"were not his own, faying: All thefe Things

will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down "and worship me.-The Syftem of Creatures " is not under his Dominion, fince He Himself "is one of the Creatures.

*Origen has a great deal to our purpose, in his Book against Celfus. I fhall felect a few Paffages: He blames the Gentiles, "who from "the ftupendous greatnefs of the Things in the "World, and the beautiful order of Creatures " (Spain) did not look up and confider "that they ought to admire, worship, and adore "Him only that made Them. In another place "He says: To worship the Sun and the Crea"tures of God (eg synua is forbidden "Us, who are taught, not to ferve the Crea "ture befides the Creator. He obferves a little after that: "We ought not to Honour Thofe "in the place of God, or of the Son of God. Which I take notice of here particularly, that you may fee how clearly Origen diftinguishes the Son from the Sμspyna Oey: as, indeed, He does every where. In another place, He obferves that Chriftians are bred up to Thoughts

* Οἱ ἐκ τοῦ τηλικέτε μεγέθες τ' εν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐ το κάλλες δημιουργημάτων μη δυνάμμοι αναβλέψει και θεωρήσεις, ότι προσκυνεῖν καὶ θαυμάζειν καὶ σέβειν χρὴ μόνον τὸν ταῦτα πεποιηκότα, p. 198. σέβειν ἢ τὸ ἥλιον, καὶ τα Θεοῦ δημιουργήματα ἅπερ ἡμῖν ἀπη χόρευται διδασκομλίοις μή λατρεύειν τῇ κτίση παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα,

Οὐδεὶς γὰρ βλίπων τοῖς τὸ ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ σέβη τὸ θεῖον παρά τ' υποδεικνύντα ἐνορᾶν ἀεὶ τ ν παντὸς δημιεργῷ, ο πᾶσαν εὐχὴν ἀναφέρειν ἐκείνῳ, p. 367.

elevated

66

elevated far above all Creatures, and might very justly difdain to worship any of Them. The like He remarks of the Jews, " that they were taught to † afcend up to the uncreated "Nature of God, to fix their Eyes upon Him only; and on Him alone to rest all their Hopes and Expectations.

66

66

I might add many more Testimonies, to the fame effect, from the Ante-Nicene Writers: But these are fufficient to give us a just Idea of their Principles, in relation to the Object of Worship. This we shall find run thro' Them all, That God alone is to be worship'd; the Creator in oppofition to all Creatures whatever; the Toor (as Clement of Alexandria, and Origen fometimes accurately exprefs it) which alfo Tertullian feems to intimate, in the words, Quod Colimus, above cited. The Sum then of the cafe is this: If the Son could be included as being uncreated, and very God; as Creator, Suftainer, Preferver of all Things, and one with the Father; then He might be worship'd upon their Principles, but otherwife could not. What their Practice was, fhall be confider'd, in its proper place. For the prefent, let it be a Rule and Maxim with us, fix'd, as far as Scri

* Τοὺς διδαχθέντας μεγαλοφυῶς ὑπεραναβαίνειν πάντα τὰ δημιουρ huga, &c. p. 237.

† ̓Αναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγένητον τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσιν κακείνῳ μένῳ ἐνος αν καὶ τὰς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ μόνες ἐλπίδας προσδοκών, p. 189.

Compare p. 160. where Origen infifts upon the Neceffity of elevating our Thoughts and Devotions above and beyond all created Being, ὁ, πποτῶν γενητὸν, in one place, παντὸς γενητου in the other. See aifo Clem. Alex. p. 809. 816. Ox. Ed.

pture and the concurring Judgment of Antiquity can fix it (befides what might be justly pleaded from the Reason of the Thing) that no kind or degree of religious Worship is due, or can be lawfully paid, to any Creature. The Conclufion from all is; if our Bleffed Lord is a Creature, *He is not to be worship'd; if He is to be worship'd, He is not a Creature. Now we may pals on.

QUERY XVII.

Whether, notwithstanding, Worship and Adoration be not equally due to Chrift; and confequently, whether it must not follow that He is the one God, and not (as the Arians fuppofe) a distinct inferior Being?

You

OU Answer, that Equality of divine Honour is never attributed in Scripture to the Son with the Father; and then, in proof of a Matter of Fact, you affign a reafon of your own devifing; for then the Son would be abfolutely equal with the Father, which is contrary to Scripture and Reafon, (p. 94) But why do you not keep close to the Words of the Query, and to the point in Question? Worship and Adoration are my Words; not divine Honour, which is ambiguous, and leads us off from the Argument in Hand. Suppofe it had been faid Sacrifice: Would you anfwer

* Κόσμα ο κόσμαν & προσκυνεῖ, ἀλλὰ διύλων Δεσπότω, καὶ κτίσμα Θεόν. Ath. Orat. 2. p. 491.

thus ?

thus? Equality of divine Sacrifice is never attributed, &c. Do not you fee the Impropriety? Well, but, as it is, you must fay, equality of divine Worship is never attributed, &c. And then, pray tell me, what you mean by equality or inequality of Worship; whether you mean longer or fhorter Prayers, more or lefs frequent Addreffes, or any thing else. Be that as it will, Worship, religious Worship, greater or fmaller, longer or fhorter, has the fame Import and Significancy; and speaks the Person addrefs'd to, to be divine: juft as Sacrifice, whether offer'd once a Year only or once a Day, or whether it were a Lamb or only two young Pigeons, carried the fame Acknowledgment with it of the Divinity, Soveraignty, and Supremacy of the Perfon to whom it was offer'd. Now, Worship being, as hath been faid, an Acknowledgment of the true God, in oppofition to all Creatures whatever, which are by Nature no Gods; and being offer'd to the Father, not for the recognizing his perfonal Properties, as He ftands diftinguifh'd from the Son and Holy Spirit, but his effential Perfections, common to all, and by which He is dis stinguish'd from the Creatures; it is very manifeft, that if the Son is to be worship'd too, He is equally God, and true God, with the Father; has all the fame effential Excellencies and Perfections which the Father hath, and is at as great a distance from the Creatures; in oppofition to whom, and as a mark of his Su

S 3

perior

perior and infinitely tranfcendent Excellency, He is worship'd. If then Honour confifts in the Acknowledgment of his effential Perfections, Equality of divine Honour is attributed in Scripture to the Son with the Father; because Worship is attributed to Both, and is always of the fame Import and Significancy, by God's own Order and Appointment. But then you'l fay, the Son will be abfolutely equal with the Father; which you think inconfiftent with Scripture and Reason. If you mean by abfolutely equal, that the Son must be the firft Perfon, as well as the Father, I deny your Inference: if any thing clfe, I allow it to be true. The Son will be equal in all thofe Refpects, for which Worship is due to the Father Himself. He will be equally divine, equally eternal, immutable, wife, powerful, &c. in a word, equally God and Lord. As to the Subordination of Perfons in the fame Godhead, That is of distinct Confideration; and we may never be able perfectly to comprehend the Relations of the three Perfons, ad intra, amongst themfelves; the ineffable Order and Oeconomy of the ever bleffed Co-eternal Trinity. You have many Things to fay, in hopes to leffen the Honour and Worfhip attributed to the Son in Holy Scripture. But unless you cou'd prove that no Worship at all is to be paid Him, you prove nothing. However, that I may nor feem to pass any thing flightly over, I shall take the Pains to examine your Exceptions.

Aş