ginning of the following Inquiry.

Taken from the author's Effays on important fubjects, vol. 1. p. 106. 107.

IT

T is eafy to forefee, that a grand objection against what is faid on this head will be, That it is going upon a very narrow fcheme, and a fcheme very uncharitable to many parties of Chriftians. It is the fashionable language of the age, to give large encomiums upon charity, when the defign is to level truth and falfehood; and to alledge, either that there is little difference between them, as to their effects, or that they cannot be diftinguifhed from one another by their proper marks. This is a fubject that needs as much to be fet in a proper light, as any I know. If the fenfe in which charity in fentiment is commonly understood, viz. a favourable judgement of the opinions of others, be the fcripture-meaning of it, then certainly fome bounds must be fet to it and it must be praise or blame worthy, according to the cafes in which it is exercised. I must needs take it for granted, that there are fome fundamental errors, and that it is poffible to make fhipwreck of the faith. Now, however common or fashionable it may be, to think, the farther charity is extended the better, it may be demonstrated, that a favourable judgement of errors fundamental, or destructive of religion, doth neceffarily imply, either a light elteem or weak perfuafion of the truth, or both. This furely is no part of a truly Chriftian character; and if it be rightly denominated charity, it is become vicious by excefs. I confefs it appears to me, that juftification by free grace is a fundamenA 2

tal

[ ]

tal doctrine of the gospel. If this be true, I am not wrong in having the deepest sense of the danger of contrary opinions: nay, if I am mifstaken, the confequences I draw from it, are no breaches of charity, but the necessary effects of an error in judgement; and fo I claim charity in my turn from my adverfaries, upon their own principles.

But I am perfuaded the above is not the meaning of the word charity in fcripture, but that it means an ardent and unfeigned love to others, and a defire of their welfare, temporal and eternal; and may very well confift with the strongest abhorrence of their wicked principles. We do find indeed in fcripture many charges, not to judge one another, mutually to forbear one another in things indifferent, and not to fuppofe that mens outward actions proceed from a bad principle which they do not profefs. But this is never called charity; and it is, by the reasoning on it, exprefsly limited to things really indifferent in their nature. (See the xivth and xvth chapters of the epiftle to the Romans.) Perhaps it will be faid, Some may judge things to be neceffary, which in truth are but indifferent. This cannot be denied, but there is no help for it. It is a confequence of the imperfection of human nature. Yet ftill every man muft judge for himself, and muft diftinguish between things indifferent and neceffary, in the best manner he can. It is markable, that the apostle John, who fpeaks moft of the importance of charity and mutual love, hath alfo perhaps the ftrongeft expreffions of any of the apostles, on the hatefulness and danger of error. Thus he fays in his fecond epistle, ver. 10. "If there come any unto you, and bring not "this doctrine, receive him not into your house, "neither bid him God fpeed. For he that bid"deth him God fpeed, is partaker of his evil deeds."

II.

very re

AN

A N

INQUIRY

Into the SCRIPTURE-MEANING of

CHARITY.

'N a note in the fermon on Acts iv. 12. Nei

IN

ther is there falvation in any other, the reader will find, that I have intimated two things: 1. That if a favourable judgement of the opinions of others be the fcripture-meaning of charity, then certainly fome bounds must be fet to it; and it must be praife or blame worthy according to the cafes in which it is exercised: 2. That I am inclined to think, that this is not the meaning of the word in fcripture; but that it means an ardent and unfeigned love to others, and a defire of their welfare, temporal and eternal; and may very well confift with the strong. eft abhorrence of their wicked principles, and

the deepest concern for their dangerous ftate, At the fame time it was hinted, that this fubjeft deferved a more diftinct and full illuftration. I was fufficiently aware, even at the time of wrifing, that this declaration would bring down upon me the high difplcafure of certain perfons. And fo indeed it happened, to fuch a degree, that fome, according to their wonted candour, and (in their own fenfe) moft charitable interpretation, have affirmed, that I had in that paffage openly declared against charity. This hath induced me, on notice of a fecond edition being intended, to offer a few reflections on this fubject; which I hope fhall be conducted in as cool and critical a manner as can in reafon be defired, that I may not offend against charity even when writing upon the fubject.

LET me begin by settling precisely the subject of the inquiry. It will, or at least ought to be, acknowledged, that with many the current meaning of the word charity is, to have a favourable opinion of the fentiments of others who are fup. pofed to differ from us; that is to fay, (for it is not very easy to define it clearly), to think, that they are innocently mistaken in judgement, and that they have as honeftly inquired after truth as ourselves; and therefore to conclude, that as perfons truly fincere, and acting according to their light, they fhall meet with the final acceptance of God. That this is the meaning with many, if it fhould be denied, I prove from

the