

Transcribed from the [1828] T. Tippell edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]





                     THE SELF-PLUMED BISHOP UNPLUMED.


                                * * * * *

                                 A REPLY

                                  TO THE

                   PROFOUND ERUDITION OF THE SELF-NAMED

                              HUGH LATIMER,

                                  IN HIS

                 DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT ASSERTED,

                                    BY

                                T. LATHAM,

                     MINISTER AT BRAMFIELD, SUFFOLK.

                                * * * * *

    “Let us candidly admit where we cannot refute, calmly reply where we
    cannot admit, and leave anger to the vanquished, and imputation of
    bad motives to those who are deficient in good argument.”  REV. W. J.
    FOX.

    “Illi sæviant in vos, qui nesciunt quo cum labore verum inveniatur,
    et quam difficile caveantur errores.  Illi in vos sæviant, qui
    nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit, carnalia phantasmata piæ mentis
    serenitate superare.  Illi in vos sæviant, qui nesciunt quantis
    gemitibus et suspiriis fiat, ut quantulacunque parte possit intelligi
    Deus.  Postremo, illi in vos sæviant, qui nullo tali errore decepti
    sunt, quali vos deceptos vident.”  ST. AUGUSTINE.

                                * * * * *

                               HALESWORTH:
                     PRINTED AND SOLD BY T. TIPPELL;
          SOLD ALSO BY MESSRS. TEULON AND FOX, 67, WHITE-CHAPEL.

                                * * * * *

                             PRICE SIXPENCE.

                                * * * * *




REPLY, &c.


IN the various tracts that I have presented to the public, as well as at
the conclusion of my lectures and appendix, I have earnestly requested
any one who deemed himself competent to the task, to refute and expose my
errors publicly from the press.  W. W. Horne was the first who made an
attempt to prop up the tottering cause of orthodoxy, and re-build the
Idol Temple; and how much this attempt met the approbation of the
orthodox, may be gathered from the fact, that they would not permit his
performance to see daylight in these parts!!!  The person more
immediately concerned to reply to my lectures and appendix, has contented
himself, and satisfied his friends, with warning young people to be upon
their guard against that bare-faced infidelity that dares to shew its
hateful crest in open daylight; and by assuring them in one concise
sentence, “that if they are saved it will be for ever and ever, and if
they are lost it will be for ever and ever; and if they depend on having
been sincere and morally honest, or on repentance and reformation of
conduct, (though both he says are necessary), their hopes will prove
totally fallacious and groundless, and will deceive their souls in the
end, and they must sink into the frightful regions of despair, and become
companions of those who must for ever weep, wail, and gnash their teeth,
without any diminution of their sufferings or deliverance from them.”
This is doing business with dispatch.  Yet, I have never imagined, that
any one would suppose that a note in a funeral sermon was a proper reply
to my book, and therefore I have been waiting in expectation of hearing
from some other quarter, so that I am neither surprised nor disappointed
at being attacked by some one under the _nom de guerre_ {3} of Hugh
Latimer: nor am I at all surprised that the old bishop’s ghost, which has
been conjured up on the occasion, should act so perfectly in _esprit de
corps_, {4a} or so directly _contra bonos mores_; {4b} for this has ever
been the spirit and temper of the whole body, that what they were
deficient in truth and sober argument, they have abundantly made up by
scurrility and vituperation.  But since Hugh Latimer, who stalks forth
_incognito_, {4c} whoever he is in _propria persona_, {4d} whether
English, Irish, Scotch, or Welch, is to me a matter of small importance.
I have nothing to do with the man, but with his evangelical matter: yet,
I may be curious to ask, why such _homo multarum literarum_, {4e} as he
affects to be, should be ashamed of his own name; especially to such a
_chef d’œuvre_ {4f} as his performance appears to be.  Probably, in the
course of his extensive research into antiquity, he has discovered a
striking similarity between the coarse sternness of the old bishop’s
spirit and language and his own, and may think himself qualified for such
an office; and he may perhaps have learned that as King Harry obtained
from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith, for writing in defence
of popery, so Horsley, Magee, and others have been rewarded with mitres
for writing against Socinians and Infidels; and, like the supplanter of
old, he may wish to obtain the blessing, and rear his mitred front in
parliament by wrapping himself in another person’s coat.  Yet, blind as
we are, we can discover, that although the voice is Jacob’s voice, the
hands and the heart are those of Esau.  But I shall leave all _gens de
l’eglise_ {4g} to scramble for bishoprics and mitres as they please, and
attend to the author who styles himself Hugh Latimer, and who deigns to
bestow his favors upon me.

In the first instance, he condescends to give me what he deems a severe
castigation for my dulness; and, having laid on me forty stripes, save
one, he feels some relentings, and kindly proposes to pity my ignorance
and become my instructor, (p. 11.)  I ought to thank him for his good
will; but, before I become his _elevé_, {4h} I ought to be satisfied that
he is quite competent to the task of a tutor; and, as I have my doubts on
this head, (after all his pretensions to be _savant_, {5a}) this point
must be settled _entre nous_ {5b} before we proceed any further.  My
tutor, as he pretends to be, on page 11 says, “I have yet got to learn
English.”  Some would have chosen to say, in correct English, that I had
yet to learn English; but this was perhaps a _lapsus linguæ_. {5c}  But
my _soi disant_ {5d} tutor, without shewing me wherein I am deficient,
whether in orthography, etymology, syntax, or prosody, or even without
enquiring whether I had learned the English alphabet, begins to treat me,
as a judicious tutor ought to treat a pupil, by an attempt to teach me
Greek and Latin, although he knew I had “got to learn English.”  This
surely was doing the thing _comme il faut_, {5e} and I shall here pay
some attention to his learned lectures.  In the first place, I am smartly
reproved for writing Greek words in English characters—a fault which
every author besides me has been guilty of, authors of Dictionaries and
Concordances not excepted; but then, while I ought to have known that
Greek words cannot be properly expressed in English letters, my tutor
says, I should at least have written them in those English letters which
would have expressed them properly: thus my modern task-master requires
me to make bricks without straw.  But I am next reproved for blundering
in Greek orthography, because in one word, either I or the printer, have
put a _u_, instead of an _o_—an unpardonable blunder in me; however it
happened, and _bonne bouche_ {5f} for a word catcher.  For, as Bentley
remarks, “a sophist abhors mediocrity; he must always say the greatest
thing, and make a tide and a flood, though it be but a basin of water.”
But I have also blundered on the unlucky words _aion_, _aionian_,
_oletheron_, and _kolassis_, and have given them an unfortunate
signification—a signification most unfortunate for his system of infinite
and endless torment: since, in spite of all his criticisms, the true
sense of the terms completely overthrows his blazing creed; at which he
rages like a fury, and exhausts all his ample stores of skill in
criticism on the original languages; yes, and pities and deplores my
ignorance in these matters.  It is not, however, worth my while to waste
much time in debating whether he who (is at least capable of consulting a
Greek lexicon) is possessed of more profound erudition on such points
than I, who have “got to learn English yet;” the point may be
satisfactorily settled by determining at once, whether of us has given
the true and proper meaning of the words in question.  I have said _aion_
and _aionian_ never mean unlimited duration, except when connected with
the existence of God, or the future happiness of good men.  In every
other case they have only a limited signification.  Many proofs of this I
have produced from the scriptures in my lectures: not one of which has
been corrected nor even noticed by my tutor.  He asserts, that words are
to be always taken in their literal and primary sense, unless there be
something in the nature of the subject which requires them to be
differently understood.  This is first objecting to what I have said and
then saying the very same thing himself, and accusing me of blundering,
when he has made the very same blunder; but the fact is, I have stated
the real truth as to the application of the terms, and he, _nolens
volens_, {6} is compelled to admit the same, which he does twice over
(page 9, 10).  I had said, the true and primary sense of _aion_, is age,
a limited period.  For this I have given the authority of Doctor
Doddridge, the Bishop of London, Dr. Hammond, and the Critical Review;
(see Lectures, page 18, 19), to which I might add the authority of every
person who pretends to be at all acquainted with Greek: yet my tutor, for
the sake of exposing my ignorance, as he pretends, will thus expose his
own, and fly in the face of all this host, even among the orthodox, who
have had sense and honesty enough to admit the true meaning of the terms.
He says (page 11) _aion_, is more expressive of proper eternity than the
Bramfield scholar has any conception of, being derived from two words
which signify “ever being.”  Let us allow him this, and also what he
claims before, that words are always to be taken in their literal
signification.  How will it sound in Matt. xxiv. 3, to read “What shall
be the signs of thy coming, and the end of this everbeing.”  Rom. xii. 2,
“Be not conformed to this everbeing.”  1 Cor. x. 11, “Upon whom the ends
of the everbeing are come.”  Eph. ii. 2, “According to the course of this
everbeing.”  Verse 7, “That in the everbeings to come.”  Heb. ix. 26,
“But now in the end of the everbeing hath he appeared.”  Matt xii. 32,
“Shall not be forgiven neither in this everbeing, nor in the everbeing
which is to come.”  Tit. i. 2, “Before the everbeing begun.”  Exod. xv.
18, “From everbeing to everbeing and farther.”  Dan. xii. 3, “Through the
everbeing and further.”  Mich. iv. 5, “Through the everbeing and beyond
it.”  Thus my learned tutor by his wonderful skill in criticism, may if
he please, burlesque the scriptures, and make them speak his ridiculous
nonsense and Greek-English gibberish from beginning to end. {7a}  Yet
after all the rebuffs and blows, the pity and kind instructions which my
tutor has bestowed upon me, such is my lamentable dulness, that I cannot
yet perceive that _aion_ is expressive of everbeing, eternity, or
unlimited duration; and I am still ignorant enough to think, as the
Critical Reviewers do, its true meaning is an age or limited period all
through the scriptures, without a single exception, and until I am better
taught _menomen hosper osmen_. {7b}

