No. 9. VOL. 2.] LONDON, Friday, August 29, 1828. [PRICE 6d. JOURNAL OF MR. CARLILE'S TOUR THROUGH THE COUNTRY. (Continued from page 233.) Nottingham, August 25, 1828. My long stay in this town has made me feel as if I were at home in it and not touring, and the longer I remain the more generally I feel my company in request. I have visited several large companies, and begin to desire more ample space in which I can have a congregation of all the persons in the town and neighbourhood, who would like to hear how simple and how very easy to be understood are the principles which I am advocating. I should now like nothing better than to meet Mr. Gilbert, or Mr. Any-bodyelse, who thinks I am wrong, in the Market-place of this town, to show the largest possible number of people the great distinction and difference, between what they consider infidelity to be, and what it really is. I should like to show them, that a child may understand all that I teach, while the most clever man knows nothing of what is preached about religion, save that it must be an error. I fear I shall not have the opportunity to do this on a large scale; but I flatter myself, that I shall have done enough in Nottingham, to prepare the way for a very important mission into this neighbourhood, in some future year, in company with Mr. Taylor. The dissent from all dissenters, the real emancipation that is now wanted is that, which infidelity, in the sense in which I maintain it, connected with the other political and moral principles which I advocate, offers to the people of this, and of every other country. Embodying all that is good in every religion, or what is called the moral part of every religion, with all that is good in political economy; embracing and confirming by Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 62. Fleet Street, No. 9.-Vol. 2. S observation the ripened judgment of the most eminent men on social economy, and the spotless political principles of Thomas Paine on the subject of government, I feel, that I stand forth, not only the advocate of the rights, but of the happiness of man. It does not necessarily follow, that the possession of rights will make a man happy, he must be taught not only to free himself from the tyranny of others; but also from the worse tyranny of his own prejudices, bad passions and bad habits. This is what I feel that I am doing, and this is what I am endeavouring to stimulate others to assist me in doing. I have the mortification to find, as I did in conversation with Mr. Bailey, before mentioned, in the Market-place, on Saturday last, that my opponents for the want of all argument wherewith to oppose me, will impute to my conduct a tendency to effect the very reverse in principle of that which I desire to accomplish. Thus Mr. Bailey persisted in trying to persuade me, that my principles were without morals, and all tended to the establishment of monarchial despotism. One argument for this absurd and monstrous conclusion is, that Hobbes and Hume were atheists, and also the advocates for monarchial despotism or government, founded in the absolute will of one individual. How would Mr. Bailey like it if, when I had detected one bad man, among Mr. Gilbert's congregation, I were to say, that all must be bad, and all of the same religion must be bad? I do nothing in this wholesale way. I find the question of morals to be wholly distinct from the question of religion, and that there are good and bad men of all sects and of no sect. I find the question of political government to be wholly distinct from the question of religion. God of this kind, or of that kind, or of no kind, is a very distinct question from king or no king. The one is a question of physical research, the other of morals and politics. I retorted on Mr. Bailey, that there would be more reason in the assumption, that the religious man, who maintains a tyrant in heaven, would also maintain a tyrant on earth, making the one to be the vicegerent of the other, than that the atheist, or man without religion, who hates and rejects the presumed tyranny of the gods, should present a subjection to, and encourage the tyranny of his fellow-man. The one is coherent, the other improbable. Pope has exemplified the subject better, in the following lines, from his Essay on Man: "See from the rending earth and bursting skies There, Mr. Bailey, that is the way in which every man makes his gods, and this the sort of morals that is deducible from reli gion. On my part, I am free to put in force as human law, whatever human wisdom may suggest, and I can prove, what you admitted in self-contradiction, that there can be no good laws on the subject of religion, and that consequently, all good laws must necessarily be atheistical, and for this great reason, that laws can only be made by man to relate to man with any good effect. I must put aside this subject of Mr. Bailey's oppositely erroneous imputations for another day, promising him that I will yet canvass them fully, as a more important subject falls in the way. On Saturday last, I sent to Mr. Gilbert, with a copy of the last No. of "THE LION," the following note, to which I have just received the accompanying answer, and have forwarded the appended reply: so that Nottingham is likely to have the benefit of a public discussion upon the subject; and, if possible, I will announce the particulars in this week's Number. (Copy) "Nottingham, August 23, 1828. "Reverend Sir,-The variety of rumour which is afloat in Nottingham, and some part of it not a little offensive to me, relating to the conversation which has taken place between us, has induced me to give of it a report and an explanation in the No. of "THE LION" for this week, and to invite further discussion, and I beg leave to present you with a copy, either for a correction of my statement, if not correct, or for your consideration of a further discussion. A note, through the post, will find me at Mr. Synyer's, New Snenton. "I am, Reverend Sir, "Rev. Mr. Gilbert, "Nottingham." (Copy) "Respectfully, "RICHARD CARLILE." "Nottingham, August 25, 1828. "Sir,-1 