of England. He stands distinguished, therefore, from such writers as Biddle, Firmin, Clendon, Emlyn, and Whiston, in many prominent features of the doctrine he advanced; and consequently, the controversy with him assumed a very different aspect from that in which Bishop Bull had been engaged.

The professed design of Dr. Clarke's book was indisputably good. A full and digested collection of all the texts relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, with a critical interpretation of them, was a desideratum in theology, and could hardly fail to be of advantage to the biblical student. It served also to call off the attention of those who had hitherto chiefly derived their notions of the subject from teachers who rested more upon metaphysics, than upon the pure word of God; and to bring the whole matter of dispute into a train of more legitimate discussion.

Dr. Clarke, however, in this undertaking, set out upon a latitudinarian principle, which did not augur very favourably of the purpose which it might be intended to serve. With reference to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and to public formularies of faith in general, he assumed it as a maxim, "That "every person may reasonably agree to such forms, "whenever he can in any sense at all reconcile them "with Scriptures." He also virtually, if not expressly, disclaimed the authority of the primitive Christian writers, as expositors of the doctrines in question; desiring it to be understood, that he did not cite their works "as proofs of any of the propositions,

s Introduct. p. xxi. 1st Edit.

"but as illustrations only;" moreover, that his purpose in citing them was oftentimes to point out their inconsistency with the doctrine they professed to hold, and thus "to shew how naturally truth sometimes

66

prevails by its own native clearness and evidence, " even against the strongest and most settled preju"dicest." These were suspicious declarations, and would naturally lead to an expectation, that the author might find occasion, in the course of his work, to exemplify his principles in a way not quite conformable either with the sentiments of the primitive defenders of the faith, or with those of the Church in which he was himself an accredited teacher.

Accordingly, the work was no sooner published and read, than he was accused of applying these principles to the introduction of opinions irreconcileable with the received doctrines of the Church Catholic in general, and with those of the Church of England in particular; and the work was reprobated as an indirect revival of the Arian heresy. Among the writers who thus arraigned it, were men of high character and respectability in the Church. Dr. Wells, Mr. Nelson, Dr. James Knight, Bishop Gastrell, Dr. Edwards, Mr. Welchman, Mr. Edward Potter, Dr. Bennett, and Mr. Richard Mayo, distinguished themselves, with considerable ability, by their animadversions on this work. On the other side, Dr. Whitby, Dr. Sykes, and Mr. John Jackson, appeared in favour of Dr. Clarke, and upheld his cause with zeal and talent. The weight, however, of public opinion, (so far, at least, as related to members of the Church of

t Ibid. pp. xvii. xviii.

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