Part 2

I know that the moderns being ashamed of it, wish to abrogate it, and to throw it off from themselves upon the early heretics. But we shall not allow you to escape that way. If you advance any principle, you must admit all the consequences which necessarily flow from it; and we will not suffer your evasions in this particular. When pressed hard, you followers of Jesus want to pass off the Devil upon us for a mere angel, and tell us of his war in Heaven, and that he was cast out upon the earth. This will not do, we shall not allow you this subterfuge, for in other places your received canon of Scripture maintains the ubiquity of the Devil; this extravagant notion with which we charge you, we shall bring home to you. In 2 Cor. chap. iv. ver. 4, you have, "In whom the God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not." implying, that the Devil, i. e. the God of this world, is present in all unbelievers. This is still further confirmed by 1 John chap. v. ver. 19, "The whole world lieth in the wicked one," i.e. the Devil. I know that it is translated, "lieth in wickedness." But this is a sneaking evasion of Jesus's followers, who are ashamed of the notion of the two principles. That is an extraordinary vicious translation of the passage. A man who knows the least of Greek at all must be sensible that the passage will only admit of the rendering which I have here, and others have before me, given to it. The Devil is said by Jesus's followers to pervade the whole unbelieving world. If you complain, Mr. Attorney-General, that this is pressing a lawyer too far on a theological question, I shall lay the blame on you, and those who have held your office, for starting this particular subject; and whenever an Attorney-General advances a position he takes the risks attending it. The story of the Devil's fall from Heaven in Revelations, chap. xii. may establish and show an inconsistency in Jesus's religion, but it does not get you nor his followers clear of the silly notion of the two principles, when your canon of Scripture has once advanced what clearly implies that groundless notion.

"The jury are conjured." Since the detection and exposition of that infamous list of jurors, out of which a jury used to be packed for the Crown whenever it was prosecutor, some sort of reformation has taken place in the manner of appointing a jury, so as to leave a better chance of having disinterested men on the jury. Before Hone's trial the scene which used to take place in prosecutions for alledged blasphemy was scandalous and detestable. The legislature take upon themselves to assign a revelation to the Almighty, but as a revelation is a delineation of his character, they assign to him a character of their own choosing; and as they labour to suppress and hide the objections started against it, that character which they have given to the Supreme Being must of course be a bad one, because concealment in this case implies guilt in the concealing party: so that the charge of blasphemy is justly retorted upon the legislature and upon the prosecuting party in this case of R. Carlile, and also in the preceding cases of Houston, the reputed author of Ecce Homo, of Williams, who was

Paine's printer of the Age of Reason, of Daniel Isaac Eaton, too, and others. The legislative bodies, I repeat, and their accomplices, are the real blaspheming party, who have given, as they testify by their concealing practices, a bad and slanderous character to the Almighty, and whose guilt is aggravated by their endeavours to hinder other men from vindicating him from their foul aspersions.

The jury on all those above-mentioned occasions invariably gave up the character of the Maker of the universe to be traduced and calumniated by the legislative bodies and their accomplices; and this abandonment of all rectitude and decency was by bad men termed a verdict, i. e. _a vere dictum_, whereby infallibility was attributed to twelve mortal men at the same time that it was denied to the Ancient of Days, the real proprietor of all worlds. If persons, sitting judiciously upon the character of this exalted Being, gave it up thus to be reviled, they ought, at least, to have been Gods whose judgement was to have been thus appealed to; in fact, this sort of appeal of the prosecuting party to twelve mortals was erecting them to something far above the human nature; and these twelve mortals were induced by a gratuity of one or more guineas a piece, a good dinner, with plenty of jovial nectar, at the expence of the country, to consign over the character of the Almighty to reviling and insult, thereby opening a door for a supposititious system of morality,

"And raised to gods confess even virtue vain." --Pope.

"As they value the preservation of good morals." This, as I have shewn, must be merely ironical, these prosecutions having the opposite tendency.

"The peace and good order of society." This is to obtain a submission to tyranny; which submission Jesus in his religion inculcates by his Apostle Peter, 1 Cph. chap. ii. ver. 13: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man." And this will account for zeal of the ruling authorities to support Jesus's pretensions:

"Individual and public welfare." This, after what has been shewn, must be all rant.

"The happiness of their fellow-subjects here and hereafter." This can never be promoted by suppressing argument and stifling inquiry.

"Arrest the fatal poison." Here the fair and free investigation and examination of propositions is called poison. Yet, who but the wicked can have any thing to dread from inquiry?

