Part 24

Vol. 3 p. 116. A reply to his antiphlogistian opponents, No. 1.

Vol. 4 p. 17. Experiments on the production of air by the freezing of water.

Ibid p. 135. Experiments on heating Manganese in inflammable air.

Ibid p. 247. Some observations relating to the sense of hearing.

Vol. 5 p. 32. Remarks on the work entitled “A brief history of epidemic and pestilential diseases,” May 4, 1801.

Ibid p. 125. Some thoughts concerning dreams.

Ibid p. 264. Miscellaneous observations relating to the doctrine of air, July 30, 1801.

Ibid p. 390. A reply to Mr. Cruikshank’s observations in defence of the new system of chemistry, 5 Vol. Nicholson’s Journal p. 1, &c.

Vol. 6 p. 24. Remarks on Mr. Cruikshank’s experiments upon finery cinder and charcoal.

Ibid p. 158. Observations on the conversion of iron into steel.

Ibid p. 271. Additional remarks on Mr. Cruikshank’s experiments on finery cinder and charcoal, November 15 1802.

APPENDIX, NO. 2.

Of Dr. Priestley’s Metaphysical Writings.

The principal source of objection to Dr. Priestley in England, certainly arose from his being a dissenter; from his opposition to the hierarchy, and to the preposterous alliance, between Church and State: an alliance, by which the contracting parties seem tacitly agreed to support the pretensions of each other, the one to keep the people in religious, and the other in civil bondage. His socinian doctrines in theology, and the heterodoxy of his metaphysical opinions, though they added much to the popular outcry raised against him, were not less obnoxious to the generality of Dissenters, than to the Clergy of the Church of England. Nor is it a slight proof of the integrity of his character, and his boldness in the pursuit of truth, that he did not hesitate to step forward the avowed advocate of opinions, which his intimate and most valuable friends, and the many who looked up to him as the ornament of the dissenting interest, regarded with sentiments of horror, as equally destructive of civil society and true religion.

The extreme difference observable between the apparent properties of animal and inanimate matter, easily led to the opinion of something more as necessary to thought, and the phenomena of mind, than mere juxta position of the elements, whereof our bodies are composed. The very antient opinion also of a state of existence after death, prevalent in the most uncivilized as well as enlightened states of society, confirmed this opinion of a separate and immortal part of the human system: for it was sufficiently evident, that no satisfactory hopes of a futurity after death, could be founded on the perishable basis of the human body. It is only of late days, and from the extension of anatomical and physiological knowledge, that the theory, and the facts of animal organization have been at all understood; and without the conjunction of physiology with metaphysics, the latter would have remained to eternity, as it has continued for ages, a mere collection of sophisms, and a science of grammatical quibbling. The doctrine of a future state, and that of an immaterial and immortal soul, became therefore mutual supports to each other; and herein the civil power willingly joined in aid of the dogmas of metaphysical theology, from observing the convenience that might arise in the government of civil societies, from inculcating a more complete sanction of rewards and punishments for actions in this life, by means of the dispensations in a life to come. Other causes also gave an universal preponderance to the theory of the human soul. It became, for the reasons above mentioned, not only a favourite doctrine with churchmen and statesmen, but the self delusions among the vulgar, respecting supposed appearances after death, rendered it also a popular doctrine. Indeed, in every age, and in every country, the priesthood have found it so powerful an engine of influence over the minds of the people, and in too many cases, so, fruitful a source of lucrative imposture, that its prevalence is not to be wondered at, wherever artificial theology has been engrafted on the simplicity of true religion, and supported by an established clergy. Of Popery, which yet remains the prevailing system of the christian world, it is doubtless the corner stone; and even under every form of ignorant and idolatrous worship throughout the globe, it is the main source of power and profit to that class of society, which regulates the religious opinions, rites and ceremonies of the country. Not that I would insinuate, that the belief of a separate soul, like some other opinions that might be mentioned, has been generally taught by professors who disbelieve it; for plausible arguments are not wanting, to give it that currency which it has so long received among the wisest and the best of men: nor that an established priesthood of any age or country, or of any religion, is a mere compound of fraud and imposture, for I well know that the wise and the good are abundant in this class of society, as well as in others. But even such men are liable to the common infirmities of human nature; they cannot be indifferent to their rank in society, or the means of their subsistence; it is not every college youth, that is able or willing to weigh “the difficulties and discouragements attending the study of the Scriptures,” so forcibly pointed out in the melancholy pamphlet of Bishop Hare: nor is it every professor of Christianity, who doubts of the doctrines he has undertaken to teach, that has fortitude enough to follow the noble example of Theophilus Lindsey, and John Disney. Hence we may take for granted, that those opinions will be admitted the most readily, and enforced the most willingly, which contribute to the influence of that order, which the professors have been induced by choice, or compelled by necessity, to wed for life. Choice indeed, at least that kind of choice, which depends on a well-grounded conviction of the object chosen being the means of superior usefulness, has little to do in this business. For though the clergy of the church of England severally declare that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the clerical character, is there one among them in the present day (Bishop Horsely perhaps excepted) who would venture to defend this declaration in the sense originally intended? It is a fact notorious, that the candidates for holy orders, regard the profession of Divinity as they would that of Physic or Law, a fair and reputable means of gaining a livelihood, by performing those duties which are considered as necessary to the well being of society. It is a fact too, equally notorious, that wherever theological opinions (like that of the human soul) have been fit and liable to be made subservient to the temporal profit or influence of the clergy, that use has been so made of them by the ambitious and designing part of the profession, and the rights of the people have been encroached upon, to serve the interest of the Hierarchy. Nor is it the established clergy alone that some of the preceding remarks will apply to: much bigotry among the clergy of the dissenting interest, may fairly be ascribed to similar causes, though by no means operating in the same degree.

