derstood, while it derogates from the Divine perfections ascribed in holy writ equally to each Person in the Godhead; that it involves the absurdity and the impiety of acknowledging a supreme and an inferior God as distinct objects of Divine worship; that it, in effect, reduces the Son and the Holy Ghost to the rank of created beings, notwithstanding the titles and attributes of the Godhead acknowledged to belong to them; and thus, instead of rendering this inscrutable mystery more consonant to reason, or more accessible to our finite understandings, surrounds it with additional difficulties and perplexities, incapable of any satisfactory solution. His opponents, after vainly endeavouring to parry these attacks, changed their mode of warfare, and became, in their turn, assailants of the received notions of the Trinity. Their chief reliance was either upon metaphysical arguments to prove the impossibility of the doctrine; or upon detached texts of Scripture declaratory of the supreme Godhead of the Father, to the exclusion, as they maintained, of the other Persons of the Godhead. They assumed, on the one hand, that every text of Scripture in which the Supreme God is mentioned is to be understood of the Father only; and, on the other hand, that the terms person and being, when applied to the Godhead, are of one and the same signification; and consequently, that the believers of the doctrine, in its ordinary acceptation, must be either Tritheists or Sabellians. The discussion of these points necessarily engaged our author in metaphysical distinctions; which, otherwise, he was inclined to avoid. But it was always in subservience to the authoritative word of Scripture,

that he ventured into this field of argument; in which, nevertheless, he proved himself fully competent to meet even the most powerful of his antagonists and seldom, perhaps, have the keenness and dexterity of the polemic been more under the discipline and regulation of this reverential feeling, than in the writings of Dr. Waterland.

His persevering adversary, Jackson, suffered hardly any of our author's labours to pass uncensured. He had eagerly espoused Dr. Clarke's à priori demonstration, before the appearance of the Dissertation appended to Mr. Law's work: and now he again came forward to animadvert upon the Dissertation with his usual petulancy and coarseness. In answer to Waterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, he also put forth a work, called, Christian Liberty asserted, and the Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated, 1734: and not long after, he sought to take farther revenge on his adversary, by publishing what he strangely miscalled, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Dr. Waterland. To neither of these did Waterland think fit to return an answer. After the death of Dr. Clarke there was not the same inducement to notice Mr. Jackson's performances, as there had been whilst he was living, and might be supposed to approve and even to aid his labours. From the time that Jackson lost this support, he became more and more regardless of the restraints of decorum and the ordinary courtesies of well-trained disputants. To such scurrilities, indeed, as this last piece abounded with, Waterland could not, with any regard to his own personal respectability, condescend to reply. Jackson, however, met

with a pretty sharp rebuke for his Christian Liberty asserted from a writer of great learning and ability, at that time anonymous, but known soon afterwards to be Mr. Horbery, of Magdalen college, Oxford; a writer, whose reputation has since been established by other theological writings of great excellence.

There is yet another controversy, in some degree connected with these, since it arose out of some passages in Dr. Clarke's Exposition of the Church Catechism, published soon after his decease, which appeared to Dr. Waterland to call for animadversion. But as this controversy turned chiefly upon a different subject, the relative importance of positive and moral duties, and the nature and obligation of the Christian sacraments, it may more conveniently be considered, in conjunction with our author's other writings upon the Eucharist, reserved for a future section.

SECTION V.

WATERLAND'S CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS IN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AGAINST DEISTS.

THE period in which Dr. Waterland lived was strongly marked by a spirit of hostility, not only against some peculiar doctrines of Christianity, but against Christianity itself. Infidelity and heresy grew and flourished together, as if of kindred natures; and the soil congenial to the one, was found to be no less favourable to the other. Both, perhaps, owe their origin to that overweening pride of intellect, which disdains to receive, as necessary truth, any doctrine not discoverable by its own excogitative powers, or not, at least, in unison with its own preconceived notions of rectitude and fitness. In both also the process of reasoning is similar. The inquirer in each case usually assumes certain positions as the basis of his argument, for which he claims the privilege of indisputable axioms; and then proceeds to try the weight and credibility of Revelation, whether in whole or in part, by this criterion of his own devising. Physics, ethics, metaphysics, are, with him, paramount in authority to any thing which rests on faith; and independently of the testimonies by which that faith may be supported, an appeal is made to the arbitrary tribunal of human judgment. In the case of infidelity, this, for the most part, is unhesitatingly avowed. In that of heresy, though a certain degree of deference may be professed, and even sincerely entertained, for Revelation itself, and

for Scripture, its written voucher; yet the bias of a similar prepossession is almost always apparent. Faith is not absolutely discarded; but is brought into subjection to a domineering spirit, which will never rest until it has made every other authority bend to its decrees.

It appears to have been owing to the prevalence of this spirit, that the course of Deism in this country, for a considerable length of time, ran nearly parallel with that of heterodoxy. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the philosopher of Malmesbury, and Toland, the follower of Spinosa, were contemporary with Biddle, Firmin, and the host of Anti-Trinitarians who poured forth their lucubrations as a counterpoise to the labours of Bishop Bull. In the next generation, Chubb, Morgan, Collins, and Tindal, united their forces against revealed religion; while Whiston, Emlyn, and Clarke were maintaining tenets at variance with some of its essential doctrines. Whoever is conversant with the Anti-Trinitarian writers of the former period will perceive that they wantonly, or inconsiderately, put weapons into the hands of the infidel party; who would hardly fail to render them available to their purpose. So little reverence did they sometimes shew for sacred writ, and so bold and unqualified were their assertions of the supremacy of human judgment in matters of religious belief, that scarcely could the most determined unbeliever desire to have principles conceded to him, better adapted to his own views. The same charge does not, indeed, apply, in an equal degree, to those of the succeeding generation, who controverted some of the received doctrines of the Church.