VOL. (2.) In the relations that are appropriate and peculiar to him, as God.

II.

(1.) GOD is denied in his attributes which are peculiar to his nature. As for instance, his OмNISCIENCE. For do not fuch men, as we here allude to, plainly fay; How does GOD fee? ar is there knowledge in the Moft High? Does not their practice say it? Is it not the language of their lives? And does not that speak the sense of their hearts? How can that man be faid to own an omniscient GOD, who is gradually transforming himself into a beaft? Or to believe that his jealous eye is looking on, while he obftinately perfifts in his finful courses?

THERE is also a manifeft denial of his WISDOM. This is the attribute which magnifies itfelf in the frame of nature, and the contrivance of all the laws and conftitutions of his government. Wisdom is the great and principal endowment of a Legiflator. But, though GoD has established certain rules to guide and govern us by, and to which it is our duty to square our lives; yet fays the wicked debauched wretch, "My appetite dictates to me more wifely than "fo.". And thus the wisdom of the flesh is preferred to that which is divine. GOD fays it is wifeft and best for men to be governed, and to fteer their courfe by fuch and fuch ftrict rules; that it is best for them to be fober, temperate, chafte, juft, and the like. No, fay they, to confult inclination and carnal appetite is a far wifer course,

# Pfal. LXXIII. 11.

courfe, than to follow him; and this is a thing fit SER M. to be confronted to the divine wifdom! Fur

ther,

THEY deny his POWER, both as it fignifies. might and authority. As it fignifies authority, they carry the matter as if he had no right to rule or direct them. As it fignifies might, they behave as if he were not able to revenge himself on them. Moreover,

THEY deny his TRUTH. He has declared that the unrighteous fhall not inherit the kingdom of heaven ", but they seem confident they shall.

THERE is also in their practice and conduct a manifest denial of his HOLINESS. Be ye.boly (fays the Almighty) for I am boly. But their behaviour implies as much as if they faid both, that they will not be holy; and that God himfelf is not fo; whilst they imagine to themselves, that he approves the unholy course they take. And,

THERE is a denial of his JUSTICE, his vindictive juftice. It is plainly faying as it were, that he will not judge the world; that he will not diftinguish between the righteous and the wicked, but will deal alike with all. Yea, and which is no paradox, though it feems one, their conduct implies also a denial,

LASTLY, Of his MERCY and GOODNESS too. But you will perhaps say that seems strange; for it is divine mercy on which thefe men do peculiarly rely. GOD will be merciful when all is done, But

VI.

VOL. But can they be faid to truft in his mercy, when

IL they do not truly rely on his word? That which they truft in is nothing but a meer phantom, ans imagination of their own hearts; and fo it is trusting to themselves, and not to God. They have no other truft but that of fools, that is, trufting to their own hearts; to what the fancy fuggefts, or the imagination can create. For if they did hope in the divine mercy in reality, they who had fuch a hope would purify themselves as GOD is pure. That would break their hearts, and mollify their temper, fo as that they would. have but little disposition to be ftout against GOD.

WHILST, therefore, men thus deny these great, attributes of the divine nature, may they not be faid to deny God himself? For pray what kind of notion fhould we have of GoD, if these were fet afide? What an horrid idea would that be of an untrue, unholy, unwife, unjuft Deity?

(2.) GOD is alfo denied by perfons of this character, with refpect to the great relations in which he stands to all his reasonable creatures. I do not mean those special relations which he bears to his own peculiar people; but thofe wherein he stands to all in common, who are universally the work of his hands, and as the Pfalmift expreffes it, the fheep of his pasture *: Which relations are principally these following, to wit, thofe which refult from his creation of us; his propriety in us; his dominion over us; and his continual beneficence towards us. But

* Pfal. c. 3.

Do

Do they own him as their CREATOR, or them- SERM, felves to be his offspring, who thus bend them- VI. felves against the great Parent of all?

Do they own him as their PROPRIETOR, Or themselves as his property? The ox indeed knows bis owner, and the afs his master's crib', but they know not theirs, faying; "We are our own,

who is LORD over us?" This is at least the fenfe, and meaning of the conduct of these men. Further,

Do they own him to be their RULER, or do they truly call themselves his fubjects, when their life is a continued rebellion? Or finally,

Do they own him for their BENEFACTOR? But how can they be faid to acknowledge, that it is HE from whom all their good comes, when they live to themselves, and not to him? It is very plain therefore they deny GoD in all these relations as well as in his attributes.

Now let us confider what it is to own GOD in an abfolute, while he is difowned in a relative fenfe. To say he is a GoD, but shall not be a GOD to me, what does this amount to but a denial of him? He must be acknowledged in the general relation first, before we can have any ground to hope that he stands in those of a frecial nature to us, in which he is related to his peculiar people. If a man fhould own his Prince after that rate, that is, only under an abfolute notion, as a great King, as he would the Grand Signior or Cham of Tartary; but at the fame time

Ι

1 Ifai. I. 3.

II.

VO L. time should avow he should be no King to him ; would that profeffion, think you, justify a mań, who fhould oppofe or rebel against his rightful Prince?

THUS far then you fee as to the first character, That they who are obftinate in a courfe of wickedness, whatsoever they profess, do moft apparently in their works deny GOD. I fhall touch but briefly on

2. In which I propofed to prove the fame point, from their habitual averfion to that which is good; or a general difaffection to every good work; which is the next characteristic of this fort of perfons, according to St. Paul's account.

THERE are thofe in the world who are apt to think well of their own cafe, because they are not of this laft-mentioned fort. They for their parts practise no fuch impieties, as many others do; none can fay they are murderers, adulterers, falfe-dealers, and the like; and therefore they reckon their cafe good: juft as if it should be thought impoffible a man fhould die of any dif temper but the plague. Or as if in a battle, a foldier fhould employ his whole care to protect his head, and not expect a ftab or a bullet in his heart. So little is it confidered what is fo obvious to the common reason of a man!

GOOD comes only by the concurrence of all things, which are requifite thereunto; and evil, by any failure of one of those things. It may therefore be faid of fuch perfons, "Ye are not, "it may be, guilty of fuch and fuch evils, but

"what