{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58052/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58052","id":"gutenberg_58052","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58052","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Future punishment","Hell -- Christianity","Latimer, Hugh, pseud.. The Doctrine of Endless Punishment asserted, in opposition to the Socinian Infidelity of \"the Minister at Bramfield\" [T. Latham]","Unitarianism"],"text":"Transcribed from the [1828] T. Tippell edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                   [Picture: Public domain book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                     THE SELF-PLUMED BISHOP UNPLUMED.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 A REPLY\n\n                                  TO THE\n\n                   PROFOUND ERUDITION OF THE SELF-NAMED\n\n                              HUGH LATIMER,\n\n                                  IN HIS\n\n                 DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT ASSERTED,\n\n                                    BY\n\n                                T. LATHAM,\n\n                     MINISTER AT BRAMFIELD, SUFFOLK.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201cLet us candidly admit where we cannot refute, calmly reply where we\n    cannot admit, and leave anger to the vanquished, and imputation of\n    bad motives to those who are deficient in good argument.\u201d  REV. W. J.\n    FOX.\n\n    \u201cIlli s\u00e6viant in vos, qui nesciunt quo cum labore verum inveniatur,\n    et quam difficile caveantur errores.  Illi in vos s\u00e6viant, qui\n    nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit, carnalia phantasmata pi\u00e6 mentis\n    serenitate superare.  Illi in vos s\u00e6viant, qui nesciunt quantis\n    gemitibus et suspiriis fiat, ut quantulacunque parte possit intelligi\n    Deus.  Postremo, illi in vos s\u00e6viant, qui nullo tali errore decepti\n    sunt, quali vos deceptos vident.\u201d  ST. AUGUSTINE.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                               HALESWORTH:\n                     PRINTED AND SOLD BY T. TIPPELL;\n          SOLD ALSO BY MESSRS. TEULON AND FOX, 67, WHITE-CHAPEL.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                             PRICE SIXPENCE.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nREPLY, &c.\n\n\nIN the various tracts that I have presented to the public, as well as at\nthe conclusion of my lectures and appendix, I have earnestly requested\nany one who deemed himself competent to the task, to refute and expose my\nerrors publicly from the press.  W. W. Horne was the first who made an\nattempt to prop up the tottering cause of orthodoxy, and re-build the\nIdol Temple; and how much this attempt met the approbation of the\northodox, may be gathered from the fact, that they would not permit his\nperformance to see daylight in these parts!!!  The person more\nimmediately concerned to reply to my lectures and appendix, has contented\nhimself, and satisfied his friends, with warning young people to be upon\ntheir guard against that bare-faced infidelity that dares to shew its\nhateful crest in open daylight; and by assuring them in one concise\nsentence, \u201cthat if they are saved it will be for ever and ever, and if\nthey are lost it will be for ever and ever; and if they depend on having\nbeen sincere and morally honest, or on repentance and reformation of\nconduct, (though both he says are necessary), their hopes will prove\ntotally fallacious and groundless, and will deceive their souls in the\nend, and they must sink into the frightful regions of despair, and become\ncompanions of those who must for ever weep, wail, and gnash their teeth,\nwithout any diminution of their sufferings or deliverance from them.\u201d\nThis is doing business with dispatch.  Yet, I have never imagined, that\nany one would suppose that a note in a funeral sermon was a proper reply\nto my book, and therefore I have been waiting in expectation of hearing\nfrom some other quarter, so that I am neither surprised nor disappointed\nat being attacked by some one under the _nom de guerre_ {3} of Hugh\nLatimer: nor am I at all surprised that the old bishop\u2019s ghost, which has\nbeen conjured up on the occasion, should act so perfectly in _esprit de\ncorps_, {4a} or so directly _contra bonos mores_; {4b} for this has ever\nbeen the spirit and temper of the whole body, that what they were\ndeficient in truth and sober argument, they have abundantly made up by\nscurrility and vituperation.  But since Hugh Latimer, who stalks forth\n_incognito_, {4c} whoever he is in _propria persona_, {4d} whether\nEnglish, Irish, Scotch, or Welch, is to me a matter of small importance.\nI have nothing to do with the man, but with his evangelical matter: yet,\nI may be curious to ask, why such _homo multarum literarum_, {4e} as he\naffects to be, should be ashamed of his own name; especially to such a\n_chef d\u2019\u0153uvre_ {4f} as his performance appears to be.  Probably, in the\ncourse of his extensive research into antiquity, he has discovered a\nstriking similarity between the coarse sternness of the old bishop\u2019s\nspirit and language and his own, and may think himself qualified for such\nan office; and he may perhaps have learned that as King Harry obtained\nfrom the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith, for writing in defence\nof popery, so Horsley, Magee, and others have been rewarded with mitres\nfor writing against Socinians and Infidels; and, like the supplanter of\nold, he may wish to obtain the blessing, and rear his mitred front in\nparliament by wrapping himself in another person\u2019s coat.  Yet, blind as\nwe are, we can discover, that although the voice is Jacob\u2019s voice, the\nhands and the heart are those of Esau.  But I shall leave all _gens de\nl\u2019eglise_ {4g} to scramble for bishoprics and mitres as they please, and\nattend to the author who styles himself Hugh Latimer, and who deigns to\nbestow his favors upon me.\n\nIn the first instance, he condescends to give me what he deems a severe\ncastigation for my dulness; and, having laid on me forty stripes, save\none, he feels some relentings, and kindly proposes to pity my ignorance\nand become my instructor, (p. 11.)  I ought to thank him for his good\nwill; but, before I become his _elev\u00e9_, {4h} I ought to be satisfied that\nhe is quite competent to the task of a tutor; and, as I have my doubts on\nthis head, (after all his pretensions to be _savant_, {5a}) this point\nmust be settled _entre nous_ {5b} before we proceed any further.  My\ntutor, as he pretends to be, on page 11 says, \u201cI have yet got to learn\nEnglish.\u201d  Some would have chosen to say, in correct English, that I had\nyet to learn English; but this was perhaps a _lapsus lingu\u00e6_. {5c}  But\nmy _soi disant_ {5d} tutor, without shewing me wherein I am deficient,\nwhether in orthography, etymology, syntax, or prosody, or even without\nenquiring whether I had learned the English alphabet, begins to treat me,\nas a judicious tutor ought to treat a pupil, by an attempt to teach me\nGreek and Latin, although he knew I had \u201cgot to learn English.\u201d  This\nsurely was doing the thing _comme il faut_, {5e} and I shall here pay\nsome attention to his learned lectures.  In the first place, I am smartly\nreproved for writing Greek words in English characters\u2014a fault which\nevery author besides me has been guilty of, authors of Dictionaries and\nConcordances not excepted; but then, while I ought to have known that\nGreek words cannot be properly expressed in English letters, my tutor\nsays, I should at least have written them in those English letters which\nwould have expressed them properly: thus my modern task-master requires\nme to make bricks without straw.  But I am next reproved for blundering\nin Greek orthography, because in one word, either I or the printer, have\nput a _u_, instead of an _o_\u2014an unpardonable blunder in me; however it\nhappened, and _bonne bouche_ {5f} for a word catcher.  For, as Bentley\nremarks, \u201ca sophist abhors mediocrity; he must always say the greatest\nthing, and make a tide and a flood, though it be but a basin of water.\u201d\nBut I have also blundered on the unlucky words _aion_, _aionian_,\n_oletheron_, and _kolassis_, and have given them an unfortunate\nsignification\u2014a signification most unfortunate for his system of infinite\nand endless torment: since, in spite of all his criticisms, the true\nsense of the terms completely overthrows his blazing creed; at which he\nrages like a fury, and exhausts all his ample stores of skill in\ncriticism on the original languages; yes, and pities and deplores my\nignorance in these matters.  It is not, however, worth my while to waste\nmuch time in debating whether he who (is at least capable of consulting a\nGreek lexicon) is possessed of more profound erudition on such points\nthan I, who have \u201cgot to learn English yet;\u201d the point may be\nsatisfactorily settled by determining at once, whether of us has given\nthe true and proper meaning of the words in question.  I have said _aion_\nand _aionian_ never mean unlimited duration, except when connected with\nthe existence of God, or the future happiness of good men.  In every\nother case they have only a limited signification.  Many proofs of this I\nhave produced from the scriptures in my lectures: not one of which has\nbeen corrected nor even noticed by my tutor.  He asserts, that words are\nto be always taken in their literal and primary sense, unless there be\nsomething in the nature of the subject which requires them to be\ndifferently understood.  This is first objecting to what I have said and\nthen saying the very same thing himself, and accusing me of blundering,\nwhen he has made the very same blunder; but the fact is, I have stated\nthe real truth as to the application of the terms, and he, _nolens\nvolens_, {6} is compelled to admit the same, which he does twice over\n(page 9, 10).  I had said, the true and primary sense of _aion_, is age,\na limited period.  