My tutor next charges me with reiterating my blunders as to the meaning
of _aionian_, which he asserts is “everlasting.”  _Aion_ is singular,
_aionian_ is its plural, and so must, according to my tutor, mean
everlastings, everbeings, eternities.  This may be good Greek; but I,
“who have got to learn English,” venture to pronounce it no English, but
sheer nonsense.  But my tutor informs me, “that it is an established
canon of criticism, that an author is the best commentator on his own
words; and that because in Matt. xxv. 46, the word _aionian_ is connected
both with future punishment and future happiness, it must have the same
unlimited signification in both cases, and denote equal periods of time.”
This is the same weighty argument that good Mr. Dennant, as my tutor
styles him, brought forward in his funeral sermon, and for ought I know,
may have been borrowed from the same source.  But let my tutor try his
artillery upon a text in Hab. iii. 6, where the word _aionian_ is in the
same manner used to denote the existence of God and the duration of the
material hills.  Let him here but keep the antithesis unbroken, and
maintain that in both cases it must mean equal duration, and then the
material hills will be as eternal as God; and thus my tutor, by
overcharging his own cannon and firing at random, has not only blown up
his own fortifications, but also demolished the strong hold of good Mr.
D. with the same explosion.

My tutor next takes me to a lexicon to learn from it that the terms which
I have said signify corrective punishment, signify nothing short of
perdition, ruin, destruction.  Admit all this: yet this does not express
eternal misery; for a being destroyed or blotted out of existence cannot
suffer any more, much less suffer eternal misery.  I have shewn in my
lectures, that the terms used in the original to express future
punishment are all of a limited duration; this I have proved upon the
authority of those who wrote and spoke Greek as their own vernacular
tongue.  But, as my tutor did not choose to come in contact with such
authorities, he has prudently passed the whole without note or comment:
for, as the Irishman said, the easiest way to climb over a high stile, is
to creep under it; so he has found that the easiest way to get over a
difficulty is to avoid it wholly; and upon this prudential maxim, he has
uniformly acted.  My tutor at length wearied out with _ennui_ {8a} of
leading me through _l’empire des lettres_ {8b} and teaching me Greek,
quite looses his temper, and in angry mood turns me back to a task in
English and Latin etymology.  Short-sighted mortal he exclaims! hadst
thou not wit enough to see that the English word eternity was derived
from the Latin _æternus_, which is a contraction for _æviternus_, or,
age-lasting.  Yes, my good tutor, short-sighted as I am, and whether I
can see by my wit or not I had seen by my eyesight, and that too,
independent of supposed influence, or special inspiration, long before
you revealed the secret, that eternity IS (not was) derived from the
Latin, and is a contraction OF (not for) the Latin word, which means
age-lasting; and I had seen you try to turn the term age-lasting, when
used by me, to ridicule, and I now see you use the same ridiculous
expression as very proper, when used by _idoneus homa_. {9a}  I had often
seen the same words used in a limited sense, and applied to things of
limited duration: to mountains crowned with eternal snows; to trees robed
in eternal verdure; yes, sir, and to the eternal brawlings of an angry
and contentious man or woman; and I had both seen and understood, that as
a derived word can mean no more than the original from which it is
derived, and as that, in the present case, is age-lasting and limited, I
had seen that the English word eternity, like all others, can only
express unlimited duration, when it derives that sense from the subject
with which it is connected, and that is only when applied to the
existence of God and future happiness; for tell me, sir, if you can, what
else is properly eternal?  And although you have charged me with it, yet
I never said or thought that a scripture word of equal import would be
conclusive; nor have you, nor can you show the page on which I have
hinted at it.  And I can also assure my tutor, that I am so well
satisfied with the old morals, religion, and God of the Bible, that I
covet none of those new ones, which were intruded upon the world four
hundred years after Christ, by a set of Pagans calling themselves
Christians; but can contentedly leave him and all his fraternity to share
the paganized religion together, and to worship the _tria juncta in uno_,
{9b}—the new God set up by Constantine and his council in the fourth
century.  Now, at the _denouement_ {9c} of his learned lectures, my
tutor, having arrived at the height of his choler, throws his last bolt,
by scornfully asking, “And, where Master Latham, didst thou find the
_malaka topon_ in thy epistle to good Mr. Dennant.”  If I had not
perceived from what follows, that his lexicon, (that fruitful source of
his wisdom) has furnished him with the meaning (at least) of the words
after which he enquires, I would have advised him to read the New
Testament, and if he keep his eyes open, he will sooner discover those
words there, than either Trinity, Triune-Deity, God-Man, Vicarious
Satisfaction, or that long catalogue of _mots d’usage_ {10a} which he and
his orthodox brethren pretend by “superior influence” to discover there,
while those who make “their mind and reason their guide,” cannot find a
single word which either in sense or sound bears the shadow of a
resemblance to their shibboleth.  By this time it will be seen _quo
warranto_, {10b} my tutor has undertaken to correct my blunders, when out
of twenty, and many others, with which he has charged me in the gross, on
his 11th page, he himself has reduced them all to blunders of his own
making; nor can I be surprised that my tutor, to keep up his own dignity,
should pour contempt upon my illiterature, when the tutor of a Scotish
seat of science (Dr. Wardlaw), has had the audacity to accuse both
Grotius, Clarke, and Pierce, with being ignorant of the Greek language;
nay, this minister of Albion-Street Chapel, Glasgow, accuses Origen and
Eusebius with the same ignorance, although Greek was their native tongue,
and the Scotch Doctor’s reflections turn only to his own disgrace.  But
_quo animo_ {10c} are such charges made, except it be _ad captandum
vulgus_ {10d} and keep them still in ignorance: looking up to them as the
only men of understanding, and implicitly receiving all they please to
say as if it was uttered by the oracle of heaven.

