Bishop of Carthage, in the year 397, and St. Austin, Bishop of Hippo, was assisting at it. It is not very likely that such men as they should have any design to throw off the worship of the Son or Holy Ghost. St. Austin well understood the manner of praying through Christ, but never thought it any objection against praying also directly to Christ: Oramus ad illum, per illum, in illoh. "We pray," says he, "to him, through him, in "him."

5. Modest Plea says farther; " At this day the Church, "in her solemn exhortation to priests at the ordination, "directs them to pray continually to God the Father, by "the mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the "heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost." Very right: it is the ordinary rule and method of praying; but neither our Church, nor any church, ever intended to omit or set aside direct prayer to the other two Persons.

6. "The same direction is actually observed in much "the greater part of the whole Liturgy, that is, in every 66 part where either the composition or expressions are "ancient." But upon due inquiry it will be found, that the ancient way was, to take just such a method as our Church has taken, namely, to contrive that the prayers, for the most part only, shall be directed to the Father, and not the whole Liturgy.

7. Bishop Bull i "takes notice, with great approbation, "that in all the Liturgies of the Catholic Church, most of "the prayers are directed to God the Father." Right again; most of the prayers, not all the prayers. So it is in Scripture, so in the primitive Liturgies, and so in all Christian Liturgies. Generally the prayers so run, but not uniformly.

8. The Modest Pleader adds; "It is to be observed, "says Bishop Bull, that in the Clementine Liturgy, so "called, which is by the learned on all hands confessed

h St. Augustin in Psal. lxxxv. tom. iv. p. 901. ed. Bened.

i Bull. D. F. sect. ii. c. 9. s. 15.

"to be very ancient, and to contain the order of worship "observed in the churches before the time of Constan"tine, all the prayers are directed to God, in the name "of his Son Jesus Christ, as they are, says he, God be "praised, in our Liturgy." The last words show, that Bishop Bull did not mean it of all the prayers, but of the most only, as is the case in our Liturgy, which he mentions as parallel. Indeed, Bishop Bull's thoughts were intent upon quite another matter than what he is here cited for; designing only to say, that no prayers were anciently offered up to angels; which made him say all, in opposition to that only. His words are these:

"In the Clementine Liturgy, so called, which is, &c. "-there is not one prayer to be found, from the begin"ning to the end of it, made either to angel or saint, (no, "not so much as any such prayer as this; O Michael, O Gabriel, O Peter, O Paul, pray for us,) but all the

66

prayers are directed to God, in the name of his Son "Jesus Christ, as they are (God be praised) in our Li"turgy k." However, if the Modest Pleader had not been too much in haste, he might himself have looked into the Clementine Liturgy, and there have seen, with his own eyes, one very solemn and pompous prayer', directed entirely to God the Son, and part m of another, besides many doxologies directed to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", not to the first Person only through the other. And now, if all this may be met with in that very Liturgy, though it is generally supposed to have gone through Arian hands, and to have suffered corruption by them, what might we not have expected more to our purpose in the same Liturgy, had it come down to us entire, as at first drawn up by the orthodox compilers.

9. There is one plea more which is much insisted upon

Bull's Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 476.

1 Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 7.

m Ibid. lib. vii. c. 43.

"Ibid. lib. viii. c. 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 38, 39, 41.

through several pages °, to this effect; "Whether the "Son and Holy Ghost be equal or not equal to the Fa"ther ;—whether consubstantial or not consubstantial,

66

yet to worship uniformly the one God the Father "through Christ,-to direct all our praises, prayers, and "petitions, primarily to the Father, through the merits "and mediation of the Son, is undoubtedly, upon all "hypotheses, right and sufficient in practice, without

