"There was praise of the good from the lips of the just,And Julian it taught us to know thee;To prize what we held and to feel what we've lost,And to scan the huge debt that we owe thee."There are none could have heard with an unmoistened eye,That most simple and eloquent story,Which told us of virtues, so rare and so high,That we paused to admire and deplore thee."Oh thine was the spirit and thine were the deeds,Which told us of hope, light, and promise,We talked not of dogmas, we thought not of creeds,We but felt what a heart had gone from us."
Joseph Harris.
The Joseph Harris mentioned in several of the letters of Isis and of Carlile was one of the volunteer shopmen who received a sentence of six months' imprisonment; he again served them when prosecution had well-nigh ceased, but was fined and locked up for one night during the Church tithes trouble. Harris was, like all the other young men who volunteered, an exceedingly intelligent, upright and moral man, and he endeared himself to Carlile and Isis by his upright conduct and exemplary manners. He was of a studious habit, and Isis took great pleasure in assisting him with his studies; he became to her as a brother in the confidence she reposed in him, and he in turn gave to her and all of the name of Carlile his best friendship and assistance in time of need. It was to Joseph Harris Isis turned in her widowhood for advice and sympathy, and received such as a loving brother might give to a sister.
Some time after Carlile's death Harris entered into the London Post Office service as a letter-carrier, and by dint of pure merit rose step by step till he came to-occupy the position of paymaster—a most responsible post—which he held for several years.
Later on he went to America and was elected to-the State Senate of Wisconsin in 1863; he had been a newspaper man before that time, publishing a paper called theAdvocate. The life work of Mr. Harris was the promoting and carrying through of the Sturgeon Bay Canal, and is best known in this connection. To-this work he devoted many years of his life, and almost every dollar he had. He was librarian to the United States Senate for eight years, and was special agent for the Impeachment Committee that was organised against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Later in his life he was private secretary to Senator Sawyer of Wisconsin. In all these offices he conducted himself as a strictly moral and upright citizen. In every sense a worthy specimen of the sort of young men who earned the name of being pupils and followers of Carlile. This testimony to his noble and superior qualities is given by one who has his history almost from birth.
Gratitude and respect for Joseph Harris is compulsory, for he was indeed the widow and orphan's friend. As he helped Isis and her fatherless children, so he helped the widow and nine orphans of Carlile's eldest son Richard, when he died on shipboard, or rather in hospital, on his return to America after visiting London in 1855.
Mrs. Sarah C. Chichester and Mrs. Welch.
The "West Country friends" to whom Carlile so frequently alluded to in his letters to Turton, sometimes calling them "My Gloucestershire friends", the "Ebworth ladies", and "My lady friends", were two very highly connected ladies, sisters, and both widowed. They were Mrs. Sarah C. Chichester and Mrs. Welch, grandnieces of the Archbishop of York. They were great admirers of Carlile and his principles, and sent him large sums of money to assist him in his various enterprises. They first commenced a correspondence with him under the assumed name of "Clay", but afterwards revealed their identity and invited him to their home, where he spent several happy weeks on different occasions. Isis was, too, a favorite friend and guest, and for some years a constant correspondent. These generous friends always urged Carlile on in his public work, assuring him that they would provide for his wife and family, should he be unable to leave them a support, and an allowance of £200 a year was agreed upon, but for some reason or other this money never reached Isis, possibly through the dishonesty of their chosen agent. These were the ladies who furnished the money to start Bronson Alcotts Concordium at Ham Common, near Richmond, and they sunk large sums of money in that venture, which did not prove a success. Many letters are extant to show how close was the friendship existing between these ladies and Carlile and Isis. Mrs. Welch also made some provision for Carlile's three children in her will, but this provision, like the £200 a year, did not mature. It goes to prove, however, that Carlile's friends were among the best people in the country. These ladies were advanced thinkers, always ready, too, to accept any new thought or help on any new project, and were humanitarians in the largest sense of the word.
I extract the following from Carlile's letters to Turton:—
"June 22nd, 1837.
"Some unknown lady has sent me £30 from Gloucestershire in sympathy for my loss in thePhoenix."
"September 20th, 1837.
"Did I tell you that my West of England friends had sent me another handsome remittance before I left, and still promise future good? Mrs. Carlile has been put in fine spirits and is delighted at this."
"Manchester, September 30th, 1857.
"My new friends remitted me £35 for my present excursion."
"December 8th, 1837.
"My friends are very lavish in their gifts of useful books and in supplying me with money. Their remittances already amount to £200. Mrs. Carlile and I are to visit these ladies before I return to Lancashire."
"I have a commission for you; my valuable friends in Gloucestershire write me thus...." [This was a commission to purchase and distribute £10 worth of the pamphlets of one S. Roberts, who wrote and worked in behalf of the poor and ill-used chimney sweeps.]
"London, May 4th, 1838.
"I came on to Cheltenham to visit my new and great and good friends, with whom I spent a most happy week."
"May 15th, 1838.
"I spent eight days with my new and good friends in Gloucestershire, where I was superlatively happy."
Mrs. Susannah Wright.
The only woman outside of the Carlile family to suffer imprisonment in the cause of a Free Press was Mrs. Susannah Wright. This plucky little woman took charge of the shop in Fleet Street, after the Carlile family had all been put in prison; and taking her turn at martyrdom, was indicted and sentenced. She, with her six months' old baby, was treated with great severity and harshness at first, as if she were a felon. She spiritedly resisted the treatment, and was removed afterwards to Cold Bath Fields Prison. There she was treated with more humanity, but being a very delicate woman, she came near dying in consequence of the treatment she had received at Newgate. One month of her term of imprisonment was remitted as well as her fine of £100. Carlile always regarded Mrs. Wright as a model for women to copy, and paid her the highest tribute for her enthusiasm, perseverance, coolness, and dauntlessness. To him individually she was the source of the highest gratification, and he took every opportunity of lauding the work she had done. Immediately on her liberation she paid a visit to Dorchester Gaol, and received hearty thanks and congratulations from Carlile. She soon afterwards removed to Norwich, where, with Carlile's assistance, she opened a little shop for the sale of liberal works. Here she at first met with much opposition, but by dint of her own courage and intrepidity on becoming better known her persecutions ceased, and she was left to follow her vocation in peace. She bears in history the distinctive honor of being the only woman (other than Jane and Mary Anne Carlile) who suffered imprisonment for their services in the battle for a Free Press.
