Plutarch describing the Deity hath these remarkable words God is Mind a separated Form perfectly unmixed with Matter and without any thing that is passible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in another place he asserts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 't is impossible Matter alone can be the sole Principle of all things Plato every where distinguisheth between corporeal and incorporeal Substances calling the former by the Names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensible and the latter always either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immaterial or intelligible and he saith That certain intelligible and incorporeal Forms are the true and first Substance and that incorporeal Things which are the greatest and most excellent of all others are discoverable by reason only and nothing else And in another place he saith That they were instructed by their forefathers that Mind and a certain wonderful Wisdom did at first frame and doth now govern all things His words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Phileb p. 28. Which sufficiently shews the Antiquity of the Notion of an Incorporeal Deity and the way also how they came by it Of the same Opinion also was Socrates as we are told by Plutarch and others Lib. de Placit Philos. 1. c. 3. Zeno and the Stoicks defined the Deity to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Intellectual and Rational Nature or as Plutarch recites their Opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Intelligent Spirit devoid of all Bodily shape Ibid. And Sextus Empericus tells us of Aristotle that he constantly asserted God to be Incorporeal and the Utmost Bounds of the Universe And Aristotle concludes his Book of Physicks with affirming that 't is impossible the first Mover or God can have any Magnitude but he must needs be devoid of Parts and Indivisible And Plutarch gives us this as the received and common Opinion of the Stoicks that God was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit that was extended or did penetrate throughout the whole World De Placitis Philosoph lib. 1. c. 3. p. 882. Now by these Passages and many others that might easily be produced it appears very plain that the most Ancient Writers had a good clear Notion of God and that they speak of him as of a Mind perfectly distinct from Matter or as an immaterial or incorporeal Being Many of them also deliver themselves very expresly as to the Soul of Man which as Plutarch tells us they generally asserted to be Incorporeal and that it was naturally a Self-moving and Intelligible Substance But of this more in another place And that the Ancients did believe God to be a Spirit or a most Powerful Intelligent and Perfect Immaterial Substance will yet farther appear if we consider what Notion they had of and how they defined Matter or Body Plato describes it by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which thrusts against other Bodies and resists their Touch or Impulse Others call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which so fills up a place as at that time to exclude from it any other Body Sometimes they called it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradistinction to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is they distinguished it to be of a pure passive Nature and which was acted and determined only by Impulse from without it or distinct from it they knew very well that there was also besides it some Active Thing something that was the Cause of Motion and Action in the Universe For as Plutarch well observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is impossible Matter alone can produce any thing unless there be besides it some Active Cause Sextus Empiricus also gives this Definition of Matter or Body That it is that which resists other things which are brought against it for Resistance saith he or Impenetrability is the true Property of Body By these Accounts that they have given us of Matter or Body 't is very easie to understand their Notion or Idea of it which indeed was the Just and True one They thought Matter or Body to be a purely Passive Thing incapable of moving or acting by it self but wholly determined either by some Internal and Self-moving Mind or by the Motions and Impulses of other Bodies without it That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as we now adays speak Impenetrably extended and did so fill up space or place as to exclude any other Body from being in the same Place with it at the same Time If to this you add what Aristotle and some others said of it that it was also capable of all Forms Figures and Modifications you have then the whole that ever they thought Matter could do or be Now from hence 't is exceeding clear that they could not as indeed we find actually they did not think Matter or Body the only Substance in the World and that the Deity was Material or Corporeal For they always described the Divine Nature by Attributes and Properties that were the very Reverses of what they appropriated to Matter or Body God they have told us is an Intelligent Mind pervading and encompassing all things an Active Energetical Principle the Cause of all Motion and Operation whatever Intangible indivisible invisible and no ways the Object of our Bodily Senses But yet whose Essence is plainly discoverable by our reasoning and Understanding Faculty This was as we have seen the Notion or Idea that many of the Ancient Philosophers had of the Deity and this plainly shews us that they look'd upon him to be what St. John here defines him an Incorporeal Being or a Spirit There were indeed some even then as I have before shewed who being wholly immersed in Matter themselves did assert that there was nothing else but Body in the World Such