serted, or to subject myself to the reproaches contained in his letter; and as he says, 66 my last letter (the letter rejected by you), according to my ideas, contained arguments so strong and unanswerable against Christianity, as an impractible system that you dared not as a Christian, to insert," I must beg it as a favour that you will publish it together with his complaint, that your readers may themselves judge between you and this vain and self-conceited man. This alone will be sufficient to shew what terror you must have laboured under from such a wonderful attack on Christianity --an attack of mere assertion and high sounding declamation, which any fool might make against a mathematical demonstration. It only remains for me to justify the words mean, dastardly, and cowardly, as applied to Mr. B. who says, "and what is more you have dared to call my conduct mean, dastardly, and cowardly, in not replying to the arguments of Christophilus, when you know, and I should suppose dare not deny, that you have now in your possession, unpublished, either two or three letters, in which I did reply to the arguments of Christophilus in a mode, to myself at least, satisfactory, and according to the best of my ability. This being the fact, I should wish to leave it to your readers to determine whose conduct best deserves the epithets, mean, dastardly, and cowardly."

Now, Sir, to this tribunal I appeal, and will gladly abide their verdict; I only regret, that you did not think proper to publish the two or three letters he speaks of, for weak and trifling as they appeared to the Committee, and unworthy of your publication, I should like to see them inserted, to confound with his own nonsense, this boasting advocate of infidelity and atheism. But when you refused the insertion of these letters, you assigned your reasons for so doing, in your number for February, where you say, "We have received two letters from Mr. B. in reply to the Evidences of Revealed Religion; but as they do not in any way come in contact with the mode of argument adopted by Christophilus, and which alone he has pledged himself to defend, we cannot consent to give circulation to objections which are likely to remain unanswered, or if answered, must tend to multiply discussion, without any approximation to decision."

After such a notice, in which the point was so clearly stated, Mr. B. could not plead ignorance; and to return to the attack of Christianity, in the same way which had been rejected, without attempting to answer the arguments of

Christophilus, was, in my opinion, highly dishonourable, and proved that abuse of the Christian religion-not truth, was the object of his pursuit; for had truth been his object, and had he thought the arguments of Christophilus capable of being answered, he would immediately have availed himself of meeting him on the ground, and in the manner prescribed, or have shewn such a ground was inadmissible. Mr. B. is a man of talent and learning, and capable of answering Christophilus, if he had truth on his side; when such men shuffle and evade the question, their conduct appears to me disgusting, and highly reprehensible; and I think on such occasions there are no terms too strong for expressing our contempt for such abuse of their talents and integrity.

Now, Sir, in your Prospectus, you invited candid Deists to favour you with their correspondence, and I am sure you have always desired it; but this liberal invitation was the occasion of so many letters from Deists, or men calling themselves so, repeating all the objections that had been a thousand times repeated, and as often answered, that you almost repented the invitation you had given. Under these circumstances, your correspondent Christophilus proposed to put the question of Revealed Religion on such a ground, as should draw the argument into a narrow compass, by which means you could still admit the arguments of candid Deists,' without being overwhelmed with trifling witticisms, or endless objections of no importance; and, in my opinion, he has put it on such a ground, that if he is wrong, men of very small talent are capable of refuting, and which men of great talent might quickly overturn. Christophilus has stated the ground on which the question was to be met, in the most clear and emphatic manner.

He says, (vol. i. p. 231) " I shall not enter into the little cavilling disputes with which Deists have perplexed the subject, but considering it to be as much their business and duty to answer the arguments in favour of revealed religion, as for Christians to defend it, I shall endeavour to found my defence on such a ground, that they must either, refute or give up the cause-a ground that will not depend on the genuiness, or authenticity of the books contained in the Bible, or on false translations, interpolations, or detached passages of scripture-on a ground that, while, in my opinion, it proves the truth of Revealed Religion, will tend also to establish the authenticity of the books that teach it for I propose to defend it on principles that Deists themselves admit, and shall call upon them to produce an adequate cause for facts and effects, the existence of which

:

even they cannot deny; and by thus putting them on the defensive, make it their duty to produce such cause or causes, or as honest men to give up their opposition to revealed religion."

In conformity with this declaration, Christophilus pursued his argument, which Mr. B. in his two rejected letters pretended to answer; but instead of producing adequate causes, he merely brought the stale unconnected objections which had nothing to do with the subject, and which Christophilus had absolutely disclaimed, and of course they could not be inserted.