In a letter to Holmes, on Mrs. Wright, Carlile writes:—
"September 21st, 1825.
"I did not write last week for I had Mrs. Wright with me, in whom, after all the slanders that have passed, I can find no fault You will see that I have called her the Pink of us all. She is quite ready to go to the shop again if prosecutions are renewed. Her sufferings as to health have been dreadful since she left the prison, indeed, through all the winter, no one thought of her living, which accounts for nothing having been heard of her. Like you, she is one-eyed, and, as at your visit, I sent her with a letter to Lawrence to see if her sight be recoverable."
In another letter to W. V. Holmes, Carlile says:—"I by no means coincide with what you say of Mrs. Wright, there is scarcely another woman in England who would have done for me what that woman has done, and from my knowledge of her in 1817-18 and 1819, I know that a love of principle has been her ruling motive."
George Jacob Holyoake.
It was the last year of Carlile's life that Mr. Holyoake was tried and imprisoned for Atheism, and it was almost the last public action of Carlile's life to aid and encourage the young warrior in this, his first real battle with the enemies of free thought and free speech. Carlile sat by Holyoake's side during his excellent defence, which lasted nine hours. Holyoake being a delicate man would probably have been exhausted had not Carlile kept him refreshed with raspberry vinegar, etc. Carlile did everything in his power to get the conditions of Mr. Holyoake's imprisonment modified, but with small success. Mr. Holyoake was happily the last man to be imprisoned for so-called "Atheism".
Herewith is appended some correspondence showing the impression Holyoake made upon Carlile, and also some letters which passed between the two men:—
"Richard Carlile to Thomas Turton.
"I wished you present, yesterday, in the Court of Gloucester, to have heard the truly grand display of character, talent, and integrity, made by George Jacob Holyoake.
"I honor your discrimination in seizing upon his great worth and exception to the common run of Radicals and Socialists. He spoke nine hours admirably. I made sure of his acquittal while his defence was in progress, but the judge was an alarmed bigot, and pleaded against him unmercifully without allusion to his noble defence.
"The stupid jury said guilty, after five minutes putting their heads together. He is to have six months' imprisonment.
"In your name, and as a present from you, I shall go to the gaol this morning and present Holyoake a pair of your razors. It is the only thing I have with me here to offer him. I was proud of him, and of myself too, to think I had brought forth such a state of mind. Holyoake was heard by a court fall of ladies, and had they been his jury, he would have been acquitted.
"The more I see and hear of Holyoake the more I like him.
"You would not have grudged the cost (of travel) to have seen Holyoake on Monday. It was a truly beautiful scene to see this young Jesus before the Jews and Pontius Pilate."
Carlile often wished that Holyoake had been his son, and Holyoake as often wished, too, that he had been. Mr. Holyoake expressed this wish quite recently in a letter to the writer. This friendship mutually existing between Carlile and Holyoake is as gratifying and sweet in its remembrance as is the odor of the rose after the vase is shattered, and their freely spoken appreciation of each other speaks well for both:—
"There was praise of the good from the lips of the just."
"July, 1842.
"R. Carlile, Esq., Enfield.
"My Dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 11th. Am sincerely obliged by your kind offer of further advice as far as you can assist me. I am lost in London, as you will guess, and scarcely know where I am, or I should have replied to yours before. From your letter to Mr. Ryall, I find that my kind friend Mr. Turton, of Sheffield, has done me the honor to mention me in his letters to him. Mr. Turton is a gentleman whom I highly respect.
"I feel not a little encouraged by the courtesy with which you offer your assistance, and, indeed, have rendered it, as on Sunday last.... I have written to Cheltenham for aFree Press, containing your letter on my case, and will forward it the moment received.
"Yours very truly and respectfully,
"G. J. HOLYOAKE."
"London, July 24th, 1842.
"My Dear Sir,—Thank you for your advice. Shall be, I believe, in Cheltenham, before I go to Gloucester. Will write you before that. I elicited some warm cheers for you this morning at the Rotunda.
"Yours truly and respectfully,
"G. J. Holyoake."
"Birmingham, July 30th, 1842.
"R. Carlile, Esq., Cheltenham.
"My Dear Sir,—I am much obliged for your frank and candid advice. It is the most welcome, because you leave me free to reject where I may not approve without fear of offending you. You say, 'I have always thought for myself; do you so'. How many talk of free thought without even extending that privilege, as you do, to others. I am satisfied of your good intention in writing to ———. I object to no proceeding your kindness and experience may suggest so far as you alone take part in it. I thank you for expressly saying that I did not sanction any overtures. I cannot do so. I have no faith in Christians. My experience is limited, I grant, but as far as it goes I feel that any concession on my part would only increase their malignity. Men who have begun with the ferocity they have begun with me will never end by doing me justice.
"Your opinion as to the public, princes, women, and myself, I entirely accord with, and I scarcely know which to admire more, the correctness of the sentiment, or the beautiful manner in which it is expressed. I know the public, etc., is fickle, and have sought a higher reward, theconsciousness of rectitude; this is not all-enduring, and when it fails I have done. Your estimate of ———— curiously coincides with many I have heard; his objection to discuss theology is puerile indeed. It is, as you say, to object to discussion of the cause of the evils he professes to eradicate.
"Yours obligedly,
"G. J. HOLYOAKE."
"County Gaol, Gloucester, August 18th, 1842.
"R. Carlile, Esq., Cheltenham.
"My Dear Sir,—I was much obliged by your kind letter, and although I must regard your remarks rather as those of a friend than of a critic, yet am I much gratified that my exertions should have met your approval. Your good opinion will compensate me for the unpleasantness of my condition. I shall take care of my health as far as is possible. I learn from Seymour that you have sent him a communication for theOracle[Holyoake's paper]. Your name will do the cause infinite service independently of what you will write. "With many thanks, etc., etc.,
"G. J. HOLYOAKE."
"Gloucester Gaol, October 22nd, 1842.
"My Dear Sir,—I am certainly gratified that you should have taken the trouble to write me so long a letter. The sovereign you so kindly caused to be remitted, duly came to hand by seven o'clock on Monday morning, and at the same time and hour my eldest little girl died, so that it arrived opportunely to assist in defraying the expenses of the melancholy obsequies of the grave.