Since my tutor has succeeded so poorly in teaching me Greek and Latin,
_cui malo_, {10e} if, according to _lex talionis_, {10f} I, in my turn,
give my tutor a short lesson or two in plain English; for although he
thinks I have “yet got to learn English,” I am vain enough to think his
English may be improved.  My lessons shall be short, easy to be
understood, and adapted to instruct my own tutor: and, in the first
place, who that knows the meaning of Socinian and Infidel, would confound
the two words as synonymous.  An Infidel is a denier of revelation, but a
Socinian believes in and receives revelation; if not, can my tutor tell
how it has happened, that the most and the best of the works written in
defence of revelation against Infidels, have been written by Socinians,
or those who have the misnomer?  Again, who that knows the meaning of
sceptic, a doubter of the truth, or some parts of the truth of
revelation, (except such a linguist as my tutor,) would confound this
term with Socinian and Infidel, and use it as designative of the same
person?  Once more: who that knows the use of English words would expose
himself by printing on a title page “Socinian Infidelity?” for these
words are as incompatible as light and darkness, and a man can no more be
a Socinian and an Infidel, than he can be a man and an angel; and this
compound anomaly, this incongruous combination, (Socinian infidelity),
which shames his title page, and was derived from good Mr. Dennant’s
vocabulary and funeral sermon, is just as good English as the Irishman’s
crooked straight, as dark lightness, and black whiteness.  Again, “to
have lounged and slipped,” as he says on page 2, conveys excellent sense
to an English reader.  To lounge, is to live idle, or lazy; to slip from
the foundation is, in his sense, to deny the truth; and these two words
combined make a very intelligible sentence—nearly as intelligible as when
the Welch curate, having to say the lamb, said the little mutton, and
left the people to guess at the meaning.  But, had I lounged and, like
the orthodox in general, been too lazy to examine into sentiments, and
willing to take opinions upon trust, I should not have had the mishap to
slip from their foundation; but, like them, should have remained
stationary there, lounging in ignorance and error; but, by being active
and industrious in proving all things, I have slipped from their
foundation, or rather extricated myself from their quagmire system, and
settled on the immoveable rock of truth.  On the 11th page, my tutor raps
my knuckles for blundering and writing _o_, instead of _oh_, although on
page 9 he has set me the example in writing _oh_, instead of _O_, twice
over; but he wants the qualification of a master who cannot find fault.
On the same page, my tutor knits his brows, and with a learned frown
exclaims, “Greek, indeed!  Why, the man has yet got to learn English.”
This sentence, in excellence of spirit and diction, matches well with the
following: “so we will give the devil battle, we will beat the devil to.”
{11}  I shall not waste time to correct my tutor for writing _was_, where
it should be _is_, and _for_, where it should be _of_, &c. &c. least my
readers should be led to think I have learned from my tutor to be as
expert in word catching as himself, and should be tempted to say of us,
_tel maitre_, _tel valet_. {12a}  But, as I promised that my lessons
should be short, I leave him to study the following concise one: _ergo
docens alium tipsum non doces_. {12b}

I have now to attend on my tutor while he gives me his most instructive
lectures in theology; and it will be a pity indeed if my unaccountable
dulness should prevent me from profiting by the wondrous wisdom which he
has displayed, and by those floods of eloquence which flow from his
silver tongue.  However, I will do the best I can, by using such powers
as I possess; and if I am denied the gift of “superior influence,” the
fault is no more mine than it would be a fault in him not to see the
daylight, had he been denied the gift of eyesight.  Yet, _mirabile
dictum_, {12c} the first _sine qua non_, {12d} that my tutor requires in
his pupil is, that I should lay aside the reason I have or what is the
same thing, “not suffer my mind to be its own guide.”  But were I to
shut, or put out my eyes, in order to behold a beautiful object, would he
not be tempted to call me a fool?  Were I to discard reason in the common
concerns of life, would he not call me irrational?  And if I take his
advice in respect to religion, shall I not act the part of one insane?
Has he laid aside reason in writing his squib?  How, then, can he expect
reasonable men to read, or me to profit by the irrational ravings of a
mere maniac; but a man is never against reason in religion, but when
reason is against his religion—and here my tutor feels the shoe pinch his
corns.  Nothing, however, he says, is too irrational to be believed by
those who will not (as he directs) become irrational in religion, but
will make the mind its own guide.  He is therefore for doing the business
by the aid of “superior influence;” and not to say, that in his
performance he has given mathematical demonstration, that pretensions to
“superior influence” have produced the effect of the most irrational
belief, let others of the same school prove the fact.  “A christian,”
says Lord Bacon, “believes three to be one, and one to be three: a
Father, not to be older than the Son; a Son, to be equal with his Father;
and one proceedings from both, to be equal with both.  He believes three
persons in one nature, and two natures in one person: a virgin to be the
mother of a son, and that very son of hers to be her Maker.  He believes
him to have been shut up in a narrow room, whom heaven and earth could
not contain; him to have been born in time, who was and is born from
everlasting; him to be a weak child carried in arms, who is the Almighty;
and him to have died, who only has life and immortality: and the more
absurd and incredible any mystery is, the greater honour we do to God in
believing it, and so much the more noble the victory of faith.”  The same
lesson Bishop Beveridge learnt in the same school: “The mysteries, (says
he) which I am least able to conceive, I think myself the more obliged to
believe.  That God the Father should be one perfect God of himself; God
the Son one perfect God of himself; and God the Holy Ghost one perfect
God of himself: and yet that these three should be but one perfect God of
himself, so that one should be perfectly three, and three perfectly one;
three and yet but one, but one and yet three.  O heart-amazing,
thought-devouring, inconceivable mystery!  Who cannot believe it to be
true of the glorious Deity?”  From the above confessions of the orthodox
faith, and hundreds more that might be added, equally clear and decisive,
let my tutor now say what system produces the most irrational belief—his
which enables him to give a reason of the hope that is in him, or his
which prevents him from giving any reason at all why he believes such
monstrous absurdities.  And who acts the most like a rational being—he
who knows what and why he believes, or he who, laying aside reason,
believes the wildest contradictions, under pretence of believing
mysteries, which is a thing just as possible as believing in the
existence of non-entities, or seeing invisibilities, or possessing
non-existences.  But if I had the superior light with which my tutor is
blessed, I might learn from him that Socinianism is scepticism and
infidelity; for he has made it include this triad of irreconcilables in
the compass of three lines; and then he says, it is a virtual rejection
of apostolic doctrine, requiring no more than what reason can apprehend.
The apostolic doctrine requires us to give a reason of our hope, to prove
all things, to judge of ourselves what is right; and when Paul reasoned
with the Jews and required them to judge what he said, he surely did not
wish them to lay aside reason and believe mysteries which neither
preacher nor hearers could comprehend.  But a Senator in parliament, he
says, described Socinianism as a species of Mahometanism.  Well, if
senators turn preachers, and my tutor writes them into notice, woe be to
his own craft.  Such men as he will soon be easily spared; but if any one
will turn to the newspaper which contains the senator’s orthodox sermon,
they will see by the rejoinder there made, that the preaching senator
made as good a figure among his brother senators as my tutor and his
performance is destined to make among readers who use reason and common
sense when they read.

On page 3, my tutor has summed up the articles of my disbelief, and he
has done it honestly and accurately; and I am free to speak le _verite
sans peur_, {14a} and to acknowledge _sans mauvaise honte_, {14b} that I
do deny and disbelieve the whole catalogue of absurdities which he has
enumerated _in toto_; and I assert, that it is out of my tutor’s power to
prove, that in so doing I have denied one truth revealed in the Bible, or
that I disbelieve one iota of the faith originally delivered to saints by
Jesus and his inspired apostles; nor can he prove, that in denying every
one of those points, which are essentials in his creed, I have done any
more than what every christian ought to do—that is, deny the faith of
heathen philosophers, and reject the vain traditions of ignorant fallible
men.  My tutor, however, allows that I am not destitute of all faith,
although I reject his faith; for he says, I believe with the Grand Turk
in one God and one prophet.  This piece of wisdom he seems to have
borrowed from the senator mentioned above; still I can shew my tutor,
that my Mahomedan faith is more scriptural, rational, just, and pure,
than either his or that of the orthodox senator.  I believe in one God;
and will my tutor say he believes in more Gods than one?  No, although
Bishop Beveridge has made three—each perfectly God of himself; and
although my tutor’s faith is just the same, yet, of the two evils, rather
than be thought to be a tritheist, a plain pagan, a believer in many
Gods, he will come over to Socinians, and subscribe the faith of one God;
he will not pretend to deny that this part of my faith is scriptural,
since scripture compels him to confess it; and if my faith in one
prophet, be not scriptural, let him say what the following scriptures can
mean: Deut. xviii. 15, the Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall
hearken.  In verses 18, 19, the same title, a prophet, is given to the
same person, and that this person here spoken of, and styled by Jehovah,
his prophet, is Jesus Christ, let the New Testament determine; Acts, vii.
37, Stephen applies it to Jesus; Acts, iii. 22, Peter applies it to him;
and in the following texts he is styled a prophet, Luke, vii. 16.—xx.
6.—Mark, xi. 32.—Luke, xxiv. 19.—John iv. 19.—ix. 17. and he styles
himself a prophet Matt. xiii. 57.—Luke, iv. 24.—xiii. 33.  And if I
believe either in him, or in the scriptures, I must believe in one God,
and in Jesus as his prophet.  And whether this be a more scriptural faith
than my tutor’s, who believes in Jesus as both God and his own prophet, I
leave the reader to determine; and whether this faith in one God, and one
prophet, be believing too little, I leave Christ to determine, who has
said, “This is life eternal to know the Father the only true God, and
Jesus to be the Christ the anointed prophet whom he has sent.”  And Paul
has reduced the articles of saving faith to a short compass, when he
says, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved.”  Now, if this belief in one God and one prophet Jesus, be
believing enough, that surely is believing too much, as my tutor does,
when he embraces a creed made up of heathen reveries—not one sentence of
which is taught in or required by the Bible.  If to call my faith
“christianity,” be a misnomer, what must it be to call his
christianity?—not one article of which is taught in, but condemned _in
toto_ by the christian scriptures.  My tutor says, he did not think it
worth while to attempt to disprove my doctrines; no, nor even attempt to
establish his own, which he styles the articles of the christian faith.
And he had two very cogent reasons for this: first, he knew that to
assert was far more easy than either to disprove or establish; and then
he had given previous notice on his title page; that he meant only to
assert, not to prove any thing, and this pledge he has honourably
redeemed through his whole performance.  It is worth my while, however,
to remark in passing, that my tutor has encroached upon the science of
the wandering gypsy, and affects to turn fortune-teller; he predicts the
good news, that I am on the way to preferment, and stand a fair chance of
becoming caliph of Constantinople.  I can tell him honestly I have no
such ambition; and was there even a chance of a mitre in the church of
England, _nolo episcopari_, {16a} upon the usual conditions of assenting
and consenting to all that is contained in an English version of the
Latin Mass-Book.

