{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40979/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40979","id":"gutenberg_40979","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40979","summary":null,"tags":["Blasphemy -- Great Britain","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Paine, Thomas, 1737-1809. Age of reason","Shepherd, Samuel, Sir, 1760-1840","Trials (Blasphemy) -- Great Britain"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nLETTER\n\nTO SIR SAMUEL SHEPHERD, KNT. HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL\n\nUPON THE SUBJECT OF HIS PROSECUTIONS OF RICHARD CARLILE,\n\nFOR PUBLISHING PAINE'S AGE OF REASON.\n\n\nLONDON.\n\nPRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY R. CARLILE, 55, FLEET STREET.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER,\n\nSir,\n\nAs you have commenced the prosecution of Carlile, a printer, for\npublishing an edition of Paine's Age of Reason, in conjunction with the\nself-styled Society for the Suppression of Vice, I take the liberty to\nsubmit to your consideration a few remarks, upon the nature and tendency\nof this purposed suit. Since prosecutions of this kind are not novel,\nand as it may be fairly conjectured that you will follow the ordinary\nroutine of men in your office in these causes, and moreover as the\naccused will be subjected to the usual disadvantage of meeting three\npleadings to the one which will be allowed him, besides the probable\ninterruptions from the Judge on the bench, I think it needful and\nreasonable to anticipate and meet beforehand those hacknied arguments,\nwhich it seems to me most probable that you will advance in the court on\nthe days of trial.\n\nThat the accuser should be permitted to plead three times to the once\nwith which the accused is but imperfectly indulged, though it may be\nlaw, is most flagrant injustice. But, perhaps, you may not be quite\nsatisfied with my arithmetic, and may ask me, how I make out my three\npleadings to one. It were much to the honour of this country, and its\nlaws, if I should be mistaken in my calculation, but I fear to be put\nto the blush as an Englishman, (if you serjeants at law are not,) by my\ncomputation, being found to be but too true.\n\nIn the first place, you open the case. This you do not reckon pleading:\nbut as you are allowed to say whatever you think proper, it becomes as\ntruly a pleading in reality as your latter speech, which alone you call\nby that name. The second is what is styled so on both sides. And this\nwould be injustice, if I stopped here; but having engaged to reckon up\nthree pleadings, I fix upon the most unfit person that could be named;\nthat is, my Lord Judge, to plead on the third occasion.\n\nThis speech of the Judge, you crown-lawyers term summing up the\nevidence; but I believe you can never adduce one solitary instance in a\ncrown prosecution, in which the Judge has not acted completely the part\nof a retained counsel for the crown.\n\nThat my Lord Judge should be unable to divest himself of the habit of\npleading as an advocate, since he has formerly followed that employment,\nthough far from equitable or decorous, is still very natural, like as\nthe mail-coach horse which has aforetime been a hunter,\n\n     \"When hounds and horns the forest rend,\"\n\npricks up his ears, and longs to join in the pursuit. But the Judge also\ndischarges a still more exceptionable office, that of interrupter on the\npart of the crown.\n\nHe is apt to lug in his observation, that what the accused is saying\nin his own defence is _irrelevant_ to the question; though a man's\npenetration must be astonishing who can determine beforehand that any\nparticular sentence uttered shall not, by a concatenation of argument,\nbe brought to bear forcibly upon the point in question.\n\nIf the accused adduces instances of opposite decisions in similar\nproceeding suits, with a view to point out an inconsistency, the Judge\nwill exclaim, \"That is not the cause before us;\" though how in the\nworld can inconsistency be shewn without bringing forward more than one\nparticular?\n\nThese ill-timed interruptions, by breaking the thread of connection of\nthe defence of the accused, must so maul it, and put it out of shape,\nthat the jury become unable to make either head or tail of it, even\nthough it should have been previously drawn up with good judgement, and\ncontain the soundest reasonings.\n\nIn trials for alledged blasphemy, if the accused complains that a\ngarbled extract made from his book does not convey its true sense, and\nwishes to read it at large, the court object, and cry out, that the book\nis too bad to be read in that place, and that it will poison the ears of\nthe audience.\n\nIf the accused desires that the Bible may be referred to, in proof of\nits contradictions or blameable passages, the court bawls aloud that it\nis too good a book to be produced before the profane. If reference be\nthus objected to, by what means, then, shall the truth be brought to\nlight?\n\nAnd now, Mr. Attorney-General, let us proceed to your own probable\nallegations and arguments in court in this particular cause; and I will\nsuppose you to say to the gentlemen of the jury, that you have been\nurged by the representations of a respectable body of men, the Society\nfor the Suppression of Vice, to prosecute R. Carlile, whom you have\ndiscovered and proved before the court to have gone _vi et armis_, by\nviolence and with weapons of war, and not having the fear of God before\nhis eyes, to have published a blasphemous libel, the Age of Reason, by\nThomas Paine, which libel had been previously condemned by a Jury, and\nburnt by the common hangman. That the wicked tendency of this libel was\nto induce a general disbelief of your and their most holy religion, that\npure, pacific, and benevolent system, which, having emanated from the\nDeity, is, to its adherents, the basis of their comforts in this life,\ntheir solace in the hours of affliction, sickness, and death, their\nmoral instruction in this world, and their providitor of everlasting\nhappiness in a world to come; that libels of this impious description\nwere with a malignant zeal thrown in the way of the young and\ninexperienced, too undiscerning to detect their sophistry, or suspect\nthe poison contained in them, and too ignorant yet of the world to be\non their guard against the practices of bad men: that irreligion and;\nimmorality are necessarily connected; and that the propagators of\ninfidelity are actuated by a malice too virulent to be attributed to\nmere human passion, and for which a motive and stimulus would be in vain\nsought for, unless it be assigned to the instigators of the great enemy\nof mankind, the Devil. The jury will be conjured, as they value the\npreservation of good morals, the peace and good order of society, both\nindividual and public welfare, the happiness of their fellow-subjects\nboth in this world and in a future life, to arrest the fatal poison in\nits progress, and give a verdict of conviction and condemnation against\nthe accused.