is the practical atheist, who is the more horrid monster of the two."

How unhappy then must such a person be! To every good work reprobate, and yet a professor! How uneasy must his life be, who must do many things, which, in substance are good works, that he may keep up the shew of religion, let them be never so much his aversion! How uneasy a life, I say, is this to go against the grain, and to do things in a continued course for which a man has no heart nor relish! To come into the assemblies of God's people when he had rather be somewhere else; and many other such like things must he do to keep up a profession. This is indeed a most grievous thing, for a man to have only an artificial religion, which proceeds from no vital principle, and perfectly disagrees to the habit of his soul, and the bent and temper of his heart. And that a man should toil at it all his days, is a sad case; espe cially when it is considered, that it is but for a shadow, for that which will turn to no account, or rather to a heavy one.

8. Lastly. We see hence the necessity of renewing grace. This is absolutely necessary, not only to reconcile man to God, but also to reconcile him to himself: to make the man to agree with himself; who without the grace and spirit of regeneration, neither agrees with God, nor his own soul, He fights with heaven, and his whole life is a continual fighting against himself. He practises wickedly against his profession of godliness; directly contrary to all his worship and his own prayers. Methinks therefore, this should make such a man long to feel the power of regenerating grace, that he may bring things to an agreement between God and himself. For the light which makes him profess, does not govern his practice. It is too weak, as you have seen, and insufficient for this purpose. There needs something more to change him, and to give him a right spirit; and when that is done, then all will be well. Then he can take pleasure in God, his worship and converse, and to no good work will he be reprobate any more.

"What

But here a great question might arise; to wit, should a man do in the mean time, who has not attained, as yet, the regenerating grace of the Spirit of Christ? Is it not better (that so there may be a greater harmony of things) that he should give over professing, since he has only that in his own power? For it is in his power to give up his profession, though not to change his heart and life. Or, at least, should he not do so till there be a change, that may bring his profession and the course of his walking, to a perfect consistence and agreement with one another?" To this I answer briefly: (1.) Whereas there must be a change in order to an agreement

between profession and practice, certainly that must be changed which is wrong. It is very evident the change ought to be where the fault is. He professes a religion which is true; the alteration then must not be there, but in his spirit and his course, which are wrong. And,

(2.) As the question supposes the laying down a profession as being in one's own power, there must and ought to be a greater regard here to moral power than natural; that is, to what I may do, rather than to what I can do. There is nothing truly possible to me, but what is lawfully possible. And so it is not in my power to go and profess a false religion, and abandon the

true.

(3.) That till there be a change made it is better to give over professing and the like, is to talk impertinently; because there is no moment of time, wherein it is permitted to live in an unconverted state. Do we think it lawful for us, so much as one moment, to live in rebellion against God, and his Son Jesus Christ? And therefore,

(4.)That power we want must be sought for, and that immediately; and be prayed for with an earnestness suitable to the exigence of the case: saying, "Lord I am a monster, as true as I am a man amongst men! I shall be a lost creature, till I am changed!" Therefore do not talk of laying down your profession a moment; because you do not know but divine grace may set all right in the next: only there should be a looking up to heaven, with a continual fervent desire of it. And methinks no one, who sees cause enough to suspect his case to be bad, should go away without lifting up a craving eye to God for assistance; saying, "Lord! for that grace that may work this necessary change! That may change me from being a self-repugnant creature, and liable to thy wrath; to a happy consistency with myself, and a meetness to enjoy thy rewards, and the inheritance of the saints in light!"

And, to conclude, what obligation to thankfulness and praise lies upon those, whom the grace of God has brought matters to a blessed agreement with themselves! So that their continual profession is the product of a new nature; and their habitual temper and practice ever harmonious and consistent with it. Oh what a blessed case is this!

SERMON V.*

WE have, in the foregoing discourses, already shewn in the general, that men may profess the true religion, and yet lead very wicked lives; be "abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate :" and of consequence, that they who do so, may be said by just interpretation to deny the religion they profess.

