without a cause, I ask him to produce an adequate cause for this eternal matter. In making my observations on nature, I observe that in the animal and vegetable tribes there is a regular distinction kept up; that there is a distinction of sex, and without this intercourse of the sexes nothing can be produced; that in flowers, where they are perpendicular, the male organs are uniformly higher than the female, and where they are pendant the male organs are shorter than the females, for the express purpose of enabling the fructifying farina of the male to fall on and impregnate the ovarium of the female, without which the fruit or seed would never come to perfection. And do you know, Sir, I am fool enough to think that this proves design in the Maker ? and after trying every cause, for instance, man, I find he cannot be that cause, nor is he the designer? I look to matter; I see no intelligent powers. Would you think it, I am stupid enough to believe it must have for its cause "an omnipotent creator," possessed of power, intelligence, and design. Now, to remove my unhappy ignorance, I intreat and beseech Mr. Burdon to give me an adequate cause for all this adaptation of parts, and all this suitableness and design. It will not do for him to tell me that it always was so: this will not satisfy me; for go back in imagination as far as I will, the same difficulties must have existed and occurred to the most intelligent examiner of nature. Again, Sir, whatever my contracted mind can contem plate in nature, and all that I can read in books written by Newton and other men, almost as great, as wise, and learned as Mr. Burdon, I do observe such striking marks, whether in the great or the minute, of order, harmony, intelligence, and design, that I am obliged to believe, till Mr. Burdon shall help me out of the difficulty, that it must all have had its origin from an "omnipotent creator," possessed of power, intelligence, and benevolence. I know not how Mr. Burdon will bear my insufferable ignorance; but I must again entreat him to help me out of my dilemma, by assigning an adequate cause for these things, independent of an omnipotent creator, that with him I may revel in the delightful paths of Atheism, and partake of all its sublime and philosophic enjoyments. Oh, Sir, Mr. Burdon knows not the difficulties I sometimes labour under for want of his specific. My son, six years old, addressed me the other day with--Pray, Father, how do weeds come? I answered, from seed, my dear. From seed, Father-after a long pause; but where did the first seed come from?-a man or woman could not make it! Alas for me! Mr. Burdon was not at my elbow, or he would have solved the question in a minute. He would have replied, it came from nature; but even here he might have been involved in difficulty, by the question of a child-Pray, Sir, what is nature; and how did nature produce the first seed? I will thank Mr. Burdon to answer this last question. Mr. Burdon will probably reply, that the laws of nature are unalterable and fixed. I should like to be informed when they were made and fixed, and who made them. Either they were al ways the same, and had no author, or there was a period when first they were made and fixed, by a power distinct from themselves, or nature made laws by which she herself is to be governed. Pray who or what is this nature? Mr. Burdon can answer me, no doubt; but, Sir, I see at present that which may appear very simple to Mr. Burdon; and indeed simple things are what I wish to state; they are the easiest answered, if answerable. I have refrained from asking causes for the well-adapted structure of man, both in body and mind, and a number of other things in which I wish to be enlightened by this great luminary, Mr. Burdon; but purpose asking for them when my present questions are answered. But I say, I see that no young animal is produced but from one arrived at maturity; I see that a bird lays the egg before a young bird is produced; I never see young animals or birds come into existence any other way; now, Sir, it strikes me from this circumstance, that nature and its laws have not always been uniform in their operations, because go back as far as imagination can lead me to the first animal or bird that existed (unless there was no first of either), and I find either that a young animal must have been produced by some other means than the ordinary means of generation, or that a male and female must have been formed for the purpose of producing their offspring as we now see; and also, that the first bird must have existed without being hatched by the mother, or else that a pair of birds must have been formed for the purpose of laying the egg before it could be hatched. Now, Sir I call upon Mr. Burdon to tell me (1st) Was there ever a first bird, or first animal? (2nd) If he says no, for an adequate cause for their existence at all. (3rd) If there was a first animal or bird, to inform me, as it respects animals, whether it was a young one formed without the ordinary means of generation; or if a pair, still different from the present method, were first produced to propagate their kind: and in respeet to birds, if the egg was pro duced before the bird, or the bird before the egg. One or the other must have been; he may take which he pleases. Take which way he will, it proves there must have been a creator! and unless he asserts the stupid idea, that every thing we see is without beginning or a first cause, he must admit that nature and its laws, however fixed and unalterable they may now appear to us, did not always operate in the same way, but that there was a time when they were first fixed, and he that fixed them can alter them when he pleases; as he himself asserts (vol. ii. 277), "they who allow the existence of an omnipotent creator cannot consistently deny his power to reverse or alter the laws of nature." Now, Sir, I call upon Mr. Burdon to assign adequate causes for the facts and effects I have adduced, or to confess that he has weakly and foolishly sought to root out of the minds of men the belief of an omnipotent creator, and thereby destroy every restraint upon the immoral, and