were Leucippus and Democritus and afterwards Epicurus and his Sect who perverted the Ancient Atomical and true Philosophy to an Atheistical Sense and made use of it for the banishing the Notion and Belief of a God out of their own and others Minds as indeed some others long before them had attempted to do But in this 't is very plain as an Excellent Person of our Nation hath observed that these Men did not understand the Philosophy they pretended to For it doth most clearly follow from the Principles of the True Atomical or Corpuscular Philosophy that there must be some other Substance distinct from and more Noble than Matter and which is of an Immaterial Incorporeal or Spiritual Nature And this I hope it will not be judged impertinent briefly to prove at this Time because some who seem not so throughly to understand it have of late reckoned the Mechanical Philosophy among the Causes of the growth of Atheism and Infidelity It is very much to the Purpose that the Ancient Atomists before Democritus and Leucippus did plainly assert and maintain the Doctrine of
towards producing of Cogitation Wisdom and Vnderstanding or to the production of Life Self Activity or Spontaneous Power And yet These are the most Great and Noble Things in the World these are the highest Perfections of the Divine Nature and in these we place the Essence of the Deity Now here Matter and Motion is more than ever at a loss and I think it demonstratively certain that it cannot account for these things Aristotle did very truly find fault with the Corporealists of his Time that they did not as ours cannot now assign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Cause of well and fit any Origin of or Reason for that Wisdom and Regularity that harmonious Relation and Aptitude of one part of the Creation to another which is so very conspicuous in all things supposing that there is nothing in Nature but Matter and Motion And it is most certainly true that the Idea which we have of Body doth not necessarily include Cogitation in it nor our Notion of Cogitation include Body but they are two as distinct Idea's as any we have So far are they from being the same thing that we cannot possibly conceive Cogitation with Extension No Man ever conceived a Thought to be so many Inches or Yards long to be deep thick or broad to be divisible into two or more Parts or to have any Kind of Figure or determinate Position or Extension whereas if whatsoever be unextended or not Body be absolutely Nothing as these Gentlemen assert Cogitation Wisdom Understanding and Spontaneous Power must be nothing or else they must be figurate Bodies than which nothing can be more absurd And if we farther examine our own Mind and consult our own Reason we shall find that we cannot possibly conceive how thinking Wisdom Consciousness and Spontaneous Power can possibly be the result of Bare Motion of the Parts of Matter Was there ever any one that seriously believed a Particle of Matter was any Wiser or had any more Understanding for being moved than it was before when it lay still for let it be never so briskly agitated is it not still Body there is no other Idea ariseth from hence but only that it changeth its place and is united successively to several parts of space that it will move such other Particles of Matter as 't is capable of and be retarded in its Motion by hitting or striking against them these and such like are all the Ideas that we can have of a Body in Motion but what is this to Thought and Consciousness Did ever any one but a stupid Corporealist imagine that a Particle of Matter by being moved was made Intelligent and that its travelling from place to place made it understand all things in its way and did any one ever think that the Knowledge of such a rambling Atom encreased in Proportion to the velocity of its Motion Yes doubtless and thus a Bullet discharged from the Mouth of a Cannon ought to be look'd upon as one of the most Ingenious Beings in Nature And hence it will follow that the more hast any one makes to tumble over Books or to ramble over Countries and the more precipitantly he makes a judgment of Notions or Opinions the Better Account he can give of Authors and Places and the more solid and substantial will be his Learning This indeed is the best Account that can be given of the fineness and quickness of Thought that some Men so much pretend to for this way they may come by a vast share of Penetration and be volatilized far above the dull studious and considerate Vulgar and the Event shews that they frequently make use of the Experiment But again As we cannot possibly conceive that the Motion of one Particle of Matter alone can give it Knowledge and Understanding so neither can we suppose that a Body composed of many of them can acquire any such thing barely on the Account of the Motion or Agitation of its Parts for Motion only will do no more to the whole than it did to each one singly and 't is not conceivable that Three or Three Millions of Bullets will be any wiser for being discharged together than if they were all shot singly in pursuit of Understanding Nor can any happy Combination or Constitution of Parts avail any thing in this Case any more than Motion nor can that be effectual to super-induce Wisdom and Understanding into Matter The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be no more a God than Jupiter's Log was among the Frogs nor than the most dense and gross body in Nature For after all the various Positions Configurations and Combinations of Matter is it not Matter still will rarefying or subtilizing of Matter change its Nature and Essential Properties A Rare Body is nothing but a contexture of fine and subtile Particles which being separated farther asunder than is usual are also perhaps more briskly agitated and