תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

the pleasure to anticipate that they will be publicly exposed ?
Will you condescend to write to me on the subject ?* Excuse my
zeal, I beg, as it has espoused a good cause. What design can
be more noble than that of crushing fanaticism and superstition,
as they are prejudicial to the human race.
I remain, your devoted admirer,
And humble servant,

JOHN JONES,

[ocr errors]

* I have not read Mr. Mason Good's book; but my attention has been called to it of late by different persons. I cannot, at this moment, make a pledge of taking it up, as I have many pledges yet unperformed; but if I want an author of the kind for examination, I shall prefer Mason Good, as a living author, as a medical man, and as the avowed friend of Dr. Gregory, whose letters on the evidences of the Christian Religion, I consider, i bàve fairly refuted, with less knowledge upon the subject than I have since attained. " Every Man's Book ; OR, WHAT is God?" being the discussion with William Allen, is on sale as a pamphlet distinct from “ The Republican,” and with some slight additions and corrections. It will, by and bye, be made a match book, as to size, with the “ Every Woman's Book; OR, What Is Love?" To know what is God, and what is love, appear to me to be the two grand points whereupon to lay the foundation of human happiness.-R. C.

The following piece of correspondence came from the West End of the Town, and we presume that it is a sort of Christian apology for adultery from some person in the condition of Captain Garth and Lady Astley. It was anonymous, posted in Piccadilly, and rejected once for non-payment; but on a second presentation, we thought the apologetical notion worth twopence, and so purchased it, the postage being the bighest price that we give for a manuscript of any kind; and then only when we know the writer, or think the article worth that price. To pay for all correspondences sent would be a worse tax than either Church or State has yet imposed.-EDITOR.

To the Editor of the Republican.

SIR, Gift.--I understand this word to mean an extraordinary power, conferred on man especially by God-St. Paul's 1st Epistle to Cor.; so in respect to this gift of continency declares it, ver. I and 40,

I read in the marriage service that amongst the purposes for which marriage was ordained, one was this, viz. that persons

[ocr errors]

such as have not the gift of continency might keep themselves undefiled.

The gift of continency! Then continency is a spiritual gift, is it reasonable, then, to punish a man because he do not possess a spiritual gift, as well might he be open to punishment for the colonr of his skin. You reply þe may marry: if he have not thel spiritual gift of continency he may marry; but will that insure to him the spiritual gift of continency? If it do not, will it not subject him to the severer penalties of the law ? Does he not in marriage for the experiment risk his fortune; his reputation ; his happiness; his very existence, and almost his soul's salvation, and that of his children? There are various causes which may operate to render matrimony, nugatory in such a matter, and which the laws will not admit sufficient to dissolve the bond. Is it reasonable then to punish the husband, who, not having the spiritual gift of continency, complied with your alternative, but did not receive in consequence the promised gift of continency, nor did you secure to him the full rights and conveniences of a husband, and yet will not release him, but subject him to severer penalties, and observe because he have not a spiritual gift!

I consider it blasphemous rebellion against God to punish the being he has created, because he has so created bim as he thought fit, and still more so when you have insisted on his adopting your remedies, and you have failed to supply him with the spiritual gift.

An idiot by parity of reason might with equal justice be subject to penal laws, because God created him without the spiritual gift of sense, and he could not explain an abstruse passage in the Scriptures, or solve a problem in Euclid, or a patient suffering under a malady be executed because the medicine of the pbysician sent to attend him failed to cure him.

I read in chap. xviii. of the Acts of the Apostles, that one Simon Magus offered the Apostles money to give him the power to work miracles, but Peter said unto him, " Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may

be purchased with money.

I say, then, that he that hath not the gift of continency may when you offer bim marriage as a means of obtaining that gift as well reprove you for supporting such means of obtaining a gift of God.

Incontinency is inability to restrain the appetite according to Milton's definition; and the learned Johnson tells us, continency is a command of oneself, and by the authority of the form of solemnization of matrimony in our Church, I am instructed to regard it as a gift of God; it is not reasonable, then, man should be punished, because he have not been blessed by the Creator of him with this his favour, by man.

But how inconsistent is this with what the priest has but a moment before ponounced, viz. that matrimony was not ordained to satisfy mens carnal appetites. Suppose an individ nal not having the gift of continency marry, and his wife become cripple, insane, diseased, or the like, the law will not release this man from his bond, or suffer him take any other woman to wife: but not having the gift of continency he cohabits with another woman, and he is punished by human laws. How unjust! Surely, where it is clear there are such causes as preclude a man the conveniences of matrimony, he ought to be released his bond on a fair provision to his wife, and her offspring being made. How many suffer in reputation as incontinent, where the truth cannot be advanced as to the cause, and which would render an individual an object of pity and excite sympathy rather than condemnation. However, deficient a man be of this gift of God, he is much safer single than married, and his remedy much more certain in the one case than the other, and his punishment much less severe.

Dreadful to contemplate are the risks a man runs who marries, and few are there who escape destruction of happiness or fortune, or some other matter equally dear to him and his existence, who enters that state, nevertheless let man take to his mate, and abide with her constant and faithful.