On the foot of his 3rd page, my tutor applies himself to his task in good
earnest, (at least pretends to do so), and begins to refute and expose my
theological blunders; but he quickly lugs in the _coup de main_, {16b}
and lays down the _onus probandi_ {16c} after a very short and feeble
display of his reasoning powers.  He has attempted, it is true, on his 3,
4, 5, and 6th pages, to prove the infinite evil and demerit of sin.  Had
he succeeded in proving these, he must have established, also, that every
sin, because committed against an infinite being, must be infinite in
turpitude and demerit; then, where is the difference between his fifty
and my five hundred pence debt?  Between his ten and my ten thousand
talents?  Mine are infinite, and his, by his own confession, are no less.
If every sin be infinite, how does the aggregate of infinites swell, when
we calculate the almost infinite number of sinners, and the infinite
number of sins committed by each?  And if each of these infinite sins
require an infinite atonement, where is such an one to be found?
According to my tutor, page 4, it was found “in the vicarious sufferings
of the Son of God:” but, when he has proved from the scriptures that the
sufferings of Christ were such, which he neither has nor can do; and even
one of his own school has confessed, “it is an unaccountable, irrational
doctrine, destroying every natural idea we have of divine justice, and
laying aside the evidence of scripture (which is none at all) it is so
far from being true that it is ridiculous.” {16d}  I have still to ask
him, did the son of God suffer as God, in his supposed divine nature?  If
he be as flagrant as the poets are, to speak of a dying God, no man of
sound mind will believe him.  Should he admit, as truth will compel him
to admit, that Christ suffered only as a man, then he has to explain the
mystery how the sacrifice of a human victim could make, by finite
sufferings, an infinite satisfaction.  In describing what he judges
proofs, that sin is an infinite evil, he musters together many things
which without proof he assumes as points granted; and then, from the heat
of this great burning, which his fiery temperament and frightened
imagination has kindled, he infers, that finite men can perform those
infinite acts which can subvert the order and council of heaven,
annihilate all virtue and happiness in the universe, and shake the throne
of the eternal:—thus he makes man and sin almighty, and the almighty God,
weak, impotent, and subject to the caprice of his own creatures.  Nay,
more, he asserts, but does not prove it, that men and sin have changed
the unchangeable deity; having “extinguished the paternal goodness of the
creator,” and in his opinion converted the God of love into a merciless
being like himself.  God, he tells us, is the source of all excellence.
This we know, and rejoice in the truth; but can fury, anger, indignation,
wrath, and vindictive cruelty, such as he represents God manifesting
towards his offspring, be reckoned among the moral excellencies of the
divine character?  Strange if they can!  My tutor thinks these
perfections belong to his God, the God of Calvinism; and so they may, but
not to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  To overthrow what I
said, that if sin be infinite in demerit, because committed against an
infinite God, obedience must be infinite in merit, as obedience to the
same infinite God.  My tutor tells me, the case is just the reverse, and
that as sin rises in turpitude, merit sinks in the same proportion.  He
who can reason with the same logical precision, may possibly arrive at
the same conclusion, which is this: that the more virtuous a man is, the
less is he entitled to the rewards of virtue; and, therefore, the more
Paul pressed forward to the prize of his high calling, just in proportion
was he further from the object of his pursuit.  Well may the man that
advocates such sentiments brand the opinions of others with immoral
tendency!  My tutor asks, page 6, whoever thought of good accruing to the
chief magistrate of a country, or to the criminal himself, from the
infliction of capital punishment?  This is merely evading what I have
said on the subject in my lectures; but I ask, what is the chief end
aimed at in inflicting any punishments at all?  Is it a vindictive
disposition in the judge towards some, or is it not with a view to the
good of the whole?  And why are any capital punishments inflicted?  Is it
not because the ends of human justice cannot be attained without them?
Had men the power to prevent the evil by any other means, would a wise
and virtuous government make useless waste of human life, and take it
wantonly away when it might be spared?  And shall a God of infinite
wisdom and almighty power, admit into the moral government of the
universe an evil which he can never remedy; but which shall eternally
cause his soul to burn with vindictive rage and fury against those puny
ants which he called from nothing at first, and which in an instant he
could crush to nothing as easily as a moth?  Shall finite evil overcome
infinite good?  My tutor says, for any thing we know, the good of the
universe may require the perpetuation of punishment, rather than the
termination of sin.  He does not know this: Why assert what he does not
know? {18}  But we know the contrary, and my tutor needs not remain in
ignorance on this point if he will read his Bible—that will inform him,
that God has exalted that same Jesus, who was crucified, to reign as his
anointed king in Zion; and that he must reign till all rule, authority,
and power is put down; till the last enemy death is destroyed and
swallowed up in victory; till there shall be no more death, nor pain, nor
sorrow, nor crying.  But if death and sin must reign eternally and be
perpetuated to an interminable duration, when will the end come for
Christ to deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, and God be all
in all?  My tutor has been in too much haste to answer this, or any one
of the many arguments which I have advanced on this head in my 6th
lecture.  With a view to expose the ignorance of those who, like my
tutor, represent God as burning in an unquenchable fire, and roasting on
eternal gridirons the bodies and souls of men, I have said in my
lectures, the nature of man is incapable of eternal combustion; the body
must quickly be consumed by fire; and material fire cannot act on the
immaterial spirit, as they suppose the soul of man to be.  To this last
remark he has said nothing; to the former, he has pretended to reply, by
asking me to inform him, how the nature of man can for an instant or for
ages of ages endure future punishment?  I tell him, that the future
punishment of the wicked will be in nature suited to the nature of man;
but God will have other means of punishing than roasting men in fire, as
Calvin roasted Servetus.  He says, Socinianism affords no answer to the
question, how they can endure the fire that never shall be quenched for a
single instant and not be consumed?  It does not belong to Socinians to
answer this, but to him who ignorantly thinks God will roast them in
eternal fire.  To say not only how they can endure it for an instant, but
how they can burn eternally without being consumed; and if denying that
they can, is denying future punishment, then by _argumentum ad
ignorantiam_ {19} my tutor has denied it most positively; and if I am
going on to perfection, as he says I am, his stationary creed seems to be
following me in that way.

I have stated in my lectures, that eternal misery is irreconcileable with
the character and perfections of God.  At this my tutor nibbles in his
usual way; and although he has denied in the last paragraph that men are
capable of burning for ever, yet here he charges me with being mistaken
in thinking sin does not call for the vengeance of eternal fire.  When
will he attain perfection whose faith thus reels to and fro and staggers
like a drunken man?  Because I cannot receive his vengeance-teeming
system, and believe that God who is love will pour tempestuous
indignation upon his own offspring, and swallow them up in his wrath, I
am charged, page 8, with not knowing how to deal with the fact, that God
has admitted both moral and physical evil to have place in the universe.
But I tell my tutor, these things are admitted not for their own sakes,
but because infinite wisdom, power, and goodness both can and will and
always has overruled them for the promotion of the greater sum of good.
Will my tutor pretend that the sufferings of those millions of innocent
and virtuous people, (whom he has found among a race who he says are
totally depraved without a single exception,) or the death of infants,
are examples and proofs of God’s vindictive ire and fiery indignation
against them; if not, why has he referred to them as such?  And why “not
wiser he, in his just scale of sense, weigh his opinions against
providence,” and compare one part of his system with another, and observe
how one part proclaims war against the other?