moved And pray what is here new what will this do towards Divinity will bare Figure and Position of Parts change the Nature of those Parts and give them Cogitation and Knowledge when they had no such thing singly and before will adding subtracting multiplying or dividing of Numbers make them any thing else more Noble than what they were before will not the Summs Remainders Products or Quotients be still Figures and Numbers like the first Digits out of which these do by Combination or various Positions arise and is it not just so with Matter will a Particle of it be made any more Wise and Intelligent for being render'd smaller than it was before and hath a little Particle more Sense than a larger will Three or Four or Four Millions of these be more ingenious than a Body or Lump that is as big as them all and will moving a few Atoms a good distance from each other Separate them into Knowledge and Disjoin them into an Understanding Power which none of them had before If Men can swallow such things as these and think at this Extravagant and Unaccountable Rate I fear all good Arguments and sound Reason will be lost upon them and they ought to be neglected as downright Stupid or Distracted And yet these and such like Absurdities must be the Natural Consequences of supposing Matter and Motion alone capable of thinking that Matter can be rarified into a Deity and that Divine and Almighty Wisdom Knowledge Goodness and Power are the result of Body luckily disposed and moved which yet was the Opinion of Hobbs and is still of many of his Admirers and Followers For notwithstanding those Excellent Demonstrations that many Learned Men amongst us have established that Matter and Motion cannot possibly produce Cogitation Consciousness Understanding and Liberty of Will There is lately an Ignorant Corporealist who asserts That the Inflamed and glowing Particles of the Blood called Spirits tho' they are not in themselves Sentient and Intelligent are yet the active Principle of Life and Motion of Sense and Understanding in
in the World And if these can fully be made to appear I hope the Doctrine involved with them will also appear false and precarious and that the contrary Opinion of the Real Existence of Incorporeal Beings will find an easie admittance into our Faith But here I must premise as taken for granted That we are all agreed on the Definition of or know what we mean by Matter or Body viz. That it is Substance Impenetrably extended whereby we distinguish it from Spirit which is a Thinking Substance without Corporeal Extension or without having Partes extra Partes For if this be not the Notion which our Adversaries have of it as well as we 'T is in vain to dispute about it at all If therefore they have any other Idea of it that is different from this let them produce it and make it as clear and Intelligible as this is for without doing so they do nothing to the purpose And if they have not a clear and distinct Idea of Matter or Body how come they so boldly to say that Matter and Substance are all one how can they distinguish the Idea's of Body and Spirit so plainly as to be sure there can be no such thing as an Incorporeal Substance but that it implies a Contradiction Unless they fully know what Matter or Body is there may be Millions of Varieties and Degrees of Immaterial Substances or there may be no such thing as Body at all for any thing they can prove to the contrary The Atheist must then do one of these two things he must either establish a new Notion of Matter that shall be so intelligible and plain that all Mankind shall as readily acquiesce in it as they do in the old and common one or else he must resolve to keep to That The former of these he hath not yet done nor I believe is very ready to do but when he doth it 't will be time enough to consider it In the mean while I will readily join Issue with him on the common and received Notion of Body And from thence undertake to maintain That nothing is more absurd and unaccountable than their Assertion That there is no other Substance but Matter or Body in the World For First Had there been nothing else but Matter in the World from Eternity and if there be nothing else now there never was any thing else I cannot possibly see how these Gentlemen can account for Motion or shew us how Matter came first to be moved And Matter without Motion sure could never be God never be the Cause of any thing nor could it ever produce act or do any thing whatever Before Motion began Matter could have been nothing but an heavy lifeless Lump of vast extended Bulk which must have lain also for ever in the same dead and unactive Position if nothing had been superinduced to put it into Motion and Action And no one sure can be so stupid as to call this a Deity This is as Mr. Blount rudely and irreverently expresseth himself worse than to suppose a Hum-Drum-Deity chewing of his own Nature a Droning God that sits hoarding up of his Providence from his Creatures And this even he can't but acknowledge is an Atheism no less Irrational than to deny the very Essence of a Divine Being I hope therefore they will grant that Matter without Motion cannot be suppos'd to be a Deity And if so then the Divine Nature whatever it be must be something distinct from and more Noble than Matter and more akin to Motion than to Matter or Body in general or to it quatenus Matter as the Schools speak And indeed Motion taken in this sense not for a translation of Body from one place to another but for the Active Cause of Motion may be very well said to be Incorporeal or the Deity it self But how came this Motion into Matter at first and which way did Matter attain this Divine Activity or God-like Energy Here they must assert one of these three things either 1. That Motion came into Matter from something without it