Editing Joseph Priestley (section)

==Leeds (1767–1773)==
[[File:PriestleyLeeds.jpg|thumb|left|upright|alt=Half-length portrait of a man holding a small book in his right hand. He is wearing a black jacket and a white shirt.|The earliest known portrait of Priestley, known as the "Leeds" portrait ({{Circa|1763}}); except for his membership on the Leeds Library Committee, Priestley was not active in the town's social life<ref>Schofield (1997), 162–64.</ref>]]

Perhaps prompted by Mary Priestley's ill health, or financial problems, or a desire to prove himself to the community that had rejected him in his childhood, Priestley moved with his family from Warrington to [[Leeds]] in 1767, and he became [[Mill Hill Chapel]]'s minister. Two sons were born to the Priestleys in Leeds: Joseph, Junior,  on 24 July 1768 and [[William Priestley (Louisiana planter)|William]] three years later. [[Theophilus Lindsey]], a [[Rector (ecclesiastical)|rector]] at [[Catterick, North Yorkshire|Catterick, Yorkshire]], became one of Priestley's few friends in Leeds, of whom he wrote: "I never chose to publish any thing of moment relating to theology, without consulting him."<ref>Priestley, ''Autobiography'', 98; see also Schofield (1997), 163.</ref> Although Priestley had extended family living around Leeds, they do not appear to have communicated. Schofield conjectures that they considered him a [[Heresy|heretic]].<ref>Schofield (1997), 162, note 7.</ref> Each year, Priestley travelled to London to consult with his close friend and publisher, [[Joseph Johnson (publisher)|Joseph Johnson]], and to attend meetings of the Royal Society.<ref>Schofield, (1997), 158, 164; Gibbs, 37; Uglow, 170.</ref>

===Minister of Mill Hill Chapel===
{{further|Joseph Priestley and education|Joseph Priestley and Dissent}}

When Priestley became its minister, [[Mill Hill Chapel]] was one of the oldest and most respected Dissenting congregations in England; however, during the early 18th century the congregation had fractured along doctrinal lines and was losing members to the charismatic [[Methodism#Wesleyan revival|Methodist movement]].<ref>Schofield (1997), 165–69; Holt, 42–43.</ref> Priestley believed that he could strengthen the bonds of the congregation by educating the young people there.<ref>Schofield (1997), 170–71; Gibbs, 37; Watts, 93–94; Holt, 44.</ref>

In his three-volume ''[[Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion]]'' (1772–74),<ref>Priestley. ''[[Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion]]''. London: Printed for J. Johnson, Vol. I, 1772, Vol. II, 1773, Vol. III, 1774.</ref> Priestley outlined his theories of religious instruction. More importantly, he laid out his belief in [[Socinianism]]. The doctrines he explicated would become the standards for [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]] in Britain. This work marked a change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his [[materialism]] and [[necessitarianism]] (the latter being the belief that a divine being acts in accordance with necessary metaphysical laws).<ref>Miller, xvi; Schofield (1997), 172.</ref>

[[File:PriestleyInstitutes.png|thumb|upright|alt=Page reads: "Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. In Two Volumes. Two which is prefixed, An Essay on the best Method of communicating religious Knowledge to the Members of Christian Societies. By Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F.R.S. The Second Edition. vol. I. Wisdom is the principal Thing. Solomon. Birmingham, Printed by Pearson and Rollason, for J. Johnson, No. 72, St. Paul's Church-Yard, London. M DCC LXXXIII."|Priestley had been working on ''[[Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion]]'' since his Daventry days.]] 
Priestley's major argument in the ''Institutes'' was that the only revealed religious truths that could be accepted were those that matched one's experience of the natural world. Since his views of religion were tied deeply to his understanding of nature, the text's [[theism]] rested on the [[argument from design]].<ref>Schofield (1997), 174; Uglow, 169; Tapper, 315; Holt, 44.</ref> The ''Institutes'' shocked and appalled many readers, primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies, such as the [[Christ|divinity of Christ]] and the [[Virgin birth of Jesus|miracle of the Virgin Birth]]. Methodists in Leeds penned a hymn asking God to "the Unitarian fiend expel / And chase his doctrine back to Hell."<ref>Qtd. in Jackson, 102.</ref> Priestley wanted to return Christianity to its "primitive" or "pure" form by eliminating the "corruptions" which had accumulated over the centuries. The fourth part of the ''Institutes'', ''[[An History of the Corruptions of Christianity]]'', became so long that he was forced to issue it separately in 1782. Priestley believed that the ''Corruptions'' was "the most valuable" work he ever published. In demanding that his readers apply the logic of the emerging sciences and comparative history to the Bible and Christianity, he alienated religious and scientific readers alike—scientific readers did not appreciate seeing science used in the defence of religion and religious readers dismissed the application of science to religion.<ref>McLachlan (1987–90), 261; Gibbs, 38; Jackson, 102; Uglow, 169.</ref>