"You say the word Christian originally meant wisdom and goodness. What it originally meant you can better say than I can; certainly it means nothing of the kind now, therefore I have acquired a distaste for the title. I do not cavalierly adopt that of 'Atheist', names little entice me, and in this case, you will archly rejoin, 'there are no principles to allure.' What you say about the prices of lectures, working-out reforms by poor men's instrumentality, etc., interests me very much, and will occupy my consideration. Your remarks concerning scarcity of subscribers for my support little surprises me. I did not expect what I have received. Enquiring into that subject prior to my imprisonment, or rather to my incurring it, did not present itself. It shows little knowledge of the world, and perhaps insufficient attention to the wants of those depending upon me. Busy with what I conceived to be an important principle, other things had few attractions. Shall I find at last that principles are to be talked of and the world to be lived in?... Should be gratified if you would present my regards to Mrs. Carlile [Isis].
"Yours truly,
"G. J. HOLYOAKE."
THE FALLEN HERO.What though the head be weary,What though the hand be tired,The rest of a sweet contentment,Shall be by peace inspired.What though the hero falleth,In the heat of the battle's strife,If he naileth the waving colors,To the mast of a noble life.If he breast and conquer the tyrant,Who our cherished rights assail,Shall he sink in the sea's oblivion,Or pass beyond memory's pale?Not so, for his deeds we'll emblazon,On the 'scutcheon of Liberty brightAs one who feared not to be foremostIn hope's forlorn Battle of Right.And longer still longer and everWill the roll of his virtues unfold,How he fought on, in lonely endeavor,Like the "Lion Heart Richard" of old.And the eyes of the maiden will moisten,And the spirit of youth grow bold,As they learn of his love and his daring,Wherever his story is told.
The first days' defence was devoted to the reading of the "Age of Reason", the book for which Carlile was prosecuted. He read and commented on it all as he went along, and in this way made the immense concourse of people acquainted with the arguments there used. It is almost unnecessary to say that the sale of the book after the publication of the trial reports was something enormous. Many thousands of Englishmen who never thought on such subjects before dated their awakening of mind from this event. The real "passage of arms" between Carlile and his accusers commenced on the second day.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL. From the "British Press", October 14th, 1819.
SECOND DAY.—Wednesday, October 13TH, 1819.
The interest excited by this trial continues unabated. A considerable concourse of people assembled before the great entrance at Guildhall, between eight and nine o'clock. To the gentlemen connected with the public Press every facility was afforded by the secondary, Mr. Collenridge, and by Mr. Temple, the hall-keeper. The former admitted them into the body of the Court at an early hour, where they were accommodated with seats at the table. At a quarter before nine o'clock, the Court was regularly opened; and in a few minutes it was completely filled.
The Counsel for the prosecution, the Attorney and Solicitor General, Mr. Littledale, and Mr. Campbell, took their seats soon after.
At a quarter after nine, Mr. Carlile entered the Courts He was preceded by two friends, who placed on the table an immense pyramid of books, in folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo.
At twenty minutes before ten, the jury having arrived, and having answered to their names, the cause of the King v. Carlile was called, the Chief Justice having previously taken his seat.
After a short pause, Mr. Carlile rose, and proceeded with his defence. He said he had endeavored yesterday, by going through the whole of three parts of "The Age of Reason", to show to the jury that it did not contain one immoral sentiment or expression; but that any expressions, which were at all questionable in that work, were quoted from other publications. He endeavored, satisfactorily, he hoped, to prove that Paine's object was to rescue the character of the Almighty from the account which was given of him in those books called "The Bible". He (Mr. Carlile) was anxious as far as possible to make the writings of Paine justify the composition, and the doctrines laid down by him in "The Age of Reason ". In order to do this, he would read a discourse pronounced by Mr. Paine before the Society of Theophilanthropists, at Paris. That discourse contained a complete refutation of the statement that Paine was an Atheist. His character was in fact most remote from Atheism. He had indeed proved that he entertained a more correct idea of the character of the Almighty than was to be found in the Bible. Mr. Carlile then proceeded to read the "Discourse", which is printed along with Paine's "Theological Tracts". [The wholegistof this production may be collected from a single paragraph, "Theun verse", says the author, "is the Bible of a true Theophilanthropist; it is there that he reads of God; it is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the work of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make that we must seek evidence for our belief, and thatsomething is the universe—the true Bible—the inimitable word of God." In going over this tract, the whole of which he read, Mr. Carlile made no observation, except in one place, where the text set forth "that persecution had ceased". "Happy", said he, "would it be for me, if persecution had indeed-ceased!" Having concluded the tract, he said this little discourse had been published by some persons, who were so convinced that it was a perfect refutation of Atheism that they sent it into the world with Mr. Paine's name to it. Having gone through so much of "The Age of Reason" as, at present, was necessary for his purpose, he would lay it aside; but he would in a future stage of the trial again to refer to it, for the purpose of supporting certain principles connected with his defence. He would now proceed to examine the book of which Mr. Paine's work was an investigation. But before he went further, he must observe that the Bible was not the only book supposed to be a revelation from God. The Koran, for instance, was supposed, by millions of people, to be of divine origin.
The Attorney-General here interrupted the defendant. He submitted that he could not proceed further with such a line of defence. The expression of the defendant was, that he would go into an examination of the book of which Paine's work was an investigation. He contended that he could not go into such an examination. The question was whether, according to the law of the country, the defendant had been guilty of the offence with which he was charged? It was neither competent for his lordship nor the gentlemen of the jury to go into such an examination as the defendant proposed—an examination of the truth of the Scriptures.
The Chief Justice: You hear the objection taken by the Attorney-General?
Mr. Carlile: Yes, my lord. The Attorney-General states that it is not competent for your lordship or the jury to go into such an examination as I propose; but he has quite forgotten that it is necessary to my defence. I have been brought into this Court to answer charges, and must avail myself of every means of defence. The Attorney-General has stated that I have published a work in which the Scriptures are spoken of as containing obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, cruel and tortuous executions, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Now I feel it to be my duty to justify what has been published by appealing to the Bible, which contains them.
The Attorney-General: I did not at all forget that the defendant is very deeply interested in the result of this trial; but this, like all other causes, must be proceeded in according to the rules of law. And, looking to those rules, it is not competent for a defendant, charged with this offence, to go into such an investigation. I beg to call your lordship's attention to the trial of an individual charged with a similar offence—I mean Williams. When he was brought up to the Court of King's Bench to receive judgment, Lord Kenyon said, that "having re-considered what had been done during the trial, he took blame to himself for having listened even to the arguments used on that occasion". In that case of the King and Williams, the whole Court expressed their opinion that they could not allow anything to be said against the established religion of the country—the Christian religion. That is the proposition for which I contend. I trust it will receive the sanction of your lordship, and that the defendant will not be suffered to promulgate blasphemous doctrines as part of his defence.