But important as this doctrine is to the clerical order in political societies, some latitude of doubt and even of denial, has been conceded in England to the known friends and adherents of the established system in that country. This is the more to be wondered at, as they have generally considered a dissonance of opinion among their own order, more fatal to the common interest, than the attacks of their avowed enemies. Thus, more notice was taken of the Arian heterodoxy of Dr. Clarke, than of the avowed infidelity of Collins, Tindal, Toland, Coward, and other writers of that class, who published about the same period.

The learned Mr. Henry Dodwell as he is usually called, and who is a pregnant instance that learning does not always persuade good sense to inhabit the same abode, took great pains to shew that the soul was naturally mortal, but might be immortalized by those who had the gift of conferring on it this precious attribute. This power he ascribed to the Bishops. Dodwell, though he would not at first join the establishment, changed his opinion and his conduct in this respect afterward. Bishop Sherlock denied that the existence of the soul could be made evident from the light of nature. (Disc. 2 p. 86. disc. 3 p. 114) Of the same opinion was Dr. Law who quotes him. Archbishop Tillotson declares (v. 12 serm. 2.) that he cannot find the doctrine of the immortality of the soul expressly delivered in scripture. Dr. Warburton wrote his “Divine legation” to prove that Moses and the Jews neither believed in, nor knew of a future state. Dr. Law, afterward Bishop of Carlisle, in the appendix to the third edition of his “Considerations on the theory of religion,” compleatly overthrows the whole doctrine of a separate soul as founded on the scripture, by a critical examination of every text usually adduced in its support. Dr. Watson the present Bishop of Landaff in the preface to his collection of theological tracts dedicated to young divines for whose use it was compiled, expressly declares that the question respecting the materiality or immateriality of the human soul, ranks among those subjects on which the academicorum εποχη may be admitted, without injuring the foundations of religion. It should seem therefore, that it is not heterodoxy in mere speculative points of theology, that constitutes the sin against the holy Ghost with an established clergy, but heterodoxy on the subject of church authority and the grand alliance. It is in this spirit that the then Archdeacon of St. Albans, Dr. Horsely complains of Dr. Priestley’s history of the corruptions of christianity. “You will easily conjecture (says the Archdeacon in his animadversions on that work p. 5) what has led me to these reflections, is the extraordinary attempt which has lately been made to unsettle the faith and break up the constitution of every ecclesiastical establishment in Christendom. Such is the avowed object of a recent publication which bears the title of a history of the corruptions of christianity, among which the catholic doctrine of the trinity holds a principal place.”