===Religious controversialist===
Priestley engaged in numerous political and religious [[pamphlet]] wars. According to Schofield, "he entered each controversy with a cheerful conviction that he was right, while most of his opponents were convinced, from the outset, that he was willfully and maliciously wrong. He was able, then, to contrast his sweet reasonableness to their personal rancor",<ref name=S181>Schofield (1997), 181.</ref> but as Schofield points out Priestley rarely altered his opinion as a result of these debates.<ref name=S181/> While at Leeds he wrote controversial pamphlets on the [[Eucharist|Lord's Supper]] and on Calvinist doctrine; thousands of copies were published, making them some of Priestley's most widely read works.<ref>See Schofield (1997), 181–88 for analysis of these two controversies.</ref>

Priestley founded the ''[[Theological Repository]]'' in 1768, a journal committed to the open and rational inquiry of theological questions. Although he promised to print any contribution, only like-minded authors submitted articles. He was, therefore, obliged to provide much of the journal's content himself. This material also became the basis for many of his later theological and metaphysical works. After only a few years, due to a lack of funds, he was forced to cease publishing the journal.<ref>See Schofield (1997), 193–201 for an analysis of the journal; Uglow, 169; Holt, 53–55.</ref> However, he did revive it briefly in 1784 with similar results.<ref>See Schofield (2004), 202–07 for an analysis of Priestley's contributions.</ref>

===Defender of Dissenters and political philosopher===
{{further|Joseph Priestley and Dissent}}

[[File:PriestleyFirstPrinciples.jpg|thumb|upright|His ''[[Essay on the First Principles of Government]]'' (1768) influenced early 19th-century political philosophers, including [[Jeremy Bentham]].<ref>Schofield (1997), 207.</ref>|alt=Page reads: "An Essay on the First Principles of Government, and on the Nature of Political, Civil, and Religious Liberty, including Remarks on Dr. Brown's Code of Education, and on Br. Balguy's Sermon on Church Authority. The Second Edition, corrected and enlarged, by Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F.R.S. London: Printed for J. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall; T. Cadell, (successor to Mr. Millar) in the Strand; and J. Johnson, No. 72 in St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCCLXXI."]]

Many of Priestley's political writings supported the repeal of the [[Test Act|Test]] and [[Corporation Act 1661|Corporation Acts]], which restricted the rights of Dissenters. They could not hold political office, serve in the armed forces, or attend Oxford and Cambridge unless they subscribed to the [[Thirty-nine Articles]] of the Church of England. Dissenters repeatedly petitioned Parliament to repeal the Acts, arguing that they were being treated as second-class citizens.<ref>Schofield (1997), 202–05; Holt, 56–64.</ref>

Priestley's friends, particularly other Rational Dissenters, urged him to publish a work on the injustices experienced by Dissenters; the result was his ''[[Essay on the First Principles of Government]]'' (1768).<ref>Priestley, Joseph. ''[[Essay on the First Principles of Government]]; and on the nature of political, civil, and religious liberty''. London: Printed for J. Dodsley; T. Cadell; and J. Johnson, 1768.</ref> An early work of [[Liberalism|modern liberal political theory]] and Priestley's most thorough treatment of the subject, it—unusually for the time—distinguished political rights from civil rights with precision and argued for expansive civil rights. Priestley identified separate private and public spheres, contending that the government should have control only over the public sphere. Education and religion, in particular, he maintained, were matters of private conscience and should not be administered by the state. Priestley's later [[Radicals (UK)|radicalism]] emerged from his belief that the British government was infringing upon these individual freedoms.<ref>Gibbs, 39–43; Uglow, 169; Garrett, 17; Tapper, 315; Holt, 34–37; Philip (1985); Miller, xiv.</ref>

Priestley also defended the rights of Dissenters against the attacks of [[William Blackstone]], an eminent legal theorist, whose ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'' (1765–69) had become the standard legal guide. Blackstone's book stated that dissent from the Church of England was a crime and that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects. Furious, Priestley lashed out with his ''Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries'' (1769), correcting Blackstone's interpretation of the law, his grammar (a highly politicised subject at the time), and history.<ref>Priestley, Joseph. ''Remarks on some paragraphs in the fourth volume of Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England, relating to the Dissenters''. London: Printed for J. Johnson and J. Payne, 1769.</ref> Blackstone, chastened, altered subsequent editions of his ''Commentaries'': he rephrased the offending passages and removed the sections claiming that Dissenters could not be loyal subjects, but he retained his description of Dissent as a crime.<ref>Schofield (1997), 214–16; Gibbs, 43; Holt, 48–49.</ref>