I apprehend, Mr. Shepherd, that you and the self' styled Society for the Suppression of Vice carry on separate prosecutions, but I have classed you both together, because you are both of you aiding, abetting, and assisting in the same design. Of what individuals that Society is composed is not known to me, but as the Bishops of Durham and Rochester are the presidents, I conclude, that many priests of Jesus are among the number, and that, at any rate, the parsons are the chief instructors in this business. That free inquiry should not generally take place is much their interest, for thereby their "gains would be gone." They would much wish that the ignorance of ancient days, so profitable to parsons, could be brought back; and I send you a verse or two upon a desire expressed in the Gentleman's, or as it ought to be called, from its treating so much of ecclesiastical matters, and expressing the wish of the parsons, the Parson's Magazine, that the level near St. Andrew's church should be filled up.

"Priests, who through fiats their trade sustain Wish level Holborn Hill; And wish the world were flat again As erst when it stood still." 1

The self-styled Society for the Suppression of Vice, are zealous to substitute useless or absurd observances as parts of religion, instead of real true morality; and have taken great pains to prevent amusements, and produce a gloom throughout Sunday, the only holiday for many people. There are not less spirits drank on amount of a sabbatical gloom; for harmless chearfulness is rather a preservative of innocence. I have therefore sent you, Mr. Attorney-General, a song, which I beg you to deliver to the parsons of that Society, and to any other parsons, to help them to keep up their spirits.

1 Joshua, chap. x.

SONG,

To the tune of "Come, bustle, hustle, drink about, and let us merry be," of George Alexander Stevens.

Since Paul affirms that Heaven has chose The thoughtless foolish things, 1 And bless'd with Paradise all those For paying priests and kings: 2 Then a preaching we will go, will go, will go, Then a preaching we will go.

Fanatic herds, as if with strings At their nose, by priests are led; And know not that the knavish things Made that choice in God's stead. Then a preaching, &c.

As crowds believe the heavens reject The prying, shrewd, and wise, No fear lest he our fraud detect, Whose faith has closed his eyes. Then a preaching, &c.

Now Sion is rubied, gilt, and pearl'd, As the seat of blockheads' bliss; Our flocks may take that future world, Give us the joys of this. Then a preaching, &c.

1 Cor. chap. i. ver. 27.

2 Rom. chap. xiii. ver. 4.

Our muttons, gulled and ignorant, Dare never close inquire, Lest if they disbelieve our cant, They fall to Hell's hot fire. Then a preaching, &c.

Thus dolts suck in through panic dread The Gospel's milk 1 and crumbs, And with all nonsense fill their heads, Lest Hell should scorch their bums. Then a preaching, &c.

March 2,1810. PHILALETHES.

1 1 Cor. chap. iii. ver. 2. and Heb. chap. i. ver. 13.

LETTER TO MR. CARLILE,

London, 28th February, 1819.

Sir,

You are about to be placed in a situation, and to perform a part, which will interweave your name in the page of history:--not, however, in that species of history which records the wars, bloodshed, or misery of nations, as opposed to one another; but in that which exhibits the cruelties of governments towards individuals among their own subjects, who seeing, or thinking they see, their fellow men suffering afflictions through the ignorance, prejudice, and misrule of their governments, endeavour to remove the causes of such oppressions and misery, by disclosing them, and setting their fellow-men to think for themselves. You have had the virtue and intrepidity to engage in this honourable career, and are, consequently, a prominent object in the public eye. Every friend to the progress of knowledge, reason, and truth, as well as of sincere humanity, is warmly interested in the nature and result of those severe proceedings instituted against you. They devoutly hope that your character as a man and a neighbour will afford no handle for disparagement of you and your conduct; that your moral principles are good, and your integrity unquestioned; that your deportment in the relations of private and domestic life is amiable: and that conscious of the purity of your motives, you will not shrink before the threats of your adversaries; but, on the contrary, display that manly firmness of courage which will enable you to encounter and defeat the numerical, though not formidable, superiority of force to be arrayed against you. If, however, contrary to our hopes and expectations, the abettors of persecution in church and state should, by their arts and machinations, succeed in obtaining a verdict for the persecutor, be you assured that the respect, sympathy, and support of every enlightened, liberal, and benevolent mind, will follow you, wherever your oppressors may convey your person. Yet, I cannot but cherish anticipations of a very different termination of these proceedings, engendered as they are between religious bigotry and political folly, when submitted by both sides to a jury of our countrymen. I trust that impartial justice will guide their decision.

As a friend to the universal freedom of mankind, civil and religious, I take leave to address you, for the purpose of contributing my sincere congratulations on the honours that await you, and the fine opportunity presented to you of benefiting mankind. I regret that the nature of my situation constrains me to conceal my name. To disclose it would, in all probability, prove my ruin in worldly circumstances, and thus both my present and future usefulness in this very cause be destroyed. I know many individuals, eminent for public and private virtue, who entertain the same sentiments as myself, who, by the prejudices so assiduously kept up, are equally obliged to be silent.

