In the year 1721, this same author published another tract, entitled, A Packet of Letters to Dr. Waterland, being a Proposal of a fourth Scheme, supported by Scripture and Demonstration. Also a modest Inquiry touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the manner of our blessed Saviour's Divinity, as they are held in the Catholic Church, and in the Church of England. In a long Preface to this publication, Mr. S. represents himself to have been very desirous of having his doubts and scruples, respecting what are called orthodox opinions of the Trinity, removed; and states that he had published his thoughts with that view: and he adds, that hearing of Dr. W.'s Defence of his Queries, and his Sermons at Lady Moyer's Lecture on our Lord's Divinity, he fully expected conviction; but being disappointed, he resolved to unbosom himself to Dr. W. upon the subject. He then commenced a correspondence with Dr. W. and this pamphlet contains the packet of letters sent by him to Dr. W. but not those which Dr. W. sent in return. The remainder of the tract consists of a delineation of the author's peculiar notions, differing, as he conceived, from most other systems. In the following year, 1722, Mr. Staunton brought out another tract, entitled, Reason and Revelation stated, &c. by the same hand that wrote the Packet of Letters to Dr. Waterland. To which is added, a true Copy of Dr. Waterland's several Letters by him sent in Answer to the Packet of Letters wrote to him by W. S. and the printing whereof was at first forbidden by the Doctor, who now consents to the publication of them. This pamphlet is chiefly levelled at Dr. Young, Dean of Sarum, animadverting on two sermons of his, entitled, The Wisdom of believing; and has but little bearing on the points in dispute between himself and Dr. Waterland. - 66 It does not appear from any of these publications what was Mr. Staunton's profession, education, or habits of life. In his first letter to Dr. W. he says modestly of himself, "As to learning, I am a mere schoolboy, and a dull one too I was in 1673, and am now in the 63d year of my age. I was bred "to the desk, and about six years ago quitted my employment for want of breath to follow it: but "since, in my country retirement, not willing to be "idle, I spend some few hours, now and then, in studying the Scriptures." He adds, "You see what "authors I converse with; neither Arians, nor So"cinians, nor any Dissenters from the Church of England: however it comes to pass that in this 66 66 66 66 point I do now dissent from it, I can at present "only impute it to the voice of God, both of reason "and of Scripture, in answer to my daily prayers "that God would be pleased to teach me what He "is, and to give me a right judgment therein : "which if it be not yet obtained, may now be set right by your kind assistance." 66 These, with other expressions of humility and of personal respect towards Dr. W. probably induced this learned divine to enter into a discussion otherwise of very unpromising aspect, and hardly worthy of his labour. For it is evident that Mr. S. was not only a man of mean literary attainments, but that there was a sort of obliquity in his understanding which totally disqualified him for unravelling the difficulties and perplexities he had himself raised upon the subject. His exposition of his own theory is confused, and scarcely intelligible. Dr. Waterland well observes, that "it seems to be Socinian “in the main, only taking in the pre-existence of "Christ's human soul, excluding from worship, and interpreting some texts in the Sabellian way, and "not after Socinus." 66 Any notice of such an author, whose name and writings never excited any general interest, would be superfluous, were it not for the occasion it affords of noticing an amiable feature in Dr. Waterland's character. His readiness to give satisfaction to so very inferior a disputant, in whom he thought there were indications of an honest love of truth; his civility and forbearance towards him in the course of the correspondence; and the unaffected frankness and good-humour with which he declines pursuing the contest, when it became utterly hopeless as to any good effect; may go far to redeem his character from the charge of asperity and moroseness, with which some of his opponents have reproached him. Another short treatise of Dr. Waterland's is so far connected with these controversies, that it may most conveniently be considered in this part of our inquiry. It was published a short time before his greater work on the Importance of the Trinity, as an Appendix to Mr. Law's Inquiry into the Ideas of Space and Time; and is entitled, A Dissertation upon the Argument à priori for proving the Existence of a First Cause: in a Letter to Mr. Law. The discussion of this question arose out of some passages in Dr. Clarke's Demonstration of the Being 66 66 and Attributes of God; a work, published some years before his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. Dr. Clarke's purpose was, to demonstrate by arguments à priori, the being and attributes of the Deity. "There are but two ways," he observes1, by which the being, and all or any of the attri"butes of God, can possibly be proved: the one à priori, the other à posteriori. The proof à poste"riori is level to all men's capacities: because there "is an endless gradation of wise and useful phe"nomena of nature, from the most obvious to the "most abstruse; which afford (at least a moral and reasonable) proof of the being of God, to the seve"ral capacities of all unprejudiced men, who have any probity of mind. And this is what (I suppose) "God expects (as a moral governor) that moral agents should be determined by. The proof à priori is (I fully believe) strictly demonstrative ; "but (like numberless mathematical demonstra 66 66 66 66 tions) capable of being understood by only a few "attentive minds; because it is of use, only against "learned and metaphysical difficulties. And there"fore it must never be expected, that this should be "made obvious to the generality of men, any more "than astronomy or mathematics can be.” Dr. Clarke undertakes to prove, not only the attributes, but the existence of the Deity, by demonstrating what he calls the antecedent necessity of his being. He assumes it as a general axiom, that "of every thing that is, there is a reason which ."now does, or once or always did, determine the Answer to the 6th Letter, added to the 6th and subsequent, editions of the Demonstration. pp. 31, 32. 66 "existence rather than the non-existence of that thing:" and that "when once a thing is known, by "reasoning à posteriori, to be certain, it unavoidably follows that there is in nature a reason à priori 66 66 66 66 pose (whether we can discover it or not,) of the exist"ence of that which we know cannot but exist. "Since therefore, in that which derives not its being "from any other thing, the ground or reason why "it exists, rather than not exists, must be`in the thing itself; and it is a plain contradiction to supits own will, by way of efficient cause, to be "the reason of its existence, it remains that absolute necessity (the same necessity that is the cause of “the unalterable proportion between two and four) "be, by way of formal cause, the ground of that "existence. And this necessity is indeed antecedent, though not in time, yet in the order of na"ture, to the existence of the being itself." 66 66 Upon this supposed axiom Dr. C. frames his demonstration and his chain of argument runs thus: Something must have existed from all eternity: otherwise every thing that now exists must have been originally produced out of nothing, absolutely, and without cause; which is a plain contradiction in terms. That which has existed from eternity must also be some one unchangeable and independent being, from which all other beings in the universe have received their original; else there has been an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings produced one from another in an endless progression, without any original cause at all; which is plainly impossible, and contradictory in itself. Moreover, the Being that has thus existed from all eternity, without |