===Natural philosopher: electricity, ''Optics'', and carbonated water===
[[File:Joseph Priestley's book Optics.jpg|thumb|''Optics: The History and Present State of Vision, Light, and Colours'', published in 1772, London]]
Although Priestley claimed that [[natural philosophy]] was only a hobby, he took it seriously. In his ''History of Electricity'', he described the scientist as promoting the "security and happiness of mankind".<ref>Qtd. in Kramnick, 8.</ref> Priestley's science was eminently practical and he rarely concerned himself with theoretical questions; his model was his close friend, Benjamin Franklin.<ref>[[#kramnick1981|Kramnick, 1981]], p. 10</ref> When he moved to [[Leeds]], Priestley continued his electrical and chemical experiments (the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a neighbouring brewery). Between 1767 and 1770, he presented five papers to the Royal Society from these initial experiments; the first four papers explored [[coronal discharge]]s and other phenomena related to [[electrical discharge]], while the fifth reported on the conductivity of charcoals from different sources. His subsequent experimental work focused on chemistry and [[pneumatics]].<ref>Schofield (1997), 227, 232–38; see also Gibbs, 47; Kramnick, 9–10.</ref>

Priestley published the first volume of his projected history of experimental philosophy,<!-- do not link to [[experimental philosophy]] – that page describes a separate modern discipline --> ''The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours'' (referred to as his ''Optics''), in 1772.<ref>Priestley, Joseph. ''Proposals for printing by subscription, The history and present state of discoveries relating to vision, light, and colours''. Leeds: n.p., 1771.</ref> He paid careful attention to the history of optics and presented excellent explanations of early optics experiments, but his mathematical deficiencies caused him to dismiss several important contemporary theories. He followed the (corpuscular) particle theory of light, influenced by the works of Reverend [[John Rowning]] and others.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Moura |first=Breno |date=2018 |title=Newtonian Optics and the Historiography of Light in the 18th Century: A critical Analysis of Joseph Priestley's The History of Optics |url=https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/transversal/article/view/15045 |journal=Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science |issue=5 |doi=10.24117/2526-2270.2018.i5.12 |s2cid=239593348 |issn=2526-2270 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Furthermore, he did not include any of the practical sections that had made his ''History of Electricity'' so useful to practising natural philosophers. Unlike his ''History of Electricity'', it was not popular and had only one edition, although it was the only English book on the topic for 150 years. The hastily written text sold poorly; the cost of researching, writing, and publishing the ''Optics'' convinced Priestley to abandon his history of experimental philosophy.<ref>Schofield (1997), 240–49; Gibbs, 50–55; Uglow, 134.</ref>

{{external media | width = 210px | float = right | headerimage= | audio1 = [https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/fizzy-water "Fizzy Water"], ''Distillations'' Podcast Episode 217, [[Science History Institute]]}}

Priestley was considered for the position of astronomer on [[James Cook]]'s [[James Cook#Second voyage (1772–1775)|second voyage to the South Seas]], but was not chosen. Still, he contributed in a small way to the voyage: he provided the crew with a method for making [[carbonated water]], which he erroneously speculated might be a cure for [[scurvy]]. He then published a pamphlet with ''Directions for Impregnating Water with Fixed Air'' (1772).<ref>Priestley, Joseph. ''Directions for impregnating water with fixed air; in order to communicate to it the peculiar spirit and virtues of Pyrmont water, and other mineral waters of a similar nature''. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1772.</ref> Priestley did not exploit the commercial potential of carbonated water, but others such as {{nowrap|[[Johann Jacob Schweppe|J. J. Schweppe]]}} made fortunes from it.<ref>Schofield (1997), 256–57; Gibbs, 57–59; Thorpe, 76–79; Uglow, 134–36, 232–34.</ref> For his discovery of carbonated water Priestley has been labelled "the father of the [[soft drink]]",<ref>{{cite book |last1=Schils |first1=René |title=How James Watt Invented the Copier: Forgotten Inventions of Our Great Scientists |date=2011 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |page=36}}</ref> with the beverage company [[Schweppes]] regarding him as "the father of our industry".<ref>{{cite book |last1=LaMoreaux |first1=Philip E. |title=Springs and Bottled Waters of the World: Ancient History, Source, Occurrence, Quality and Use |date=2012 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |page=135}}</ref> In 1773, the Royal Society recognised Priestley's achievements in natural philosophy by awarding him the [[Copley Medal]].<ref name="Copley Medal"/><ref>Schofield (1997), 251–55; see Holt, 64; Gibbs, 55–56; and Thorpe, 80–81, for the traditional account of this story.</ref>

Priestley's friends wanted to find him a more financially secure position. In 1772, prompted by [[Richard Price]] and Benjamin Franklin, [[William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne|Lord Shelburne]] wrote to Priestley asking him to direct the education of his children and to act as his general assistant. Although Priestley was reluctant to sacrifice his ministry, he accepted the position, resigning from Mill Hill Chapel on 20 December 1772, and preaching his last sermon on 16 May 1773.<ref>Schofield (1997), 270–71; Jackson, 120–22; Gibbs, 84–86; Uglow, 239–40; Holt, 64–65.</ref>