66 66 greatness, or dignity, be ascribed to him in Scrip"ture; still, there being confessedly in the monarchy of the universe but one authority, origi"nal in the Father, derivative in the Son; therefore, 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 pri"marily or ultimately terminates." 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 infe"rior," 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. 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. 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 66 66 66 . 66 friends and the extraordinary pains that had been taken to render it as complete as possible, deemed it necessary to leave no part of it unnoticed or unrefuted. "The book," he says, "which I here pro❝fess to examine, may be allowed to contain, in a manner, the whole strength of the Arian cause, "real or artificial; all that can be of any force "either to convince or to deceive a reader." Among the artificial means resorted to by that party, he notices, "their disclaiming the name, while they are inculcating the thing" objected to;-" their wrapping up their doctrine in general and confused "terms;"—their elaborate and studied prolixity in "proving such points as nobody calls in question, and "then slipping upon the reader, in their stead, something very different from them, without any proof " at all;"-"their avoiding as much as possible the "defensive part, where the main stress lies, and keeping themselves chiefly to the offensive; perpetually objecting to the Catholic scheme, instead of clearing up the difficulties which clog their own;" -their bending their main force against our "consequential doctrine, of three Persons being one 66 66 66 66 66 God, instead of directly attacking our premises, "that the divine titles and attributes belong equally "to every one; as to which the Scripture is very "full and express." "But," he adds, "their master 66 66 piece of subtilty lies in contriving a set of ambiguous and equivocal terms, to put the main ques"tion into; such as may be capable of a Catholic 66 sense, or at least look very like it, in order to "claim some countenance from Catholic antiquity; "but such as may also be drawn to an Arian mean 66 "ing, that so they may secure the point which they "intend."-The remainder of Dr. Waterland's Preface is employed in "obviating two objections of very different kinds, which had lately been made by 66 men of very opposite principles ;" one, by Mr. Whiston, who, in his Reply to Lord Nottingham, seemed to think it singular that the suffrage of the AnteNicene Church should be claimed in favour of the Athanasian doctrines;-the other, by the anonymous author of two letters to Lord Nottingham and Mr. Whiston, who was "for entirely waving all "searches into antiquity, in relation to this controversy, as being either needless or fruitless." 66 Dr. W. proceeds to examine in detail the whole of the Country Clergyman's Reply; beginning with a distinct answer to the Preface; and then going over the objections to the Queries in regular order. The animadversions on the Preface touch upon most of the leading topics of the controversy. Among others which are very happily illustrated, is that of the alleged supremacy of the Father; which, according to Dr. Clarke's scheme, is equivalent to declaring that the Father alone is supreme God, to the exclusion of God the Son. Dr. W. shews, that this fallacy arises from making no distinction between supremacy of dominion, and supremacy of order, or office. "Let the reader," he says, "carefully distin 66 guish three things, and he will then be able of him"self to unravel all your pretences, and to throw off "that studied confusion which you are labouring to “introduce in a plain thing. 1. Supremacy of na"ture, or supremacy of perfection, is to be pos"sessed of all perfection, and the highest excel 66 66 lency possible: and this is to be GOD. There is "nothing of this kind but what is common to Father "and Son; who are therefore one God supreme. "And as supremacy of dominion and sovereignty (properly so called) over all creatures (as soon as "they exist) is included in it, and consequent upon "it, Father and Son have one common and undi"vided sovereignty over all; the constant doctrine "of antiquity. 2. Supremacy of order consists in "this; that the Father has his perfections, do"minion, &c. from none; but the Son from the "Father, and not vice versa. This kind of supre 66 macy is of the Father alone: and the Son's sub"ordination, thus understood, is very consistent "with his equality of nature, dominion, perfection, "and glory, according to all antiquity. 3. Supre "macy of office. This, by mutual agreement and "voluntary economy, belongs to the Father: while "the Son, out of voluntary condescension, submits to "act ministerially, or in capacity of mediator. "And the reason why the condescending part be"came God the Son, rather than God the Father, "is because he is a Son, and because it best suits "with the natural order of Persons, which had "been inverted by a contrary economy. These things being fixed and settled, there will be no 'difficulty in replying to any thing you have offered, "or can offer, in this cause."-This distinction between a supremacy of nature or perfections, and a supremacy of order and of office, is ever to be kept in view. It solves many difficulties in our apprehension of this mysterious and inscrutable subject. It makes the language of Scripture, as ap 66 |