acts of this sort are received in society, while the females are shamefully excluded, and rendered thereby the objects of insult when, repeat, all these things are considered, and when it is considered, also, that it is in Christian countries alone that these abuses and inconsistencies exist, it must appear evident, that there exists some radical defect in the laws and customs relating to the intercourse of the sexes, which distinguish Christian from other countries.

That jealousy, and not Christianity, has made the marriagelaws and the customs respecting women, I admit, as too obvious a truth to be overlooked; nor should I object to the operation of jealousy in the appropriation of one woman to one man, as a rational means of social happiness, if only jealousy were allowed, in practice, to operate equally on both sides. But where custom sanctions the infraction of certain laws on one side, and punishes it on the other, it is high time to investigate the validity of these laws, of which such a partial and unjust infraction can be tolerated. Now, I assert, that nearly all the laws and customs respecting marriage, adultery, and fornication, in all Christian countries, are radically defective, though their deficiency is a fleabite to the gross and partial infraction of them which custom tolerates in one sex exclusively. Schlegel, in his "Dramatic Literature," ascribes the high estimation in which female modesty is held in Christian countries to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and the Virgin Mother of God. And I believe the truth is, that selfish Christians have availed themselves of this circumstance, as a means, by idolizing female chastity, to secure to themselves the appropriation of wives at the suggestions of jealousy, while they, being the more powerful, allow themselves an unlimited indulgence in promiscuous intercourse, when prompted by desire. As a remedy for all the above-described evils, I should propose the following as an amendment in the laws regarding the sexes:

1. That the simple declaration of nuptials before a magistrate should constitute a marriage.

2. That mutual declaration of a wish to separate, after a year's previous notice, should be available as a divorce.

3. That civil actions for damages in adultery be abolished: and that the proved wanton endeavour to seduce a man's wife should be punishable, if it succeeded, in common law.

4. That all children clearly proved to belong to any man or woman, should be supported by them, or by their legal heirs, and that the word bastard should be abolished.

And, lastly, That all religion, and religious authority, and ceremonies, should be henceforth done away with, in all and every ceremony relating to marriage and divorce.

Christianity in this, as in every other instance, has become a cloak for the vice, and a medium of oppression. Christians, in.

their jealousy, forget what the idol of their adoration said to the woman caught in adultery. Christians may build Penitentiary Houses, found Magdalen Hospitals, and other foundling asylums, to cloak their crimes, to excuse their want of duty to their natural offspring, or to bribe the Lord: but Asiatics do without these things, because, however enslaved, they treat their women kindly.

Nov. 9, 1826.

Your's, &c.

GYNOPHILUS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE REPUBLICAN."

SIR, Bristol, Nov. 7, 1826. IN my former communication, 1 endeavoured to shew, that on theological principles, if there ever was a being called God, who created the universe, he must have created it from nothing. We can form no idea of existence without space; and that as God himself could not exist independant of it they are both coeval, and self-existent. The creation, if we are to credit the Mosaic account, took place near 6000 years ago. If this be correct, millions of ages would be less than a grain of sand to the ocean shore, to express the time that deity existed before that creation took place. Will it be said, that God dwelt solitarily in the boundless expanse during those numberless ages? or was he creating other systems that we know nothing about? These are difficult points, which we must leave to the defenders of the system; perhaps they have given us the best definitions they could by asserting that " God is a spirit:" in other words, he is nothing that we have any knowledge of, and we must "worship, in spirit and in truth," we know not what.

Spirit, in theology, may be compared to motion in the universe both are applicable to the life of man, when motion, ceases man becomes a lifeless clod; his brains, the seat of his understanding, die with him and perish, and all the ideas we form of man beyond that are imaginary. The change of form does not destroy motion; all nature ever was, and ever will be, in motion; the form changes, but the substance abides for ever. To suppose the necessity of a Being to create and govern the universe, is a multiplication of cause to no purpose, and in this way we may proceed ad infinitum." We can form no idea of a being creating unlimited space, nor existing without it, nor can we conceive how this earth we live on " was without form and void." "A very common mind will perceive, from a little reflection, that

a great many of the terms and phrases in ordinary use are as near akin to perfect nonsense as can well be: chaos in its common use and acceptation, was far from philosophical, for it meant a jumble of all sorts of elements, principles, rudiments, and ingredients in one rude mass. To fill the common-place notion of a chaos, we have only to suppose this pleasant world of ours, with all it contains, and with all it abounds, put into a large mortar, and after being pounded and mixed by the youngest apprentice of a Hottentot apothecary, made up into one immense bolus, this would be chaos in the common acceptation of the word; but it is quite certain it would not then be utterly shapeless, for it must have a surface, and that surface would either be curved or straight lined; in short, it would still possess the three great essentials of all created things, form, colour, and texture."

Is it not an idea more transcendantly grand to suppose nature performing its self-moving revolutions in the immensity of space, independant of an auxiliary support, by the force and regularity of its own laws and inherent power, than to receive the unintelligible and inconsistent jargon of a tyrant, who commenced his career with assassination, and carried it on by a system of cruelty intermixed with debauchery? To believe in chimeras we do not understand; to believe the worlds and systems we behold were created by fits and starts, as we erect churches, towers, palaces, canals, and water falls; what is this but reducing the formation of the universe to our narrow views of mechanism, and confining the rolling of the ocean, the blowing of the winds, the direction of the rays of the sun, the violence of the rain, placing all, like an army, under the word of command, and which, if admitted, are sometimes exemplified by horrid devastation that would dreadfully libel the character of a wise and benevolent being?

