almost two hundred works on natural philosophy, theology, metaphysics,
political philosophy, politics, education, history and linguistics.
Remembered today primarily as a scientist who isolated oxygen,
Priestley considered his calling to be that of a theologian, and he
spent most of his life working as a minister and teacher. He combined
his Unitarian theology with an associationist, materialist and
determinist philosophy to create a coherent world-view that was the
subject of bitter controversy.
The implications of his metaphysics were challenging. Priestley
posited that matter, far from being impenetrable and inert, was
subject to internal forces such as attraction and compulsion. This
enabled him to assert that the matter of the brain is sensitive to
certain vibrations that form the basis of thought. He went on to argue
in favor of a material basis for the soul and its complete physical
unity with the body. Priestley believed that perception, knowledge,
intellect, and memory were acquired through sensory experience and
that simple ideas combined into complex ideas through a process of
association. This mechanism was entirely material and therefore based
on necessary causal laws determined by God.
Priestley tended to prioritize the practical and the experimental
above the purely theoretical. His metaphysical beliefs grew in part
from his passion for natural philosophy and his careful scientific
investigation. His understanding of the world was based on an
assumption that truths were demonstrable and revealed through
observation and experience. This included studying scripture alongside
the natural world in order to gain knowledge of a God who orchestrated
and determined all events for the ultimate good of humanity. Priestley
was a "rational dissenter" whose careful biblical exploration allowed
him to argue for the unity of God. Jesus was wholly human and did not
die as an atonement for inherently sinful humanity, but lived to
exemplify the perfect moral life that all people could potentially
attain.
Priestley argued that the truths of scripture were available to all
through the careful application of reason. This influenced his liberal
political position, as he penned many works in favor of complete
toleration and minimal governmental intervention. Priestley believed
that the story of humanity was a march of progress towards ultimate
perfection. Liberal government was one means by which truth could
triumph in an atmosphere of free and unfettered debate. Priestley was
also a fervent millenarian, trusting in biblical prophecy and waiting
for the second coming of Christ, the ultimate aim of all human
progress. This optimistic liberalism saw Priestley through a barrage
of vitriolic criticism and the infamous "Church and King" riots which
destroyed his Birmingham home in 1791. Despite the disappointments of
the French Revolution and his forced emigration, Priestley stuck
tenaciously to his belief in progress and Providence. A hopeful
advocate of reason and rational religion, he died with the conviction
that his physical resurrection and perfect life with Christ would not
be long coming
1. Biographical Sketch
Priestley's childhood was marked by upheaval, rejection and spiritual
doubt, while his education granted him considerable intellectual
liberty and independence of thought. To understand these early years
of rejection, isolation and freedom is a significant step towards
understanding Priestley's adult thought as earnest and rational but at
times controversial, idiosyncratic and consistently misunderstood.
The following account of Priestley's life is taken mainly from his
autobiography.
Priestley was born on March 13th, 1733 at Birstall Fieldhead, a small
village just southwest of Leeds where his family had lived and worked
for several generations. His father, Jonas Priestley, was a wool-cloth
dresser and his mother, Mary Swift, came from a farming family.
Priestley was their first-born child, but three brothers and two
sisters soon followed in quick succession. The demands of a large
family meant that the young Priestley was sent first to live his
grandfather and later, after the death of his mother, to the home of
his childless uncle and aunt.
a. Religious Beliefs
Priestley recalls religious devotion on the part of his parents, his
uncle and his aunt. However, while Priestley shared his family's
religiosity and remained a committed believer all his life, he was
profoundly affected by early theological doubts. He tells us that he
was "much distressed" because he could not "feel a proper repentance
for the sin of Adam" and was equally disturbed by his failure to
experience the "new birth" regarded as "necessary to salvation."
Having a weak constitution and facing death during adolescence,
Priestley was faced with the "horror" of feeling that God had forsaken
him (Autobiography 71).
It is fortunate that Priestley had the intellectual and spiritual
resources to deal with these fears. Although a strict Calvinist, his
aunt often entertained liberal Armenian and Baxterian theologians, so
the young Priestley was able to explore the rational theology that
would quell the horrors that haunted him. He was eventually able to
view his doubts as part of his progression towards truth. He writes
that his illness, rigorous religious upbringing and failure to
experience a conversion allowed him to acquire a "serious turn of
mind," and his doubts were compensated by a rational understanding of
God and proper action. However, as his theology drifted from that of
his family and community, Priestley faced rejection and isolation.
Priestley had grown up attending the Heckmondwike congregation and
tells us that he desired to be admitted as a communicant. However, his
membership was refused "because, when they interrogated me on the
subject of the sin of Adam, I appeared not to be quite orthodox." When
Priestley adopted Arianism at Daventry it marked a break with the
family that would not be reversed (Autobiography 73).
b. Education and Marriage
As a boy Priestley attended several schools in the local area and
learned Latin, Greek and Hebrew. When his illness prevented him from
going to school, he continued his education at home. These early years
of self-education were marked with the seriousness, hard work and
intellectual isolation that Priestley found so productive in later
life. During these years Priestley taught himself French, Italian, and
High Dutch "without a master," while also learning geometry and
algebra and reading the work of John Locke and Isaac Watts. In 1752
Priestley entered Daventry Academy, as his dissenting views prevented
him from subscribing to the Westminster Confession and thus excluded
him from the traditional universities. With young informal tutors and
a liberal curriculum, Priestley found intellectual freedom and
companionship and discovered the associationist ideas of David Hartley
(Autobiography 70-75).
Priestley flourished at Daventry, enjoying the discipline and hard
work and building "warm friendships." In contrast to the rejection and
isolation of his childhood, Priestley found himself part of a
community of likeminded thinkers. As an adult he was to continue to
find intellectual companionship with middle class dissenters and
liberals, such as the Lunar society in Birmingham and his fellow
tutors at Warrington. In 1762 he also married happily Mary Wilkinson
(1743-1796), the daughter of the famous iron master Isaac Wilkinson,
whose sons John and William continued to expand the family's fortunes.
He writes fondly although not passionately of Mary, calling his
marriage a "very suitable and happy connexion" (Autobiography 87).
c. Life as a Minister and Teacher
Priestley graduated from Daventry in 1755 and moved to Needham Market,
Suffolk, to work as a minister at the local chapel. It was not a happy
time: lacking the financial assistance originally promised by his
aunt, Priestley struggled for money and also struggled to be accepted
into the community. No one came to the school he established and most
were unable to accept his Arian theology.
Despite these problems, it was this combination of educator and
minister that would keep Priestley employed throughout his life. In
1758 he moved to Nantwich in Cheshire and again took on a congregation
and established a school. This time he was much more successful and
his ideas were communicated and received with ease. In 1761 Priestley
took up a tutorship in languages and belles lettres at Warrington
Academy and again combined this with a position as a minister.
In 1767 Priestley left Warrington to become a minister for the Mill
Hill Chapel in Leeds, a post with increased financial security,
allowing Priestley to put the role of minister at the center of his
life once again. In the county of his childhood Priestley was accepted
by the liberal dissenting congregation where once he had experienced
theological rejection. Of course, he also continued to teach and set
up a series of classes of religious instruction for members of the
chapel.
Suffering financially at Leeds, and keen to broaden his horizons,
Priestley took up an offer to sail with James Cook to the South Seas
as the ship's astronomer. However, the arrangement fell through, and
after toying with the idea of moving to the colonies, Priestley
finally, in 1773, took up residence in Calne, Wiltshire, in order to
work in a varied and ill-defined role as Lord Shelburne's companion.
Priestley was given a house for his growing family and a healthy
salary; in return he acted as intellectual companion and political
ally to Lord Shelburne. He practised many of his now famous
experiments for Shelburne's guests, took over much of the education of
his children and considerably expanded the library. Priestley was thus
able to continue his role as a teacher, but he preached only
occasionally.
