who exhibit fufficient evidence that they are qualified for it. And I take it for granted by all, that visible faints exhibit fufficient evidence of this, and so have a right of admiffion, except fomething fcandalous should appear in them, for which they ought to be debarred.*

I shall not now enquire, what caufes may be thought fufficient to bar a visible faint of his right of admiffion. But thall confine my attention chiefly to this which feems to be the main question. Who are visible faints? On which I would obferve,

A vifible faint is a fubject of that holiness, or faintship, which may be feen or difcerned by the church. He is not only a visible person who is a faint, but it may be feen that he is a faint. This is not only visible to God, and his own confcience, but also to his fellow chriftians.

We may here take notice, that that holiness which forms the character in question is a vifible qualification. It may be difcerned in another by a due use of human faculties. But here two enquiries occur, which will require a careful attention. What is that holiness which is thus visible? And what is the vifibility here supposed? or, in what sense may it be seen ?

It has already been obferved, that there are two forts of persons, whose real characters are often very different, who are in fcripture termed faints; and that there are two kinds of holiness, which give them this denomination. There is an internal and an external covenant dedication to God. An inward purity of heart, and an outward fanctity exhibited in words and behaviour. The one fort are faints outwardly, the other are faints inwardly. This diftinction is authorised by the Apoftle. "He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcifion which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcifion

* This limitation feems neceffary. Visible faints may be fo ignorant, or erroneous, or diforderly in their converfation, as to be unfit to have active communion with a church in special ordinances, till they are cleanfed from thefe ftains and defilements. It is not every blemish in a man's character which disqualifies for admiflion into the church. Nor can it be concluded that a man is not a visible faint merely from his being scandalous, fo as to be at prefent unfit to be admitted to communion. There may be manifeft evidences of real faint ship, notwithstanding, and rational and fcriptural grounds for charity. We are not bound to admit all to communion for whom we may and ought to exercife charity. Though none fhould be admitted but fuch as are faints in the just account of the church, yet fome who are to be reputed faints, may yet be juftly debarred. The door of the vifible church is indeed fo wide that many have a right to be admitted, who will be excluded from the church in heaven. And I trust that the gate of heaven is also so wide, that some will be received into those blifsful manfions who were unfit to be received to external communion with an inftituted church,

cifion is that of the heart." The Jews were faints, or a holy people outwardly and in the letter; and as fuch were the fubjects of the outward circumcifion, with the other outward ordinances, and privileges of the church under the Old Testament. But they only were the fpiritual feed of Abraham, a holy people, in that more important fenfe which the Apostle has in view, who were Jews inwardly, and circumcifed in heart. Now fince external and internal holinefs are different qualifications, and an outward and an inward faint are different characters, the question is, what kind of holiness must be vifible to the church in any one, to denominate him a visible faint? Is it external, or internal faintship, which must be visible, to give him a right of admission ?

But before we proceed to the refolution of this point, it will be needful to explain and state what we mean by the visibility of holiness or faintship: Or in what fenfe, the qualifications which form and difcriminate the character of a visible faint may be feen.

An object is faid to be vifible in the strictest sense when it may be feen, or perceived by the eye. But as we commonly exprefs the faculties, acts or operations of the mind in terms and phrafes borrowed from bodily and fenfible things, fo things are faid to be visible to the mind, when they may in any way be dif cerned or known by us. And the several inlets of the mind thro' which it receives its information are figuratively termed the eyes of the mind, by which it fees objects. Senfible objects are faid to be visible to the eye of fenfe. Some truths are immediately vifible, or felf-evident to the eye of the mind as soon as they are clearly understood. Some truths are visible to the eye of reason, as being demonftrable from the difcernable connection they have with fome known truth. Thus the being of the invifible God may be clearly feen from the works of creation. Some truths are visible to the eye of faith, being confirmed by the teftimony of God. Thus Abraham by faith faw the day of Chrift afar off, and was glad. But let it be obferved, that nothing is vifible, properly speaking, but what is true and real. That which is not, cannot be seen, either immediately, or by means of any fure connection, with any other truth. If the evidence we have of the existence of any thing leaves it doubtful whether the thing fuppofed has any existence, if we can only form a conjectural opinion from it, it would be, I think, a harsh catachrefis to say that it was an object that could be seen by us. If we have not light enough to afcertain the reality of a fuppofed object, there is not enough, to make it visible.

Now, if nothing be vifible, but what may be seen, and if nothing can be feen, unless there be light enough to afcertain its reality; it feems to be at least an improper way of fpeaking to oppose

a vifible

a vifible faint to a real one, as was before obferved. How that can be seen which is not, or whofe reality cannot be discerned, I understand not.

But if a visible faint be one who may be feen to be a faint, if visible holiness be holiness which may be feen, and whose reality may be ascertained, it is evident that it is external, and not inter nal holiness which forms the character of a visible saint, as fuch.. It is the vifibility of this, and not of inward fanctification, which gives a right of admiffion into the church.

For it is external holiness alone which is vifible, according to the explanation which has been given. Holiness of heart is an invifible qualification, as is generally taught in the reformed churches. It is the ornament of the hidden man of the heart : A new name, which no man knoweth but he who receiveth it: It can be seen by him only who can search the heart. It cannot be discerned in another by the eye of fenfe, by immediate intuition, by reason, or by faith. Its reality cannot be made visible, or afcertained by any evidence we can have access to. It has not a known, and certain connection with any thing difcernable by us. Now, if inward holiness be not vifible to the eye of man; then it cannot be the vifibility of this which gives any one the title of a visible faint, and a right of admiffion. Nor is there any fuch character as a vifible faint in heart. To fpeak of one as being vifibly, that is, outwardly gracious, circumcised in heart, seems to be as improper, as it would be to fay that he was vifibly poffeft of an invifible qualification. It must be the visibility of that holiness which is vifible, that is, of external holiness, which denominates a visible saint, and qualifies for admiffion to external church communion.