But theology is so fenced with Scriptures and Creeds, that its advocates can overcome all difficulties; facts, however strong, must give way to creeds and religious dogmas, and human miseries are metamorphosed into physical evils, for the purpose of curing moral evils; and when enveloped in the thickest darkness, a supply of texts, which is ready at every emergency, introduced as a quietus, such as "his councils are hid in the secret pavilions," and "his ways are past finding out;" and true it is, that which is hid cannot be found out, and equally true, that it can be of no sort of use to those who cannot find it. Still, if this be objected, the objector is sometimes asked, if he can form a better system, to which we can only answer in the negative, we do not pretend to possess those attributes which they ascribe to their Deity; but if perfect wisdom and benevolence are his properties, and he is the sovereign ruler of this our world, is it unreasonable to expect the government to correspond with the attributes of the governor? When we find it completely at variance

with those attributes, and incalculable miseries constantly calling loudly for benevolence without relief, can we help exclaiming with Wanley Penson-" O, maker of man, did I but possess thy powers of benevolence, I envy not thy other attributes !"

Is it unfair to expect that perfect wisdom would set up just and equitable rulers in the world he governs? Would omnipotence suffer a perpetual system of tyranny and oppression to prevail to desolate his handy work? Would the few be permitted to riot in luxury, while the many were in want of the common necessaries of life? Would cruel law-suits be permitted daily to oppress the needy, by the overwhelming influence of the rich ?. Would the widow and orphan be suffered to be plundered by the rapacious grasp of those appointed as their protectors? Would nations be allowed to keep up standing armies, to protect rulers in burthening the people with excessive taxation-and allow them to enact vexatious laws, and ex officio informations, to entrap and destroy all who may have the courage to complain? Would inhuman inquisitions have been allowed to torment innocent victims for worshipping (according to the best of their judgment) the God who is said to rule and protect them? Can the government of a wise and benevolent being be associated with such inferual villany? Can we indulge the thought, that a perfect omnipoteut being (who it is asserted) would destroy worlds by his mighty fiat, would have been a silent spectator of aúto da fe's, the burning of innocent men, women and children, who conscientiously worshipped him? Is there an English soldier to be found whose sword would not have been instantly drawn in defence of such injured innocents? Could a better proof of his fatherly care have been exhibited, would it not have been more efficacious than ten millions of sermons, or the eloquence of millions of well paid priests and missionaries? Surely, the summary punishment of such blood thirsty tyrants, would have spoken more than thousands of Bibles, or all the theological books that were ever published; yet, as prevention is better than cure, and the power equal to both, the former would have been unquestionably preferable.

How shall we unite wisdom and benevolence with the lingering and miserable existence of idiots and madmen, and with the incurable diseases to which the best of human beings are subject; and with the overwhelming rich benefices of the few, while thousands of families with the willing labour of their hands are unable to procure the common wants of life?

These are a small portion of the evils that manifestly exist, and shall we continue to pay a multitude of men to insult our common sense, by telling us that all this is consistent with wisdom, power and benevolence? Would they not be far more usefully employed by instructing the ignorant as to the best means of lessening the evils of hnman life? There is much more wisdom

in relieving the needy with food, raiment and useful knowledge, than of giving them weekly lectures on imaginary theories, which are unconnected with their present existence, and of which no human being can give any tangible proof. The very record on which all depends, when analized, is contrary to known facts and replete with inconsistencies. The judicious lecturer, whom I have quoted, "regretted that men in general were not more alive to the advantages of science, and that the well-intentioned people who subscribed so largely to the Bible, Missionary and Peace Societies, did not appear to see that they might exercise both their benevolence and their piety, by aiding the cause of science. I know (he adds) I run some risk in touching on the subject at all. If I may be allowed to ask, I should say, what is the end and aim of these expensive objects? The well being of mankind; in a word, morality. What does morality consist in? Not in holding certain opinions of faith, but in those acts and contrivances by which the condition of mankind is bettered, by which the compact of brotherly love is strengthened, by which the good and kindly qualities are called into action, and made to operate in a constant interchange of good offices.-This is morality and the elements of this morality are most certainly to be found in science: in these scientific contrivances, by which man has been enabled to lighten the weight of what may be well called the original curse, barbarism and ignorance. Science is the basis of philosophy--philosophy embraces all knowledge-knowledge is the most sure means of happiness-and happiness the end and object of man's creation."

E. K. D.

ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
(Concluded from p. 576.)

Who would have sent abroad such a report? The appearance of another pamphlet by Woolston, exaggerating on the necessity of his allegorical view by exhibiting as strongly as in his power the absurdity, as it appeared to him, of regarding the miracles as matters of fact, so inflamed the spirit of persecution, that the proceedings against him could no longer be stayed. And the case of Woolston has formed the leading precedent for punishing, as a crime, freedom of writing on religion, from that to the present time.

We can hardly anticipate that the clergy will seek, on this occasion, to save themselves by the poor pretext, that what was done by the government was not done by them. One of the