which was long famous in Cambridge tradition. His official opponent, H. James, the regius professor of divinity, changed his accustomed formula of dismissal, probe te exercui, into probe me exercuisti. An old Dr. Yarborough, rector of Tewin, Hertfordshire, who heard the dispute, said long afterwards that he would ride to Cambridge, though he was seventy-seven years old, to hear such another act.
In 1712 Clarke published his 'Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,' in spite, says Whiston, of remonstrances from some of Queen Anne's ministers. The book consists of a collection of texts bearing upon the doctrine, a statement of the doctrine itself, and a consideration of passages in the Anglican liturgy. Clarke was accused of Arianism, the general tendency of the book being clearly in that direction. Whiston, who lost his Cambridge professorship in 1710 on account of similar heretical views, thought that Clarke really shared his own opinions, though too cautious to avow them explicitly. Clarke was attacked by Nelson, Waterland, and others. Nelson appeared in defence of Bishop Bull, whose life he had written. Waterland's first considerable work was 'A Vindication of Christ's Divinity' (1719). It led to a prolonged controversy with Clarke, who wrote various tracts himself (printed in his works), and helped his friends Jackson and Sykes in the controversy. Waterland further attacked Clarke in the 'Case of Arian Subscription' considered (1721); in a second 'Vindication' (1723); in a 'Dissertation on the Argument à priori (attacking the 'Boyle Lectures'); and in remarks on Clarke's posthumous 'Exposition of the Catechism' (1730). In spite of this, they are said to have been on good terms personally. A full account of the whole controversy will be found in Bishop van Mildert's life of Waterland (prefixed to Waterland's 'Works'). On 2 June 1714 the lower house of convocation complained of the book to the upper house, and on 3 June sent up extracts to prove their case. Clarke sent m a reply on 2 July, with a further explanation on 5 July. Without retracting, he made a declaration of his belief in orthodox terms, which were considered to cover something like an evasion of the point. He promised not to preach any more, and stated that he did not intend to write any more, upon the question. He also denied a report that the Athanasian Creed had been intentionally omitted in the services at his church (according to Whiston (p. 9) he never read this creed at Norwich). On 5 July the upper house resolved to proceed no further, after ordering that Clarke's papers should be entered in their minutes. On 7 July the lower house voted that Clarke had not recanted, and that the inquiry should not have been dropped. No furtner steps were taken. Whiston was rather scandalised by what he regarded as Clarke's weakness. He states that Clarke refused during the rest of his life to accept any preferment involving subscription to the articles, and that he would not encourage others to subscribe. The only other preferment which he accepted was the mastership of Wigston's Hospital, Leicester, which was given to him by Lechmere, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, about 1718 (see Whiston, p. 13). A controversy afterwards arose as to whether Clarke ever repented of his utterance. Hoadly says positively that all his friends were aware that he never changed his views. A statement that he had expressed remorse to his son upon his deathbed was positively contradicted oy his son in the 'London Evening Post,' 7 Dec. 1771. The Chevalier Ramsay declared in a letter, (quoted by Warton (Essay on Pope, 5th edit. ii. 117), that he had seen Clarke in his last years and heard him express penitence. Theophilus Lindsay, in his 'Historical View ' (pp. xiv-xx), replies to Ramsay. Whether Ramsay, as is probable, misunderstood Clarke, or, as Lindsay argues, was guilty of a 'pious fraud,' his statement can hardly be accepted. Clarke had more reason to repent of reticence than of over-frankness. In 1718 he gave some offence by altering the form of doxology in the psalms sung in his church. The Bishop of London (John Robinson) published a letter to his clergy, condemning the new phrase, and Clarke had to submit. He prepared some emendations in the liturgy, which were adopted by Lindsey and other unitarians(Lindsey, Historical View, p. 335 ). A copy of the prayer-book, with Clarke's alterations in his own handwriting, was presented in 1768 by his son, Samuel Clarke, F.R.S., to the British Museum, where it is still preserved. After the death of Queen Anne, Clarke became intimate with the Princess of Wales, afterwards Queen Caroline, and had weekly interviews with her, at which other men of philosophical reputation attended to discuss serious questions. At her request he had a famous controversy with Leibnitz. The correspondence which passed between them was published in 1717. It turns principally upon the nature of time and space, which Leibnitz asserts to have only an 'imaginary' existence; while Clarke attributes to them a 'real' existence, which is, he says, the necessary consequence of the existence of God. Whiston says that it had occurred to Clarke even in his childhood that an annihilation of time and space was beyond the power even of omnipo-
