represented" Dr. Waterland's "notion" or no, in he sixth page, I am sure he has very grievously ʼn the next; where he pretends the doctor makes he originateness of the Son, and unoriginateness of the Father, to be so precarious and mutable and ortuitous," that the Son might have been selforiginated and the Father; and the Father might have been begotten and the Son, had it been so ' agreed between them; and that also, by the same agreement, the Holy Ghost might have been either the Father or the Son, or both by turns, as now he is neither; and so," continues he, "the whole "economy and order of the Christian religion might "have been inverted." He is at the same work again, pages 36, 38, 39, &c. and has added a long note at the end of his book, to the same purpose; where he quotes (very much, one would think, to his own confusion) the doctor's words, viz. "That "the priority of order (that is, the originateness of "the one, and unoriginateness of the other) is" (what? fortuitous, precarious, mutable? no, but) "natural, that is, necessary or unalterable, and eternally so." What then can be the reason of all this clamour and complaint? why truly, because the doctor will not give a reason, a priori, why it could not have been otherwise. And will any man of a sound mind, or common modesty, attempt it? is it not evidently wading out of our depth, and going much further than our ideas can attend us? The fact we know, it is revealed; "so it is written, and 66 reader may also see Dr. Trapp's Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 110, &c. Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity Vindicated, p. 9, 14, 28, "so we believe. The Father is Father, and the Son "is Son1." But if any man ask why it is so, he deserves only to be reminded, that some persons may ask more questions than wiser men can answer. The author, all along, seems to be artfully blending the natural priority of order and economical together; though the doctor had before desired, that they might be kept distinct. The former is necessary and unalterable; the Father never could have been the Son, nor the Son the Father. But "as to "the Son's acting a ministerial part, that indeed is purely economical; and there was no impossibility "in the nature of the thing, but the Father himself might have done the same: but it was more congruous, that he, who is first in order, should be "first in office too": and had it been otherwise, it "would have been inverting the order of the per 66 66 66 66 sons; which, I think, is reason sufficient against "it"." And will our author say, it is not? Those men who contend so much, that the reasons and fitnesses of things are a law to the Supreme Being him 1 Second Defence, p. 177. m Ibid. n Agreeable to these are the words of bishop Pearson: "Upon "this preeminence, (of the Father,) as I conceive, may safely be "grounded the congruity of the divine mission. We often read "that Christ was sent; from whence he bears the name of an Apostle himself, as well as those whom he therefore named so; "because as the Father sent him, so sent he them: the Holy Ghost "is also said to be sent, sometimes by the Father, sometimes by "the Son but we never read that the Father was sent at all, "there being an authority in that name, which seems inconsistent "with this mission." On the Creed, p. 36. Thus do the bishop and Dr. Waterland entirely agree; following herein both fathers and schoolmen. o Ibid. and p. 134, 135. self, will they say that suitableness, fitness, congruity, is not a sufficient reason in this case? will nothing content them but a physical impossibility? which when we speak of, with regard to God, who will presume to say what he can, or what he cannot do? What can limit his power, (I speak of physical power,) but absolute contradiction? And for my part, I am able to see no contradiction in supposing that the Father might (as to any impossibility in the nature of the thing) have acted a different part in the mysterious work of man's redemption. However, though the Father might have done so if he had pleased, yet he did not think it so suitable, so fit, so proper, so congruous; and therefore, in this view, there was what we may call a moral impossibility. For, as Mr. Norris well speaks, "need any 66 thing be more impossible, than what an infinitely "wise Being does not think fit to do? and may "not such a perfect Agent be very well said, not to "be able to do whatever he cannot do in wisdom P ?" The Father, as such, has something of preeminence and authority, (not dominion and power, in the Arian sense,) so that it would seem absurd for him to be said to be sent, &c. either of the Son whom he begot, or the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from him 9. I don't design to pursue this writer page by page; I have more regard to my own time, and the reader's patience. But the next, page 8, is so very wonderful and extraordinary, (I shall give it no worse words,) that it must not pass without animadversion. Here's P Sermon on Christ's Satisfaction, vol. iv. P. 79. 4 See Pearson quoted in the Second Defence, p. 188. or St. Augustin apud Bull. Defen. F. N. p. 277, 288. 66 66 66 66 an English convocation Arianized at once: the whole synod, "the most eminent and learned body of the clergy," determine "in favour" of a doctrine directly contradictory to their own solemn and repeated subscriptions! but methinks this affair might have been dropped for Dr. Clarke's sake: and if our author forces us to revive the memory of some things that will not redound to his honour, he alone is to answer for it. In the year 1714, the lower house of convocation presented to the bishops a complaint of Dr. Clarke's book. The bishops, in their answer, highly approve the zeal of the lower house,-de"clare their concern for the great scandal given to pious and sober-minded Christians by some books lately published by Dr. Clarke, and their appre"hension of the mischiefs and dangerous conse66 quences that may ensue thereupon." They "think "the lower house had just reason for such their "complaint.”—And they promise to "take into "their consideration what is proper to do on this "occasion." So far, one would think, is no "de"termination" (either "tacit" or express)" in favour "of the scripture doctrine of the Trinity, asserted by Dr. Clarke." But what followed? While this was in agitation, the doctor was prevailed upon (Mr. Whiston says the prevailing argument was, Save thyself and us) to draw up and deliver to the bishops (what the gentleman just mentioned will bear me out in calling) a prevaricating paper", "concerning the eternity of the Son and Holy Spirit.” Upon this the bishops, not willing, perhaps, to come to extremities, thought fit to proceed no further. At 66 66 r Whiston's Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, p. 73. s Ibid. p. 85. the same time the lower house declared themselves not satisfied with Dr. Clarke's paper, as it did "not "contain in it any recantation of the heretical as"sertions, and other offensive passages," which they had complained of in their representation. "Thus "ended," says Mr. Whiston, "this unhappy affair: 66 unhappy to Dr. Clarke's own conscience, &c.t"— And can any mortal now conclude with our author, that this was a "tacit determination in favour of "the scripture doctrine of the Trinity, asserted by "Dr. Clarke?" But "they did not gainsay any part "of his propositions;" they did not "allege, either "that he had misunderstood or misinterpreted any 66 one of above a thousand texts of scripture, on "which his propositions were founded; or that any "one of them was not rightly deduced from the "scriptures, which he brought to support them." They did not, indeed, if this author pleases, enter any further into particulars, than was necessary to support the several articles contained in their complaint. They observed," that the offence, given by "the books complained of," arose "not only from 66 particular parts and passages, but from the gene"ral drift and design of the whole;" which tended to nothing less, in their opinion, " than to substitute "the author's private conceits, and arbitrary interpretations of scripture, in the room of those ca 66 "tholic doctrines which the church professes and "maintains, as warranted both by scripture and antiquity u." 66 ' Whiston's Memoirs, p. 85. "See the extract of particulars laid before the bishops by the lower house, in a pamphlet, entitled, A full Account of the late Proceedings in Convocation relating to Dr. Clarke's Writings about the Trinity, printed in the year 1714. |