ersons, that is, three intelligent
agents in the same individual, identical substance, is a self-evident
contradiction, and that the Nicene fathers, by the term Homoousion, did
not mean one individual, identical substance. That the real difficulty
in the conception of the Trinity is _not_ how three persons can be one
God, for Scripture nowhere expresses the doctrine in those words; and
the difficulty of understanding a Scripture doctrine ought not to lie
wholly upon words not found in Scripture, but _how_ and in what sense,
consistently with everything that is affirmed in Scripture about Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, it is still certainly and infallibly true that to
us there is but 'one God the Father' (I Cor. viii. 6). That as to the
claims of the Holy Ghost to be worshipped on an equality with the
Father, there is really no one instance in Scripture of any direct act
of adoration or invocation being paid to Him at all.

Such is the outline of the system of which Dr. Clarke was the chief
exponent. The various arguments by which it was supported will be best
considered in connection with that great writer who now comes under our
notice--Dr. Waterland. Among the many merits of Waterland's treatment of
the subject, this is by no means the least--that he pins down his
adversary and all who hold the same views in any age to the real
question at issue. Dr. Clarke, for example, admitted that Christ was, in
a certain sense, Creator. 'Either, then,' argues Waterland, 'there are
two authors and governors of the universe, _i.e._ two Gods, or not. If
there are, why do you deny it of either; if not, why do you affirm it of
both?' Dr. Clarke thought that the divinity of Christ was analogous to
the royalty of some petty prince, who held his power under a supreme
monarch. 'I do not,' retorts Waterland, 'dispute against the notion of
one king under another; what I insist upon is that a great king and a
little king make two kings; (consequently a supreme God and an inferior
God make two Gods).' Dr. Clarke did not altogether deny omniscience to
be an attribute of Christ, but he affirmed it to be a relative
omniscience, communicated to him from the Father. 'That is, in plain
language,' retorted Waterland, 'the Son knows all things, except that He
is ignorant of many things.' Dr. Clarke did not altogether deny the
eternity of the Son. The Son is eternal, because we cannot conceive a
time when He was not. 'A negative eternity,' replies Waterl