the only one to be intirely depended on, as giving the true Senfe of Origen, or of the Church in his Time) is contain'd in these Particulars.

1. That God the Son, if a Creature, or not Creator, or not truly God, fhould not be wor Ship'd at all.

2. That being truly God, and Creator, &c. He may be worship'd; either jointly with the Father, as one to lor, or diftinctly, as one PerJon of the Godhead.

3. That tho' He be God, and Creator, yet the Father is fo primarily and eminently as Father, and firft Perfon; and therefore the diftinct Worship of the Son, confider'd as a Son, redounds to the Father as the Head and Fountain of all. Hence it is, that, as the Father is primarily and eminently God, Creator, and Object of Worship; fo alfo all Worship, is primarily and eminently the Father's: And thus it is that I understand Origen, in a * certain place which has been often mif-interpreted.

4. That the worship of the Son, confider'd as a Son, is not an inferior Worship, nor any other than proper divine Worship; being an acknowledgment of the fame divine Excellencics, and effential Perfections communicated from Father to Son: And hence it is, that there is ftill but one Worship, and one Object of

* Δεκατόμεθα δε αὐτῇ ν λόγω, καὶ ἐπυξόμεθα αὐτῷ, ἢ εὐς χωρατήσομεν, ο προσευξόμεθα ή και δυνάμεθα καταμέτια που προ σευχής κυριολεξίας και καταχρήσεως, p. 133.

Worship; as one God, one Creator, &c. by reafon of the most intimate and ineffable Union of the two Perfons; which Origen Himself * endeavors to exprefs in the fullest and strongeft Words He could think on.

From what hath been faid, we may know what Judgment to make of the Antient Doxologies. They ought certainly to be understood according to the prevailing Doctrine of the primitive Church. They were different in Form, but had all one Meaning; the fame which I have shown you from the primitive Writers. The Arians were the first who interpreted fome of them to fuch a Senfe, as either favor'd Creature-Worship, or excluded the Son and Holy Ghost from proper divine Worship. It was low Artifice to value one fort of Doxology above another, only becaufe more equivocal; and to contend for Antient Words, in oppofition to the Antient Faith. The Catholicks understood the fubtlety of thofe Men, and very easily defeated it: First, by afferting the only truc and just Sense of Thofe Doxologies, which the Arians bad wrefted to an Heretical Meaning; and next, by using, chiefly, Doxologies of another Form; which had been also of long stand

• Αναβέβηκε δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεὸν, ὁ ἀχίσους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως, και ἀμερίςως αὐτὸν σέβων καὶ τῷ προσάγοντα ἐκείνῳ '45, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγο ooping, &c. p. 382.

The fame Thought is thus express'd by Cyril. Μήτε 2αὶ τὸ τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα νομίζειν, εν τι τ δημιουργημάτων τον υποπλεύσωμεν, ἀλλ' εἷς πατὴρ δὲ ἑνὸς τοῦ προσκυνείσθαι, καὶ μὴ pespitindes i gorxuvnors. Cyril. Catech. 11. p. 143. Oxon.

ing in the Church; and which, being less equivocal, were lefs liable to be perverted. But the Subject of Doxologies being already in better Hands, I fhall here difmifs it, and proceed.

You obferve, that it was the conflant praEtice of the Apostles to pray and give thanks to God, through Jefus Chrift, (p. 91.) And fo it is the conftant Practice of the Church at this Day. What can you infer from thence? That the Father and Son are not equal, or are not to be equally honour'd? Nothing lefs: But, as the Son ftands to us under the particular Character of Mediator, befides what He is in common with the Father, our Prayers, generally, are to be offer'd rather through Him, than to Him: yet not forgetting or omitting, for fear of Mifapprehenfion and grofs Mistakes, to offer Prayers directly to Him, and to join Him with the Father in Doxologies; as the Antient Church did, and as our own, God be thanked, and other Churches of Christendom ftill continue to do. You add, that whatever Honour is paid to the Son, is commanded, on account of his ineffable relation to God, as the only begotten Son, &c. But this ineffable Relation is not that of a Creature to his Creator; but of a Son to a Father, of the fame Nature with Him. This may be ftiled ineffable: the other cannot, in any true or just Sense. If the Son is to be worship'd, as you feem here to allow, it can be on no *See Bull. D. F. p. 121.

other

other Account, but fuch as is confiftent with the Scriptures; on the Account of his being one with the Father, to whom Worship belongs; and to whom it is appropriated in opposition to Creatures, not in oppofition to Him who is of the fame Nature with, Co-effential to, and Infeparable from Him. The Worship, you fay, terminates not in the Son. How this is to be understood, and in what Senfe admitted, I have explain'd above. Strictly fpeaking, no Honour is paid to Either, but what redounds to the Glory of Both; because of their intimate Union; and because Both are but one God. But you fay, the Father begat Him: Very well; fo long as He did not create Him, all is fafe: The Eternity, the Perfections, the Glory of Both are One. And, you fay, gave Him dominion over us: That is more than you can prove; unless you understand it of Chrift, confider'd as God-Man, or Mediator.

In fome Sense, every thing must be referr'd to the Father as the firft Perfon, the Head and Fountain of all. But this does not make two Worships, Supreme and Inferior; being all but one Acknowledgment of one and the fame effential Excellency and Perfection, confider'd primarily in the Father, and derivatively in the Son; who, though perfonally diftinguifh'd, are in Substance undivided and effentially one. All your Arguments, on this Head, amount only to a

petitio

petitio principii, taking the main Thing for granted; that a Diftinction of Perfons is the fame with a Difference of Nature; and that a Subordination of the Son, as a Son, to the Father, implies an effential Disparity and Inequality betwixt Them; which you can never make out. Inftead of proving the Son to be a Creature, and that He is to be worship'd notwithstanding (which are the Points you undertake) all that you really prove is, that the Son is not the Father, or first Perfon, nor confider'd as the first Perfon in our Worship of Him; which is very true, but very wide of the purpose. What follows in your Reply, (p. 91, 92, 93.) does not need any farther Anfwer; being either barely Repetition, or Comments on your own Mistake of the meaning of the Word, Individual; of which enough hath been faid before. You are pleafed (pag. 94) to make a wonder of it, that I fhould quote Heb. 1.6. in favor of my Hypothefis. But if you confider that the Angels are There order'd to worship the Son; and that That Text is a proof of the Son's being Jehovah (Sec Pfal. 97.) and that Worship is appropriated to God only, by many Texts of Scripture, and the concurring Senfe of Antiquity, as I have shown above; there will be little farther occafion for wondring, in fo clear a Cafe. In that very Chapter (Heb. 1.) it is fufficiently intimated what it was that made the Son capable of receiving Worfhip and Adoration. He is declared to have made the Worlds; to be the Shining forth of