« AnteriorContinuar »
change continual, although the name or title might have been retained? Have the received notions of Christianity continued the same for two centuries together since its origin? In the various countries in which it has been propagated, has it not taken as many shapes as the years of its existence? Is it not a crime is it not a vice to oppose the continual change of opinion, and more particularly so at this moment, when the printing-press is revolutionizing the opinions of every country in which it exists? Cease then, ye selfish conspirators, to attack opinion in any shape; and if your object or inclination be indeed to preserve the morals and virtue of the country from further contamination, and from the seductive influence of voluptuarian books and prints, combine your force to that object, and no longer impoverish yourself by attacking such publications as every honest and conscientious man would willingly expose to sale. You seem to boast of convicting Richard Carlile, but is it likely at present that he will fill out the last year of his imprisonment which has been allotted him for publishing Palmer's Principles of Nature? I can assure you he is doubtful of it, and should that doubt prove vague and futile, he will quit his prison-house in a much better condition than he would have been in had no prosecutions taken place. The alternative of the verdict being guilty or not guilty, was to him of great importance, but to you it availed nothing, but as matter of exultation and gratification. Had the verdict been not guilty, it would have provided him a rapid, an instantaneous fortune; but, as it is, he is much the gainer by the prosecution, and such will be the case, to every other person prosecuted, a certain gain, whilst, to the prosecutor it must infallibly be a certain loss, both in money, principle, and opinion. So do not suffer a good book to pass unnoticed.
FOR THE REPUBLICAN.
TO MR. JUSTICE PARK.
What could you mean by that foolish tirade at Newcastle against the licentiousness of the press? Who do you think will be influenced by it? Yre you the only man in existence qualified to judge of what is useful and what is licentious? You had better turn methodist preacher at once and pretend to inspiration, and who even then do you think would prefer your judgment to his own? Silly monk! are these the days to expect people to listen to your infallible dogmas about sedition and blasphemy, and reject all that can be learnt from enquiry? But you would like to enforce your impressions: no doubt of it; and with the means of torture at your elbow, "undermine the peace and security of the country." Indeed: say honestly, had you no view to your own security when you talked about the country?" Inveigh against men in the highest stations!' Truly and are men in high stations sacred because their station' is high? Don't attempt to impose so on common sense. " Arraign the character of the sovereign himself!" And why not? You know he has, or ought to have a character; and what makes a character but the collective opinions of individuals? "More shocking still to assail the majesty of God himself!" Really can't you be content with your own God, and let every man alone to the enjoyment of his own. I'll be bold to say if you should condescend to describe your God: there are not many who would agree with your fancy in all particulars; and if not in some, why should they not dif fer in many?" Drive what is well written far away as a pestilence;" destroy themselves" and families." So good writing is to destroy, and your trash to save them: inconceivable vanity! “Grand jurors and their higher characters as magistrates:" prettily sustained; Manchester to wit. "As they regard their happiness hereafter." How came you so knowing about hereafter? Do you know more than people may hear every Sunday from their priests? and what do they know more than the rest of us? I'll tell you what, Mr. Justice Park, you are under a mistake: don't think to cram stuff of this sort down people's throats for gospel now-a-days; having found out the priests, they are not to be muzzled and bamboozled by you. "Revelabo animan meam" is a very good motto, but it is every body's motto, and it shall not be monopolized by the Park family.
You may spin cobwebs as long as you please, but the flies you catch will not destroy the breed; and you have lived long enough to know (if an owlish slumber did not blind you,) that all these big wig injunctions ouly make you a laughing stock. "The licentiousness of the press a dangerous and growing evil :" dangerous for you and some
others, perhaps but it would not grow if it were not generally encouraged, and it would not be encouraged if it was not liked. The fact is, the more people read of what you call dangerous, the more they learn of the tricks of priests and lawyers, and this is very "pernicious," faith.
Your very humble servant,
A GENERAL READER.
CONTINUATION OF REPLY TO THE REV. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE'S PAMPHLET, ENTITLED "DEISM REFUTED." From p. 640, Vol. III.