and distinct from it Or 2. That Motion is Essential to Matter and Co-eternal with it Or 3. That it came into it afterwards by Chance or without any Cause at all The First of these they will not say I doubt because it 's Truth but however if they do our Controversie is at an end for we believe that 't was a Divine and powerful Mind perfectly distinct from and more Noble than Matter who first made it and moved it and doth still continue to modifie and dispose it according to his Infinite Wisdom and Providence And one would think no Man can be so senseless as to maintain the last viz. That Motion came into Matter without any Cause at all and that it was Chance only that first produced it for Chance here signifies nothing in reality And truly Men that will be so ridiculously absurd as to assert that a Body or Particle of Matter that is once at rest may move by Chance only or may Chance to move of it self though there be nothing to cause its Motion deserve no serious Refutation but ought to be treated only as we do Fools and Madmen with silent Pity and Compassion And yet so very fond are some Persons of any thing that opposes Truth that they will run into the greatest Absurdities to maintain it For a late Corporealist is pleas'd to say That Matter can move of it self and to shew his deep Skill in Philosophy he tells us that Wind Fire and very fine-sifted small Dust are Matter and yet Self movers And of Wind and Fire he profoundly asserts That they cannot lose their Motion or cease Moving so long as they continue to be Wind and Fire That is As long as Wind and Fire are in Motion they cannot cease to move This indeed is a very deep and important Discovery But yet 't is what hardly any Man would have publish'd in Print but one that concludes a Body must needs move of it self only because he can't see with his Eyes the Cause or Origin of its Motion And yet even this he may often see in the case of Fire if he will but vouchsafe to observe how 't is usually kindled A little Consideration would have satisfied him also that Winds may be produced in the Atmosphere by the Air 's being moved some way by Heat Compression or some other Accidental Cause as well as in an Eolipile or a Pair of Bellows And as for his fine Dust's rising up in a Cloud of it self had he understood that the Agitation of any Fluid will keep the small Particles of any heavier Matter mixed with it from descending to the bottom of it nay and raise them up from thence too and had he not forgotten that this was the case here the Air being so agitated by the Motion of Sifting he would not sure have been so silly as to have brought these as Instances of Spontaneous Motion
Cogitation can arise from incogitative Matter And this Spinoza saw very well and therefore he asserts all Cogitation as well as all Substance to be Infinite Indeed to avoid this abominable Absurdity of each Particle of Matter 's being God by it self he saith that there is but one only Substance in Nature and that this is God But this will not help him out nor do him much service in defending him from the horrid Absurdities of this Notion For if by Substance he mean only Substance in general or the Idea that we have of some Substratum Support or Subject of Inhesion in which we conceive the Properties and Accidents of Real Beings to inhere as by his Definition of Substance he seems to imply 'T is plain this is only a Metaphysical Notion only a general Word or Term that serves to denote our conception of something in a Being that doth not depend upon the Properties of it nor inhere in them but they upon and in it But we can have no Notion of Substance existing without any Properties any more than of Properties without it If therefore he mean that God is such a Substance as this that God is the Term or Idea of Substance in general he makes the Deity nothing at all but a meer Name a meer Ens Rationis or Creature of the Brain only than which nothing can be more ridiculous and foolish For 't is the Attributes or Properties of the Deity that we chiefly contend for and which we are chiefly obliged to Acknowledge and Reverence and 't is These that we assert must be inherent in an Infinite and Immaterial Substance or Spirit But if by there being but one only Substance which he saith is God Spinoza means that the Deity is the whole Mass of Beings or of Matter in the Universe as by what he delivers in many places I do really believe that he did for he asserts that all Corporeal Substance is Infinite and One and that Extension and Cogitation are the Attributes or the Affections of the Attributes of God as I hinted before I say if this be his Opinion there cannot possibly be a more unaccountable absurd and impossible Notion of God advanced And 't is also absolutely inconsistent and contradictions with what he doth at other times assert For if Substance Matter and God signifie all the same thing and all Matter be Essentially Cogitative as such Then 't is plain as I have shewed already that God cannot be the whole Matter of the Universe but each Particle of Matter will be a God by it self For if there be any such thing as Infinite Perfection it must be Essentially in every Particle of Matter otherwise Infinite Perfection may arise out of what is only Finite which is impossible And if every Particle of Matter have this Infinite Perfection the whole Mass of these Collectively considered will be by no means One God or One Being Infinitely Perfect but a Swarm of Innumerable Deities every one of which will be Personally distinct from each other and yet contain all possible Perfection in it self But allowing him all the Collective Mass of Beings or the Universe to be God What a strange kind of a Deity would this make The Divine Nature must then necessarily be Divisible part of it here and part there part of it