My tutor has admitted, that “God is love; that his various perfections
are only modifications of his love; that he delights in diffusing
happiness; that his tender mercies are over all his works; that he does
not willingly afflict nor grieve the children of men; nor take pleasure
in the death of a sinner.”  Yet he has made it out, that the God of love
pursues some with eternal hatred; that his love is modified into
inexorable justice, his mercy into vindictive cruelty, his compassion
into unrelenting severity; that he delights to diffuse happiness and to
perpetuate eternal misery; that his tender mercies are over all his
works, while he inflicts upon the great majority the unmitigated
vengeance of eternal fire; that he does not afflict willingly, but takes
pleasure in punishing eternally; that he does not take pleasure in the
death of a sinner, yet makes the eternal ruin and interminable misery of
such the ultimate end of his moral government—all this my tutor has
proved in his pages.  He asks, is God required to seek the good of his
creatures irrespective of their characters and deserts?  No: the Bible
teaches, “he will render unto every man according to his deeds;” but my
tutor teaches, that God might have made all men to be damned, and he
might or might not have saved any; and, that those few who will be saved,
will be saved irrespective of their own deserts, by the merits and
sufferings of another.  Yet such men who speak of God as neither wise nor
good, except he be and act as they dictate, are not, he says, to be
reasoned with, but reproved; and who is less capable of being reasoned
with, and who more deserving of reproof than my tutor?  For his God must
be a cruel, vindictive, wrathful being, and with unrelenting fury pursue
his creatures with devouring flames and eternal indignation, or my tutor
cannot avouch him for his God.

I have now attended my theological instructor so far as his lucubrations
are connected with my lectures.  He has not dispatched business indeed so
quickly as he by whom he has been appointed to act as _locum tenens_,
{21a} but he has managed in 12 pages, to answer all I have said in 228
pages—at least he has offered this scrap for an answer, and I have no
doubt but it will be received by many as full to the purpose.  But before
any one comes to such a conclusion, he ought to read what I have written
in my lectures, and then he will perhaps have reason to conclude, that
all that my tutor has said is merely _gratis dictum_; {21b} for having
left nearly every argument of mine untouched, and those which he has
touched still unanswered, and having in profound silence passed over the
whole task I have set him in the close of my sixth lecture; not daring to
offer a single word in reply to any one of the twenty-two points that he
and every advocate of eternal torments ought to disprove if they would
establish their system; he takes his leave of me and my lectures, and
finishes his performance by bringing forward a few stale arguments which
were reiterated over and over again by Andrew Fuller, until he was
ashamed to push them upon the public any longer.

Instead, therefore, of following him and wasting time to answer what has
been answered times without number, I might here conclude; however, I
will give him a short specimen of the way in which all his arguments may
be disposed of.  He says in his first, on page 12, my sentiments have
some appearance of good will about them.  This is confessing I approach
near in this virtue to God, to Christ, and the true spirit of the gospel,
which is “glory to God in the highest, and good will to men.”  Does his
vindictive system breathe this spirit?  He had expected, it seems, to
have found devils included in my scheme of benevolence; and had I
believed in the existence of such beings, I should have included them;
and can he tell me why not?  If such there be, are they not the creatures
of a God who hates nothing that he has made; and when he made them, if
ever he did, he made them either to be happy or miserable, unless their
fate was left wholly to chance?  And is it very likely, that the God of
boundless benevolence, whose tender mercies are over all his works,
should create them for eternal misery?  He says, they have for ages been
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  But this proves he knows no
more of the meaning of that text, than when a school-boy he read it for
his task.  Let him contradict what I have said on it in my lectures.  To
use my tutor’s own polite words, on page 12, I might say, “short-sighted
mortal!  Hadst thou not wit enough to see,” that by shutting the door of
mercy against devils, thou hast shut it against thyself!  Surely thy
critical skill in Greek ought to have taught thee, that every
calumniator, false accuser, traducer, and slanderer, is, according to the
true import of the word, a _diabolos_, a devil; and that thou art such,
is proved on thy title page, as well as in many other parts of thy book,
which breathes calumny and slander throughout.  But my tutor wonders if
my doctrine be true, why Christ and his apostles never plainly taught it.
I wonder how he reads the Bible, and how he has read my lectures, in
which I have shewn the doctrine taught through the whole, from the first
promise in Genesis to Revelations, agreeable to the text which tells him,
God has taught it by all the prophets since the world began.  But he has
been so long accustomed to gaze at the unquenchable fire, and to look at
every object through clouds of smoke issuing from the bottomless pit of
Heathen and Popish error, that he can form no distinct and proper notion
of any text in the Bible; no, nor of the character of the God it reveals;
and besides, this is one of Andrew Fuller’s arguments, who had never read
my book—my tutor should have recollected this.  He requires to know, page
13, “if future punishment be only corrective, what reason for the
threatening in the Bible against impenitants can be given?”  The answer
is, God is not, cannot be, a vindictive God; he cannot punish with
eternal vindictiveness: and never a threatening in all the Bible contains
either a threatening of vindictive or eternal punishment; they are all to
warn men to ensure a part, by repentance and obedience, in the first
resurrection, and escape from the punishments which constitute the second
death; and when he attributes eternal vindictiveness to God, he libels
the Divine Being, and levels him with a Nero, a Moloch, or with the Devil
of his own blind creed.  He asks, how the mere infliction of pain is to
purify sinners?  I answer, it is for him, and those who like him, blindly
imagine, that God has no other means to apply than the pains of eternal
fire, to determine this; but those who believe, that God has both wisdom,
power, and goodness sufficient to reconcile all things to himself, and to
adapt the means to the end, both in the present and future state, can
leave it with him whose counsel shall stand, and who will do all his
pleasure to accomplish in his own way that purpose by which he has
purposed to gather together all things, and to reconcile all things to
himself; whether things in earth, or in heaven, or under the earth,
without judging it a thing impossible with God.  On page 14, he asks, if
the wicked in hell be in a state of probation, what is the propriety and
advantages of the present means of grace?  I do not, like him, teach,
that men are sent to hell as soon as they die, but with the scripture,
“that the unjust are reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished.”
But, were I a believer in a local hell, (still, if a Calvinist can talk
of this life being a state of probation, while the elect are chosen to
life, and the reprobates appointed to wrath and ruin, and of the free
agency of man, when all is to be done by the agency of the spirit), I
might surely think of hell being a state of probation; and that God can
use means to reclaim sinners there, without destroying their free agency,
as well as he does, according to Calvinism, by fixing the elect in a
state of unfrustrable salvation, and the reprobate in final perdition,
without leaving the chance of either to free agency.  He tells me, Christ
said the night cometh when no man can work; and Solomon says, nothing can
be done in the grave.  True; but he should know, that the present means
of grace are what God has wisely adapted to men in the present life, and
what they are to improve in this life to gain the first resurrection and
shun the second death; and when the night of death comes, no man can work
this work, or improve these means any longer.  But this does not prove
there will be no further means afforded; nor does Solomon’s saying,
nothing can be done in the grave, prove that nothing can and that nothing
will be done in the state beyond the grave; for God is able to accomplish
his own pleasure, and he will have all men to be saved: he will make all
things new; every knee shall bow to his authority.  A Socinian or Infidel
can believe all this, although such tutors as mine, though Christians,
cannot believe these parts of the Bible.  On page 15, he has become
Socinian, and for fourteen lines together, he has made as good a
confession of the Socinian faith as any Socinian can do.  He confesses,
that on earth at least God afflicts as a father, with designs of mercy,
and in every affliction he sends, mixes the whole with mercy.  But, in
the next sentence, he shews the unchangeable changed; and he who punished
in time, in measure, and in mercy, punishing in eternity with pure
unmixed vindictiveness and eternal fury.  To establish his system, he has
quoted scripture again, which has nothing to do with the subject, and
serves only to shew how little he understands the Bible; but such
quotations and such comments as his, answer the purpose of representing
the Father of all Mercies, us one of the most merciless beings in the
universe.  All that he advances in the remaining arguments, proceed upon
the same false principle and groundless supposition, that God is bound to
treat men in a future state, just as he has treated them in this; and,
that since the means adapted to this state, have not accomplished God’s
end, in the present salvation and blessing of all of human kind, that
therefore infinite wisdom and goodness will be at an eternal loss to
devise and apply any other adequate means; and that, consequently, he
that does what he will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth, must have his hand stayed, his sovereign will crossed, his
purposes frustrated, his expectations cut off, his eternal plans
deranged, and the disappointed Deity be compelled to submit to be baffled
by these insuperable difficulties in his way, which omniscience could not
foresee, or which omnipotence itself cannot surmount.  When he is wiser
than God, let him presume to give him counsel, and dictate to him what
line of conduct he is bound to pursue with his creatures; or rather, let
him acknowledge that the judge of all the earth can and will do right;
and that it is right for him to fulfil his promise to accomplish his
gracious purpose, in sending Christ to be the saviour and restorer of the
whole world; and this will answer every argument and every objection that
he can urge against limited punishment, or in favour of vindictive and
eternal misery, inflicted by a God of mercy, kindness, compassion, and
love.  He has referred to and quoted almost every text in favour of his
vindictive scheme, that I have quoted and explained in my lectures, in
support of final restoration; but he has not so much as attempted to shew
that any one of my explanations are wrong; nor has he taken any pains to
shew that his own are right.  He knew he could do neither; and,
therefore, he has barely quoted them as common-place expressions, and
asserted what he has no ability to prove—this was easy, as Andrew Fuller
had done it ready to his hand.