\n\nBut, Mr. Attorney General, you would not take shining pinchbeck counters\ninstead of sovereigns for a fee, with as little close examination as you\nwill wish the jury to admit the weight and validity of your arguments,\nand the accuracy of your assertions.\n\nThe imposing name assumed by the Society who are the ostensible movers\nof the prosecution, might, at the first glance, seem sufficient to carry\nall before it, and to dispatch the business at one blow. For what could\nsuch a Society direct their efforts, against but vice? However, men are\nnot to be judged of by the titles they choose to give to themselves,\nwithout some scrutiny being made into their conduct. This self styled\nSociety for the Suppression of Vice, exhibit themselves to us as the\nfoes to free inquiry, and stifling the arguments on one side of\na question. In vain will they excuse themselves as preventing the\npoisonous effects of reasonings on the wrong side; for to decide in\nthat way which side is wrong is a _petitio propositi_, a begging of the\nquestion. Real truth is best established by the free production of\nthe arguments on both sides; for thereby suspicion of unfairness is re\nmoved. So many absurdities attend upon error and falsehood, that truth\nhas a very preponderating advantage against them, where enquiry is left\nfree. The arguments then adduced on the wrong side of a question, are\nnot so noxious and poisonous as disingenuous men wish to insinuate. The\ntruth abhors to be indebted to suppression of argument, from that it\nnever can derive advantage; therefore it is only resorted to by the\nparty who are in the wrong. This endeavour to suppress argument implies\ndisingenuousness, and this last named quality is always at variance with\nreal truth. Error may be designed, but disingenuousness never can be;\nand, therefore, when accompanied with violence, it is always criminal.\nDisinenuousness, as far as it extends, cannot consist with the love of\ntruth, but error may. Now as the love of truth is the basis of all real\nmorality, this disingenuous self-styled Society for the Suppression of\nVice, are, therefore, detected to be a Society for the Suppression of\nVirtue.\n\nI will still suppose you to proceed in the beaten, track of your\npredecessors in office, and omitting to reply to the technicality _vi\net armis_, on which, I imagine, you lay no stress, I take the liberty to\nquestion the propriety of the accustomed phrase, \"not having the fear\nof God before his eyes.\" You will admit, Mr. Attorney-General, that to\nforge the Great Seal of England would be a criminal deception, and also,\nthat to examine whether it was forged or not, or to state reasons\nfor believing it to have been forged, would be allowable. Now, as the\nauthority of the Creator is a higher one than the British Government, so\nto forge a revelation from him would be a more criminal imposture than\nthe former one; and a rigid examination and scrutiny into its truth or\nfalsehood, and all doubts and rational exceptions against a supposed\nrevelation, would always be innocent, and might sometimes be laudable.\nTherefore, as Paine's Age of Reason is an objection against the truth of\nthe supposed revelations of Moses and Jesus, the conduct of R. Carlile\nin publishing it must be innocent, at least, if not meritorious, and\ntherefore would consist well with a pious veneration towards the Supreme\nBeing; and this invalidates your assertion.\n\n\"Which libel had been condemned by the legislature.\" But as the\nlegislature is composed of fallible men, their sanction does not prove\nthe truth and validity of Jesus's pretensions; and as the conduct of\nthe legislature in sanctioning this revelation might be directed and\ninfluenced by political motives, their sanction is an argument rather\nagainst than in favour of its truth.\n\n\"And burnt by the common hangman.\" Jean Jaques Rousseau says, and so\nmust every reasonable man, _Bruler un livre n'est pas y repondre_,\n\"Burning a book is not answering it.\"\n\n\"The wicked tendency of this libel was to induce a general disbelief of\nyour and their most holy religion.\" The truth can only be ascertained by\nleaving inquiry free, that arguments on both, sides of a question may\nbe brought forward, in order that it may be seen on which side the\npreponderance lies. Therefore, the same objection would hold good\nagainst producing the arguments on the wrong side of any other question,\nas well as this before us now; this would militate against truth in\ngeneral, and is, of course, absurd. Besides, as the Deists have made\nthe offer to argue with Jesus's followers upon the truth or falsehood\nof Jesus's pretensions upon fair and equal terms, which offer Jesus's\nfollowers have thought proper to divine, therefore, to use a figure\nborrowed from pugilistic combats, the Deists throw up the hat and claim\nthe victory.\n\n\"That pure, pacific, and benevolent system, which having emanated from\nthe Deity.\" But the Deists offer to bring arguments to disprove the\npurity, peaceableness, and benevolence of Jesus's system, and likewise\nits origin from the Supreme Being; and your laws hinder those arguments\nfrom appearing. Now, this endeavour of yours to suppress is concealment.