His life with Shelburne was never as successful as either party had
hoped, and in 1780 Priestley left the service with a good pension to
become senior minister of the New Meeting in Birmingham, a large,
wealthy and influential congregation. Priestley seems to have been
very content in this role of minister, which he continued to see as
the most important activity in his life. He also taught children from
the congregation and established a number of Sunday schools that
taught reading, writing and mathematics as well as religious tenets.
However, these happy times did not last long. Priestley left
Birmingham after his house and belongings were destroyed in the
notorious Church and King riots of 1791. He moved the family to
Hackney where they stayed until 1794. He succeeded Richard Price at
the Gravel Pit meeting as morning preacher. Increasingly well known as
a liberal political philosopher and theologian, Priestley was elected
a citizen of France but declined an offer to be a representative to
the National Convention.
Priestley faced continuing pressure and the fear of further riots
while he lived in London. Significantly, he had to obtain official
notice that he was not evading arrest before he could emigrate to the
United States in 1794 where he hoped to find freedom and tolerance in
the new world. Priestley lived in Pennsylvania until his death in 1804
in a house built in Northumberland and shared with his son Joseph and
his family. Mary Priestley and their son Harry both died during this
time, and Priestley's health slowly deteriorated. Priestley preached
only occasionally in the following years but published much and
continued to write until the day of his death, February 6th. That
evening, although very ill, Priestley finished dictating some changes
to some pamphlets. When these were complete he said "That is right; I
have done now" and died just hours later (Autobiography 139).
d. Natural Philosophy
As a young teacher and minister in Nantwich, Priestley had acquired
the basic apparatus needed for natural philosophy: an air pump and
electrical machine used in lessons with the older pupils. As a tutor
at Warrington, recently married, settled and part of a stimulating
community, Priestley allowed his interest in natural philosophy to
flourish. After moving to Leeds Priestley continued to experiment
with electricity and researched optics. Turning to pneumatic chemistry
he published his Directions for Impregnating Water with Fixed Air in
1772. The same year Priestley's Observations on Different Kinds of
Air was published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society. The paper was significant—Priestley had isolated nitric
oxide, anhydrous hydrochloride and acid gases. It also introduced the
ideas of eudiometry and photosynthesis. In 1773 Priestley won the
Copley medal from the Royal Society.
Priestley used the resources provided by Shelburne at Calne to
continue his experiments in pneumatic chemistry and published many of
his findings. He isolated samples of what we would now call ammonia
gas, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and most notably
oxygen. He also continued to investigate refraction, heat expansion,
sound transmission of gases and photosynthesis. Priestley's scientific
interests also found an outlet in Birmingham through his membership of
the Lunar Society. Here he met many well-known scientists and
businessmen including Erasmus Darwin, Josiah Wedgwood, Matthew Boulton
and James Watt. Priestley also entered into a debate with Antoine
Lavoisier about how best to interpret his experiments identifying
oxygen. He built a new laboratory and published more of his findings
while living in the United States. Until his dying day, he stubbornly
stuck to his phlogiston theory despite convincing arguments in favor
of Lavoisier.
e. Portrayal, Reception and Legacy
Priestley was a man with a great deal to say but found it a struggle
to speak and make himself understood. He stammered from early
childhood, yet he followed a career demanding effective communication.
His speech impediment caused him significant distress at school and at
Daventry and contributed to his rejection at Needham where, he tells
us, he found preaching "very painful" (Autobiography 80).
Misunderstanding and miscommunication seem to be significant themes in
Priestley's life. The ideas that he saw as reasonable and pleasing to
God were received as dangerously revolutionary both in politics and
theology. Although he regarded himself as a rational advocate of truth
who wrote according to the respectable precepts of the doctrine of
candor, his adversaries called him arrogant and incendiary. He
advocated political, religious and intellectual freedom and the
pursuit of truth through unfettered debate, yet he could be stubborn
and uncompromising and believed in absolute truth. This led him into
heated controversy and acrimonious debate despite his insistence that
he simply wanted a frank exchange of opinions. Priestley was portrayed
by his enemies as a dangerous radical with a political and religious
philosophy that would undermine the moral and social order. In print
and in cartoon Priestley was "gunpowder Joe," an explosive enemy of
church authority, the truth of revealed religion and the political
status quo.
2. Theology
We find a set of sophisticated religious and theological beliefs at
the very heart of Priestley's intellectual and moral life, his career
and politics, his social networks, behavior and sentiments. To
understand Priestley's faith is to understand the central motivation
for the majority of his published works.
a. Method
Priestley's most striking contribution to theological debate was his
approach to the study of Christian scripture. He was one of a small
group of Unitarian thinkers who devised a new translation of the Bible
with the distinguishing feature that it should be in a state of
continual improvement. Priestley had confidence in the project because
he held that although truth itself was absolute and uniform, human
attainment of truth was a fluid and gradual process. Knowledge must
not be allowed to stagnate, and there was much work still to be done.
At the heart of this slow progression toward absolute truth was
Priestley's belief that all humanity could reach the perfect
understanding attained by Christ.
Priestley argues that reason is a tool for the use of all humankind
and that application of reason alone is enough to convince us of the
existence of a unified, benevolent, creator God. The empirical
evidences of natural religion and the precepts of rationality are
God-given resources provided in order for us to understand the deity
as a self-comprehending, omnipresent and omniscient being. However,
other essential knowledge is not available through reason and natural
religion alone. Revelation is also needed in order to teach us
important lessons such as the proper use of prayer and other teachings
of Jesus.
Priestley approached scriptural study extremely seriously because of
the essential role of revealed religion. He tells us that rational
evaluation of the Bible is the only way in which truth can be
attained. He denounced all the mystery and irrationality of orthodox
theology, denying the Trinity and the Atonement as examples of such
muddled and disordered thought. Without mystery and without the need
for unfounded faith the individual was free to interpret scripture by
the light of reason. Only rational thought, good education and
complete liberty of conscience were needed for understanding the words
of revealed law in their plainest sense and as a coherent whole. This
was open to all individuals who possessed the powers of reason and
thus religious authority and the need for a clergy–seen by him as
distant and elite–were undermined in one sweep.
Priestley also developed a critical method in his approach to
scripture based on careful linguistic and historical study. He
emphasized the highly figurative nature of the scriptures and argued
that many misunderstandings were merely verbal, the result of taking
ancient languages out of their cultural context. Furthermore,
Priestley studied history in order to explain the ways in which
Christianity had become corrupted over time as misunderstandings crept
in, disfiguring the pure and simple beliefs of the early church.
b. Principal Ideas
i. Unitarianism
Application of his theological methods allowed Priestley to develop a
set of religious beliefs which he regarded as highly rational and as
close as possible to the pure Christianity of the early church.
Already denying the Trinity, Priestley left Daventry Academy an Arian
and tells us that it was after reading Nathaniel Lardner's Letter on
the Logos of1759that he adopted the Unitarian creed he held for most
of his adult life. Priestley argued that the notion of the Trinity is
an essentially irrational tenet of an unquestioning faith. It requires
a willingness to replace individual reason with trust in the teaching
of church authorities whose power is perpetuated by ideas shrouded in
superstition and mystery. He compared this belief to the simple idea
of a unified God, a rational truth present in both natural and
revealed religion. His historical work allowed Priestley to argue that
the early Christians and Church Fathers were Unitarian and that belief
in the Trinity was a corruption that had crept into scripture over the
centuries. The Trinity slowly developed over time as gentile and
heathen beliefs infiltrated simple "pristine" understanding of the
unlearned. The most important message of the Old Testament, argues
Priestley, is that God is unified and indivisible. In the New
Testament, while the role of Jesus is essential, the Father is
entirely exclusive of the Son. He tells us that when scripture appears
to say that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are equally divine,
the language is highly figurative and should not be read literally.
This leaves Jesus as wholly human and the powers he possessed as those
granted by God to an ordinary man. Christ has the power for
resurrection and ascension, but he is not God, according to Priestley.
He is not divine and should not be worshipped, despite being an object
of our utmost respect.
ii. The Atonement
Priestley undermined the divinity of Jesus and in doing so deeply
altered the whole interpretation of his death and resurrection.
