Nor am I 'singular in this notion,' for all mankind think so too. However, that no man short of perfection can be properly said to have complied with the Gospel,' is a very singular notion, indeed; and in effect makes the covenant of works and the covenant of grace precisely one and the same thing. But to proceed,

6. By entering into covenant, and engaging to perform the duties which the covenant requires, a man binds himself to be doing the duties required by the covenant, in the manner in which he engages to do them, as long as the covenant is in force. To say otherwise, is to say that a man binds himself, and yet does not bind himself, which is an express contradiction. Thus the Israelites at Mount Sinai, and in the plains of Moab, bound themselves and their posterity to observe all the rites of the ceremonial law, so long as that should be in force. But when the ceremonial law was abrogated, they were no longer bound to observe its rites. And thus, if Mr. M.'s external covenant does in fact, require religious duties to be done in a graceless manner, so long as sinners remain graceless, and no longer; then as soon as ever sinners are converted, they are free from the bonds of this covenant, as much as the Jews were from the ceremonial law, at the resurrection of Christ; and so are then at liberty to enter into the covenant of grace, and to engage to live by faith on the Son of God, and to be holy in all manner of conversation, pressing towards perfection, the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus: but not till thenagreeable to the apostle's reasoning in Rom. vii. 1, 2, 3. But if this external covenant, which requires duties to be done in a graceless manner, is in fact binding for life; if it is in this sense an everlasting covenant, as was the covenant with Abraham, (Gen. 17.) then no man who has entered into it is at liberty, while he lives, to cease performing duties in a graceless manner. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if while her husband liveth she he married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no

design of both his books to prove this point; that so he may prove that unregenerate, graceless men, as such, may be qualified to enter into it, and may have a covenant right in the sight of God to all it blessings. So that, professedly, no conditions are required, but those which are graceless; no qualifications are requisite, but those which are unholy; for he affirms, that the unregenerate are totally depraved,' and in' a state of enmity against God,' (p. 52.) And that they do not perform 'any truly holy obedience.' (p. 17.) So that his external covenant, if conditional, is a graceless covenant. But it is conditional, for,

6. He says in his first book, (p. 21.) That none but such as profess the Christian religion, and will endeavour to conform their practice to the rules of it, ought to be admitted into the church.' And accordingly, (p. 42, 43, 44.) he insists that the disorderly and vicious,' should be debarred. But if it is a conditional covenant, and if it requires merely graceless qualifications as the condition of its privileges, then it is a graceless covenant. For that covenant which promises its blessings to graceless men, on graceless conditions, is a graceless covenant.

4. If Mr. M.'s external covenant promises certain blessings and privileges upon some certain conditions; so as that those who are so and so qualified may be members of the visible church, and no others, then it is of great importance to know precisely what these conditions, what these qualifications are, as otherwise no man can possibly determine whether he hath them, and so whether he may lawfully join with the church, and seal the covenant. And this is more necessary on Mr. M.'s scheme than on any other, because he holds, which we do not, that no man may enter into covenant with God in a public profession of religion, and join with the church, unless he infallibly knows that he has the necessary qualifications; unless he is as certain of it as a man called to give evidence in a civil court, is of a fact which he sees, and to the truth of which he can make oath before the civil magistrate. (p. 79.) But if men must be thus certain that they have the requisite qualifications, before they can with a good conscience join with the church, then they must,

in this high sense, be certain what qualifications are requisite. Yea, there are four things, concerning which they must have the same degree of certainty as they have about any fact which they see with their eyes, before they can on his plan with a good conscience join with the church. 1. That the bible is the word of God, because this is the grand charter of all church privileges. 2. That Mr. M.'s external covenant is contained in the bible, and is that on which the visible church is constituted. Because otherwise no man has any right on this plan to join with the church. 3. What qualifications are necessary according to this external covenant to fit them to join with the church and attend sealing ordinanAnd then, 4. They must be as certain that they have these qualifications, as that ever they saw the sun.-Now he thinks, that on our scheme, many true saints will be kept back from the Lord's table; but on his scheme, it is evident that no one graceless man, whose conscience is awake, and who knows any thing considerable about his own heart, can join with the church: because there never was, nor will be, any such sinner, who can say that he is as certain of these four things, as he is of a fact which he has seen with his eyes, and of the truth of which he can make oath before the civil magistrate ¶.

ces.