in Motion and part of it at Rest part of it Hot and part Cold part Fire and part Water and in a word subject to all manner of Imperfections Vicissitudes Changes Contrarieties and Alterations that can be imagined But this the common Sense of all Mankind will abhorr and detest to be spoken of the Deity and besides 't is contrary to what Spinoza asserts in other places where he saith Substance is Indivisible But how there can be but One Only Substance and that the Matter of the Universe and how this Substance can be Indivisible when yet each Particle of Matter must be a distinct Substance by it self and is divisible and divided from all others as our Reason and our Senses do every day inform us is a flight of Metaphysicks above my Understanding and can I believe never be conceived by any one that understands the meaning of the Words or Terms such an Opinion shall be delivered in But he indeed that doth not and that will admire lofty and insignificant Sounds without Sense or he that hath some wicked and base Design to cover under such Cant may conceive any thing or at least say that he doth so The Operations and Actions also of a Corporeal Deity were it possible there should be such an one must be all absolutely Necessary and determined by pure Physical and Mechanical Fatality For he would be really and truly Natura Naturata only the bare Result of Motion in Matter as 't is variously formed figured moved and disposed so as to produce any Natural Effect And this I doubt not but some of these Corporealists very well understand and that is the reason that makes them so very fond of the Notion of a Corporeal Deity and of asserting That there is nothing in the World but Body For then they know very well that there can be nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nature such a Physical Necessity as will perfectly exclude all Freedom and Liberty of Will amongst Men and consequently destroy all Notions of and Distinctions between Good and Evil. They don't care to say plainly there is no God that looks a little too bare-faced for Atheism is a Name they don't love to take But they will readily and studiously endeavour to advance such an Account and Notion of a Deity as shall do as well such an one as they know is in effect the same as to say there is no God at all And this the representing him as Corporeal will effectually do for this subjects Him to a Physical Necessity makes Him nothing at all but Nature and deprives both Him and us of the Noble Principle of Freedom of Will and then they know that there can be no such things as Rewards and Punishments proportionate to Mens Actions but that all things are alike without any distinction of Good and Evil and consequently that they may do any thing that they have a mind to And this appears to be the Issue that they would willingly bring all things to For if this were not the case what Reason can be given why Men should be such zealous Sticklers for a Corporeal Deity Why should they still in spite of Sense Reason and Philosophy maintain That there can be no such thing as an Incorporeal or Immaterial Substance Is it purely out of a devout and holy Desire to understand the Divine Nature more clearly in order to speak of him more properly to adore him more religiously and obey him more heartily I fear not For if Matter and Motion can Think and as they say the Properties or Attributes of God can be accountable that way and there be really and truly a
Wise Powerful Just and Good God though Corporeal why should not these Gentlemen look upon themselves obliged to obey such a God as well as a Spiritual one Why do they quarrel with and cast off his Holy Word and reject and despise his Revealed Will Is not a Corporeal Deity according to their Notion truly a Being endowed with all possible Perfections Is not He the First Cause Maker and Preserver of all Things and consequently is not He as fit and worthy to be worshipped as well as a Spiritual One and cannot such a Deity acquaint his Creatures how he will be worshipped and served cannot He Reward them for so doing and Punish them for offending against Him equally as if He were Incorporeal If he cannot indeed then there is something more than bare Speculation in the case and there must be some substantial Reason why Deists and Antiscripturists are always Corporealists And this is the truth of the Matter the God of the Corporealists is not the True Deity whatever they may pretend but a blind stupid senseless Idol that hath nothing but the Name of God wickedly applied to it 'T is only Nature or a Plastick Power in Nature the whole mass of or some sine subtile and active Parts of Matter in rapid Motion without any Understanding Wisdom or Design without liberty of Will or freedom of Action but Physically and Mechanically Necessary in all its Operations Their God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Herodotus speaks he is the Servant of Necessity and cannot possibly himself avoid the destined fate And to be sure if God be not a free Agent Nothing else can for all things flowing from him by an inevitable Necessity or being Parts of Him as Spinoza asserts they must be under the same Necessity with the Deity and he saith plainly That every thing that is determined to Operate is so determined necessarily by God and could not act at all if God did not thus necessarily determine it That the Will of Man cannot be called free but is only a necessary Cause And in another place he tells us plainly that there are no such things as final Causes in Nature they being only the Ignorant Figments of Mankind but that all things are Governed by Absolute Necessity A while after this he asserts Man to be a meer Machine and saith that 't is only those who are Ignorant of Causes that say he was thus finely formed by any Art or Design or