From these two propositions connected together, we have shewn, what sort of profession is here meant; what the persons who make it, may be notwithstanding as to their moral character; moreover, whence it is that any man should make a profession of religion, when the temper of his spirit, and the whole course of his practice are so repugnant to it; and finally, the folly and vanity of all this have been largely shewn, both with respect to God and men: inasmuch as, by this means, men do not acquire the reputation of being what they would be thought to be, that is religious; nor have any share in the divine rewards of religion, in the future state. To all which have been subjoined several important inferences and useful reflections. But there is yet further use to be made, partly for the detection and conviction of such as do vainly profess; and partly for direction, that we ourselves may not do so. If it

* Preached March 27, 1681.

then be asked, "What sort of persons are they, who may be understood to overthrow their profession, and to make it a mere nullity, or of no significance?" I answer; that though there are indeed sundry sorts of professors, who may be said so to do, yet all are reducible to these two general heads.

I. Such as do profess the true religion, but so falsified and corrupted, as that the very object of their profession is strangely altered from itself. They profess what, originally, was the true religion; but as they profess it, it is not true. Or else, II. Such as do profess what is actually, even still the true refigion, but do it very untruly; that is, are not sincere in that profession.

I. The first sort of persons in the Christian world, who may be said to overthrow their profession, and to make it a mere nullity, are those who profess the true religion, but greatly falsified and adulterated: that is, they profess what, originally, was the true religion; but as they profess it, it is not true.

Now, though this class is capable of sundry subdivisions, yet since our part of Christendoin is generally divided into those who are of the Roman communion, and those who protest against it, I shall only speak of them; that is, of those who call themselves catholics: and not of all them neither; but only of such as do practically hold such principles, superadded to pure Christianity, as must necessarily make it another religion. I mean, when they hold such principles practically, as corrupt the true, simple Christian religion, or the genuine gospel of Christ, as it was delivered by him and his apostles. For indeed amongst those who are members of the church of Rome, not only charity, but justice obliges us to distinguish thus far that, as it is possible for a man to hold very good principles, which have no good influence upon his spirit and practice; so it is possible also, that men may in speculation hold some very bad principles, which have not that poisonous influence on their spirit and practice, to which they naturally tend. And therefore, if what is the substance of the Christian religion be found in them, notwithstanding many corrupt additions and gross falsehoods; if by the special favour and grace of God the true Christian principles only, become impressive on them, and the false corruptive ones not so, which are of human invention; these are an exempt sort of persons, whom I have nothing to do with in the present case.

But because I must be within those limits, which it is fit the text should prescribe to me, I shall only treat upon one principle, which is practical, as we have reason to apprehend, with multitudes of that communion and which the very terms of the text do lead us to take notice of. "They profess to know

God, but in works they deny him." So, in like manner, those, whom I allude to of the church of Rome, profess to know God. But what God is it? Who, or what is that God which they practically own? Is it not another than the true and living God, whom they practically acknowledge as such? It is well if it be not so, with the generality of that way and persuasion! I mean that very God, of whom you have a description given by St. Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians: namely, "the man of sin, the son of perdition: who exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." They do profess indeed to know the living and true God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: but the God whom they practically own, serve and obey, is this same God that is here referred to by the apostle. Their god is a man, and that man a monster of men. In respect of pride and malice, more a devil than a man. In respect of sensuality and impurity, more a beast than a man ; as you know he is so called in the Holy Scriptures.

This is actually the God, who is practically acknowledged as such by too great a number of professing christians in the world. The principle therefore I now insist upon, is the ascribing a divinity to that creature, whether it be one single person, or a succession of persons, or a community according to some. This principle so far as it is practical, and governs their religion, makes it quite another thing than what it truly and really is in its original purity. And though it be very true, they will tell you, that they only intend or mean an underdeity, or a vicarious sort of godhead, which they place in this creature; and so think to salve the matter by alleging, that they do not idolize nor deify him; I therefore desire the following things may be considered.

1. That if it should be said, it is only a vicegerency which they ascribe to this same god of theirs, yet if their, hearts terminate on him whom they call vicegerent, and their religion is carried no higher, this is to deify him as much as in them lies. What does it signify to acknowledge in speculation one superior to him, while in a practical sense their minds and hearts, and the sum of their religion, do centre and terminate here? As to multitudes of those who call themselves catholics, they trust in no higher object than the pope. All their reliance for pardon and salvation is ultimately on him, and all their obedience and subjection terminates on him. To call him therefore vicegerent only, when he is practically made the ultimate object of their religion, does not salve the matter at all.