« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
labour, which is another evil. So that enjoyment must be the production of the individual, while' suffering and privation are the unsolicited gifts of the bountiful father of mankind, and can only be removed or alleviated by the lesser evil, labour-it may probably be disputed that labour is an evil, but tbat it is, will be easy of proof; no one would labour, for the sake of labour; it is always undertaken to remove some evil or to procure some good; it is the indispensible condition of ease and pleasure, and on that account only do we apply to it. Were it good, were pleasurable sensation inseparably connected with it, it would not be recessary for so profound a statesman, as was my Lord Castlereagh, to suggest the propriety of compelling Burkes - Swinish Multitude to dig holes one day and to fill them up
the next; for labour of itself would be pleasant, and this or some other equally useless employment would be their own choice.
I have now replied to Mr. H.'s remarks, on every point, that seems to me, material to the question at issue, but whether satisfactorily or not is for others to determine; but as the attributes of the Theists and Christian's deity, have been the principal subject of consideration, the existence of such a being has not been argued, otherwise than incidentally. I will, however, in conclusion, offer an argument on the subject, which I do not remember ever to have seen. This being is represented as infinitely wise and powerful, and also as omnipotent or existing every where. I will here repeat what I bave so often insisted on, that to reason philosophically, we must not travel beyond the regions of experience and analogy. Well then, what do these teach us respecting intelligence ? that it is never found separate from an organized form, every idea we have of it is invariably in connexion with organization. We also find that sensation is necessary to its production and existence, that it grows, improves, decays and dies, and consequently is no self existant substance. If we follow this train of reasoning and apply it to the deity, what is the necessary infereuce? Why that being intelligent, he must possess organization and sensation, but if he be organized he must possess figure: but if he be figured, he must be limited ; and if limited his ubiquity is gone and there is an end to his infinity. And if sensation be one of his properties, he may be acted upon by objects distinct and separate from himself and be will be subject to change of feeling, and his immutability will no longer exist. And as sensation is, as far as we have expe
rience, the cause of passions, he will be subject to hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and all the train of pleasurable and painful emotions which alternately elate and depress the spirits of all other sentient organized beings. I might pursue the argument much farther but as no Tbeist or Christian will be content with a deity, shorn of his infinity, I will for the present close the discussion.
Whether Mr. H. will rejoin or not to these remarks, is a matter which I must leave to himself. I wish the controversy to be continued both for the information of myself and those persons who may feel interested in the subject. And though my engagements are, I belive as imperative as those of my antagonist, I do not hesitate to promise that while I have opportunity, I will not fail to give bis future observations, if any appear, my early consideration and notice,
I am, Sir,
Note.--In conjuction with the foregoing masterly reply and complete refutation of Mr. Heineken's arguments for an intelligent and all designing deity, I will notice, for the satisfaction of my Bradford Friends, that their last subscription never came to hand, so as to admit of an acknowledgement: though I have not a doubt but that it was accidentally lost, lost too in a parcel for which we recovered the value, as far, at the time, as we knew its value, not knowing that it contained a parcel with cash. The circumstance was this.
The subscription was very properly entrusted to Mr. Smithson of Leeds. He had two parcels to send to London, this from Bradford with other monies, and one to go round to Sheffield by our Sheffield Parcel. He inadvertently tied both together, and the directions of the wrong on the outside, so that the whole was forwarded to Sheffield; and in going to Sheffield from London the Hope Coach lost all its parcels. We are certain of this, as we had the same account from Nottingham, and recovered for both, as far as we knew the value at the time. There was also a subscription for the men in Newgate and others from other parts of Yorkshire. The total of cash was from 6 to 7£. We all feel under equal obligations to the subscribers, as if it had come safe. It is one of those accidents in the business of life which Mr. Heinekin's God has very badly managed, or does not well look after, even with reference to bis idolators.
TO MR. R. CARLILE, DORCHESTER GAOL.
DEAR SIR, Being an admirer of your principles, of course, a reader of the Republican, I may add, a staunch Atheist, I beg leave to inform you of a circumstance which has taken place in Enfield Town on Sunday 21st August last. A religious and merciless monster, in the shape of a human animal, named William Heath, wilfully and maliciously and with intent, came out of his house to his gate, which is about four feet high, and cut over with a horse-whip-bandle at a little boy not seven years of age. The weal which he caused, began on the crown of the boy's head and extended downwards, laying open the cheek and neck just before the ear, to the length of four or five inches. The blood ran down on the child's shirt frill, from a wound completely deprived of skin, more than half an inch wide.
The father, D. Beauchamp, complained to Heath of treating a child in so brutish a manner, who said, he would learn them to keep away from his premises.
