CLARKE, DR. SAMUEL, was born in October, 1675, at Norwich, where, at the free school, he was distinguished for his progress in classical studies. He entered, in 1691, at Caius College, Cambridge, and applied with great success to the mathematics, under au able tutor, Mr., afterwards Sir John Ellis. The text-book then used in the university was a rugged Latin version of the treatise of Rohault, an implicit follower of the Cartesian theory. Clarke, at the age of twenty-one, after closely studying and justly appreciating the reason ings of Newton's ' Priacipia,' which had then just appeared, published a more classical version of the text of Rohault, with numerous critical notes, added with the view of bringing the Cartesian system into disrepute by exposing its fallacies. After passing through four editions as the university text-book, it gave place, as Clarke desired, to the adoption of undisguised Newtonian treatises. He now went through a diligent course of biblical reading, in the original languages, in the course of which he carefully studied the early Christian fathers. On his ordination he was introduced to Dr. More, bishop of Norwich, by Whiston, whom he succeeded as domestic chaplain to that bishop for twelve years. In 1699 he published three essays on Confirmation, Baptism, and Repentance, together with Reflections on Toland'a Amyntor,' concerning the uncauonical Gospels. Two years after wards followed his 'Paraphrase on the Four Gospels,' which induced Bishop More to present him with the living of Drayton, near Norwich. In 1704 he was appointed to preach the Boylean lecture at Oxford, when he chose for his subject ' The Being and Attributes of God.' The satisfaction which ho gave on this occasion led to his re-election the following year, when he read a series of lectures on the evidences of natural and revealed religion. These discourses were arranged and published its a continuous argument, and passed through several editions with successive improvements.
Clarke's mode of demonstrating the existence of God by a process of reasoning from an d priori axiom, is precisely that of Spinoza, against whom the argument of Clarke is especially directed. Both take the same point of departure, and agree that, siuce something does exist, something always has existed. They assert that eternity and immensity, time and space, or duration and extent (for each of these pairs of terms is usod without distinction), have always existed, the conception of their nou•existence being impossible. It is then
considered that, as these are only attributes or qualities, they must necessarily imply a co-existent substance whose attributes they are : a necessary and eternal Being is therefore acknowledged by both, but as to the nature of this Being they differ entirely. Spinoza, like some of the Greek philosophers, concludes this eternal and necessary sub stance to be the universe itself, material and mental (r6 war), which he declares to be the great and only God in whom we live, and move, and have oar being. (Compare the passage of Pope's 'Essay,' "All are but parts of one stupendous whole," &c.) Clarke asserts that this substance, of which duration and extent are the attributes, is an immaterial and spiritual Being ; this metaphysical notion is probably derived from a passage in a scholium of Newton's 'Principle,' where it is said, "Durst (Deus) scraper et adest ubique ; et, existendo scalper et ubiquo, duralionem U valiant, constituit," &c. Spinoza takes no notice of design es evidence of intelligence; and Clarke, in assigning to Ilia personification of eternity and immensity certain moral attri butes iu accordance with his metaphysical hypothesis, admits that intelligence, in which lies all the difference between the Theiats and Atheists, cannot bo demonstrated by any reasoning a priori, but must depend for proof on the d posteriori evidence from observa tion and induction (prop. 8.) According to his promises, ho canuot by logical sequence avoid landing himself on the same ground with Spinoza. Numerous replies and objections to this a priori argil meat appeared at the time of its first publication. (See a hat in Kippia's Biog. Brit.,' and the correspondence between Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham, and Clarke, printed at the cad of Bishop Butler's Works.) One of the principal was ' An Inquiry into tho Ideas of Space, Time,' &c., by Bishop Law. The most entitle scholastics, Albert, Aquinas, and Scotus, rejected the a priori proof as an obvious petitio prineipii, and many modern writers regard the Performance of Clarke as o failure. Pope, who on several OCCa40119 says sarcastic things of Clarke, alludes to it in the ollowing passage of the Dunciad,' b. iv., 1.