« AnteriorContinuar »
which pronounces the art to be all a juggle, and its professors impostors.
We will now proceed, as well as we can, to reply to his question, and explain the principles of a science to a man who, by his own confession, is ignorant of its rudiments. He first wishes to know why the planet Mercury operates upon the nervous fuid of an infant at its birth, to perform, nolens volens, certain actions. It has always been supposed that Mercury and the other planets act upon us by attraction, though what way they communicate their power to us, still remains to be discovered by some future philosopher; that they do act upon us is evident to every one who has studied astrology, but the proving this fact to those who have not, is attended with considerable difficulty, and we might almost be justified in withholding an explanation to those, who, either incapable of learning it, or too indolent to take the trouble, declare the art to be false, or its students either knaves or fools.
Mr. Watson may ask why the Moon attracts the water? why the planets revolve round their common centre? why light is produced by the action of the sun? why the universe itself was created? and should philosophers fail in giving a satisfactory answer to these unreasonable questions, he may consider, as he says, every science which he is unable to comprehend, to be founded in error and knavery; but bis assertions will have little weight with the reasonable part of mankind. It is sufficient for Astrologers, that they can prove whenever the Moon and Mercury are afflicted by the planets, Saturn and Mars, and not in aspect with each other, unassisted by the benefics, the native will be lunatic. As an example, we will take the nativity of his late Majesty George the Third: the judgment of which will be given in our next.
I shall pass over the observation upon your modesty in having omitted to say any thing of a science you “ do not understand, with merely saying, I put a different construction upon your silence. I really thought you considered the subject of astrology unworthy your notice, and was in fear I might be broaching a subject which might be irksome to your readers. I beg to refer to my letter to shew, that I sought instruction; it is true, not perhaps with all that modesty, diffidence, and passiveness, which great doctors on learning are wont to expect should pervade the minds of their pupils. With respect to your modesty, I dare say, the priests and Judge Bailey will think you have enough to answer for to them, upon that matter, without calling down upon yourself the anger of the forerunner of priestcraft, in exposing the craft of soothsaying.
My answerer, after complimenting you, Sir, upon your modesty
-which by the bye is a rare quality now-a-days, commences his reply with saying:
“We will now proceed, as well as we can, to reply to his question, and explain the principles of a science to a man who, by his own confession, is ignorant of its rudiments. He first wishes to know why the planet Mercury, for instance, operates upon the nervous fluid of an infant at its birth, to perform nolens volens certain actions. It has always been supposed (says my answerer) that Mercury and the other planets act upon us by attraction, (very well) though what way they communicate their power to us still remains to be discovered by some future philosopher; (very good) that they do act upon us, is evident to every person who has studied astrology, but the proving this fact to those who have not, is attended with considerable difficulty.”
In the above paragraph, we find, contrary to the priests, who contend that we are impelled to action by a good or evil spirit, that the astrologers believe we are moved to do a thing, by the attractions of matter; here then we discover, that the professors of astrology and religion are completely at issue, that they oppose each other
upon the two great principles upon which sceptics and believers contend, which is exactly the thing I wished to shew to the world, and having done so, by the confession of a teacher of astrology, I might close the subject. But now we have the astrologers upon the hip we may as well give them another fall; for, although they are much insulted and have been greatly persecuted by the priests, they still cant about religion and spiritual agency! Let them cease to do this, or let them take the consequences of their want of consistency.
I need not go beyond the publication which contains the answer to my letter to expose the absurdities of the astrologers, wherein is given a short sketch of the life of Henry Cornelius Aggrippa, an astrologer, much persecuted by the priests, yet his historian declares, that he was pupil to Trithemius, “who wrote upon the nature, ministry and offices of spirits,” and that, “he, Aggrippa, lived always in the Roman communion” in that church, which believes in supernatural powers or spiritual influences, demons, devils, ghosts, hobgoblins, witches and wizards, which the astrologers in former times, used to conjure up, from dark abodes to alarm the ignorant and superstitious.
The fallacy of these doctrines of the Roman church about spirits, Aggrippa had not the courage or honesty to expose, although his historian in another part says,
“ he was well versed in many of the chief and most SECRET operations of nature”- yet with this profound knowledge, we are told, he bewildered his brain, though it is said he was a man possessed of a very wonderful genius, in search of the philosopher's stone!