This is an unfortunate exposure of the cloven foot of Hierarchy. It was not the wish to detect error or to establish truth--it was not from anxiety to fix upon a firm footing, some great and leading principle of christianity--it was not the benevolent design of communicating useful information on a litigated topic of speculative theology--it was not the meek and gentle spirit of sincere and patient enquiry that dictated those animadversions--all these motives would not only have borne with patience, but would have welcomed and exulted in a temperate discussion of unsettled opinions, before the tribunal of the public; for by such discussions alone, can the cause of truth be permanently and essentially promoted. No: these were not the motives that influenced the Archdeacon of St. Albans. It was the nefarious and unpardonable attempt to unsettle the faith of established creeds; however founded that faith might be, on ignorance or prejudice, on pardonable misapprehension, or culpable misrepresentation, on fallacy, on falsehood, or on fraud. These “Animadversions,” proceeded from the morbid irritability of an expectant ecclesiastic; from a prudent and a prescient indulgence of the esprit de corps; from a dread too perhaps, lest the tottering structure of church establishment, with all its envied accompaniments of sees and benefices, of deaconries and archdeaconries, and canonries, and prebendaries, and all the pomp and pride of artificial rank, and all the pleasures of temporal authority, and lucrative sinecure connected with it, might be too rudely shaken by sectarian attacks. But enough for the present, respecting these learned labours of the Archdeacon of St. Albans; which like those of Archdeacon Travis may well be considered as having sufficiently answered the main purpose of their respective authors, in spite of the wicked replies of Priestley and Porson. Let us say with the public, requiescant in pace.

To return however to the more immediate subject of the present section. Hobbes seems to have been the first writer of repute (in England at least) who denied the doctrine of an immaterial and naturally immortal soul. This was a necessary consequence of his faith being apparently confined to corporeal existence, an opinion deducible in fact from the old maxim of the antients and of the schools, nil unquam fuit in Intellectu, quod non prius erat in Sensu. Hobbes’s Leviathan was published about 1650 or 1651. Spinosa who published after Hobbes was rather an Atheist than a Materialist, a character to which though Hobbes’s opinions might lead, he does not assume. In 1678 Blount sent forward to the public his “Anima Mundi”, or an historical narration of the “opinions of the antients concerning man’s soul after this life according to unenlightened nature,” which met with much opposition and some persecution; as was likely, for it is by no means destitute of merit.

In 1702 appeared a book entitled “second thoughts concerning the human soul, demonstrating the notion of a human soul as believed to be a spiritual and immortal substance united to a human, to be an invention of the heathens and not consonant to the principles of philosophy, reason, or religion by E. P. or Estibius Philalethes.” The year following a supplement was published entitled “Farther Thoughts, &c.” The author, Dr. Coward, preoccupies a path subsequently taken by Dr. Law and Dr. Priestley, and endeavours to shew at length that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul, is not countenanced by the texts of scripture usually adduced in favour of that opinion. These texts he criticises individually with a reference to the original words used. The author appears in the character of a sincere Christian. A second edition of this book was published 1704. In 1706 Mr. Dodwell before mentioned, a learned and laborious but weak man, and bigotted to the hierarchy, published his “Epistolary discourse proving from the scriptures and the first fathers that the soul is a principle naturally mortal, but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment or reward; by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is proved that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit since the apostles, but only the bishops.” This gave rise to the controversy between Clarke and Collins on the immortality of the soul. Dodwell’s book was attacked by Chishull, Norris and Clarke. He replied in three several publications, 1st. “A preliminary defence of the epistolary discourse concerning the distinction between soul and spirit, 1707. 2nd. The scripture account of the eternal rewards or punishments of all that hear of the gospel, without an immortality necessarily resulting from the nature of souls themselves that are concerned in those rewards and punishments, 1703. 3d. The natural mortality of human souls clearly demonstrated from the holy scriptures and the concurrent testimonies of the primitive writers.” 1708.

About this time Toland in his letters to Serena, (1704) gives an “Essay on the history of the soul’s immortality among the Heathens,” deducing that doctrine from popular traditions supported by poetical fictions, and at length adopted and defended among the philosophers. Concluding from hence, (preface) that divine authority was the surest anchor of our hope and the best if not the only demonstration of the soul’s immortality; an indirect denial of the whole doctrine as coming from Toland, who was certainly no friend to christianity and no believer in the divine authority of the scriptures.