For this I have given the authority of Doctor\nDoddridge, the Bishop of London, Dr. Hammond, and the Critical Review;\n(see Lectures, page 18, 19), to which I might add the authority of every\nperson who pretends to be at all acquainted with Greek: yet my tutor, for\nthe sake of exposing my ignorance, as he pretends, will thus expose his\nown, and fly in the face of all this host, even among the orthodox, who\nhave had sense and honesty enough to admit the true meaning of the terms.\nHe says (page 11) _aion_, is more expressive of proper eternity than the\nBramfield scholar has any conception of, being derived from two words\nwhich signify \u201cever being.\u201d  Let us allow him this, and also what he\nclaims before, that words are always to be taken in their literal\nsignification.  How will it sound in Matt. xxiv. 3, to read \u201cWhat shall\nbe the signs of thy coming, and the end of this everbeing.\u201d  Rom. xii. 2,\n\u201cBe not conformed to this everbeing.\u201d  1 Cor. x. 11, \u201cUpon whom the ends\nof the everbeing are come.\u201d  Eph. ii. 2, \u201cAccording to the course of this\neverbeing.\u201d  Verse 7, \u201cThat in the everbeings to come.\u201d  Heb. ix. 26,\n\u201cBut now in the end of the everbeing hath he appeared.\u201d  Matt xii. 32,\n\u201cShall not be forgiven neither in this everbeing, nor in the everbeing\nwhich is to come.\u201d  Tit. i. 2, \u201cBefore the everbeing begun.\u201d  Exod. xv.\n18, \u201cFrom everbeing to everbeing and farther.\u201d  Dan. xii. 3, \u201cThrough the\neverbeing and further.\u201d  Mich. iv. 5, \u201cThrough the everbeing and beyond\nit.\u201d  Thus my learned tutor by his wonderful skill in criticism, may if\nhe please, burlesque the scriptures, and make them speak his ridiculous\nnonsense and Greek-English gibberish from beginning to end. {7a}  Yet\nafter all the rebuffs and blows, the pity and kind instructions which my\ntutor has bestowed upon me, such is my lamentable dulness, that I cannot\nyet perceive that _aion_ is expressive of everbeing, eternity, or\nunlimited duration; and I am still ignorant enough to think, as the\nCritical Reviewers do, its true meaning is an age or limited period all\nthrough the scriptures, without a single exception, and until I am better\ntaught _menomen hosper osmen_. {7b}\n\nMy tutor next charges me with reiterating my blunders as to the meaning\nof _aionian_, which he asserts is \u201ceverlasting.\u201d  _Aion_ is singular,\n_aionian_ is its plural, and so must, according to my tutor, mean\neverlastings, everbeings, eternities.  This may be good Greek; but I,\n\u201cwho have got to learn English,\u201d venture to pronounce it no English, but\nsheer nonsense.  But my tutor informs me, \u201cthat it is an established\ncanon of criticism, that an author is the best commentator on his own\nwords; and that because in Matt. xxv. 46, the word _aionian_ is connected\nboth with future punishment and future happiness, it must have the same\nunlimited signification in both cases, and denote equal periods of time.\u201d\nThis is the same weighty argument that good Mr. Dennant, as my tutor\nstyles him, brought forward in his funeral sermon, and for ought I know,\nmay have been borrowed from the same source.  But let my tutor try his\nartillery upon a text in Hab. iii. 6, where the word _aionian_ is in the\nsame manner used to denote the existence of God and the duration of the\nmaterial hills.  Let him here but keep the antithesis unbroken, and\nmaintain that in both cases it must mean equal duration, and then the\nmaterial hills will be as eternal as God; and thus my tutor, by\novercharging his own cannon and firing at random, has not only blown up\nhis own fortifications, but also demolished the strong hold of good Mr.\nD. with the same explosion.\n\nMy tutor next takes me to a lexicon to learn from it that the terms which\nI have said signify corrective punishment, signify nothing short of\nperdition, ruin, destruction.  Admit all this: yet this does not express\neternal misery; for a being destroyed or blotted out of existence cannot\nsuffer any more, much less suffer eternal misery.  I have shewn in my\nlectures, that the terms used in the original to express future\npunishment are all of a limited duration; this I have proved upon the\nauthority of those who wrote and spoke Greek as their own vernacular\ntongue.  But, as my tutor did not choose to come in contact with such\nauthorities, he has prudently passed the whole without note or comment:\nfor, as the Irishman said, the easiest way to climb over a high stile, is\nto creep under it; so he has found that the easiest way to get over a\ndifficulty is to avoid it wholly; and upon this prudential maxim, he has\nuniformly acted.  My tutor at length wearied out with _ennui_ {8a} of\nleading me through _l\u2019empire des lettres_ {8b} and teaching me Greek,\nquite looses his temper, and in angry mood turns me back to a task in\nEnglish and Latin etymology.  Short-sighted mortal he exclaims! hadst\nthou not wit enough to see that the English word eternity was derived\nfrom the Latin _\u00e6ternus_, which is a contraction for _\u00e6viternus_, or,\nage-lasting.  Yes, my good tutor, short-sighted as I am, and whether I\ncan see by my wit or not I had seen by my eyesight, and that too,\nindependent of supposed influence, or special inspiration, long before\nyou revealed the secret, that eternity IS (not was) derived from the\nLatin, and is a contraction OF (not for) the Latin word, which means\nage-lasting; and I had seen you try to turn the term age-lasting, when\nused by me, to ridicule, and I now see you use the same ridiculous\nexpression as very proper, when used by _idoneus homa_. {9a}  I had often\nseen the same words used in a limited sense, and applied to things of\nlimited duration: to mountains crowned with eternal snows; to trees robed\nin eternal verdure; yes, sir, and to the eternal brawlings of an angry\nand contentious man or woman; and I had both seen and understood, that as\na derived word can mean no more than the original from which it is\nderived, and as that, in the present case, is age-lasting and limited, I\nhad seen that the English word eternity, like all others, can only\nexpress unlimited duration, when it derives that sense from the subject\nwith which it is connected, and that is only when applied to the\nexistence of God and future happiness; for tell me, sir, if you can, what\nelse is properly eternal?  And although you have charged me with it, yet\nI never said or thought that a scripture word of equal import would be\nconclusive; nor have you, nor can you show the page on which I have\nhinted at it.  And I can also assure my tutor, that I am so well\nsatisfied with the old morals, religion, and God of the Bible, that I\ncovet none of those new ones, which were intruded upon the world four\nhundred years after Christ, by a set of Pagans calling themselves\nChristians; but can contentedly leave him and all his fraternity to share\nthe paganized religion together, and to worship the _tria juncta in uno_,\n{9b}\u2014the new God set up by Constantine and his council in the fourth\ncentury.  Now, at the _denouement_ {9c} of his learned lectures, my\ntutor, having arrived at the height of his choler, throws his last bolt,\nby scornfully asking, \u201cAnd, where Master Latham, didst thou find the\n_malaka topon_ in thy epistle to good Mr. Dennant.\u201d  If I had not\nperceived from what follows, that his lexicon, (that fruitful source of\nhis wisdom) has furnished him with the meaning (at least) of the words\nafter which he enquires, I would have advised him to read the New\nTestament, and if he keep his eyes open, he will sooner discover those\nwords there, than either Trinity, Triune-Deity, God-Man, Vicarious\nSatisfaction, or that long catalogue of _mots d\u2019usage_ {10a} which he and\nhis orthodox brethren pretend by \u201csuperior influence\u201d to discover there,\nwhile those who make \u201ctheir mind and reason their guide,\u201d cannot find a\nsingle word which either in sense or sound bears the shadow of a\nresemblance to their shibboleth.  By this time it will be seen _quo\nwarranto_, {10b} my tutor has undertaken to correct my blunders, when out\nof twenty, and many others, with which he has charged me in the gross, on\nhis 11th page, he himself has reduced them all to blunders of his own\nmaking; nor can I be surprised that my tutor, to keep up his own dignity,\nshould pour contempt upon my illiterature, when the tutor of a Scotish\nseat of science (Dr. Wardlaw), has had the audacity to accuse both\nGrotius, Clarke, and Pierce, with being ignorant of the Greek language;\nnay, this minister of Albion-Street Chapel, Glasgow, accuses Origen and\nEusebius with the same ignorance, although Greek was their native tongue,\nand the Scotch Doctor\u2019s reflections turn only to his own disgrace.  But\n_quo animo_ {10c} are such charges made, except it be _ad captandum\nvulgus_ {10d} and keep them still in ignorance: looking up to them as the\nonly men of understanding, and implicitly receiving all they please to\nsay as if it was uttered by the oracle of heaven.\n\nSince my tutor has succeeded so poorly in teaching me Greek and Latin,\n_cui malo_, {10e} if, according to _lex talionis_, {10f} I, in my turn,\ngive my tutor a short lesson or two in plain English; for although he\nthinks I have \u201cyet got to learn English,\u201d I am vain enough to think his\nEnglish may be improved.  My lessons shall be short, easy to be\nunderstood, and adapted to instruct my own tutor: and, in the first\nplace, who that knows the meaning of Socinian and Infidel, would confound\nthe two words as synonymous.  An Infidel is a denier of revelation, but a\nSocinian believes in and receives revelation; if not, can my tutor tell\nhow it has happened, that the most and the best of the works written in\ndefence of revelation against Infidels, have been written by Socinians,\nor those who have the misnomer?  Again, who that knows the meaning of\nsceptic, a doubter of the truth, or some parts of the truth of\nrevelation, (except such a linguist as my tutor,) would confound this\nterm with Socinian and Infidel, and use it as designative of the same\nperson?  