Priestley insisted that the death of Jesus was only a sacrifice in the
figurative sense. His death was not a means by which the wrath of God
had been diverted, and his sacrifice was not an atonement for sin.
Jesus was not a divine mediator between God and humanity; he was a
savior simply because his life was a demonstration of perfect moral
duty and the truth of physical resurrection.
iii. Predestination
Priestley argued that the Calvinist notion of predestination was
irrational and had only a flimsy basis in scripture. Arguing from
utilitarian premises, Priestley writes that God's manifest plan is to
produce the greatest happiness for his people; a system which condemns
many to eternal torment and therefore produces exceptional misery
cannot be part of this plan. Priestley was drawn to the idea of
universal salvation, the only system to ensure the greatest happiness.
He acknowledged the role of punishment as an important part of divine
justice and even wrote that it should be long and severe in order to
be effective. However, he could not accept that finite humans would be
punished infinitely.
iv. Original Sin and Grace
The notion of grace that was prevalent among the clergy and orthodox
believers was based on the idea of original sin pardoned by the death
of Christ, a sacrifice for the sake of fallen humankind. Instead of
believing in this idea of innate sinfulness and supernatural
reconciliation, Priestley held that everyone had the potential to
attain the perfect moral knowledge that Jesus had exemplified and
taught. Part of this potential for perfection, writes Priestley, is
that God has given us moral laws that we are perfectly capable of
following. Although he concedes that everyday fallible humans are
unlikely to be morally perfect, he contends that we can choose to lead
a life pleasing to God and make constant effort to repent and change
our behavior. He places this at the center of Christian life, rather
than the emotional evangelical faith, the Calvinist "experience" or
the fallacy of the death bed conversion. He tells us that it is not
arrogance or pride which allows us to dismiss the idea of original sin
and believe that all humankind can do what God tells us. It is simply
the power that God has given to all of us. The idea that we are
justified by faith or predestination diminishes this power that every
person has to do the will of God.
v. The Soul
The metaphysical basis for Priestley's disavowal of the existence of
the soul is explored in the section of this article on "Matter and
Spirit." Priestley combined exploration of the nature of matter with
scriptural study to argue for the unity of body and spirit, insisting
on the biblical basis for a belief in physical resurrection. He writes
that there is no scriptural basis for a split between body and soul.
Not only is belief in the soul unreasonable based on the evidence
around us, writes Priestley, it is also a belief which careful
historical exploration shows was an idolatrous heathen tenet that
crept into Christianity and slowly corrupted it.
vi. The Millennium
Priestley was a fervent millenarian, trusting in biblical prophecy and
waiting for the second coming of Christ. He read widely on the
millennium and placed himself within a well established scholarly
tradition of millenarian study. Priestley was hopeful that he was
living in the "last days" before the foretold return of Christ.
Reading Daniel and Revelation, Priestley believed that the return of
the Jews to their homeland would precede the glorious second coming
and waited eagerly for such an event. He carefully watched worldwide
political developments for signs that Christ's rule on earth was soon
to begin, and it is likely that looking for such evidence that the
bible contained absolute truths and tangible proofs of the existence
of the deity appealed to Priestley's scientific mindset. The American
Revolution seemed a good sign and his optimism intensified after the
French Revolution and the Birmingham riots. At the end of his life
Priestley became increasingly preoccupied with the millennium, putting
a great deal of hope in the imminent arrival of Christ and studying
scriptural prophecy in great detail.
c. Reactions and Criticisms
For Priestley there was an order, even a beauty, which stemmed from
the process of obtaining truth through reason, and in the pure,
rational and simple truth that this process revealed. Although his
enemies called him "gunpowder Joe," his grains of gunpowder were no
more than a series of necessarilyrelated ideas which, when marshaled
by strict reason and controlled by rational thought, would always have
the same outcome. However, to some of Priestley's Anglican opponents
his reason-driven truth was subversive and seditious. He was accused
of demolishing the foundations of revealed truth and, in consequence,
of morality. They saw moral upheaval where Priestley saw rationality
and order.
Contemporary reactions to Priestley's theological and religious works
often involved in-depth scriptural analysis. This kind of discussion
has been seen as less relevant today. Some secondary comment has
focused on the interaction between Priestley's theological position
and his political beliefs, often identifying interesting conceptual
links. For example, J.C.D. Clark stated that theological heterodoxy
and radicalism were 'conceptually basic' (281). A.M.C. Waterman has
added to the debate, arguing that although challenging the Trinity is
enough to undermine the principle of subordination in church and
society, there is no necessary link between dissent and subversive
politics (Haakonssen 214). Other comment has examined Priestley's
belief in miracles and biblical prophecy in light of his highly
rational stance. For example, Martin Fitzpatrick asks us to consider
whether Priestley's obsession with apocalyptic texts in his later life
was the sign of an unbalanced mind (Fitzpatrick 1991 106). However,
Clark-Garrett argues that, far from a weakness or drift in old age,
Priestley's millenarian speculations were consistent with his overall
outlook. His attention focused by the French Revolution, Priestley was
simply using his scientific method to observe the unfolding patterns
of Providence, and the fulfilment of prophecy was a key part of this
search for facts and evidence to bolster his rational religion (53).
3. Politics and Political Philosophy
a. Principal Ideas
At the heart of Priestley's political philosophy lie the twin themes
of progress and perfectibility. His work is shot-through with an
optimism that arises from his unswerving belief in progress and a
perfect future state. Priestley's work rests on an assumption that
humankind will be better off in the future than it is at present and
that society in the present is already more perfect than life in the
past. Unlike brute animals who continue in the same way without
change, human society is constantly in a state of development, change
and improvement. He tells us of the happiness he experiences because
of the realization that whatever the world was like at the beginning
the end will be perfect and "paradisiacal." Importantly, mankind's
unbounded potential for future development requires good government,
and, going full circle, good government here means government
conducive to progress.
Priestley conjectures a social contract to illustrate his ideas on
liberty. He tells us of a group of unconnected individuals who lead
separate lives. They are exposed to many wrongs and have few
advantages. If the people voluntarily submit to join forces as part of
a group they resign some of their natural liberty in return for
protection, alliance and other advantages. Some liberty has to be
given up just for the society to function. A large group of people
would need representatives in order to make decisions on behalf of
society and, although this may seem like a sacrifice of liberty, these
men would act purely for the good of society and reflect the
sentiments of the whole body. The only thing that gives them power is
that they are there to act for the public good. Reason and conscience
guide them and the people judge them.
Significantly, Priestley divides "natural" liberty into civil and
political liberty after the contractual agreement. This is a
distinction which Robert E. Schofield says was only commonplace after
Mill and that Priestley felt was necessary for the sake of clarity
(1997 210). Political liberty, Priestley tells us, is the power of
holding or electing public office. It is the "right of magistracy,"
the power of the private opinion made public. Civil liberty is the
power an individual has over their actions and only refers to their
own conduct. It is the right to be exempt from the control of others.
Priestley tells us that when natural liberty is resigned upon entering
into society, it is civil liberty that is relinquished for the sake of
increased political liberty.
Once elaborated, Priestley's articulation of two types of liberty
allows him to place his theory on utilitarian grounds. The good and
happiness of the whole of society is made identical with the good and
happiness of the majority of its members. Happiness, good and progress
become inextricably linked within this theory, as Priestley had
insisted that progress towards perfection is the ultimate goal for
mankind and would result in unbounded happiness. He tells us that
government is required to identify what is most conducive to progress,
and therefore to happiness, and to eradicate barriers and limits to
progress. For example, division of labor is useful and should be
encouraged, as it aids the economy and increases knowledge.