In the same year (1704) but somewhat previous to Toland, Dr. Coward had published his “Grand Essay, or a vindication of reason and religion against impostures of philosophy; proving according to those ideas and conceptions of things human understanding is capable of forming itself. 1st. That the existence of an immaterial substance is a philosophic imposture and impossible to be conceived. 2ndly That all matter has originally created in it, a principle of internal or self motion. 3rdly That matter and motion must be the foundation of thought in men and brutes.” Dodwell and Toland had learning enough and so had Blount to throw some light on the history of this question, and the author of second thoughts has many observations well adapted to the question he discusses, but very little is to be gained from a perusal of Coward’s book.

Dr. Hartley’s great work, (great, not from the bulk, but the importance of it) was first published in 1749. The direct and manifest tendency of the whole of his first volume is to destroy the common hypothesis of an immaterial soul: and this he does with a mass of fact and a force of reasoning irresistible. He shews clearly how all the faculties ascribed to the soul, thought, reflection, judgement, memory, and all the passions selfish and benevolent, may be resolved into one simple undeniable law of animal organization, without the necessity of any hypothesis such as that of a separate soul. Yet he does not appear distinctly to have seen the full weight and tendency of his own reasoning, and he adopts a theory on the subject, loaded with more difficulties and absurdities, than even the common hypothesis.

In 1757 was published a philosophical and scriptural inquiry into the nature and constitution “of mankind considered only as rational beings, wherein the antient opinion asserting the human soul to be an immaterial, immortal and thinking substance is found to be quite false and erroneous, and the true nature state and manner of existence of the power of thinking in mankind is evidently demonstrated by reason and the sacred scriptures.” Author J. R. M. I. Who this author really was I know not. But from the perusal of his book it is probable that he was a physician, and had been travelling. The above work he terms the philosophic or first part, and refers to a longer work of his own in manuscript which it seems he could not procure to be published. There is very little new in the book so far as I could judge.

I do not recollect any other treatise relating to the subject that excited public attention in England. In France and Holland La Mettrie began the controversy by his Histoire naturelle de L’Ame, published at the Hague in 1745 as a translation from the English of Mr. Charp; it is a book containing many forcible remarks, and did credit to the side of the question which La Mettrie had adopted. Soon after this La Mettrie published L’Homme machine which was burnt in Holland in 1748. This was an honour not due to the formidable character of the work itself, which though it contains some of the common arguments drawn from the physiology and pathology of the human system, is by no means of first rate merit. He whimsically attributes the fierceness of the English, to their eating their meat more raw than other nations. This book was translated and published in London in 1750.

This is probably one of the innumerable instances of the carelessness of French authors in quoting English names. La Mettrie most likely meant to ascribe this to Mr. Sharp the Surgeon, with whose reputation he must have been acquainted. I remember Arthur Young Esq. in one of his annals of agriculture complains that a paper of his translated into French was given to Artor Jionge ecuier. Some years ago Mr. Charles Taylor of Manchester (lately secretary to the society of Arts in London) was requested by Lord Hawkesbury to make some experiments to ascertain the value of East India Indigo when compared with the Spanish. Mr. Taylor did ascertain that the former yielded more colour for the same money at the current prices than the latter by above one fourth. In a paper I believe by M. D’Ijonval these experiments are quoted in a note as made by Le Chevalier Charles Tadkos celebre manufacturier de Manchester.

From Mr. Hallet’s discoveries the last volume of which was published in 1736 Dr. Priestley has extracted for himself and quoted what he deemed necessary on this question. I do not notice as part of the history of the question Materialism in England, the foreign atheistical publications, such as Le Systeme de la nature attributed to Mirabeau the father, Le vrai sens du Systeme de l’univers a posthumous work ascribed to Helvetius, Le Bon Sens by Meslier, and others whose titles do not now occur to me, because until within these few years, they were hardly known in England, and excited no discussion of the subject there, previous to the work of Dr. Priestley now under consideration.

The Doctor himself says in his preface to the disquisitions on matter and spirit, first published in 1777, that though he had entertained occasional doubts on the intimate union of two substances, so entirely heterogeneous as the Soul and the Body, the objections to the common hypothesis, did not impressively occur to him, until the publication of his treatise against the Scotch Doctors, which was in 1774. Those doubts indeed could hardly avoid occurring to any person who had carefully perused Hartley’s Essay on Man, first published in 1749, and Dr. Law’s appendix before mentioned in 1755.