Once more: who that knows the use of English words would expose\nhimself by printing on a title page \u201cSocinian Infidelity?\u201d for these\nwords are as incompatible as light and darkness, and a man can no more be\na Socinian and an Infidel, than he can be a man and an angel; and this\ncompound anomaly, this incongruous combination, (Socinian infidelity),\nwhich shames his title page, and was derived from good Mr. Dennant\u2019s\nvocabulary and funeral sermon, is just as good English as the Irishman\u2019s\ncrooked straight, as dark lightness, and black whiteness.  Again, \u201cto\nhave lounged and slipped,\u201d as he says on page 2, conveys excellent sense\nto an English reader.  To lounge, is to live idle, or lazy; to slip from\nthe foundation is, in his sense, to deny the truth; and these two words\ncombined make a very intelligible sentence\u2014nearly as intelligible as when\nthe Welch curate, having to say the lamb, said the little mutton, and\nleft the people to guess at the meaning.  But, had I lounged and, like\nthe orthodox in general, been too lazy to examine into sentiments, and\nwilling to take opinions upon trust, I should not have had the mishap to\nslip from their foundation; but, like them, should have remained\nstationary there, lounging in ignorance and error; but, by being active\nand industrious in proving all things, I have slipped from their\nfoundation, or rather extricated myself from their quagmire system, and\nsettled on the immoveable rock of truth.  On the 11th page, my tutor raps\nmy knuckles for blundering and writing _o_, instead of _oh_, although on\npage 9 he has set me the example in writing _oh_, instead of _O_, twice\nover; but he wants the qualification of a master who cannot find fault.\nOn the same page, my tutor knits his brows, and with a learned frown\nexclaims, \u201cGreek, indeed!  Why, the man has yet got to learn English.\u201d\nThis sentence, in excellence of spirit and diction, matches well with the\nfollowing: \u201cso we will give the devil battle, we will beat the devil to.\u201d\n{11}  I shall not waste time to correct my tutor for writing _was_, where\nit should be _is_, and _for_, where it should be _of_, &c. &c. least my\nreaders should be led to think I have learned from my tutor to be as\nexpert in word catching as himself, and should be tempted to say of us,\n_tel maitre_, _tel valet_. {12a}  But, as I promised that my lessons\nshould be short, I leave him to study the following concise one: _ergo\ndocens alium tipsum non doces_. {12b}\n\nI have now to attend on my tutor while he gives me his most instructive\nlectures in theology; and it will be a pity indeed if my unaccountable\ndulness should prevent me from profiting by the wondrous wisdom which he\nhas displayed, and by those floods of eloquence which flow from his\nsilver tongue.  However, I will do the best I can, by using such powers\nas I possess; and if I am denied the gift of \u201csuperior influence,\u201d the\nfault is no more mine than it would be a fault in him not to see the\ndaylight, had he been denied the gift of eyesight.  Yet, _mirabile\ndictum_, {12c} the first _sine qua non_, {12d} that my tutor requires in\nhis pupil is, that I should lay aside the reason I have or what is the\nsame thing, \u201cnot suffer my mind to be its own guide.\u201d  But were I to\nshut, or put out my eyes, in order to behold a beautiful object, would he\nnot be tempted to call me a fool?  Were I to discard reason in the common\nconcerns of life, would he not call me irrational?  And if I take his\nadvice in respect to religion, shall I not act the part of one insane?\nHas he laid aside reason in writing his squib?  How, then, can he expect\nreasonable men to read, or me to profit by the irrational ravings of a\nmere maniac; but a man is never against reason in religion, but when\nreason is against his religion\u2014and here my tutor feels the shoe pinch his\ncorns.  Nothing, however, he says, is too irrational to be believed by\nthose who will not (as he directs) become irrational in religion, but\nwill make the mind its own guide.  He is therefore for doing the business\nby the aid of \u201csuperior influence;\u201d and not to say, that in his\nperformance he has given mathematical demonstration, that pretensions to\n\u201csuperior influence\u201d have produced the effect of the most irrational\nbelief, let others of the same school prove the fact.  \u201cA christian,\u201d\nsays Lord Bacon, \u201cbelieves three to be one, and one to be three: a\nFather, not to be older than the Son; a Son, to be equal with his Father;\nand one proceedings from both, to be equal with both.  He believes three\npersons in one nature, and two natures in one person: a virgin to be the\nmother of a son, and that very son of hers to be her Maker.  He believes\nhim to have been shut up in a narrow room, whom heaven and earth could\nnot contain; him to have been born in time, who was and is born from\neverlasting; him to be a weak child carried in arms, who is the Almighty;\nand him to have died, who only has life and immortality: and the more\nabsurd and incredible any mystery is, the greater honour we do to God in\nbelieving it, and so much the more noble the victory of faith.\u201d  The same\nlesson Bishop Beveridge learnt in the same school: \u201cThe mysteries, (says\nhe) which I am least able to conceive, I think myself the more obliged to\nbelieve.  That God the Father should be one perfect God of himself; God\nthe Son one perfect God of himself; and God the Holy Ghost one perfect\nGod of himself: and yet that these three should be but one perfect God of\nhimself, so that one should be perfectly three, and three perfectly one;\nthree and yet but one, but one and yet three.  O heart-amazing,\nthought-devouring, inconceivable mystery!  Who cannot believe it to be\ntrue of the glorious Deity?\u201d  From the above confessions of the orthodox\nfaith, and hundreds more that might be added, equally clear and decisive,\nlet my tutor now say what system produces the most irrational belief\u2014his\nwhich enables him to give a reason of the hope that is in him, or his\nwhich prevents him from giving any reason at all why he believes such\nmonstrous absurdities.  And who acts the most like a rational being\u2014he\nwho knows what and why he believes, or he who, laying aside reason,\nbelieves the wildest contradictions, under pretence of believing\nmysteries, which is a thing just as possible as believing in the\nexistence of non-entities, or seeing invisibilities, or possessing\nnon-existences.  But if I had the superior light with which my tutor is\nblessed, I might learn from him that Socinianism is scepticism and\ninfidelity; for he has made it include this triad of irreconcilables in\nthe compass of three lines; and then he says, it is a virtual rejection\nof apostolic doctrine, requiring no more than what reason can apprehend.\nThe apostolic doctrine requires us to give a reason of our hope, to prove\nall things, to judge of ourselves what is right; and when Paul reasoned\nwith the Jews and required them to judge what he said, he surely did not\nwish them to lay aside reason and believe mysteries which neither\npreacher nor hearers could comprehend.  But a Senator in parliament, he\nsays, described Socinianism as a species of Mahometanism.  Well, if\nsenators turn preachers, and my tutor writes them into notice, woe be to\nhis own craft.  Such men as he will soon be easily spared; but if any one\nwill turn to the newspaper which contains the senator\u2019s orthodox sermon,\nthey will see by the rejoinder there made, that the preaching senator\nmade as good a figure among his brother senators as my tutor and his\nperformance is destined to make among readers who use reason and common\nsense when they read.\n\nOn page 3, my tutor has summed up the articles of my disbelief, and he\nhas done it honestly and accurately; and I am free to speak le _verite\nsans peur_, {14a} and to acknowledge _sans mauvaise honte_, {14b} that I\ndo deny and disbelieve the whole catalogue of absurdities which he has\nenumerated _in toto_; and I assert, that it is out of my tutor\u2019s power to\nprove, that in so doing I have denied one truth revealed in the Bible, or\nthat I disbelieve one iota of the faith originally delivered to saints by\nJesus and his inspired apostles; nor can he prove, that in denying every\none of those points, which are essentials in his creed, I have done any\nmore than what every christian ought to do\u2014that is, deny the faith of\nheathen philosophers, and reject the vain traditions of ignorant fallible\nmen.  My tutor, however, allows that I am not destitute of all faith,\nalthough I reject his faith; for he says, I believe with the Grand Turk\nin one God and one prophet.  This piece of wisdom he seems to have\nborrowed from the senator mentioned above; still I can shew my tutor,\nthat my Mahomedan faith is more scriptural, rational, just, and pure,\nthan either his or that of the orthodox senator.  I believe in one God;\nand will my tutor say he believes in more Gods than one?  No, although\nBishop Beveridge has made three\u2014each perfectly God of himself; and\nalthough my tutor\u2019s faith is just the same, yet, of the two evils, rather\nthan be thought to be a tritheist, a plain pagan, a believer in many\nGods, he will come over to Socinians, and subscribe the faith of one God;\nhe will not pretend to deny that this part of my faith is scriptural,\nsince scripture compels him to confess it; and if my faith in one\nprophet, be not scriptural, let him say what the following scriptures can\nmean: Deut. xviii. 15, the Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet\nfrom the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall\nhearken.  In verses 18, 19, the same title, a prophet, is given to the\nsame person, and that this person here spoken of, and styled by Jehovah,\nhis prophet, is Jesus Christ, let the New Testament determine; Acts, vii.