vindicated every part of the Query; having shown, that the equivocation, in respect of the Son's eternity, is justly chargeable upon the Doctor; and that he has not observed a neutrality in this dispute; nor carried the point higher than the ancient Arians; but has really and fully given into their sentiments, and therein determined against the Catholic Church. The use which I make of this, at present, is to observe to the reader; 1. That the Doctor has not invented any new or more excellent scheme than was thought of, considered, and condemned, near fourteen hundred years ago, by a very wise, numerous, and unbiassed council. 2. That he cannot justly cite any Catholic, Post-Nicene writer, (nor perhaps Ante-Nicene,) as certainly favouring his main doctrine. 3. That his attempt to reconcile the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds to Arianism, formed in direct opposition to it, is endeavouring to bring light and darkness, and the most irreconcileable inconsistencies to meet together. This for the present: the future use I shall make of it is to come directly to the point in question: for when it is certainly known what the drift, design, and meaning of an author is, much pains may be spared, and a dispute shortened. I hardly know whether strict method would permit me to take notice of the latter part of your Reply, (contained in pages 62, 63, 64.) it is so wide and foreign. You must have had a great mind to say something of eternal generation; otherwise you would never have introduced it in a place so improper. The pretence is, that we equivocate in talking of eternal generation; and therefore it is proper to retort it upon us, in answer to a charge of equivocation. But wherein do we equivocate, or do any thing like it? Is it in the word eternal? But we undoubtedly mean it in the strict and proper sense. Is it in the word generation? That is a word of latitude, capable of more senses than one. We use it in the sense which has prevailed in the Church fifteen hundred years; and in a proper sense, according to the rule of Tertullian, Omnis origo parens est. And where then is the impropriety or equivocation in the word generation, as used by us? True, it is not the same with human generation. But who will pretend that human is to be the measure and standard of all generation? Generation, you say, implies beginning; and yet we call it y eternal. Admit that it did so; yet, till that can be made appear, we may be very sincere in calling it eternal, intending no equivocation: you have not proved that all generation implies beginning; and what is more, cannot. You endeavour to make the notion of it absurd; but, unless you can demonstrate the absurdity of it, how will you charge us with equivocation; which was the point? All you have to say turns only upon your misconstruction of, I should say equivocation in, the word individual; which, you must needs know, we understand not in your sense of it; unless we are weak enough to suppose Father and Son to be one Person. You make another argument, by equivocating in the word production; which if we use at all, we always take care to explain to a good sense; and never once imagine, that the eternal generation is a temporal production. You are very unhappy, to equivocate all the way, while you are retorting the charge of equivocation; besides that, could you have retorted it in a handsomer manner, it would not have been pertinent, because it comes out of place. For your proper part here is, not so much to object against our scheme, as to defend your own: please to clear your own hypothesis first; and then we may hear what you can say against The Church of Christ has been in possession of the present prevailing doctrines, at least, for fourteen hundred years it concerns us, before we part with them, to see that we may have something better in their stead. What if the Catholic doctrine has some difficulties? Has ours. * Μὴ χρονικὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ καταδέξῃ τινὸς λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ ἄχρονον ἀρχὴν για νωσκε τὸν πατέρα. ̓Αρχὴ γὰρ εἰς ἄχρονος, ἀκατάληπτος, ἄναρχος ὁ πατήρ πηγὴ τῇ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ποταμοῦ, τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὁ πατὴς, ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν, καθὼς οἶδεν avròs povos. Cyril. Catech. xi. p. 145. Arianism none? Or must we change the former for the latter? No; let us first consider whether Arianism has not more and greater; and then perhaps we may see reason enough to keep as we are. It is an usual thing with many, (moralists may account for it,) when they meet with a difficulty which they cannot readily answer, immediately to conclude that the doctrine is false, and to run directly into the opposite persuasion: not considering that they may meet with much more weighty objections there than before; or that they may have reason sufficient to maintain and believe many things in philosophy or divinity, though they cannot answer every question which may be started, or every difficulty which may be raised against them. As to the point we are upon; while some are considering only the objections against the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, (how three can be one; how the Son could be generated; how person and being can be different; and the like;) they imagine presently, that the world, in a manner, has been hitherto miserably mistaken; and that they are the happy men, who see clearly how, and why. Let but the very same men have patience awhile, and not embark in the opposite cause, till they are able to find out a truer and a juster scheme, and to clear it of all considerable difficulties; I say, let them but do thus, and then, I am persuaded, they will be much less sanguine in their pursuit of novelties. In the present controversy there are three schemes, which I may call Catholic, Sabellian, and Arian: one of the three must, in the main, be true. The way to know which, is to weigh and consider the difficulties attending each respectively; and to balance them one against another. The advocates of the two latter have performed reasonably well, in the offensive part; and especially against each other: but have neither of them yet been able to defend tolerably their respective schemes; nor, I suppose, ever will be. But I proceed. Whether by these (of the first column) and the like texts, adoration and worship be not so appropriated to the one God, as to belong to him only? THIS is a very material inquiry, relating to the object of religious worship; than which nothing can be of greater concernment. Here, therefore, if any where, we might expect and demand of you a very full, clear, and satisfactory answer. I shall examine your answer, in due time and place. But, first, it will be proper to show what reasons we have to think that all religious worship is appropriated to God only. I shall inquire into the sense of Scripture, in this article; and next proceed to the judgment and practice of the ancient Church, the best comment upon Scripture. Exod. xx. ver. 3. hath been already produced. The words are, "Thou shalt have no other gods before (or besides) "me." Which is farther explained, ver. 5. (the reason being the same, both with respect to images and false gods,) "Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them "." All acts of religious worship are forbidden to be offered to any other being, besides the one supreme God: to him they are appropriated, to him only. So Deut. vi. 13. "Thou shalt "fear the Lord thy God, and serve him:" and again, Deut. x. 20. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou "serve." Which is quoted and explained by our blessed See also Exod. xxii. 20. xxxiv. 14. Dan. iii. 28. Lord himself, in these words: "Thou shalt worship the "Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve," Matth. iv. 10. This was said in answer to Satan, who did not pretend to be supreme, nor desire to be acknowledged as such: (see Luke iv. 6.) all he required was, that a solemn outward act of adoration and worship should be paid him: and the reason given for refusing it is not that he was a bad spirit, an enemy to God; or that God had not commanded that he should be worshipped; but the reason is general, that none are to be worshipped, but God only. And that these and the like texts were intended to exclude all beings, beside the one supreme God, from being worshipped, either at that time, or at any time after, appears, not only from the reason of the thing, but from plain Scripture. "Before me was there no God formed, neither "shall there be after me," Isa. xliii. 10. "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth "thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come to 66 pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after "other gods, (which thou hast not known,) and let us serve "them; thou shalt not hearken," &c. Deut. xiii. 1, 2, 3. The worship of the same one God, exclusive of all others, is by this for ever made unchangeable: miracles could not be sufficient to give credit to any one who should pretend to introduce another object of worship, or to set up another god, beside the one supreme God. All creatures whatever are hereby effectually precluded from receiving any religious homage and adoration. This is confirmed by St. Paul, (Rom. i. 21.) &c. who censures those that "knew "God," (that is, acknowledged one supreme God,)" and " yet glorified him not as God," because "they served the "creature more than (or besides) the Creator, who is bless"ed for ever." Wherein the Apostle plainly intimates, that the Creator only is to be served; and that the idolatry of the heathens lay in their worshipping of the creature. He does not blame them for giving sovereign or absolute worship to the creatures, (they could hardly be so silly as to imagine there could be more than one supreme God,) but for |