the former; but when we give the name of effect to any thing, we must
be certain it is an effect, for we may be so far mistaken perhaps as to
call that an effect which is a cause, at least what is an effect to-day
may be a cause to-morrow, as in the instance of generation; for though
a son does not beget his father, he too has his offspring in which he
may be said to live over again, and if we are to argue only from
experience, most probably that alone is the resurrection and the life
to come. But if it is contended that our experience relates only to
finite causes, or causes incapable of comprehending themselves, it must
at the same time be allowed, that all our reasoning is founded only on
experience. This Dr. P. at least allows even while he keeps reasoning
about a Deity, which he calls an infinite cause capable of comprehending
itself, though nobody is capable of comprehending it, and of which we
therefore can have no experience. Yet he will assert, that _thinking_
persons seldom are convinced by _thinking_. This is odd language for a
reasoner. When another philosopher or divine attempts to prove a God in
their own way, Dr. Priestley can readily see his fallacies and
absurdities. Dr. Clarke, the former great champion of God Almighty, is
made very light of. He thought, foolish man, to prove the existence of
a Deity merely by our having an idea of that existence, which would go
to prove the truth of every unnatural conceit that ever entered into
the heart of man; and contended farther that it would be equally absurd
to suppose no Deity as two and two did not make four. It would indeed
be absurd, says Dr. Priestley provided we agreed that the universe is a
_caused_ existence, for God is the name we give for the cause of the
universe, which in such case must exist. It is only denying that the
universe is a caused existence, and then the absurdity is taken away.
Dr. Priestley, for the sake of making Dr. Clarke absurd, will readily
allow the denial capable of being made; and for the same purpose he
seems gravely to have taken upon himself to prove that school-boy's
difficulty, that two and two do make four, for he says, that four is
the term agreed upon in language to be given to the sum total of two
and two, and that to deny the Deity is at least not so absurd as to say
that two and two do not make four.
Dr. Priestley says he finds no difficulty in excluding every thing from
the mind except space and duration. He allows then at least, that there
is no manifest absurdity in supposing there is no Deity, for nothing
can be proved by reasoning if the conclusion can be denied without
absurdity, nor can there be a manifest absurdity in denying the
existence of what there is no difficulty in excluding from the mind.
Yet after all he adds (somewhat inconsistently) that we cannot exclude
the idea of a Deity, if we do not exclude an existent universe. This
Deity he defines to be a most simple Being; simple and infinite; terms
which but ill agree together.
The infinite or boundless existence of this pretended Deity is a
property more insisted upon than any other, and whatever other
properties are given to him they are all in the infinite degree. The
properties alledged to be proved are, eternity, infinite knowledge and
power, unchangeableness, unity, omnipotence, action from all eternity,
and independence. Benevolence and moral government are also ascribed to
him but confessedly with a less degree of certainty, though the most
desireable of all his given properties. Upon the subject of benevolence,
Dr. Priestley only advances, that where it is not proved by the
happiness of his creatures to exist, he would rather chuse to conclude
he mist of his design, that is, he wanted power or knowledge, than that
he wanted benevolence. If he means to argue that it is more rational to
conclude this Deity wanted power and knowledge than that he wanted
benevolence, and because Dr. Priestley fancies himself to have proved
the Deity cannot want the two former, he concludes the Deity cannot
want the latter, as the less probable for him to be deficient in, his
argument is no more a truism. As a wish, that the Deity may not want
benevolence, in that sense let him take it as agreed upon. He allows
that misery in the human species proves malevolence in the Deity, and
happiness the contrary. All the proof adduced in favour of benevolence
is in asserting that throughout the universe, good is more predominant
than evil. The infinite extent of benevolence he will allow incapable
of proof; but then it is said that the evils which mankind endure are
not so great as might be inflicted upon them; that virtue to vice,
happiness to misery, health to sickness bear at least equal proportions.
