warrantable assumption that the Deity cannot or will not prevent evil; but that on the contrary he can and will, and does;"" that we are very frequently entirely mistaken in Jour estimate of evil;" and that misery and suffering are excluded by the general rule, which general and obvious rule of the divine government in the earth, he says in the 20th paragraph, is the preponderance of happiness and enjoyment. It is calculated by political economists that about three in every five of the children born in populous districts die in the first year of their childhood from different disorders, and that in some of the poorest and most wretched neighbourhoods, nearly nine out of ten die in the first year at the foundling hospital in Paris where from 7000 to 8000 infants are annually received, only 180 were left alive at the age of ten. I was going to say, look at the suffering in the East and West Indies, of the great bulk of the population, but I have no occasion to go so far; London, Manchester, Glasgow, nay even our own town, Bradford, will furnish us with misery enough. How many out of a population of above 13,000, before the present turn out for wages, toiled from an early hour in the morning till late at night, almost, without intermissiou, for a bare existence? Much above balf, and a great part of them young children. Who that has a heart can behold the poor trembling creatures dragged out of their beds by five o'clock in the morning, scarcely awake, Cand destined to be immured in a close un wholesome manufactory for twelve or 14 hours daily, without execrating a system that produces such unnatural scenes! Look at the weaver, who by a close and incessant Inbour can earn about fifteen shillings a week upon which he has very probably a wife and two or three small children to support. See 1.the comber exposed, in a heated atmosphere, to the noxious fumes of charcoal, and every nerve and muscle stretched to its full pitch of bearing, besides being obliged in the course of his toil to sustain the extremes of heat and cold at short and sudden intervals. And what does he undergo this slavish employment and waste of life for? For a Guinea For eighteen shillings a week, with which he can barely support himself and family. Look at the immense mass of suffering arising from poverty in Ireland, and diseases every where; battles of Waterloo, and Russian campaigns! And are all these proofs of the existence of a beneficent deity? The exceptions to the general rule are so numerous and -multiplied that I think the exceptions are more likely to be considered the rule, and the rule the exception. The un

warrantable assumption appears to me to belong to those who make the assertion that that the deity does exclude evil, either by the general rule or any other rule. But he asks, "is the benevolent governor of the universe to be charged with the consequences of the pride and folly of men, who rush together in arms, and slaughter each other in the field of battle?" But I refer the reader to the whole of the 20th paragraph, where in the majority of cases, it seems, man himself is the voluntary instrument of his own sufferings. But I had before been given to understand that the whole of the events in nature were under the controul of a wise and benevolent being, and that they were necessary to his general plan, and consequently could not be expected to be otherwise. I am however, willing to acknowledge my error and to acquit the deity of as much of the charge of evil as Mr. H. thinks proper, but even in that case, he must deduct considerably from his supposed attributes of infinite power wisdom and goodness, or some one of them. My arguments are intended to apply to a being to whom absolute and unlimited perfection is assigned and not to a limited and imperfect one. Many of the evils of life, it is said, are imaginary. I do not think that this circumstance detracts from the misery they cause; for if the mind be pained, the affliction is real, and where the imagination lends its boundless power to create or increase the evil, nothing can exceed its extent as for iustance, in the torments of unfounded jealousy. The part of this paragraph where the esquimaux, the hottentot and the city alderman are introduced, instead of helping my antagonist, appears to me, to assist my argument; for it proves that, even constituted as we are, happiness may exist in the greatest and most extreme variety, and that in order to make us all happy, it will not be necessary to reduce us all to a torpid monotony of enjoyment, nor to make the men all sages and the women all bas bleus, seeing that a snow cabin, with whale oil and blubber, will give pleasure to the Esquimaux; as tinking kraal and a buffalo's raw entrails to the hottentot, while turthe soup and venison will be a luxury to the Alderman. But Mr. H. has insisted that evil is necessary, and I maintain that it is unnecessary, nnd bespeaks a deficiency in the power, wisdom or goodness of that being who it is pretended manages the affairs of the universe. Pain and want, the only thing that visit us, spontaneously, without exertion ou our parts, are unmixed evils; satisfaction and pleasure are artificial and factitious, and can only be obtained by

labour, which is another evil. So that enjoyment must be the production of the individual, while suffering and privátion are the unsolicited gifts of the bountiful father of mankind, and can only be removed or alleviated by the lesser evil, labour-it may probably be disputed that labour is an evil, but that it is, will be easy of proof; no one would fabour, for the sake of labour; it is always undertaken to remove some evil or to procure some good; it is the indispensible condition of ease and pleasure, and on that account only do we apply to it. Were it good, were pleasurable sensation inseparably connected with it, it would not be necessary for so profound a statesman, as was my Lord Castlereagh, to suggest the propriety of compelling Burkes Swinish Multitude to dig holes one day and to fill them up the next; for labour of itself would be pleasant, and this or some other equally useless employment would be their own choice.