66

any danger of error or mistake; being what all sin"cere Christians might easily and most safely agree in, "and indeed all that they promise at their baptism." This reasoning is fallacious, and goes upon several weak and false suggestions. How can the throwing out the Son and Holy Ghost from direct worship be right and sufficient upon all hypotheses, when upon the hypothesis that the three Persons are equal, and are all together the one God, (which is something more than an hypothesis,) they have all an equal claim to divine worship, and ought to be honoured accordingly? But Christians may safely join in prayers made to the Father only! Very true, and they may safely join also in some prayers, particularly in the Lord's Prayer, where no mention at all is made of Jesus Christ. And might not a Deist argue, from parity of reason, for the throwing out Christ Jesus, that so both Christians and Deists may agree in one Liturgy, directing all prayers to the one eternal God? If it be said that neither the precepts nor examples found in Scripture will permit Christians thus to curtail their prayers to oblige the Deists, the same I say as to orthodox Christians, that neither will the Scripture rule, or apostolical practice, or the very reason of the thing permit, that they should totally lay aside the direct worship of God the Son or God the Holy Ghost. It is in vain to cast about for any far-fetched reasons, colours, or pretences in a plain case. Supposing it not necessary that all doctrines, even though very important, should be expressed

• Modest Plea, p. 178-182.

in a public Liturgy, (though if they were, I should not think it at all improper or amiss ;) yet certainly the Liturgy should be so contrived, as effectually to point out the object of worship. If the supplicants cannot agree about the very object of worship, I do not see how they can at all unite in one common Liturgy, or so much as hold communion with each other. Indeed all should agree to take Scripture for their rule, and the practice of the three first centuries for the model of their worship. This is the shortest and best way of composing all differences: they that refuse it are justly blameable, and are the dividers of the Christian Church; and be it at their peril who do so, as they will answer it at the great day of accounts.

I have now run through every thing that carried any face of argument in Modest Plea, for worshipping uniformly, as he calls it, God the Father through Christ. Upon the whole, it may appear, that there is no such uniform method prescribed by Scripture, or apostolical practice, or the custom of the Church of Christ in the first and purest ages. If our paying worship to, as well as through the Son or Holy Spirit, be what the author of the Exposition condemns as faulty, then, say I, faulty were all or most of the primitive martyrs in their dying breath; faulty all the ancient churches of Christ; faulty St. Stephen, St. Paul, and St. John; faulty our blessed Lord himself, (with reverence be it spoken,) who has commanded us not barely to worship the Father through the Son, but to "honour the Son even as we honour the "Father P ;" and has also instituted the form of Baptism in the name" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the "Holy Ghost:" not in the name of the Father only, through the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, as some of the ancient Arians would gladly have turned it 9. I hope the reader will pardon me for dwelling so long upon this high article: it is no speculative matter, but strictly prac

P John v. 23. See my First and Second Defence, vol. i. and iii. Qu. xix. Vid. Theodor. Lect. Eccl. H. p. 576. edit. Cant.

tical, and of the greatest concernment. To rob our blessed Lord and the blessed Spirit of all religious worship is blasphemy and sacrilege. It is what the ancient Arians durst never venture upon; so strong was the force of Scripture and universal practice, as to make them act even against principle. The Socinians themselves, most of them, driven to it by plain dint of Scripture, plead warmly for the divine worship of Christ, and give no quarter to them that disown it. The Racovian Catechism itself is express both for adoration and invocation of Christ, and does not allow them to be Christians that reject it'. So essential to Christianity is the worship of Christ, in the judgment even of adversaries, who, if they are therein less consistent than others, yet appear more pious, and have a greater reverence for Scripture. However, all that I positively charge the Exposition with is, dropping the worship of two of the divine Persons, and taking no care (where it ought to have been taken) to enforce and secure it, or so much as to make mention of it. Having done with this important article, I shall be shorter upon the

rest.

II.

I have nothing further to observe of the Exposition, till we come to page 40, where the reader will find these words of the Catechism:

Q. What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of thy Belief?

A. First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me and all the world.

Quid vero sentis de iis hominibus qui Christum nec invocandum, nec adorandum censent?

Quandoquidem illi demum Christiani sunt qui Jesum agnoscunt esse Christum, seu cœlestem illum populi divini Regem, ac porro eum divina ratione colunt, ejusque nomen invocare non dubitant, qua de causa supra vidimus Christianos ita describi, quod nomen Domini Jesu Christi invocent; facile intelligitur, eos qui id facere nolunt, Christianos hactenus non esse, quamvis alioqui Christi nomen profiteantur et doctrinæ illius se adhærere diCateches. Eccles. Polon. p. 172, 173.

cant.