Specialization helps everyone reach their potential and means that the
arts and sciences are likely to flourish. Meanwhile, progress is
hindered by encroachments on civil liberty. Priestley was concerned
that progress would stagnate if education and religion were not left
free to flourish and reach perfection. He wrote against established
religion and against state education, wary of uniformity and
unnecessary authority. He insisted that diversity of opinion was
essential for free debate and ultimate progress and therefore
advocated complete religious liberty and freedom of speech.
b. Priestley and the Law
Although Priestley celebrated freedom and was concerned to limit
government intervention for the sake of individual liberty, he did not
have an antagonistic opinion of the law. Good government plays an
important role within Priestley's philosophy, protecting liberty and
rights but also serving as an active agent of change. Priestley's
political philosophy has a psychological foundation based on the
doctrine of association. Human perfection was to be achieved along
associationist lines. Good government and society was crucial to this
process. Government should explore what circumstances are most
conducive to progress and happiness and apply these principles, even
if this means intervening or limiting freedom to some extent.
c. Toleration and the Pursuit of Truth
Priestley's theology and his status as a dissenter informed much of
his political work. At a political level Priestley was keen to speak
on behalf of rational dissent and outline the political principles
most often associated with Protestant dissent in general. Eager to
inform the Anglican clergy of the political opinions to be found
amongst their dissenting counterparts, Priestley writes that there is
no reason to assume that dissenters are anarchists or republicans. The
vast majority are peaceful, law-abiding and property-owning. He tells
us that dissenters respect human authority in most matters, respect
the government and support the Hanoverian succession. However, they do
not recognize human authority in religion, seeing no spiritual or
scriptural reason for church authority or established religion. The
church has no business in civil government, and one of the many
reforms required was a full separation of church and state, as well as
a purging of other popish ways still left within the Church of
England.
At a philosophical level, Priestley's demands for religious liberty
were often for utilitarian reasons, recognizing the need for liberty
in order to foster truth and aid progress. He was skilled in
illustrating these abstract arguments with numerous historical
examples to consolidate his case. Priestley did believe firmly in the
absolute nature of divine truth, but he argued for full toleration for
dissenters, Catholics and even atheists. This was because at the root
of his call for toleration was a powerful conviction that to uncover
divine truth should be the ultimate aim of all human endeavors, and
this needed an atmosphere of free and unrestrained debate. Rational
dissent held that truth arose from the application of human reason and
conversely that unnecessary intervention could be extremely harmful.
If laws were in place that stifled free discussion and forced belief
in superstition or falsehood, the cause of truth was left in the dark
d. Reactions and Criticisms
Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government went swiftly
through two editions and continued to be published throughout the
nineteenth century. Clearly influential at the time, the work also had
significant long-term impact. Jeremy Bentham acknowledged the Essay as
the inspiration for his utilitarian "greatest happiness" principle.
Although Bentham's famous words do not appear anywhere in the work of
Priestley, it is fair to say that this is a significant legacy.
However, in his own time, Priestley's work was met with criticism and
attack. Priestley backed the campaign for the repeal of the test and
corporation acts, and this provoked a huge conservative backlash
fuelled in part by heightened reactionary fears following the French
revolution. In this heated atmosphere, accusations of sedition and
treason were common currency, and Priestley came under serious
criticism for his political and theological views. Priestley's critics
entangled religion and politics and made little attempt to identify
Priestley's own first principles. Priestley was accused of attempting
to undermine the authority of the church and the government. His
political philosophy seemed dangerously egalitarian and his insistence
on continual progress was a dangerous threat to the old order.
Priestley's insistence on the importance of unfettered individual
reason had dangerous consequences. His enemies explicitly stated that
Priestley's concern for the truth had inverted the order of things.
Priestley had destroyed the necessity for a separate Clergy and
attacked the sacredness of their profession. By questioning the need
for obedience and asserting the authority of the individual, it seemed
to nervous minds that he had inverted the whole social hierarchy.
One way this division has manifested itself is in the interesting
relationship between natural law and utility as it appears in
Priestley's political philosophy. For example, both Margaret Canovan
and Robert Schofield comment on the relationship as it appears in
Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government (Canovan 1984,
Schofield 1997 209). Schofield suggests that Priestley's brand of
utilitarianism is significantly less relativist than Bentham's. While
Bentham used the happiness principle as the only guiding force of
government, Priestley never doubted that there was a perfect way of
governing and that it was towards this that mankind should progress.
Canovan also questions the idea that Priestley was a proto-Benthamite.
She says that the underlying assumptions of the two men are
significantly different. Priestley firmly believed in the existence of
a benign and all powerful God who presided over a well-ordered and
structured universe. So it was in this realm of natural law that
Priestley's utilitarianism was supposed to operate. Priestley believed
in the existence of an objective moral order so while happiness for
Bentham could be whatever society or any individual decided it should
be, happiness for Priestley was universal, fixed and could be
evaluated in moral terms. While Bentham constructed a moral order from
utilitarian grounds, Priestley simply used the principle in order to
evaluate and discern moral laws. This places Priestley firmly in the
natural law tradition. It allows him to use the language of rights as
part of his political philosophy without compromising his
utilitarianism.
The real extent of Priestley's liberalism is debated in a variety of
different ways in the secondary literature. For example, Martin
Fitzpatrick has highlighted that, while Priestley supported toleration
whole-heartedly, this was because of his conviction that absolute
truth would eventually prevail, rather than the pluralistic outlook of
Richard Price (1982 18-23). Margaret Canovan has pointed out that,
although Priestley is rightly remembered as a liberal, he often
celebrated a paternalistic view of class relations (1983). Celebrating
the bourgeois station, he stressed the importance of middle class
charity to the poor, which would encourage their ambition and create
useful social bonds. He also wrote that inequalities were part of
God's plan for the present, despite his general support for social
mobility. Isaac Kramnick has also pointed out this 'ominous' side to
Priestley's liberalism, examining the new layers of authority
Priestley was prepared to impose on society in the name of progress
and reform. Kramnick argues that the scientifically minded Priestley
viewed the state as a kind of laboratory where intervention was
required to perfect humankind, and so his thought is shot-through with
a regard for authority and discipline (11, 20-22).
4. Association of Ideas
a. Principal Ideas
The principle of association states that ideas are generated from
external sensations. Complex ideas are made up of simple ideas. These
complex ideas are formed through repeated juxtaposition or
"association" over time. This means that ideas become united in the
mind so that one idea will be invariably followed by the other.
Hartley tells us that this principle has not escaped the notice of
writers both ancient and modern but that it was John Locke who affixed
the word "association" to the theory. Locke had argued that ideas are
not innate but derived from experience. In mechanistic terms he
explained the ways in which simple ideas become associated in
experience and therefore build up complex ideas. Locke had posited a
mind blank before experience of sense impressions had made their mark.
Hartley picked up this idea and added to it a physiological basis for
the associationist theory, an idea that it was vibrations acting on
the brain that laid down ideas and that when two vibrations occurred
simultaneously over time they become associated in the mind. Hartley
used Locke's epistemology but removed Locke's emphasis on reflection
as a means to knowledge. Locke had written that all knowledge is based
on sensation and then reflection. Hartley simply said that all types
of ideas were derived from sensation. Priestley followed Hartley and
dropped Locke's need for reflection as a distinct source of knowledge.
Priestley also read the Rev. John Gay who had used Locke's
associationist principle to argue against the innatist theory of
morals of Francis Hutcheson. Gay had argued that morality and the
passions were acquired through experience; as we attempt to avoid pain
and seek pleasure our morals and passions are formed.
Enjoying debate and finding creativity in opposition, Priestley
expounded his most coherent theory of association as an attack on the
notion that innate common sense can stand above reason when it comes
to religious belief. Published in 1774 Priestley's Examination of Dr.