The Chief Justice: The charge against the defendant on this occasion is the publication of a book calumniating and reviling the Holy Scriptures. It is not that, in any book published by him the doctrines of revealed religion were discussed with that respect, temper, and moderation which ought to be applied to the discussion of every subject, human or divine, public or private. It can be no defence of such a charge that the party against whom it is preferred should reiterate, in his address to the jury, the same sort of calumny as that which is contained in the book, for the publication of which he has been called on to answer; and I should very ill discharge my duty, as a Judge or a Christian, if I suffered this Court to be made a theatre for uttering calumny against the religion of the country. Any thing the defendant can advance to the jury, to explain away what is contained in the book, and to show that its tendency is proper, I am most ready to hear. I wish to give to this defendant, as well as to every other person, an opportunity to defend himself fully and fairly, according to the established law of the land. But I am not to suffer the law of the land to be calumniated by such a defence. I cannot permit it.
Mr. Carlile: The only object I have in view is to clear the book, entitled "The Age of Reason", from the charge make against it, and to justify the observations which it contains on the Old and New Testament. I presume that book cannot be founded on any law of this country. Your lordship has spoken of the law of the land as applicable to this case. I should like to have that law pointed out.
The Chief Justice: I state that the Christian religion is a part of the law of the land—and the most important part—because it is that on which all its institutions are founded, and to which they all refer. I speak of the Christian religion generally. There is one particular mode of faith amongst those who follow the Christian religion which constitutes what is called the Established Church; the law of England, however, admits every other class of Christians to adhere to their religious worship, according to their own particular faith, tenets, and creed; but it permits to no man the right to impugn the whole sum and substance of the Christian religion, and to treat the book which contains its doctrines as a mass of lies and falsehoods. I cannot permit such a defence.
Mr. Carlile: I cannot submit to have my course of defence marked out for me.
The Chief Justice: Whether you submit to it or no, I have stated the law, as was my duty; and it is not for a man, accused of having infringed the law, to rise in this place and declare what is or what is not law. I speak in the hearing of gentlemen who have often attended in this Court, and such of them that know me will answer for the truth of what I assert when I say that, though I lay down the law to them, as I conceive it to be, according to my judgment, yet, when a question of fact arises, I leave it in the fullest manner to their consideration. But I never will suffer the Holy Scriptures to be examined in this Court for the purpose of calumniating and reviling them.
Mr. Carlile: I appeal to your lordship, what proof have we that they aredivine?
The Chief Justice: I will not answer such a question as that. You have not, I say, been brought here to answer for any work containing a fair and dispassionate consideration of the Christian religion; but for a publication reviling and calumniating the Scriptures. And calumnies and revilings, whatever the subject may be, are contrary to the law of the land. Is it to be supposed that the law, which affords protection to every individual, has not the power to protect itself? Is it not to protect those who, from their youth, from want of education or from weakness of mind, are not so deeply confirmed in their religious feelings as they ought to be, from being exposed to all those aberrations which, not the force of reason, but the influence of calumny, may occasion?
Mr. Carlile: I wish to arrive at the same end; but we take different ways of effecting it.
The Chief Justice: The discussion is somewhat early; but I will let you go on, advising you to keep within the bounds I have pointed out. I cannot suffer this book to be defended by reviling the Christian religion.
Mr. Carlile: If these writings are of divine origin, they cannot receive any injury from investigation or from any comment made on them. I will therefore go into a full investigation of this question, and I cannot do that without examining the book itself, which gave rise to this work.
The Chief Justice: We shall see in what mode you conduct your defence.
Mr. Carlile: I have stated to you that there are many books existing on the face of the earth which are, by certain individuals, believed to be the revealed word of God. One of these I now hold in my hand. It is believed in by a greater number of persons than believe in the Bible. I mean the Koran. I will read to you the manner in which it is represented by its author to have been sent down by the Almighty. It is contained in the 14th chapter, which is headed, "Abraham—revealed at Mecca—supposed to be sent to Mahomet ". The book, it may be observed, is filled up with a great portion of the history of those persons whose names are to be found in the Old Testament. [Mr. Carlile read the whole of the chapter, which embraced various topics, but particularly set forth the joys which God would bestow on those who served him, and the vengeance he would shower down on those who disobeyed him.] This, gentlemen, continued Mr. Carlile, is a specimen of what is called revealed religion, and which they say came down from heaven to Mahomet. It is believed by many millions of men, more than compose the body of Christians—and yet, is there anything in it comparable with the idea of the Almighty which is given by Paine? Certainly not. And yet those who believe it dislike the Christians, and treat them with reproach and contumely. Why, therefore, should such books be considered as the will of God? and how can we tell that they are worthy of being so called unless we examine them? I will read no more of the Koran. What I have read is a fair specimen. There are some fine moral lessons in that work, and some beautiful ideas of the Deity, but they are mixed up with trash which spoils the whole. Mr. Paine is not the only man who has investigated the Old and New Testament, and doubted of their validity. I hold in my hand the work of a man who ranks very high in this country—who was Ambassador to the Court of Naples—and is at present a member of the Privy Council. I allude to Sir W. Drummond—who has canvassed the Scriptures very freely. The book, though never published (a few copies only being printed for the author's friends), shows what the opinions of Sir W. Drummond were. [Mr. Carlile proceeded to read extracts from the work, which we are unwilling to publish at any length, in consequence of an observation that subsequently fell from the Attorney-General.] Sir William commences by stating that it would naturally be asked, by those who saw this volume, why he caused a book to be printed which he had not published? The reason was, because he had treated of a work which was said to be sacred—and, to avoid the calumnies and falsities to-which it might give rise, if published, he had confined it to a narrow circle. Indeed he did not wish his opinions-to be handed aboutamongst the mob. After observing that the ancient Jews had theirisotericandexotericdoctrines, which were signified by types and figures, the meaning of which was not now known, he proceeds to express an opinion that the language of the Old Testament was symbolical, and he censures those descriptions of the Deity in which he was painted with human passions, and those none of the best. Nothing could be more absurd than to describe the Deity as a material being who dwelt in a box of shittim wood in the temple.
