en in the "Refutation of Deism," that remarkable argument in the
Socratic style between Eusebes and Theosophus in which, as in all his
prose works, is displayed keen discernment, logical acuteness, and
close analytical reasoning not surpassed by the greatest
philosophers--most certainly his notions of God were not in unison
with the current theological ideas, and it was this daring rebellion
against the popular faith, the chief support of custom which caused
all the trouble. If ever he attempted to show the non-existence of
Deity, his negation was solely directed against the gross human
notions of a creative power, and _ergo_ a succession of finite
creative powers _ad infinitum_, or a Personal God who has only been
acknowledged in the popular teachings as an autocratic tyrant, and as
Shelley puts it in his own language:

"A venerable old man, seated on a throne of clouds, his
breast the theatre of various passions, analogous to those
of humanity, his will changeable and uncertain as that of an
earthly king."

Not to be compared with the far different eternal and infinite.

"Spirit of Nature! all sufficing power,
Necessity! thou mother of the world!
Unlike the God of human error, thou
Requirest no prayers or praises, the caprice
Of man's weak will belongs no more to thee
Than do the changeful passions of his breast
To thy unvarying harmony."

And by this doctrine of necessity here apostrophised our philosopher
instructs us in a lengthy statement of great clearness:

"We are taught that there is neither good nor evil in the
universe, otherwise than as the events to which we apply
these epithets have relation to our own peculiar mode of
being. Still less than with the hypothesis of a personal
God, will the doctrine of necessity accord with the belief
of a future state of punishment. God made man such as he is,
and then damned him for being so; for to say that God was
the author of all good, and man the author of all evil, is
to say that one man made a straight line and a crooked one,
and another man made the incongruity."

For you to better understand the exact position in which Shelley
placed himself, it is elsewhere thus admirably expressed:

"The thoughts which the word 'God' suggest to the human mind
are susceptible of as many variations as human minds
themselves. The Stoic, the Platonist, and the