am not aware of giving any occasion for rumours offensive to you, relative to the conversation which has taken place between us; nor do I know what these rumours are. I have understood that you are in the habit of printing an account of such events as the interview between you and myself. "The propositions on which you have challenged me to a discussion, appear to me to be too indefinite to admit of any satisfactory result. I know not what may be regarded by you as the 'Christian religion in its common acceptation,' and I have nothing to do with it as 'established by law.' Neither do I perceive what definition can be agreed upon between us, of such a god as is commonly preached.' "If you mean to deny, that Jesus, commonly called Jesus Christ, ever had existence; as also, that there is an intelligent first cause of things, I am ready to meet you upon these simple questions; at a time, place, and under such regulations as shall be agreed upon between mutual friends. The propositions on which I thus agree to argue with you, and which I suppose to be what you intend to support, are annexed.* If you admit them to contain your sentiments, and are willing to maintain them, I shall thank you for a reply to that effect. "You are aware of my engagements on Saturday and Sunday, and therefore, I hope no apology is needed for the short delay in answering your note. "I am, Sir, with real wishes for your welfare, and earnest desires for the promotion of truth, "Mr. Carlile, "At Mr. Synyers, New Snenton." "Your's obediently, "JOSEPH GILBERT." (Copy) "New Snenton, August 25, 1828. "Reverend Sir,-There remains enough in your alteration of my first proposition, for a reasoning materialist to grapple with. So I am content to let it so stand, with the explanation, that the word intelligent, in relation to eternal first cause, is all that I purpose to argue against. To the last three words, I make no objection. "In the second proposition, as altered by you, which should have been first, I cannot mistake, that the Jesus is the same, as that name, on which the whole Christian religion of the last seventeen hundred years has its foundation. So I am content to let that also stand as it is. "I am free to enter upon further arrangements, at any time or place that you or friends may be pleased to appoint. "Allow me, Reverend Sir, to assure you, that, in alluding to offensive rumours, I meant not that any such had emanated from or been countenanced by you. I have not heard such an imputation: and also, that I considered your engagements and did not expect to hear from you until this day. I respect the promptitude with which you have met my invitation for further discussion; and flatter myself, that it shall have no other tendency than that general satisfaction which constitutes the public good. "I am, Reverend Sir, respectfully, "Rev. Mr. Gilbert." "RICHARD CARLILE." Propositions which you are to defend, myself to deny : "1. That there is no proof, no knowledge, not even any fair assumption or guess-work, that an ETERNAL, INTELLIGENT, FIRST CAUSE of things, is in existence." "2. That no person, first known by the name of JESUS, or JESUs of Nazareth, and afterwards by that of JESUS CHRIST, ever had existence. "I hope you will perceive that 1-have retained what is essential in your propositions, taking away only such parts, as are either vague or irre levant." I cannot perceive that Mr. Gilbert has rendered my propositions more clear; but I admit, that he has made no alteration that evades their real sense. He is by far the most respectable public opponent that I have yet had for oral discussion: and I anticipate the advancement of the cause of truth, or the discovery and knowledge of truth by this discussion. I perceive that Nottingham is quite ripe for such a discussion; and I have been unwilling to leave the town without it. An enquiry has been made, when I shall again visit Lancashire. I cannot at this moment make a promise; but I am desirous, if time and other circumstances will permit, to visit that country again generally before I return to London. Indeed, I perceive, that my future business will lie more in the country than in London, allowing time to keep up what must necessarily be done in London. I prefer London, as a place of residence; but any where to be most useful, will be my future guide. RICHARD CARLILE. AN ESSAY ON THE PERSECUTION OF PHILOSOPHERS BY THE CLERGY. PRIESTS are the natural enemies of every philosopher; nor is it to be wondered at; as they live upon the credulity, the prejudices, and the ignorance of mankind, it is impossible for them to like writers by whom our eyes are opened, our prejudices dispelled, and our minds enlightened. Ask a quack doctor why he hates physicians? He will tell you, Because they prevent me from selling my specifics. Ask a knave why he hates honest men? He will say, Because they detect my tricks. Ask a priest why he hates philosophers? if frank, he will answer, Because they spoil my trade. The hatred which the clergy bear to the friends of knowledge has no other origin. Sensible that repeated attacks have rendered the citadel of their faith scarcely tenable; convinced that THE GATES OF TRUTH will ultimately prevail against it; they detest their adversaries from the very bottom of their hearts. Since the days of Roger Bacon and Giordano Bruni, they have left no means unemployed to effect the ruin of philosophers. But passion is a perfidious guide. Of late, it has led the priesthood to adopt measures which can only serve to bring on them ridicule and odium. I remember to have read, that, formerly, there were companies of gendarmes in which no man could be admitted, unless he declared he had fought a duel, or that he intended to do so in the course of the year. One should be tempted to say that it is the same with the church. It looks, as if to be received among its members, it was necessary "to run a-muck and tilt" at the most celebrated philosophers, or to promise shortly to fulfil that Quixotic duty. Not satisfied with this, they endeavour to raise the whole world against their |