But at present the only question is this, viz. What are the qualifications which are requisite to full communion in the visible church, according to Mr. M.'s external covenant? The covenant of works requires perfection, as the condition

9 Mr. Mather in his preface, says, "I am not so fond of my own judgment, or tenacious of my own practice, but that I stand ready to give them both up, when any one shall do the friendly office of setting light before me.”—He himself, therefore, cannot swear to the truth of his scheme; he has not "that certain knowledge" of it, that he has " of a particular fact, about which he is called to give an evidence in a civil court." It is only his "prevailing opinion." P. 79. And if his external covenant is a mere human device, his practice upon it is what God hath not required at his hands. He has no warrant to put God's seals to a covenant devised by man. And, according to his scheme, he ought not to act in this affair without absolute certainty. To be consistent, he ought to act no more on his plan, until he is infallibly certain that it his duty. For, to use his own argument, p. 79. "if it being a real duty is that which gives us a real right to act; then it being a known duty is that which gives us a known right." And I may add, "this is a self-evident proposition." But more of this, in Sec. xi. VOL. III. 28

of its blessings. The covenant of grace requires repentance. toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, as the conditions of its blessings: but what does Mr. M.'s external graceless covenant require, as the condition of its blessings? What qualifications are requisite to bring a man into this covenant, and to give him a right to all the privileges and blessings of it in the sight of God? If this question cannot receive a satisfactory answer on Mr. M.'s scheme, then his scheme can never be practised upon. He gave no satisfactory answer to it in his first book, as was shown in the 6th section of my reply to it. He has now made another attempt to answer this question in his second book. Let us hear his answer, and consider it.

He says, (p. 64.) 'That perfection is expressly required in this external covenant.' What! as a condition of its blessings! as a necessary qualification to full communion in the visible church! which was the only point in hand. If so, then no mere man since the fall might join with the visible church.

He says, (p. 64.) This covenant requires the holy obedience of a gracious state.' What! again, I say, as a condition of its blessings! as a necessary qualification to full communion in the visible church! the only point in hand. If so, then no graceless man, as such, can be admitted into the visible church.

He says, (p. 65.) This covenant requires the utmost endeavours of the unregenerate.' What! still I repeat it, as a condition of its blessings! as a necessary qualification to full communion in the visible church! the only point in hand. If so, then no unregenerate man, who has not as yet used his utmost endeavours, can, as such, be admitted into the visible church, which will keep out every unregenerate man, because no such unregenerate man ever existed.

Again, having spoken of the convictions, that the unregenerate may have, he says, (p. 65.) under these convictions he may come to a fixed resolution to forsake all known sin, and to practise all known duty; set himself to seek an interest in Christ, and to seek needed influences of divine grace. And he may confirm these resolutions upon his own

soul, by a solemn covenant dedication of himself to God; engaging by divine assistance to obey the whole will of God, one particular of which is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will add, that he may confirm this covenant between God and his own soul by Gospel seals. It cannot be denied that the natural powers of our souls do render us capable of such covenanting with God. And the only question is, whether God has required this of sinners? This is the question in dispute.' Upon which the following observations may be made:

1. Was this the covenant in Gen. xvii.? Was Abraham "under conviction?' Had he come to such unregenerate fixed resolutions?' Did he bind himself in some future time to believe? No, just the reverse. Abraham had been converted above twenty years before this transaction, (Gen. xvii.) and had both believed, and obeyed, in a saving manner, through all this period. So that the question in dispute,' is not, whether Abraham entered into this covenant in Gen. xvii.; for Mr. M. does not pretend he did. And therefore the covenant with Abraham, (Gen. xvii.) and this covenant of Mr. M.'s, are not the same, but very different. His external covenant, therefore, is, as he declares, distinct from the covenant of grace,' and 'of a different tenour,' and for 'a different purpose.' For nothing was more remote from Abraham's mind, than to enter into covenant, and bind himself to a course of unregenerate duties, in order to obtain converting grace. Of this there is no dispute.' So that this is NOT the question in dispute,' whether Mr. M.'s external covenant is the same with that covenant into which Abraham personally entered, (Gen. xvii.) Where then in all the bible will Mr. M. find his external covenant, as above defined? For no such covenant was ever exhibited by the God of Israel. Besides,

2. It may be inquired, what does Mr. M. mean by "engaging to obey the whole will of God?' For, 1. Does he mean, that men who know they have no grace when they join with the church do covenant and promise that they will from that time and forward, as long as they live, be perfectly holy? and so in fact obey the whole will of God? But