66

"there would be no obligation either to prayer or thanks"giving, if God did not exercise a providence over the "world; and from thence he infers, (p. 44.) that God's government of the world is the foundation of this kind "of worship." This This may be true, in a certain sense, and very consistent with what I had said, according as prayer and thanksgiving may be taken under different conceptions. I considered them under such precise formality, as expressions or marks of honour: and that my reasoning was just, is capable of being proved, even with the evidence of demonstration. I shall make it out distinctly, step by step, as follows.

There is no reason why I should esteem or think any thing thus or thus excellent, but because it really is so; therefore the intrinsic excellency of the thing is the sole foundation of all just value or esteem. Inward honour is a mental acknowledgment of that esteem which I have of, or bear towards, the thing so esteemed, and consequently rests upon the same foundation: worship, considered as an outward expression or mark of that honour, (as it must be considered when once appropriated to the one only greatest and most excellent Beingh,) rests upon the same foundation that the honour does: prayer and thanksgiving, considered as parts of religious worship, (and

h I shall endeavour to illustrate this matter for the sake of common readers. We read in Daniel, chap. vi. of a law made that no petition should be offered to any one for thirty days, save to the king only, under pain of high treason. By that law petitions, for such a time, were appropriated to the crown, became ensigns of royal dignity and majesty, and acknowledgments of sovereignty in the person to whom they should be offered. Should any subject, for that time, have made a petition to any but the king, and have pleaded that the person to whom he made it was capable of obliging him, and upon that foundation (the sole foundation of all petitions) he had petitioned him; he would presently have been told, that the receiving a petition was a privilege of the crown, and went along with the throne; that there could not now be any legal foundation for it, but the royalty of the person to whom it should be offered. Now, put for royalty, Divine perfections; and for petitions, religious prayer and thanksgiving; which are appropriated, not for thirty days, but for ever, to God; and it will appear that the only lawful foundation of religious prayer and thanksgiving, considered as parts of worship, is the Divinity, i. e. the intrinsic excellency of the object.

consequently as marks and expressions of that highest honour, which is appropriate to the greatest and best of Beings,) has the same foundation which all worship has; that is, which honour has; that is, which esteem has; that is, the intrinsic excellency of the object: which was to be proved. There is no answering this, but either by denying prayer and thanksgiving to be parts of religious worship; or by shewing that all worship is not appropriate to God. Thus far I have proceeded in observing, that this writer has not been able to make good his position, that the worship of Christ is founded on his mediatorial office. The contrary may be proved from two plain

reasons.

1. That the only Scriptural foundation of any religious worship, is the Divinity of the person to be adored, in opposition to all creature-worship; as I have formerly proved in my Defence, &c. vol. i. Qu. 16. And it is worth observing, how naturally and how easily this falls in with the commands to worship Christ; since the same Scriptures, which declare him to be adorable, describe him also as God; and, together with the name, ascribe to him likewise those Divine perfections which make up and form the idea signified by so august and venerable a name.

2. That the mediatorial office will cease at the day of judgment, and therefore cannot be the foundation of that worship which will continue beyond it; even for ever and ever, as Christ's worship will. See Rom. ix. 5. Heb. xiii. 21. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 2 Pet. iii. 18. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12, 13.

This gentleman demands of me a plain Scripture text, where it is said that Christ is to be worshipped as being God, equal to the Father. But to this I answer, that Scripture supposes men to have common sense; and therefore when Scripture has laid down one only rule and foundation of worship, and it appears from the same Scripture that Christ is to be worshipped; there is no need of any thing farther, the rest follows of course. Besides, that though Scripture has not in express terms said, that

he is to be worshipped on that particular account; yet, since Scripture has asserted the equality of the Son to the Father, in more places than one, and his right to worship too; a very little logic will suffice to shew what relation these two things must have to each other.

5. A fifth particular maintained by this writer, though it concerns myself more than the cause, I am now to take notice of. "Dr. Waterland," he says (p. 54.) "has, in one

passage, given up both points" (viz. that the Son is God in a lower sense of the word God, and is to be worshipped only as Mediator) "to us." But where have I said either, or any thing like it? I have given nothing up, that I know of, which can do this writer, or his cause, any service. I have said, that the Father is primarily and eminently God, Creator, and object of worship: which he may be, without supposing him to be God in any higher or any different sense of the word God, Creator, &c. A different manner or order of existing or operating may, in many cases, be sufficient to ground an emphasis upon, (as might be proved by plain instances,) without recurring to a higher and lower sense of the words. As to the allowing of a subordination, it is so far from inferring a lower sense of the word God, &c. that, in strict propriety of speech, it implies the contrary; as I have before observed more at large.

Having thus examined and answered the most material pretences which this writer insists upon, in favour of Arianism, or in opposition to the Catholic doctrine, I might now take my leave of him. But it may be proper first to say something to a pretended contradiction, which not only he, (p. 6.) but the Modest Pleader also, (p. 48.) has been pleased to charge me with; as it is usual with many to think every thing contradictory which they cannot readily reconcile.

My words are, (Defence, vol. i. &c. p. 248.) "Each "divine Person is an individual intelligent agent: but as "subsisting in one undivided substance, they are all to"gether, in that respect, but one undivided intelligent

agent." This, they tell me, is to say, that three persons are one person. But, if they please to think again, they will find it is no more than saying, that person, and undivided intelligent agent, are not reciprocal. Undivided, or individual, intelligent agent, like the phrase individual being, may admit of a stricter and a larger sense. When this writer is able to fix a certain principle of individuation, he may then perhaps have something of colour for the charge of contradiction. See this matter more distinctly and fully explained in my Defence, &c. vol. i. p. 122.

I have detained my reader long enough, I fear too long, in the Preface. But I was willing, having this fresh opportunity of appearing in public, to take some notice of those two pamphlets, (the only ones that deserved it,) which had objected to my Vindication of Christ's Divinity, vol. iv. If I have, either through haste, or through a desire of brevity, slipped over any thing of real weight, or that may create any scruple or difficulty with impartial and considering men; I shall, when apprised of it, (if God permit,) carefully and fully examine and discuss that, and whatever else falls within the compass of what I have undertaken, namely, the point of Christ's real Divinity, in opposition to the pretended Divinity maintained by the Arians.

I should just observe to the reader, that some of the Sermons, as they appear in print, are somewhat longer than when preached. The three last especially are so, which I was obliged to shorten in the preaching, passing over several pages, for fear of keeping the audience too long. Some notes I have here and there added at the bottom, since the Sermons were delivered; though much the greater part were prepared before. I thought it very proper to intermix all along with Scripture, the testimonies of the ancients, as the best comments upon it. The reader will be the better satisfied in having a view of both together; and our adversaries may perhaps see cause to abate of their unreasonable and unaccountable boasts that way, when it appears from so many plain and clear

proofs, that their pretences to antiquity are groundless, and their faith novel as it is false.

I cannot here forget to mention my obligations to the Reverend Dr. Knight, of St. Sepulchre's, London; whose great learning and judgment are equal to his singular modesty and ingenuity; and to whose judicious observations it is owing, that the following Sermons appear more correct, and may, I hope, be more useful, than they would otherwise have been.