The Attorney-General: I object to such observations.
The Chief Justice: They are indeed very offensive. I caution the defendant against taking that course of defence.
Mr. Carlile: If it be in opposition to the sense and feelings of the jury, I only do myself harm. I wish to-show that others wrote on this subject as well as Paine.
The Chief Justice: That is not the question. The question is whether the book published by you is a blasphemous libel.
Mr. Carlile: I know of no law that takes cognisance of blasphemy.
The Chief Justice: There is such a law.
Mr. Carlile: Then I wish your lordship would define it.
The Chief Justice: I have done so, and will not again.
The Attorney-General: The defendant ought to know, or those who advise him ought to have informed him, that he will have an opportunity of appealing to the Court out of which this process proceeds—the Court of Kings Bench—and, if he pleases, to the last resort in the country, the House of Lords. There he may discuss whether the charge be or be not according to law. This is not the place for that discussion. To the charge preferred against him he has pleaded "Not guilty", and the question now is, whether he be or be not guilty.
Mr. Carlile: I must, as it is necessary for my defence, go through these books.
The Chief Justice: You are not now examining any book—you are merely stating the opinion of another person. You cannot justify one libel by proving that another of the same nature had been written.
Mr. Carlile: It is not proved to be a libel, as yet.
The Chief Justice: I will call it by what name I think proper; but leave it ultimately to be decided by the jury.
Mr. Carlile: You may certainly give it what name you please; but I must defend it to the best of my judgment.
The Chief Justice: I wish you to do so; but I cannot allow the calumny of another person to be introduced as a defence for yours.
Mr. Carlile: I am aware that I need look for nothing from your lordship. I stand alone, unsupported, the array is against me. Sir W. Drummond's work is only a repetition of what may be found in the Old and New Testament. He quotes those works and reasons on them, and he has a right to do so.
Mr. Carlile was proceeding with the passage which had just been objected to, when Mr. Gurney requested his lordship's interference.
Mr. Carlile: You have nothing to do in this cause.
Mr. Gurney: I have the honor of assisting the Attorney-General.
The Chief Justice: I have told you, that you cannot justify one calumny by introducing another.
Mr. Carlile: Is it not actually the case, that God is represented in the text as dwelling in a box of shittim wood in the temple?
The Chief Justice: Certainly not, sir.
Mr. Carlile: If my defence be bad, I only injure myself. He then proceeded to read some remarks of Sir W. Drummond, condemning the reason assigned for God's determining not to curse the earth any more, when he was interrupted by
The Attorney-General, who said: I do trust your lordship will interpose. I say, when a defendant is charged with a publication attacking the truths of Christianity, he cannot be allowed to defend himself by making new attacks. No man can be suffered to make this Court the arena where the calumnies from the pen of Paine, or of any other writer, are to be promulgated. The object of the defendant is evident. He wishes that those calumnies should come forth to the public in a shape more disgraceful than they have hitherto appeared; but in the discharge of my public duty I will take care that such publications shall not pass unnoticed or unpunished.
Mr. Gurney: The Court cannot hear the statute law, as well as the common law of the land, treated with contempt. Those who put the law in motion proceeded on the common law; but the statute of William and Mary is still in force.
Mr. Carlile: The Attorney-General has not founded his information on the statute of William and Mary. He wishes for a different punishment than that statute provides.
The Chief Justice: I am free to confess that I am placed in a very delicate situation. I am unwilling to prevent the defendant from going on with what appears to him fit and necessary for his defence; but, as a Judge, I am bound not to admit the law of the land to be insulted in my presence.
Mr. Carlile: I am not aware of having insulted any law.
The Solicitor-General: I wish to state to your lordship what Lord Ellenborough said on Eaton's trial. When the defendant was addressing him, his lordship interrupted him. "You have already," observed his lordship, "begun a passage, of which I caution you. This is not to be an opportunity for you to revile the Christian religion; and if you persist in doing so, I will not only prevent you, but perhaps animadvert on your conduct in committing an offence which was of the most heinous nature in the eyes of the Court." Defendant answered: "I have no intention of offending the Court." Lord Ellenborough observed, "You have got to a passage that is abominable—you must not read it". Now, my lord, the defendant before you says: "I will prove the truth of what Paine asserts, namely that there are obscenities, inconsistences, and contradictions in the Bible." This, I submit, he can only do by pursuing the course which Mr. Eaton was checked in, which cannot be permitted.
The Chief Justice: Let the defendant go on, if he can advance anything relevant and serviceable to his cause.
Mr. Carlile: It would be as well if the Solicitor-General read a little further, that the Court might see the result of that discussion.
The Solicitor-General: Mr. Eaton observed, "I believe what I am come to is inoffensive"; and nothing offensive was afterwards said.
Mr. Carlile: The fact is, Lord Ellenborough grew angry, and called out repeatedly, "Read it all, read it all!"—which was done.
The Chief Justice: The Christian religion shall not be reviled here.
Mr. Carlile: In what I say, I found myself on the late statute.
The Chief Justice: You made some remarks on it yesterday. At first I thought your idea was erroneous; and on looking into the subject, I see that an Act was passed, in the time of King William, for the punishment of those who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity. An Act was recently passed, respecting that particular part of the statute of William, which it repealed; but it leaves untouched all that is contained in that statute and the common law of the land, for the punishment of those who impugn the truth of Christianity in general. The work in question does not impugn the opinion of any particular sect, but impugns the whole of the doctrines contained in the Old and New Testament. It is directed against the tenets of every sect who believe in the Scriptures as the foundation of revealed religion.
Mr. Carlile: I have been told that the Christian religion is the law of the land. Now that religion is founded on the doctrine of the Trinity; and here is a statute dispensing with a belief in the Trinity, and thereby making Deism a part of the law of the land.
Chief Justice: I say it does not, and I will not hear such a defence.
Mr. Carlile; I stand here alone, and I best know what shape my defence ought to take.
The Chief Justice: In your own opinion it may be so; but it is for me to look to the legal course of defence. If you cannot proceed without reviling the Christian religion, you cannot defend yourself.
Mr. Carlile: The law in question allows me to proceed in this course, for it tolerates Deism.
The Attorney-General: One part of the statute of William and Mary is repealed, but the remainder is in force. It is there treated as a great offence for any persons to deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures, namely the Old and New Testament, to be of divine origin.
