lous, they are yet rational, as being done for the best end, and by an adequate cause, by that Great Being, whose power controuls the laws of nature, and whose benevolence disposes him to provide for the final happiness of his rational creatures. The infidel, on the contrary, disbelieves these facts, and is thrown upon the other horn of the dilemma. Accordingly, he believes that, in the moral world, about eighteen centuries ago, Nature changed her course-that an extraordinary miracle took place in the minds of men, blinding their senses, subverting their reason, and leading them obstinately to pursue happiness by a line of life which universal experience now finds to entail unsupportable misery. Such a miracle as this the infidel believes, without knowing any competent cause or any assignable end for it. Such men, then, while they deride those who receive the divine mission of Jesus Christ, as ignorant and credulous, themselves surpass all other men in ignorance and credulity.

I will now briefly advert to two remarks of yours. To my description of the happy effects of Christianity, as stated by Philo, Justin Martyr, and Lactantius, you say, "Put in the word reason for Christianity or Christ, and the argument will be equally good." On your own principles, then, the tendency and effects of Christianity are agreeable to reason3-are rational or sanctioned by reason. This is a concession I did not expect, and is a great point gained; and I would cordially assent to your assertion, were it not for three things, which set it aside as erroneous. First, the faith of history assures me that the happy effects of the Gospel on the lives and conversation of its early professors, though agreeable to reason, did not proceed from reason alone', but from reason aided by divine revelation. Secondly, experience and observation warrant the conviction, that unaided reason, even in the present improved state of the human faculties, is utterly inadequate to produce such wonderful effects. Thirdly, we have unequivocal examples of what unaided reason can do, in the character and conduct of the Pagan philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others, before the Christian era. These men carried human reason to the highest pitch of perfection of which it is susceptible; and what effects did it produce? Did it prompt them to plan the glorious scheme of reforming the world? Did it enable them to carry such a divine scheme into execution? Did it unfold views to them respecting God and a future state, which induced them, and thousands of converts made by them, to sacrifice their property and their lives in support of such views? No; the wisest of them pronounced such a scheme impossible, and he is known to have said, that before mankind could be made better, the Supreme Being must commis

Not so indeed! for Christianity is as yet an undefined system. The Christianity of Ben David may be rational, as I hold mine to be rational; but how few are they of the Christians who will assent to the Christianity of either ?-R. C. + Confessed.-R. C. Confessed.-R. C.

sion from above some one with supernatural means, as alone capable of effecting their reformation. This very man had made. a faint attempt to meliorate the community to which he belonged, and though aided by all the force of genius, though supported by the highest moral and intellectual reputation, and though seconded by all the philosophers of his age, he fell a victim to his noble attempt. Besides all this, reason, so far from enabling the Pagan philosophers to reform others, left the very men who cultivated it in the indulgence of passions the most selfish and hostile to the happiness of society-left them the prey of vices disgraceful to the nature of man. But I shall probably discuss this question more fully hereafter. I next advert to the assertion, that reason personified and under the name of Logos, such as is described by Philo, occurs in the writings of Plato and others.

Now, Sir, I assert without fear of being refuted, that there is no truth whatever in this assertion; no such personification as that of the Logos any where occurs, as is supposed, in the works of Plato or of any other Pagan writer. This I will engage to demonstrate in its proper place; but content myself with the two following facts. Doctor Cæsar Morgan, an orthodox Divine of the Established Church, examined the writings of Plato with a view to this question, and in a learned Dissertation asserts, that it is altogether unfounded. Dr. Priestley, with other Unitarians, supposes, that the Logos of the Trinity was copied from Plato by the early Greek Fathers, yet when he came to examine the works of that philosopher, he is obliged to confess that he could not find that Plato ever proceeded so far as to make the divine mind nous, or Logos, a second God, or a distinct personified being." See his History of Early Opinions, vol. i. p. 321. If I am mistaken, or misrepresent the truth, let the Reverend Secretary refute me.

I remain, Sir, respectfully yours,

BEN DAVID.

Pray, Ben David, tell us what Christianity has done. Be most minute iu contrasting the vices of the pagans with the virtues or vices of the Christians, or some person may do it for you. The pagans against the Christiaus through all times and all places will be defended by R. C.

7 But still he deified the principle of reason upon the same ground as we speak of god-like virtues, or other acquirements.-R. C.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REPUBLICAN.

SIR, 10, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, May 4, 1826. I AM induced to state a few observations upon the nature of the. Book you have lately published called " Every Woman's Book, or What is Love," from the unmerited abuse that has been so copiously poured out upon both that, and you as the author, and

that I think it incumbent upon every honest man, if possible, to assist in rescuing the author from such vile attacks as that made by Mr. Cobbett, and to shew to the country the detestation with which every candid person must necessarily hold such principles as those entertained by that individual.

After an attentive perusal of the above work, I cannot conceive such, or in fact, any injurious effects likely to ensue from the publication as many persons seem to anticipate. It seems to me to be a very important and philosophical work, containing chiefly a statement of certain facts, and as I am convinced, according to the present degraded and corrupt state of Society, very requisite to be made generally known.

It has been asserted by many persons, that the frontispiece is calculated to shock the feelings of the modest and virtuous of both sexes, and to produce a system of depravity among the Junior Branches of Society. I certainly cannot (speaking conscien tiously) view it in that light, it is evidently, plainly and simply drawn for the sole purpose of shewing the male and female of the human species in their natural and consequently pure and uncontaminated state; which, when thus viewed, cannot, in the slightest degree, excite any obscene idea, except in depraved and ignorant minds; and even then, I doubt much, whether it would not tend more to inflame the passions and cause much more excitement, was there the usual symbol of mystery-a fig leaf or other slight covering.