Some have thought that there is but one fort of holiness, or faints spoken of in fcripture. But if there be any fuch character as a visible faint, if that holinefs which forms this character, be a visible qualification; on the contrary, if that which forms the character of a faint in heart is not a vifible qualification, I fee not how it can be denied that there are two kinds of holinefs, and faints. If the scripture gives the title of faints to fome who are not faints in heart, and if the scriptures do not give titles to any which do not belong to them; then there are two forts of perfons to whom the title of faints truly belongs. Indeed we are apt enough to mifcall things through ignorance or mistake; but the holy Spirit, by whofe inspiration the fcriptures were given, is not fubject to our weaknesses.

A vifible faint is a real definite character, effentially different from that of a faint in heart. And fuch are entitled to fome

fpecial

It might as well have been faid, that one fort of Jews only was spoken ⚫f, and one kind of cireumcifion, even that of the heart.

F

fpecial privileges, to which a faint in heart, as fuch, is not admiffible. It is true, these different characters often meet in the fame fubject; but they often are alfo feparated. And an outward faint is as really a faint in his kind, as an inward one. The unregenerate child of a believer is as really a subject of external federal holiness, as the believer himfelf is of inward fanctifying grace; and the one is as rightful a member of the vifible, as the other is of the invifible church.

In short, if the notion of visibility has been rightly stated, if nothing is vifible but what can be feen, and nothing can be seen unless there be light or evidence enough to ascertain its real exiftence; it seems plain that it is not inward, but outward holiness which can be seen in another, and which denominates him a vifible faint.

Here it may probably be faid, that a thing may be faid to be visible, in fome fenfe, if it appear probable, or credible, though there should be no certainty of its reality. And that grace may be faid to be visible in this fenfe. There may be evidence fufficient to make it visible to the eye or judgment of rational charity, that a person is a faint in heart, though it be not fufficient to make it certain that he is really fuch a one. And it is the vifibility of inward fanctification to the eye of charity, by the light of proba ble, though uncertain evidence, which gives one the denomination of a visible saint: So that the holiness supposed is holiness of heart. But its being visible, does not mean that it can certainly be seen or known to be real, but only that it is probable or credible, which in the account of charity, is satisfactory evidence of its truth or reality.

As I would willingly wave needlefs difputes about words, I shall only say, that if qualifications may be faid to be visible, of whose reality we are uncertain, it must be in a lefs proper fenfe. Uncertain evidence may difcover the poffibility, credibility, or probability that a thing exifts; but the thing itself, its real existence cannot actually be feen, fo is not properly visible, without more light. I grant there may be vifible and fufficient evidence of the probability, or credibility of a man's being a faint in heart; and that in the eye or judgment of charity, he is to be reputed, and received as if he were fuch. And we may fay that he is vifibly fuch a one to the eye of charity. But in reality, nothing more is or can be seen than external figns or evidences of grace, which are known to be uncertain. The rule and evidence by which charity is to judge, are defigned to direct chriftians how they are to regard and behave towards men in this world; but not to enable them to search and know what is in the hearts of each other.

Whether

Whether then we fay that outward holiness forms the character of a vifible faint; or that it is the vifibility of inward fanctification in the eye of charity which gives one this denomination, it comes to the fame thing. For outward holiness is the evidence, the only evidence of grace which the eye of charity can difcern.. It gives inward fanctification all the vifibility it has in the view of the church. Every outward faint is to be reputed a faint in heart, judging of him by the rule of charity, though we doubt not but many fuch will be found to have been really hypocrites. But the judgment of charity will be further confidered hereafter.

There is yet a third notion of vifibility which requires to be noticed. Vifibility is supposed to be the fame with the appearing of a thing to us, to our apprehenfion, judgment and esteem. A vifible faint is one who feems, and is judged by the church to be a faint in heart. And fuch only ought to be admitted by them.

But I conceive that, to be a visible faint, is a very different thing, from his feeming, appearing, or being judged, or esteemed by others to be a faint in any fenfe. It is one thing to fay that a thing can be feen by us, and another to fay that it is feen, or appears, or seems to us. Visible faintship is a qualification of the fubject, which may be difcerned by another. But the appearance one makes in the eye or view of another, is nothing but the apprehenfion, judgment or opinion of him who thus judges. A man may be a visible faint, though he may not fo appear, or feem, or be judged by the church. And he may feem, and appear, and be judged by them to be a faint when he is no faint in any fenfe. If the eye or judgment be not faulty or irregular, a vifible faint only will feem, appear and be judged to be an external faint, and reputed a faint in heart in the judgment of charity,

But it is the difcernable qualifications of a perfon, and not the difcernment of the church, not the appearance he has in their eye, not the idea, or notion they may have of him, whether right or wrong, which conftitutes a vifibie faint, and gives a right of admiffion. The reason why one appears, or feems to another to be fuch a perfon, may be prejudice, partiality, judging by a wrong rule. But can any think that our right to chriftian privileges depends on these things? Whoever exhibits, or holds up to view external holiness, or, which is the fame thing, credible fufficient evidence according to the gospel that he ought to be charitably reputed and received for a true faint, fuch a one is a yifible faint, and has a right of admiflion, however he may seem or appear to any. It is not the apprehenfions of others, but the qualifications of the proponant, or the fufficient evidences in his favour, duly exhibited which give him a right.

We