who attribute his Composition to any Supernatural Wisdom And then at last he comes to the great Point on which all this Philosophy turns which is That Good and Evil are not by Nature but that the Notions of them came only from Mens mistaken Opinion that all things were made for them and who therefore call that Good which is agreeable to their Fancy and that Evil which is contrary to it By which short Connexion of their Opinions 't is clear enough why Spinoza was a Corporealist as also why Mr. Hobbs advanced the same Notions And I doubt those that Espouse the same Opinions now adays know too well the Consequences of them But of the Precariousness of these Notions I must say no more now designing particularly to confute them hereafter as they are made Objections against the Truth and Obligation of Religion in general FINIS ADVERTISEMENT REmarks on some late Papers relating to the Universal Deluge and to the Natural History of the Earth By John Harris M. A. and Fellow of the Royal-Society In Octavo Discourses on several Practical Subjects By the late Reverend William Payne D. D. with a Preface giving some Account of his Life Writings and Death Both Printed for Richard Wilkin A REFUTATION of the Objections Against the ATTRIBUTES of GOD in general IN A SERMON Preach'd at the CATHEDRAL-CHURCH of St. Paul September the Fifth 1698. BEING The Sixth of the LECTURE for that Year Founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle Esq By JOHN HARRIS M. A and Fellow of the ROYAL-SOCIETY LONDON Printed by J. L. for Richard Wilkin at the King's-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1698. JEREM. ix 24 Let him that glorieth glory in this that he understandeth and knoweth me that I am the Lord who exercise loving kindness judgment and righteousness in the earth for in these things I delight saith the Lord. PRide and Vain-Glory are Things which Human Nature is strangely subject to there being scarce any one so mean but who judges that he hath something or other that he may justly be Proud of and value himself for But as Pride is Folly in the general so it apparently discovers itself in this respect That those Men are usually most Vain who have the least Reason to be so and that too in Things that are the least valuable in themselves Thus as the Prophet intimates in the Verse before the Text Men frequently glory in Bodily Strength in Beauty and Agility and in the Affluence of external Possessions Things which are the meanest Appurtenances to our Natures and which are neither in our Power to get nor keep Wisdom indeed and Judgment Learning and Parts Wit and Penetration and all the Nobler Endowments of our Minds are things of the greatest intrinsick Worth and Value and we have much more reason to esteem our selves for them than for all the Goods of Fortune or any Bodily Excellencies But yet Let not the wise man Glory in his Wisdom and Knowledge neither tho' as the Targum on the place hints it were as great as that of Solomon himself for we have in reality no just ground to value our selves for even this when we consider that the best of us have it but in a very slender Proportion and that our highest Knowledge is very imperfect and defective Hence it comes to pass or at least ought to do so that the Modesty and Humility of truly knowing Men encreases with their Learning and Experience Their being raised something above the common level instead of lessening and shortening in their Eyes the Statures of other Men encreases their Prospect of a Boundless Field of Knowledge all around them the more of which they discover the more they find yet undiscover'd But he that knows but little vainly thinks he knows every thing and judges all is empty and void that is without the Bounds of his scanty Horizon Another great Vanity there is also in Pride which is That Men are frequently conceited and Proud of those things which they have the least share of and are fond of such Actions as do plainly discover their Defects For usually those Men are most forward to talk of Learning who are least acquainted with Books and those make the greatest Noise about and Pretensions to Philosophy who have the least insight into Nature Those who talk most of Certainty and Demonstration have usually the most confused Idea's and the most Superficial Notions of things and are the farthest of all Men from true
in his Reasons for his Opinion That he that reflecteth on himself cannot but be satisfied That a Free Agent is he that can do if he will and forbear if he will And such an Agent he allows Man to be and saith he hath proved it too But how he will reconcile this with his Assertion that no Man can be free from Necessitation and that all our Actions have necessary Causes and therefore are necessitated I cannot imagine As to Spinoza's Account of the Deity in Reference to this Point I have given a hint or two of it already He makes God to be the same with Nature or the Universe to be Corporeal and an absolutely necessary Agent one who cannot possibly help doing as he doth one who hath no Power of Creation nor doth act according to free Will But is Limited and Restrained to one constant Method of Acting by the Absolute Necessity of his Nature or by his Infinite Power And lest any one should misunderstand him so far as to imagine that he means by this that God is by the Excellency and Perfection of his Nature in all his Operations exactly conformable to the Rules of Justice Goodness and Right Reason He plainly excludes that Notion in these words Qui dicunt Deum omnia sub Ratione Boni agere Hi aliquid extra Deum videntur ponere quod à Deo non dependet ad quod Deus tanquam ad Exemplar in Operando attendit vel ad quod tanquam ad certum scopum collimat Quod profectò nihil aliud est quam Deum Fato subjicere Now I think nothing can more shew the