sion, having been elected vice-chancellor, according to the usual rotation, on Nov. 14th, 1715, took measures for suppressing those disturbances which had disgraced the university on the king's birthday, the preceding year; he also succeeded in getting the address of congratulation to the king, on the suppression of the rebellion, which had been stopped in the caput in April, 1716, passed without opposition in the senate, and by large majorities in the Non-Regent and Regent house. Dr Bentley, alluding to this circumstance, in a letter to Dr Samuel Clarke, says: "The fury of the whole disaffected and Jacobite party here, against me and Mr Waterland, is inexpressible. One would think that the late address had given them a mortal blow, by the desperate rage they are in. I suppose you have seen a virulent lying paper, printed at London, about the address, wherein Mr Waterland and I are described as objects of their universal hatred. Nothing now will satisfy them but I must be put by the professor's chair; and the church is in great danger from my New Testament." Dr Van Mildert says that there is a letter in the Harleian collection, in the hand-writing of Middleton, addressed to the earl of Oxford, in 1716, giving an account of the motives of his lordship's friends, the Cambridge tories, in opposing the address. The tories, he alleges, were not actuated on this occasion by disaffection to the house of Hanover, but by a conviction that the address was a job, intended to procure preferment for Waterland and impunity for Bentley, who had written and promoted it. 66 Whether," says the learned biographer, "the foundation of Middleton's hostility to Waterland was laid at this, or at an earlier period, is not certain; nor whether it had its rise in political rather than in literary or personal jealousy." There is certainly no evidence that Waterland was actuated either by party or personal motives in the share which he took in the politics of the university.

We have elsewhere alluded to the manner in which Bentley obtained the regius professorship of divinity in 1717. It is stated by some authorities that on this occasion Waterland would most likely have received the appointment, had not his connexion with Bentley prevented him from exerting his interest to obtain the vacant chair.3 Waterland was present at Bentley's famous prelection on the disputed verse in St John's first epistle, and is said to have replied to the interrogatory whether Bentley's reasonings had convinced him that the verse was spurious, “No, for I was convinced before." Yet Waterland has not in any of his writings disputed the genuineness of this verse. On the occasion of the king's visit to Cambridge, in the latter part of this same year, Waterland was honoured with the degree of D. D.

Waterland had hitherto published only two short pieces, viz. An Assize Sermon,' preached at Cambridge, July 21, 1713, and A Thanksgiving Sermon,' preached before the university, June 7, 1716, on the suppression of the rebellion. In 1719 he published his first considerable work, entitled, A Vindication of Christ's Divinity, being a Defence of some Queries relating to Dr Clarke's scheme of the Holy Trinity, in answer to a Clergyman in the Country.' The following hasty sketch from Van Mildert, of the previous state of this important controversy, may not be unacceptable to the reader. For nearly thirty years

8 Biographia Britannica.

6

Bishop Bull had taken the lead in defence of the Trinitarian doctrines. His 'Defensio Fidei Nicenæ,' was principally directed against the Jesuit Petavius, the Socinian Zwicker, and the Anti-trinitarian Sandius. His subsequent tract, Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ,' had more immediate reference to Episcopius and his disciple Curcellæus. His last great work, Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio,' was written expressly against Zwicker. The chief abettors of Anti-trinitarianism in England, at this period, were Biddle, Firmin, and Gilbert Clerke. The next English divine who took the field on Bull's side was Dr William Sherlock, father of Bishop Sherlock. He was not, however, very happy in his mode of explaining the doctrine of a Trinity in unity. Dr Wallis thought that his hypothesis approached to Tritheism, and Dr South was loud in his condemnation of it upon similar grounds. Both these writers, however, were so unfortunate in their own theories as to be charged with leaning towards Sabellianism. Bull's last controversial treatise on this subject was published in 1703. In 1712 Dr Clarke published his Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity,' with which a new era in polemics commences. This work was generally regarded as a revival of the Arian heresy; and was animadverted on with more or less ability by Wells, Nelson, Knight, Gastrell, Edwards, Welchman, Potter, Bennett, and Mayo. On the other side, Whitby, Sykes, and Jackson, appeared in favour of Dr Clarke. It was at this period of the controversy that Dr Waterland entered the field, in the work already named. "It obtained for him," says Van Mildert, "general confidence as a fit leader in the cause he had undertaken; and, notwithstanding the acknowledged ability of many who had already entered the lists on the same side, it seemed as if all were now willing to transfer to him its chief direction." Dr Clarke's reply, entitled The Modest Plea continued, or a brief and distinct Answer to Dr Waterland's queries relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity,' appeared in 1720. "Dr Clarke's replies to each query are ingenious, subtle, and acute. the great, and, as it seems, insuperable difficulty he had to contend with, was that of allowing to our Lord the title of GOD, in any legitimate acceptation of the term. It is a vain attempt to disguise the absurdity upon the Arian principle, of ascribing real divinity to the Son. Whenever Dr Clarae finds this express term given to him, he is evidently perplexed and troubled how to evade its force. Generally he is under the necessity of either adding to the text some expository word or phrase, or of expressing it by some mode of circumlocution which may confine it to the particular signification his system requires. Where he conceives the term God to denote the Father, he inserts Supreme before it, that the divinity of the Son may appear to be inferior; where it is predicated of the Son, some qualifying terms are introduced from other texts of Scripture, to give it a dependent and subordinate meaning; and again, when it is used absolutely, denoting the essence or being of the Deity, the personal pronouns I and Me, He and Him, are insisted upon as proofs that it relates individually and exclusively to the Father; thus assuming the very points in question. Dr Clarke's system, indeed, necessarily supposes a supreme God, and a subordinate God, and upon this principle rests his interpretation of every text which cannot otherwise be made to accord with his views. Dr Waterland's queries, and the arguments grounded upon them, tend to show, on the