\nAnd if there is nothing criminal in this system of Jesus, what could you\nhave to conceal? The Deists do not endeavour to conceal any thing, it\nis the hiding, hushing, concealing party which are the guilty; where\nmorality is concerned concealment implies guilt. If the Deists venture\nto bring forward demonstrations from the four Gospels against the\npersonal moral character of Jesus, you call that blasphemy. But\nrecollect, that when the Deists make you the offer to discuss the moral\ncharacter and the pretensions of Jesus to a mission from the Almighty\nupon honourable and fair terms, and you choose to decline this equitable\nproposal, the charge of blasphemy falls upon yourselves; your sneaking\nevasion and concealment cause the charge of blasphemy to be brought home\nagainst you, and you stand convicted yourselves as the blasphemers.\n\n\"Is to its adherents the basis of their comforts in this life.\" Observe,\nthat those very men who lay heavy taxation upon this country, and, what\nwas unknown to Pagan times, entail those taxes upon unborn children,\nthose men are among the most zealous asserters of Jesus's pretensions,\nand employ Jesus's priests as diligent advocates for the imposition of\npublic burdens on the land, and sundry abuses. So that the bulk of\nthe people of this country are not much indebted to Jesus's system for\ntemporal comforts. Nay, it rather deprives them of many comforts, and\neven necessaries in this life. We have such men at present in office,\nof greatest power and trust, who are of such principles that they would\ncountenance and patronize no religion but what suited their purpose, and\npromoted their tyranny and oppressive objects and designs. Therefore, we\nmay see what Jesus's religion is by its suiting them so well.\n\n\"Their solace in the hours of affliction, sickness, and death.\" Jesus's\nreligion has caused the affliction and death of far more people than it\nhas solaced on such occasions.\n\n\"Their moral instructor in this world.\" The real moral tendency of\nJesus's system is one of the points at issue between his followers and\nthe Deists; therefore that position is not to be assumed as it has not\nbeen fairly proved. The effect of Jesus's religion may have been to\nrepress some vices in the world, but it has greatly increased others.\nWhen the Pagan Romans possessed Britain, there was not as much gin,\nbrandy, and whiskey drank here as there is now. Nay, the Pagan Romans\nused to mix water with their wine most usually. Unpaid Bank notes were\nunknown to them; and thus millions of inhabitants were not employed in\ncirculating among themselves falsehood and fraud, which horrid practice\namong us renders those two last crimes familiar to the view, and abates\nthe abhorrence of them. Indeed, perjury was evidently not near so\nfrequent among the Pagan Romans as it is now that Jesus's system has\nprevailed; this fact we can clearly infer from what remains to us\nof Greek and Roman writers. The unnatural tax on unborn children was\ntotally unknown to those ancients: so that Jesus's morality has not done\nus much good.\n\n\"And their providitor of everlasting happiness in a world to come.\"\nThere are some drawbacks in this world, at any rate, if we reckon the\nSunday's weekly gloom, and the tythes on all landed property. Whether\nthis future happiness be attained to at last or not by Jesus's\nfollowers, it is a long, a very melancholy road, however, that they go\nto it. And as a tenth levied on all landed produce and other church dues\nare pretty large, payment in advance for an inheritance in an unseen\ncountry, which no man living has visited, it seems unreasonable for\nthe law to hinder a scrutiny and examination into the validity of the\ntitle-deeds. Besides, as the land is rated heavier than other property,\nthe payment falls very unequally on the holders of shares in this _Terra\nIncognita_.\n\n\"Libels of this impious description are zealously thrown in the way\nof the young and inexperienced.\" This practising upon the minds of the\nyoung and inexperienced, if it be culpable, is not so chargeable\nupon the Deists as upon Jesus's priests. The deistical writings are\nargumentative, and therefore cannot be read by the young till they are\nalmost grown up, and the judgement is always appealed to by the Deists;\nneither do they discourage the examination of the other side of the\nquestion, as Jesus's followers usually do. On the other hand, Jesus's\npriests burden the memory of children, not seven years old, with creeds\nand catechisms; besides, they labour to prejudice the young in favour\nof Jesus's system, and to discourage all fair inquiry into what concerns\nits truth; a conduct which the Deists would abhor to pursue in favour\nof deism. Moreover, the catechisms and other machinations of Jesus's\npriests are calculated to impair the discerning faculty of the young,\nand to blunt its acumen.\n\nLet us examine the beginning of the church of England catechism as an\nexample. \"Q. Who gave you that name?\"--\"A. My godfathers and godmothers\nin my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ,\" &c. How should\na child at seven years comprehend the meaning of a membership with an\nunseen metaphysical being? This beginning with children on subjects\nbeyond their comprehension is playing tricks with their understanding.\n\n\"Q. What did your godfathers, &c. then for you?\"\n\n\"A. They did promise and vow three things in my name: first, that I\nshould renounce the devil and all his works.\" It is a monstrous\nproposition to instil into a child's mind that one person could swear to\nthe certainty of another's conduct. Surely these priestly tricks must be\nmeant to incapacitate these young children throughout life from thinking\never acutely on religious subjects. And what idea could a child have of\nthe devil's works? Of the devil himself they might form some notion from\nthe picture of him, and might\n\n     \"Dream of the devil, and wake in a fright.