wicked Perversness of this Writer's Mind than this Passage For he could not but know very well that when Divines assert the Deity to be Essentially and necessarily Good they do not mean that Goodness is any thing Extrinsical to the Divine Nature much less that it is something which hath no dependance upon it but only that the Excellency and Perfection of his Nature is such as that it is in every thing exactly conformable to Right Reason and therefore this was certainly a wilful Perversion of their Sense set up on purpose to overthrow the Notion of Moral Goodness in the Deity But how vain is it for him to tell us that for the Deity to Act sub Ratione Boni is for Him to be Subject to Fate when at the same time he Himself Asserts that God is in every respect a Necessary Agent without any free Will nay without any Knowledge or Vnderstanding in his Nature at all This is so plain a Demonstration that it was his chief and Primary Design to banish out of Mens Minds the Notion of Moral Goodness that nothing can be more and therefore tho' he was resolved to Introduce absolute Necessity into all Actions both Divine and Human yet it should be such an one as should leave no Umbrage for any distinction between Good and Evil or any Foundation for Rewards and Punishments And in this Notion of Necessity these Writers follow Democritus Heraclitus Leucippus and that Atheistical Sect who maintain'd that there was Nothing in all Nature but Matter and Motion And therefore when these Modern Writers assert that there is nothing in the Universe but Body as they do they run Fate farther than most of the Old Heathen Patrons of Necessity did For there was none but the Democritick Sect that supposed Fate to have a Power over the Will of Man and in this particular even they were deserted by Epicurus as I observe below The Pythagoreans Platonists and Stoicks agreed that the Mind of Man was free And 't is well known that the Stoicks did in this Free Power of the Will of Man found that arrogant Assertion of theirs That a Wise Man was in one respect more excellent than the Gods for they were Good by the Necessity of their Nature and could not help it whereas Man had a Power of being otherwise and therefore was the more commendable for being so There was indeed some of the Poets and some few of the Philosophers too who did subject the Gods themselves to Fate or Necessity Thus Seneca in one place saith Necessitas Deos alligat Irrevocabilis Divina pariter ac Humana Cursus vehit Ille ipse omnium Conditor ac Rector scripsit quidem Fata sed sequitur semper paret semel jussit Which Opinion is effectually refuted and exposed by Lucian in that Dialogue of his called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also by Lactantius in his First Book De falsâ Religione Chap. 11. But this as I doubt not but Seneca and some others understood in a softer sense than at first sight it appears to have so was it the Doctrine of but a few for generally the Heathens did fully believe that Prayers and Sacrifices would alter a Man's Fortune and Circumstances for the better that they would appease the Anger and gain the Favour and Blessing of the Gods and that Their Nature was not so absolutely Fatal and Necessary but that they could freely deal with their Creatures according as they deserved at their hands For we find Balbus the Stoick mentioned by Cicero telling us That the Nature of God would not be most Powerful and Excellent if it were Subject to the same Necessity or Nature Quâ Coelum maria terraeque reguntur Nihil Enim est praestantius Deo Nulli igitur est Naturae Obediens Subjectus So that these Writers tread in the Steps of the worst and most Atheistical of the Heathen Philosophers and maintain a more rigid Fate and a more irresistible Necessity than most of them did But 2 I come next to shew the Groundlesness of those Reasons and Arguments on which these Men build their Hypothesis of Absolute Necessity And first as to the Reasons of Mr. Hobbs The Chief that he brings against the freedom of Human Actions are these saith Mr. Hobbs In all Deliberations and alternate Successions of Contrary Appetites 't is the last only which we call Will this is immediately before the doing of any Action or next before the doing of it become Impossible Also Nothing saith he can take beginning from it self but must do it from the Action of some other immediate Agent without it if therefore a Man hath a Will to something which he had not before the Cause of his Willing is not the Will it self but something else not in his own disposing So that whereas 't is out of Controversie that of Voluntary Actions the Will is the Necessary Cause and by this which is now said the Will is also Caused by Other things whereof it disposeth not it follows that Voluntary Actions have all of them Necessary Causes and therefore are necessitated Agen also Every sufficient Cause saith he is a Necessary one for if it did not produce its Effect necessarily 't was because something was wanting to its Production and then it was not sufficient Now from hence it follows that