\n37, Stephen applies it to Jesus; Acts, iii. 22, Peter applies it to him;\nand in the following texts he is styled a prophet, Luke, vii. 16.\u2014xx.\n6.\u2014Mark, xi. 32.\u2014Luke, xxiv. 19.\u2014John iv. 19.\u2014ix. 17. and he styles\nhimself a prophet Matt. xiii. 57.\u2014Luke, iv. 24.\u2014xiii. 33.  And if I\nbelieve either in him, or in the scriptures, I must believe in one God,\nand in Jesus as his prophet.  And whether this be a more scriptural faith\nthan my tutor\u2019s, who believes in Jesus as both God and his own prophet, I\nleave the reader to determine; and whether this faith in one God, and one\nprophet, be believing too little, I leave Christ to determine, who has\nsaid, \u201cThis is life eternal to know the Father the only true God, and\nJesus to be the Christ the anointed prophet whom he has sent.\u201d  And Paul\nhas reduced the articles of saving faith to a short compass, when he\nsays, \u201cIf thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall\nbelieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt\nbe saved.\u201d  Now, if this belief in one God and one prophet Jesus, be\nbelieving enough, that surely is believing too much, as my tutor does,\nwhen he embraces a creed made up of heathen reveries\u2014not one sentence of\nwhich is taught in or required by the Bible.  If to call my faith\n\u201cchristianity,\u201d be a misnomer, what must it be to call his\nchristianity?\u2014not one article of which is taught in, but condemned _in\ntoto_ by the christian scriptures.  My tutor says, he did not think it\nworth while to attempt to disprove my doctrines; no, nor even attempt to\nestablish his own, which he styles the articles of the christian faith.\nAnd he had two very cogent reasons for this: first, he knew that to\nassert was far more easy than either to disprove or establish; and then\nhe had given previous notice on his title page; that he meant only to\nassert, not to prove any thing, and this pledge he has honourably\nredeemed through his whole performance.  It is worth my while, however,\nto remark in passing, that my tutor has encroached upon the science of\nthe wandering gypsy, and affects to turn fortune-teller; he predicts the\ngood news, that I am on the way to preferment, and stand a fair chance of\nbecoming caliph of Constantinople.  I can tell him honestly I have no\nsuch ambition; and was there even a chance of a mitre in the church of\nEngland, _nolo episcopari_, {16a} upon the usual conditions of assenting\nand consenting to all that is contained in an English version of the\nLatin Mass-Book.\n\nOn the foot of his 3rd page, my tutor applies himself to his task in good\nearnest, (at least pretends to do so), and begins to refute and expose my\ntheological blunders; but he quickly lugs in the _coup de main_, {16b}\nand lays down the _onus probandi_ {16c} after a very short and feeble\ndisplay of his reasoning powers.  He has attempted, it is true, on his 3,\n4, 5, and 6th pages, to prove the infinite evil and demerit of sin.  Had\nhe succeeded in proving these, he must have established, also, that every\nsin, because committed against an infinite being, must be infinite in\nturpitude and demerit; then, where is the difference between his fifty\nand my five hundred pence debt?  Between his ten and my ten thousand\ntalents?  Mine are infinite, and his, by his own confession, are no less.\nIf every sin be infinite, how does the aggregate of infinites swell, when\nwe calculate the almost infinite number of sinners, and the infinite\nnumber of sins committed by each?  And if each of these infinite sins\nrequire an infinite atonement, where is such an one to be found?\nAccording to my tutor, page 4, it was found \u201cin the vicarious sufferings\nof the Son of God:\u201d but, when he has proved from the scriptures that the\nsufferings of Christ were such, which he neither has nor can do; and even\none of his own school has confessed, \u201cit is an unaccountable, irrational\ndoctrine, destroying every natural idea we have of divine justice, and\nlaying aside the evidence of scripture (which is none at all) it is so\nfar from being true that it is ridiculous.\u201d {16d}  I have still to ask\nhim, did the son of God suffer as God, in his supposed divine nature?  If\nhe be as flagrant as the poets are, to speak of a dying God, no man of\nsound mind will believe him.  Should he admit, as truth will compel him\nto admit, that Christ suffered only as a man, then he has to explain the\nmystery how the sacrifice of a human victim could make, by finite\nsufferings, an infinite satisfaction.  In describing what he judges\nproofs, that sin is an infinite evil, he musters together many things\nwhich without proof he assumes as points granted; and then, from the heat\nof this great burning, which his fiery temperament and frightened\nimagination has kindled, he infers, that finite men can perform those\ninfinite acts which can subvert the order and council of heaven,\nannihilate all virtue and happiness in the universe, and shake the throne\nof the eternal:\u2014thus he makes man and sin almighty, and the almighty God,\nweak, impotent, and subject to the caprice of his own creatures.  Nay,\nmore, he asserts, but does not prove it, that men and sin have changed\nthe unchangeable deity; having \u201cextinguished the paternal goodness of the\ncreator,\u201d and in his opinion converted the God of love into a merciless\nbeing like himself.  God, he tells us, is the source of all excellence.\nThis we know, and rejoice in the truth; but can fury, anger, indignation,\nwrath, and vindictive cruelty, such as he represents God manifesting\ntowards his offspring, be reckoned among the moral excellencies of the\ndivine character?  Strange if they can!  My tutor thinks these\nperfections belong to his God, the God of Calvinism; and so they may, but\nnot to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  To overthrow what I\nsaid, that if sin be infinite in demerit, because committed against an\ninfinite God, obedience must be infinite in merit, as obedience to the\nsame infinite God.  My tutor tells me, the case is just the reverse, and\nthat as sin rises in turpitude, merit sinks in the same proportion.  He\nwho can reason with the same logical precision, may possibly arrive at\nthe same conclusion, which is this: that the more virtuous a man is, the\nless is he entitled to the rewards of virtue; and, therefore, the more\nPaul pressed forward to the prize of his high calling, just in proportion\nwas he further from the object of his pursuit.  Well may the man that\nadvocates such sentiments brand the opinions of others with immoral\ntendency!  My tutor asks, page 6, whoever thought of good accruing to the\nchief magistrate of a country, or to the criminal himself, from the\ninfliction of capital punishment?  This is merely evading what I have\nsaid on the subject in my lectures; but I ask, what is the chief end\naimed at in inflicting any punishments at all?  Is it a vindictive\ndisposition in the judge towards some, or is it not with a view to the\ngood of the whole?  And why are any capital punishments inflicted?  Is it\nnot because the ends of human justice cannot be attained without them?\nHad men the power to prevent the evil by any other means, would a wise\nand virtuous government make useless waste of human life, and take it\nwantonly away when it might be spared?  And shall a God of infinite\nwisdom and almighty power, admit into the moral government of the\nuniverse an evil which he can never remedy; but which shall eternally\ncause his soul to burn with vindictive rage and fury against those puny\nants which he called from nothing at first, and which in an instant he\ncould crush to nothing as easily as a moth?  Shall finite evil overcome\ninfinite good?  My tutor says, for any thing we know, the good of the\nuniverse may require the perpetuation of punishment, rather than the\ntermination of sin.  He does not know this: Why assert what he does not\nknow? {18}  But we know the contrary, and my tutor needs not remain in\nignorance on this point if he will read his Bible\u2014that will inform him,\nthat God has exalted that same Jesus, who was crucified, to reign as his\nanointed king in Zion; and that he must reign till all rule, authority,\nand power is put down; till the last enemy death is destroyed and\nswallowed up in victory; till there shall be no more death, nor pain, nor\nsorrow, nor crying.  But if death and sin must reign eternally and be\nperpetuated to an interminable duration, when will the end come for\nChrist to deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, and God be all\nin all?  My tutor has been in too much haste to answer this, or any one\nof the many arguments which I have advanced on this head in my 6th\nlecture.  With a view to expose the ignorance of those who, like my\ntutor, represent God as burning in an unquenchable fire, and roasting on\neternal gridirons the bodies and souls of men, I have said in my\nlectures, the nature of man is incapable of eternal combustion; the body\nmust quickly be consumed by fire; and material fire cannot act on the\nimmaterial spirit, as they suppose the soul of man to be.  To this last\nremark he has said nothing; to the former, he has pretended to reply, by\nasking me to inform him, how the nature of man can for an instant or for\nages of ages endure future punishment?  I tell him, that the future\npunishment of the wicked will be in nature suited to the nature of man;\nbut God will have other means of punishing than roasting men in fire, as\nCalvin roasted Servetus.  He says, Socinianism affords no answer to the\nquestion, how they can endure the fire that never shall be quenched for a\nsingle instant and not be consumed?  It does not belong to Socinians to\nanswer this, but to him who ignorantly thinks God will roast them in\neternal fire.  To say not only how they can endure it for an instant, but\nhow they can burn eternally without being consumed; and if denying that\nthey can, is denying future punishment, then by _argumentum ad\nignorantiam_ {19} my tutor has denied it most positively; and if I am\ngoing on to perfection, as he says I am, his stationary creed seems to be\nfollowing me in that way.