the foregoing doctrine.’  But he and his friends were ’ready to subscribe any test containing nothing more than is contained in the Thirty-nine Articles;’ their avowed principle being that ’they may do it in their own sense agreeably to what they call Scripture.’  In his ’Case of Arian Subscription’ Dr. Waterland had no difficulty in showing the utter untenableness of this position.  He maintained that ’as the Church required subscription to her own interpretation of Scripture, so the subscriber is bound to that and that only.’  ‘The rules,’ he says, ’for understanding what her sense is are the same as for understanding oaths, laws, &c.—­that is, the usual acceptation of words, the custom of speech at the time being, the scope of the writer from the controversies then on foot,’ &c.  It is but a shallow artifice for fraudulent subscribers to call their interpretation of Scripture, Scripture.  The Church has as good a right to call her interpretation Scripture.  Let the Arian sense be Scripture to Arians; but then let them subscribe only to Arian subscriptions.

The case of Arian subscriptions was really part of a larger question.  There were some who, without actually denying the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity, doubted whether it was of sufficient importance or clearly enough revealed to make it a necessary article of the Christian faith.  These were sometimes called Episcopians, a name derived from one Episcopius, an amiable and not unorthodox writer of the seventeenth century, who was actuated by a charitable desire to include as many as possible within the pale of the Christian Church, and to minimize the differences between all who would, in any sense, own the name of Christians.  The prevalence of such views in Dr. Waterland’s days led him to write one of his most valuable treatises in connection with the Trinitarian controversy.  It was entitled, ’The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity Asserted,’ and was addressed to those only who believed the truth of the doctrine but demurred to its importance.  Waterland concludes this work, which is rather a practical than a controversial treatise, with some wise words of caution to those persons of ‘more warmth than wisdom,’ who from a mistaken liberality would make light of heresy.

It is now time to close this sketch of the method in which this great writer—­one of the few really great divines who belong to the eighteenth century—­handled the mysterious subject of the Trinity.  Not only from his profound learning and acuteness, but from the general cast of his mind, Waterland was singularly adapted for the work which he undertook.  To treat this subject of all subjects, the faculties both of thinking clearly and of expressing thoughts clearly are absolutely essential.  These two qualifications Dr. Waterland possessed in a remarkable degree.  He always knew exactly what he meant, and he also knew how to convey his meaning to his readers.  His style is nervous and lucid, and he