That lesser evils exist instead of greater is indeed but a poor proof
in the favour of the benevolence of an all-powerful Being. Or grant,
that good is more predominant than evil, this surely is no proof
neither of the benevolence of a kind and all-powerful Being. Yet
Dr. Priestley adds that the general benevolence of the Deity is
unquestionable. How unquestionable? It is questioned by the author
himself, and he declares he cannot prove it. After this he asks, who
will pretend to dictate to such a Being? He might in the same stile
conclude that no objection deserved a reply. The whole of this is
absurd; but when the Doctor begins to feel enthusiasm he is like the
rest of the ecclesiastical arguers. They reason themselves into
imaginary Beings with more imaginary properties and then fall down and
worship them. God is said to have made man in the image of himself. If
he has done so, man is up with him, for he in return makes God in his
own image. Much as the imagination of one man differs from another, so
differs the God of each devotee. They are all idolaters or
anthropomorphites to a man; there is none but an atheist that is not
the one or the other.
The admission of evil into the world is an argument so exceedingly
conclusive against at least a good Deity, that it is curious to see how
Dr. Priestley studies to get rid of that difficulty. He partly denies
the fact, at least he says there is more good than evil in the world.
At last he even turns evil into good, or what ought to be the effects
of one, into what ought to be the effects of the other, as he says pain
is necessary for happiness. But if pain is, as he says, in this world
necessary for happiness, why will it not still be necessary hereafter?
He answers, because by that time we shall have experienced pain enough
for a future supply of happiness. If it is objected, why have we not
had pain enough by the time each of us are twenty or thirty years of
age, instead of waiting 'till our deaths at so many different ages? He
can only finish his argument by allowing that the ways of God are
inscrutable to man, that every thing is for the best and refer us to
_Candide_ for the rest of his philosophy; nor will he ever resolve the
question, "if evil and pain are good and necessary now, why will they
not always be so? Take a view of human existence, and who can even
allow, that there is more happiness than misery in the world? Dr.
Priestley thinks to give the turn of the scale to happiness, by making
it depend intirely upon health, notwithstanding he says in another
place that human sensations are a mass collected from the past, present
and future, and as a man grows up the present goes on to bear a less
proportion to the other two. It would indeed be a short but lame way of
proving that "happiness is the design of the creation" because health
is designed, and sickness is only an exception, not a general rule."
Many a healthy man has certainly been unhappy, or else had a man better
study health than virtue. If the mill-wright make a poor machine he is
a poor workman; God in like manner designing health and introducing
sickness is but a poor physician. In another place Dr. Priestley having
considered, that he had asserted that human sensations arise from ideas
of the past and future as well as the present, finds himself obliged to
alter his notions of happiness, so far as to say that happiness is more
intellectual than corporeal. But it is rather extraordinary to assert
at the same time, that happiness is the necessary consequence of
health, and that happiness is more from intellectual than corporeal
feelings. Surely health, if any thing, is corporeal. Another curious
fancy about pain and happiness is, that our finite nature not admitting
infinite or unlimited happiness we must leave it to the wisdom of the
Deity to determine which is best for us (since happiness must be
diminished) a little pain to be added to it or somewhat of happiness to
be taken away. It hardly requires the skill of a benevolent Deity to
determine which is best for the creatures he has made (and whom he
wishes to be as happy as their finite nature will admit) to lessen
their degree of happiness or mix therein a proportion of misery. To
conclude he asks, "how it is possible to teach children caution, but by
feeling pain?" It is easy to allow in answer, that it might not perhaps
be possible in us. But he is arguing about the benevolence of a Deity.
It was possible, he will allow, in him to have given these children
knowledge without pain, at least if he continues to him the attribute
he allows of omnipotence.
Next he observes that parents suspend at times their benefits to their
offspring, when persuaded they are not for their good; so does the
Deity. But before this argument holds he must therefore say, it is not
for the good of man to be made happy now, and that the Deity can be
infinitely benevolent without willing either infinite or universal
happiness. Take the argument any way, it must go against his
benevolence or his power; and the same observations hold as to his love
of justice, whilst he is so tardy in punishing offenders.
After observing that things are in an improving state, Dr. Priestley
allows, that the moral government of the universe is not perfect. From
thence he proceeds to assert, that atheists may believe it within the
course of nature, that men as moral agents may after death be
re-produced, and therefore that there may be a future state though
there be no God, because he reasons it may be in the course of nature.