\"\n\nThe processions [i. e. pomps] and empty things of this wicked\nworld. Would any pious man swear that a child should not be fond\nof processions, pomps, and splendid shows? Neither could a child\ndistinguish empty things or vanities of the world. It is unavailing for\nJesus's priests to say that at any age of maturity these distinctions\nwill be comprehended, for they have taken care before hand, as far as\nthey could, to injure and debilitate the discerning faculty: and if they\nshould afterwards distinguish vanities, they would still be less able\nto examine religious truths; and to place impediments in the way of this\nlast, is the priest's object. \"Secondly, that I should believe all the\narticles of the Christian faith.\" How can one person swear, to what\nanother shall believe? and what a notion this swearing must give\nto young minds of the reverence due to an oath! Descant, Mr.\nAttorney-General, as you think proper upon the good moral tendency of\nthe religion as by law established, but you will find it very difficult\nto prove your assertions in its favour, whenever you may please to\nadvance them. The oath extends so far as that the child shall believe\nnot one article only but all the articles of Jesus's religion, and that\nwithout even comprehending them all, for some, as that of the Trinity,\nare quite unintelligible; and some of these articles contain other\narticles so as to embrace the whole volume of the Bible, all and\nsingular every passage of it.\n\n\"And thirdly, that I should keep God's holy will and commandments.\" Then\nthey must swear that the boy shall never be a godfather.\n\nAll this is done to impair the intellect, and accounts, in part, for the\nextreme obstinacy and prejudice of Jesus's followers. Somebody must\nhave sworn, Mr. Attorney General, that you should never be an\nAttorney-General; for this exercise of your office herein described, is\nnot compatible with much scrupulosity. As for its being said that\nthe child afterwards takes the oath upon itself, oaths cannot be so\ntransferred; therefore that plea is futile. No description of people,\nbesides Jesus's followers, ever admitted the execrable principle of the\ntransfer of an oath. In fact, if the godfathers had sworn that the boy\nshould turn out a pickle, after all the rest of priestly management,\nthey would have stood a pretty good chance of having nothing fall upon\ntheir conscience from that quarter.\n\nJesus's priests are apt to injure the intellect of young people by\ntelling them, that if they do not believe Jesus's religion they will be\ndamned to eternal punishments. Now as in all natural belief, when the\nintellect is sound and healthy, the mind is always passive in the act\nof giving its assent to any proposition, this trick of Jesus's priests\ndisturbs, impairs, and disorders the understanding; and by this means\nalso people are rendered incapable, throughout life, to reason and\ninquire with penetration, discernment, and impartiality on religious\nsubjects. The natural belief of a sound mind is not determined by the\nwill. If men could, in all cases, believe whatever they pleased, their\nminds would be a complete chaos; yet have Jesus's priests, in all ages\nsince the days of the founder of their religion, offered this violence\nto the human intellect. Thus, I think, that I have shewn you, Mr.\nAttorney-General, that the young and inexperienced are not more in\ndanger of imbibing absurd notions and depraved principles from the\nDeists than from Jesus's priests.\n\nI now proceed to examine a supposed assertion, rife enough among\nthose of your side of the question that \"infidelity and immorality are\nnecessarily connected.\" That the Deists and other unbelievers are more\nimmoral than Jesus's followers, is more than can be proved. And when we\nconsider that Jesus's religion is always taken up as a prejudice, and is\nmaintained in the world by violence, and by a pertinacious determination\nof Jesus's adherents to hear the reasons only on one side of the\nquestion, that side which is favourable to his pretensions, a procedure\nwhich is utterly repugnant to the love of truth, the most probable\nconjecture is, that the unbelievers should be, upon the whole, the\nmore moral party. But it must be allowed to be a difficult matter to\ndetermine such a question as that to any thing like certainty. Until it\nbe determined, however, you have no right to make the assertion alluded\nto.\n\nWhen you declaim upon the too great prevalence of infidelity, you speak\na language which implies the insane and monstrous notion that natural\nbelief is dependent upon the will; whereas it is the known and suggested\nreasons which always naturally determine the assent. A man is no more\nculpable merely for what he believes, than he is for discovering by the\ntaste that sugar is sweet and aloes bitter. Your slang when you speak of\ninfidelity and belief, as virtues or vices, reprehensible or laudable,\nwould be quite unintelligible to us, if we were not already acquainted\nwith the tricks and machinations of priests to create prejudice, or\nfrighten people into an assent to points, which they dare not trust and\nsubmit to the test of fair inquiry.\n\nIf the Creator were to require an assent without a sufficient reason to\ndetermine it, he would demand what is contrary to the structure of the\nhuman mind, which was formed by himself: thus he would disorder his own\nwork, which is a thing incredible. If he has suggested reasons which\nwould not have been otherwise thought of, let Jesus's priests produce\nthem, and let them be examined. Then the prosecutions of Deists would be\nsuperfluous, for they would be forced to: believe when the reasons were\nfound cogent enough. But no such reasons have been hitherto produced:\nreason or no reason, the assent is still required. And how shall such\nan assent without reasons sufficient be distinguished from what is\nuniversally allowed, by physicians and all others, to be insanity and\nmental derangement?\n\n\"That the propagators of infidelity are instigated by the Devil.\" This\nassertion, very usual from men in your office, Mr. Attorney-General, you\nare unable to prove. And hereby you remind us, that Jesus's followers\nuniversally admit the very absurd notion of two principles in the\nuniverse, a good and a bad one.