I will now draw to an end by first pourtraying his vindictive system;
and, secondly, noticing how he manages to support such a system.  First,
I shall briefly sketch out his vindictive system, and it may be described
as follows: The God of his system is, according to his representation, a
God without goodness, a Father without compassion; vindictive,
malevolent, indignant, wrathful, tyrannical, cruel, unrelenting, furious,
and fierce; breathing out threatenings and slaughter; inflicting
punishment and perpetuating sin and misery to eternal ages; he is a
Creator who has given existence to countless millions of rational beings
whose final end he foresaw would be infinite and unmixed misery without
respite or termination; a Creator who gave them existence without any
assignable reason, but that it was his arbitrary will to confer existence
upon them, that he might have the pleasure of making that being an
eternal curse.  This system further represents the God of it, as a
partial, capricious being, arbitrarily appointing most men to endless
ruin, while he appoints a few favorites to free unmerited favour and
everlasting life.  But still it represents him so sanguinary and unjust,
that he punishes, in the most vindictive manner, one that did no sin, and
extorts from him a full and rigid satisfaction in sufferings, groans, and
blood, before even his own favorites shall taste his mercy or possess
eternal life.  This system represents the God of it, as possessing the
propensities of the alligators of the Ohio, which bring forth such
multitudes of young ones at every hatching, that the whole country would
soon be desolated by them, did not the tender-hearted old ones prevent
the evil by devouring and feeding deliciously upon their own young ones,
and thus destroying their own progeny, as long as they have the power to
destroy them.  Let my tutor now draw near and behold this great sight:
let him in fixed amaze, stand still and gaze and try to contemplate this
monstrous God of Calvinism—a being shrouded in eternal frowns, clothed in
eternal vengeance, and armed with eternal and vindictive fury; with eyes
darting flames of devouring fire, with hands hurling the thunderbolts of
eternal destruction, and breathing from his nostrils streams of fire and
brimstone, “to blast a helpless worm and beat upon his naked soul in one
eternal storm.”  And let him tell us, if this horrifying spectacle,
created in his own distorted and horror-brooding fancy, can be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is love, and whose nature
is merciful, gracious, long-suffering, full of compassion, and ready to
forgive.  Let him say if the God of his sanguinary system possess any of
those amiable perfections which can render him an object of love,
confidence, and sacred veneration.  Let him say if he can love the God of
his system _toto corde,_ {26} or pay to such a being a rational service;
or whether the homage offered to such a being, must not spring from the
same slavish principle as the worship of the benighted savages, when they
worship an imaginary being, called by many enlightened christians a
devil.  An orthodox missionary records among other wonders in his
journal, that when he had been describing to an Indian the infinite evil
of sin, and the infinite and eternal punishment which God will inflict
upon sinners in the next world; he asked the Indian if he should not like
to go to heaven.  To which he replied, no; if your God be such a dreadful
being, I do not wish to be so near him.  This was given as a proof of the
man’s ignorance, but it proved him wiser than his teacher.

But I promised, in the second place, to shew the manner in which my tutor
has attempted to support his preposterous system.  He has not attempted
it by shewing that I have given a wrong explanation of any of the
numerous texts of scripture which I have quoted on the subject of future
punishment, nor has he so much as attempted to prove, that the texts he
has quoted have any reference to the subject; but like a salamander bred
in fire, and breathing sulphur as his native element, he has piled
together a few texts, in which the words wrath, vengeance, indignation,
fire, fury, and the like occur; and although he knows, and even allows,
that this is figurative language, he applies it literally, as if God was
really the subject of the vilest passions that disgrace humanity.  I have
said in my Lectures, that the strongest figures and language used in the
Bible, will not support eternal punishments; I have produced the
strongest, and shewn that they will not do it; and why has he not shewn
me to be in error?  Not in one single instance—for this plain reason,
because it was not in his power to do so.  And I now defy him, and every
man in existence to prove, that any one of those texts which he has
referred to, will either prove eternal punishment, or that they have any
thing to do with the subject.  This shews his skill in the language of
scripture, and how far his bare assertion is to be taken, when he says,
“that if words have any meaning, the texts he has quoted prove future
punishments eternal and vindictive.”  He may assert the doctrine of
endless punishment—but assertions are not proof; he may reproach those
who cannot breathe in his sulphurous atmosphere, as Socinians, Sceptics,
and Infidels; but _veritas vincit_, {27} and the doctrine I have
advocated and the arguments by which I have maintained it, are still
invulnerable to all the shafts of ignorance and bigotry which this
pretender to wisdom can hurl against them.  It is pleasing, however, to
see how deeply he feels interested at the close for the cause of virtue
and good morals, and it reminds me of the fable in which

    “A grave skilful mason gave in his opinion,
    That nothing but stone could defend the dominion;
    A carpenter said, though that was well spoke,
    It was better by far to defend it with oak;
    A currier, wiser than both these together,
    Said, try what you please, there is nothing like leather.”

So my tutor seems to think, that if men are not frightened into virtue
and morality, by the senseless cry of suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire, and by being threatened with being devoted as a prey to the fiery
tusks and burning talons of the devil, that this imaginary fiction of
heathen divinity will succeed in sapping the foundation of all virtue,
“and bring dishonour upon God, and ruin upon a sinful world:”—that is to
say, bring ruin upon a world which my tutor asserts to be already in a
state of universal ruin.  But, if my tutor is really desirous to become
_custos morum_, {28a} let him adopt a system more to the purpose than
Calvinism, which damns all reprobates, let them be as virtuous as angels,
and provides a substitute for all the elect, and saves them independent
of any duties or virtues of their own; and let him adopt a system
producing better moral effects than Calvinism did, when it committed
Servetus to the flames, kindled by the wrath of Calvin, in hopes too of
precipitating the heretic into the flames that he thought never would be
quenched.  O the tender mercies of Calvin and Calvinism!  Surely those
who do not wilfully shut their eyes may see _veluti in speculum_, {28b}
the transcendent glories of that immaculate system, which has John Calvin
for its author, heathen errors for its subject-matter, and eternal ruin,
pain, and misery for its end.

In my Lectures I have referred to every unquenchable fire mentioned in
the scriptures, and have proved that, they are all long since
extinguished, and none of them reserved for burning sinners eternally.
My tutor has not disproved this; nor so much as noticed the subject in
any part of his tract.  And, although he has done his best to blow the
extinguished embers into sparks and flames of his own kindling, and says,
ah! ah! I have seen the fire; yet it sleeps harmless in his own pages,
without burning even the paper; and all the effect it is destined to
produce, is the burning of his own cheeks with blushes for his own
ignorance.  But, since my tutor seems to be affected with a _cacoethis
scribendi_, {28c} he had best go to work again; for, as _succedaneum_
{28d} for others, he ought to plead the cause of all his employers.  He
has indeed shewn so much sympathy with Mr. Dennant, that he has once
mentioned the good man’s name; but, he has not offered a single word in
defence of his system of dreams, sleep-walking, ghosts, and witchcraft.
Why this profound silence?  Was the case past all cure, and such as
admits of no alleviation?  Or was it because he has committed the same
faults on his 15th page?