But

other hand, that this is neither consistent with the true Scripture notion of the Divine unity, nor with that of the Trinity, as understood by the church, or even as professed to be received by Dr Clarke himself. "I do not charge you," says Dr W., "with asserting two supreme Gods; but I do charge you with holding two Gods; one supreme, another inferior, two real and true Gods, according to the Scripture notion of the word God, as explained by yourself. To this charge the Modest Plea' gives no specific answer: the author contents himself with recriminating that his opponent also asserts two supreme Gods." +

6

About the year 1719 Dr Waterland, under the appointment of Bishop Gibson, preached the first in the series of Lady Moyer's lectures These discourses, eight in number, the author professes to have prepared as a supplement to his Vindication;' but they form a valuable treatise in themselves. Soon after this, he was presented to the rectory of St Austin in the city of London, and, in 1723, to the chancellorship of the diocese of York.

We find Waterland next engaged in debate with Dr Whitby and Mr Jackson; but he found time to diversity his polemical labours with the preparation of a 'Critical History of the Athanasian Creed,' the first edition of which appeared in 1723. From the time of publishing his Farther Vindication' in 1724, Dr Waterland ceased to take a prominent part in the Trinitarian controversy until the year 1734, when he published one of his largest and most valuable pieces, with the title, The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity asserted, in reply to some late pamphlets.'

While Whiston, Emlyn, and Clarke, were assailing the doctrines of Christianity, another set of writers, among whom Chubb, Morgan, Collins, and Tindal, were conspicuous, united their forces against revealed religion. Tindal, who chose absurdly enough to call himself 'a Christian deist,' published a work, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation,' in which he attempts to prove that revealed religion is only a republication of the religion of nature. Waterland answered this treatise in the first part of his Scripture Vindicated.' Dr Conyers Middleton came to the aid of Tindal, and was replied to with much spirit and effect by Dr Zachary Pearce.

6

In 1730 Dr Waterland was collated to the archdeaconry of Middlesex by Bishop Gibson. In 1734 he produced A Discourse on the argument à priori, for proving the Existence of a First Cause,' in which he endeavoured to refute Clarke's opinions on that subject. During the same year he declined the office of prolocutor to the lower house of convocation. In our notice of Sykes, the reader will find a brief account of the controversy which Dr Waterland maintained with him on some points in Dr Clarke's Exposition of the Catechism.' In 1736 Dr Waterland preached a series of charges on the eucharist, in which he argued, on the one hand, against Bishop Hoadly, who considered it a mere commemorative feast; and, on the other, against that of Johnson and Brett, who held it to be a proper propitiatory sacrifice.

6

This able and indefatigable divine closed a life of useful and arduous labours in December, 1740. The Rev. Joseph Clarke edited his posthumous remains, consisting chiefly of sermons; but Dr Van Mildert

Van Mildert.

has given some valuable additional pieces in his edition of Waterland's works. Waterland is unquestionably one of the acutest divines of the church of England. As a polemic, there are few to equal him. And it is to his praise that, much as he was engaged in controversy, and bitter and keen as his opponents often were, he seldom uses language calculated to irritate or offend. Mr Seed 66 says, controversy had not at all imbittered or set an edge upon his spirits." Middleton indeed attempted to fix a stigma on his antagonist's reputation, and talked about "the wretched passions and prejudices with which he marched to his grave;" but Middleton's calumny had long ceased to be reckoned a reproach. Dr Aikin, whose sentiments were by no means in unison with Dr Waterland's, acknowledges that, "as a controversialist, though firm and unyielding, he is accounted fair and candid, free from bitterness, and actuated by no persecuting spirit."