Reid's Inquiry…Dr. Beattie's Essay…and Dr. Oswald's Appeal is a harsh
and rigorous refutation of common sense in favor of association. Like
Hartley, Priestley was keen to make association the sole basis of
human understanding. Hobbes had written of association as one means
that certain ideas become linked by resemblance or causality. In
contrast to Hobbes, Locke was more interested in unnaturally
associated ideas, or when two things that have nothing in common end
up united. However, for Priestley association was the foundation and
excluded all other epistemological sources. This certainly ruled out
what he took to be Reid's theory, that sensations are made into ideas
by innate principles implanted by God, and it excluded the argument
that sensations act on the passive matter of the brain and that innate
instincts act to turn them into knowledge. Priestley writes that
living is about experience. That something seems instinctive does not
mean that it has not derived ultimately from external experience.
b. Links to Other Ideas
Associationism allowed Priestley to identify the general laws of human
nature he was looking for and is therefore the basis for much of his
metaphysical, educational and political writing, as well as informing
his theology. For example, Priestley's work on the nature of matter
enabled him to add a physiological basis to the doctrine of
association. Once association was understood physiologically Priestley
was able to argue against Cartesian dualism, against the existence of
an immaterial soul, and in favor of the material unity of body and
mind. In his political and educational philosophy the doctrine of
association furnished Priestley with a means by which circumstances
could be understood to shape the intellectual and moral life of
individuals. This allows for progress in society and in the
acquisition of knowledge because it allows for controlled change
through experience. It gives teachers and legislators the power to
shape others through altering circumstances or environment.
Association consolidated Priestley's determinist doctrine of
philosophical necessity as it allowed all actions to be traced back to
motives and ideas formed entirely from experience and therefore
potentially determined by Providence. Finally, association also
appears in Priestley's theology. In the Institutes of Natural and
Revealed Religion (1772) Priestley explains that revealed religion has
followed the same pattern historically as an individual does when
learning through association. The development from the Old Testament
to the New is like the process of acquiring knowledge of pain and
difficulty but also love of god and the pleasures of life as an
individual.
c. Reactions and Criticisms
Priestley's devotion to the doctrine of association was one of the
less controversial aspects of his thought. The system was already part
of a respected tradition and Priestley's ideas were not especially
innovative or shocking. However, the polemic feel of his attacks on
Reid, Beattie and Oswald did provoke some sharp replies and Priestley
actually issued an apology for the tone he had struck. Robert E.
Schofield has argued that Priestley played a crucial role in
maintaining Hartley's ideas, especially among the utilitarians, and
therefore had an important influence on the nineteenth century. While
late nineteenth-century associationist psychology is often regarded as
the precursor to the behaviorism of the twentieth century, studying
Priestley allows us to locate the ideas considerably further back
(2004 52).
5. Matter and Spirit
a. Principal Ideas
Priestley wanted to elucidate a physiological theory to refute his
interpretation of the Scottish "common sense" system of separate
instinctive perceptions. Priestley writes that all sensations are the
same. They arise from experience as vibrations in the brain. Priestley
argued that this system offered a simplicity that the theory of
separate and original instincts could not. An outside stimulus causes
the brain to vibrate. For example, "seeing" is actually the result of
vibrations of the optic nerve caused by light. Vibrations consisted of
tiny movements of small particle, of the nerves and then of the brain.
These movements were caused by the impressions made by external
objects on any of the five senses.
Priestley tells us that all matter vibrates and that all matter can
transmit these vibrations to our brains. Following Hartley, Priestley
tells us that once the brain has been made to vibrate a trace of that
vibration is left behind. Hartley calls this a "vibratiuncle."
Although Priestley cuts down on such technical terms the theory is the
same. A "vibratiuncle" is laid down as a tendency for the brain to
vibrate the same way again. If the initial vibration was strong or
intense, then so too will be the vibratiuncle. If the vibration is
weak or small, then the vibratiuncle too is weaker. If the vibration
occurs many times, this has the same affect, strengthening the trace
and increasing the tendency to vibrate. When two vibrations occur
together they act on each other or modify each other so that, as they
occur repeatedly together, they become associated in the brain. This
association means that when one occurs the other will also occur.
Vibrations can build up sets of vibratriuncles so that if only one
vibrates, the others in the system will vibrate too. One occurrence
triggers all of them.
This is the physiological basis of the associationist doctrine. It
explains how sensations become ideas and how simple ideas can build up
into complex ones through this process. While Hartley did acknowledge
the parallel process between ideas and physiological vibrations, he
was keen to leave room in his theory for the existence of an
immaterial soul. Priestley lacked his caution and was driven to
question the means by which a non-physical substance could act upon a
physical one. While Hartley had left this a mystery and posited an
"elementary substance" that was neither matter nor spirit but linked
them both, Priestley's answer was to abandon any kind of dualism at
all. He writes that our understanding is troubled simply because of
the way in which matter appears to us. Superficially it seems solid
and inert. However, Priestley tells us, experiments reveal that this
is not the case. Matter is far from solid or impenetrable, it is made
up of atoms and particles and these are subject to forces of
attraction and repulsion depending on their arrangement. It is these
forces that make matter seem solid. Matter had been assumed to be
incapable of thought or perception because it was solid and not
affected by outside forces. It was seen as inert, sluggish even, and
therefore incompatible with the capacity for sensation. Now that this
assumption had been undermined, it remained entirely possible that
matter could form the basis for our mind and spirit as well as
physical being.
When the matter of the brain was subject to vibrations and
vibratriuncles, it was engaged in thought. Priestley does not tell us
how vibrations become ideas. He admitted that, although he did not
know how material substances think over and above this basic
supposition, he argued that the possibility remained and that this
scenario seemed more likely than the existence of separate and
immaterial soul. The distinction between matter and spirit was
therefore unnecessary and untrue. Priestley writes that his
materialism leaves fewer questions unanswered than the notion of a
soul. It prevents the need for speculation about how and why the soul
leaves the body and how it may return, what happens to the soul before
resurrection and how a soul comes to choose a certain body to start
with. Priestley claimed he had resolved the problems of Cartesian
dualism and the tricky distinction that had corrupted Christianity. He
had redefined the nature of matter and made the composition of the
body single and uniform.
b. Priestley, Newton and Boscovitch
Priestley's regard for Newtonian theory is communicated strongly in
his works on matter and spirit. Robert E. Schofield has explained the
ways in which Priestley's career can be seen as dedicated to the
Newtonian idea of matter (1964 291-294). At the end of principia
mathematica,IsaacNewton gives us a physical explanation for the
association of ideas. Unlike John Locke, who was wary of looking for a
physical basis of his idea of association, Newton used a theory of
vibrations to explain how perception and memory are formed. Hartley
then relied on Newton's idea of an elastic ether and the possibility
for vibrating motions to occur within it. In the same way, it was
Newtonian ideas about matter, that "solids" retain an impression when
vibrations or forces act upon them, that allowed Priestley to explain
the lasting affect of vibrations on the matter of the brain.
Furthermore, it was Newton who had suggested that objects in the world
cause light sensations which vibrate the optic nerve and allow us to
"see," and it was a Newtonian desire to uncover simple, universal laws
of explanation that linked Priestley's ideas on association and matter
and spirit so neatly.
c. Theology
It is impossible to separate Priestley's metaphysical opinions about
matter and spirit from his theology. His speculations on the nature of
matter provided Priestley with scientific and physiological evidence
to deny the existence of the soul. Some thinkers insisted that matter
was inert and animated only by a God-given soul. Priestley's matter
was different. It was not inert. Matter was complex and active. It was
possible for the brain to be wholly material and also to vibrate and
therefore to "think" rather than a passive vehicle moved by an
immaterial soul. When Priestley examined the atheism of Baron
d'Holbach he stated that it was one of the most convincing arguments
he had come across. This was because d'Holbach shared some of his
ideas on the nature of matter. However, d'Holbach held that forces of
attraction and repulsion, gravity and electricity were simply the
"energy of nature." Priestley said that this was another name for God,
an energy which should be acknowledged as having intelligence and
design. His continued faith meant that Priestley never relinquished
scriptural study and examined the Bible in relation to his
understanding of matter.
Priestley's reading of scripture convinced him that the idea of soul
was actually a "corruption" of Christianity and that resurrection,
when it occurred, was of a physical and not a spiritual nature. He
attacked the dualism of Descartes but argued that the idea of an
immaterial mind and soul was actually of ancient pagan origin, having
crept into Christian belief and undermined "monist" Hebrew doctrines.
His opinion on the material nature of the soul allowed him to explain
the resurrection of matter and spirit as a single, material event.