Mr. Carlile: I do not know on what the Christian religion is founded, except on the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Chief Justice: If you have any good legal defence, proceed with it.
Mr. Carlile: I do not know that I am wrong. If there be an allegation that I have published a work in which it is stated that there is an obscene story in the Bible, surely you would not prevent me from referring to the Bible to prove the truth of the assertion?
The Chief Justice: I cannot hear this. The Bible is the history of a sinful people, and of the vengeance of God on them.
Mr. Carlile: I do not think the Bible is true, as a history.
[Considerable agitation was created in Court by this declaration. Murmurs of dissatisfaction were heard from every quarter.]
Mr. Carlile was proceeding with another passage from Sir W. Drummond's book, when he was interrupted by The Solicitor-General, who objected that he was going on in the way which had already been deprecated by the Court.
The Chief Justice: I cannot allow it. If I am mistaken there are means of correcting my error; but I think I am not mistaken when I say, that I cannot and ought not sit in my place and suffer any person to revile the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: I have no wish to revile, but merely to examine them.
The Chief Justice: Examination does not consist in, and cannot be supported by, bold denials. It is a repetition of the offence.
Mr. Carlile: Can we compel our minds to receive as true what we do not believe because there is a law in support of it?
The Chief Justice: As long as a man keeps his opinion to himself, it is of no consequence to the community, and no human power can take cognizance of it.
Mr. Carlile: Your lordship's observations argue nothing but the absurdity of legislating on matters of opinion. He was proceeding with Sir W. Drummond's work, when The Solicitor-General again interrupted him. The defendant, he said, wanted to prove that other persons had written on the subject as well as Mr. Paine, which he contended formed no point of defence.
The Chief Justice: I cannot allow such a course to be taken.
Mr. Carlile: I have a right to go on with what I think necessary for my defence.
The Chief Justice: You have no right to go on with a defence of a mischievous nature. It would be a high misdemeanor in me to allow it.
Mr. Carlile: My wish is to defend my conduct from the imputation of malicious intention. In the course of their practice, these learned gentlemen quote precedents on all occasions; why then should not I quote Sir W. Drummond, a man of great talent and research?
The Chief Justice: His book has nothing to do with the case before the jury.
Mr. Carlile: The authority of Sir W. Drummond is as good as that of Lord Ellenborough.
The Chief Justice: You had better conduct yourself with propriety.
Mr. Carlile: In my mind, the authority of Sir W. Drummond possesses far greater weight.
The Chief Justice: Don't suppose, because great forbearance has been shown, that there may not come a time when forbearance must end.
Mr. Carlile: I don't want forbearance, I only want justice.
The Chief Justice: Justice you shall have, according to law; but to let you proceed contrary to law would not be justice. It is no justification for you to say that others have committed the same offence.
Mr. Carlile: I am not willing to take your lordship's-opinion that it is an offence.
The Chief Justice: I have said, all along, that the character of the publication would be ultimately left to the decision of the jury.
Mr. Carlile was proceeding, but the Solicitor-General again interposed.
The Chief Justice: I say it is no justification; but still I would not prevent the defendant from going on if the quotation be not offensive. I do not know that to be the work of Sir W. Drummond.
Mr. Carlile: It is his, for it has been answered by the Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is the best way to elicit truth. Sir W. Drummond's name is to it.
The Chief Justice: No matter by whom it is written. I cannot stay in this place and hear the doctrines of Christianity impugned.
Mr. Carlile: It is not yet proven that I have committed error.
The Chief Justice: I know that—I have stated so all along; but you must not revile and calumniate the Christian religion.
Mr. Carlile: I do not calumniate. I wish to enter on a fair examination.
The Chief Justice: You are not allowed, neither is any man, to read in this place matter calumniating the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: It is not calumniating.
The foreman of the jury now addressed his lordship. He said the gentlemen of the jury thought the defendant could not do himself any service by going on with such a defence
Mr. Carlile: Am I to understand that to be the sentiment of the jury?
Several Jurymen: Certainly.
After a short pause, Mr. Carlile proceeded. He at length came to a passage in which Sir W. Drummond stated that he did not believe God had ever spoken to Moses.
Mr. Gurney submitted that was the denial of the truth and divine origin of part of the Old Testament, and was punishable by the statute law. It could not therefore be tolerated in that Court.
Mr. Carlile: To what are we to appeal, if not to reason?
The Chief Justice: You are charged with publishing a calumny on the Christian religion; show that the book does not contain such calumny. You cannot prove that there is no calumny in it by reading works of a similar nature.
Mr. Carlile: There are passages in the Bible which I view with as much horror as your lordship does this book. I do not believe them—your lordship does, or you profess that you do. Now it is only by reading controversial disputes on the subject of religion that we can know what is right or what is wrong.
The Chief Justice: We are not here trying the verity of passages of Scripture. I cannot put it to the jury to say whether the Holy Scriptures contain the will of God. This cannot be done in a Christian country.
Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to read, in my defence, things that are disgusting to myself, and which I would not read if I were not compelled to do so.
The Chief Justice: You are not compelled. It can do you no service to read passages of a similar tendency with those which you are charged with having published.
Mr. Carlile: As there is no other passage in this book essential to my defence, I shall now go to the Bible. In reading that work, which the information charges me with calumniating, I can only express my own opinion, as a justification of what I have done. If that opinion is not satisfactory to the minds of the jury, still it would afford some ground for believing that I act from conviction.—[Here Mr. Carlile exhibited a large Bible, which was interleaved for the purpose of entering remarks on different passages.]—The Old Testament, like many other books, begins with giving an account of the creation.—[Mr. Carlile here read several verses from the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," etc.]—Now (continued he) I have to state to you that that part of society who believe in this book differ in their ideas of the account of the creation. Some believe it to be an allegory—others consider it a statement of a real transaction. Some of the greatest fathers of the Christian Church, one of whom was Origen, considered it an allegory. When we see persons, who call themselves Christians, and who rest all their future hopes on this book, differing on such a passage, I think an individual, whose mind is not made up on the subject, is at liberty to enquire into the reasons offered for one party believing it to be an allegory, and the other for taking it literally. Moses is stated to be the author of the book of Genesis, but I think it is proved by Paine that he did not write it. Whether it was written by him or not did not, however, invalidate the work. When you read, "In thebeginningGod created the heaven and the earth," the philosopher naturally asks, what beginning? If it were said, from the beginning of time, then the world had existed through all eternity, for, to deny the eternity of time, is to deny the eternity of God. But this doctrine did not coincide with that of the Old Testament, although it was founded in reason.