\n\nI know that the moderns being ashamed of it, wish to abrogate it, and to\nthrow it off from themselves upon the early heretics. But we shall not\nallow you to escape that way. If you advance any principle, you must\nadmit all the consequences which necessarily flow from it; and we will\nnot suffer your evasions in this particular. When pressed hard, you\nfollowers of Jesus want to pass off the Devil upon us for a mere angel,\nand tell us of his war in Heaven, and that he was cast out upon the\nearth. This will not do, we shall not allow you this subterfuge, for in\nother places your received canon of Scripture maintains the ubiquity of\nthe Devil; this extravagant notion with which we charge you, we shall\nbring home to you. In 2 Cor. chap. iv. ver. 4, you have, \"In whom\nthe God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not.\"\nimplying, that the Devil, i. e. the God of this world, is present in all\nunbelievers. This is still further confirmed by 1 John chap. v. ver. 19,\n\"The whole world lieth in the wicked one,\" i.e. the Devil. I know that\nit is translated, \"lieth in wickedness.\" But this is a sneaking\nevasion of Jesus's followers, who are ashamed of the notion of the two\nprinciples. That is an extraordinary vicious translation of the passage.\nA man who knows the least of Greek at all must be sensible that the\npassage will only admit of the rendering which I have here, and others\nhave before me, given to it. The Devil is said by Jesus's followers\nto pervade the whole unbelieving world. If you complain, Mr.\nAttorney-General, that this is pressing a lawyer too far on a\ntheological question, I shall lay the blame on you, and those who have\nheld your office, for starting this particular subject; and whenever an\nAttorney-General advances a position he takes the risks attending it.\nThe story of the Devil's fall from Heaven in Revelations, chap. xii. may\nestablish and show an inconsistency in Jesus's religion, but it does\nnot get you nor his followers clear of the silly notion of the two\nprinciples, when your canon of Scripture has once advanced what clearly\nimplies that groundless notion.\n\n\"The jury are conjured.\" Since the detection and exposition of that\ninfamous list of jurors, out of which a jury used to be packed for the\nCrown whenever it was prosecutor, some sort of reformation has taken\nplace in the manner of appointing a jury, so as to leave a better chance\nof having disinterested men on the jury. Before Hone's trial the scene\nwhich used to take place in prosecutions for alledged blasphemy was\nscandalous and detestable. The legislature take upon themselves\nto assign a revelation to the Almighty, but as a revelation is a\ndelineation of his character, they assign to him a character of their\nown choosing; and as they labour to suppress and hide the objections\nstarted against it, that character which they have given to the Supreme\nBeing must of course be a bad one, because concealment in this case\nimplies guilt in the concealing party: so that the charge of blasphemy\nis justly retorted upon the legislature and upon the prosecuting party\nin this case of R. Carlile, and also in the preceding cases of Houston,\nthe reputed author of Ecce Homo, of Williams, who was\n\nPaine's printer of the Age of Reason, of Daniel Isaac Eaton, too, and\nothers. The legislative bodies, I repeat, and their accomplices, are\nthe real blaspheming party, who have given, as they testify by their\nconcealing practices, a bad and slanderous character to the Almighty,\nand whose guilt is aggravated by their endeavours to hinder other men\nfrom vindicating him from their foul aspersions.\n\nThe jury on all those above-mentioned occasions invariably gave up the\ncharacter of the Maker of the universe to be traduced and calumniated\nby the legislative bodies and their accomplices; and this abandonment of\nall rectitude and decency was by bad men termed a verdict, i. e. _a vere\ndictum_, whereby infallibility was attributed to twelve mortal men\nat the same time that it was denied to the Ancient of Days, the real\nproprietor of all worlds. If persons, sitting judiciously upon the\ncharacter of this exalted Being, gave it up thus to be reviled, they\nought, at least, to have been Gods whose judgement was to have been thus\nappealed to; in fact, this sort of appeal of the prosecuting party\nto twelve mortals was erecting them to something far above the human\nnature; and these twelve mortals were induced by a gratuity of one or\nmore guineas a piece, a good dinner, with plenty of jovial nectar,\nat the expence of the country, to consign over the character of\nthe Almighty to reviling and insult, thereby opening a door for a\nsupposititious system of morality,\n\n     \"And raised to gods confess even virtue vain.\"\n     --Pope.\n\n\"As they value the preservation of good morals.\" This, as I have\nshewn, must be merely ironical, these prosecutions having the opposite\ntendency.\n\n\"The peace and good order of society.\" This is to obtain a submission\nto tyranny; which submission Jesus in his religion inculcates by his\nApostle Peter, 1 Cph. chap. ii. ver. 13: \"Submit yourselves to every\nordinance of man.\" And this will account for zeal of the ruling\nauthorities to support Jesus's pretensions:\n\n\"Individual and public welfare.\" This, after what has been shewn, must\nbe all rant.\n\n\"The happiness of their fellow-subjects here and hereafter.\" This can\nnever be promoted by suppressing argument and stifling inquiry.\n\n\"Arrest the fatal poison.\" Here the fair and free investigation and\nexamination of propositions is called poison. Yet, who but the wicked\ncan have any thing to dread from inquiry?\n\nI apprehend, Mr. Shepherd, that you and the self' styled Society for the\nSuppression of Vice carry on separate prosecutions, but I have classed\nyou both together, because you are both of you aiding, abetting, and\nassisting in the same design. Of what individuals that Society is\ncomposed is not known to me, but as the Bishops of Durham and Rochester\nare the presidents, I conclude, that many priests of Jesus are among the\nnumber, and that, at any rate, the parsons are the chief instructors in\nthis business. That free inquiry should not generally take place is much\ntheir interest, for thereby their \"gains would be gone.