Priestley argues from scripture alongside his exploration of matter.
He writes that the idea of the soul only appears in some badly
interpreted and unconnected passages of the bible and that, if such
duality had actually been part of God's design, it would have been
revealed with clarity. Priestley insisted that removing this
corruption from our understanding of scripture would strengthen the
foundations of revealed religion and lead to stronger, rational,
belief. While the notion of the soul had debased the whole idea of
resurrection, Priestley believed his materialist ideas explained the
process by which the body would die and decompose, only to be
recomposed and physically restored to immortality through the power of
the divine.
d. Reactions and Criticisms
Robert E. Schofield has shown evidence that Michael Faraday had read
Priestley and claims that British scientists showed so much interest
in Boscovichian atomism because Priestley had advocated his ideas
(2004 71-72). Boscovich's own reaction was more typical. He was
absolutely furious that Priestley had reduced his ideas to
materialism. Other commentators were similarly outraged. Priestley's
edition of Hartley came under severe criticism and his further
publications on the subject heightened the controversy. Materialism
was feared by many; it could easily slip into atheism. The theological
speculations that accompanied Priestley's metaphysics were regarded
with suspicion and met with outright anger.
Joseph Berington, a Roman Catholic, and the Anglican Bishop Samuel
Horsley both penned fierce refutations of Priestley's works on the
nature of matter and spirit. His ideas provoked vitriol from a wide
variety of believers. A respectful debate with Richard Price reveals
the extent to which Priestley's ideas were a challenge even to other
rational dissenters. Price refused to agree that matter was not inert.
For him, matter was solid and could not be imbued with sensation or
perception. Matter was subject to forces such as gravity but only
because God had added these properties onto matter; they were not
innate. Price argued strongly in favor of the existence of the soul.
He said that although he did not see the body as something corrupt and
something that trapped the soul, he did think that there was an
immaterial part of the body and that this needed a link to the
physical body in order to exercise certain powers. He saw two separate
substances connected and dependent but distinct. Priestley's
engagement with such a diverse selection of critics served to ensure
that his views on matter and spirit would become infamous and added to
his reputation as an idiosyncratic, controversial and even dangerous
figure.
6. Philosophical Necessity
a. Principal Ideas
Priestley writes that he published his principle work on philosophical
necessity out of concern for the ambiguous definitions of liberty and
necessity. He tightened the meaning of these words and argued that,
under the system of philosophical necessity, everyone is free;
everyone is entirely at liberty to do anything they will as long as
there are no external constraints. So all people can think whatever
they chose and act however they chose. However, everyone is also
operating under divine necessity. Everyone is bound by causal laws
fixed by God and directed by him for the ultimate good of all
humanity. This means that there is no way that two different events,
decisions or acts can occur when the circumstances are exactly
identical. Provided the circumstances are identical, there is only one
possible outcome. This removes any possibility for random occurrences
and eliminates all chance. No room is left for the possibility of
variation. Everything becomes part of an entirely determined chain of
causes and effects.
Priestley asserts that when most people examine their views on free
will, they will see that those ideas actually fit better into his
system of philosophical necessity than they immediately realize. Once
liberty and necessity are properly understood, he writes, they are
actually compatible with each other. It is chance or randomness that
is incompatible with freedom or voluntary action. Priestley puts it in
terms of motives for acting. He says that throughout nature there are
fixed, unalterable laws. David Hume had said that every cause and
effect is just a conjunction; the connection could be arbitrary. The
cause and effect may appear to be linked, but there is no way of
knowing for sure that they are. Priestley, on the other hand, was keen
to refute Hume. He said there is an invariable connection between
cause and effect. Furthermore, in the case of human choice and action,
the cause is often a motive. If one has a state of mind and then acts,
the same action will occur again if the state of mind is unaltered.
The choice made is voluntary, but the motives that led to that choice
form part of an unbroken necessary chain of causes and events.
Priestley also discusses the role of God within this system in more
detail. He tells us that God knows everything, but he would not be
able to foresee contingent events–this alone eradicates the
possibility of contingency and consolidates Priestley's determinist
position. Aware of the controversial conclusions of this position,
Priestley admits that this means that God is the author of sin.
However, as God determines everything for the ultimate good, vice and
bad behavior are in fact part of a greater divine plan to bring
humankind to perfection. Priestley was careful to distinguish this
system of necessity from the predestination of Calvinism. Calvinists
held that God uses supernatural methods in order to bring about change
and chooses an elect few for salvation. Priestley's God worked
naturally through a string of necessary causes and effects only, and
although sinners would be punished, Providence did not allow for
eternal damnation.
Priestley's ideas on determinism and providence were not new. He cites
Hobbes and Hartley as major influences, as well as drawing from Locke
and Hume. What is more interesting here is the extent to which these
ideas were part of a personal journey for Priestley. He tells us that
it is his happiness to find a resolution to his anxieties that
motivated him to publish on the subject. The security and satisfaction
that comes from contemplating every event as part of the divine plan
of Providence gave Priestley his characteristic optimism and
self-assurance. It was this that he was keen to make known to the
public.
b. Links to Other Ideas
Philosophical necessity works well with Priestley's idea of matter.
Priestley had insisted that the human body and spirit were both
physical. As matter is subject to the universal or unchanging laws of
nature, it follows that no decision in the mind or act in the body can
be random or spontaneous.
Philosophical necessity and the association of ideas are also closely
related. Priestley acknowledged the importance of human will and the
sense that this was free. Association explained how the will was
created. All motives were part of a causal chain of associated ideas.
Basil Willey has argued that it is the associationist foundation of
philosophical necessity that means it promotes moral behavior
(171-174). Priestley posited a universe created by God in which vice
is less attractive than virtue in terms of the rewards it brings.
Although physical pleasure and sin bring short term benefits, it is
more compelling in the long term to follow a virtuous path. According
to his system, it is possible for people to change their motives and
their circumstances and therefore to alter their behavior for the
positive. This suffuses the necessarian doctrine with human agency. It
means that humankind cannot simply sit back and let Providence take
its course. We may be instruments of God, but in understanding that
our own motives and choices are part of a chain of cause and effect,
we can act to alter them and become more virtuous. Although all events
are determined and God is the ultimate author of sin, on a day-to-day
level we have freedom to shun vice and chose virtue. Unlike God,
humankind does not have the power to use sin and wrongdoing for the
sake of good, and therefore we must chose to live virtuous lives.
Finally, understanding philosophical necessity is important in order
to get to grips with Priestley's notions of reward and punishment.
Priestley spends a lot of time writing about the ways in which
necessity is the only system that allows punishment to make rational
sense. A person acts because of a set of motives, these are caused by
circumstances. Therefore circumstances and motives can be altered.
There is no reason to punish behavior is if it not caused and not
based on a rational intention
c. Reactions and Criticisms
Priestley entered into a number of debates concerning his determinism
including a long and respectful debate with Richard Price. Price
argued that free-will was essential in order to ensure that we take
responsibility for our choices and actions before God. He added that a
determined system was less of an achievement of creation than the
reality of human freedom God had granted. Priestley was aware of the
accusation that the system of philosophical necessity removed any
imperative towards moral behavior. Although he tried to address this
by arguing that on an everyday level all people can chose to act or
not to act. He used his associationist theory to explain that people
could actively change their circumstances in order to alter their
motives over time. Most contemporary and modern commentators have
pointed out that this has the feeling of a clever paradox. Robert E.
Schofield calls it "sophistry" and Basil Willey has pointed out that
the liberty granted to humankind under Priestley's system of
philosophical necessity is free will under a different name (Willey
171-174, Schofield 2004 79).
