THE following Letters, fifteen in number, were addressed to John Loveday, Esq. of Magdalen College, Oxford, bearing date from the year 1735 to the year 1740. They were obligingly put into the hands of the Editor, for the present edition of the Author's Works, by Loveday, Esq. of Oxon, grandson of the gentleman to whom they were written. Together with these were several rough drafts of Letters from Mr. Loveday to Dr. Waterland; of which no other use has been made, than occasionally to subjoin extracts from them, in the Notes added by the Editor, for the purpose of illustrating Dr. Waterland's Letters. DR. WATERLAND'S LETTERS то JOHN LOVEDAY, ESQ. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. No. I. Windsor, Jan. 1st, 1734-5. I SIR, HAVE no thought of taking any public notice myself of Mr. Jackson's late piece, full of romancing and railing all the way: but I shall not be sorry to have some strictures made upon it (for the reasons mentioned) by some other hand, and in such a way as is hinted. I may here make a few observations upon the piece, just sufficient to shew what I think of it in the general. 1. The author begins with railing accusations of my ill nature, want of moderation, modesty, &c. which, I suppose, was to contrive some pretence or cover for his own abusive way of writing, that it might seem to be occasioned by just provocations: every railing book begins commonly in that way, and it is natural enough. I believe, nobody that has seen my book, can find any thing in it contrary to-good nature or good manners. Several that dislike the doctrine, yet acknowledge, as I am told, the candid manner of treating the adversaries. I have said nothing against political toleration even of Arianism, though our laws do not tolerate it. All I have pleaded is only against ecclesiastical toleration, or admitting to com munion and to the right hand of fellowship. Even the chief Socinians themselves (those particular friends of toleration and moderation) yet carry their rigour as far as I have, and even against Socinians: for they renounce communion with as many as refuse to worship Christ, yea, and they declare them no Christians; as I take notice in my Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Catechism, p. 22a. And, were it not a thing notoriously known, several more proofs might be added. Merely renouncing communion with others, is not properly punishing at all, either corporal or spiritual: though accidentally some inconveniencies may arise to the persons so rejected. 2. A second thing I have to observe of Mr. J. That he gives up the whole point in question, the point of importance, in the very first page; and therefore all the rest is impertinent, belonging to another question, the question concerning the truth of the doctrine. And if he was disposed to enter into that, he should have undertaken a full and just answer to my Second Defence, Sermons, and Farther Defence: whereas, in truth, he has only, or mostly, brought up again the same old stuff which appeared before in Clarke's Reply, concealing from his readers the repeated answers made by me, or others, to them. 3. He is never to be trusted in any thing he says of me. For (as if he had lost all fear of God, or all sense of the Ninth Commandment,) he scarce can write a line or two of me, without some calumny, or gross misrepresentation; which shews, however, how much he is distressed for want of just matter to reproach me with. None but the half-witted would ever make use of falsities, if truth would as well serve their present turn. What a piece of rhodomontade is his whole third page and part of the fourth. But indeed the same strain runs quite through. 4. He deserves to be roundly reckoned with for what he advances in page the eleventh, viz. that the pretending a See vol. v. p. 385. of the present edition. to be certain (morally certain) of the right and reason of a cause, is pretending to be infallible. For since he is too modest, I presume, to think himself infallible, it follows that he is not morally certain of any thing, and therefore must be in just consequence a perfect sceptic. Farther, as no man is more dogmatical or confident than himself, though not morally certain of any thing, how will he justify his conduct? He has pronounced very confidently and dogmatically against the doctrine of all the Protestant Churches, (nay, of the Christian world in a manner, from the fourth century at least, by his own confession,) that it is Tritheism, or Sabellianism, (pp. 2, 35, 38, 39, 51, 57.) that it is grossly irreligious, Antichristian, blasphemous, atheistical, diabolical, (1, 58, 60, 62, 71, 132, 133;) and all this without being morally certain of the right or reason of the cause, and without being infallible. We know, indeed, that he has done it not only without moral certainty, but against it. However, by his own account, and in consequence of his own argument, he has done it without certain grounds for so doing, and therefore is self-condemned, and guilty of a most flaming breach of Christian charity, candour, justice, and common honesty. Rash accusation, (and all is rash which has not certain ground to go upon,) and of such a kind, is desperate iniquity. Persuasion alone will not suffice: men ought to know what they say, and what they do. Papists are consistent in their censures, on the foot of their supposed infallibility, and Protestants likewise, on the foot of moral certainty: but such sceptical Arians as admit no certainty, ought to be exceeding modest in their censures, or rather to forbear censuring at all. But his Christian liberty is marvellous. 5. Some notice should be taken, in the entrance of any answer to his book, of his avowed principle, as to the Son and Spirit being created, (pp. 55, 127.) and of the Son being once God, and afterwards ceasing to be so for a time, and then becoming God again, in a higher sense than before, pp. 73, 74. He calls upon us, p. 76. ridi |