\" They would much\nwish that the ignorance of ancient days, so profitable to parsons, could\nbe brought back; and I send you a verse or two upon a desire expressed\nin the Gentleman's, or as it ought to be called, from its treating so\nmuch of ecclesiastical matters, and expressing the wish of the parsons,\nthe Parson's Magazine, that the level near St. Andrew's church should be\nfilled up.\n\n     \"Priests, who through fiats their trade sustain\n     Wish level Holborn Hill;\n     And wish the world were flat again\n     As erst when it stood still.\" 1\n\nThe self-styled Society for the Suppression of Vice, are zealous to\nsubstitute useless or absurd observances as parts of religion, instead\nof real true morality; and have taken great pains to prevent amusements,\nand produce a gloom throughout Sunday, the only holiday for many people.\nThere are not less spirits drank on amount of a sabbatical gloom; for\nharmless chearfulness is rather a preservative of innocence. I have\ntherefore sent you, Mr. Attorney-General, a song, which I beg you to\ndeliver to the parsons of that Society, and to any other parsons, to\nhelp them to keep up their spirits.\n\n     1 Joshua, chap. x.\n\n\nSONG,\n\nTo the tune of \"Come, bustle, hustle, drink about, and let us merry be,\"\nof George Alexander Stevens.\n\n     Since Paul affirms that Heaven has chose\n     The thoughtless foolish things, 1\n     And bless'd with Paradise all those\n     For paying priests and kings: 2\n     Then a preaching we will go, will go, will go,\n     Then a preaching we will go.\n\n     Fanatic herds, as if with strings\n     At their nose, by priests are led;\n     And know not that the knavish things\n     Made that choice in God's stead.\n     Then a preaching, &c.\n\n     As crowds believe the heavens reject\n     The prying, shrewd, and wise,\n     No fear lest he our fraud detect,\n     Whose faith has closed his eyes.\n     Then a preaching, &c.\n\n     Now Sion is rubied, gilt, and pearl'd,\n     As the seat of blockheads' bliss;\n     Our flocks may take that future world,\n     Give us the joys of this.\n     Then a preaching, &c.\n\n          1 Cor. chap. i. ver. 27.\n\n          2 Rom. chap. xiii. ver. 4.\n\n     Our muttons, gulled and ignorant,\n     Dare never close inquire,\n     Lest if they disbelieve our cant,\n     They fall to Hell's hot fire.\n     Then a preaching, &c.\n\n     Thus dolts suck in through panic dread\n     The Gospel's milk 1 and crumbs,\n     And with all nonsense fill their heads,\n     Lest Hell should scorch their bums.\n     Then a preaching, &c.\n\n     March 2,1810. PHILALETHES.\n\n\n          1 1 Cor. chap. iii. ver. 2.\n            and Heb. chap. i. ver. 13.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER TO MR. CARLILE,\n\nLondon, 28th February, 1819.\n\n\nSir,\n\nYou are about to be placed in a situation, and to perform a part, which\nwill interweave your name in the page of history:--not, however, in\nthat species of history which records the wars, bloodshed, or misery\nof nations, as opposed to one another; but in that which exhibits the\ncruelties of governments towards individuals among their own subjects,\nwho seeing, or thinking they see, their fellow men suffering afflictions\nthrough the ignorance, prejudice, and misrule of their governments,\nendeavour to remove the causes of such oppressions and misery, by\ndisclosing them, and setting their fellow-men to think for themselves.\nYou have had the virtue and intrepidity to engage in this honourable\ncareer, and are, consequently, a prominent object in the public eye.\nEvery friend to the progress of knowledge, reason, and truth, as well\nas of sincere humanity, is warmly interested in the nature and result of\nthose severe proceedings instituted against you. They devoutly hope\nthat your character as a man and a neighbour will afford no handle for\ndisparagement of you and your conduct; that your moral principles are\ngood, and your integrity unquestioned; that your deportment in the\nrelations of private and domestic life is amiable: and that conscious\nof the purity of your motives, you will not shrink before the threats of\nyour adversaries; but, on the contrary, display that manly firmness of\ncourage which will enable you to encounter and defeat the numerical,\nthough not formidable, superiority of force to be arrayed against you.\nIf, however, contrary to our hopes and expectations, the abettors of\npersecution in church and state should, by their arts and machinations,\nsucceed in obtaining a verdict for the persecutor, be you assured that\nthe respect, sympathy, and support of every enlightened, liberal, and\nbenevolent mind, will follow you, wherever your oppressors may convey\nyour person. Yet, I cannot but cherish anticipations of a very different\ntermination of these proceedings, engendered as they are between\nreligious bigotry and political folly, when submitted by both sides to a\njury of our countrymen. I trust that impartial justice will guide their\ndecision.\n\nAs a friend to the universal freedom of mankind, civil and religious,\nI take leave to address you, for the purpose of contributing my sincere\ncongratulations on the honours that await you, and the fine opportunity\npresented to you of benefiting mankind. I regret that the nature of my\nsituation constrains me to conceal my name. To disclose it would, in all\nprobability, prove my ruin in worldly circumstances, and thus both my\npresent and future usefulness in this very cause be destroyed. I know\nmany individuals, eminent for public and private virtue, who entertain\nthe same sentiments as myself, who, by the prejudices so assiduously\nkept up, are equally obliged to be silent.\n\nI have felt desirous, too, of sending you a few unconnected thoughts\nwhich have occurred to me on your case. It is very likely that they are\nquite common, and may have been much better expressed by others; yet,\nnevertheless, I shall state them.\n\nI can easily suppose, that, even if you had an intention to employ\ncounsel in your defence, you would find some difficulty, in the present\nservility of the bar to the powers that be, to obtain any assistance.