England,) preponderated greatly against him; and the subsequent proceedings of the Lower House of Convocation proved, that the persuasions of the Clergy in general were decidedly adverse to those which he had espoused.

Some account of the labours of these opponents of Dr. Clarke may be not unacceptable.

Dr. Wells published, in 1713, his Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Introduction to his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. These remarks, for the reason he assigns in his Preface, were confined to the Introduction only, as containing principles which might mislead unwary or unskilful readers, with reference to other controversies in religion, as well as to that of the Trinity. The points he objects to are these;— that although Dr. C. professes to state the Scripture-doctrine upon this article of faith, he takes no notice whatever of the Old Testament, but cites all its authorities from the New ;-that while he affirms that Scripture is the only rule of truth in matters of religion, he has not satisfactorily shewn how the true sense of Scripture is to be ascertained, nor has guarded against that perversion of it, by which men, disposed to put what sense they please upon it, may pretend that they are vindicating the sole authority of Scripture, when, in effect, they are substituting for it the sole authority of their own reasonings ;that he argues inconsistently, in acknowledging, that in order to find the true sense of Scripture, we are bound to use the best assistance we can procure; and yet insisting that we are to have recourse to no other authority whatever but that of Scripture only; -that he has greatly misrepresented the principles of

the Church of England in this respect, as declared in her 6th, 20th, and 21st Articles; that he has disrespectfully treated the writings of the early Fathers, charging them with prejudice and inconsistency; and disparaging their Creeds and Confessions of faith; that his directions to Divines for studying these subjects are very loosely and unguardedly laid down, and, in particular, his cautions not to be misguided by the sound of single texts of Scripture are insidious, and liable to lead men from the simplicity of truth;-that his notions respecting the assent to forms by law appointed, and to all words of human institution, are inconsistent with that Christian sincerity which he professes;-and lastly, that he has covertly traduced our Church, by insinuating that she requires her ministers to receive the doctrine of the Trinity in that sense which the popish schoolmen had introduced for the sake of maintaining their doctrine of transubstantiation. To this pamphlet Dr. Clarke speedily replied, and, with more polemical skill than his antagonist, availed himself of some indiscreet, and perhaps untenable positions, which Dr. Wells had advanced. But he is more successful in pointing out his adversary's defects, than in vindicating his own assertions; and, not unfrequently, an undue bias may be discovered against Church-authority, even in its mildest character, and a strong predisposition to such unbounded freedom, as can hardly consist with any established system of faith whatever. Dr. Wells followed up his attack by a second letter to Dr. Clarke, written evidently under impressions of irritation, and with a consciousness of having given his adversary

some advantage; but not without shrewdness and ability. To this second letter Dr. Clarke made no reply.

Mr. Nelson had, in his Life of Bishop Bull, made some strong animadversions on the object and tendency of Dr. Clarke's book. With that truly Christian courtesy which distinguished every thing that came from the pen of this excellent man, he had complained of something like unfair treatment of Bishop Bull's writings on the part of Dr. Clarke. He prefixed also to an anonymous tract, entitled, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated from the misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke, a short letter to Dr. Clarke, expostulating with him upon the dangerous tendency of his book, and the unsoundness of some of its principles. The anonymous author of the tract published by Mr. Nelson (Dr. James Knight) does not go through the whole of Dr. Clarke's treatise, but selects about forty of the chief texts therein discussed, in order to shew the erroneous principle of interpretation which generally pervades the work. He particularly censures Dr. Clarke's position, that whenever the terms ONE and ONLY GOD are used in Scripture they invariably mean God the FATHER, to the exclusion of the other Persons of the Godhead. He complains also of his using the term being, as synonymous with person; his deducing inferences from the terms self-existent and unoriginated, derogatory to the true Divinity of the SON; and combats several other positions of a similar kind, which form the groundwork of Dr. Clarke's treatise. This was a learned, acute, and well-digested performance, written with

candour and good temper; and Dr. Clarke put forth his full strength in answering it. It was followed by a still larger tract in continuation of the subject; to which Dr. Clarke again replied in a letter to the author, printed, together with two other tracts, in 1719.

Another publication, written about the same time, and entitled, Remarks upon Dr. Clarke's ScriptureDoctrine of the Trinity, was the work of Dr. Gastrell, afterwards Bishop of Chester. This contains a clear and candid statement of Dr. Clarke's opinions; concerning which, the author remarks, that " in Dr. "C.'s 55 Propositions, there is but one single expres❝sion, (viz. Proposition 27.) which any of those who "now profess themselves Arians would refuse to "subscribe to." The contrast between these propositions and the received doctrine of the Church is distinctly set forth in the beginning of the tract; and the last twenty pages contain an excellent summary of the whole controversy, as it then stood, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour. Dr. Clarke published an answer to this tract; which he acknowledges to be the production "of a very able and "learned writer," and "proposed with a reasona"ble and good spirit." The answer is subtle and acute; and the author evidently feels that he is encountering no ordinary antagonist. It is written also with a degree of irritation which indicates a consciousness of not having victory fully at command; and in many passages Dr. C. labours more to convict his opponent of heresy or absurdity, than to acquit himself of the charges alleged against him. In the same year with the above-mentioned tracts,

appeared Dr. Edwards's Brief Critical Remarks on Dr. Clarke's reply to Mr. Nelson and Dr. Gastrell. This is an attack, and a very powerful one, on Dr. Clarke's skill in critical theology. Dr. Edwards rallies him also upon his affected dislike to metaphysical terms in divinity; and animadverts with keenness on his use of the words εἷς, θεότης, and θεὸς; the last of which Dr. C. usually interprets in a relative, rather than an absolute sense, as denoting office only, not essence or nature. This notion Dr. Edwards very successfully refutes, and charges the author with having borrowed it from Crellius and other Socinian writers.

Another able tract on the same side was written by Mr. Edward Welchman, the well-known author of an illustration of the Thirty-nine Articles. The tract is entitled, Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity examined. In the Preface, he charges Dr. C. with endeavouring to accommodate the Scriptures to his own notions, and with misrepresenting the opinions of the Fathers. In reply to Dr. C.'s position, "that particular expressions in any work are "so much the more to be depended upon, and the "more to be regarded, when the author from whom "they are cited was, upon the whole, more different "in his opinion from what those particular citations "seem to express;" Mr. W. justly observes, "that "chief regard ought always to be had to the main "end and design of the writer, and the particular

66

expressions interpreted, if possible, according to "that end; and that if any appear to be inconsistent "with it, it should be regarded as a slip of the au"thor's pen, and no greater stress laid upon that,