which bear evident marks of being the product of a scholar and a divine.  But the advocates of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity had no need to go further than the mere headings of the chapters of this famous work to have their suspicions justly awakened respecting its tendency.  Chapter i. treated ‘of God the Father;’ chapter ii. ‘of the Son of God;’ chapter iii. ‘of the Holy Spirit of God.’  The natural correlatives to ’God the Father’ would be ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost;’ there was something suspicious in the change of these expressions into ’the Son of God’ and the ‘Holy Spirit of God.’  A closer examination of the work will soon show us that the change was not without its significance.  ’The Scripture Doctrine’ leads substantially to a very similar conclusion to that at which Whiston had arrived.  The Father alone is the one supreme God; the Son is a Divine being as far as divinity is communicable by this supreme God; the Holy Ghost is inferior both to the Father and the Son, not in order only, but in dominion and authority.  Only Dr. Clarke expresses himself more guardedly than his friend.  He had already made a great name among theologians, and he had no desire to lose it.

We may take the appearance of Dr. Clarke’s book as the commencement of a new era in this controversy, which after this time began to reach its zenith.  Various opponents at once arose, attacking various parts of Dr. Clarke’s scheme.  Dr. Wells complained that he had taken no notice of the Old Testament, that he had failed to show how the true sense of Scripture was to be ascertained, and that he had disparaged creeds, confessions of faith, and the testimony of the fathers; Mr. Nelson complained, not without reason, of his unfair treatment of Bishop Bull; Dr. Gastrell pointed out that there was only one out of Dr. Clarke’s fifty-five propositions to which an Arian would refuse to subscribe.[438]

These and others did good service on particular points; but it remained for Dr. Waterland to take a comprehensive view of the whole question, and to leave to posterity not only an effective answer to Dr. Clarke, but a masterly and luminous exposition, the equal to which it would be difficult to find in any other author, ancient or modern.  It would be wearisome even to enumerate the titles of the various ‘Queries,’ ‘Vindications,’ ‘Replies,’ ‘Defences,’ ‘Answers to Replies,’ which poured forth from the press in luxurious abundance on either side of the great controversy.  It will be sufficient to indicate generally the main points at issue between the combatants.

Dr. Clarke then, and his friends[439] (who all wrote more or less under his inspiration), maintained that the worship of God is in Scripture appointed to one Being, that is, to the Father personally.  That such worship as is due to Christ is the worship of a mediator and cannot possibly be that paid to the one supreme God.  That all the titles given to the Son in the New Testament, and all powers ascribed