7. Philosophy of Education, History and Linguistics
a. Principal Ideas
In his educational works, Priestley tells us that the education
provided at dissenting academies and universities is often ill-suited
to the young men in attendance. The curriculum provided did not
prepare them for a civil and active life. He emphasized that the
traditional subjects, such as philosophy, mathematics and logic, were
important but could not alone fit a young mind for work in anything
but the clergy and learned professions. Instead he wanted to educate a
generation that was destined for a life of commerce and for
magistrates, lawyers, powerful merchants, statesmen and even the
landed. The broad liberal education that Priestley recommended was to
turn out useful liberal minds from among the middle classes and
included modern history, law, economics and the arts. He also turned
his attention to women, refuting the notion that they were
intellectually inferior and arguing that many women would need to
subsist alone and should be given the tools to do so. Women were moral
creatures just like men, and as education was the basis of morality
their exclusion was counter to Priestley's hopes of progress and
perfection. Priestley's attitude to the education of the poor was less
enthusiastic. His liberalism meant that he stood against state
education but did not extend his interest in a more positive
direction.
Priestley's educational philosophy was based on his metaphysics. It is
a fine example of the ways in which he brought associationism,
materialism and philosophical necessity together in practical ways.
Priestley thought that all knowledge, intellect, perception and memory
were acquired through sensory experience and that simple ideas
combined into complex ideas through association. This mechanism was
entirely material and therefore based on necessary causal laws which
could be identified and manipulated. It was important because any two
ideas could be associated together to control the environment of
children so that they were exposed to the most useful and virtuous
associations. Denying any chance that knowledge or morality is innate
put extra emphasis on the importance of environment, especially when
minds were young and malleable and the potential for progress and
perfection was at its peak. Priestley's optimism now had a practical
outlet. It was up to the educator, whose actions had a sole and
necessary effect on children, to prepare the next generation for
virtue and improvement that could be unlimited.
Priestley was careful to prepare a curriculum which would optimize
healthy physical, moral and intellectual development, and this meant
using the theory of association to design learning aids and make
practical recommendations. Association meant that the most useful
learning involved natural discussions and digressions and that
experience rather than theory was always to be more memorable.
Priestley's ideal lessons involved question and answer sessions and
group discussions. Both sides of a controversy were to be understood
and all queries and objections brought to light. Priestley was keen on
the use of mechanical aids in teaching, such as his successful charts
of history and biography. He wanted to convey knowledge in an ordered
and regular manner so that it was easily learned and remembered.
b. History and Language
Priestley made significant contribution to the development of a modern
curriculum. His philosophical work was enriched by his experience as a
teacher. Priestley put together a philosophy of history and a
linguistic theory while preparing lectures for publication. For
Priestley, history was a useful practical tool. It appealed to him
because it could be used to demonstrate God's divine purpose and could
be observed in order to understand political and economic developments
more fully. Priestley writes that history is like the experiments made
by the air pump or electrical machine. It demonstrates the workings of
nature and God and therefore provides the foundations for theoretical
speculation. Like personal experience, history was a swifter teacher
than abstract ideas. It allowed one to assemble the evidences of the
divine plan and unveiled the plans of Providence. History could
increase our understanding of God and the ways in which he used
short-term suffering for the greater good; that which appeared evil
was actually essential for progress and would terminate in the
perfection of humanity.
Priestley hoped that to view history in this way would increase virtue
and piety in the minds of his pupils and infuse all with a sense of
optimism. He also wanted to encourage his students to see history as a
laboratory, where all manner of political systems had been tried and
tested. It provided the data needed for sound political philosophy. A
liberal government, unfettered thought and belief and free trade could
be seen historically to stimulate progress. Furthermore, accurate
study of all aspects of the past, from domestic lives to warfare,
would increase knowledge of humanity and therefore help future
advancements. This meant that Priestley advocated the study of modern
history including arts, language, food, clothing, manners and
sentiments. He extended the number of sources traditionally seen as
relevant to historical study to include material evidence such as
coins, medals, inscriptions, fortifications and town plans.
Alongside history Priestley had a long standing fascination with
linguistics, and over the course of life as a teacher developed a
coherent philosophy of language. He stressed the importance to
teaching language and insisted his student be well educated in the
vernacular. He tells us that English is as vital as Latin, adding that
it is a serious defect in any gentleman not to be able to read and
write well in his own language. Priestley made a number of
contributions to the study of English grammar, and his influence in
the field extended well into the nineteenth century. As part of his
grammatical work, Priestley highlighted the importance of
understanding that language is in a continual process of development
and that the only really useful standard by which to establish rules
of language was to look at custom and usage.
These observations were part of a broader theory of language
development. Priestley tells us that language is human, not a direct
gift from God. It grows up slowly as words gain meaning through
association, first simple words and then more complicated constructs.
It develops slowly and irregularly and its symbols are arbitrary and
often subject to changes of use and meaning. This means that, in order
to translate accurately and fully understand the languages of the
past, careful cultural study is needed in order to furnish us with
enough information to understand meaning and usage. Individual
language acquisition to some extent mirrors this process. Young
children grasp the meaning of words through constant association
between object and word. Furthermore, Priestley tells us that the
association of ideas is important for understanding the impact of
language, especially figurative language, on the mind. Words can
trigger whole strings of associations based on both cultural and
individual experience.
c. Reactions and Criticisms
Priestley's publications on education were generally well received at
the time and ran into many editions. Modern commentators, however,
have highlighted concern that Priestley used his status as a historian
and educator to propagate his Unitarian theology. Arthur Sheps says
that history was often written for "pugnacious and apologetic" reasons
and that being a historian was a way of gaining moral authority.
Priestley gained a historical reputation and was then able to use it
to provide evidence for his scriptural exegesis (Belleguic 149). John
McLachlan goes even further. He sees Priestley as someone whose
religious belief overruled his more rational pursuits. He let a
hopeful optimism in the workings of Providence get in the way of
careful historical thinking (260).
8. References and Further Reading
a. Primary Works
i. Theology
Priestley's first religious publications grew out of his role as a
teacher of youth while employed as a minister at Leeds. In 1767 he
published A Catechism for Children and Young Persons and followed this
in 1772 with A Scripture Catechism, consisting of a Series of
Questions, with References to the Scriptures instead of Answers.
Although these early works were intended to lay down the basics rather
than spark doctrinal controversy, hints of Priestley's unorthodox
views creep through the conventional veneer. In 1772 Priestley
published his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, a long and
detailed exposition of the central beliefs of rational dissent, drawn
from a variety of rational and liberal theologians. Many of
Priestley's works contain a similar emphasis on summarizing and
streamlining the views of other thinkers, such as A Free Address to
Protestant Dissenters on the Subject of the Lord's Supper (1768) and
Considerations on Differences of Opinion among Christians (1769).These
formed part of a plethora of publications answering his already fierce
critics, and Priestley continued to court controversy when he
published An Appeal to the Serious and Candid professors of
Christianity in 1770. Many answers and many replies followed, and the
same opinions were repeated in Familiar Illustration (1772).
In 1768 Priestley established the Theological Repository,a theological
journal with lofty aims to further truth through unfettered and candid
debate. This allowed Priestley to rewrite some of his now familiar
arguments under a variety of pseudonyms, while his long-running series
of Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever gave him space to challenge
the views of those whose faith had been lost through the reading of
modern philosophers. With strong leaning towards historical modes of
arguments and an interest in the history of early Christianity,
Priestley published his 1777 A Harmony of the Evangelists, in
Greek,followed by a version in English in 1780. Other important
historical studies include Priestley's History of the Corruptions of
Christianity,first published in 1782, and An History of Early Opinions
concerning Jesus Christ in 1786. In the 1790s and following his
emigration, Priestley continued to defend his heterodox opinions on
the Trinity with his Defences of Unitarianism series and the 1795
Unitarianism Explained and Defended, and he showed an increasing
interest in biblical prophecy and the impending millennium, for
example in his 1794 The Present State of Europe Compared with Antient
Prophecies.