I have now replied to Mr. H.'s remarks, on every point, that seems to ine, material to the question at issue, but whether satisfactorily or not is for others to determine; but as the attributes of the Theist's and Christian's deity, have been the principal subject of consideration, the existence of such a being has not been argued, otherwise than incidentally. I will, however, in conclusion, offer an argument on the subject, which I do not remember ever to have seen. This being is represented as infinitely wise and powerful, and also as omnipotent or existing every where. I will here repeat what I bave so often insisted on, that to reason philosophically, we must not travel beyond the regions of experience and analogy. Well then, what do these teach us respecting intelligence? that it is never found separate from an organized form, every idea we have of it is invariably in connexion with organization. We also find that sensa-tion is necessary to its production and existence, that it grows, improves. decays and dies, and consequently is no self existant substance. If we follow this train of reasoning and apply it to the deity, what is the necessary inference? Why that being intelligent, he must possess organization and, sensation, but if he be organized he must possess figure: but if he be figured, he must be limited; and if limited his ubiquity is gone and there is an end to his infinity. And if sensation be one of his properties, he may be acted upon by objects distinct and separate from himself and he will be subject to change of feeling, and his immutability will no longer exist. And as sensation is, as far as we have expe

rience, the cause of passions, he will be subject to hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and all the train of pleasurable and painful emotions which alternately elate and depress the spirits of all other sentient organized beings. I might pursue the argument much farther but as no Theist or Christian will be coutent with a deity, shorn of his infinity, I will for the present close the discussion.

Whether Mr. H. will rejoin or not to these remarks, is a matter which I must leave to himself. I wish the controversy to be continued both for the information of myself and those persons who may feel interested in the subject. And though my engagements are, I belive as imperative as those of my antagonist, I do not hesitate to promise that while I have opportunity, I will not fail to give his future observations, if any appear, my early consideration and notice,

I am, Sir,
yours respectfully,
LEUCIPPUS.

Note.-In conjuction wiih the foregoing masterly reply and complete refutation of Mr. Heineken's arguments for an intelligent and all desiguing deity. I will notice, for the satisfaction of my Bradford Friends, that their last subscription never came to hand, so as to admit of an acknow. ledgement: though I have not a doubt but that it was accidentally lost, lost too iu a parcel for which we recovered the value, as far, at the time, as we knew its value, not knowing that it contained a parcel with a cash. The circumstance was this. The subscription was very properly entrusted to Mr. Smithson of Leeds. He had two parcels to send to London, this from Bradford with other monies, and one to go round to Sheffield by our Sheffield Parcel. He inadvertently tied both together, and the directions of the wrong on the outside, so that the whole was forwarded to Sheffield; and in going to Sheffleld from London the Hope Coach lost all its parcels. We are certain of this, as we had the same account from Nottingham, and recovered for both, as far as we knew the value at the time. There was also a subscription for the men in Newgate and others from other parts of Yorkshire. The total of cash was from 6 to 7£. We all feel under equal obligations to the subscribers, as if it had come safe. It is one of those accidents in the business of life which Mr. Heinekin's God has very badly managed, or does not well look after, even with reference to his idolators.

R. C.

DEAR SIR,

BEING an admirer of your principles, of course, a reader of the Republican, I may add, a staunch Atheist, I beg leave to inform you of a circumstance which has taken place in Enfield Town on Sunday 21st August last. A religious and merciless monster, in the shape of a human animal, named William Heath, wilfully and maliciously and with intent, came out of his house to his gate, which is about four feet high,and cut over with a horse-whip-bandle at a little boy not seven years of age. The weal which he caused, began on the crown of the boy's head and extended downwards, laying open the cheek and neck just before the ear, to the length of four or five inches. The blood ran down on the child's shirt frill, from a wound completely deprived of skin, more than half an inch wide.

The father, D. Beauchamp, complained to Heath of treating a child in so brutish a manner, who said, he would learn them to keep away from his premises.

The father took his complaint to a magistrate, Peter Hardy, Esq. of the town, which gave rise to a few singular observations on your name and principles, which I will state as correctly as I can.

On the Monday following, the worthy magistrate summoned W. Heath to appear before him at seven o'clock P. M., which he was unable to do, in consequence of coming home abominably drunk ahout six o'clock. He apologized the next morning (Tuesday) and promised to attend in the evening at seven o'clock.

All parties being present, the magistrate began by stating to Heath the charge against him, which he did not deny. Of course, Mr. Hardy informed him that he must find bail for the sessions or satisfy the parties injured.

*Heath said, I will not give one farthing; for Beauchamp only wants to extort money from me. Mr. Hardy observed:-Beauchamp has not asked any as yet, nor do I know what he will require; but I should expect to pay a sovereign at least, for such an assault.

Heath replied, not a farthing, Sir, and produced two housekeepers as his bail, Mr. Carter and Mr. Valentine. Carter privately informed Heath, that Beauchamp was an Atheist and did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.