The Works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland ...

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 an"swer 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 "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

tion, whether, according to Dr. C.'s hypothesis, the existence of God the Son be not precarious.

The fourth chapter relates to quotations from the ancients. The fifth contains a summary view of the judgment of the ancients, upon the question, whether God the Father be naturally ruler and governor over God the Son.

In the Conclusion, the author briefly retraces the progress of the controversy between Mr. Jackson, Dr. Clarke, and himself; again notices his having been at first forced, in a manner, into public controversy; and complains of the unworthy treatment he had experienced. Some animadversions are also made on both these opponents having concealed their names; and they are advised, for their own sakes, as well as for the cause they had undertaken, to withdraw from the contest.

Here, indeed, on the part of Dr. Waterland, the controversy did terminate. Dr. Clarke made no reply to this Farther Vindication. Mr. Jackson put forth in answer to it, Farther Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Farther Vindication. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis. 1724. To this feeble pamphlet, Waterland (for the same reasons probably that induced him to pass over the former Remarks in silence) returned no answer.

Notwithstanding these continual calls upon Dr. Waterland for his exertions as a controversialist, he found an interval of leisure, between the publication of his Second Vindication and his Farther Vindication, for a work of a less polemical description; though immediately connected with the doctrines he 5 Sections xiii. xv. xix.

had so ably and successfully defended. This was his Critical History of the Athanasian Creed; the first edition of which was published in the latter end of the year 1723, and a second edition, corrected and improved, in 1728.

The design of this treatise (as stated by the author in the Introduction) "is, to inquire into the age, author, and value of that celebrated confes"sion, which goes under the name of the Athana"sian Creed." The treatises which had before appeared on this subject, he observes, were "mostly in "Latin, and some of them very scarce." He conceived, therefore, that an English treatise, laying before the English reader all that had "hitherto been "usefully observed upon the subject,” and not only referring to other authors, but "supplying, as far as "his materials, leisure, and opportunities enabled "him, what they had left undone," might be generally useful; "and the more so at a time when the " controversy about the Trinity was spread abroad among all ranks and degrees of men, and the Atha"nasian Creed become the subject of common and "ordinary conversation."

The method, by which this object is pursued, is clear and simple.

1. First, the opinions of the learned moderns concerning this Creed are briefly stated; beginning with Gerard Vossius, in 1642, and ending with Casimirus Oudinus, in 1722: and an useful table is subjoined, representing, at one view, the different conclusions of these several writers, as to the author of the Creed, the time when it was composed, and the date of its reception in the Church. Of these writers,

« Poprzednia Dalej »

Książki

The Works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland ...: Now First Collected and ..., Tom 1