This allows that the course of nature may be as it is without a God,
and that there is therefore no _natural_ proof of a Deity. His farther
argument on this head is, that "things usually happen in a state of
nature that are proper. A future state is proper. (To carry on the
supposed state of melioration and complete the moral government of the
universe.) It is therefore probable." This is an argument perhaps more
of wish than probability, but let it have such force as belongs to it.
It is not the wish of the answerer by supporting atheism to give
encouragement to immorality, but should he unwarily or with weak minds
do so, the argument of the Deity's existence is independent of such
considerations. It were better to seek another support for morality
than a belief in God; for the moral purpose in believing a Deity (an
invisible Being, maker of all, our moral governor, who will hereafter
take cognizance of our conduct,) is not a little checked by
considering, that he leaves the proof of his very existence so
ambiguous, that even men with a habit of piety upon them cannot but
have their doubts, whilst on this existence so much of the moral
purpose depends. If this is not an argument against the morality of a
Deity, it is at all events one against his _infinite_ morality though
moral is an attribute to be given to him in the infinite degree as much
as any other.
It is said, infinite intelligence must have procured a necessary
fitness of things, and that this forms morality. "His will could not
be biassed by other influence; therefore he must have willed morality,
because necessarily fit." Then comes infinite power, and yet no
morality in the world or a very small portion of it. We cannot to any
purpose, do what we will, argue against experience. That it must be,
yet that it is not. What must be, will be. If it is not, there is no
_must_ in the case.
It is next said, that virtue gives a better chance for happiness than
vice. This also is but a weak argument for the moral government of the
universe, unless it be for a moral government by chance. Virtue ought
to be the certain and immediate parent of happiness, if a moral
governor existed with an uncontrouled dominion. If virtue tends to
happiness, or has only a better chance of doing so, it is allowed, that
a sensible atheist should hold it right to be virtuous. The latter end
of a righteous man is certainly more likely to be happy than that of an
unrighteous one. But let an atheist be righteous, and he can be as
certain of happiness in his latter end as any other. Let another life
be desirable, as it certainly is, his doubts upon it will not prevent
it. Who could wish an end better or more happy than that of Mr. Hume,
who most indubitably was an atheist. But if an atheist be not so good
as a Theist, Dr. Priestley perhaps, will allow him to be better than
a sceptic, as any principles for systematising nature are better than
none at all. A Theist is not without his doubts as well as the sceptic;
an atheist, once firmly becoming so, will never doubt more; for we may
venture to say no miracles or new appearances will present themselves
to him to draw his belief aside.
Still every thing is as God intended it--so asserts Dr. Priestley; and
therefore it cannot by him be denied that crimes and vices, are of his
intention. The Theist exclaims in triumph, "He that made the eye, must
he not see?" But who made the eye? Or grant that God made the eye,
which can only see in the light, must he necessarily see in the dark?
It is again asserted, "the power which formed an eye had something in
view as certainly as he that constructed a telescope. If any Being
formed any eye, grant it. But if the eye exists necessarily as a part
of nature; as much as any other matter, or combination of matter,
necessarily existed, the result of the argument is intirely different.
It is far from being a necessary part of the atheist's creed to exclude
design from the universe. He places that design in the energy of
nature, which Dr. Priestley gives to some other extraneous Being. It is
rather inconsistent also in him to say, that an atheist rightly judging
of his own situation upon his own principles, ought not to hold himself
quite secure from a future state of responsibility and existences, and
yet to say he must in his own ideas hold himself soon to be excluded
for ever from life.
As to the immutability of the Deity, it is difficult to guess how that
is proved, except by the argument of _Lucus a non lucendo_, because
every thing is changing here; therefore the Deity never changes; which
is neither an argument _a priori_ nor _posteriore_, but _sui generis_,
merely applicable to the Deity.
