No trifting theme from Fancy's frenzied brain Ye daughters, then incline th' attentive ear; Hear then her lips the tender caution give! Lur'd by the wiles which Flattery loves to use, Guard then against the Serpent's cunning power; Again, she speaks, and let her voice be heard! Once more she speaks, and Promise seals her charge. Is the beginning of my sacred course; Beneath whose shade Virtue in safety dwells. PHERE. MAGAZINE. No. 31.] JULY, 1813. [VOL. 3. THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION DEFENDED AGAINST MR. COBBETT. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, IT T is impossible to conceive any creature more truly pitiable and despicable in society, than a man of strong discernment and good abilities, exerting all the powers of his superior mind, and employing all his dexterity and adroitness, in confounding truth, bewildering simplicity, and calumniating and misrepresenting honesty. The sincere bigot is the subject of our commiseration; but the sapient quibbler, the knavish sophist, the dishonest disputant, who, to sink a system or an opponent, descends to low tricks, mean evasion, shuffling conduct, and insolent behaviour, presents so degrading a spectacle of our nature, that we turn from it with shame and disgust. Believe me, Mr. Editor, from my opinion of Mr. Cobbett's. general character, and from the treatment I have received from him, I should be ashamed of being known to enter. into controversy with such a man on a religious subject, were Inot aware of the effect his underhanded attack on Christianity is likely to produce on those whom he ludicrously denominates the thinking people of England." Was it not for this, Sir, I assure you I would as soon be seen disputing with a drayman in Thames Street, as with Mr. Cobbett in your Magazine, about the truth of the Christian religion. In referring to the letter which I addressed to him in your last number, the man complains of my rude and unmannerly treatment of him. He was not aware, he says, that he had acted in such a way as to deprive him of a claim to be treated by his oppenents with good manners. Why, Sir, this is ridiculous enough-it brings to our mind the speech of Tyke in the School of Reform, who, when dragged before the old general whom he had just attempted to rob on the highway, objects to being called scoundrel-" Sur, I ax pardon; but consider I'm no' but a stranger; and saying scoundrel is rather making free at first sight, 1 think." Why, Sir, I never professed to think Mr. Cobbett an honest man; how then cold I be guilty of the hypocrisy of treating him as such ?—I never supposed for a moment that his paper on the 'TRINITY' was any thing more than a base, artful, and side-winded attack on the Christian religion, which he felt himself unable to confront by fair argument and manly opposition— and all his subsequent conduct has shown how correct I was in my opinion of him. I would be the last knowingly to violate any of the rules of good breeding; but when a man is a knave, and every body knows it, I submit whether it is a breach of good manners to call him so. IfI am mistaken in this, then I am mistaken with one of our greatest poets, and with him I pray, Dear Sir, forgive the prejudice of youth; Adieu, distinction, satire, warmth, and truth !! But at present I am by no means a convert to this new sys tem of politeness, which Mr. Cobbett seems to have learnt from Mr. Tyke, but which he practises so little to others. There's the hireling Editor of the Times, whom Mr. Cobbett is continually designating with all the vile and oppro brious terms which he seems to have at command with so much fluency-we shall have this writer next complaining of abuse, and fastidiously asking what he has done to deprive him of a claim to be treated by his opponents with good manners? Mr. Cobbett does not seem exactly to like the names with which I happened to associate his own! Poor squeamish gentleman! you are not perhaps aware, that there are ma ny of your readers who think the Amateur of Fashion, the Executioner, or the Pugilist, not a wit less dishonourable or degraded members of society, than the man whose talents are indifferently employed either in the service of truth or error, just as his interest directs. The public read your Register, it is true; and if either of the other three gentlemen were to conduct a paper with as much merit as your own, it would be read too, and people would exclaim, “a clever fellow-it's a pity he's so unprincipled!" And now, Mr. Editor, let me bring the conduct of this man before you. In the letter I addressed to him in your last number, it was intimated that the means should be taken for him to see that letter; accordingly forwarded to him a Magazine, accompanied by the following note: "In the Magazine enclosed herewith, Mr. Cobbett will find a letter addressed to himself, in reply to his strictures on Mr. Smith's