every stimulus and comfort of the virtuous. He must surely be competent to the task I have assigned him, or he must he both a weak and wicked man, to give up the belief of a God without having fairly examined, and to his own mind. answered, all the arguments in favour of the existence of such a being; but HE is like most of those men who deny Christianity, obliged, when hard pushed, to take refuge in Atheism. It can be only for this purpose Mr. Burdon takes up the cause of Atheism; he knows Christianity can be resisted on no other ground; he has declared as much, by saying, "that only on this ground is it possible to repel the ob jections of the Christian." Then, according to this admission, if there is an omnipotent creator," Christianity is unanswerable. What then can be the object of this man in opposing Christianity, when, in its stead, he has nothing to offer but Atheism, and the cheerless prospect of annihilation ? And now, Sir, I think all that he has written beside is unworthy of notice, as whoever refers to the letters of Christophilus will find that all Mr. Burdon has said in reply to him is futile and evasive in the extreme; but as I wish fully to expose this blustering, vain, conceited man, to the contempt he merits, I may probably, when I have nothing better to employ me, again submit him to your notice. I am, Sir, your's, &c. A FRIEND TO TRUTH AND CONSISTENCY. A METHODIST'S REMARKS ON THE FREETHINKING To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, MY curiosity being excited by some reports made to me, respecting the sect calling themselves Freethinking Christians, I was disposed to attend at their meeting-place a few Sundays past. On Sunday the 4th inst. I found myself much aggrieved at the assertion of one of the speakers, who said, "For a man to be a Methodist, he must first become a fool; afterwards learn to make grimaces, fit for a grinning match at a fair, &c." I would ask the same speaker a plain question or two (as he calls himself a Christian) is this displaying a Christian temper and disposition, to call a large body of respectable, virtuous, charitable, and religious people fools, for following the dictates of their consciences? Is it christian-like for you to meet together for the purpose of ridiculing, and making a general laugh of those who are not of your party? You have exclaimed against every sect and party but your own-you have not even excepted your near relations, the Unitarians. Let me entreat you to look a little to yourselves, and see what a boast you have made of your Benevolent Institution at your meeting-place, and in your Magazine, since its commencement. Mark! with what energy these words are expressed (at the meetingplace), "For every sect and party the Freethinking Christians excepted." What a puff! Surely this generation of enquirers must know that the Methodists are continually in the habit of relieving the distressed of different parties, and that without making a boast of it. Therefore I must con. sider you as contentious characters, calculated for making discord, and highly injurious to the minds of the public. Before I conclude, suffer me to make a few remarks, or the stones in the streets would be ready to cry out against mie. I have been often struck with horror to see the Unitarians stand up and deprecate the King of Glory, by repres senting him as a mere man, notwithstanding he has declared, "he thought it no robbery to be equal with God." And again," he that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father." I could quote a great number of passages to this effect, but it is of no use to those who do not believe them to be the word of God. But I would say of you Freethinkers, you have gone a step further-you have called all the ministers of the gospel "knaves or fools." I am astonished at the forbearance and mercy of God, that he does not send his judgments on you, when you are profaning the Lord'sday, and speaking evil of his ministers and people. Let me entreat you, ere it be too late, to return from your profaneness and cavilling-to depend alone on the Saviour, who can wash away all your sins with his blood. As these lines will not take up much room in your Magazine, beg you will favour me by placing them there. They may serve for a laugh to some of your readers, but I hope, by the blessing of God, they will prove beneficial to the sonls of others. Yours, &c. July 19, 1813. A METHODIST, And I trust no Fool. MR. BURDON, ON MR. COATES'S LETTER TO MR. COBBETT. To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine. SIR, BEING in EING no friend either to Mr. Cobbett or to Christianity, I have lately been much amused by a dispute your Magazine, between that gentleman and a Freethinking Christian, whom Mr. Cobbett has very properly compelled to give his name and place of abode. It is not very easy to see what could be Mr. Cobbett's motive for his attack upon the Trinity Bill, which, considering his powerful talents, and the weight of his opinion, even after all he has done to lessen it, might do harm, and could do no good: and I should not be surprised if the discussion he has excited should be the means of throwing it out of the Upper House, by raising a false terror against infidels. If Mr. Cobbett meant to reprobate the bill, merely because it released one sect of Christians from the fear of punishment, it was mean and pitiful in him to envy any set of men the enjoyment of their religious liberty. If he was angry because it does not go far enough, and leaves unbelievers open to all the miseries of persecution, he was at least unwise for refusing a little because he cannot get all he wants. It is a step gained to exempt any set of men from punishment, who profess to disbelieve in the established religion; and as no great progress can be made towards liberal opinions, in a short space of time, men of candour and consideration ought to be content with a little when they cannot get all, and be thankful for every advance to complete a full toleration. Mr. Cobbett has, no doubt, the best of the argument, as far as regards Christianity, and Mr. Coates has no advantage but that which Mr. Cobbett has |