he possesses, save a fond family, and a good conscience. R. Carlile is surprised, that after such an admission as the above, Dr. Rudge can persist in calling it the Word of God, and still more so, when he ventures to liken the objectionable parts of this book to the spots in the sun. God of Nature! what an insult to the reflecting mind, that a scene of debauchery, cruelty, and wickedness contained in a book, the evident work of man without thy aid, should be compared to any portion of thy works, and this too, by one who is distinguished with the title of a Doctor in Divinity!-Be my theme the continued opposition to such sentiments as these. R. Carlile thinks that Dr. Rudge has made the most unfortunate comparison he could have hit upon. R. Carlile is still further surprised, that Dr. Rudge should so soon abandon Sir Isaac Newton and others, as authorities for the Bible being of divine origin, to charge them with "inconsistency and hypocrisy," and to hold out a caution, that "too much deference should not be paid to the opinions of great men." Dr. Rudge appears, by the conclusion of his last letter, to be still firm in his faith; and R. Carlile assures Dr. Rudge, that he still remains firm in his former belief. R. Carlile has read Dr. Rudge's Address to a Parishioner, and begs to observe, that Dr. Rudge's opinion of the Trinity is far above his comprehension.

DR. RUDGE TO R. CARLILE.

DR. RUDGE presents his compliments to Mr. Carlile, and he has to acknowledge the receipt of his letter of this day.

In continuing this correspondence, Dr. R. has to regret that he was unable to express himself with a clearness sufficient to have prevented the misrepresentation of his meaning, which appears in Mr. Carlile's favour of this day's date.

Dr. Rudge observed upon two prejudices which often proved, in his mind, fatal to the investigation and establishment of truth. One was, that men were oftentimes led, from certain objectionable passages, to denounce the whole of the Bible, and reject it as the word of God. He inferred that this was an unfair practice. He continues to think so: but he has found it invariably to be the case in all the conversations he has had with Deists.

Another prejudice to which he referred, was that which arises from taking as law, the dicta of some great man, and attaching an extravagant degree of importance, and infallibility to them. All men are liable to err in matters of judgment and conduct. Mr. Paine as well as all who have written and lived before him. Their opinions and sayings oftentimes tincture the mind with prejudice, and prevent the search of truth. Mr. Carlile had expressed some unfavourable sentiments respecting Sir Isaac Newton, and Mr. Locke; that on one time they had written in favour, aud at another in disparagement of the truths of Christianity. Without at all entering into the inquiry, whether this was true or false,

as it respected these great men, but at the same time without abandoning his own opinions which had been formed from an intimate acquaintance with their writings, Dr. R. thought it better to express himself in the manner in which he did, than repeat the suggestions which he offered in his first letter, more especially as there appeared to exist in Mr. C.'s mind a prejudice both against Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Locke. Dr. R.'s object was, that Mr. Carlile should sit down to the Examination of the "Evidences of Christianity," neither swayed by the opinions, nor prejudiced against the conduct and principles of any man-neither against the principles of Mr. Locke and Sir Isaac, on the one hand, nor by the opinions of Mr. Paine on the other; and he still sincerely hopes that this will be the case.

Dr. R. is neither surprised, nor offended by the latter part of Mr. C.'s letter. He appealed to Mr. Carlile, that he commenced this correspondence in a good spirit, and he shall conduct it with good temper. Dr. R. dislikes controversy of any kind; and should, in these private communications between him and Mr. Carlile any thing drop from his pen of a seemingly harsh or repulsive nature, he hopes he will forgive him. Nothing is farther from his intention. Limehouse,

October 28, 1819.

Mr. Carlile.

Dr. R. hopes the perusal of the enclosed will not be uninteresting.

R. CARLILE TO DR. RUDGE.

King's Bench Prison, Nov. 5th, 1819. R. CARLILE has to acknowledge the receipt of Dr. Rudge's letter, dated the 28th ult. accompanied with the Memoirs of John Vartie. In respect to the letter, R. Carlile has perused and reperused it, and cannot find a single point to answer, he will therefore close this correspondence, with making a few observations on the Memoir of John Vartie, and Paley's Evidences of Christianity. R. Carlile cannot perceive Dr. Rudge's object in sending him the memoir of the unfortunate Vartie, who alledges he became an infis del from reading novels and other light works. R. Carlile assures Dr. Rudge, that the reading of novels has not made him an infidel to Christianity, for he has invariably objected to any novels being read by any of his family, over whom he has had any controul. Nothing can reflect higher credit on the cause of Deism, than to observe that a true and sincere Deist has never yet been brought to the gallows. Search the Old Bailey Calendars, search all the records of executions under the law, and Dr. Rudge will find that the victims have invariably been Christians. The Christian finds encouragement to vice, because even a death-bed repentance promises him salvation and future happiness. The Deist, who believes in nothing

.

of this kind, places himself under a continual moral. restraint, and regulates well his passions.