The father took his complaint to a magistrate, Peter Hardy, Esq. of the town, which gave rise to a few singular observations on your name and principles, which I will state as correctly as I can.
On the Monday following, the worthy magistrate summoned W. Heath to appear before him at seven o'clock P. M., which he was unable to do, in consequence of coming home abominably drunk about six o'clock. He apologized the next morning (Tuesday) and promised to attend in the evening at seven o'clock.
All parties being present, the magistrate began by stating to Heath the charge against him, which he did not deny. Of course, Mr. Hardy informed him that he must find bail for the sessions or satisfy the parties injured.
Heath said, I will not give one farthing; for Beauchamp only wants to extort money from me. Mr. Hardy observed :-Beauchamp has not asked any as yet, nor do I know what he will require; but I should expect to pay a sovereign at least, for such an assault.
Heath replied, not a farthing, Sir, and produced two housekeepers as his bail, Mr. Carter and Mr. Valentine. Carter privately informed Heath, that Beauchamp was an Atheist and did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Heath instantly acquainted his worship of it, and thought it right that Beauchamp should be examined as to his belief in the Christian doctrine.
Mag.-Beauchamp, do you believe in the book you have in your hand ?
Beau.- What do you mean by belief your worship?
Mag.-That book is the Testament, and do you believe it contains a true account of the birth, life and death of Christ, and that he is the son of God, who laid down his life to save us from hell?
Beau.--As much as I know of it to be true, so much I believe.
Mag.-as much as I know to be true ? Beau.—Your worship, do you wish me to swear that that book is all truth? So help me God, I will not; for I know nothing of the author that wrote it.
Mag:--Do you believe that the History of England is true?
Beau. --I know no more than I read about tyrant kings and slavish subjects.
Mag.--Do you believe those king's did exist at the time mentioned ?
Beau.-It is possible that they did ; but I merely give credit to the name of the author of the work. I know nothing, whether he was a whig, a tory, or a radical; therefore, I cannot tell which way he might have leaned. But,your worship, I do know George the Fourth, I have seen him, and I hope for protection from one of the magistrates appointed under him; or am I to understand, that an Atheist cannot be protected in this country?
Mag.— I will endeavour to make you understand how the law stands on that point, Beauchamp. In the first place, you complain against Mr. Heath, and if you do not believe in the existence of a God, how can I swear you? How shall I take hold of your faith? And, as the law begins to act from the oath of the plaintiff, I must dismiss the defendant unless you say you are a Christian.
Beau..Then, your worship, I must imagine a something out of nothing and call it a God, although I cannot define one letter of the word; or be an unprotected subject of his Majesty.
Mag--Wlat religion are you, Beauchamp ? Are you a Christian?
Beau:-- I was born and brought up a Christian.
Mag.-What reason bave you Mr. Carter or Mr. Heath, to suppose he is not a Religionist?
Carter.-One evening, in close conversation with Mr. Beauchamp, he seemed to object to all the prodigious or miraculous parts of the Gospel, and said, they were not sufficiently explained for him to rely on them for his salvation; but, as he was at all times a learner, he most willingly gathered information from every person he talked to.
Mag.–Did you say he denied ihe Gospel, Mr. Carter ?
Carter.- No, your worship; but he seemed not to believe it, or I thought so.
Mag.--Do you know any thing about him, Mr. Heath?
Heatb.-I know, Sir, that he often works of a Sunday, mending his carts and barness, and neither his wife nor he has been to church since they bave been my neighbours.
Beail.—That is a very poor observation, Heath, of my breaking the Sabbath, when you know I have seen you, many times cleaning your borse and harness and stable. And on Sunday last, you reached over your gate, and, with a horse whip, broke the sabbath and the peace too of our Sovereign Lord the King, by inflicting a dreadful wound on my infant son, you psalm singer!
Mag.–As for working on the Sunday, Mr. Heath, I make an allowance for him. He is a poor man, and if he happens to break any of his implements of trade, on the Saturday, he is justifiable in repairing, in order to be able to pursue bis vocation on the Monday, as he has a large family to support and bears an excellent character.
I have never heard any person say that he neglected his duty as a father
Beau.-It may be thought, Sir, a presuming declaration that I am about to make ; but I will here, before your worship, make a fair challange to any person, who can lay a charge of immorality against me for the last 20 years or more, of my time, so I will take a text out of your gospel book, that you may be able to judge between Heath and me “by their fruits
shall know them.” Mag.–Yes, it is possible to be a moral man, and yet not to believe the gospel.
Beau. I think; your worship, that my neighbours have no right to find fault with my priuciples, as I put it out of their power to show me disorderly or unneighbourly.
Mag.–0 yes! they have an undoubted right to call in question your religious opinions, while you dwell among