Mr. Carlile was then proceeding with an enquiry into the nature and probability of such a revelation as was mentioned in the Old Testament, but was interrupted by
The Attorney-General, who submitted that no such enquiry could be gone into.
The Chief Justice: It is a very difficult thing to stop a person on his defence, at the commencement of every sentence. I would wish to err on the side of forbearance rather than of severity. Of all cases that can be brought into a Court of Justice, this is the most painful to a Judge. It is not connected with the politics or property of the country, but with its religion. The person on the floor says I profess to be a believer in Christianity. I feel myself called on to say, that I am a firm believer in Christianity. It is most painful to me and to the gentlemen of the jury to hear the observations of the defendant, but still it is a nice and difficult point to stop him.
The Attorney-General said an enquiry into revelation could not be allowed.
Mr. Gurney: His lordship has declared it cannot be admitted.
The Chief Justice: I have said over and over again that we are not to enquire into the truth of the Christian religion; but I am unwilling to stop the defendant till his observations become offensive.
Mr. Carlile: The information charges that the book which I have published describes the Old Testament to contain obscene stories and voluptuous debaucheries, and to be a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind. Another account charges me with publishing a book in which the Bible is stated to be full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Now, how can I defend myself but by showing the truth of the book I have published? If I do prove its truth, I can plead that I published it with a good intention.
The Chief Justice: You cannot go into the truth of the Christian religion.
Mr. Carlile: It is a most improper question, I admit, to be brought before a Court of Justice.
The Chief Justice: Whatever you can state to the gentlemen of the jury, that is proper and relative to your case, shall be heard.
Mr. Carlile: But I must enquire into the truth of the Old Testament.
The Chief Justice: No, sir. As I have said before, it is the history of a sinful people, and of the divine vengeance. The gentlemen of the jury, I have no doubt, are well acquainted with it.
Mr. Carlile: You have not pointed out the divine origin of the Scriptures. I am not of opinion that it is divine; and I wish to state my reasons for holding that opinion.
The Chief Justice: Behave with decorum, and I will not interrupt you.
Mr. Carlile: I do not wish to offend any person. It is not my intention. But what I conceive to be truth, I will promulgate, be the consequence what it may.
The Chief Justice: I will take care that you shall not promulgate in this place anything that is improper.
Mr. Carlile: Your lordship has of course read the case of Galileo. He made a great discovery in astronomy, and was arraigned for his opinion before the ecclesiastical tribunals of his country. The alternative was allowed him either to die at the stake or to retract his opinions; to save his life he did change his opinions, though he was convinced of their truth. He however endeavored privately to disseminate those opinions, but was discovered, and the religious government of that country condemned him to three years' imprisonment. But, before the expiration of that time, the truth of his opinion, that the earth was not flat, but round, and that the sun did not move round the earth but the earth round the sun, were established and admitted by his persecutors. Who then will venture to stop human improvement? Who will say we have gone far enough? I believe, from conviction, having considered the subject, and got all the information I could connected with it, that the book which is called the revealed will of God, is a blasphemy of that God. [A murmur of indignation pervaded the Court.]
The Chief Justice: This is too much.
Mr. Carlile: I can state reason for my belief. I am supported by Sir W. Drummond, a man of the finest education, and who had made the most extensive enquiries the human mind could reach. I am deeply impressed with the impropriety of bringing such a subject before a Court of Justice, but I must either do that or go to a prison, from which perhaps I will never be liberated. The consequence is dreadful to me. I must either get the Attorney-General to withdraw the case from the Court, or enter on my defence in the way I think most likely to answer my purpose.
The Chief Justice: There is another alternative; to conduct yourself with decency and decorum.
Mr. Carlile: I am insensible of any indecorum.
The Chief Justice: Whether you are insensible, or cannot be made sensible, it is right that I should check you when you misconduct yourself.
Mr. Carlile: There is a statute which supports Deism
The Chief Justice: You may comment on that statute.
Mr. Carlile: There is a statute by which it is enacted that to impugn the doctrine of the Trinity is not an offence. It is the law of the land.
Mr. Gurney: That part of the statute of William and Mary is in force which renders it criminal for any man to deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine origin.
Mr. Carlile: Why did not the Attorney-General found his information on that statute?
The Chief Justice: Because he did not think proper to do so. That statute imposed certain penalties, and he conceived it was better to proceed on the common law. He was justified in doing so. A riot is punishable by common law; but, as in the case of disturbing a congregation, it may be punished under a particular statute, at the option of the complaining party.
Mr. Carlile: Yes, but the riot is defined. The Riot Act states what shall be denominated a riot. This is not the case here. There was an Act in existence which allowed persons to impugn the doctrine of the Trinity, on which the Christian religion is founded; and by so doing, supported Deism, and admitted the nature of that religion to be investigated. I was extremely unwilling to be brought here; for I think a Court of Justice a most improper place for such a subject. If a book be published containing questionable opinions, they ought to be corrected by the intervention of the Press. I am charged, in the information, with having excited "the great displeasure of Almighty God"! Is not this a gross assumption? Is it not blasphemy? We ought to venerate the Deity; and not speak of him as if he were subject to human passions and frailties. I think I have shown that Paine had a more sublime idea of the Almighty than the Koran contained. I will go further, and say that he had a higher notion of the Divinity than is to found in the Old Testament. I have no wish to proceed under continual interruptions; it is, indeed, impossible that I can proceed; but, I am sure, if anything I offer in my defence is not a justification of my conduct, I alone will be the sufferer. If the book I wished to read be the work of the Deity, it cannot be injured or shaken by the observations of any man. It is, in my opinion, not the work of the Deity.
The Chief Justice: You are now offending against a law which has been quoted more than once.
Mr. Carlile: An Act of Parliament cannot restrain opinions.
The Chief Justice: It may restrain the expression of them.
Mr. Carlile: My case is similar to that of Galileo, in whose defence no man stood forward. If Newton had been on the Continent when he made his discoveries, he would have been treated in the same way that Galileo was. The same course was pursued towards all men who wished to remove bigotry and ignorance. Locke, if I recollect rightly, was expelled the University on account of the freedom of his opinions. He did not deny the Christian religion; but he went very near to that point; and it cannot be denied that the 9th and 10th of William and Mary were passed, in a great measure, to check the circulation of his writings and opinions. The Attorney-General appeals to the authority of Locke, and so may I. The great man says, "Reason only can judge of revelation". I could wish, my lord, to understand whether I am to go into that defence which I conceive to be my only defence, or to be put down unheard? I cannot legally be put down. What I have to say in my defence I think the Court is bound to hear.