He says his letters were a reply to the arguments of Christophilus, to himself at least satisfactory, and according to the best of his ability." That they might be to the best of his ability, I have no doubt, because the arguments of Christophilus appear to me unanswerable; but if he could not answer them, he ought, as an honest man, to have acknowledged it, or have ceased his opposition: but did he even attempt to assign adequate causes for the facts and effects adduced by Christophilus? Let him answer it in the affirmative if he can-I assert that he did not. He therefore could have no just cause of complaint; for surely it does not require great talent to adduce adequate causes for facts and effects, if such adequate causes exist. His not producing them is a strong proof he could not do it; and not having candour sufficient to do justice to truth, he has endeavoured to perplex the subject by bold assertions or trifling objections. Indeed, his conduct on this occasion is in perfect conformity with the whole of his correspondencé. In the first part of it, he proved the folly of an order of men called the clergy, on the ground that it is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. He then disputes the authenticity of these scriptures, as being irrational, untrue, and a libel on the character of the Deity; and at last he asserts that there cannot be a miracle or revelation because there is no God; for he says that no man can deny the possibility of these things "who allows the existence of an Omnipotent Creator." Vide vol. ii. page 277. How then was it possible to meet this camelion-Deist, Atheist, or any thing which suits his purpose, but by fixing him to a point as Christophilus has done, and in a way that must tend to refute him, whether Deist or Atheist, unless he can answer the arguments in favour of revealed religion, by producing adequate causes for the facts and effects produced by him? For if these facts and effects, can alone be traced to an "Omnipotent Creator,"

it must prove the existence of such a being; and if this Omnipotent Creator" could alone produce those facts and effects, connected with revealed religion, which Christophilus has cited, then the Christian religion must be true, and Mr. B. is refuted, either as Deist or Atheist. This no doubt he saw, and therefore carefully and artfully avoided answering these questions, lest he should be caught in a cleft stick. If he can answer them, it is not now too late; and I am sure your publication will be open to him either as Deist or Atheist upon such an occasion though you only offered your pages to "candid Deists."

Had I, Sir, instead of mean, dastardly, and cowardly, used the words ingenuous, manly, and courageous, there would have been no complaint; and I can see no more objection to the other epithets, if his conduct deserves them, especially from a man like myself, who make it a practice to call "a dog a dog," and to give every thing its proper

name.

Now, Sir, I applied those terms to his conduct, because, after the manly challenge given by Christophilus, and your rejection of his two former letters, wherein you had pointed out his error, he again comes forward to attack Christianity, on a point which Christophilus had so much laboured upon, without noticing his arguments, or producing the adequate cause required.

Let it be observed, Mr. Burdon had boldly thrown out a defiance to Christians (vol. i. p. 235), where, speaking of Christianity, he says, "it is not a divine revelation, for there never was nor ever will be such a thing." Christophilus (vol. i. p. 351) accepts it, by declaring they are at issue, and says "if Mr. Burdon is that sincere man in his belief which I am willing to believe he is, he never will attempt again to dispute the truth of my assertion, till he has answered my arguments in its favor. I have thrown down the gauntlet of defiance, and declare, that there is not any thing will afford me more pleasure than to break a lance with this adventurous knight;"" and further to encourage Mr. B. to take the field, Christophilus says, "for myself, I can only say, if I am mistaken, I will thankfully acknowledge it, and as earnestly oppose Christianity as I now feel disposed to support it."

After such a challenge, such a candid and honourable invitation to a man who had insultingly and boldly declared, "there never was nor ever could be a divine revelation," what could be expected from an honest and hoBourable man but that he would immediately comply with

it? Mr. B. did not act in this honest or honourable way; for though he had been refuted by several of your correspondents, he goes on in his old way, as though he had not been challenged to the combat, or as if his bold defiance had not been noticed, to cavil at Christianity. If then honour and honesty would have made it reasonable to expect an answer, and a candid discussion; what must we say of the person who acts like Mr. B. but that his conduct is mean, dastardly, cowardly, and, I will add, dishonest in the ex

treme ?

In vol. i. p. 460, Christophilus again calls for a reply, lamenting his challenge is not accepted or noticed, and still Mr. Burdon is silent. Vol. ii. p. 71, Christophilus. again calls upon him, by saying—“ But, Sir, allow me to express my surprise, that notwithstanding my challenge to Mr. B. I have not seen any answer from him; but should he yet condescend to notice them, I do hope that he will not throw out declamatory sneers or unfounded assertions, nor ramble from Dan to Beersheba, when the point is directly before him." P. 98, Christophilus says, "I still must express my surprise that none of your deistical correspondents have attempted to answer my questions! Surely they are plainly stated, and if fallacious, admit of a plain and easy answer. These gentlemen are extremely dictato rial in their demand, when they propose questions, and why are they not as prompt when they are proposed to them." Yet notwithstanding these repeated invitations Mr. B. is silent, or contents himself with dictating two vague letters, which never once offer to answer the questions of C. or to produce an adequate or indeed any cause for the facts and effects produced by him; and as though he was master of the field, and had never been challenged or refuted, he goes on to assert, p. 277-" I have no hesitation in saying that there cannot be such a thing as a miracle; therefore Christianity as a divine revelation cannot be true." Yet after this he charges you with want of candour, and not daring to give his sentiments publicity.

I think, Sir, if I had nothing more to add, I have made out my case to every candid man, that the conduct of Mr. B. with respect to Christophilus, is mean, dastardly, cowardly, and dishonest. But, Sir, the completion of his character shall be drawn from the letter which you rejected. In that letter he says, speaking of Jesus, "his resurrection is evidently a forgery, a fraud, imposed upon the world by his followers, who were disappointed in all their expectation of worldly triumph." Now let it be remarked, that this