bill, which the writer presumes Mr. C. cannot hesitate for a moment to insert in his Register, as he does not see why the conductor of a public print should have the exclusive privilege of assailing Christianity, or indeed any other system, without allowing a reply to circulate among the same class of readers, who have witnessed and perhaps been deluded by the specious mode of attack. "The writer further informs Mr. Cobbett, that he is prepared to meet him on the authenticity of the Christian religion, either in his Register or the Freethinking Christian's Magazine, as he is authorized to say that its pages will be open to Mr. C. as in fact they ever have been to free enquiry and unfettered discussion. "Hackney Road, May 31, 1813. "To Mr. W. Cobbett." In the ensuing Saturday's Register, Mr. Cobbett acknow ledged the receipt of my letter, together with that of another correspondent signed TRANQUILLUS, whose communica tion he inserted in his paper.With mine of course he found fault, as to the just manner in which I had treated him; but it was necessary to say something more in order to avoid publishing it. What then could be said?-what excuse could he make ?what pretext could he urge?-why, it struck him that the letter was anonymous; and finding himself unable to reply to its reasoning, it occurred to him that he might at any rate sink its writer, by insinuating that he was ashamed of his name! To this effect he observes-Register, June 5, 1813: "The readers of the Register will not, I am sure, think it right for me to enter the lists with such an antagó. nist; or else I could really afford them some sport in the exposure of the ridiculous absurdities in this Freethinking Christian's letter, which he, while he keeps his name carefully concealed, calls upon me in a very imperious tone to publish. There are two objections to the complying with this demand: the first is, that the letter ridicules, as far as the writer is capable of ridicule, the Doctrine in question; and let it be observed, that, as Mr. Smith's Bill has not yet become a law, the publisher of such ridicule would be exposed to the claws of the Attorney-general. The second is, that the author of the Letter, while he emits a large quantity of personal abuse upon me by name, conceals his own name, and thus, while he takes all the chances of victory, and reserves to himself the power of openly claiming it, ensures himself against all the consequences of defeat. If he will give us his real name and place of abode, as I give mine, I will publish his Letter, with the exception of such parts as appear to me to be a violation of the law. Until then he will excuse me from complying with his demand." On reading this, I could not hesitate in giving my name and address; but before I proceed, let me detain your readers with an observation on this paragraph. If my letter contained any thing which it would be danger ous to print, Mr. Cobbett was certainly justified in deter mining to omit such parts; this was but prudence. Indeed none of his friends could wish to see him pursue a line of conduct, which might have the effect of subjecting him a second time to the humiliating situation of tampering with the minister for the abandonment of his Register! But, mark the dark play of this friend to liberty. When he wrote the above paragraph, it was never his intention to publish my Jetter he never imagined that I should give him my name; and now that it is in his possession, he says not a word about inserting my communication in his Register! For what reason then was this exception made?—for what reason is the letter designated in this and other parts of Mr. Cobbett's observations, as being "a violation of the law?" but for the reason which your printer can well understand, and which your readers have almost simultaneously assigned-to di rect the attention of the Attorney-general to your publica tion !! But to proceed, Sir-From the tenor of Mr. Cobbett's remarks on the Letter of " TRANQUILLUS," I saw the course the controversy was likely to take; and wishing that Mr. C. might fully understand the bearing points of the argument, I addressed a few observations in the note by which my name and place of abode was conveyed to him, as to those matters on which he peremptorily demanded information. "For my part (exclaimed Mr. Cobbett) I will not go an inch further in the dispute with any one, until he gives me an explict answer to this question: Are the Scriptures the word of God?" Now it was quite pitiable to see a public disputant demanding information on a point with which any person who is not absolutely ignorant of Unitarianism must be perfectly familiar; accordingly, Sir, you will per ceive that in the concluding part of the following note, Į put the gentleman right. "The writer of the Letter addressed to Mr. Cobbett, in the Freethinking Christians' Magazine, is not a little surprised |