ii. Politics and Political Philosophy
In 1768 Priestley published his Essay on the First Principles of
Government. Widely read and well regarded, the Essay was Priestley's
first political publication. The following year Priestley published a
pamphlet, The Present State of Liberty in Great Britain and her
colonies, which reiterated many of the concerns grappled with in the
Essay. 1769 also saw the publication of three works dealing with
Protestant dissent, each addressed to liberal dissenters themselves or
intended to inform others about their principles. In 1787 Priestley
again entered political terrain with An Account of a Society for
encouraging the Industrious Poor,in which his liberal individualism
was more than obvious. Many of Priestley's political publications are
evidence of the close link between his politics and theology. In 1769
he published Considerations on Church Authority, A View of the
Principles and Conduct of Protestant Dissenters and A Free Address to
Protestant Dissenters as such,all of which highlight the influence of
Priestley's theology on his political philosophy. Priestley also wrote
on religious liberty in An Address to Protestant Dissenters… on the
Approaching Election of Members of Parliament and overviewed current
arguments in favor of toleration for his patron Lord Shelburne in
1773. In 1780 Priestley controversially came out in favor of
toleration for Roman Catholics, and again stirred up trouble a decade
later by entering the vitriolic debate on the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, with letters to Pitt and Burke and a defense of his
opinions addressed to the people of Birmingham.
iii. Association of Ideas
We first encounter Priestley's associationist opinions in his
Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, which he began writing
while still at Daventry and published in three volumes between 1772
and 1774. The Institutes and a number of later publications on the
same topicinclude an attack on the principles of the common sense
philosophy of Oswald, Reid and Beattie. The theme is continued in
Priestley's edition of Hartley's Observations on Man in 1775, where
Priestley cut out much of Hartley's work on physiology and theology in
order to concentrate solely on expounding the doctrine of
associationism.
iv. Matter and Spirit
David Hartley had vigorously denied accusations of materialism, but
Priestley's own monist views emerged first in his edition of Hartley's
Observations on Man in 1775. Although he removed some of Hartley's
physiological exploration and theological concerns, Priestley appended
a number of essays to his edition of the work that took Hartley's
doctrine of vibrations and its materialist implications much further
than the author would have liked. In 1777 Priestley set out to
elucidate and defend his ideas on the unity of body and soul in his
Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit,causing further offense
and controversy. The following year, Priestley engaged in an exchange
with Richard Price in which he defended his view of matter as capable
of thought and perception and his disbelief in the existence of a
nonphysical soul.
v. Philosophical Necessity
Priestley's interest in the determinist philosophy he called
"philosophical necessity" emerges first in his Institutes of Natural
and Revealed Religion,where Priestley's utilitarianism entails the
direct intervention of a divine Providence in order to ensure that all
suffering is ultimate good and the unhappiness of a few will always
benefit the majority. The doctrine also plays a crucial part in his
Examination of the Scottish common sense philosophers and his
Disquisitions…. In 1777 Priestley outlined and defined these ideas in
a work dedicated to the system, the Doctrine of Philosophical
Necessity Illustrated.
vi. Philosophy of Education, History and Linguistics
Priestley's ideas on education emerge first in his Essay on the First
Principles of Government, which actually took form out of his remarks
on a well known code of education. In 1765, while working as a tutor
at Warrington, he published a major work, the Essay on a Course of
Liberal Education. In 1778 the Miscellaneous Observations Relating to
Education outlined this syllabus in detail. In his 1788 Lectures on
History and General Policy,Priestley's thoughts on education are
elucidated with clarity and, along with his published syllabuses,
lectures and teaching aids, the work allow us valuable insight into
his educational philosophy. Priestley also produced teaching aids: a
Chart of Biography in 1765 and New Chart of History in 1769, which
used timelines to illustrate the major figures and time periods in
history. Some of Priestley's earliest publications were about language
and grew from his post as tutor of languages and belles-lettres at
Warrington. In 1761 Priestley published The Rudiments of English
Grammar,and this was followed a year later by A Course of Lectures on
the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar. Priestley was an
influential grammarian, and his publications were widely read and well
received; he is notable for his emphasis on custom and usage as the
most useful standards by which to assess correct language. In 1777 his
Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism explored rhetoric, style
and taste, introducing the importance of psychology and human nature
as the means by which to understand these aspects of language.
b. General Secondary Sources
* Priestley, Joseph. Autobiography of Joseph Priestley. Bath:
Adams and Dart, 1970.
* Schofield, Robert E. The Enlightenment of Joseph Priestley: A
Study of his Life and Work from 1733-1773. Pennsylvania: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
* Schofield, Robert E. The Enlightened Joseph Priestley: A Study
of His Life and Work from 1773-1804. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2004.
* Truman Schwartz, and John McEvoy, eds. Motion toward perfection:
The Achievement of Joseph Priestley. Boston MA: Unitarian Universalist
Association, 1990.
* Willey, Basil. The Eighteenth-Century Background. Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1962.
i. Theology
* Brooks, Marilyn. "Priestley's Plan for a Continually Improving
Translation of the Bible." Enlightenment and Dissent 15 (1996):
89-106.
* Clark, Jonathan C.D. English Society, 1688-1832: Ideology,
Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
* Fitzpatrick, Martin. "Joseph Priestley, politics and ancient
prophecy." Enlightenment and Dissent 10 (1991): 104-109.
* Fruchtman, Jack. "The Apocalyptic Politics of Richard Price and
Joseph Priestley: A Study in Late Eighteenth-Century English
Republican Millennialism." Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 4 (1983):
* Garrett, Clarke. "Joseph Priestley, the Millennium and the
French Revolution." Journal of the History of Ideas 34. 1 (1973):
51-66.
* Haakonssen, Knud, ed. Enlightenment and Religion: Rational
Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
ii. Politics
* Canovan, Margaret. "Paternalistic Liberalism: Joseph Priestley
on Rank and Inequality." Enlightenment and Dissent 2 (1983): 23-37.
* Canovan, Margaret. "The Un-Benthamite Utilitarianism of Joseph
Priestley." Journal of the History of Ideas 45. 3 (1984): 435-450.
* Fitzpatrick, Martin. "Toleration and Truth." Enlightenment and
Dissent 1 (1982): 3-31.
* Kramnick, Isaac. "Eighteenth-Century Science and Radical Social
Theory: The case of Joseph Priestley's Scientific Liberalism." The
Journal of British Studies 25. 1 (1986): 1-30.
iii. Association of Ideas
* Bowen Oberg, Barbara. "David Hartley and the Association of
Ideas." Journal of the History of Ideas 37. 3 (1976): 441-454.
* Faurot. JH. "Reid's Answer to Joseph Priestley." Journal of the
History of Ideas 39. 2 (1978): 285-292.
* Kallich, Martin. "The Association of Ideas and Critical Theory:
Hobbes, Locke, and Addison." ELH 12. 4 (1945): 290-315.
iv. Matter and Spirit
* Schofield, Robert E. "Joseph Priestley, the Theory of Oxidation
and the Nature of Matter." Journal of the History of Ideas 25. 2
(1964): 285-294.
* Schofield, Robert E. "Monism, Unitarianism and Phlogiston in
Joseph Priestley's Natural Philosophy." Enlightenment and Dissent 19
(2000): 78-90.
* Laboucheix, Henri. "Chemistry, Materialism and Theology in the
Work of Joseph Priestley." Price-Priestley Newsletter 1 (1977): 31-48.
v. Philosophical Necessity
* Fitzpatrick, Martin. " 'In the Glass of History': The Nature and
Purpose of Historical Knowledge in the Thought of Joseph Priestley."
Enlightenment and Dissent 17 (1998): 172-209.
* Harris, James A. "Joseph Priestley and the 'Proper Doctrine of
Philosophical Necessity." Enlightenment and Dissent 20 (2001): 23-44.
* Hatch, Ronald B. " Joseph Priestley: An Addition to Hartley's
Observations." Journal of the History of Ideas 36. 3 (1975): 548-550.
vi. Education
* Belleguic, Thierry ed. Representations of Time in
Eighteenth-Century London. London Ont.: Academic Printing and
Publishing,1999.
* McLachlan, John. "Joseph Priestley and the study of History."
Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society 19. 4 (1990):
452-463.
* Watts, Ruth. "Joseph Priestley and Education." Enlightenment and
Dissent 2 (1983): 83-100.
No comments:
Post a Comment