confidently denied; and the apprehension of them was treated as weak and ridiculous: nor did the parties forbear to express their strong resentment, that any such surmises should be harboured against them. But that these were not merely imaginary fears, the writings of the enemies of revealed religion too clearly proved. Nor was Waterland himself a man disposed to charge such consequences lightly upon his opponents. He was capable of taking enlarged and rational views of every subject of his inquiry. No indications of superstitious weakness, of credulity, or enthusiasm, are discoverable in any of his writings. On the contrary, he guarded, most carefully, against extremes on either side.

The circumstances which first led him to publish his sentiments upon the doctrine of the Eucharist, arose out of a controversy with Dr. Sykes, in its commencement more immediately connected with that which he had maintained against Dr. Clarke's view of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Dr. Clarke died in 1729, leaving, revised and prepared for the press, an Exposition of the Church Catechism; "which was published," says Bishop Hoadley," according to his own express desire, the "same year of his death." In the following year came forth Dr. Waterland's Remarks on this Exposition; animadverting upon several passages which he deemed likely to mislead incautious readers, These censures relate rather to omissions of certain points which ought to have been brought forward, or to some heterodox opinions obscurely insinuated, than to any express declarations of exceptionable doctrine. Dr. Clarke studiously inculcated, that re

ligious worship should be paid to the Father only, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; implying, that it is not paid to either of these as their own due, but only through or by them, ultimately to the Father. He represented also the work of redemption, and that of sanctification, to be from the Father only, by the Son and the Holy Ghost; as if these were merely instruments in His hand; and that, consequently, to HIM, and not to them, is the glory exclusively to be ascribed. Other passages of similar tendency occur in this treatise, more or less derogating from the essential Divinity of our Lord and of the Holy Spirit; passages, which our author illustrates by reference to others in Dr. Clarke's Modest Plea, expressing more fully and unreservedly what is covertly advanced in this Exposition.

Dr. Waterland observes farther, that Dr. Clarke, in explaining that answer in the Catechism which states our belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," says nothing of GOD the Son,

66

or GOD the Holy Ghost: he never asserts the Di"vinity of either, never so much as gives them the "title of GOD:"-moreover that the titles and attributes ascribed to the Son and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father, were so interpreted by Dr. C. as to adapt them to those lower notions of their Divinity, which he had elsewhere maintained. Even the form of baptism, in the name of each Person in the Trinity, he explained in such a way as to denote that we are dedicated to the service and worship of God the Father only.

These were points which had already been debated between Dr. Clarke and Dr. Waterland, in

their former controversy. The subsequent Remarks introduced a fresh topic, not, indeed, unconnected with the others, but which had not before been brought into discussion, though in itself of no inconsiderable importance.

On the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Dr. W. objects that the Exposition is by no means full and satisfactory; since the account given of the atonement by Christ seems to place all its efficacy in our Lord's pure and spotless character, not in any inherent propitiatory virtue belonging to it; nor, as Dr. W. observes, is it conceivable, that, "supposing Christ to "be a creature only, he could have such a degree of “merit, by any thing he could do or suffer, as thereby to purchase pardon for a whole world of "sinners."

66

Again; the Exposition imperfectly stated the sense in which the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice; ascribing to it that character in no higher acceptation than might be ascribed to any other service of praise and thanksgiving; not taking into account that it is a solemn commemoration and representation to God of the sacrifice offered on the cross, and an act of covenant also, in which we lay claim to that, as our expiation, and feast upon it, as our peace-offering.

The same inadequate representation is charged upon the Exposition, respecting the benefits of this holy sacrament; which Dr. Clarke represented to be nothing more than that assurance of blessing and assistance from God which accompany all religious and virtuous habits; benefits arising naturally from the good dispositions of the recipient, and not from

any special gifts of grace, or spiritual advantages, communicated through the medium of the sacrament itself. Dr. Clarke, indeed, expressly says "of "the two sacraments, in common with other posi❝tive institutions, that they have the nature only of "means to an end, and that therefore they are never "to be compared with moral virtues." On the contrary, Dr. W. contends, that "moral virtues are "rather to be considered as means to an end, because they are previous qualifications for the sa"craments, and have no proper efficacy towards procuring salvation, till they are improved and ren"dered acceptable by these Christian performances.” He asks, "What is the exercise of moral virtue, but "the exercise of obedience to some law, suppose of

66

66

66

66

charity or justice? But the worthy receiving of the "sacrament of the Lord's Supper is at once an "exercise of obedience to the law of Christ, and of faith, of worship, and of repentance, and carries "in it the strongest incitement, not only to all mo"ral virtues, but to all Christian graces." Neither is there good reason "for slighting positive institu"tions in general, in comparison with moral vir"tue." Man's first offence was breaking a positive precept. Abraham's obedience to a positive command obtained for him the special favour of God. Obedience to positive institutions is an exercise, and sometimes the noblest and best exercise, of that love of God, which is the first and great commandment : and there may be, in some cases, greater excellency and more real virtue in obeying positive precepts, than in any moral virtue. Not that these should be opposed to each other; since both are necessary,

66

and perfective of each other. "But," he adds, “if they must be opposed and compared, I say, moral "virtue is but the handmaid leading to the door of salvation, which the use of the sacraments at length opens, and lets us in."

66

66

66

Dr. Sykes, who had already distinguished himself as a warm friend of Dr. Clarke, and a strenuous advocate of his opinions, immediately stepped forward, in defence of the Exposition, against these Remarks. "The Remarks," says Dr. Disney, in his Memoirs of Dr. Sykes," appear to be the effusions of a cap"tious and impatient adversary, more attached to "the defence of the notions of an established theological system, than to that fair and candid reasoning "which so well become the inquirers after, and ad"vocates of truth, and to which the very name of "Dr. Clarke was justly entitled." And Dr. Sykes, he tells us, not only "from having been many years "united with him in general sentiment and personal friendship," but "from an ardent desire to draw "aside that veil, which others were eager to throw "over every liberal inquiry into Scripture-truth, was "readily induced to examine these Remarks on the "catechetical lectures of Dr. Clarke." Such reflections may come with characteristic propriety from Dr. Disney, an open seceder from our Church, and avowedly hostile to her doctrine and her establishment. But it was matter of just complaint, with respect both to Dr. Clarke and Dr. Sykes, that, professing adherence to the Church, and to hold communion with her in faith and practice, they yet laboured to introduce their own individual opinions,

66