OBSERVATIONS ON * 0. O's" ARTICLE ON GOD OF

NATURE, MATTER, MOTION, AND MIND.”

“ Motion cannot originate itself, por can matter move itself without some moving agent, so that I must ascribe motion to some other source, and as I perceive in myself a capacity for motion, in what I call.mind, or the source of my volition ; so by a nataral process of reasoning do I ascribe motion in general to some similar principle."-0. O.

LOGICALLY as 0. O. attempts to argue this question, the undispelled superstition of his youth leads him inio error. He concludes without a connection between his proposition and his con. clusion, that mind has a capacity to produce motion, calls this the only 'source of motion, and infers a general mind or something distinct from matter, which he names " God of Nature,” as the cause of general motion.

What capacity has mind to produce motion ? Mind or volition moves nothing without the mechanical aid of matter; which removes 0. O.'s third point, and brings us back to matter as the only perceptible source of motion. We know nothing of motion but that it is the action of matter upon matter. · In all cases of motion, this is perceptible: nothing farther. Motion, as a principle distinct from matter, is not known, For instance, Mrs. Carlile is annoying me with her tongue, while I want quietness to

consider and not to hear the motions of matter. There is sound, there is motion; but the tongue, the glottis, the larynx, &c. form the matter which produces them, Motion is- as properly a quality of matter, and mind is as properly called a quality of body, as sound is a quality of the motions of matter. If there be a general mind, as the source of the general motions of matter, WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THAT GENERAL MIND? We find matter acting in all motions; but we never find mind distinct from matter. To say that matter cannot move itself is to set aside a perceptible fact for the sake of making room for the superstitious hypothesis of a moving God. If we consider matter under the head of its moving particles, we find that one moves the other, while the constant round of motion leaves the united particles in a state of rest or sameness. A storm on any part of the earth, though it moves particles on the surface of the earth, though it puts the sea and the atmosphere in violent motion, though it throws down buildings, uproots trees, removes even mountains, affects not the motion of the earth, is not a perceptible motion in relation to the planetary motions: the individual planetary motions, again, do not affect or relate to the motions of solar systems : and the motions of the solar systems, again, may be referred to the general system of matter, as not affecting it. So that, instead of seeking the source of motion in the major system of matter, or what 0. 0. calls God of Nature, we find it only and entirely in the minor system of particles.

Thus matter is shewn to be the source of motion and mind, and nothing is shewn by 0. 0., or by any other Theist, as the source of matter.

R. C.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Unpaid letters have no claim to notice. We open them, and, seeing that they ought to have been paid, return them to the postman without further notice. The tax upon a man who stands before the public as a writer or publisher of a periodical work is intolerable, if he have to pay postage for every letter that is dropped into the post-office for him. Many are put in for mischief, without any writing but the superscription ; but the persons who are guilty of such tricks may be assured, that all the injury they do is to waste their paper, time, &c., and to give a little trouble at the post-office. That honourable establishment never allows an individual to be taxed improperly through its medium. Castigator Amicus may here see the cause of his anger, and learn, that, as insults cannot be anonymously presented, they cannot be wisely resented.

With all possible esteem for Mr. Lowe, I deem bis Lecture,

good as n is in itself, a subject too stale for the readers of “ The Republican." I flatter myself, that they have been schooled to form a class above mere critical examinations of that book of ignorance,“ The Bible.” Seven years ago, I should have rejoiced to have received such an article with a name to it; but now, we have carried the question of religion beyond “The Bible;" and the bare admission for examinacion, that the book is an authority, is not to be tolerated. Enough has been written and publisbed agaipst it, which is not to be refuted. To raise doubts of its ralidity is a first necessary step; but as soon as those doubts have been raised, the enquirer should be fed with a knowledge of thipgs, or matter and morals. Mr, Lowe's paper will be kept for his order.

R, CA

[ocr errors]

ERRATA.

1

[ocr errors]

Some serious errors and omissions crept into the article in last week's Number, on machinery, popnlation, &c., signed. J. F. through the haste of getting up the Number which Bartholomew Fair inflicted upon the compositor, or rather upon the Editor, for on bim the penalty of the error falls. * There should have been five propositions or conclusions at the beginning, instead of four. The fourth was omitted and should have stood thus:

“4. That I consider the great increase of population' a piece of political twattle.”

There were some few omissions and substitutions of words which did not affect the general argument of J. F. though they affected bis style and his accuracy of quotation.

In the phrenological sarcasm, lump was substituted for bump, words that are first cousins, if not nearer of kin. . On the first discovery of the errors, a thought was entertained, as a matter of justice to J. F. as a controversial correspondent, to reprint his article correctly; and this shall be done if he deems the force of his argument weakened by the errors.

J. F. may be assured, that there was no intentional omission. Such a liberty is never taken in “ The Republican" with so able and respected a correspondent; nor, indeed, with any controversial correspondent in a particular controversy: Not being bound to accord with the conclusions of every correspondent, and professing to encourage free discussion, opposing articles are often allowed to pass unnoticed by the Editor, and the criticism left to the reader.

R. C. Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 62, Fleet Streot.-All Correspon

dences för " The Republican,” to be left at the place of publication.

« הקודםהמשך »