SAMUEL CLARKE

[Samuel Clarke was born at Norwich in 1675. His father was an Alderman of that city and represented it in Parliament. Samuel was educated at the Free School of his native town. In 1691 he went to Caius College, Cambridge. Here he became an ardent student of the Newtonian philosophy, and at the early age of twenty, immediately after taking his degree, brought out an improved translation of Rohault's Physics, a work based on the principles of Descartes, intending thereby to guide the feet of University students into safer philosophic paths. This he further amplified in 1697, in an edition with copious notes, in which the doctrines of Descartes were corrected by those of Newton. Soon after 1701 he was presented to the living of Drayton, Norfolk. Thence he was transferred to London, being Boyle lecturer in the years 1704 and 1705. He was appointed chaplain to Queen Anne, and Rector of St. James', Westminster, in 1706 or 1707. died in 1729.]

He

SAMUEL CLARKE turned out a large amount of work in his comparatively short life. Besides his two more important contributions to philosophy, The Discourse concerning the Being and Attributes of God, and The Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation, he carried on a lengthy and learned correspondence with Leibnitz upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy; another correspondence upon Liberty and Necessity; wrote a letter to a Mr. Dodwell on the Immortality of the Soul; another to Bishop Hoadly upon the Proportion of Velocity and Force in Bodies in Motion; corresponded with young Joseph Butler, afterwards the famous author of the Analogy of Religion; produced essays on Baptism, Confirmation, etc.; treatises on The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, and on The Primitive Fathers and the Canon of the New Testament; also Paraphrases of the Gospels, and some sermons.

Clarke's style is not particularly attractive. It is usually intelligible and fairly clear, but it inclines to be ponderous, and is marred by too plentiful sprinklings of Scripture texts. He

has no humour, no imagination, and no great depth or originality of thought. In his philosophical writings he sought to introduce the truths of other men in plain and simple language, and succeeded fairly well.

His sermons are clear, forcible and well sustained. They exhibit great common-sense and moderation, and though far from beautiful, are dignified and in good taste.

His Paraphrases of the Gospels are very able. The language is vigorous and fairly natural. They are colloquial, without irreverence or undue familiarity. We doubtless lose in them some of the simplicity of the authorised version, their diction being a trifle pedantic at times. They are, however, distinctly effective. The free rendering of passages so familiar as to be in danger of being slighted, often brings out their meaning, or possible meaning, with distinct and quickening effect. These homely paraphrases are perhaps the most lasting and valuable legacy to English literature that has been made by Samuel Clarke.

A. I. FITZROY.

ARGUMENTS TO THE BEING OF GOD

First. That 'tis evident, both we ourselves, and all the other beings we know in the world, are weak and dependent creatures; which neither gave ourselves being, nor can preserve it by any power of our own: and that therefore we entirely owe our being to some superior and more powerful cause; which superior cause either must be itself the first cause, which is the notion of God; or else, by the same argument as before, must derive from him, and so lead us to the knowledge of him. If it be said that we received our being from our forefathers by a continual natural succession (which, however, would not in any step have been possible without a perpetual providence); yet still the argument holds no less strong concerning the first of the whole race; that he could not but be made by a superior intelligent cause. If an atheist, contrary to the truth of all history, shall contend that there may have been, without any beginning at all, an eternal succession of men; yet still it will be no less evident that such a perpetual succession could not have been without an eternal superior cause; because in the nature of things themselves there is manifestly no necessity, that any such succession of transient beings, either temporary or perpetual, should have existed at all.

Secondly. The other argument, to which the greatest part of the proofs of the being of God may briefly be reduced, is the order and beauty of the world; that exquisite harmony of nature, by which (as St. Paul expresses it, Rom. i. 20) the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And this argument, as it is infinitely strong to the most accurate philosophers, so it is also sufficiently obvious even to the meanest capacities. Whose power was it that framed this beautiful and stately fabric, this immense and spacious world? that stretched out the North over the empty place, and hanged the earth upon nothing? (Job. xxvi. 7.)

That formed those vast and numberless orbs of heaven, and disposed them into such regular and uniform motions? that appointed the sun to rule the day, and the moon and the stars to govern the night? that so adjusted their several distances, as that they should neither be scorched by heat, nor destroyed by cold? that encompasseth the earth with air so wonderfully contrived, as at one and the same time to support clouds for rain, to afford winds for health and traffic, to be proper for the breath of animals by its spring, for causing sound by its motion, for transmitting light by its transparency? that fitted the water to afford vapours for rain, speed for traffic, and fish for nourishment and delicacy? that weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance, and adjusted them in their most proper places for fruitfulness and health? that diversified the climates of the earth into such an agreeable variety, that in that great difference, each one has its proper seasons, day and night, winter and summer? that clothed the face of the earth with plants and flowers, so exquisitely adorned with various and inimitable beauties, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of them? that replenished the world with animals, so different from each other in particular, and yet all in the whole so much alike? that framed with exquisite workmanship the eye for seeing, and other parts of the body, necessarily in proportion; without which, no creature could long have subsisted? that beyond all these things, endued the soul of man with far superior faculties, with understanding, judgment, reason, and will; with faculties whereby in a most exalted manner God teaches us more than the beasts of the field, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven? (Job. xxxv. 11.)

(From Sermon on Faith in God.)

ON HUMAN FALLIBILITY

THE cause of erroneous opinions, in this and most other questions about which there have at any time been raised any controversies, is generally this; that men attending to one point only, and being solicitous to oppose strongly some particular error, have been apt to do it in such a manner, as has carried them out beyond the truth of the argument, and prevented them from

guarding against being exposed to error in some contrary extreme. Thus in disputing against the errors of the Church of Rome, incautious persons have frequently been betrayed by an unwise zeal to make use of such arguments, as they were not aware might at the same time be alleged by others of an opposite persuasion with the same force against themselves. And nothing is more common, than for others on the contrary, in the heat of controversy with some of their brethren who differ from them, to draw such arguments from church-authority, and general councils, and the like; as they are not enough sensible may on any other occasion be used against themselves by those of the Church of Rome, with at least as great and perhaps greater force.

(From Sermon on the Grace of God.)

ON THE NECESSITY OF MORALITY IN RELIGION

No man can become a true disciple of Christ, who is not affected with a sincere love of God and virtue; nor can any one who already professes the name of Christ behave himself as becomes that holy profession by any other methods or forms of religion whatever, than by the practice of righteousness and true virtue, in obedience to the moral commands of God. When our Saviour had worked the miracle of the loaves, recorded in the beginning of this chapter (John vi.); many of the Jews believed on him; that is, they professed themselves his disciples, not out of any regard to the excellency and holiness of his doctrine, but in hopes of being supported by him in the world. To these persons he says (verse 26): "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." This doctrine, when they relished not, but began to murmur, he reproves them with somewhat more earnestness in the words of the text; "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him :" It is vain to profess to be my disciples upon any other foot, than that of regard to God, and to the world to come. Upon which they murmured still more (verse 61); he replied again (verse 64), “There are some of you that believe not . . . therefore said I unto you, that no man can come to me, except it were given unto him of