those prayers, only as they fhall be offered up in the name, and through the merits, of the great, and properly speaking, fole interceffor; and we look for no effect from them, but on that condition. The Church of Rome addreffes herself to Saints and Angels, as interceffors, by, what we may call, their own right, by virtue of their own inherent fanctity: Or, rather, the applies to them directly, as to Saviours, for their proper and immediate help, and expects it from the fuppofed privilege of their rank, or merits, independently of their prayers, or, at leaft, of the manner in which thofe prayers fhall be presented through the name of Jefus. The formal words of their Litanies fhew, that fuch is their meaning.

*

But they will fay, that this condition of interceding, or faving, through the merits of Chrift, is implied, though not expreffed. I reply then,

*

2. That, admitting it to be fo, there is, yet, the wideft difference between praying

to

to Saints and Angels to pray for us, though in the Gospel forms of interceffion; and merely requesting good men to pray for us, in those forms. The latter address is made in a way remote from all appearance of idolatry, and free from the fufpicion of it: The former, is preferred in the place, at the time, with the posture, in the language, in fhort, with all the circumstances and formalities of divine worship.

3. I obferve, that, when we ask the prayers of men, we know that they hear our addrefs to them: We cannot even suppofe thus much of Saints and Angels, without afcribing to them the incommunicable attributes of the Almighty.

i

Still, it may be infifted, That prayers, whether offered up to God by men, or glorified fpirits, are however to be confidered in the light of Interceffions; and that therefore, fo far as we combat the practice of faint-worship on that ground, Proteftants, as well as Papifts, when they employ the prayers of others, are guilty of idolatry.

This, in truth, is the hinge, on which the question turns: And, to fhew the difference of the two cafes, palpably and clearly, I fay,

Fourthly, and laftly, That the Gospel, in permitting, or rather in commanding us to ask the prayers of each other, justifies this fort of interceffion, and abfolves it from the blame and guilt of idolatry. It gives a fanction to this mode of mediating with God by his Saints, on earth; and does not regard it as a practice that interferes with the mediatorial office of Jefus, in heaven.

The fame Gospel, on the contrary, (I inquire not, for what reafons) fays not a word, from which we can infer, that any fuch address is directed, or permitted, to be made to Angels or Spirits, It even condemns all addreffes of this kind, under the opprobrious name of unauthorized, or WILL-WORSHIP [2]. Though we be allowed, then, to have good men, in fome [n] Coloff. ii. 88.

fenfe,

fenfe, for our mediators or interceffors on earth, we are not allowed to have any mediator or interceffor in the tabernacle of heaven, but Jefus, the great high priest of Chriftians, only. This laft fort of interceffion, by Angels and glorified Saints, is against the spirit and letter of our religion. It is a practice, which, not being enjoined, is forbidden; which, being difallowed, is reprobated. In a word, It entrenches on the incommunicable honour and prerogatives of the great, the appointed, the fole Mediator in heaven, feated at God's right hand, who ever liveth to make interceffion for us [o]. It fets up new mediators, without, and against his leave: It is, then, un-christian, and idolatrous.

Thus at length, I fuppofe, it appears indifputably, That we are neither unreafonable, nor uncharitable, in charging IDOLATRY, as well as the other two antichriftian vices of pride, and intolerance, to the account of papal Rome.

[o] Heb. vii. 25.

F

V. The

V. The last prophetic mark of Antichrift, which I shall have time to point out to you, and what perhaps you may esteem the most material of all, is, The TIME in which that power is faid to make its appearance in the world.

It hath been already observed [p], that the chronology of the prophecies is, for the most part, not defined with that exactness, which we expect in hiftorical compofitions. It is commonly expreffed in terms that may be interpreted with fome latitude or, when the date is more precisely delivered, we are ftill at a lofs, in fome refpect or other, before the event, in what manner to form our calculation. However, the expreffion is not fo loose and vague, but that we may clearly apprehend about what time the predicted event will come to pass.

Thus, for inftance, the feafon of Chrift's toming into the world was fixed by fuch circumstances as thefe that it fhould be

a

[p] Sermon VIII, p. 70~-74. and Sermon ix. p.104.

before