Before I look into the book of Judges, it will be necessary that I correct an error which appeared in page 640 of the last number, of the last volume, whether it was accidental, or intentional, on the part of the reader in London from a motive of false delicacy, I cannot say, but I must and will have it right. Trivial errors I pass over unnoticed, as the reader may often rectify them himself, but it has too often happened that inexcusable alterations have taken place in London in many of my sentences, and this too in spite of my remonstrance against any alteration. The present error stands thus at the top of the page:-"As a proof of the many idle stories of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, I will just mention, that Tertullian and Iræneus, two fathers of the Christian church, asserted, that in their time, this pillar of salt was flesh and blood!" Now it should have been "that in their time, this pillar of salt continued to menstruate just as if it was flesh and blood." If I had copied their own expressions, they would have been far more gross than mine, for they enter into minute descriptions of menstruation, and its appearance on the pillar! The reader will perceive that the alteration is quite inexcusable, and that as it stands in the last number, it is ridiculous and without meaning. My object is not to rake up every thing that is filthy, no one loathes such observations more than myself: but it is my duty to shew what were the ideas and
characters of those who have mainly assisted in propagating the common fraud of religion. Tertullian and Irenæus are two of the most celebrated fathers of the Christian church, and when we reflect on their assertions with respect to this pillar
salt and "Lot's wife" so called, we may form some idea of their respectability and the credit due to other parts of their writings. The word Milus on the same page should be read Nilus. The unavoidable necessity of recurring to such corrections as these is the only thing that gives me pain in my confinement. I hope it will cease.
I believe that I have said sufficient of Jehovah to shew, that in reputation and consideration, he was far inferior among the Jews, to what Jupiter was held to be among the Grecians and Romans. The books of the Old Testament from Genesis to the book of Ezra, and all the books of the supposed prophets, are such gross and contemptible compilations, that they are beneath fair criticism: it is impossible to handle them according to the rules of criticism, for at one moment we feel disgust at the contents, and in the next we are compeHed to consider the great interest which those contents have excited and continue to excite in consequence of the Bible being called a holy book, the word of God and such like false appellations. However, we must consider it in all its bearings and influence, but I presume the reader can have no wish that I should continue to inspect all the remaining books so closely, as I have those gone over, as it would unavoidably lead me into much repetition, which at the same time will be as tedious to myself as to the reader, and profit neither.
The book of Judges begins in the following words:—
"Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judalı shall go up behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him. And Judah went up; and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men. And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and thed slew the Canaanites and the Perrizites. But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Adoni-bezek said, threescore and tea kings,
having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died. Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire."
The first thing that strikes us is the want of a leader: it is said "the children of Israel asked the Lord." The children of Israel exceeded a million, according to Jewish exaggeration, and this single circumstance is a proof of fiction. And why should the task be imposed upon Judah to fight against the Canaanites, why not one and all of the tribes? "And Judah said to Simeon his brother:" can we read, or construe this into any thing beyond the singular number, or even if we consent to do so, may we not express surprise, that the children of Judah should deviate from their instructions received from Jehovah, in seeking the assistance of Simeon, after he, Jehovah, had said "Judah shall go up." Is not this also proof of fiction? I presume it was the fashion among those village kings to cut off each others thumbs and great toes when they took each other captive, for Adonibezek is made to say"Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table!" I shall say nothing about the probability of this, but thus much I know, that whether the territory of a king he one square mile or a million, if his power be absolute, his disposition and conduct is ever the same. King-craft is unnatural and unsocial.
The taking of Jerusalem, mentioned here, is in direct contradiction to all former account of it, for we were told that the Jebusites retained that city, and continued to dwell in it after making peace with the Israclites: we shall also find further mention of this by and by.
The next observation worthy of notice, is in the nineteenth verse of the first chapter: And the Lord was with Judah; ' and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could 'not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had 'chariots of iron.' May we attribute this circumstance to the impotence or omnipotence of Jehovah? The reader may do as he likes, I smile and pass on to the twenty-first verse, which says, And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the 'Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell 'with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.' Reader, compare this with the eighth verse, or the last sentence of the first paragraph quoted from this chapter. The