Archbishop Boulter.

BORN A. D. 1671.-DIED A. D. 1742.

THIS excellent prelate was descended from a reputable and opulent English family. He received the rudiments of learning in merchanttailor's school, London, and afterwards studied at Oxford. Soon after the Revolution he was elected a demi of Magdalen college, his fellows being the celebrated Addison, the learned Bishop Wilcox, and Dr Welsted, a physician of great eminence and learning.

On the invitation of Sir Charles Hedges, principal secretary of state, Boulter went to London in 1700, in the quality of chaplain to Sir Charles, and soon thereafter was preferred to the same honour by Archbishop Tennison. Among his patrons at court was Spencer, earl of Sunderland, who presented him to the rectory of St Olave in Southwark, and to the archdeaconry of Surrey. He accompanied George I. to Hanover in 1719, as chaplain to his majesty and tutor to Prince Frederic. During his residence in Hanover, the bishopric of Bristol becoming vacant, the king presented him to that see and the deanery of Christ-church, Oxford, on the 15th of November, 1719.

On the death of Dr Lindsay, he was elevated to the archbishopric of Armagh and the primacy of Ireland. In this station he gave much attention to the high duties of his office, and exerted himself most strenuously for the general welfare and improvement of Ireland. He was often heard to remark that " he would do all the good to Ireland he could, though they did not suffer him to do all he would."

He died in September, 1742. His published works consist of a few charges and occasional sermons, and a series of letters to the ministers of state, on the passing affairs of Ireland, from 1724 to 1738.

Andrew Snape, D. D.

BORN A. D. 1670.-DIED A. D. 1742.

THIS learned divine and polemic was trained at Eton and Cambridge.

In 1697 he obtained a fellowship, and was elected lecturer of St Martin's-in-the-Fields, London. He was created D. D. in 1705, and represented the university of Cambridge in that faculty, at the Frankfort jubilee, in 1707.

On the breaking out of the Bangorian controversy, Snape took a zealous part against Hoadly. His Letter to the Bishop of Bangor passed through seventeen editions in one year. In 1723 he was elected vice-chancellor of Cambridge. He died in 1742. Dr Berriman edited three volumes of his sermons in 1745. Dr Zachary Grey considered Snape as "by far the most powerful opponent Bishop Hoadly had "

Daniel Neal.

BORN A. D. 1678.—died a. D. 1743.

DANIEL NEAL, the historian of the puritans, was born in London, on the 14th of December, 1678. He was educated in Merchant-tailor's school, of which he was head-scholar in 1697. He declined proceeding to St John's college, Oxford, having embraced dissenting principles, but entered Mr Rowe's academy for the education of young men for the dissenting ministry, and subsequently pursued his studies in Holland.

6

Soon after his return to London, in 1703, he began to preach; and in 1706 was called to the pastoral charge of the church in Aldersgatestreet, which subsequently removed to Jewin-street. His first publication was his History of New England,' in two volumes 8vo. 1720. In 1722 he published a Letter to the Rev. Dr Francis Hare, dean of Worcester, occasioned by his reflections on the Dissenters in a late visitation sermon.' This is an acute and spirited tract. In the same year he published a short notice on the method of inoculating for the small-pox, as practised in New England. In 1732, the first volume of his great work, the History of the Puritans,' appeared. This publication originated in the following circumstances. Dr Edmund Calamy, had, in his abridgment of the 'Life of Baxter,' laid before the public a view of the state of non-conformity, and of the characters and sufferings of its principal adherents, during the period that immediately succeeded the passing of the act of uniformity in 1662. Dr John Evans on this formed a design of writing a history of non-conformity from the beginning of the Reformation to 1640, when the civil war broke out. He had proceeded a considerable way in the execution of his design, before his death in 1730. In the meantime, Neal had been requested by several of his dissenting brethren to take up the history from the year 1640, and to carry it on to the passing of the act of uniformity. He had completed his collections, and put them in order for the press, some time before the death of Dr Evans; that event made him pause, and review the ground Dr Evans had intended to occupy, and ultimately he determined to commence his history at the period of the Reformation. Between the publication of the successive parts of this work, we find Neal engaged in the Berry-street and Salters'-hall lectures. The former was preached at the request and by the encouragement of William Coward, Esq., a wealthy and zealous dissenter. It consisted