this essential point of doctrine, render a recurrence to such a treatise as this almost imperative upon every one sincerely and impartially desirous of forming an accurate conception of it. Nothing can be more simple and intelligible than the exposition here given; nothing more exactly conformable with the Scriptures, and with the Articles and Formularies of our Church: nor does it appear that any direct attempts to controvert it have been made, either at the time of its appearance, or by those who have lately revived, with so much zeal and vehemence, opinions of an opposite tendency.

This was almost the last of our author's works which he lived to publish.

SECTION VI.

CONTROVERSIES RESPECTING THE EUCHARIST.

WE have already had abundant proof of Dr. Waterland's great versatility of talent, and of the extraordinary extent of his acquirements, in his polemical writings against the Arians and Deists. His depth of knowledge in Scripture and in ecclesiastical antiquity, his judgment in discriminating between what was essential and what was non-essential to the questions brought under discussion, and his stedfastness, as well as skill and prudence, in confining his labours to the former, and not unnecessarily wasting his strength upon the latter, were continually put to the trial, by opponents of consummate dexterity and of determined perseverance. By these his spirit was continually excited, his energies called forth; and his inexhaustible vigour and vivacity disposed him to take an active part in the prevailing discussions and disputes on matters of religion, whenever they were such as he deemed likely to affect any of the vital interests of Christianity.

But, besides these general incitements to the exertion of his talents, an evident connection may be observed between the several controversies in which he bore a part, which would naturally lead him on from one to the other, as they successively arose. His Arian opponents (as has been already observed) not unfrequently betrayed sentiments, of which infidels would hardly fail to take advantage in support of their own views. If human reason were set up as

sole or chief arbiter in deciding upon matters of faith, the Deist would readily perceive that a first principle was conceded to him, which might greatly facilitate his endeavours to establish the all-sufficiency of the religion of nature. If unbelievers saw that even Christian Divines were labouring to distort the language of Scripture from its plain, obvious, and generally received signification, in order to avoid the admission of doctrines which they treated as contradictory to reason; it was but a step farther, to question the credibility of Scripture itself. If, again, some of these speculative theologians had formed mean and unworthy conceptions, not only of the mysterious doctrines of Revelation, but also of its peculiar rites and institutions, and had held them up as insignificant and worthless, when compared with those moral duties which (as it was contended) reason, of itself, might discover and dictate; in this strain also would the sceptic and the scoffer most readily join; well aware, that they were thus furnished with some of the most plausible pretexts for discarding altogether a system, reduced so greatly in value and estimation, even by its professed advocates, as to present scarcely any thing worth acceptance, which might not be obtained without it.

In this point of view Dr. Waterland seems to have contemplated the progress of those opinions which he most zealously controverted. It was not only their own inherent errors or defects, but their tendency to weaken the general faith of Christians, and to injure the very foundations of revealed religion, that he so earnestly deprecated. The probability of these consequences was indeed, on the other hand,

confidently denied; and the apprehension of them was treated as weak and ridiculous: nor did the parties forbear to express their strong resentment, that any such surmises should be harboured against them. But that these were not merely imaginary fears, the writings of the enemies of revealed religion too clearly proved. Nor was Waterland himself a man disposed to charge such consequences lightly upon his opponents. He was capable of taking enlarged and rational views of every subject of his inquiry. No indications of superstitious weakness, of credulity, or enthusiasm, are discoverable in any of his writings. On the contrary, he guarded, most carefully, against extremes on either side.

The circumstances which first led him to publish his sentiments upon the doctrine of the Eucharist, arose out of a controversy with Dr. Sykes, in its commencement more immediately connected with that which he had maintained against Dr. Clarke's view of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Dr. Clarke died in 1729, leaving, revised and prepared for the press, an Exposition of the Church Catechism; "which was published," says Bishop Hoadley," according to his own express desire, the "same year of his death." In the following year came forth Dr. Waterland's Remarks on this Exposition; animadverting upon several passages which he deemed likely to mislead incautious readers. These censures relate rather to omissions of certain points which ought to have been brought forward, or to some heterodox opinions obscurely insinuated, than to any express declarations of exceptionable doctrine. Dr. Clarke studiously inculcated, that re

ligious worship should be paid to the Father only, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; implying, that it is not paid to either of these as their own due, but only through or by them, ultimately to the Father. He represented also the work of redemption, and that of sanctification, to be from the Father only, by the Son and the Holy Ghost; as if these were merely instruments in His hand; and that, consequently, to HIM, and not to them, is the glory exclusively to be ascribed. Other passages of similar tendency occur in this treatise, more or less derogating from the essential Divinity of our Lord and of the Holy Spirit; passages, which our author illustrates by reference to others in Dr. Clarke's Modest Plea, expressing more fully and unreservedly what is covertly advanced in this Exposition.

Dr. Waterland observes farther, that Dr. Clarke, in explaining that answer in the Catechism which states our belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," says nothing of GOD the Son, "or GOD the Holy Ghost: he never asserts the Di

66

66

vinity of either, never so much as gives them the "title of GOD:"moreover that the titles and attributes ascribed to the Son and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father, were so interpreted by Dr. C. as to adapt them to those lower notions of their Divinity, which he had elsewhere maintained. Even the form of baptism, in the name of each Person in the Trinity, he explained in such a way as to denote that we are dedicated to the service and worship of God the Father only.

These were points which had already been debated between Dr. Clarke and Dr. Waterland, in