From the imperial infinite intelligence of the Deity an argument is
formed of his unity. Dr. Priestley says, "that two _infinite_
intelligent Beings would coincide, and therefore that there can only be
one such Being." Two parallels will never coincide. That is one of the
first axioms of Euclid, in whom Dr. Priestley believes as much as in
his bible. If the Beings are infinite in extent and magnitude they must
certainly coincide, but if they are only infinite in intelligence, it
does not seem to be necessary that they should.
The ubiquity of God is proved in this short way: "God made every thing,
God controuls every thing. No power can act but where it is. Therefore
God is present every where." The workman must certainly be present at
his work, but when the work is done he may go about other business. If
all the properties of matter, such as gravity, elasticity and other
such existed only by the perpetual leave and agency of the Deity, it
may be argued he is in all places where matter is. Space, empty space
will still exist without him. In this mode of proof Dr. Priestley must,
contrary to the Newtonian system argue for a _Plenum_, before he proves
the ubiquity. He cannot exclude space from his mind, nor can he exclude
gravity from matter. Yet can he admit matter as well as space to be
eternal, because he will not allow the inactivity of God." "If God's
works had a beginning he must have been _for a whole eternity_
inactive." He seems to have an odd notion of eternity, for he there
allows it could have an end. The argument would be fairer in concluding
"he must have been inactive _or doing something else_."
The Deity set up, if not the creator of matter, is at least the matter
of it, nor will his advocates by any means allow him to be material
himself. They see some incongruity in admitting one piece of matter to
be so complete a master of another. However Dr. Priestley and other
arguers for a Deity would do well to consider, that whatever is not
matter, is a space that matter may occupy. Therefore if God is not
matter, and also is not space, he is nothing. Dr. Priestley allows
matter eternal, and its properties of gravity, elasticity, electricity
and others equally eternal. He says directly, that matter cannot exist
without it's perpetually corresponding powers. The adjustment of those
powers he places in the Deity. But as we never see matter without the
adjustment of those properties as well as the existence of them, this
drives him at last to say, the Deity must also have created matter,
according to his system eternally created it, cotemporarily with
himself. Ideas absurd and irreconcileable!
Discoursing upon the hypothesis of "a fortuitous concourse of atoms"
Dr. Priestley asks, "what reason we have to think that small masses of
matter can have power without communication _ab extra_?" Let this
question be returned, "have we not reason to think so from attraction
the most common property in matter." To get rid of this difficulty he
will not allow an atom of matter to be possessed originally of the most
simple powers, though he is ready to allow matter to have been eternal.
A magnet according to this system must sometime have existed without
its magnetic power. He concludes there must be some original existent
Being. He shall be allowed many original existent Beings if it pleases
him. A man may be an originally existent being, as well as any other.
He is superior to other animals in this world. In like manner there may
be allowed superior Beings to man (as most probably there are) and yet
those superior Beings not have made man.
Dr. Priestley will have it, that all bodies are moved by external
force. That does not seem quite necessary. Motion may as well be
asserted to be originally a property of matter, or its true natural
state and rest a deprivation of that property, as that rest should be
its natural state. Hume thought so and Hume was no great fool,
notwithstanding Dr. Priestley makes so light of him. In fact matter
never is, and therefore most probably never was found to be in a state
of rest. Nor has Dr. Priestley any reason to suppose gravity, elasticity
and electricity to have been imprest on bodies by a superior Being, and
not originally inherent in matter, unless to favour his own hypothesis
of a Deity. He absolutely says matter could not have had those powers
without a communication from a superior and intelligent Being. If
matter is perceived in regulated motion, it is added bluntly, that it
must be by a mover possessed of a competent intelligence, and that a
Being therefore of such power and intelligence _must_ exist. Whoever
finds no difficulty in believing the contrary will find as little
difficulty in Mr. Hume's hypothesis, that motion might as well as other
powers and properties have been originally inherent in matter, or at
least have been a necessary result of some matter acting upon another.
It has always been a doubt with Theists, whether they can better prove
their God's existence by moral or physical considerations. Dr.
