcern what is truth, with respect to those objects about which it is occupied. "Whatsoever doth make manifeft is light."

Though nothing is properly visible but what can be certainly feen, and fo really exifts; yet fuch are the relations and connexions which things have among themselves, that we may, from the things which are immediately feen, be certain that other things exift; and also that it is probable, credible, or poffible, that other things are, or will be, of whofe exiftence yet we cannot be fure, And though we cannot be certain of the reality of thefe, yet the probability, credibility or poffibility of them may be known and plainly perceived.

As we have no certain evidence of inward fanctification in another, no more can be difcerned than fallible figns, which give us reason to hope, and judge it probable or credible, that fuch a one is a faint in heart. This is all the vifibility which grace has in the eye of charity. And the judgment muft keep pace with the evidence on which it is grounded. The one is as doubtful as the other.

Whoever

1

Whoever exhibits external holiness, exhibits all the evidence of inward fanctification which one man can discern in another. And though this does not make it certain that the subject is a true faint, yet he is certainly a vifible faint. And the rule of the gofpel, according to which the judgment of charity is formed, requires that every vifible faint be reputed, received and loved, as a true difciple of Christ. When a man is admitted into the church as a visible faint, he is admitted as one who gives credible evidence that he is a faint in heart, and is by the rule of charitable judgment to be reputed.

The judgment of charity in favour of any one is not an absolute judgment that he is certainly fincere; but only that he exhibits marks or evidences of it. And therefore, according to the gospel rule, is to be fo accounted, reputed and received. But it is ftill understood that the rule and evidence upon which the judgment of charity is formed, leave room for doubt, whether a great part of those who are to be thus reputed, may not be unfound. To repute one a good man, according to the common acceptation of the word, is not the fame as abfolutely to believe that he is fo; but it is to prefume that he is, and carry ourselves towards him as if he were fuch. Every one is to be reputed honest, so long as he behaves vifibly in confiftency with such a character. And yet when we confider how many who have fuftained such a character for a time have forfeited it and become infamous; it would be an irrational credulity abfolutely to believe every man to be honest who is of a blameless converfation. So every visible faint is to be reputed a true faint in charitable acAnd the judgment of charity is rational, while it proceeds according to the rule and evidence upon which it is to be formed, though we know that this rule and evidence give no certain difcovery of the inward character, and spiritual state of men. Nor are we required abfolutely to believe further than there is fubftantial evidence to fupport us. And there are many

count.

of whom we have no reason to doubt but that they are visible faints, and to be reputed and received as true faints, while yet we may have reason to doubt whether they are fincere, and to be jealous over them with a godly jealoufy.

It belongs not to the judgment of charity to determine, what degree of evidence external holiness affords of the reality of inward fanctification. We know that it leaves us in uncertainty : It does not exceed probability. But whether it amounts to a preponderant probability, I think cannot be known, unless we could know whether the greater part of visible faints were fincere, If this were fuppofed, the probability would preponderate in favour of each particular perfon. There would be more reason to

hope

hope he is fincere, than to fear the contrary. But if it were fuppofed that the greater part of vifible faints are not fincere, the probability would preponderate against the feveral individuals. But though it may be known who are visible saints, yet we know not what proportion of these are fincere. For ought that we know, the greater part of thofe who give the lowest evidences of fanctification may be faints in heart; and we know not but that the greater part of thofe who give the beft evidences of their fincerity may be hypocrites.

If we cannot know whether one is a visible faint, till we know whether there be a preponderant probability that he is fincere, I think we shall never be able to determine this till the day of judgment.

This, I imagine, will found like a paradox to fome: But let it be examined. I afk then, what external evidences can be depended on as a proof that it is most probable a person is a faint in heart. Let a fcriptural rule, with marks, be laid down, by which this may be determined, and it fhall be attended to. For my part I know of none. And if the fcriptures will not furnish us with rules and marks by which it can be known which way the probability preponderates in this case, much less can experience and obfervation help us to them. There are fome profeffors indeed who commend themselves much to our charity. But who can fay how many of these may be unfound? There are others who appear to us not to adorn their profeffion as they ought: They have fcandalous blemishes in their character. But how many of thefe may, notwithstanding, be the fubjects of fanctifying grace, we fhall never know till the day of revelation. If we have no rule by which we can poffibly determine whether the evidence in favour of any one amounts to a preponderant probability, how vain muft it be to pretend to make this the measure and standard of vifible faintship? Or must this be determined by the mere conjectures of chriftians, undirected by any rule, or by fuch arbitrary ones as they may form to themfelves? This no one will pretend. I conceive then, it is as impoffible for us to fay, upon any certain grounds, what vifible figns of grace make it more probable that any one is a true faint, as it would be to fay what outward marks would make this certain. What per-' plexing doubt must we be in, if we make it a rule to admit none into the church till he exhibits fuch evidences of fincerity as for the most part fail not? When we know not whether any visible qualifications make it probable, in this fenfe, that any one is fincere; and can only guess at random, or according to our own fancy; and are never like to know, as long as we live, whether we have gueffed right in any one inftance.