With respect to the Evidences of Christianity, by Paley, R. Carlile finds nothing conclusive or satisfactory in them. His preparatory considerations are mere quibbles on Hume's Essay on Miracles, an essay which contains irrefragable proofs of the fallacy of believing in supernatural events or miracles. His five first chapters are attempted arguments in favour of the Christian religion, drawn from the martyrdoms of the early Christians. Martyrdom proves nothing (says Diderot), but that the martyrs are the weakest party. When Constantine made the Christian religion the religion of the state, and when Christianity reared her destructive head, the same firmness and resolution was displayed by those who were martyrs to a dissent from any of its established rules; the same constancy has been displayed by martyrs in all ages, Catholic or Protestant, Christian, Jew, or Pagan. Let Dr. Rudge turn his attention to the superstitious rites and victims paid to Jugernaut and other Deities in the Eastern world have we not lately heard that the most excruciating tortures have been voluntarily endured by certain devotees, which, in the opinion of R. Carlile, far exceeds the constancy of the martyred Christians, because the former was voluntary, the latter forced? Should the hag Superstition again demand victims of Philosophy and Deism, they will readily be found. R. Carlile has no hesitation in saying, that should those opinions which have lately been charged on him as blasphemy in the next session of parliament be made punishable with the faggot and stake, he would persevere in promulgating them; so strong is his conviction of their truth. In the sixth chapter of Paley's first volume, page 105, is an assertion which has staggered R. Carlile, and has induced him to throw away Paley as a dishonest man, and unworthy of further notice it is thus." That the original story was miraculous (alluding to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus,) is very fairly also inferred from the miraculous powers which were laid claim to by the Christians of succeeding ages. If the accounts of these miracles be true, it was a continuation of the same powers; if they be false, it was an imitation, I will not say, of what had been wrought, but of what had been reported to have been wrought by those who preceded them. That imitation should follow reality; fiction should be grafted upon truth; that, if miracles were performed at first, miracles should be pretended afterwards, agrees so well with the ordinary course of human affairs, that we can have no great difficulty in believing it. The contrary supposition is very improbable, namely, that miracles should be pre tended to by the followers of the apostles and first emissaries of the religion, when none were pretended to, either in their own persons or that of their masters, by those apostles and emissaries themselves." This is one of the most sophistical, petitio principii modes of reasoning that can be met with, and yet this is a sample of the whole of Paley's Evidences of Christianity.

The argument of Paley is simply this rather than disbelieve the miracles said to have been performed by Jesus and his disciples, I would believe all the miracles said to have been performed by Roman and other Christian priests in all ages; or, in other language, he says it is a proof that the first were actually performed, because the latter pretended to them. This may satisfy the credulity of Christians, but not the philosopher and the Deist.

man

The above paragraph needs no further comment nor exposition; it must strike the dullest capacity, and is a strong proof of the fact of an observation said to have been made by Paley, when told that his conscience could not support certain arguments he had been using, he replied "that he could not afford to keep a conscience." The whole of the first volume is a tedious repetition of similar absurdities, and nothing argues more strongly the total want of evidence to support the doginas of the Christian religion, than the innumerable volumes that have been written to support it. Was the Christian religion founded on an atom of truth, half a dozen pages would be quite sufficient to display it; it would not need to be defended in such a variety of ways, independent of force and falsehood. Not one demonstrable truth can be brought to support it. Truth needs not the sophistical arguments of a Paley, nor the flowery metaphors of Charles Phillips; simplicity is its handmaid, it has no connection with laboured, false, and abstruse modes of reasoning. Paley has done all that can be done for the Christian religion; he has done all that ingenuity and ability could do for it; he has not convinced any that is capable of reasoning, and the Christian religion remains what it was before Paley wrote, founded in error, falsehood, and credulity. There are two points on which all controversy of this description should hinge. Has there been a written revelation from God to man or not? Do the human race stand in need of a Savionr and Mediator to intervene between man and his Maker? Of the first question, R. Carlile can find no substantial proofs, but many in contradiction of it: of the second be cannot perceive the necessity, because he believes the Deity to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Whether Dr. Rudge will consider that R. Carlile has fairly conducted this correspondence, he does not pretend to say; he has done it to the best of his ability, and with the strictest sense of rectitude. The reason R. Carlile has thought proper to publish this correspondence is, that he felt it incumbent on him in his present situation to seize every opportunity of making known to the public his motives and conduct;-he courts the strictest examination, and determines to persevere in the same path he has lately trod, whilst the merciful Christians, into whose hands he has fallen, will allow him the use of pen, ink, and paper, and a free communication with the public. Dr. Rudge, perhaps, will still think that R. Carlile retains the prejudice of human reason. Reason and real conviction can never arise from prejudice, which

Paine beautifully describes as the spider that spins its web on the mind.

Diderot has well described the priestly conflict with reason in the following words. "Bewildered in an immense forest, during the night, and having only one small torch for my guide, a stranger approaches and thus addresses me:- Friend, blow out thy light, if thou wouldst make sure of the right path.' This stranger

was a priest.

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE.

MY DEAR SIR,

I HOPE you will excuse the liberty I take in addressing you. Seeing it was your intention to endeavour to prove in a court of justice the Bible to be a forgery, I could not resist the opportunity of soliciting your attention to the enclosed small volume by Dr. Chalmers, on the subject which has been a means of confirming my own belief of its genuineness-and perhaps may also be of use, to shew you that Christians have at least strong grounds for considering it an inspired volume.

May you yet be led to seek salvation through the merits of that Saviour, so clearly revealed in those Scriptures, you at present reject, but which have been the means of conferring happiness on thousands of our fellow-creatures.

I HAVE the honour as well as the satisfaction to acknowledge the receipt of a letter, with a volume of Chalmers' Evidences and Authority of the Christian Religion as a Divine Revelation, for which I return you my sincere thanks.

In return, also, I have sent you a copy of Paine's Theological Works, with this pledge, that if you will do justice to your reason, and examine it, I will in return give you my opinion on the Evidences of Chalmers, and shall be most happy to receive yours on the Theological Works of Thomas Paine.

I beg to assure you, that I feel a consolation that raises me superior to all my persecution, arising from a consciousness that the moral welfare of man has been my only object. It appears to me, also, that you are impressed with what I call a similar virtue.