I have felt desirous, too, of sending you a few unconnected thoughts which have occurred to me on your case. It is very likely that they are quite common, and may have been much better expressed by others; yet, nevertheless, I shall state them.

I can easily suppose, that, even if you had an intention to employ counsel in your defence, you would find some difficulty, in the present servility of the bar to the powers that be, to obtain any assistance. But you require none, and you will be your own best advocate. I am not a lawyer, and therefore am I neither deeply read in musty statutes, nor skilled in legal subtleties. I apprehend, however, that there is not a law in the statute book forbidding theological controversy. The crime with which you are charged is called a _libel_. Now, what a libel is I do not know, nor can any body tell me; yet you are doubtless pretty well aware, that your prosecutors will, in a strain of inflated declamation and bombast, describe this libel as a thing of the most atrocious and diabolical nature and tendency. Your mode of defence against this attack is obvious. Since the question at issue between you and your accusers is not one of law, but of fact, your object is to get behind their ambuscade of words, and beat down their phillippics by that irresistible weapon, common sense, wielded by an honest man.

It has always appeared to my understanding that the most powerful argument that can be used with well-meaning people who assisted in, or approve of, prosecutions to support the ascendancy of their religion, is, that which shews such prosecutions to have a _directly opposite tendency_. Persecution is the very scandal of religion: it confesses weakness at once, and is a complete admission that the origin, doctrines, and progress of that religion cannot bear investigation.

It proves that the professors of and believers in it, are not themselves convinced of its truth and divine nature. But a system of things being established, of which these persons form apart, in which they live, move, and have their being, _they wish it to be true_. They themselves take it for granted, and live very comfortably under that system of machinery of which it is a wheel, and so their interest and indolence combine in prompting them to wish every one else to have the same belief. There are people, however, who cannot, and will not, believe what appears to their judgements to be false; but, should they go farther than this, and consciously wishing their fellow-creatures to perceive the truth, endeavour to shew by writings on what grounds they cannot, and others ought not, to believe in falsehood and impositions, then, in default of counter argument, or refutation by the same instrument of reason, courts of law and armed authority are called on, _to compel_ those unbelievers either to believe, and of course such belief would be against their consciences, or to hold their tongues. In former ages, shooting, stabbing, burning, and flaying alive, were the means used for propagating religion for the good of men's souls; now they are imprisonment, fine, pillory: but these remnants of barbarity are also fast sinking into disgrace and disuse, and I cannot help thinking that you are destined to give the finishing blow, in this country at least, to the cruelties of bigotry.

Now, as inspiration or direct revelation from Heaven is not believed even by Christians (at least the more rational) of this day, though in the early and middle ages of Christianity priests and monks would have sworn that God communicated with them every day, let me suggest that, in the course of your defence, you ask the Jury trying your guilt or innocence as a _libeller_ of that religion, whether _they_ believe it to be founded on _truth?_ And since it would be to insult them, you can add, to suppose they should profess belief of a subject doubtless considered by them of the highest importance to their present and future welfare, without having thoroughly examined it, again ask--whether in their hearts and consciences they think that any sophistical reasoning, which every thing contrary to it they must deem so, could shake their principles thus established on the basis of demonstration? If so established, what can hurt it--what can be a libel on it? Unless their religion be capable of _demonstration_, it is at best but _doubtful_, and may, therefore, be at least _susceptible_ of confutation. If, in spite of the objections and attacks to which it has been exposed, it can be shewn to be the true religion after all, such discussion, instead of doing harm, must do good, inasmuch as it fixes the religion on a firmer basis. On a subject where so many men of the most acute intellect and most respectable character differ in opinion, you, as a humble inquirer after truth, may be allowed to have yours. Speculative opinions on religion, you can tell the jury, are nothing: whether you are a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Mohammedan, a worshipper of Vishnu, or a Free Thinker, or none of all these, is of no consequence to mankind, either governing or governed--It is a matter between you and your Maker only. All that governments can have to do with individuals, is their conduct as members of the state towards their neighbours. Had you been charged with any acts of disturbance, with the violation of any of the laws for the protection of persons and property, then it would have been intelligible; you might have been a fit object for trial, and, if found guilty, of punishment. Not one of the books which you have published have the slightest tendency to promote disorder, but, on the contrary do they profess and are calculated by a diffusion of their principes to extend and consolidate universal peace, virtue, happiness, and prosperity.

