them as infallible, and entirely rested their faith upon them as expositors of Scripture. In refuting this gross accusation, Dr. W. draws the line with great accuracy and judgment between an implicit reliance upon these venerable guides, and that deference which is justly due to them, as the earliest and most unbiassed witnesses of the truth. The proper use of the Fathers, in ascertaining any apostolical doctrine or practice, is in the way of testimony, rather than of personal authority. They certify us of the received doctrine of the Church in their times. Hence arises a strong presumptive argument, at least, that such must have been the truth delivered by the Apostles themselves; since we cannot otherwise account for the general harmony of Scripture-interpretation prevailing at a period immediately succeeding the apostolical age; nor can we conceive it possible that, on any essential point of Scripture truth, errors of real magnitude or importance should have so soon and so universally prevailed. In ascribing this degree of weight to their sentiments, whether individually or collectively declared, no claims to infallibility are allowed them, nor any other regard paid to their statements, than that which is due to the testimony of persons who were not placed in circumstances either to deceive others, or to be deceived themselves. "As to authority," says Dr. W. "in a strict and proper sense, "I do not know that the Fathers have any over us.

66

66

They are all dead men. Therefore we urge not "their authority, but their testimony, their suffrage, "their judgment, as carrying great force of reason "with it; and reason we should all submit to.

66

Taking them in here, as lights or helps, is doing "what is reasonable, and using our own understand

66

66

ings in the best manner, and to the best purposes: "it is judging rightly for ourselves." In conclusion, he adds, "The sum of what I have been endeavouring is, that Scripture and antiquity, under the "conduct of right reason, are what we ought to "abide by, for the settling points of doctrine. I have "not put the case of Scripture and antiquity interfering, or clashing with each other; because it is "a case which never will appear in points of importance, such as that is which we are now upon. "... If ever they clash, or appear to clash, then undoubtedly there is an error somewhere.... In such "a case, a wise man will not rest satisfied, (if the "thing be of moment,) till he finds out, if possible, "the reason of the difference, and discovers where "the error lies. For either it must lie on the Scripture-side, (when a man takes that for Scrip"ture which is not Scripture, or that for true interpretation which is not true interpretation,) or it "must lie on the tradition side, through some mis

66

66

66

66

66

report made of the ancients, or some mistake of "the ancients themselves. Then the question will "be, which of the two suppositions is most likely to "be true in that instance."

To this chapter is added a short one, in conclusion of the treatise, shewing the Arian interpretation of John i. 1, and Hebr. i. 1, by the author of the Sober and Charitable Disquisition, to be of no force or validity.

From the foregoing outline of this work, some notion may be formed of its general excellence and uti

lity. Its value is far beyond that of a merely polemical treatise; and it may be read with almost equal benefit by persons conversant, or not, with the several controversial writings of that period. Its principles and its reasonings are, indeed, just as applicable to many party-writers of the present day, as they were to Episcopius, to Whitby, to Daillé, Le Clerc, or Barbeyrac. Accordingly, this is one of the very few of our author's performances which has hitherto been reprinted in modern times. A new edition of it issued from the Cambridge University press, in the year 1800. In the year 1815, a new edition of his Sermons at the Lady Moyer's Lecture was printed at the Clarendon press at Oxford. These two volumes, together with Dr. Glocester Ridley's Sermons at Lady Moyer's Lectures on the Divinity and Offices of the Holy Ghost, (also reprinted at Oxford in 1802,) may be recommended to all Divinity Students, as forming together a compendium of all that is necessary to establish them in the truth of that fundamental article of our faith, the doctrine of the Trinity. To these the Critical History of the Athanasian Creed may be considered as a valuable supplement. And for such as are desirous of going further into the discussion of these subjects, the three Vindications of our Lord's Divinity will supply irrefragable arguments upon almost every point that has hitherto been contested.

SECTION IV.

INCIDENTAL CONTROVERSIES ARISING OUT OF THE PRE

CEDING.

THAT the account given, in the foregoing section of Dr. W.'s larger works in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity, might proceed without interruption, no notice has yet been taken of some of his minor productions connected with that subject, which, in point of time, preceded several of the treatises already mentioned. His reputation was, indeed, chiefly established by successfully encountering such opponents as Clarke, Whitby, Sykes, and Jackson; whose united powers were exerted to the utmost, to put him to silence. The inferior antagonists, who occasionally called him forth, are now almost unknown by name or reputation; and are no otherwise deserving of attention, than from the notice our author deemed it expedient to take of their endeavours to disseminate opinions which he had laboured to counteract. Probably, he perceived that some danger was to be apprehended even from the weakest of these attempts, when the public mind had been already so much agitated by persons eminent in station and in learning; and that even if they gained no very extensive circulation, they might locally and individually produce considerable mischief. His short intervals of leisure from weightier undertakings were therefore not unfrequently employed in providing for the less instructed some convenient antidotes against works of this description.

Accordingly, in the year 1721, soon after he had published his Case of Arian Subscription, our author committed to the press a short tract, consisting only of a few pages, and entitled, An Answer to some Queries printed at Exon, relating to the Arian Controversy. As there is no prefatory introduction to this short piece, nor any thing in the body of the tract which gives the slightest intimation of its history, some information respecting the circumstances which probably gave rise to it may not be unacceptable.

It is not undeserving of notice, that when controversies of considerable moment have at any time agitated our Established Church, the impulse has frequently extended to the leaders of those who separate from our communion. Thus when Bishop Bull was engaged in dispute with Dr. Tullie, Dr. Barlow, and other eminent Divines, on the subject of justification by faith, similar dissensions took place among the Separatists of that time. In like manner the numerous writings occasioned by Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, being circulated among the Dissenters of that period, were debated between them with at least equal asperity. The city of Exeter, in particular, was distinguished by busy and zealous partisans of Arianism, who were encountered by opponents no less zealous in maintaining the Catholic faith. Two eminent Dissenting Teachers in that place, Mr. Joseph Hallet and Mr. James Peirce, with some others of inferior note, gave great offence to their respective congregations, by espousing, first covertly, and then openly, the tenets of the Arians. These tenets soon spread so rapidly, as to give alarm