\nBut you require none, and you will be your own best advocate. I am not\na lawyer, and therefore am I neither deeply read in musty statutes, nor\nskilled in legal subtleties. I apprehend, however, that there is not a\nlaw in the statute book forbidding theological controversy. The crime\nwith which you are charged is called a _libel_. Now, what a libel is I\ndo not know, nor can any body tell me; yet you are doubtless pretty well\naware, that your prosecutors will, in a strain of inflated declamation\nand bombast, describe this libel as a thing of the most atrocious and\ndiabolical nature and tendency. Your mode of defence against this attack\nis obvious. Since the question at issue between you and your accusers\nis not one of law, but of fact, your object is to get behind\ntheir ambuscade of words, and beat down their phillippics by that\nirresistible weapon, common sense, wielded by an honest man.\n\nIt has always appeared to my understanding that the most powerful\nargument that can be used with well-meaning people who assisted in, or\napprove of, prosecutions to support the ascendancy of their religion,\nis, that which shews such prosecutions to have a _directly opposite\ntendency_. Persecution is the very scandal of religion: it confesses\nweakness at once, and is a complete admission that the origin,\ndoctrines, and progress of that religion cannot bear investigation.\n\nIt proves that the professors of and believers in it, are not themselves\nconvinced of its truth and divine nature. But a system of things being\nestablished, of which these persons form apart, in which they live,\nmove, and have their being, _they wish it to be true_. They themselves\ntake it for granted, and live very comfortably under that system of\nmachinery of which it is a wheel, and so their interest and indolence\ncombine in prompting them to wish every one else to have the same\nbelief. There are people, however, who cannot, and will not, believe\nwhat appears to their judgements to be false; but, should they go\nfarther than this, and consciously wishing their fellow-creatures to\nperceive the truth, endeavour to shew by writings on what grounds they\ncannot, and others ought not, to believe in falsehood and impositions,\nthen, in default of counter argument, or refutation by the same\ninstrument of reason, courts of law and armed authority are called on,\n_to compel_ those unbelievers either to believe, and of course such\nbelief would be against their consciences, or to hold their tongues. In\nformer ages, shooting, stabbing, burning, and flaying alive, were the\nmeans used for propagating religion for the good of men's souls; now\nthey are imprisonment, fine, pillory: but these remnants of barbarity\nare also fast sinking into disgrace and disuse, and I cannot help\nthinking that you are destined to give the finishing blow, in this\ncountry at least, to the cruelties of bigotry.\n\nNow, as inspiration or direct revelation from Heaven is not believed\neven by Christians (at least the more rational) of this day, though in\nthe early and middle ages of Christianity priests and monks would have\nsworn that God communicated with them every day, let me suggest that,\nin the course of your defence, you ask the Jury trying your guilt or\ninnocence as a _libeller_ of that religion, whether _they_ believe it\nto be founded on _truth?_ And since it would be to insult them, you\ncan add, to suppose they should profess belief of a subject doubtless\nconsidered by them of the highest importance to their present and future\nwelfare, without having thoroughly examined it, again ask--whether in\ntheir hearts and consciences they think that any sophistical reasoning,\nwhich every thing contrary to it they must deem so, could shake their\nprinciples thus established on the basis of demonstration? If so\nestablished, what can hurt it--what can be a libel on it? Unless their\nreligion be capable of _demonstration_, it is at best but _doubtful_,\nand may, therefore, be at least _susceptible_ of confutation. If, in\nspite of the objections and attacks to which it has been exposed, it can\nbe shewn to be the true religion after all, such discussion, instead of\ndoing harm, must do good, inasmuch as it fixes the religion on a firmer\nbasis. On a subject where so many men of the most acute intellect and\nmost respectable character differ in opinion, you, as a humble inquirer\nafter truth, may be allowed to have yours. Speculative opinions on\nreligion, you can tell the jury, are nothing: whether you are a Roman\nCatholic, a Protestant, a Mohammedan, a worshipper of Vishnu, or a Free\nThinker, or none of all these, is of no consequence to mankind, either\ngoverning or governed--It is a matter between you and your Maker only.\nAll that governments can have to do with individuals, is their conduct\nas members of the state towards their neighbours. Had you been charged\nwith any acts of disturbance, with the violation of any of the laws\nfor the protection of persons and property, then it would have been\nintelligible; you might have been a fit object for trial, and, if found\nguilty, of punishment. Not one of the books which you have published\nhave the slightest tendency to promote disorder, but, on the contrary\ndo they profess and are calculated by a diffusion of their principes\nto extend and consolidate universal peace, virtue, happiness, and\nprosperity.\n\nIf, then, the gentlemen of the Jury's religion be founded on what they\nhave satisfied their understanding to be _truth_, nothing can injure it;\nsince, if it really come from God, to imagine that any writings, whether\nargumentative or satirical, could maintain a doubtful contest with books\nsaid to contain a revelation of the divine will, is actually to raise\nthe author of such writings, and you their publisher, to a level with\nGod himself! or, rather, to degrade that Almighty, wise, and good Being,\nyour Creator, to a level with you, the creature. Hence it follows, that\npersecution may destroy, but never can support any religion.