This is the attempt which has been revived in these times; and the authors of the plan seem in their zeal to have forgotten one great lesson of history, that a book recommended by an ecclesiastical body as sound, and orthodox, and in accordance with the standards of the church, may repose in dignity and in dust on the shelf of the publishers; while the condemned volume shall be diffusing its sentiments as on the wings of the wind.

We have thus, in accordance with the precepts which we advocate, given a free expression of our opinions. Regarding as we do the right of free discussion as the foundation of all other rights in this land, and as vitally connected with them all, we deem it the duty of every man to lift up his voice, however feeble it may be, in defence of these great principles of republican liberty and of the Protestant religion. We know no liberty which is not based on these principles; we have no rights to defend which are not connected with this great fundamental right. And believing this, we know of no subject on which there should be felt a deeper solicitude, or on which there should be exhibited a more jealous vigilance. We know of no arm which should not be nerved; of no blood which should not, if need be, be poured out like water in defence of this right. We know of no enemy that is so dangerous to all our institutions as this sly, insinuating, and most subtle foe that begins the work of destroying liberty everywhere by calling in question this right, and by pleading that there may be some subjects which may be regarded as too sacred to be subjected to investigation. Every man, therefore, who can contribute in the least degree to the proper illustration and defence of this right is conferring an invaluable service on his country, on human nature, on the world. When his name shall have been forgotten, the principles which his feeble powers shall have contributed to defend shall live in the augmenting happiness of mankind; in the elevation of the human powers to their highest dignity; in the liberal arts, the sciences, the literature of future ages; in all the departments of the State, and in the universal glory of the church of Christ on earth. And while we render thanks to heaven that he has inclined such men as Milton, and Taylor, and Hall to stand forth. in defence of this right; while we record with deep gratitude to God the fact that he has inspired the noble army of martyrs to be willing to seal their convictions of this right with their death; be it ours in this age to defend this right, and to transmit it unimpair

ed to future times. By all the power of argument it is to be defended; by all the tenderness of persuasion; by all the firmness of christian principle and lofty patriotism; by every man who loves his country, or the church; by the pen, the press; in the pulpit; in the legislative hall; by the fire-side, in the seminary of learning, and, if need be, by the best blood that flows in the veins of the descendants of the Pilgrims.

ON THE ARGUMENT A PRIORI FOR THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

By Joseph Alden, Professor of Rhet. and Polit. Economy, Williams College.

WRITERS in periodical publications are often usefully employed in calling attention to new works of value, — perhaps they may sometimes, at least, be as usefully employed in calling attention to works of other days which, though of sterling merit, may from various causes have fallen into comparative neglect.

The Demonstration of Samuel Clarke, once so popular and influential, is now rarely read, even by those somewhat addicted to abstruse speculations. Nevertheless he is one of the acutest reasoners England has produced, and the subject of his speculations at least is of the highest interest.

The evidences of natural and revealed religion ought to be thoroughly understood by Christians, and especially christian ministers of the present time. The legitimate modes of reasoning to be employed in substantiating and defending the great principles which lie at the foundation of our happiness and hopes ought to be familiarly known. Infidelity exists in the midst of us, perhaps to a greater extent than many are aware, it is organized and active; the watchmen of Zion should therefore be prepared to anticipate and repel every attack that can be made.

Our design in the present Article is to present an outline of Dr. Clarke's celebrated Demonstration of the Existence and Attributes of God, accompanied with some remarks tending to

show in what estimation the mode of reasoning he has employed ought to be held. In regard to this we know that on the minds of some there rests a mistiness and uncertainty from which it were well they were delivered.

In Dr. Clarke's opinion, the Being and Attributes are capable of complete demonstration a priori. "The argument a posteriori," he remarks, "is indeed by far the most generally useful, most easy to be understood, and, in some degree suited to all capacities; and therefore it ought always to be insisted But inasmuch as atheistical writers, have sometimes opposed the being and attributes of God by such metaphysical reasonings as can no otherwise be obviated than by arguing a priori, therefore this manner of arguing also is useful and necessary in its proper place."

on.

"The proof a priori [of the being and attributes of God] is, I fully believe, strictly demonstrative; but (like numberless mathematical demonstrations) capable of being understood only by a few attentive minds; because it is of use only against learned and metaphysical difficulties." To this mode of argumentation he therefore addresses himself with great confidence, zeal and honesty.