The Chief Justice: The Court is not bound to hear the Christian religion impugned.
Mr. Carlile: I must say that the Act to which I have alluded, by dispensing with belief in the Trinity, admits the Christian religion to be impugned.
The Chief Justice: It does no such thing.
Mr. Carlile: It tolerates others in doing it. For those who are really attached to the Christian religion must believe Jesus to be a part of the Godhead; which doctrine is now impugned by this Act. The Attorney-General himself has been bred in the Unitarian belief; he has been taught the Unitarian doctrines—doctrines which go to overthrow the divinity of Jesus—and, if you destroy that divinity, Jesus must be a man; there is no-medium. I feel an awful veneration for the Deity. In conversation I never appeal to his name in vain. He resides only in my mind; he is very seldom in my speech. The whole face of the earth is peopled by nations that differ from each other in their opinions of the Deity. In this country there are hundreds of sects of Christians; they are almost innumerable; and they feel the utmost jealousy and indulge in the greatest bickerings towards each other. How then is it possible to arrive at a knowledge of what is right or wrong, unless we judge for ourselves? The difficulty here arises from the impropriety of bringing a question of this kind into a Court of Justice, where it cannot be freely and fairly judged according to the rules of the Court. It would do honor to the Attorney-General if he would withdraw the record, since I cannot offer in my defence what I deem necessary. I am not like a barrister, who acts according to the statement contained in his brief, and has no opinion of his own. I avow that I published certain opinions, and those opinions I am ready to defend. It is well known, and I am sure your lordship cannot contradict me, that there are many passages in the Old Testament which cannot be reconciled with reason, nor with the feelings of delicacy. It is, I fear, a dislike to hear them repeated which induces your lordship to prevent me from proceeding.
The Chief Justice: It is not any such feeling that actuates me; but an awful veneration for the Scriptures. It is not competent for you to defend yourself by impugning the truth of the Christian religion, with which our hopes of eternal happiness are so nearly connected.
Mr. Carlile denied that he had impugned Christianity.
The Chief Justice: I heard you say that belief in the Scriptures was blasphemy to God.
Mr. Gurney: The defendant said, "It is my firm belief that the Bible is not the revealed will of God".
Mr. Carlile repeated that some parts of the Old Testament abounded in morality, while others, he must observe, were revolting to the feelings of any reflecting man, who wished to publish a book of morality, according to the prevailing moral doctrines. If those parts of the Bible to which he alluded were published by themselves, it would subject him or any other individual to a prosecution by the Attorney-General; or, if he did not prosecute, he would be guilty of a dereliction of his duty. He had already stated that the statute tolerated Deism. It did so, because it tolerated Unitarianism. He was a Unitarian, and therefore a Deist—and, being a Deist, he was therefore a Unitarian. The words Trinitarian and Unitarian were opposed to each other, to distinguish the believers in the Trinity from those who did not agree to that doctrine. The Old Testament, it ought to be observed, was never placed by the Jews in the hands of their children; and the clergy of the Romish Church endeavored to keep the Scriptures from the laity by retaining them in an obscure tongue. It was in this country alone that the copies had been greatly multiplied and placed in the hands of all ranks and ages. He now called the attention of the Court to the "History of the English Bible", which, as it was printed for the Religious Tract Society, his lordship might easily conceive contained nothing offensive.
Mr. Carlile then read the small extract entitled "The History of the English Bible", after the concluding words of which, viz.: Thus, after the lapse of almost 100 years from the first appearance of the English printed Scriptures by the labors of Tyndal, we are come to the present authorised version, of which it has been remarked, that "it is the birth-right of our numerous population, and has proved the means of knowledge, holiness, and joy to millions; and we trust it is destined for ages yet to come, to be the glory of the rich, and the inheritance of the poor; the guide to the way-worn pilgrim, and the messenger of peace to many a dying sinner". He said that in the latter day a Mr. Bellamy had started up, who denied the correctness of this version, asserting that in many parts it did not agree with the original Hebrew, proposed writing a new translation, and got some of the Bishops and the Prince Regent to subscribe for copies. Why did not the Attorney-General prosecute Mr. Bellamy for saying, as he in fact had, that the Scriptures (by which must be meant the authorised translation) did not contain the word of God? After some other observations he proceeded. He could not boast of having got a learned education. He ran through a country school in the way most boys do, up to the age of twelve; and whatever learning he had acquired since was in the time he had spared from his employment and the calls of his business; but, notwithstanding, he had perused a variety of commentators on the Bible, and finding them all disagree, that circumstance created doubt in his mind, which ended in the opinions he now held. He had been brought up in the doctrines of the Christian Church, and his mother used to impress them on him with peculiar earnestness. It was from the apprehension of similar doubts in the people generally that the Bishops in former times universally prohibited the reading of the Scriptures. His intention was to go through that part of the Bible examined by Mr. Paine, and it he should establish that they exactly agreed in the representation of them given by Mr. Paine, he was entitled to a verdict of acquittal.
He then, after several remarks on the statutes before referred to, and objections constantly over-ruled, commenced reading and commenting on the first two chapters of Genesis, after which he read a tract from the book on which the information is grounded, entitled "Extract of a Reply to the Bishop of Llandaff".
After the defendant had concluded reading, he said that he had made it clear from Mr. Paine's work, that Mr. Paine had shown that the book of Job was written prior to the book of Genesis. Having read Mr. Paine's letter to Lord Erskine, on the first and third chapters of Genesis, he now proceeded to the fourth. [Here the defendant proceeded to read the fourth chapter of Genesis.] On that part where it is stated that the Lord had set a mark on Cain, the defendant said that the commentators on the Bible were much puzzled as to what this mark was; some said it was the mark on the African; some, the mark on the Ethiopian—but no one, he said, could give a fair account of it. They also said that in the different genealogical accounts in the Bible, in most cases the accounts disagree with each other. After reading that part where the Lord is said to have repented for having created man, he attempted to comment on the passage. He said it made our Savior a mere human being—to repent of an action was unworthy of a God.