\n\nI have stated in my lectures, that eternal misery is irreconcileable with\nthe character and perfections of God.  At this my tutor nibbles in his\nusual way; and although he has denied in the last paragraph that men are\ncapable of burning for ever, yet here he charges me with being mistaken\nin thinking sin does not call for the vengeance of eternal fire.  When\nwill he attain perfection whose faith thus reels to and fro and staggers\nlike a drunken man?  Because I cannot receive his vengeance-teeming\nsystem, and believe that God who is love will pour tempestuous\nindignation upon his own offspring, and swallow them up in his wrath, I\nam charged, page 8, with not knowing how to deal with the fact, that God\nhas admitted both moral and physical evil to have place in the universe.\nBut I tell my tutor, these things are admitted not for their own sakes,\nbut because infinite wisdom, power, and goodness both can and will and\nalways has overruled them for the promotion of the greater sum of good.\nWill my tutor pretend that the sufferings of those millions of innocent\nand virtuous people, (whom he has found among a race who he says are\ntotally depraved without a single exception,) or the death of infants,\nare examples and proofs of God\u2019s vindictive ire and fiery indignation\nagainst them; if not, why has he referred to them as such?  And why \u201cnot\nwiser he, in his just scale of sense, weigh his opinions against\nprovidence,\u201d and compare one part of his system with another, and observe\nhow one part proclaims war against the other?\n\nMy tutor has admitted, that \u201cGod is love; that his various perfections\nare only modifications of his love; that he delights in diffusing\nhappiness; that his tender mercies are over all his works; that he does\nnot willingly afflict nor grieve the children of men; nor take pleasure\nin the death of a sinner.\u201d  Yet he has made it out, that the God of love\npursues some with eternal hatred; that his love is modified into\ninexorable justice, his mercy into vindictive cruelty, his compassion\ninto unrelenting severity; that he delights to diffuse happiness and to\nperpetuate eternal misery; that his tender mercies are over all his\nworks, while he inflicts upon the great majority the unmitigated\nvengeance of eternal fire; that he does not afflict willingly, but takes\npleasure in punishing eternally; that he does not take pleasure in the\ndeath of a sinner, yet makes the eternal ruin and interminable misery of\nsuch the ultimate end of his moral government\u2014all this my tutor has\nproved in his pages.  He asks, is God required to seek the good of his\ncreatures irrespective of their characters and deserts?  No: the Bible\nteaches, \u201che will render unto every man according to his deeds;\u201d but my\ntutor teaches, that God might have made all men to be damned, and he\nmight or might not have saved any; and, that those few who will be saved,\nwill be saved irrespective of their own deserts, by the merits and\nsufferings of another.  Yet such men who speak of God as neither wise nor\ngood, except he be and act as they dictate, are not, he says, to be\nreasoned with, but reproved; and who is less capable of being reasoned\nwith, and who more deserving of reproof than my tutor?  For his God must\nbe a cruel, vindictive, wrathful being, and with unrelenting fury pursue\nhis creatures with devouring flames and eternal indignation, or my tutor\ncannot avouch him for his God.\n\nI have now attended my theological instructor so far as his lucubrations\nare connected with my lectures.  He has not dispatched business indeed so\nquickly as he by whom he has been appointed to act as _locum tenens_,\n{21a} but he has managed in 12 pages, to answer all I have said in 228\npages\u2014at least he has offered this scrap for an answer, and I have no\ndoubt but it will be received by many as full to the purpose.  But before\nany one comes to such a conclusion, he ought to read what I have written\nin my lectures, and then he will perhaps have reason to conclude, that\nall that my tutor has said is merely _gratis dictum_; {21b} for having\nleft nearly every argument of mine untouched, and those which he has\ntouched still unanswered, and having in profound silence passed over the\nwhole task I have set him in the close of my sixth lecture; not daring to\noffer a single word in reply to any one of the twenty-two points that he\nand every advocate of eternal torments ought to disprove if they would\nestablish their system; he takes his leave of me and my lectures, and\nfinishes his performance by bringing forward a few stale arguments which\nwere reiterated over and over again by Andrew Fuller, until he was\nashamed to push them upon the public any longer.\n\nInstead, therefore, of following him and wasting time to answer what has\nbeen answered times without number, I might here conclude; however, I\nwill give him a short specimen of the way in which all his arguments may\nbe disposed of.  He says in his first, on page 12, my sentiments have\nsome appearance of good will about them.  This is confessing I approach\nnear in this virtue to God, to Christ, and the true spirit of the gospel,\nwhich is \u201cglory to God in the highest, and good will to men.\u201d  Does his\nvindictive system breathe this spirit?  He had expected, it seems, to\nhave found devils included in my scheme of benevolence; and had I\nbelieved in the existence of such beings, I should have included them;\nand can he tell me why not?  If such there be, are they not the creatures\nof a God who hates nothing that he has made; and when he made them, if\never he did, he made them either to be happy or miserable, unless their\nfate was left wholly to chance?  And is it very likely, that the God of\nboundless benevolence, whose tender mercies are over all his works,\nshould create them for eternal misery?  He says, they have for ages been\nsuffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  But this proves he knows no\nmore of the meaning of that text, than when a school-boy he read it for\nhis task.  Let him contradict what I have said on it in my lectures.  To\nuse my tutor\u2019s own polite words, on page 12, I might say, \u201cshort-sighted\nmortal!  Hadst thou not wit enough to see,\u201d that by shutting the door of\nmercy against devils, thou hast shut it against thyself!  Surely thy\ncritical skill in Greek ought to have taught thee, that every\ncalumniator, false accuser, traducer, and slanderer, is, according to the\ntrue import of the word, a _diabolos_, a devil; and that thou art such,\nis proved on thy title page, as well as in many other parts of thy book,\nwhich breathes calumny and slander throughout.  But my tutor wonders if\nmy doctrine be true, why Christ and his apostles never plainly taught it.\nI wonder how he reads the Bible, and how he has read my lectures, in\nwhich I have shewn the doctrine taught through the whole, from the first\npromise in Genesis to Revelations, agreeable to the text which tells him,\nGod has taught it by all the prophets since the world began.  But he has\nbeen so long accustomed to gaze at the unquenchable fire, and to look at\nevery object through clouds of smoke issuing from the bottomless pit of\nHeathen and Popish error, that he can form no distinct and proper notion\nof any text in the Bible; no, nor of the character of the God it reveals;\nand besides, this is one of Andrew Fuller\u2019s arguments, who had never read\nmy book\u2014my tutor should have recollected this.  He requires to know, page\n13, \u201cif future punishment be only corrective, what reason for the\nthreatening in the Bible against impenitants can be given?\u201d  The answer\nis, God is not, cannot be, a vindictive God; he cannot punish with\neternal vindictiveness: and never a threatening in all the Bible contains\neither a threatening of vindictive or eternal punishment; they are all to\nwarn men to ensure a part, by repentance and obedience, in the first\nresurrection, and escape from the punishments which constitute the second\ndeath; and when he attributes eternal vindictiveness to God, he libels\nthe Divine Being, and levels him with a Nero, a Moloch, or with the Devil\nof his own blind creed.  He asks, how the mere infliction of pain is to\npurify sinners?  I answer, it is for him, and those who like him, blindly\nimagine, that God has no other means to apply than the pains of eternal\nfire, to determine this; but those who believe, that God has both wisdom,\npower, and goodness sufficient to reconcile all things to himself, and to\nadapt the means to the end, both in the present and future state, can\nleave it with him whose counsel shall stand, and who will do all his\npleasure to accomplish in his own way that purpose by which he has\npurposed to gather together all things, and to reconcile all things to\nhimself; whether things in earth, or in heaven, or under the earth,\nwithout judging it a thing impossible with God.  On page 14, he asks, if\nthe wicked in hell be in a state of probation, what is the propriety and\nadvantages of the present means of grace?  I do not, like him, teach,\nthat men are sent to hell as soon as they die, but with the scripture,\n\u201cthat the unjust are reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished.\u201d\nBut, were I a believer in a local hell, (still, if a Calvinist can talk\nof this life being a state of probation, while the elect are chosen to\nlife, and the reprobates appointed to wrath and ruin, and of the free\nagency of man, when all is to be done by the agency of the spirit), I\nmight surely think of hell being a state of probation; and that God can\nuse means to reclaim sinners there, without destroying their free agency,\nas well as he does, according to Calvinism, by fixing the elect in a\nstate of unfrustrable salvation, and the reprobate in final perdition,\nwithout leaving the chance of either to free agency.  He tells me, Christ\nsaid the night cometh when no man can work; and Solomon says, nothing can\nbe done in the grave.  