His first proposition is that something has existed from all eternity; otherwise the things that now are must have been produced out of nothing, and without cause.

The second proposition is that " there has existed from eternity some one [at least] unchangeable and independent Being.” In regard to this the author thinks but two suppositions can be made either the proposition as stated is true, or else there has been an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings produced one from another in an endless progression, without any original cause at all. Of this latter supposition he shows the absurdity, and hence concludes that the former is

true.

His third proposition is "that unchangeable and independent Being which has existed from eternity without any external cause of its existence, must be self-existent that is, necessarily existent." In support of this proposition two modes of proof are employed. The first is as follows. This Being which has existed from eternity must have come into being out of nothing without cause, or must have been produced by some external cause, or must be self-existent. The first and second suppositions are shown to be absurd, hence the third (that this

being is self-existent) remains true. To be self-existent, he informs us" is not to be produced by itself," which is a contradiction, but it is "to exist by an absolute necessity originally in the nature of the thing itself." "A necessity absolutely such is nothing else but its being a plain impossibility, or implying a contradiction to suppose the contrary." This necessity of existence he says is not a property consequent upon the supposition of a thing's existing, but is "antecedently the cause or ground of that existence is itself original, absolute, and (in order of nature) antecedent to all existence."

The second mode of proof, which is not at all dependent on the preceding propositions, is as follows: "When we are endeavoring to suppose that there is no Being in the universe that exists necessarily, we always find in our minds, some ideas, as of infinity and eternity, which to remove, that is, to suppose there is no Being, no substance in the universe to which these attributes or modes of existence are necessarily inherent, is a contradiction in the very terms. For modes and attributes exist only in the existence of the substance to which they belong. Now he that can suppose eternity and immensity (and consequently the substance by whose existence these modes or attributes exist) removed out of the universe, may if he please, as easily remove the relation of equality between twice two and four."

In other words space and duration necessarily exist because to suppose them not to exist implies an impossibility, a contradiction in terms,* space and duration are attributes of a substance or being, and hence that Being necessarily exists that Being is God. Such is the celebrated argument a priori.

To this argument we might object that his reasoning in support of the necessary existence of space is not satisfactory. He assumes that a thing necessarily exists when we cannot without a contradiction conceive its non-existence, because a truth is a necessary truth when its opposite involves a contradiction. We think that the former is not a sequitur from the latter. Still as there are those who believe in the necessary existence of space on another ground, viz. as being a truth of the reason, (using

"To suppose any part of space removed, is to suppose it removed from or out of itself, and to suppose the whole to be taken away, is supposing it to be taken away from itself, that is, to be taken away while it still remains, which is a contradiction in terms."

that term in the sense attached to it by Coleridge) we shall wave this objection, and proceed to notice a more evident defect in the argument above stated.

This defect is the unwarranted assumption that space is an attribute of a being. As the force of the conclusion depends on this, it ought to have been proved, unless indeed it belongs to the category of self-evident truths. We affirm that it is not a self-evident truth, and we think every reader will justify us in that affirmation. Wherefore, until he prove that space be an attribute of a being, all his discoursing about space and necessity, etc. are of no service in leading him to the conclusion, that there is a God.

But there are positive objections to the doctrine that space is an attribute of a being. If, as Dr. Clarke assumes, infinite space is a quality or attribute of an infinite Being, then finite space, by parity of reasoning, must be a quality of a finite being. Here is an exhausted receiver, of what being is the pure space it contains an attribute? The absurdity of the assumption on which the argument depends is, we think, sufficiently apparent.

But is the argument, after all, an a priori one? Will it not be found to be strictly a posteriori? When we argue a priori, we, from known powers or causes, infer effects that we may not have witnessed. This knowledge of powers or causes must be first acquired by experience; we cannot conceive of an a priori argument which is not built on previous processes of experience. Hence we think an argument a priori for the being of God impossible, for in order to infer his existence a priori, we must be acquainted with some power or cause, that must produce his existence. Suppose there be such a power, we could arrive at the knowledge of it only by observation and experience.

Now we think we acquire our ideas of space from experience, (there are those who differ from us in this point), if, then, the inference drawn from the existence of space be sound, it is an experience resting on a previous process of experience, and hence a posteriori.

Again, granting that our knowledge of space is not the result of experience, but is a necessary truth of the reason, still, the inference of a God is not strictly a priori, unless space be the cause of God's existence: but it is by assumption an attribute, and an attribute cannot be the cause or ground of the existence of its substratum.