I have said in my Lectures, that _kolasis_ intends corrective punishment;
such as, according to Paulus, produces amendment; according to Plato,
such as makes wiser; and according to Plutarch, promotes healing: and I
have said, such punishments cannot be eternal.  Will my tutor pretend to
know the meaning of the Greek word, better than those who constantly
spoke and wrote Greek as their native language?  If so, what an oracle of
wisdom is this learned word-catcher!

As all those who differ from my tutor in sentiment are Socinians,
Sceptics, Infidels, Saducees, and Apostates, he has prudently passed,
without notice, the sentiments of Bishop Newton, quoted in my Lectures,
page 115–16—sentiments in perfect unison with mine, and utterly
destructive of the scheme of endless torments; but, had he noticed this,
he must have condemned the Bishop among his motley group of heretics, and
detected the ruinous contagion in the Church of England, advocated there
by one of her brightest ornaments.  And, if he can prove his good
advocate for sleep-walking and witchcraft, to be right in his opinion, as
to natural immortality, he will prove that the pulpit in Halesworth
church has been polluted by a poisonous error, and prove Bishop Law to
have been a filthy heretic.  But I suppose it was _ad honores_ {29a} that
he passed by these things in silence; and he may learn from Watson,
Bishop of Landaff, “that though he was no Socinian himself, he was
willing to believe Socinians to be christians.”  My tutor might then
without _mauvaise hont_, {29b} keep silent, and forbear from branding
others with every reproachful epithet that calumny can supply, and such
as he knows are wilful slander when he uses them.

Since my tutor has given me a lesson in poetry, which he thinks suits his
scheme, but which I am sure suits mine much better, I will return him the
favour from the same source:

    “Yet gav’st roe, in this dark estate,
       To know the good from ill,
    And binding nature fast in fate,
       Left free the human will.

    “What conscience dictates to be done,
       Or warns me not to do,
    This teach me more than hell to shun,
       That more that heav’n pursue.”

Now, if my tutor admits the above, he must overthrow his own system
altogether; if he rejects it, he must condemn his own favourite author
among those Socinian, Sceptical, and Infidel heretics; who, among other
errors, “independent of superior influence,” make their mind and
conscience their guide; and, having thrown himself on the two horns of
this dilemma, he is at liberty to get off as well as he can without being
gored; and his good friend, who has hung some time in the same
predicament, may perhaps lend him some assistance, or advise him, like
himself, to be content in every situation, and struggle no longer in the
mud, lest he sink deeper in the mire.

If Hugh Latimer will do his work worthy of a bishop, let him employ his
pen again, _pro bono publico_; {30a} or, if he prefers it, let him come
forth from his sculking place, and meet me _tete a tete_, {30b} and I
will canvass any one, or all of the favourite sentiments, belonging to
his favourite system, with him _viva voce_; {30c} and, if I do not prove
his opinions unscriptural and irrational errors, I will require nothing
for my trouble; nor will I either menace him with a prosecution, nor
prevent his books from being sold, as the good men at Halesworth have
served me.  But, if it be true, as my tutor asserts, page 2, that my book
carries its own antidote along with it, why has so much alarm been taken
at it?  Why such active endeavours to prevent its circulation? (but all
in vain)  And why has Hugh Latimer wasted his time, spent his money, and
exposed his own folly, to remedy an evil which required no remedy, but to
be left to work its own cure according to his opinion?  Various pretexts
may be set up for such inconsistency; but the true reason may be given in
these words: “if we let this man alone, . . . the Romans will come and
take away our place and nation.”  Yes, craft—your craft, good Bishop, is
in danger; and how can such a man as you sleep at your post in a time of
threatening danger?  You must be patching the old garment, if you only
make the rent worse.  You have said, page 3, that “I deny the existence
and agency of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of regeneration,
justification by faith, the immateriality and immortality of the soul.”
I deny them all in the orthodox sense.  I deny the existence of the Holy
Spirit, as a third personal God; but, I believe the existence of one God,
who is a spirit.  I admit the divine agency, called the Holy Spirit, at
the first promulgation of the gospel; but, I deny such supernatural
agency now, as the orthodox pretend to.  I deny regeneration to be what
they make it; but, I hold the necessity of a change of mind and conduct,
whereby sinners must turn themselves from all their transgressions and
save their souls alive.  I deny justification by faith in the popular
sense of believing in the merits and righteousness of another, which is a
most flagrant error; but, I admit both Jews and Gentiles were justified
by believing and obeying the gospel, without being tied to the ceremonial
law, which was superceded by the gospel.  This is the faith of the
gospel, the faith at first delivered to the saints; and, to believe
otherwise, is to believe a lie, and to believe what God has not required.
I deny the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul; but, I
firmly believe what the scriptures teach, that at the resurrection, that
which is mortal, shall put on immortality.  These remarks will serve to
explain how I wished to be understood, when I said in page 14, that you
had stated my disbelief honestly and accurately—that is, according to
orthodox sentiments, I disbelieve all you have stated.

Had Hugh Latimer contented himself with singling me out as an individual,
and with exposing (as he is pleased to call it), my ignorance, errors,
and blunders alone, all the answer his tract would have merited, and all
it would probably have received from me, would have been a silent
contempt of such a paltry performance; but, when, instead of meeting my
arguments fairly, and refuting my sentiments scripturally and rationally,
he has declined do so, and has condescended to calumniate and wilfully
misrepresent Unitarians in general, and condemn their sentiments in the
gross, as disguised infidelity, &c. I felt myself compelled by a sense of
duty to offer a short reply to his slanders.  For it is a well-known
fact, that bare assertions such as his, will pass with too many for
argument, and the truth of his statements will be concluded, by such,
from his positivity and confidence in making them; and if nothing was
said, in answer to such writers, too many would conclude they cannot be
answered.  And as he has given another proof, that the orthodox are never
tired of reiterating those arguments which have been answered and refuted
an hundred times twice told, we heretics must not tire of refuting them
over again.  But we have the disadvantage, that so many are willing to
take any thing and every thing upon trust, that comes from an orthodox
pen, while few, very few, will so much as look at what is written by a
reputed heretic; and the number is fewer still, who will impartially
examine both sides, and candidly acknowledge, (even when convinced), that
truth is on the side opposite to their own.  Bishop Watson says, he knew
a divine of great eminence, who declared, “that he never read dissenting
divinity.” {32a}  Another divine was once asked how he approved of Mr.
Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity: he replied, “very well; but, said
he, if I should be known to think well of it, I should have my lawn torn
from my shoulders.” {32b}  A divine who has read my Lectures, being asked
his opinion of them, said, “If I were to give my candid opinion on them,
I should be styled a Unitarian too.”  Another, who approved of them,
being asked why such doctrine was never taught in the place where he
preached, said, “When a boy is bound apprentice, he must obey his
master’s rules.”  Thus some from interest, others from indolence, and the
many from ignorance and bigotry, never take trouble to examine and
compare the different opinions proposed to them, and so remain in
darkness and confusion all their days.  And as it was well said, long
ago, “As people in general, for one reason or another, like short
objections (and bare assertions) better than long answers (and sound
reasons), the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with
those for our friends, who have honesty and erudition, candour and
patience, to study both sides.” {33}  It is to be lamented, that readers
of the last description are very rare in these parts, yet there is here
and there one; and I had much rather my books should be consulted, read,
and examined by a dozen such men as these, than I would have the stare
and gape of hundreds listening to an harangue, five sentences of which
they did not understand.  That this is the general run of hearers
hereabouts, no one can deny; and this sufficiently accounts for the
spread of mysticism and enthusiasm, and the tardy progress of pure
scriptural and rational truth; to say nothing of the salvo which
orthodoxy affords, to those who can fancy themselves entitled to an
interest in its inexhaustible and unconditional stores;—pardon,
righteousness, and heaven, and all procured by the merits and sufferings
of another, on the very easy terms of “only believe and be saved.”