True; but he should know, that the present means\nof grace are what God has wisely adapted to men in the present life, and\nwhat they are to improve in this life to gain the first resurrection and\nshun the second death; and when the night of death comes, no man can work\nthis work, or improve these means any longer.  But this does not prove\nthere will be no further means afforded; nor does Solomon\u2019s saying,\nnothing can be done in the grave, prove that nothing can and that nothing\nwill be done in the state beyond the grave; for God is able to accomplish\nhis own pleasure, and he will have all men to be saved: he will make all\nthings new; every knee shall bow to his authority.  A Socinian or Infidel\ncan believe all this, although such tutors as mine, though Christians,\ncannot believe these parts of the Bible.  On page 15, he has become\nSocinian, and for fourteen lines together, he has made as good a\nconfession of the Socinian faith as any Socinian can do.  He confesses,\nthat on earth at least God afflicts as a father, with designs of mercy,\nand in every affliction he sends, mixes the whole with mercy.  But, in\nthe next sentence, he shews the unchangeable changed; and he who punished\nin time, in measure, and in mercy, punishing in eternity with pure\nunmixed vindictiveness and eternal fury.  To establish his system, he has\nquoted scripture again, which has nothing to do with the subject, and\nserves only to shew how little he understands the Bible; but such\nquotations and such comments as his, answer the purpose of representing\nthe Father of all Mercies, us one of the most merciless beings in the\nuniverse.  All that he advances in the remaining arguments, proceed upon\nthe same false principle and groundless supposition, that God is bound to\ntreat men in a future state, just as he has treated them in this; and,\nthat since the means adapted to this state, have not accomplished God\u2019s\nend, in the present salvation and blessing of all of human kind, that\ntherefore infinite wisdom and goodness will be at an eternal loss to\ndevise and apply any other adequate means; and that, consequently, he\nthat does what he will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants\nof the earth, must have his hand stayed, his sovereign will crossed, his\npurposes frustrated, his expectations cut off, his eternal plans\nderanged, and the disappointed Deity be compelled to submit to be baffled\nby these insuperable difficulties in his way, which omniscience could not\nforesee, or which omnipotence itself cannot surmount.  When he is wiser\nthan God, let him presume to give him counsel, and dictate to him what\nline of conduct he is bound to pursue with his creatures; or rather, let\nhim acknowledge that the judge of all the earth can and will do right;\nand that it is right for him to fulfil his promise to accomplish his\ngracious purpose, in sending Christ to be the saviour and restorer of the\nwhole world; and this will answer every argument and every objection that\nhe can urge against limited punishment, or in favour of vindictive and\neternal misery, inflicted by a God of mercy, kindness, compassion, and\nlove.  He has referred to and quoted almost every text in favour of his\nvindictive scheme, that I have quoted and explained in my lectures, in\nsupport of final restoration; but he has not so much as attempted to shew\nthat any one of my explanations are wrong; nor has he taken any pains to\nshew that his own are right.  He knew he could do neither; and,\ntherefore, he has barely quoted them as common-place expressions, and\nasserted what he has no ability to prove\u2014this was easy, as Andrew Fuller\nhad done it ready to his hand.\n\nI will now draw to an end by first pourtraying his vindictive system;\nand, secondly, noticing how he manages to support such a system.  First,\nI shall briefly sketch out his vindictive system, and it may be described\nas follows: The God of his system is, according to his representation, a\nGod without goodness, a Father without compassion; vindictive,\nmalevolent, indignant, wrathful, tyrannical, cruel, unrelenting, furious,\nand fierce; breathing out threatenings and slaughter; inflicting\npunishment and perpetuating sin and misery to eternal ages; he is a\nCreator who has given existence to countless millions of rational beings\nwhose final end he foresaw would be infinite and unmixed misery without\nrespite or termination; a Creator who gave them existence without any\nassignable reason, but that it was his arbitrary will to confer existence\nupon them, that he might have the pleasure of making that being an\neternal curse.  This system further represents the God of it, as a\npartial, capricious being, arbitrarily appointing most men to endless\nruin, while he appoints a few favorites to free unmerited favour and\neverlasting life.  But still it represents him so sanguinary and unjust,\nthat he punishes, in the most vindictive manner, one that did no sin, and\nextorts from him a full and rigid satisfaction in sufferings, groans, and\nblood, before even his own favorites shall taste his mercy or possess\neternal life.  This system represents the God of it, as possessing the\npropensities of the alligators of the Ohio, which bring forth such\nmultitudes of young ones at every hatching, that the whole country would\nsoon be desolated by them, did not the tender-hearted old ones prevent\nthe evil by devouring and feeding deliciously upon their own young ones,\nand thus destroying their own progeny, as long as they have the power to\ndestroy them.  Let my tutor now draw near and behold this great sight:\nlet him in fixed amaze, stand still and gaze and try to contemplate this\nmonstrous God of Calvinism\u2014a being shrouded in eternal frowns, clothed in\neternal vengeance, and armed with eternal and vindictive fury; with eyes\ndarting flames of devouring fire, with hands hurling the thunderbolts of\neternal destruction, and breathing from his nostrils streams of fire and\nbrimstone, \u201cto blast a helpless worm and beat upon his naked soul in one\neternal storm.\u201d  And let him tell us, if this horrifying spectacle,\ncreated in his own distorted and horror-brooding fancy, can be the God\nand Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose name is love, and whose nature\nis merciful, gracious, long-suffering, full of compassion, and ready to\nforgive.  Let him say if the God of his sanguinary system possess any of\nthose amiable perfections which can render him an object of love,\nconfidence, and sacred veneration.  Let him say if he can love the God of\nhis system _toto corde,_ {26} or pay to such a being a rational service;\nor whether the homage offered to such a being, must not spring from the\nsame slavish principle as the worship of the benighted savages, when they\nworship an imaginary being, called by many enlightened christians a\ndevil.  An orthodox missionary records among other wonders in his\njournal, that when he had been describing to an Indian the infinite evil\nof sin, and the infinite and eternal punishment which God will inflict\nupon sinners in the next world; he asked the Indian if he should not like\nto go to heaven.  To which he replied, no; if your God be such a dreadful\nbeing, I do not wish to be so near him.  This was given as a proof of the\nman\u2019s ignorance, but it proved him wiser than his teacher.\n\nBut I promised, in the second place, to shew the manner in which my tutor\nhas attempted to support his preposterous system.  He has not attempted\nit by shewing that I have given a wrong explanation of any of the\nnumerous texts of scripture which I have quoted on the subject of future\npunishment, nor has he so much as attempted to prove, that the texts he\nhas quoted have any reference to the subject; but like a salamander bred\nin fire, and breathing sulphur as his native element, he has piled\ntogether a few texts, in which the words wrath, vengeance, indignation,\nfire, fury, and the like occur; and although he knows, and even allows,\nthat this is figurative language, he applies it literally, as if God was\nreally the subject of the vilest passions that disgrace humanity.  I have\nsaid in my Lectures, that the strongest figures and language used in the\nBible, will not support eternal punishments; I have produced the\nstrongest, and shewn that they will not do it; and why has he not shewn\nme to be in error?  Not in one single instance\u2014for this plain reason,\nbecause it was not in his power to do so.  And I now defy him, and every\nman in existence to prove, that any one of those texts which he has\nreferred to, will either prove eternal punishment, or that they have any\nthing to do with the subject.  This shews his skill in the language of\nscripture, and how far his bare assertion is to be taken, when he says,\n\u201cthat if words have any meaning, the texts he has quoted prove future\npunishments eternal and vindictive.\u201d  He may assert the doctrine of\nendless punishment\u2014but assertions are not proof; he may reproach those\nwho cannot breathe in his sulphurous atmosphere, as Socinians, Sceptics,\nand Infidels; but _veritas vincit_, {27} and the doctrine I have\nadvocated and the arguments by which I have maintained it, are still\ninvulnerable to all the shafts of ignorance and bigotry which this\npretender to wisdom can hurl against them.  It is pleasing, however, to\nsee how deeply he feels interested at the close for the cause of virtue\nand good morals, and it reminds me of the fable in which\n\n    \u201cA grave skilful mason gave in his opinion,\n    That nothing but stone could defend the dominion;\n    A carpenter said, though that was well spoke,\n    It was better by far to defend it with oak;\n    A currier, wiser than both these together,\n    Said, try what you please, there is nothing like leather.\u201d\n\nSo my tutor seems to think, that if men are not frightened into virtue\nand morality, by the senseless cry of suffering the vengeance of eternal\nfire, and by being threatened with being devoted as a prey to the fiery\ntusks and burning talons of the devil, that this imaginary fiction of\nheathen divinity will succeed in sapping the foundation of all virtue,\n\u201cand bring dishonour upon God, and ruin upon a sinful world:\u201d\u2014that is to\nsay, bring ruin upon a world which my tutor asserts to be already in a\nstate of universal ruin.  