(To be continued.)
We have reprinted Nos. 22 and 23, Vol. IX, Republican: and also the Treatise on Mercury, with a Preface, containing notices of cures lately performed in this countty-Price One Shilling.
JOSEPH SWANN acknowledges the receipt of Six Sbillings from a few Friends at Charles Town pear Ashton: and Mrs. Perry and Mrs. Jefferies Six Shillings each from a few Friends at Bath.
Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 84, Fleet Street.-All Correspona
dences for “ The Republican" to be left at the place of publication.
No. 25, VOL. 10.) LONDON, Friday, Dec. 24, 1824. [PRICE 6d.
COPY OF A MEMORIAL SENT TO THE RIGHT
Dorchester Gaol, December 18, 1824 THOUGH I have addressed many a letter to you, I have just recollected, that I have never sent you a meniorial of my services to the state, of my sutterings for the state's good. And, as you, gentlemen in office, must do and receive every thing in a formal and official manner, we, poor sufferers, out of office, must, with all humility, observe a corresponding formality, or be neglected, or kicked ex officio.
This, then, comes with all humility, formality, ceremony, and compliment, to meinorialize you, that, I am in the sixth year of an imprisonment, for having been guilty of publishing two books, that quarrelled with an old family book, as to its goodness and utility.
It is very hard, that men should be made to suffer for the disagreement of books, l.pon matters, which, they, as men, know nothing about; and cruel that a man should be kept in prison five
years, because, books cannot be made to agree. You may as well punish a watch-maker, for oot making his watches to keep time with the watches of another maker; or a man, because, bis wife will chatter with and slander ber neighbours; or children, because, they do not always keep of one and the same humour at all times; or Catholics, because, they are pot Protestants; or Jews, because, they were circumcised in their infaucy, and not allowed to neglect that sacred rite with the Christians. All these things may be as justly done, as to make a man suffer pains and penalties for The disagreement of books about metaphysical matters, and, begging your pardon for such a lapsus linquæ, no! lapsus calami, to punish bim the most whose books gets nearest to
Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 84, Fleet Street.
the truth. This is like punishing the watchmaker, that should make the best watch!
I am quite sure, that the heads of the state bave been turned upside down, as to matters of right and wrong, ever since I have been a prisoner; but, I bope, to succeed in setting them upright. And, this, you will be pleased to receive, as an illustrative preface to my memorial?
About six years ago, in some day of this week, I published a book, with a very useful, or pretty title, nothing less than the “ AGE OF Reason, being an investigation of true and fabulous THEOLOGY.”
One would have thought, that such a book, with such a title, would have led its author, or publisher, at once, to the primacy of the Church ; for what can a Church desire so much, as tbe investigation and distinction of the true from a fabulous theology? But, do! it seems that, every Church has its own peculiar theology, and that each is the true one to its peculiar church. The church, in truth, is the theology, and has no external connection, save an embrace now and then with the state.
Whether, or not, my author knew this, I cannot say; but, I know, that his poor publisher, instead of getting into Lambeth Palace with his 66 AGE OF REASON” and his “ TRUE THEOLOGY,” has gotten into Dorchester Gaol, and cannot fiod the way out again! This comes of a man's meddling with divine matters, which are above the understauding of all but divinely-inspired men.
I am very sorry, Mr. Peel, for what I have done, and hope you will let me out: I promise you most earnestly and most faithfully, that I will not meddle with any more true theologies; but try to get into Lambeth Palace by another route. I promise you most faithfully, that I will war with and beat down all the false theologies that disturb the inmates of Lambeth Palace. Never more, never more, will I meddle with a true theology, whether investigated and brought forth by Thomas Paine or any other theologiap. Pray let me out.
Soon after I published that pretty titled book, the “ Age of Reason," I publishhd another, with as pretty a title: Principles of Nature," by Elibu Palmer.
For publishing this book, I thought to have had F.R.S., F. A. S., and all sorts of A. S. S. attached to the name of RICHARD CARLILE, ESQUIRE ; but, alas! here again, I was woefully mistaken; for the true theology of Lambeth Palace seemed opposed to every one of my “ Principles of Nature:” and, I found