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, 1691.

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 religion, 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 Christendom 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. pride and malice, more a devil than a man. In respect of suality and impurity, more a beast than a man ; as you know In respect of senhe 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 fol lowing 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.

1

2. I say further and inquire, Where is their charter for this vicegerency ? If they call him God's vicegerent, who has nothing to shew for it, and so accordingly place a religious trust in him, what does it signify to say, that the respect and honour they pay to him is as to God's vicegerent? If a man should pretend to be for the king, while he really rebels against him, will that pretence be any excuse for me, if I fall in with them who are under this leader? There wants so much as a colourable pretence for this vicegerency. It would make some blush, others laugh to hear the allegations they bring for it. How weak are some! how ridiculous are others! how remote, absurd, and insignificant are they all indeed taken together ! That passage, for instance, the words of our Lord to Peter upon his remarkable confession of his Messiahship is much insisted upon to wit, " Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 16. 18. 19. But how this should signify any thing to the popedom, I cannot conceive. What a strange fetch must it be to imagine any thing in such a passage to this purpose! No more power was given to him than what was given to the rest of the apostles. For to all the apostles as well as Peter, Christ gave the power of the keys, as it is called, as appears from that parallel passage in the gospel of John; where we are told, that Christ after his resurrection "breathed upon his disciples, and said unto them all, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained." John 20. 23. Which is the same thing with saying to all the apostles, "I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16. 19. That is, you acting according to the rules I left you, what you do on earth of this nature, shall be ratified in heaven too. But how impertinently is this drawn and appropriated to Rome! There is not the least mention of the grant of this power being confined to Peter, as bishop of Rome; and his successors as such. Nor is it to be imagined, what colour there should be of any reasoning from thence to this purpose, for it no more appears, that Peter was ever a settled, residing bishop at Rome, than that Paul was; who, it is most apparent, had a settled residence there. No such thing is recorded of Peter in the Holy Scriptures; and as to what is said in history on this matter, is variously disputed this way and that; though indeed it need not to be so, because it can signify nothing to the purpose. Those who say Peter was there as well as Paul, do also say, that they both suffered

martyrdom in the same year. Besides, if there were a primacy to be settled where Peter did reside, it should rather have been at Jerusalem; where it is certain he had his residence for some time, and where it is more likely he presided, than at Rome. And because it is said to Peter only, "Feed my sheep!" are we to conclude from thence, that he must be the universal bishop? Is not this charge to be considered as given to the rest of the apostles, as well as to Peter? and not only so, but to all the ministers of the gospel? So idle and triffing are these pretences to primacy for Peter, as bishop of Rome, and his successors as such!

3. They do, at least many of them, very frequently ascribe to this same god of theirs more than vicegerency, and what indeed is inconsistent with that state and character. They do it professedly; and if hereupon they do it practically, as we have great reason to apprehend multitudes may, then it is most certain that this false God of theirs, is the only object of their religion. Upon this point, because it is so much to my purpose, I shall largely insist. In the

(1.) Place, it is very apparent, that they give to this fictitious god of theirs, the titles that do peculiarly belong to the great God and his Christ. Nothing is more ordinary and common with them, than to call the pope by the titles of beutissime and sanctissime Pater! The most blessed and most holy Father; and other titles they are not afraid to apply to him, which the holy Scriptures give to God and his Son. A person speaking of one of the popes says, "His name is Wonderful;" assuming that which is spoken of Christ in Isaiah, Isa. 9. 6. and applying it unto him. They call him also, in express terms, the head of the church, the husband of the church, the foundation of the church; titles peculiarly belonging unto Christ. One says, "He is the head, excluso Christo;" that is, Christ being excluded, and without any consideration of him. "He is (saith he) the achme; the supreme, and chief of the church, Summum caput ecclesiæ. succeeding in the room of Christ; and all power is translated from Christ to him." Not derived, but transferred; as if it were removed from Christ, or as if he ceased from his primacy over the church, and transferred it himself to this vicarious God. For this they think a modest name, and that the power is lodged in him, so as to reside in Christ no longer. And hereupon, though they do speculatively own a superior head of the church, yet practically they own no higher, when this notion obtains among them. Here their religion stops. Here it seems to terminate, and to go no higher. For how little suspicion do they discover, that those sins are yet unpardoned,