But, if my tutor is really desirous to become\n_custos morum_, {28a} let him adopt a system more to the purpose than\nCalvinism, which damns all reprobates, let them be as virtuous as angels,\nand provides a substitute for all the elect, and saves them independent\nof any duties or virtues of their own; and let him adopt a system\nproducing better moral effects than Calvinism did, when it committed\nServetus to the flames, kindled by the wrath of Calvin, in hopes too of\nprecipitating the heretic into the flames that he thought never would be\nquenched.  O the tender mercies of Calvin and Calvinism!  Surely those\nwho do not wilfully shut their eyes may see _veluti in speculum_, {28b}\nthe transcendent glories of that immaculate system, which has John Calvin\nfor its author, heathen errors for its subject-matter, and eternal ruin,\npain, and misery for its end.\n\nIn my Lectures I have referred to every unquenchable fire mentioned in\nthe scriptures, and have proved that, they are all long since\nextinguished, and none of them reserved for burning sinners eternally.\nMy tutor has not disproved this; nor so much as noticed the subject in\nany part of his tract.  And, although he has done his best to blow the\nextinguished embers into sparks and flames of his own kindling, and says,\nah! ah! I have seen the fire; yet it sleeps harmless in his own pages,\nwithout burning even the paper; and all the effect it is destined to\nproduce, is the burning of his own cheeks with blushes for his own\nignorance.  But, since my tutor seems to be affected with a _cacoethis\nscribendi_, {28c} he had best go to work again; for, as _succedaneum_\n{28d} for others, he ought to plead the cause of all his employers.  He\nhas indeed shewn so much sympathy with Mr. Dennant, that he has once\nmentioned the good man\u2019s name; but, he has not offered a single word in\ndefence of his system of dreams, sleep-walking, ghosts, and witchcraft.\nWhy this profound silence?  Was the case past all cure, and such as\nadmits of no alleviation?  Or was it because he has committed the same\nfaults on his 15th page?\n\nI have said in my Lectures, that _kolasis_ intends corrective punishment;\nsuch as, according to Paulus, produces amendment; according to Plato,\nsuch as makes wiser; and according to Plutarch, promotes healing: and I\nhave said, such punishments cannot be eternal.  Will my tutor pretend to\nknow the meaning of the Greek word, better than those who constantly\nspoke and wrote Greek as their native language?  If so, what an oracle of\nwisdom is this learned word-catcher!\n\nAs all those who differ from my tutor in sentiment are Socinians,\nSceptics, Infidels, Saducees, and Apostates, he has prudently passed,\nwithout notice, the sentiments of Bishop Newton, quoted in my Lectures,\npage 115\u201316\u2014sentiments in perfect unison with mine, and utterly\ndestructive of the scheme of endless torments; but, had he noticed this,\nhe must have condemned the Bishop among his motley group of heretics, and\ndetected the ruinous contagion in the Church of England, advocated there\nby one of her brightest ornaments.  And, if he can prove his good\nadvocate for sleep-walking and witchcraft, to be right in his opinion, as\nto natural immortality, he will prove that the pulpit in Halesworth\nchurch has been polluted by a poisonous error, and prove Bishop Law to\nhave been a filthy heretic.  But I suppose it was _ad honores_ {29a} that\nhe passed by these things in silence; and he may learn from Watson,\nBishop of Landaff, \u201cthat though he was no Socinian himself, he was\nwilling to believe Socinians to be christians.\u201d  My tutor might then\nwithout _mauvaise hont_, {29b} keep silent, and forbear from branding\nothers with every reproachful epithet that calumny can supply, and such\nas he knows are wilful slander when he uses them.\n\nSince my tutor has given me a lesson in poetry, which he thinks suits his\nscheme, but which I am sure suits mine much better, I will return him the\nfavour from the same source:\n\n    \u201cYet gav\u2019st roe, in this dark estate,\n       To know the good from ill,\n    And binding nature fast in fate,\n       Left free the human will.\n\n    \u201cWhat conscience dictates to be done,\n       Or warns me not to do,\n    This teach me more than hell to shun,\n       That more that heav\u2019n pursue.\u201d\n\nNow, if my tutor admits the above, he must overthrow his own system\naltogether; if he rejects it, he must condemn his own favourite author\namong those Socinian, Sceptical, and Infidel heretics; who, among other\nerrors, \u201cindependent of superior influence,\u201d make their mind and\nconscience their guide; and, having thrown himself on the two horns of\nthis dilemma, he is at liberty to get off as well as he can without being\ngored; and his good friend, who has hung some time in the same\npredicament, may perhaps lend him some assistance, or advise him, like\nhimself, to be content in every situation, and struggle no longer in the\nmud, lest he sink deeper in the mire.\n\nIf Hugh Latimer will do his work worthy of a bishop, let him employ his\npen again, _pro bono publico_; {30a} or, if he prefers it, let him come\nforth from his sculking place, and meet me _tete a tete_, {30b} and I\nwill canvass any one, or all of the favourite sentiments, belonging to\nhis favourite system, with him _viva voce_; {30c} and, if I do not prove\nhis opinions unscriptural and irrational errors, I will require nothing\nfor my trouble; nor will I either menace him with a prosecution, nor\nprevent his books from being sold, as the good men at Halesworth have\nserved me.  But, if it be true, as my tutor asserts, page 2, that my book\ncarries its own antidote along with it, why has so much alarm been taken\nat it?  Why such active endeavours to prevent its circulation? (but all\nin vain)  And why has Hugh Latimer wasted his time, spent his money, and\nexposed his own folly, to remedy an evil which required no remedy, but to\nbe left to work its own cure according to his opinion?  Various pretexts\nmay be set up for such inconsistency; but the true reason may be given in\nthese words: \u201cif we let this man alone, . . . the Romans will come and\ntake away our place and nation.\u201d  Yes, craft\u2014your craft, good Bishop, is\nin danger; and how can such a man as you sleep at your post in a time of\nthreatening danger?  You must be patching the old garment, if you only\nmake the rent worse.  You have said, page 3, that \u201cI deny the existence\nand agency of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of regeneration,\njustification by faith, the immateriality and immortality of the soul.\u201d\nI deny them all in the orthodox sense.  I deny the existence of the Holy\nSpirit, as a third personal God; but, I believe the existence of one God,\nwho is a spirit.  I admit the divine agency, called the Holy Spirit, at\nthe first promulgation of the gospel; but, I deny such supernatural\nagency now, as the orthodox pretend to.  I deny regeneration to be what\nthey make it; but, I hold the necessity of a change of mind and conduct,\nwhereby sinners must turn themselves from all their transgressions and\nsave their souls alive.  I deny justification by faith in the popular\nsense of believing in the merits and righteousness of another, which is a\nmost flagrant error; but, I admit both Jews and Gentiles were justified\nby believing and obeying the gospel, without being tied to the ceremonial\nlaw, which was superceded by the gospel.  This is the faith of the\ngospel, the faith at first delivered to the saints; and, to believe\notherwise, is to believe a lie, and to believe what God has not required.\nI deny the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul; but, I\nfirmly believe what the scriptures teach, that at the resurrection, that\nwhich is mortal, shall put on immortality.  These remarks will serve to\nexplain how I wished to be understood, when I said in page 14, that you\nhad stated my disbelief honestly and accurately\u2014that is, according to\northodox sentiments, I disbelieve all you have stated.\n\nHad Hugh Latimer contented himself with singling me out as an individual,\nand with exposing (as he is pleased to call it), my ignorance, errors,\nand blunders alone, all the answer his tract would have merited, and all\nit would probably have received from me, would have been a silent\ncontempt of such a paltry performance; but, when, instead of meeting my\narguments fairly, and refuting my sentiments scripturally and rationally,\nhe has declined do so, and has condescended to calumniate and wilfully\nmisrepresent Unitarians in general, and condemn their sentiments in the\ngross, as disguised infidelity, &c. I felt myself compelled by a sense of\nduty to offer a short reply to his slanders.  For it is a well-known\nfact, that bare assertions such as his, will pass with too many for\nargument, and the truth of his statements will be concluded, by such,\nfrom his positivity and confidence in making them; and if nothing was\nsaid, in answer to such writers, too many would conclude they cannot be\nanswered.  And as he has given another proof, that the orthodox are never\ntired of reiterating those arguments which have been answered and refuted\nan hundred times twice told, we heretics must not tire of refuting them\nover again.  But we have the disadvantage, that so many are willing to\ntake any thing and every thing upon trust, that comes from an orthodox\npen, while few, very few, will so much as look at what is written by a\nreputed heretic; and the number is fewer still, who will impartially\nexamine both sides, and candidly acknowledge, (even when convinced), that\ntruth is on the side opposite to their own.  Bishop Watson says, he knew\na divine of great eminence, who declared, \u201cthat he never read dissenting\ndivinity.\u201d {32a}  Another divine was once asked how he approved of Mr.