that wheat and tares are so much alike, that until the ear begins to put forth, it is almost impossible to distingush them. Mr. Flavel then adds, "How difficult soever it is to discern the difference be-, tween wheat and tares; yet doubtless the of eye sense can much easier discriminate them, than the most quick and piercing eye of man, can discern the difference between special and common grace. For all saving graces in the saints, have their counterfeits in hypocrites; there are similar works in these, which a spiritual and a very judicious eye may easily mistake, for the saving and genuine effects of a sanctifying spirit."

I would say something in this place as to a strange notion, which some persons have adopted of late, about certainly knowing the goodness of the state of others, from their love flowing out to them in an extraordinary manner. If their love is very sensible and great, the Spirit of God, they say, must have been the author of it; and as he is an infallible Spirit, and never deceives, he must know that the person whom they love, is a child of God, and must intend that they should love him as such. But such persons might be convinced of the fallacy of their reasoning,if they would but consider, whether or not it is their duty, to love those as the children of God, of whom they have no reason to think otherwise, though he who searches their hearts knows them not to be his children. If it is their duty to love persons of this description, then not to love them is sin; and therefore the Spirit of God may undoubtedly be the author of this af fection. The Spirit of God, without being a spirit of falsehood, may, in such a case, assist us in the performance of our duty--But the uncommon degree, and special manner, in which their love is excited, are also used as an argument in favour

of this notion. They think that the Spirit of God would never be the author of such affection, if he did not know that the subjects of it were children of God.—But I would ask, is it not our duty to love in a very high degree, all those who, we have reason to believe, are the children of God, though they may not be such in reality? As we ought to love Christ to the utmost of our capacity, so it is our duty to love those who, we have reason to believe, are his members, with great affection; and therefore not to love them to such a degree, is sin. We ought to pray to God that he would by his Spirit keep us from sin, and enable us to perform our duty; and cannot he answer our prayers in this particular, without lying? If he cannot, then the Spirit of God, in some cases, is bound not to help his people to perform their duty, because, if he did, he would be a spirit of falsehood; but undoubtedly God may enable us to perform any duty.

When we are led to conclude that particular persons are his children, God may have other ends in view in causing our love to be excited towards them, than that of revealing to us the real state of such professors. If I am at a distance from home, and hear that my house is burnt, but that my family, in some extraordinary manner, have all escaped; and if every thing in the circumstances of the intelligence makes it appear very credible, in such a case it would be highly sinful, were I not to feel a very great degree of gratitude, even though the information I had received should prove without foundation. It is exceedingly manifest that error or mistake may be the occasion of a gracious exercise, and consequently, of the gracious influence of the Spirit of God: "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and

he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks," Rom xiv. 6. The Apostle is here speaking of those, who through erroneous and needless scruples,avoided eating certain meats; and from hence it appears that there may be true exercises of grace, and particularly, true thankfulness, occasioned by an erroneous judgment and practice; and consequently an error may be the occasion of those holy exercises which are from the infallible Spirit of God; and if so, we cannot determine with certainty as to the degree in which the Spirit of God may produce them on such an

occasion.

This notion of ascertaining the state of others by our love being excited towards them, is anti-scriptural. The sacred writings say nothing of any such mode of judging respecting the state of others, but direct us to form our opinion of them chiefly from the fruits they produce. The scriptures clearly teach, that we cannot with certainty ascertain the real state of others. "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written,which no mau knoweth, saving he that receiveth it," Rev. ii. 17. "He is a Jew,' who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God," Rom. ii. 29. That by the expression, "whose praise is not of men, but of God," the Apostle had respect to the insufficiency of men to judge concerning him, whether he was inwardly a Jew or not, is confirmed by his use of similar language in another place : "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every

man have praise of God," 1 Cor. iv. 5. The Apostle in the two verses immediately preceding says, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self; for I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified :-he that judg eth me is the Lord." Again, the Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans, quoted above, addresses himself particularly to those who had a high opinion of their own holiness, and discernment; were confident that they knew the will of God, and approved the things which were excellent, or tried the things that differ. They were confident that they were guides of the blind, and a light to them that were in darkness, instructers of the foolish, teachers of babes. Hence they took upon themselves to judge others. See ver. 1, 17, 18, 19, 20.

How presumptuous are the notions of those persons, who imagine that they can certainly know the state of others, when that great Apostle Peter, does not venture to say more concerning Sylvanus, than that he was a faithful brother, as he supposed! 1 Pet v. 12. Sylvanus however appears to have been a very eminent minister of Christ, an Evangelist, and an intimate companion of the Apostles. See 2 Cor. i. 19. 1 Thess. i. 1. and 2 Thess. i, 1.

:

104

PART THIRD.

ON THE DISTINGUISHING SIGNS OF TRULY GRACIOUS AND HOLY AFFECTIONS.

I COME now to the SECOND thing proposed, respecting the trial of religious affections; that is, to take notice of some circumstances, wherein those affections which are spiritual and gracious, differ from those which are not. But before I proceed to those characteristics which I have in view, I would make some observations which I desire may be remembered.

Observation I. I am far from undertaking to point out such signs as shall be sufficient to enable persons to distinguish in others, with absolute certainty, true religious affections from false ones. Were I to attempt this, I should be guilty of that presumption which I have been condemning.Though Christ has given rules, by which we may judge respecting professors, so far as is necessary in reference to social intercourse, and church communion; and though the scriptures abound with rules which may be serviceable to ministers, in advising and directing persons committed to their care, in things pertaining to their spiritual and everlasting welfare; yet it is evident, that it never was the design of God to give us rules. by which we may ascertain with certainty which of our fellow professors are his, and which are not. This discernment he has reserved to himself, as his own prerogative.