judged to be sufficient, would be unwilling to give such securities, seeing, that for much less indication of kindness shown to me, six other persons are already under prosecution; and it being absolutely impossible, that a man, having the proper spirit of a man, and being conscious, that he hath never said nor done any thing that deserved punishment, should accept liberty on so degrading and unjust a condition.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime."

With sincerest deference,
I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

ROBERT TAYLOR.

TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD KING.

MY LORD, I know no one of your rank, whose character would lead me to a hope of meeting a merciful and liberal consideration, second to that which suggests itself with the name of Lord King. My Lord, I present, the highest homage to your goodness, by appealing to it: and the sincerest respect to your wisdom, by relying on it.-Be pleased my Lord to know-that I am a fully-ordained clergyman of the Church of England, unjustly imprisoned for delivering, after deep studies and most learned investigations of the arcana, origin and evidences of the Christian religion, the sincere conclusions of my mind, before my own congregation. I have been sentenced to be confined here for one year, and, at the end of that time, to find securities for my good behaviour (that is, my Lord, to speak the truth no more) for five years, myself in £500, and two sufficient persons in £250 each.

Will you, my Lord, in generous compassion to one, who is thus "persecuted for righteousness' sake," so boldly venture to

66

Strip black oppression of her deep disguise,
And bid the hag in native horror rise,"

as to enforce, on the observance of the bench of Bishops, their monstrous inconsistency, in affecting apprehensions of popish intolerance, and their flagrant hypocrisy in pretending to advocate the Protestant principle of the right of private judgment: when, for the exercise of that right, and the necessary conduct arising from the convictions to which that exercise has led one, holding in common with themselves the indelible character of priesthood, having received the Holy Ghost at their hands, and been sworne evermore to follow his Godly motions, even for having followed those Godly motions, and preached under the influence of that holy inspiration, suffers the cruel martyrdom of solitary confinement, is cut off from the vicinity of his friends,

deprived of all resources but such as arise from the sympathy of the unbelieving public, and as far as Christians and Christian charity intended, left to pine to death in this abhorred opprobrious den of woe, even in the immediate diocese of that very bishop, whose writings first led his mind to infidelity; and will, to the immortality they challenge, be an incontrovertible demonstration that the bishop was an infidel too.

I beseech you, my Lord, do me this justice; and doing it, with whatever immediate result, deserve the gratitude of suffering innocence, the praise of all wise and good men, and (better than all rewards) the approbation of your own good heart.

Oakham Gaol, April 11th, 1828.

I am, my Lord,

With earnest deference,

Your Lordship's obedient servant,
ROBERT TAYLOR.

To the Editor of "The Lion."

SIR,-Allow me, through the medium of "THE LION," to communicate a thought suggested to my mind, by the anti-superstitious preaching of Messrs. Taylor and Fitch. It does indeed, appear to me a cause of regret, that men, professing themselves to be philanthropists, and known to possess minds of superior knowledge and intelligence, should so deviate from the ground and principles on which alone the great cause of Truth should be advocated, and on which alone it can prosper and advance, Surely, it is the part and duty of the advocate of truth, seriously and boldly to declare it, wherever it may be found, not doubting there will be always those capable of duly receiving, weighing, and appre ciating it, and from whose influence in society, in their various circles, it will operate and extend. It is by gaining the co-operation of the wise and intelligent, by ensuring their and our own conviction, that Truth has no policy to serve, but a straight, onward, honest course to pursue, and that it is calculated to subserve the best interests and happiness of

mankind.

In establishing these views, by such means in the minds of the wise and virtuous, great and beneficial results may be naturally and rationally expected. But such a glorious harvest is not to be reaped by truckling to the prejudices of the weak-minded and stupid, by pretended perform ances of divine worship, liturgies, or farces. This is of itself, immoral and hypocritical: an insult to the majesty of truth, by which we gain neither our own esteem, nor that of others. Even should the dolts (to whom such means are applied) perchance, be a little enlightened by the use of them, 'twould be only like a flash of light in a dark place; they would be open to the sophistries of error on the other side, which would not fail to point out the insincerity, and the trap laid for them, and by appealing to their passions and prejudices, would insure them irrecoverably the victims of superstition. Verily, the remedy is as bad, or worse,

than the disease.

