presuppose the existence of present objects; and from this existence, the religious philosopher deduces, as a conclusion, the necessity of some original self-existent Being. In managing the argument a priori, even the profound and celebrated Dr. Clarke appears to have completely failed. He has most satisfactorily proved that something has eternally existed; and in this he and the atheist are entirely agreed. But what is this eternal Something?-Here they differ essentially. The atheist maintains that it is the material world, the visible mundane system;—that this system has existed always, and of itself;-that it is actuated by an indefeasible necessity;-impregnated with a powerful vivifying principle, by whose energy all the various generations, corruptions, operations, and changes of things, are incessantly carried on, without a beginning, and without the possibility of an end. In one word, the atheist maintains that the universe itself is the original necessary Being. Now, in order to drive the atheist from this ground, Dr. Clarke attempts to fix the precise meaning of the phrase necessary existence. He says, that if a Being exists necessarily, his non-existence is a contradiction.* But it is no contradiction to suppose the non-existence of the material univerfe; therefore, the material universe cannot be the original necessary Being. The whole of his argument, then, depends upon the meaning of the word contradiction. A contradiction, (strictly and philosophically speaking), must mean, according to Dr. Clarke himself, a contradiction in terms, so evident as to require no reasoning upon the subject, It is saying and unsaying, affirming and denying, a thing at the same time, or in the same sentence. If I say that white is black, and that black is white, and say this, retaining the ideas usually annexed to those terms, I utter a contradiction: * The only true idea of a self-existent, or necessarilyexisting Being, is the idea of a Being, the supposition of whose not-existing is an express contradiction. The relation of equality between twice two and four, is an absolute 'necessity, only because it is an immediate contradiction in terms to suppose them unequal. This is the only idea we " can frame of an absolute necessity; and to use the word in any other sense, seems to be using it without any signification at all. See Clarke's Demonstration, &c. p. 17. for there is a manifest contrariety or incompatibility between those ideas that are asserted to coincide.-But, though I should assert that two and two make five, the assertion, however false, would not perhaps amount to a direct contradiction. In point of form, one step might be wanting. To make it such, I must, perhaps, say at the same time, or in the same sentence, that two and two make four, and that two and two make five. Now, if this be the strict meaning of the word contradiction, Dr. Clarke's argument falls at once to the ground. The atheist affirms that the universe itself is the original necessary Being, and this, however absurd, is certainly no direct contradiction. For where is the direct contradiction, in saying, there is no God? Expressed in other words, the proposition is this :-The universe exists without a cause. Now, in this proposition, however false, there is no more a direct contradiction than in the following,GOD exists without a cause, which contains an unquestionable truth. THOSE, again, who have stated the argument a posteriori, have, in general, not made it sufficiently conclusive. They have done nothing more than enumerate the many marks of design in the visible creation. Now, some atheists will admit all this, and yet maintain that there is no separate, original, and independent cause of the universe. They will maintain, that there necessarily exists in the universe itself a natural and powerful principle, sufficient to account for all that we behold. This was the doctrine of the famous Spinoza, and the imposing author of the Systeme de la Nature. And the position, however gratuitous and however false, certainly deserves to be noticed and exposed. But it escapes all refutation from the theist, who does nothing more than enumerate the various marks of design, apparent in the works of creation. I HAVE endeavoured to free the preceding dissertation from the objection that may be urged against Dr. Clarke's argument a priori, as well as against the common statement of the argument a posteriori.—And if my statement shall be found to be correct, perspicuous, and useful, I shall feel no ordinary degree of satisfaction. Every successful effort to establish the fundamental article of all religion, must be highly gratifying to every friend of humanity. As far as I myself am, here, capable of judging, the whole of what I have written on the Existence of God, is a dispassionate appeal to calm and patient reflection; and is humbly offered to the public, under a deep sense of the high and abstruse nature of the subject. |