If, then, the gentlemen of the Jury's religion be founded on what they have satisfied their understanding to be _truth_, nothing can injure it; since, if it really come from God, to imagine that any writings, whether argumentative or satirical, could maintain a doubtful contest with books said to contain a revelation of the divine will, is actually to raise the author of such writings, and you their publisher, to a level with God himself! or, rather, to degrade that Almighty, wise, and good Being, your Creator, to a level with you, the creature. Hence it follows, that persecution may destroy, but never can support any religion.

You cannot have a better ground-work for your defence than the theological works of Paine, which, indeed, settle the question about the inspiration of the scriptures and the divinity of Christ. On the subject of religion generally there is a book which every lover of truth must regret is not so well known as it will infallibly be in no long time--I allude to a work entitled "Principles of Morality," by George Ensor, Esq. It displays the most extensive research and erudition, combined with good sense and an amiable disposition; the subject is pursued with much perspicuity of order, and expressed in an easy, neat, appropriate style. The book forms a very useful companion to Hume's ingenious and philosophical Essays on the Natural History of Religion.

I have now to advert to what you will doubtless consider the most valuable part of this communication. At the period of the late Mr. Eaton's cruel and abominable treatment under the chief persecutorship of Lord Ellenborough and his high priest, Sir Vicary Gibbs, a letter appeared in the Morning Chronicle on the subject of that unfortunate gentleman's unmerited punishment. It purported to be written by one who believed in the Christian religion; but it evinced sentiments so liberal, reasoning so just and forcible; it placed the right of conscience, even as good policy, in so striking a point of view; arguing the subject in such good temper, and with such conciseness, as to appear to me a masterpiece of its kind, and a standard to which every member of the Christian church ought to be referred. I preserved a copy of it at the time, and now send you one transcribed, believing that it may be useful to you, or that it may at least be interesting to you in the perusal.

The public mind has, of late years, been making rapid progress towards a true knowledge of its rights. Priestcraft and bigotry must and will be destroyed. Once trampled upon by man in the energy of his wrath, these monsters can never again rear their Gorgon heads. Like the Apollo represented by the Grecian sculptor, in the act of destroying the Pythian serpent, man will then stand as God created him, the impress of his own image, erect, free, noble, and grand. We have seen the glorious result of the attempt to crush, not Hone, but in him the spirit of a free press, and it is not permitted us to doubt that a similar triumph and reward awaits you.

I am,

Your sincere (though anonymous) friend,

A FELLOW-INQUIRER AFTER TRUTH.

(Copy.)

To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.

Sir,

I was one of those who saw Mr. Eaton stand in the pillory for what has been called an attempt to overturn the religion of his country. The manner in which the spectators behaved during the execution of this severe punishment, was, in my opinion, highly creditable to the liberality of the age. I think I may venture to say, there was hardly an individual present who did not sympathise with the unfortunate man; he was cheered by numbers during the whole time of the punishment; and many efforts were made to convey various kinds of refreshments to him.

As one of those who wish well to the interests of the Christian religion, I own I was shocked upon this occasion. I have always conceived this religion to be perfectly independent of the arm of authority for its support, and to require only to be heard and examined to bear down every species of opposition. I cannot but consider that it has made its way against power, learning, and philosophy, united to destroy it; nor can I refuse to draw from this the deduction, that it will equally withstand all the efforts of abuse, sophistry, and calumny. When I see any set of men resort to punishment, instead of argument, in its defence, I can with difficulty conceive they are serious in the belief of its doctrines, for the smallest reflection might convince them, that such a course is the most effectual method they could take to lower its estimation, and to cover it with discredit. It betrays that diffidence and fear for the result which a man thoroughly impressed with the truth of the Christian doctrines would surely not be the most likely to entertain. I cannot bring myself, therefore, to believe, that those who manifest a zeal to crush the enemies of Christianity by the arm of the law, are themselves acquainted with that religion. I imagine them, on the contrary, to be men whose time and attention have been completely ingrossed by secular affairs, and who believe the Christian religion as they would believe the Mohammedan, merely because their fathers believed it before them.

Let those cruel persecutors reflect for a moment on the injury they are thus doing to the very cause they are pretending to support. Let them consider that religion can be defended only by argument, or by force; and that it cannot be defended by the union of both; for it is in vain to say, it may be defended by argument, when the reasonings on one side only can be heard aloud, while those on the other draw down on the head of the user of them pillory and imprisonment. It is certainly a very unequal conflict when one of the combatants may make use of an argument or a halter at his discretion. It is like a battle between a pugilist and one armed with a stiletto, which, though he may not use at first, he knows he can use if hard pushed. Such defenders of Christianity would do well to remember, that the means they are resorting to are those which so successfully promoted the cause of infidelity in France. Had the same pains been bestowed in refuting the productions of Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire, which were employed in burning their books and punishing the authors, France and the whole of Europe might, at this day, have exhibited very different spectacle.