April 3rd, 1828.

Your's,

PHILO,

To the Editor of "The Lion.”

Bristol, April 8th, 1828.

SIR,-To bring forward the opinion of Phereeydes, or indeed that of any philosopher, to countenance the belief of immortality, must excite the astonisment of those who, like "the good Christian," so kindly alluded to by the catchumen of the Oakham Christian Evidence, thought that DEISTS had disencumbered themselves of the shackles of "authority," however ancient. In returning my grateful thanks for the amiable manner in which my friend's query was noticed, I would remind Mr. Taylor, that Pherecydes supported not only the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, but that also of the metempsychosis-a doctrine long ago exploded, as I yet hope will be the case with that of IMMORTAL SOULS.

But MATERIALISTS have also "authorities," sacred and profane. For, where shall we look for a better man, or a greater philosopher, than Epicurus, who disowned a Providence, attacked religion, and finally triumphed over it.

“Quare religio pedibus subjecta vicissim

Obteritur; nos exæquat victoria cœlo."

Lucretius, who denied the soul of man to be a substance distinct from matter. SOLOMON, the wisest of kings (" credat Judæus Apella") "who said in his heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they. have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast. Leo X. who caused the question of the immortality of the soul, to be dis-, cussed before him, and concluded at last with this verse of Cornelius Gallus, "Et radit in nihilum, quod fecit ante nihil :" (it began in nothing, and in nothing it ends.) Such was the deliberate opinion of a man, "que la religion nous prescrit de croire infaillible."-Madame de Genlis' Memoirs. And, in this particular case, I certainly agree with the French paragon of bigotry. Now, there is nothing here of the shill-I-shall-I of those ancient philosophers, who have speculated on the immortality of the soul.

Hoping that you will accept Mr. Taylor's challenge on this subject, and not doubting but you will do it justice, I remain, very sincerely, Sir,

Your most obedient, and most humble servant,

E. SMITH.

Note. I hold the alleged authority of Pherecydes, or of any other philosopher, about deity and future life, to be no authority, worthy of our notice. Every man, in such a case, has his appeal, from every other man's authority, to the present knowledge of physics. Taking away the alleged written revelation, there remains no authority but man's imagination, and that imagination is in itself evidence of nothing. So far, the question of deity remains open to the defence of Mr. Taylor. R. C.

TO THE REV. ROBERT TAYLOR.

REV. SIR, I would apologize for this (perhaps unwelcome) intrusion upon your attention, while I beg your acceptance of an invitation to come forward in support of the proposition laid down by you in the eighth number of the "Lion. " "Deum esse," a proposition, the consideration of which is, in my opinion, of primary importance, inasmuch as it involves, not only the truth or falsehood of every religion now extant ;-but also the question of a future state, on which, in my mind, mankind has, in all ages, placed too sanguine a reliance. And, altho', I may reasonably doubt the sincerity of your belief in the truth of this proposition, seeing, that, in your letter of 16th Feb. (in the same number of the "Lion") you expressly state your conviction, that all extra-mundane and supernatural princi ples are bad ones,' yet I pass over the remark from a wish to elicit from you those arguments which you can advance in consideration of the great question, "An Deus est ?"

An enquiry after truth was the principle you laid down in your inaugural address, as the basis on which the Christian Evidence Society was formed and digressing for a moment from the immediate subject of this letter, I beg leave to ask, if that enquiry would not have been built on a sure foundation, if you had at once gone into the Evidences of Deism, leaving Christianity, to stand or fall, by the result of the arguments in support and refutation of the existence of a God.

