Sermons on several occasions, and charges. To which is prefixed a memoir of the author by C. Ives

together with the circumstances of the times, and the characters of the leading men on the opposite side, are described by the Editor with a singular comprehensiveness and perspicuity. Evidently bringing to bear on his subject an exact discernment, and an ample measure of learning and research, he states the proceedings, and represents the arguments of both Dr. Waterland and his antagonists, foremost of whom was Dr. Samuel Clarke, in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired. And certainly, the æra when those great men lived and wrote, is shewn to have been a critical one for the Church. Bp. Bull, indeed, had just before triumphantly refuted the chief of the foreign Arian and Socinian writers, and, with them, their few insignificant echoists in this country. But when, after his death, such an able man as Dr. S. Clarke came forward to resuscitate the question on English ground, had not such a champion as Dr. Waterland also stood forth, powerfully to maintain and urge the truth, and to lead on the inferior band of its adherents, the consequences would probably have been, for a time, deplorable. Semi-Arianism, tending naturally to Arianism, and thence, to the varieties of Socinianism, and even Deism, might have obtained a lodgment within the borders of our Sanctuary, as it has within certain of the foreign protestant Churches, and might hardly, after a long prevalence, have been driven out. Great reason, therefore, have we to look back, with a lively interest and gratitude, on the "good fight" which was then fought by Dr. Waterland, and to be fond of having our memories refreshed concerning

the religious transactions and controversies, at the head of which he was almost compelled, having no such design, to take his place. Nor will it be too much to say, that one more worthy than Bp. Van Mildert could not have been found to review the life and writings of so illustrious a defender of the orthodox faith. He undeniably possessed a corresponding clearness and profundity of intellect; an equally distinct perception of, and affection for, the truth; and, altogether, a strong congeniality of mind and sentiment in every important point. Well, accordingly, did he execute his undertaking, both as to the original part, and as to judiciously condensing and arranging the materials which were liberally consigned to him. In erecting a monument to the reputation of Dr. Waterland, he has surely erected one also to his own. Yet of this he appears to have had no thought, neither in the concluding paragraph of his "Review," where he states the sentiments and motives which had actuated him, and the painful hinderances which he had experienced; nor in the following extract from a letter to a friend, where, after commending the sound principles and reasonings of Waterland, he proceeds to say, "As to my own humble labours, in the character of editor " and biographer, if I have at all succeeded in facilitating to less-informed students the pleasure and "instruction to be drawn from these writings, and "at the same time to give a readier insight into the "ecclesiastical history of a brilliant period in our "Church annals, I have attained my chief object, "which was not fame, but utility. The labour,

"however, has perhaps been greater than that of many undertakings, which might have been of a “ more attractive kind.”

With this, the Writer would dismiss the subject, and pass on, but he has before him a later document respecting it, of a character too interesting to be omitted; viz. a copy, in the Bishop's handwriting, of a letter to a friend, with reference to a conversation which had evidently been designed to draw from him, for some literary purpose, what more might properly be said about the persons or matters that were mentioned in his Life of Waterland. The date of the paper is Jan. 1825, and the Bishop remarks in it as follows: "I have been musing on "what you lately said respecting an intended arti"cle on the new edition of Waterland. Your wish "seemed to be, that I would suggest any topic of "observation which it might be proper or desirable "to bring forward. Some few supplemental mat"ters might, I think, be introduced. For instance, respecting Dr. Clarke, there is room for a little more discussion, both of his character and his “ writings. I have no doubt that he was a very "sincere Christian, conscientious, and pious, and,

moreover, that he meant to be, and believed him"self to be, a Trinitarian. His anxiety, however, "to make his interpretation accord with that of the Church, led him to such refinements and subtleties "in reasoning, as, in any other man, I should say were hardly consistent with real integrity of pur66 pose. Yet in Clarke, I believe, there was that

integrity; and I can look upon his errors (for

"such Waterland, I think, has demonstrated them "to be) with far more charity, than upon the use "which has been made of them to serve the cause "of a species of Unitarianism, which he would have regarded with abhorrence. Nor is this all. His (Clarke's) work is not without its merits, and its "utility. A more substantial refutation of Sabellianism, and the errors bordering upon it, can hardly be desired: and errors of that cast, it "should be remembered, were rife in his days, as "the writings of Clendon, Nye, and others, bear wit66 ness. It was doing service, therefore, to strike a "blow of this kind at one specious and prevailing heresy and I think there can be little doubt, that many readers, finding this notion to be so utterly unscriptural, would be prepared to receive more readily, not Dr. Clarke's own hypothesis, but that "of the generally received opinion of the Church. "His book might also answer this purpose in an"other way. It clearly shews that Divinity, in some sense, is predicated of the Son, and also of "the Holy Ghost; which, again, strikes at the root "of Unitarianism, whether of the present day, or of "his time. It is manifest, however, that though "there seems to be but a shade of difference be"tween Clarke's tenets, and those of the Church, "there is in reality such a difference as all his ta"lent and ingenuity could not reconcile; and that "the more he labours to bring them up to the "standard of orthodoxy, the more completely he "establishes the catholic faith, and upsets his own. "It is very remarkable, that this was the effect

"actually produced on the acute and powerful mind "of Bp. Horsley. Having, before he sat down to "the perusal of Dr. Clarke's book, so far removed "his own doubts as to be satisfied of the preexist❝ence of our Lord, and that He was the Maker of "all things, but still (as he states) wavering between "the Arian tenets and the catholic faith, he rose "from the perusal of it a firm and decided Trini"tarian. He also acknowledges that Dr. Clarke's "book, as a digest, may assist those who are well qualified to use it, in forming a judgment for "themselves. But he strongly deprecates the use "of it by those who are not accustomed, or not well qualified, to think for themselves; and assigns "such reasons for this caution, as fully justify "Waterland in the stand which he made against it.

(See the whole passage in Horsley's seventeenth "letter to Priestley; also a passage in his fifteenth "letter, in which Waterland is briefly vindicated

against a misrepresentation.) To my mind, in"deed, nothing is necessary to justify Waterland's " zeal in this controversy, but to consider the consequences that must follow upon conceding that "vital error, that pтov Veudos, the possibility of "there being any more or less of perfection in the "Godhead. With the intent of preserving the Unity entire and perfect, Arianism (such Arian"ism, I mean, as Dr. Clarke's) is a direct violation "of it. The acknowledgment of a supreme God, "and an inferior God, can be nothing but Poly"theism; and therefore, however mysterious and incomprehensible the subject may be, the faith of

« Previous Continue »

Books

Sermons on several occasions, and charges. To which is prefixed a memoir of ...