neral reasoning upon this supposed concession is fallacious. This error runs through his whole performance. Much of his reasoning tends also rather to shew that the Church ought not to exercise any authority in imposing articles of faith, or in restricting the interpretation of them to her own sense; than to justify those persons who receive them in a different and contrary sense. Two questions are thus blended together, which ought to be kept asunder; since neither of them essentially depends upon the other. Nor should it pass unobserved, that Mr. S. assumes throughout, that our Articles were framed by Calvinists, and were intended to be taken exclusively in a Calvinistic sense ;—assumptions which both Bp. Bull and Dr. Waterland had strenuously controverted, and which in later times have been still more thoroughly examined and disproved.

Dr. Waterland deemed it expedient to reply to this pamphlet, in a tract entitled, A Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription considered.

66

After briefly noticing that Mr. Sykes had "taken "for granted, and reasoned all the way upon the supposition, that the Articles of our Church, so far as "concerns the Trinity, are general, indefinite, un"determinate, not particular, special, or determi"nate;" and had also manifested a disposition to exclude the Liturgy from being taken into consideration with the Articles; he proceeds to a fuller explanation of what had been advanced in his former tract. He exhibits, in contrast, the Scripturedoctrine of the Trinity, according to Dr. Clarke; and the Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, according to the Church of England in her public forms;

-two schemes palpably irreconcileable with each other. He demonstrates, also, by several of the plainest inferences, that the abettors of Dr. Clarke's scheme do, in reality, make God the Son a creature, however they may verbally disclaim it. They speak of Him as finite, precarious in existence, dependent on the will of another; they avoid nothing but the name of creature, while they inculcate the thing. This strange incongruity between Dr. Clarke's sentiments and those of the Church of England is still further exposed, by shewing how they appear when blended together in one profession of faith. Dr. W. then proceeds to answer, seriatim, Mr. Sykes's objections to the positions laid down in the Case of Arian Subscription; more particularly with reference to what had been said on the supposed Calvinistic Articles. This part of the work is executed with admirable spirit and vivacity, as well as with sound and solid judgment. Nothing can be more satisfactory than his vindication of our Church against those who insist that her Articles will admit of no other construction, or were intended to admit of no other, than such as favours the abettors of Calvinism. He abundantly proves that no such conclusion can fairly be drawn from the words of the Articles themselves; much less from an historical view of the intent with which they were framed. The argument, therefore, in favour of Arian subscription, grounded upon this pretext, is shewn to be utterly untenable, and the attempt at recrimination, resulting from it, evasive and futile.

Mr. Sykes, however, would not thus be driven from the field. He soon put forth a Reply to Dr.

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 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.

e The writer of Jackson's Memoirs, speaking of this work, says, "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 concealing from the reader throughout, from the beginning 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 unlimited past duration; whatever divine titles,

66

66

66

"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

46

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 unanswerable, 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.