The Works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland ...

sion on the part of his opponent, he grounds all his subsequent observations.

With such an adversary it would have been useless further to contend. Dr. Waterland accordingly passed over this production in silence, until Dr. Clarke thought fit to take the matter into his own hands, by publishing the anonymous Observations already mentioned.

To this latter pamphlet Dr. W. replied in a short tract, entitled, A Farther Vindication of Christ's Divinity, 1724; in the Introduction to which, he observes, that since the publication of his second Defence, he had waited to see what farther attempts might be made by the Arians; that the first effort to renew the contest appeared under the title of Remarks &c. by one Philalethes Cantabrigiensis; but that having no acquaintance with the author under that name, and finding little in the piece but tedious repetition and studied confusion, he thought himself not obliged to take notice of it. But But upon the appearance of these Observations, stated to be by the author of the Reply to his first Defence, he conceived it to be incumbent upon him again to come forward. "Whether it be Dr. Clarke," he adds, or whether it be Mr. Jackson, (for though it be "doubted which, all agree that it lies between them,) they are both men whom I must attend to: one, as he is the principal in the cause, the other, as "he is second, and had the first hand in committing

my Queries to the press, engaging me ever after "in the public service." Probably, however, Waterland was well aware, that Dr. Clarke was in this instance his real opponent.

In animadverting upon the Observations, Dr. W. takes notice, that Dr. Clarke's friends had not cleared his scheme of the charge of making two Gods; one supreme, and another inferior; that they had not removed the difficulty of supposing God the Son and God the Holy Ghost to be two creatures; had not been able to defend creature-worship; had not invalidated the proofs of divine worship being due to Christ; nor accounted for divine titles, attributes, and honours being ascribed to a creature ; nor given satisfaction as to Christ being both Creator and creature; nor established Dr. Clarke's pretences to Catholic antiquity. Having thus failed in the defensive, the writer of the Observations (says Dr. W.) had now undertaken the offensive part; and, unable to vindicate his own scheme, sought to retaliate upon his opponent by false and injurious charges, by misrepresentations, or by invective and declamation.

The first charge relates to the supremacy of the Father. The Observer accuses Dr. Waterland of asserting, what the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have deemed the highest blasphemy, viz. that the Father" has no natural and necessary supremacy of "authority or dominion at all; has no other supremacy of authority and dominion, than what is "founded in mutual agreement and voluntary con“cert; but has, naturally and necessarily, a pri

ority of order only." To this Waterland replies, that he had repeatedly and plainly declared, "that provided the Son's necessary existence be secured, "that he be acknowledged not to exist precariously, "or contingently, but necessarily, that his co-eter

nity and consubstantiality be maintained, his crea"tive powers, his infinite perfections, his being no "creature, but one God with the Father, and the "like; that then the supremacy should be no mat"ter of dispute with him. Any supremacy of the "Father," he adds, "that is consistent with these "certain, plain, Catholic tenets, always and universally believed by the Churches of Christ; I say, any supremacy consistent herewith, I hold, assert, “ and maintain; any that is not consistent, I reject, "remove, and detest, with all the Christian Churches, "early and late." Dr. Clarke's notion of supremacy, he contends, is not consistent with an equality of nature; it makes God the Son naturally subject to the Father, and, consequently, makes him a creature, "a being that might never have existed, and might cease to exist, if God so pleased." Again;

f Mr. Charles Butler, in his Historical Account of Confessions of Faith, chap. x. sect. 2. relates a remarkable anecdote of Dr. Clarke, concerning this point. Dr. Clarke, he says, "met a powerful op"ponent in Dr. Hawarden, a celebrated Clergyman of the Roman "Catholic Church. By the desire of Queen Caroline, the consort of George the First, a conference was held by them, in the presence "of her Majesty, of Mrs. Middleton, a Roman Catholic lady, much "in her confidence, and the celebrated Dr. Courayer. When they met, Dr. Clarke, at some length, in very guarded terms, and "with great apparent perspicuity, exposed his system. After he "had finished, a pause of some length ensued: Dr. Hawarden "then said, that he had listened with the greatest attention to "what had been said by Dr. Clarke; that he believed he appre"hended rightly the whole of his system; and that the only reply which he should make to it, was, asking a single question : "that, if the question should be thought to contain any ambiguity, he wished it to be cleared of its ambiguity before any answer to it was given; but desired that, when the answer to it

Dr. Clarke, he observes, urges the supremacy "to destroy the equality: I stand by the equality, and "insist upon it, that it is consistent with all the supremacy that either Scripture or Catholic Fathers taught." This charge Dr. W. more particularly takes pains to refute, "because it runs in a manner "through the book."

Another charge the Observer states thus: "When "Dr. W. says, that many supreme Gods in one un"divided substance are not many Gods, for that

very reason, because their substance is undivided, " he might exactly with the same sense and truth “have affirmed, that many supreme persons in one ❝ undivided substance are not many persons; for "that very reason, because their substance is undi"vided." To this, as well as to a similar charge by the author of the Remarks, Dr. W. replies; "The "answer, in short, is this: though the union of the

three persons (each person being substance) makes “them one substance, yet the same union does not "should be given, it should be expressed either by the affirmative or negative monosyllable. To this proposition Dr. Clarke as"sented. Then,' said Dr. Hawarden, I ask, Can God the Fa"ther annihilate the Son and the Holy Ghost?—Answer me, Yes 66 or No.' Dr. Clarke continued for some time in deep thought, " and then said, 'It was a question which he had never considered.' "Here the conference ended. A searching question,” adds Mr. Butler, "it certainly was; and the reader will readily perceive its bearings. If Dr. Clarke answered, Yes, he admitted the Son and "the Holy Ghost to be mere creatures; if he answered, No, he admitted them to be absolutely Gods." This conference Mr. Butler states to have given rise to a publication of Dr. Hawarden's, entitled, an Answer to Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whiston, concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit; with a summary Account of the Writers of the three first ages.

"make them one person; because union of substance "is one thing, and unity of person is another: and "there is no necessity that the same kind of union "which is sufficient for one, must be sufficient for "the other also. There is no consequence from one "to the other, but upon this supposition, that per"son and acting substance are equivalent, and reciprocal: which the author of the Remarks had acuteness enough to see, and therefore fixes upon me, unfairly, that very supposition.”

In the next chapter, on the "misreports and mis"representations contained in the Observations," many similar instances are alleged of unfairness, or of carelessness, in citing Dr. W.'s statements and opinions. This gives occasion to our author to restate, to amplify, and to elucidate certain points of special interest and importance. One striking instance may be noticed in section ix. of this chapter, respecting subordination of order as consistent with perfect equality of nature; which, for clearness and strength of reasoning, as well as pure reverential feeling, dignified and sublime expression, is not, perhaps to be exceeded. Another instance occurs in section xv. where he refutes Dr. C. by reference to his own Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. Sections xvi. and xvii. are also deserving of particular attention, as affording similar proofs of great acuteness and powers of reasoning.

In the third chapter there are some excellent observations on the signification of the terms supreme and independent, when applied to the Persons of the Godhead; also on attempts to prove the existence of a First Cause, à priori; and on the ques

« Vorige Doorgaan »

Boeken

The Works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland ...: Now First Collected ..., Volume 3