They relate to some arguments in Dr. C.'s Demonstration, to prove the infinity, omnipresence, and unity of the Deity. The discussion, which was carried on very amicably on both sides, led to the consideration of some other metaphysical difficulties, concerning substance, space, and necessary existence ; but it seems to have terminated without producing conviction, or change of sentiment, on either side. To these Letters and Answers were added, in the sixth edition of the Demonstration, Dr. Clarke's Answers to two other Letters, from different correspondents; one urging nearly the same objections as the foregoing; the other shewing the argument à m The author of these Letters was the celebrated Bishop Butler, then a very young man, only 21 years of age; who, while he was at an academy in Glocestershire, studying divinity to qualify himself for a Dissenting Teacher, addressed these Letters to Dr. Clarke; and treated the subject with so much penetration and knowledge, that Dr. C. thought them worthy of particular notice. It is remarked in the Biographia Britannica, that in Mr. Butler's objections to Dr. C.'s notions of space and duration, which include his dissatisfaction with the argument à priori, he raised the first battery against that argument; and though, through modesty, considering his youthful age, he forbore to push it to the utmost, yet he was followed therein by others of more strength and assurance, who played upon it so effectually as actually to demolish it for instance, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Law, and Dr. Waterland; who have likewise shewn the inconclusiveness of Dr. Clarke's argument à priori. "It is observable," (adds the writer of that article,) "that Dr. C. evidently raised the hint for erecting that argument " from Sir Isaac Newton's general scholium at the end of his Prin"cipia; and had he kept within the bounds which that great "master never transgressed, he might have avoided this metaphy"sical chimæra, to demonstrate the necessary existence of the Deity." See Biogr. Brit. vol. vii. pp. 20, 21, and note B. -66 priori to be inapplicable to such a subject. The Letters themselves are not inserted; but the ob jections contained in them appear to be fully and fairly stated in the Answers. Dr. Clarke's Answer to the seventh of these Letters gave occasion to Mr. Gretton's larger and more elaborate treatise, printed in 1726, and entitled, A Review of the Argument à priori, in relation to the Being and Attributes of God: in reply to Dr. Clarke's Answer to a seventh Letter concerning that Argument. In the Preface to this work, the author points out the hazardous tendency of Dr. Clarke's undertaking, and its untoward aspect as affecting revealed religion, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity; since it would follow, upon Dr. C.'s reasoning, that if no antecedent necessity could be shewn for more than one Person in the Godhead, the true Divinity of the other Persons could not be established; and "if we cannot "demonstrate à priori that there are three Divine "Persons, it will be pretended, in virtue of these no"vel positions, that there cannot be three such Per"sons; and so we shall be put upon proving an ar "ticle of faith from natural reason, which we freely 66 own is a point of pure revelation, not discoverable "by reason, nor to be proved by our natural light." This, he further observes, is confirmed by the use Dr. C. himself afterwards made of these principles in his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity; "in "which the positive self-existence, and prior ne"cessary existence, of the Father, was drawn out "at its full length, and largely insisted on with all "its train of consequences;" whilst it was plainly intimated, that, in whatever sense the Son and Holy Ghost may be called Divine Persons, they are not metaphysically so, neither is the unity between them and the Father an unity of nature and substance, but only an unity of government, or, rather, a metaphorical union. 66 66 66 In reply to Dr. Clarke's main position, that “ there "must be in nature a permanent ground, or reason, of the existence of the First Cause; otherwise its “existence would be owing to mere chance;"Mr. Gretton observes, that "such internal ground or "reason cannot be prior, though it may be consi"dered as subsequent to the Divine being, as a per"manency flowing from the Divine existence; that "to argue from the Divine perfections to the Divine being is not an argument à priori;” but is a contradiction, "as it supposes the Divine nature before the "Divine being; something internal before any thing "to which it may be internal; and the first cause "springing up from its own substance and self;" in short, that the internal reason alleged by Dr. C. ❝ can only be regarded as a mode, or attribute there"unto appertaining," and "presupposes existence," and "therefore can give us no right to argue there"from to the Divine being." It is also observed, that if the existence of the Deity must be demonstrated à priori by some antecedent necessity of its existence, then must that very necessity "have a 66 reason à priori why it is, rather than why it is not ; "and after that, another; and then a third; and so "on in infinitum. And thus we may always be seeking a first cause; but, by such an endless pro 66 66 gression, shall never be able to find one, whereon "to fix ourselves, or such our restless and unprofita"ble inquiries." And again: "If we ask you of the 66 66 "antecedent necessity, whence it is? why it is? what prior ground was there for it? You must content "yourself with saying, So it is, you know not why, you "know not how. Please to resolve me, therefore, whe"ther your prior necessity be necessary because it ex"ists? or whether it is, because its existence is necessary? and your answer, I presume, in one case, will "be as pertinent and useful as in the other." The author pursues this train of reasoning through the several different acceptations of the term necessity, ideal or physical; and contends that Dr. C.'s endeavours to establish upon that principle the eternity, infinity, immensity, and unity of God, are unsatisfactory and fallacious. Some extracts are subjoined, in an Appendix, from Letters between Mr. Locke and his friends; tending to shew, that neither Locke nor Limborch could satisfy themselves as to the possibility of demonstrating the Divine unity by any such arguments. Dr. Waterland had incidentally animadverted on this work of Dr. Clarke's, in his first and second Defences. Dr. Clarke, in his Observations on the second Defence, noticed this with some asperity; and Waterland, perceiving how sensibly his adversary felt the attack, renewed it still more forcibly in his farther Vindication. But if we may give credit to Mr. Jackson's pretended Memoirs of Dr. Waterland, the commencement of this dispute was of earlier date. Jackson says, "Soon after the controversy of the Trinity was begun between the Doctor and the Country Clergy"man, another debate arose between them, relating to "Dr. Clarke's Boyle's Lecture Sermons. Dr. W. first 66 66 66 "suggested, and soon took upon him to shew the Country Clergyman, that Dr. C. had failed in the proof of the being and attributes of God, drawn "from arguments à priori." He then adds, that a correspondence took place between Waterland and Jackson, "in a private manner;" and it was agreed, "that neither side should print without mutual con"sent;" but afterwards, "the Country Clergyman proposed to the Doctor to have their papers printed,” in order that Dr. Clarke might have an opportunity, if he pleased, of "taking the cause into his own hands:" to which Dr. W. would not consent, though the debate was generally known amongst the learned in the University; till at length, within a year or two after Dr. Clarke's death, Dr. W.'s principal objections were published at the end of Mr. Law's book. 66 This narrative (similar in its circumstances to the account before given by the same author, of the publication of the Queries relating to Clarke's ScriptureDoctrine of the Trinity) renders it probable, that Waterland's correspondence with the Country Clergyman on the argument à priori was communicated by the Country Clergyman to Dr. Clarke himself: and that the Answer to the seventh Letter, annexed to the 6th edition of his work, is an Answer to what Dr. W. had thus privately written to Jackson. This seems to be adverted to by Mr. Gretton, in his Preface above-mentioned; where, after observing how much Dr. Clarke had been irritated by Waterland's severe censures of his Demonstration; he adds, "the first opportunity which pre"sented itself, he sends forth a Letter without a "name, directed to a person who could not well be |