I'disclaim all intention to compliment, for this plain reason, that, if what I state be true, however flattering it may be, it is nothing more than a just tribute to merit; if false-it becomes an insult offered to the understanding of the individual to whom it is addressed. And though I have no right to dictate to you, the profession of any particular doctrine, much less inquisitively to require an open declaration of your religious opinions on the subject of Theology; yet, I may be allowed to observe, that I think the cause of truth would have been benefitted in an infinitely greater degree, if you had brought your expansive powers of intellect, eloquence and research to bear upon this subject. Your aim-and it was a noble one was to enlighten mankind, by dispelling the debasing influence of religious superstition. Would it not have been better then, to have undermined the foundation of this fabric upon the principle, that, if you wanted to cut down a tree, you would not begin by lopping off its

branches?

I am entirely unacquainted with metaphysical argument, or mathematical demonstration: nor have I the presumption to compete with you in classical attainments: moreover I am not skilled in theological disputation; for this is the first time that I have ventured into the wide field of public discussion, to challenge an opponent on any one subject.-But, I trust, you will not, on this account, decline my invitation, or refuse my challenge. A diamond loses nought of its intrinsic value, by being set in lead; although its brilliancy would be heightened by more costly ornament and I beg you to recollect, that great minds have laid aside philosophical studies, to write upon subjects suited to the meanest capacities. By some, I may, perchance, be taxed with self-conceit, in that I have dared to single out so able an antagonist; but it is the pardonable weakness of youthful vanity. My motive is that of acquiring information, and I shall not think it a disgrace to acknowledge myself beaten, since I peril my little stock of information against such fearful odds, in the arena of Deistical controversy.

:

I, therefore, repeat my invitation-I shall be happy if you pick up my glove and wishing you the full enjoyment of those comforts, which will lighten the burthen of your present undeserved affliction, I have the honour to be, Reverend Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

JUVENIS.

THOUGHTS ON THE PERSECUTION OF THE REV. ROBT. TAYLOR.

THE spirit of persecution has been rekindled in this "enlightened and enviable" country, on the person of the Rev. Robert Taylor. Blasphemy, and the corrupting influence of his doctrine are echoed and strongly urged before the English public, by the solicitor-general, Sir J. Scarlett, and Mr. Justice Bayley. For, say they, to destroy religion, you destroy all the bonds of society. It is a belief in religion, that makes man free from vice. This language is held forth in the face of this religious and crimeincreasing nation, and by gentlemen, most in the habit of witnessing and punishing individuals, who acknowledge their belief in religion, and their depravity in moral conduct. The duty of such gentlemen, as expounders and administrators of law and justice, ought to direct them to produce individuals imbued with crime, in connection with, and caused by, the irreligion or opinions of Mr. Taylor, or that he had seduced youth, and had sapped the morals of society. This thread-bare charge is as little as the mind that produced, or as the man that gave it utterance. What could be more easy, than to confront with evidence, when it is asserted, that the mere children and women of the metropolis, formed so prominent a portion of Mr. Taylor's audience? The neglect to do this, after the long continuance and successive delivery of ninety-two orations, unmolested by legal means, proves that they must have been unsul..ed by any communication or contamination of immorality.

The

The ignorant and power-possessing religionists, in former ages, were similar to those of the present, in the persecution of more honest men than themselves, and in denouncing their principles as dangerous, though after times proclaimed them to be most consistent with truth and reason. crimes of Anaxagoras, were the assertion, that the sun was an inanimate substance, and not a proper object of worship;-and that the appearance of a ram with one horn, was an affair that was perfectly natural, and not the prediction of any unfortunate event that should befal the Athenian people. These were crimes that met with fines and banishment, from the infatuation of the priests and judges of that day, and now receive general applause in this country.

The cry against Socrates was: "He also violates the laws, by corrupting the youth: Be his punishment death."

What a similarity of conduct in the accusers and judges of Socrates, and in those of Mr. Taylor! Yet, Sir J. Scarlett could insult Mr. Taylor and the court, and the nation, by asking:-"Is he a Socrates, assembled and arguing with his disciples?" "Yes," Mr. Taylor might have answered there was just such a character as you, Sir, to defame the conduct and character of Socrates."

The language of Socrates to his accusers was :-"I have never corrupted or injured any one, so far from having been a corrupter of youth, I have uniformly exhibited to them justice, moderation and temperance." Such were his words, in the face of his corrupt accusers and judges, who,