the obedient, and punishing the tranfgreffors of his law, thine is the power; and that, as all things ought now, fo they will finally terminate in his glory, thine is the glory for ever and ever. With regard to this laft article of the Lord's prayer, I think, it is not to be fuppofed, that our Lord intended that we, in the use of those words, fhould increase the divine knowledge, by acquainting God, that he has a right of dominion over the intelligent and moral world, that he is invested with power fufficient to fupport his authority, and that, as in the natural world, all things do, fo, in the moral world, all things ought, and will, finally terminate in his glory. Nor is it to be fuppofed, that our Lord intended, that we, in the use of those words, fhould increase the divine goodness, by our prevailing upon God to make ufe of fuch means, for the introduction, or increase of his kingdom and moral government amongst men, which, antecedent to our addrefs, he would not have done, nor was dif pofed to do. This, I think, could not have been our Lord's defign, in directing us to address Almighty God, as aforefaid; because, he could not but know, that the divine knowledge could not poffibly be enlarged by any information we could give the Deity; and that God was in himself difpofed to do, whatever was proper for him to do, antecedent to our addrefs, and that he would do it, whether we addreffed him, or not; confequently, fuch an address must be irrational and improper. Now, if our

I 2

telling

telling God, that his is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, cannot poffibly inform, nor influence him, by acquainting him with what he did not known, nor by leading him to do what, otherwise, he would not have done, antecedent to our address; then, the questions will return, as before, Who is? Or, Who can? Or, Who ought to be influenced and wrought upon by it? And the answer again is moft apparent, viz. that it is the petitioner, and he only, as he is, or ought to be, led by this addrefs, to become more and more a dutiful and faithful fubject of God's kingdom, by living under a juft fenfe of God's power, by conforming his mind and life to God's will, and, by endeavouring, that his own, and other mens actions, may, as far as he can contribute towards it, terminate in the glory of his Maker.

Thus I have examined the Lord's prayer in its feveral articles, and have fhewed, that it is in this view, viz. when it is intended to affect and influence, not the Deity, but the pe titioner only, that it can be a rational and proper addrefs to God. And this, I think, is the cafe of prayer in general; it is intended to affect and influence, not the Deity, but the petitioner only. Whether there may be particular inftances, and extraordinary occafions, in which the cafe may be otherways, I have not here taken upon me to determine; and, therefore, fuch inftances and occafions I am. not concerned with. And as to the following, or the

like general exhortations, Afk, and ye shall re ceive; feek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you; thefe, I think, were intended to engage our utmost care and diligence in the discharge of our duty, and to affure us, that, when that is our cafe, we shall not fail of God's favour, our labour fhall not be in vain in the Lord; and not to affure us, that God will not fail to grant unto us whatsoever we fhall defire and feek after.

Befides, if we refer to experience and fact, I think, it rather fhews, that God is not generally influenced and wrought upon by prayer, than that he is. Thus, for example: Within thefe two hundred years last past, there have been, probably, thousands, yea, perhaps millions, of petitions put up to God for the deAtruction and downfal of Antichrift. And, with regard to the petitioners, I think, it may fairly be prefumed, that great numbers of them have been righteous men, who have been fervent, both in their private and publick prayers to God with refpect to it. Whether by Antichrift be meant the Pope and Hierarchy of the church of Rome, or any other great oppofition made to the kingdom and government of Chrift, fuch oppofition to Christ's kingdom is a matter of great concern, as the present and future well-being of mankind is apparently interefted therein, and, as fuch, the fall of it is greatly defirable, and a proper fubject of prayer to Chriftians; and notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding all the importunity that has

been

2

been used, with regard to it, Antichrift ftill remains; that is, there is fill a great oppofition made to the kingdom and government of Chrift. Now, if the repeated fervent prayers of a multitude of Chriftians, (many of whom, it is to be hoped, have been righteous and faithful,) for the obtaining that which is confeffedly of great concern to the Christian world, have not been fufficient to influence the Deity, fo as to prevail upon him to do, what otherwife, he would not do, as is evident they have not, in the instance before us; then, the ques tion will be, viz. How can it be expected, that the importunity of an individual, for the obtaining of that which is of much less concern, should fo affect and influence God, as to prevail upon him to do, what otherwife he would not have done, antecedent to fuch addrefs? And the answer, I think, is very apparent, viz. that fuch expectation must be groundless. I do not offer this to draw men off from prayer, nor to encourage carelessnefs and indifferency in the use of it; but, on the contrary, to draw men off from a groundless reliance upon it, as that which is greatly efficacious, and has a prevailing influence upon God; whereas prayer, in general, is intended to affect and influence the petitioner only. I alfo intend by it, to engage men fo to pray, as that the true ends of prayer may be answered upon them, by leading them, in the ufe of it, to have a juft and worthy fenfe of the Deity impreffed upon their minds, and diligently to labour themselves after what

they

they petition for, of their Maker. As to God, he is difpofed, and therefore will do what is proper for him to do, whether we address him for it, or not; or, at least, this will generally be the cafe.

To this I may add, that the great use of all religious worship muft needs be, not to affect and influence God, but the worshipper. God is what he is, antecedent to, and independent of, all our addreffes, all our profeffions, all our acknowledgments of him, "all our applications to him, and all our bowings down before him; and, what he is, he always will be, notwithstanding all thefe. We may, indeed, by our addreffes to God, affect and influence ourfelves, by difpofing ourselves, thereby, more and more to a conformity of mind and life, to the divine pattern, and the divine will; but we cannot poffibly, by our addreffes to God, fo affect and influence him, as to difpofe him to do, what was proper for him to do, antecedent to our addrefs; becaufe, he is always difpofed fo to do, from a higher and better motive, than being called upon to do it. And, to suppose, that God will, at any time, act improperly, by way of return to his creatures, for their having complimented him with their petitions, is too grofs and abfurd to be admitted. God cannot be bettered, nor profited, by any thing that he may require from us, nor from auy act of worship, nor any other thing that may be performed by us to him; and, therefore, the true and only ground of all fuch requirements,