" 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 Bulli" 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.

66

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 to be very ancient, "and to contain the order of worship observed in the churches "before the time of Constantine,-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 shew, 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 beginning 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 prayers are directed to God, in the "name of his Son Jesus Christ, as they are (God be praised) in "our Liturgy." 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 of another, besides many doxologies directed to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", not to the first Per

i Bull. D. F. sect. ii. c. 9. 8. 15. Bull's Posthumous Works, vol.

ii. p. 476.

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

m Ibid. lib. vii. c. 43. n Ibid. lib. viii. c. 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 38, 39, 41.

.

son 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.

66

66

66

66

9. There is one plea more which is much insisted upon through several pages, to this effect; "Whether the Son and Holy Ghost be equal or not equal to the Father;—whether "consubstantial or not consubstantial, 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 any danger of error or mistake; being what all sincere Chris"tians 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 in a public Liturgy, (though if they

o Modest Plea, p. 178-182.

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 blamable, 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 practical, 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 dis

P John v. 23. See my First and Second Defence, vol. i. and ii. Q. xix.

q Vid. Theodor. Lect. Eccl. H. p. 576. edit. Cant.

own 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.

Secondly, In God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind.

Thirdly, In God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.

I take the more notice of this part of the Catechism, because the author has neglected it. He has transcribed it, as he found it, placing it at the end of the Creed, but we see no more of it. He goes on afterwards to expound the Creed in his way, but says nothing of God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost; that is, you hear no more of their Godhead. He never asserts the Divinity of either, never so much as gives them the title of God. What the compilers recommended chiefly to our faith, he silently passes over; and instead of recommending the same doctrine, seems to throw it quite out. This is not doing justice to our

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 ahhærere dicant. Cateches. Eccles. Polon. p.

172, 173.

Church Catechism, nor answering the title of the book: expounding is one thing, expunging is another. Since this was the design, the fairer way would have been to have said, the Church Catechism explained and corrected, rather than to have given the title of an Exposition to the whole, which belongs only to a part. I thought it not improper to take notice of this, though it may appear slight, because it is really of weight: for great impositions often arise only from words and names. But I pass on.

From page 42 to page 49, the author has some previous observations, to prepare his way for what he intended upon the Apostles' Creed. The sum is, that he is to interpret the Creed by Scripture, that is, by his own sense of Scripture; not considering that he had undertaken to expound the Catechism, which had interpreted the Creed to quite another sense, and thereby precluded all further tampering with it; unless an expositor's business be to set one part of the Catechism against the other, and to contrive that the whole may hang loosely together. It is impossible to reconcile the principles laid down in the Exposition, with what the Catechism plainly means by God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, as taught in the Creed. The Church Forms ought most certainly to be interpreted according to the mind of the Church that made them: and if so interpreted they appear not to agree with Scripture, they are to be rejected as false, and not strained to a sense not their own, in order to make them true. The Scriptures in this case are indeed the rule of truth, but not the rule of interpretation. They are the rule for receiving any forms, but not the rule for understanding them. Their meaning is first to be judged of, from the natural force of the words, the intent of the compiler, and the laws of true criticism: and then indeed after that, their truth is to be judged of by their conformity to Scripture". But to proceed.

Page 45, the Exposition says, "In things fundamental, in things required as of necessity to eternal salvation, it is evident "this rule (of Scripture) ought to be so plain, that no honest "careful mind, even of mean capacity, to whom the sermons of "Christ and his Apostles have been distinctly rehearsed, can be "in any danger of mistaking." This is plausible talk, and it is obvious enough to perceive for what purpose it is brought. I

s See Case of Arian Subscription, vol. ii. p. 272, 273.