Priestley seems to think the _forte_ of the argument lies in the latter
proof, and lays particular stress upon his observation respecting cause
and effect, which therefore cannot here be so readily dismissed. He
makes great reference to the works of art. Theists are always for
turning their God into an overgrown man. Anthropomorphites has long
been a term applied to them. They give him hands and eyes nor can they
conceive him otherwise than as a corporeal Being. In which, as before
has been said, they are very right, for there can only be in the world
body and the space which bodies occupy. But granting this great workman
to have done so much, is it not quite an incontrovertible proposition,
that whoever first made a thing, as, for example, a chair or a table,
must have had an adequate idea of it's nature and use. Dr. Priestley
speaks more correctly in another part, by saying, he must have been
_capable_ of comprehending it. The nature and use of things are often
found out after they are made and by different persons than the makers
of them. Neither is there any analogy between the works of art, as a
table or house, and of nature, as a man or tree. Therefore there can be
no arguing from one to another by analogy. Hume observes that the
former works are done by reason and design, and the latter by
generation and vegetation, and therefore arguing from effect to causes,
it is probable, that the universe is generated or vegetated. At least
after all the observations about a table, it may be modestly asked,
whether there is not some difference between a table and the world? The
Doctor will also find some difficulty in explaining the propriety of
any argument of analogy between men and metals, which he does not at
other times scruple to make?
A _gratis_ assertion is first made, that all things we see are effects;
then because we see one thing caused, every thing must have been
caused. His conclusion of the argument is still more curious, "because
every thing was caused there must have been something that was not
caused." The cause ought to be proportioned to the effect. The effect
is not infinite. Why then attribute infinity to the cause? This is
Hume's argument. Priestley calls it shortly unworthy of a philosopher.
Let others judge! But surely, with all this infinity it may be asked,
why may not there have been an infinity of causes?
Another argument is, that being unable to account, for what is, by any
thing visible, we must have recourse to something invisible, and that
invisible power is what he calls God. Apply this argument to gravity,
and the external force that is said to cause every stone to fall is
God. But if nothing visible can to us account for the operations of
nature, why must we have recourse to what is invisible? Why necessary
to account at all for them? Or why may not visible things account for
them, although this person or another cannot tell which?
If nothing can begin to exist of itself or by the energy of material
nature, it is more consistent to allow a plurality of Deities, than one
immediate Deity. An equality in a plurality of Deities might be
objectionable. But that is not at all necessary, rather the contrary;
and so was the Pagan theory, which is not so absurd as the modern one.
This universe or mundane system may be the work of one hand, another of
another, and so on. Where is the absurdity of that? If the universe is
applied to the solar system, there is an appearance of its being formed
by one design, and in that stile it might be said to be the work of one
hand. But this Deity is asserted to be infinite, and to have made all
other worlds and universes, though it does not appear by any unity of
design that all other worlds and universes are one work with this.
Dr. Priestley himself allows that reason would drive us to require a
cause of the Deity. He is himself obliged to conclude, after all his
reasoning, that we must acquiesce in our inability of having any idea
on the subject; that is, how God could exist without a prior cause. At
the same time he says the Deity cannot have a cause, and therefore we
cannot reason about him. Why then all his own reasoning? We make a
Deity ourselves, fall down and worship him. It is the molten calf over
again. Idolatry is still practised. The only difference is that now we
worship idols of our imagination; before of our hands. "Still we must
necessarily rest at a Being that is infinite;" that is, when our reason
drives us to the admission of an infinite cause we must necessarily
stop finitely in our career. Not content with this conclusion he adds,
that we cannot help perceiving the existence of this cause, though he
owns that it is not an object of our conceptions. But even the Theist's
argument does not necessarily drive us to the admission of an infinite
cause. The argument is, "because there is a man, and man has
intelligence, we must necessarily admit of a Being of infinitely
superior intelligence." Would it not be nearly as well to argue,
"because there is a goose, therefore there must be a man."
What is there more which hinders a series of finite causes to be
carried back _ad infinitum_, than that the reasoner or contemplator of
the course of nature is tired. If this eternal series could not exist,
a Deity might with some propriety be said to follow. Put the argument
into a syslogistic form.
"The universe shews design;"
"It is absurd to suppose an infinite succession of finite causes;"
"Therefore there is an uncaused intelligent cause of this universe."