\n\nYou cannot have a better ground-work for your defence than the\ntheological works of Paine, which, indeed, settle the question about the\ninspiration of the scriptures and the divinity of Christ. On the subject\nof religion generally there is a book which every lover of truth must\nregret is not so well known as it will infallibly be in no long time--I\nallude to a work entitled \"Principles of Morality,\" by George Ensor,\nEsq. It displays the most extensive research and erudition, combined\nwith good sense and an amiable disposition; the subject is pursued with\nmuch perspicuity of order, and expressed in an easy, neat, appropriate\nstyle. The book forms a very useful companion to Hume's ingenious and\nphilosophical Essays on the Natural History of Religion.\n\nI have now to advert to what you will doubtless consider the most\nvaluable part of this communication. At the period of the late Mr.\nEaton's cruel and abominable treatment under the chief persecutorship\nof Lord Ellenborough and his high priest, Sir Vicary Gibbs, a letter\nappeared in the Morning Chronicle on the subject of that unfortunate\ngentleman's unmerited punishment. It purported to be written by one\nwho believed in the Christian religion; but it evinced sentiments\nso liberal, reasoning so just and forcible; it placed the right of\nconscience, even as good policy, in so striking a point of view; arguing\nthe subject in such good temper, and with such conciseness, as to appear\nto me a masterpiece of its kind, and a standard to which every member of\nthe Christian church ought to be referred. I preserved a copy of it at\nthe time, and now send you one transcribed, believing that it may be\nuseful to you, or that it may at least be interesting to you in the\nperusal.\n\nThe public mind has, of late years, been making rapid progress towards\na true knowledge of its rights. Priestcraft and bigotry must and will be\ndestroyed. Once trampled upon by man in the energy of his wrath, these\nmonsters can never again rear their Gorgon heads. Like the Apollo\nrepresented by the Grecian sculptor, in the act of destroying the\nPythian serpent, man will then stand as God created him, the impress of\nhis own image, erect, free, noble, and grand. We have seen the glorious\nresult of the attempt to crush, not Hone, but in him the spirit of a\nfree press, and it is not permitted us to doubt that a similar triumph\nand reward awaits you.\n\nI am,\n\nYour sincere (though anonymous) friend,\n\nA FELLOW-INQUIRER AFTER TRUTH.\n\n(Copy.)\n\nTo the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.\n\nSir,\n\nI was one of those who saw Mr. Eaton stand in the pillory for what has\nbeen called an attempt to overturn the religion of his country. The\nmanner in which the spectators behaved during the execution of this\nsevere punishment, was, in my opinion, highly creditable to the\nliberality of the age. I think I may venture to say, there was hardly an\nindividual present who did not sympathise with the unfortunate man; he\nwas cheered by numbers during the whole time of the punishment; and many\nefforts were made to convey various kinds of refreshments to him.\n\nAs one of those who wish well to the interests of the Christian\nreligion, I own I was shocked upon this occasion. I have always\nconceived this religion to be perfectly independent of the arm of\nauthority for its support, and to require only to be heard and examined\nto bear down every species of opposition. I cannot but consider that\nit has made its way against power, learning, and philosophy, united to\ndestroy it; nor can I refuse to draw from this the deduction, that it\nwill equally withstand all the efforts of abuse, sophistry, and calumny.\nWhen I see any set of men resort to punishment, instead of argument,\nin its defence, I can with difficulty conceive they are serious in the\nbelief of its doctrines, for the smallest reflection might convince\nthem, that such a course is the most effectual method they could take\nto lower its estimation, and to cover it with discredit. It betrays that\ndiffidence and fear for the result which a man thoroughly impressed with\nthe truth of the Christian doctrines would surely not be the most likely\nto entertain. I cannot bring myself, therefore, to believe, that those\nwho manifest a zeal to crush the enemies of Christianity by the arm of\nthe law, are themselves acquainted with that religion. I imagine them,\non the contrary, to be men whose time and attention have been completely\ningrossed by secular affairs, and who believe the Christian religion as\nthey would believe the Mohammedan, merely because their fathers believed\nit before them.\n\nLet those cruel persecutors reflect for a moment on the injury they are\nthus doing to the very cause they are pretending to support. Let them\nconsider that religion can be defended only by argument, or by force;\nand that it cannot be defended by the union of both; for it is in vain\nto say, it may be defended by argument, when the reasonings on one side\nonly can be heard aloud, while those on the other draw down on the head\nof the user of them pillory and imprisonment. It is certainly a very\nunequal conflict when one of the combatants may make use of an argument\nor a halter at his discretion. It is like a battle between a pugilist\nand one armed with a stiletto, which, though he may not use at first, he\nknows he can use if hard pushed. Such defenders of Christianity would do\nwell to remember, that the means they are resorting to are those which\nso successfully promoted the cause of infidelity in France. Had the same\npains been bestowed in refuting the productions of Rousseau, Diderot,\nand Voltaire, which were employed in burning their books and punishing\nthe authors, France and the whole of Europe might, at this day, have\nexhibited very different spectacle.\n\nThe progress of liberal opinion has been very rapid, indeed, of late\nyears; and though Judges and Attorney-Generals, whose daily pursuits,\ncertainly so unfavourable to liberal and comprehensive reasonings, are\ngenerally among the last persons to shake off antiquated prejudices, yet\nthey too, however slowly, will, unquestionably, at last, be borne down\nby the tide of public opinion.","title":"A Letter to Sir Samuel Shepherd, Knt., His Majesty's Attorney General: Upon the Subject of His Prosecutions of Richard Carlile, for Publishing Paine's Age of Reason","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":8215}