Determination à Priori and that it could have made no other which yet is what he means and ought to have clearly made out For the same Power or Faculty of Liberty which enabled it to make that Determination would have been a sufficient Cause for it to have made another contrary to it or differing from it and then when that had been made it would have been as necessary as the former And therefore that Definition of a Free Agent 's being that which when all things are present which are needful to produce the Effect can nevertheless not produce it tho' I don't think it the best doth not when rightly understood imply any Contradiction nor is it Nonsense at all For the meaning of it is That he is properly Free who hath the Power of Determination in himself and when all Requisites are ready so that nothing shall extrinsecally either hinder him from or compel him to Act can yet choose whether he will Act or not Thus if a Man hath Pen Ink and Paper and a place to write upon his Hand well and at Liberty and understands how to write he hath all things present that are needful to produce the Effect of Writing yet he can nevertheless not produce that Effect because he can choose after all whether he will write or no. Mr. Hobbs defines a Free Agent to be him that can do if he will and forbear if he will and that Liberty is the absence of all external Impediments which if he intended any thing by it but to palliate a bad Cause and to amuse the Person he wrote to is as much Nonsense and Contradiction to what he himself advances about Necessity as is possible For how a Man can be said to Act necessarily that hath no external Impediments to hinder him or Causes to compel him but is free to Act if he will or forbear if he will is what I believe no Man can possibly conceive Thus we see plainly that this great Patron of Necessity hath very little to say for his Darling Notion and that he plainly contradicts and is Inconsistent with himself Had he indeed dared speak out and thought it time to declare his Opinion freely he would no doubt have proceeded on other Grounds in this Point and made use of Arguments more agreeable to his Set of Principles which being allowed him would have demonstrated an absolute Necessity of all things whatsoever For he was a thorough Corporealist and maintained that there was nothing more in Nature but Matter and Motion which if it were true it is most certain that all Things and Actions must be inevitably Fatal and Necessary for as Mr. Lock well observes nothing but Thought or Willing in a Spirit can begin Motion The Necessity therefore in such an Hypothesis would be the true Ancient Democritick Fate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as Epicurus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a through Material necessity Mechanically producing all Things or the Fate of the Naturalists who held nothing besides Matter and Motion But this Notion for some Reasons best known to himself he did not think fit to insist on when he wrote this Tract against the Liberty of Human Nature Tho' his Successor Spinoza with a little Variation did whose Arguments we must next consider Spinoza as I have formerly shewed was an Absolute Corporealist as well as Mr. Hobbs but finding that Cogitation could never be accounted for from Matter and Motion only he supposes Cogitation Essential to Matter and as he makes but one only Substance in the World which is the Matter of All Things or God so he supposes Cogitation to be one of the Essential Attributes of this Deity as Extension is the other And from hence he concludes That all things according to the Infinite variety of their several Natures must necessarily flow from God or the whole and must be just what they are and cannot be nor could not possibly have been any otherwise He doth indeed Stile the Deity Causa Libera and say he is only so But the reason he assigns for it is only because nothing can compel him to or hinder him from doing any Thing but he expresly denies him to have either Understanding or Free Will And he declares oftentimes That all things flow from the Deity by as Absolute a Necessity as that the Three Angles of a Triangle are equal to Two right ones And then as to the Mind of Man he gives this Reason why it cannot have any free Will Quia mens ad hoc vel illud Volendum determinatur à Causâ quae etiam ab alia haec iterum ab aliâ sic in Infinitum The same thing also he asserts in another Place and from thence undertakes to prove also that God cannot have any Free Will and withal saith That Understanding and Will as they are called belong to the Nature of God just as Motion and Rest and other Natural Things do which are absolutely determined to Operate just as they do and cannot do otherwise This is the Argument of Spinoza to prove that there is no such thing as freedom in the Nature of Man but that he is determined in every thing by Absolute and Inevitable Necessity And this Necessity also 't is plain according to him is purely Physical and Mechanical As to the Refutation of which I think I have already effectually removed the foundation on which it is all built by proving that there are such Beings as Immaterial Substances and that God himself is such an One or a Spirit For all the Necessity Spinoza contends for depends purely on his Notion of the Deity as appears sufficiently from what I have produced of his words If therefore it be true that God be an Immaterial Substance a Being Distinct from Nature or the Universe and the Creator and Producer of all things as I think I have very clearly proved 't is most certain that the whole Chain of Spinoza's Argument for Necessity is broken to pieces For the Reason he assigns for the necessary Operations of the Deity are not the Perfections of his Nature determining him to Good and Just Lovely and Reasonable things but that the Deity being Universal Nature All things and Operations are Parts of him and their several Ways and Manners of Acting and existing according to the necessary Laws of Motion and Mechanism are his Understanding and Will which Ignorant People he saith may perhaps take in a literal Sense and think that God can properly Know or Will any thing but that in reality there is no such thing as Understanding or Free Will in God since all things flow from Him by Inevitable Necessity And if there be not any freedom in the Deity that is in the whole there can be none in Men or in any other Beings who are but Parts of him If this indeed be true that there is no other God but Nature then 't is easie to see that