                                * * * * *

I shall here attempt to obviate the objection so generally laid against
me, that I am inimical and hostile to the Bible Society.  I speak the
truth when I say—first, that I esteem the Bible as the choicest gift of
God, save that of his own Son, the restorer, the light and saviour of the
world—Secondly, that I esteem and cordially approve the universal spread
of the Bible among all nations, and in every language; believing, as I
firmly do, in the sufficiency of the Scriptures to make all men (who use
them properly) wise unto salvation, since all scripture (which is) given
by the inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.  Convinced as I am, that
the Scriptures contain a full, clear, and plain revelation of every thing
that is essential for mankind to know, believe, and practice; of all that
God requires from them, or gives them ground to expect from him, in order
to promote their virtue and peace on earth, and final happiness in
heaven.  I approve of the principle on which protestantism is founded,
that the Bible alone contains the religion of protestants; I consequently
fall in most heartily with the circulation of the Scriptures without note
or comment; leaving every man at full liberty of conscience, and the use
of his own reason and judgment in interpreting and understanding the word
of God.  I have attended Bible Societies from their first formation; I
have contributed to them in several parts of the kingdom, and at
Halesworth too, without sounding a trumpet; I have recommended them
constantly on the principles stated above; and, if I have not been a
public advocate on the platform, the reason has invariably been, because
the advocates have universally treated me, even when on the platform
among them, with silent contempt and cold disdain.  It is not the Bible
Society I object to; but, the way in which its professed advocates expose
the cause and themselves, by bringing forward in their speeches subjects
calculated only (in some instances) to insult a rational understanding,
and impose on and deceive the vulgar; and the effect produced has been to
lead numbers to imagine, that if they give a trifle, or obtain a Bible,
it will go well nigh to secure their salvation.  Hence it happens, that
in every village I can find a Bible or two in almost every house; in many
of which they are never read, because not one in the family can read
them.  Can it be otherwise in other countries?  And yet what romantic
tales we often hear of the wonderful conversions effected by the Bible!
just as if the Bible could produce any good effect, but where it is read,
understood, and its precepts reduced to practice.  Let the professed
advocates lay aside those arts and tricks which alone become mountebanks
and quacks, and let them plead the cause of the Bible as becomes the
dignity and grandeur of the subject, and I will wish them God speed in
spreading the Bible to the remotest habitation of human beings; and, let
those who cannot treat the subject as becomes truth and holiness, keep
silent.  Religion and the Bible require not the aid of enthusiasm,
ribaldry, and buffoonery; nor of tales and anecdotes on a par with Mother
Goose’s Fables.

In addition to those tales which I have advanced on former occasions, and
numbers that I could still advance, I will only select the following.  I
once heard a preacher at a meeting in Wellingborough church recommend the
Bible, as a quack recommends his pills and balsams—a cure for every
malady, “Do you know (said he), a drunkard, a swearer, a liar, give him a
Bible; do you know an adulterer, sabbath-breaker, or covetous miser, give
him a Bible; do you know a bad husband, a bad father, a bad wife, or a
bad mother, give them each a Bible; do you know a bad master, of
mistress, or a bad servant or apprentice, give them a Bible; do you know
a bad neighbour, a slanderer, backbiter, or busybody, give them a Bible.”
Thus he ran on through the whole catalogue of vices, and recommended, as
a cure for them all, the gift of a Bible.  I need not remind my readers
of what has been stated in the Ipswich Chronicle twice over, on the
application of the funds of the Bible Society; but I remember a speaker
said at the conclusion of a meeting at Halesworth, three years back,
“that in answer to the question, what becomes of the money given at these
meetings, he would assure them, on the word of a dying man, speaking as
to dying men, in the presence of God, before whom all must appear in
judgment, that not a single penny of their money was applied to any other
purpose than that for which they gave it, (namely), for printing and
circulation of the scriptures.”  It belongs not to me to reconcile this
with the statements in the Ipswich and London papers.  Since those
persons who have enjoyed the advantage of travel are allowed to enliven
your meetings by anecdote, I will give a specimen or two of their manner
and matter.  At a meeting held at Leeds, some months past, Dr. Patterson
stated, that in his travels he had found a set of men making an attempt
to supplant the Bible by substituting in its place a Socinian Bible, full
of errors, and void of every essential doctrine; that he had procured the
suppression of it and of another as bad, and hoped the whole was rotten
or rotting in a fort to which they were consigned; that a professor in a
university, the author of the above, had been turned out of his
professorship.  All this and much more was stated and printed in the
Leeds paper, but no name of the book, place, or professor was mentioned.
The whole was a fabrication to suit a purpose, and has been well exposed
by Dr. Hutton, Unitarian minister, at Leeds.  At a meeting in the
City-Road Chapel, London, last May, Lord Mountcassel proved, that the age
of miracles was returned in Ireland; he could vouch, he said, as a
missionary was preaching in a village, a Catholic priest interrupted him:
the day following the priest pointing out the place to a friend, said,
there is the spot where that cursed pharisee preached to the people;—he
was struck with paralysis, his arm fell powerless, his mouth was
distorted, he fell back, and was taken home senseless.  Another priest, a
great opponent of Bibles, was struck in a meeting with a paralytic shock
and never spoke afterwards.  These were the visitations of God, and are
recorded as such in the Evangelical Magazine.  While such men as doctors
of divinity and titled noblemen can thus, with devotion’s visage and
pious actions, sugar over the devil himself, we may expect that other
pigmies, in a petty way, will ape and mimic their example; but if the
Bible which they circulate teaches others no better morals than theirs,
the gift will be of little use to those who obtain it.  I wish such
advocates as the above to recollect, that we are forbidden by the Bible
“to do evil that good may come,” or to propagate “cunningly devised
fables.”

                                * * * * *

                    _Lately Published_, _Price_ 4_s._

                               SIX LECTURES

                                  ON THE

     Non-eternity of Future Punishment, and on the final Restoration
                 of all Mankind to Purity and Happiness,

                              BY T. LATHAM.

       _Sold by the Author at Bramfield_; _also by Teulon and Fox_,
                              _Whitechapel_,
                  _London_; _and all other Booksellers_.

                      TIPPELL, PRINTER, HALESWORTH.

                                * * * * *




FOOTNOTES.


{3}  Assumed name.

{4a}  The spirit of the party.

{4b}  Against good manners.

{4c}  Disguised.

{4d}  In person.

{4e}  A man of various learning.

{4f}  Masterpiece.

{4g}  Churchmen.

{4h}  Pupil.

{5a}  A learned man.

{5b}  Between ourselves.

{5c}  Slip of the tongue.

{5d}  Pretended.

{5e}  As it should be.

{5f}  A nice morsel

{6}  Willing or not.

{7a}  I have read of a bishop who, on coming to his bishopric, ordered a
Greek inscription to be written over his palace gate.  It was meant to
say, “Gate be thou ever open to, and never shut against a good man.”  But
when finished, it said, “Gate be thou always shut against, and never open
to a good man.”  And as the bishop was so well versed in Greek, that he
could not find out the blunder, he was for his learning deposed.  I give
this as a hint to Hugh Latimer.

{7b}  I must remain in my present sentiments.

{8a}  Tiresomeness.

{8b}  The republic of letters.

{9a}  A fit man.

{9b}  Three united in one.

{9c}  Winding up.

{10a}  Common phrases

{10b}  By what authority.

{10c}  With what intention.

{10d}  To ensnare the vulgar.

{10e}  What harm will it do.

{10f}  The law of retaliation.

{11}  See a speech by a minister.  (Lectures, page 177)

{12a}  Like master like man.

{12b}  Thou that teachest others, teachest thou not thyself.

{12c}  Wonderful to tell.

{12d}  Indispensable pre-requisite.

{14a}  The truth without fear.

{14b}  Without over bashfulness.

{16a}  I do not wish to be made a bishop.

{16b}  Sudden enterprise.

{16c}  Burden of proving.

{16d}  Bradbury.

{18}  Jesus Christ has informed us, John iii. 16, 18, “that God has
displayed his love to the world in sending his Son, not to condemn the
world, but to save it.”  Hugh Latimer tells us, page 6, “that the
perpetuity of punishment in vindictive justice, (which by the way is a
contradiction in terms), is the emanation of love to the universe.”
There is no method of reconciling these plain contradictions, but by
allowing him to be acquainted with those sublime mysteries with which
Christ was wholly unacquainted.

{19}  A foolish argument.

{21a}  Deputy.

{21b}  Said for nothing.

{26}  With the whole heart.

{27}  Truth conquers.

{28a}  The guardian of morality.

{28b}  As in a looking glass.

{28c}  Improper fondness of writing.

{28d}  Substitute.

{29a}  For decency sake.

{29b}  Over much bashfulness.

{30a}  For the public good.

{30b}  Face to face.

{30c}  By word of mouth.

{32a}  Theological tracts, preface, page 19.

{32b}  Molineux’s Familiar Letters, page 163.

{33}  Bishop Horne.




***