But

But though we know not whether the greater part of the vifible faints are fincere, whether external holiness be a preponderant probable evidence of grace in general, or in any particular inftances, yet if we attend to the rule of the gofpel we may know who are visible faints, and that they are all to be reputed, received, and loved as the true difciples of Chrift. This is the judg ment of charity; which without intruding into fecret things which belong to God, or indulging precarious conjectures with a rash curiofity, proceeds all along upon fafe and fure grounds. We judge according to the rule and evidence though we know that this rule was not given, to enable us exactly to diftinguith be tween true faints and hypocrites, or to determine whether the vifible church is chiefly made up of the former or the latter of these characters; or whether the evidence of inward fanctification which arifes from external holiness amounts to a preponderating probability.

Some indeed give much greater evidence of fincerity than others; and we may fay in a comparative view, that it is more probable that an exemplary profeffor is fincere than one who does not adorn his profeffion. But to fay abfolutely that it is, or is not most probable on the whole that either the one or the other is, or is not fincere, is, I think what we have no rule, or fufficient evidence to warrant us to do.

I might add, that if it were known in general (which it is not)` that the greatest part of vifible faints are infincere, or if that were fuppofed, which some have too rafhly asserted, that not more than one in ten were faints in heart, and confequently that outward holiness was not fo much as a probable evidence, (in the common acceptation of the phrase) yet charity and equity too would oblige us to repute and treat each vifible faint as a good man. For furely it would be contrary to all equity as well as charity to judge and treat any individual, as a wicked man, while nothing appears in him which would prove him to be of fuch a character, though it were ever fo certain that the greater part were wicked. We may have reason to think that the greater part of mankind is vicious; yet each individual is to be presumed and reputed to be honest, till the contrary appears. If this be thought an unreasonable rule of judging, I would ask whether it would be a better rule not to have charity for a vifible faint or admit him to the communion of the church because there are fo many hypocrites that the preponderant probability is against each one in particular? Would this favour of charity, or of equity?

In judging of any one by the law of charity we are to judge merely from what appears in him, and not from what has appeared

in others, how many foever, who have deftroyed the credit of all evidences in their favour which once appeared in them. Probabilities or prefumptions, of an unfavourable afpect towards profeffions in general are not admitted as evidence against an individual. The vifible defection of fo many who once were vifible faints has induced fome to think that much the greater part are not fincere, as has been faid; and it may well awaken our fears for ourselves and others, left after having had a place in the visible church we should have our final portion with hypocrites and unbelievers. But the rule of charity allows us not to think evil of any, or judge unfavourably of them, for the faults of others.

Notwithstanding what has been faid, I grant that the evidences of fincerity which fome exhibit greatly overbalance whatever in them may have an unfavourable afpect. When in judging of the character of a profeffor, we have, as the rule of charity requires, laid afide all prefumptions or probabilities arifing from the falling away of fo many in the day of temptation, (which might render the integrity of each individual fufpected) and eftimate his character merely from what is vifible in him, it may be very plain, that he gives more evidence of fincerity than hypocrify. And we might fay from what is visible in him, it appears most probable. that he is fincere. And I think none ought to be accounted vifible faints in whom there are not visibly preponderant grounds of hope. And yet if it could be proved from the fcriptures, or from obfervation, that the greater part of credible profeffors endure not to the end, but are only temporary believers, this would turn the balance of probability the other way, when the whole evidence was collected and summed up from every quarter.

Indeed, as was faid before, I know not but that the greatest part of vifible faints may be fincere. What proportion of them is converted we are unable to determine. And I think we had better not pretend to form and give out our conjectures and opinions upon matters of which we are fo ignorant, or vainly pry into God's fecrets. However, there is no inconfiftency in fuppofing that there may be greater evidences of fincerity than of hypocrify in each vifible faint, though it were at the fame time fuppofed that the greater part are hypocrites. For the evidence we may have of the hypocrify of others, how many foever, appears not in those of whom we judge charitably. It is collected from different quarters; and is not the evidence upon which the judgment of charity proceeds.

It may be asked, can there be a vifibility without and against probability? Or can that be probable which there is reason to think is more likely not to be true? I anfwer-There must be

more