You have certainly depicted the passion of genuine Love in its true colour, and have clearly shewn it is only the gratification of a natural propensity. I have a long time thought it a very absurd custom, and one which ought not be tolerated by any but prejudiced persons, to keep the females at so great a distance in society, that where they feel the passion of love, they are prevented by such eustom from expressing it, until the male has made advances towards them, and which, if not done, very often has been the cause of the female in an hapless moment, destroying that life and annihilating that tender frame, which under another and a better system would have been an ornament to Society.

I am happy to see you state distinctly your objections to an indiscriminate intercourse, and in so doing, have laid down that noble maxim, that man shall have a woman so long as he loves her well; but, when that feeling ceases, then to separate and seek new matches. Most certainly this would be the best and most likely mode of ensuring happiness, much more so than the present custom of marriage, which we see, by every day's occurences, is not binding in a moral point of view, and too frequently the case, the parties lead for a series of years a most miserable and wretched life.

The mode for the prevention of conception, I hail as a real blessing to the poor man, who, perhaps, is so oppressed by the villainous system of government, that he can scarcely get bread

for his already too numerous family. Besides, the using of this check upon population is merely optional, being only a recommendation of a physical mode of preventing an increase of family, without in any way interfering in the pleasures of sexual intercourse: and it does not seem at all likely to cause any injury in the adoption of it to the delicate frame of the female. If we reflect for a moment upon the great danger there is in many instances in the birth of the offspring and the wretchedness attendant upon the bringing up of such offspring, I think even these are sufficient reasons (although many more might be adduced) why we should have it as a happy expedient.

I have heard you accused of immoral intentions, in thus boldly putting forth that work; but I conceive the simple act of your publishing that valuable little book called "THE MORALIST" is a complete refutation of that accusation.

Having said thus much upon the merits of "Every Woman's Book," I shall now, without the leave of Mr. Cobbett, offer a few observations upon his conduct as connected with the above subject.

A very little attention and reflection will easily discover the cause of his wanton and malicious attack upon you in his late Register. You have, he has uniformly seen, kept to your principles and always adhered to a steady moral line of conduct, and suffered that incarceration which few indeed would have suffered without in some way deviating. He has witnessed this, which bas so long been to him galling, and the consequent increase of friends, owing to the superiority of your principles over his own, made him ripe for an attack, only waiting for an opportunity. Your remarks upon his feast of the Gridiron, as it was ridiculously called, gave him that opportunity to break out in so furious a manner, dealing out by wholesale such torrents of abuse, in which, in all cases, he is apt to indulge, where he is in any way thwarted in his designs upon his too credulous readers.

It is quite impossible for any person to be at all acquainted with his writings, not to perceive that propensity for abuse which is so very conspicuous, his fickleness in principle, his ingratitude to friends, and the malignancy with which he is actuated upon every occasion, where he finds any of his schemes or proposals fairly laid open and honestly commented upon.

I was much pleased sometime ago at a little pamphlet, written I believe by Mr. Gale Jones upon Mr. Cobbett's inconsistencies and contradictions in his Register, which did a great deal to open the eyes of the public to the character of that individual. I hope you will not long delay the publication of your promised Memoir*, as I am convinced he has done a great and incalculable injury by his line of conduct.

I would beg to say, I do not at all know either Mr. Cobbett or any of his family; therefore, it cannot be presumed I have any

Published in No. 19, on the 12th Inst.-R. C.

other motive in thus speaking of him than from his public con duct, which certainly cannot be too much reprehended. I am heartily glad, that you express a determination, whenever he holds another Feast of the Gridiron, to attend, as he will no doubt be very much annoyed, and after the lashing I anticipate he will get from your forthcoming pamphlet, if he has any shame in him, will be a sure way to produce it.

Wishing you a long continuation of that liberty you now enjoy, and apologizing for the length of this, I beg to subscribe myself, Your Friend and Fellow Citizen,

THOMAS MARSHALL.

J. CLARKE returns thanks to his old friends, "The Liberals," for the following sums, received by the hands of J. H.

The subject of my next and second Discourse will shew the nature, capacity, and utility of speech, which is to explain the operations of thought as far as thought can seize or explain the nature of things, which must be effected by candour, doubt, and rigorous attention; for though thought is incapable of seizing the absolute truth of things, yet candid elocution substituted to artful eloquence, can explain all the useful phenomena of thought, conforming to those things which are necessary to the purposes of human intelligence and existence.

ON LANGUAGE.

LANGUAGE is the representative power of thought, as thought is the representative of things, or the great body of existence of nature. In my Discourse on knowledge I have shewn that things do not exhibit themselves to intelligence with accuracy and precision, but only with such a competency and sufficiency of evi dence as enables the mind to conform its conceptions and actions to the apparent operation of things, so as to conduct them to their uses, or merely to observe the harmony of their phenomena in science, without any knowledge of their causes. I shall illus trate this sentiment by two simple examples-the first relative to the knowledge of uses; and the other relative to the knowledge of phenomena in science without their uses.

The appearances or phenomena of fire, when impressed upon the senses, thought has but a very limited power to conform its action to elementary causes, to discover how the causal power of