Waterland's Supplement; of which his biographer, Dr. Disney, thus speaks :-"The design and aim of "this Reply is to argue specially, that the Articles "and phrases usually called Trinitarian, will bear an "Arian sense; an assumption that was denied by "Dr. Waterland. That scholastic terms, used with "much subtilty, may twist and distort some expres"sions, which in themselves are certainly unscriptu"ral, may be admitted; but it is one thing to con"found, and another to convince the understanding. "And it yet remains to be proved, that the Articles “will, in their usual grammatical meaning, bear an "Arian sense." According to this ingenuous confession, Mr. Sykes failed in his main purpose. The secondary purpose, that of retorting the charge upon his adversary, Dr. Disney seems to think he has fully accomplished. More impartial readers, however, will probably be of opinion, that he has equally failed in this. Considerable talent and ingenuity are undoubtedly displayed in both attempts; but that he has in neither satisfactorily refuted Waterland, is a conclusion, upon which it may safely be left to the judgment of unprejudiced men to decide. The other point, respecting the Calvinistic tendency of our Articles, is less laboured by Mr. Sykes, than the former; nor would it be difficult to shew, that his reasoning is, in many respects, sophistical and disingenuous. This topic, however, has been, of late years, much more amply discussed; and the accession of historical evidence which has been adduced in illustration of it, has more and more strongly confirmed Dr. Waterland's statement.

Waterland pursued this part of the controversy

no further.

His time and attention must, indeed, have been very fully occupied in other matters, from the publication of his Defence in 1719, to the year 1722, when his Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription appeared; since besides the works already mentioned, some lesser pieces (hereafter to be noticed) were the fruit of his labours during this short period. Nor was he even Nor was he even now allowed a respite. His first opponent, The Clergyman in the Country, again challenged him to the combat; and he was not slack in taking up the gauntlet.

In the spring of 1722, this Clergyman (Mr. Jackson) published A Reply to Dr. Waterland's Defence of his Queries; a volume of considerable bulk, wherein, according to the title-page, is contained a full state of the whole controversy; and every particular alleged by that learned writer is distinctly considered. This elaborate performance is the work of which notice had been given at the end of Dr. Clarke's Modest Plea continued; and in which, there is reason to believe, Dr. Clarke himself had no inconsiderable sharee.

says,

e The writer of Jackson's Memoirs, speaking of this work, "In this our author received considerable assistance from "Dr. Clarke, as he has acknowledged to me." He subjoins also extracts of two letters from Dr. Clarke to Jackson, in one of which, dated June, 1719, he says, “I have interleaved W—d, and "am making short notes for you throughout. I believe you need "do little more than transcribe all the places I have marked, "with the remarks I have made upon them; and then range them "in some proper method, under distinct heads, such as they will naturally fall under."—In the other letter, dated April 1722, he says, "The large book is just finished; and upon the whole, I "think it contains so full and clear an answer to every thing “that Dr. W. has alleged, that you may with reason expect every

66

In the Preface to this Reply, the author censures Dr. Waterland, for entitling his Defence of the Queries, A Vindication of Christ's Divinity, as implying that those who opposed him denied that Divinity; "whereas," says Jackson, "the question is "not indeed at all concerning the Divinity of Christ, "but concerning the particular manner of explica"tion of that doctrine," and whether "the true no"tion of the Divinity of God the Father Almighty "does not imply, that He ALONE is supreme in authority and dominion over all.” He complains also of Dr. Waterland's "perpetual unrighteous use of the "term Arians and Arianism," with reference to his opponents, "though they never assert" (says Mr. J.)" any of the peculiar tenets of Arius." He moreover charges Dr. W. with "artificially conceal

66

66

ing from the reader throughout, from the begin"ning to the end of his book, the true and indeed "the only material point in question, viz. That "WHATEVER be the metaphysical nature, essence, "or substance, of the Son; whatever be his un"limited past duration; whatever divine titles,

"scholar, who can find leisure to read it carefully through, should "be convinced by it."-Jackson himself, however, in his Memoirs of Waterland, (pp. 23, 25,) denies that Dr. C. was " called in to "assist him in it;" but owns that when he had drawn it up, "he thought it prudent to leave it to Dr. Clarke's judgment to

66

66

correct, alter, or add any thing, as he thought fit; and that the

Reply, on the whole, was rendered much better, and more un“answerable, for the corrections and additions made to it by Dr. "Clarke."-Taking both accounts together, therefore, it appears probable that Dr. C. at first supplied the author with materials for his Reply, and afterwards gave him the benefit of his suggestions and corrections for its improvement, when finished.

66

greatness, or dignity, be ascribed to him in Scripture; still, there being confessedly in the mo"narchy of the universe but one authority, origi"nal in the Father, derivative in the Son; there"fore, THE ONE GOD (absolutely speaking) the one "SUPREME God, always and necessarily signifies Him, in whom alone the power or authority is supreme, original, and underived; and on whom "alone, consequently, all honour and worship primarily or ultimately terminates.”

66

66

66

It is not easy to give a compendious view of such a work as this. Every one of the Queries discussed in the former work is here reexamined, the objections to them restated, the principles on which they had been drawn up and defended by Dr. W. again reviewed, and vehemently contested. On the other hand, the author reiterates all his former positions; assumes, as indisputable, points which his adversary had denied, and called upon him either to prove or to retract; and dilates upon arguments the very same in substance as those which had already been controverted.

66

Thus, on Query 1st, the very first sentence is a repetition of what had been affirmed in the former work, that the texts in Isaiah, and others, relating to the one Supreme God, "do all of them most expressly and uniformly speak of a person, and "not of a BEING, as distinguished from a person;" and "therefore, not only all other BEINGS, but all "other persons whatsoever are expressly excluded, "besides the person there speaking;"—" which per"son is the one God and Father of all." So again, on the 2d Query, the real point in dispute is never

fairly met, whether Christ can be God at all, unless he be the same God with the Father; but the distinction is still assumed as unquestionable between the Father as supreme God, and the Son as an inferior God. In like manner, in reply to the charge of "holding two Gods, one supreme, another inferior," instead of any direct answer, an attempt is made, as before, to retaliate upon Dr. W. the charge of holding "two supreme Gods." It is obvious, that answers and replies so conducted may be extended ad infinitum, and no nearer approach made to any satisfactory decision.

66

It must, however, be acknowledged, that this is, upon the whole, a much more elaborate and able performance than that which had preceded it under the denomination of the Country Clergyman. In many parts it bears strong internal evidence of a more powerful pen than Jackson's: and had the author attended to Dr. C.'s advice to be as "short" as possible, and to "do little more than transcribe the places Dr. C. had marked, with the remarks upon "them," it would probably have produced considerably greater effect.

66

Early in the following year, Dr. Waterland published his Second Vindication of Christ's Divinity, or a second Defence of some Queries relating to Dr. Clarke's scheme of the holy Trinity, in answer to the Country Clergyman's Reply: wherein the learned Doctor's scheme as it now stands, after the latest correction, alteration, and explanation, is distinctly and fully considered.

Our author, well knowing the importance attached to Jackson's Reply by Dr. Clarke and his