\nLocke\u2019s Reasonableness of Christianity: he replied, \u201cvery well; but, said\nhe, if I should be known to think well of it, I should have my lawn torn\nfrom my shoulders.\u201d {32b}  A divine who has read my Lectures, being asked\nhis opinion of them, said, \u201cIf I were to give my candid opinion on them,\nI should be styled a Unitarian too.\u201d  Another, who approved of them,\nbeing asked why such doctrine was never taught in the place where he\npreached, said, \u201cWhen a boy is bound apprentice, he must obey his\nmaster\u2019s rules.\u201d  Thus some from interest, others from indolence, and the\nmany from ignorance and bigotry, never take trouble to examine and\ncompare the different opinions proposed to them, and so remain in\ndarkness and confusion all their days.  And as it was well said, long\nago, \u201cAs people in general, for one reason or another, like short\nobjections (and bare assertions) better than long answers (and sound\nreasons), the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with\nthose for our friends, who have honesty and erudition, candour and\npatience, to study both sides.\u201d {33}  It is to be lamented, that readers\nof the last description are very rare in these parts, yet there is here\nand there one; and I had much rather my books should be consulted, read,\nand examined by a dozen such men as these, than I would have the stare\nand gape of hundreds listening to an harangue, five sentences of which\nthey did not understand.  That this is the general run of hearers\nhereabouts, no one can deny; and this sufficiently accounts for the\nspread of mysticism and enthusiasm, and the tardy progress of pure\nscriptural and rational truth; to say nothing of the salvo which\northodoxy affords, to those who can fancy themselves entitled to an\ninterest in its inexhaustible and unconditional stores;\u2014pardon,\nrighteousness, and heaven, and all procured by the merits and sufferings\nof another, on the very easy terms of \u201conly believe and be saved.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nI shall here attempt to obviate the objection so generally laid against\nme, that I am inimical and hostile to the Bible Society.  I speak the\ntruth when I say\u2014first, that I esteem the Bible as the choicest gift of\nGod, save that of his own Son, the restorer, the light and saviour of the\nworld\u2014Secondly, that I esteem and cordially approve the universal spread\nof the Bible among all nations, and in every language; believing, as I\nfirmly do, in the sufficiency of the Scriptures to make all men (who use\nthem properly) wise unto salvation, since all scripture (which is) given\nby the inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for\ncorrection, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be\nperfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.  Convinced as I am, that\nthe Scriptures contain a full, clear, and plain revelation of every thing\nthat is essential for mankind to know, believe, and practice; of all that\nGod requires from them, or gives them ground to expect from him, in order\nto promote their virtue and peace on earth, and final happiness in\nheaven.  I approve of the principle on which protestantism is founded,\nthat the Bible alone contains the religion of protestants; I consequently\nfall in most heartily with the circulation of the Scriptures without note\nor comment; leaving every man at full liberty of conscience, and the use\nof his own reason and judgment in interpreting and understanding the word\nof God.  I have attended Bible Societies from their first formation; I\nhave contributed to them in several parts of the kingdom, and at\nHalesworth too, without sounding a trumpet; I have recommended them\nconstantly on the principles stated above; and, if I have not been a\npublic advocate on the platform, the reason has invariably been, because\nthe advocates have universally treated me, even when on the platform\namong them, with silent contempt and cold disdain.  It is not the Bible\nSociety I object to; but, the way in which its professed advocates expose\nthe cause and themselves, by bringing forward in their speeches subjects\ncalculated only (in some instances) to insult a rational understanding,\nand impose on and deceive the vulgar; and the effect produced has been to\nlead numbers to imagine, that if they give a trifle, or obtain a Bible,\nit will go well nigh to secure their salvation.  Hence it happens, that\nin every village I can find a Bible or two in almost every house; in many\nof which they are never read, because not one in the family can read\nthem.  Can it be otherwise in other countries?  And yet what romantic\ntales we often hear of the wonderful conversions effected by the Bible!\njust as if the Bible could produce any good effect, but where it is read,\nunderstood, and its precepts reduced to practice.  Let the professed\nadvocates lay aside those arts and tricks which alone become mountebanks\nand quacks, and let them plead the cause of the Bible as becomes the\ndignity and grandeur of the subject, and I will wish them God speed in\nspreading the Bible to the remotest habitation of human beings; and, let\nthose who cannot treat the subject as becomes truth and holiness, keep\nsilent.  Religion and the Bible require not the aid of enthusiasm,\nribaldry, and buffoonery; nor of tales and anecdotes on a par with Mother\nGoose\u2019s Fables.\n\nIn addition to those tales which I have advanced on former occasions, and\nnumbers that I could still advance, I will only select the following.  I\nonce heard a preacher at a meeting in Wellingborough church recommend the\nBible, as a quack recommends his pills and balsams\u2014a cure for every\nmalady, \u201cDo you know (said he), a drunkard, a swearer, a liar, give him a\nBible; do you know an adulterer, sabbath-breaker, or covetous miser, give\nhim a Bible; do you know a bad husband, a bad father, a bad wife, or a\nbad mother, give them each a Bible; do you know a bad master, of\nmistress, or a bad servant or apprentice, give them a Bible; do you know\na bad neighbour, a slanderer, backbiter, or busybody, give them a Bible.\u201d\nThus he ran on through the whole catalogue of vices, and recommended, as\na cure for them all, the gift of a Bible.  I need not remind my readers\nof what has been stated in the Ipswich Chronicle twice over, on the\napplication of the funds of the Bible Society; but I remember a speaker\nsaid at the conclusion of a meeting at Halesworth, three years back,\n\u201cthat in answer to the question, what becomes of the money given at these\nmeetings, he would assure them, on the word of a dying man, speaking as\nto dying men, in the presence of God, before whom all must appear in\njudgment, that not a single penny of their money was applied to any other\npurpose than that for which they gave it, (namely), for printing and\ncirculation of the scriptures.\u201d  It belongs not to me to reconcile this\nwith the statements in the Ipswich and London papers.  Since those\npersons who have enjoyed the advantage of travel are allowed to enliven\nyour meetings by anecdote, I will give a specimen or two of their manner\nand matter.  At a meeting held at Leeds, some months past, Dr. Patterson\nstated, that in his travels he had found a set of men making an attempt\nto supplant the Bible by substituting in its place a Socinian Bible, full\nof errors, and void of every essential doctrine; that he had procured the\nsuppression of it and of another as bad, and hoped the whole was rotten\nor rotting in a fort to which they were consigned; that a professor in a\nuniversity, the author of the above, had been turned out of his\nprofessorship.  All this and much more was stated and printed in the\nLeeds paper, but no name of the book, place, or professor was mentioned.\nThe whole was a fabrication to suit a purpose, and has been well exposed\nby Dr. Hutton, Unitarian minister, at Leeds.  At a meeting in the\nCity-Road Chapel, London, last May, Lord Mountcassel proved, that the age\nof miracles was returned in Ireland; he could vouch, he said, as a\nmissionary was preaching in a village, a Catholic priest interrupted him:\nthe day following the priest pointing out the place to a friend, said,\nthere is the spot where that cursed pharisee preached to the people;\u2014he\nwas struck with paralysis, his arm fell powerless, his mouth was\ndistorted, he fell back, and was taken home senseless.  Another priest, a\ngreat opponent of Bibles, was struck in a meeting with a paralytic shock\nand never spoke afterwards.  These were the visitations of God, and are\nrecorded as such in the Evangelical Magazine.  While such men as doctors\nof divinity and titled noblemen can thus, with devotion\u2019s visage and\npious actions, sugar over the devil himself, we may expect that other\npigmies, in a petty way, will ape and mimic their example; but if the\nBible which they circulate teaches others no better morals than theirs,\nthe gift will be of little use to those who obtain it.  I wish such\nadvocates as the above to recollect, that we are forbidden by the Bible\n\u201cto do evil that good may come,\u201d or to propagate \u201ccunningly devised\nfables.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                    _Lately Published_, _Price_ 4_s._\n\n                               SIX LECTURES\n\n                                  ON THE\n\n     Non-eternity of Future Punishment, and on the final Restoration\n                 of all Mankind to Purity and Happiness,\n\n                              BY T. LATHAM.\n\n       _Sold by the Author at Bramfield_; _also by Teulon and Fox_,\n                              _Whitechapel_,\n                  _London_; _and all other Booksellers_.\n\n                      TIPPELL, PRINTER, HALESWORTH.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{3}  Assumed name.\n\n{4a}  The spirit of the party.\n\n{4b}  Against good manners.\n\n{4c}  Disguised.\n\n{4d}  In person.\n\n{4e}  A man of various learning.\n\n{4f}  Masterpiece.\n\n{4g}  Churchmen.\n\n{4h}  Pupil.\n\n{5a}  A learned man.\n\n{5b}  Between ourselves.\n\n{5c}  Slip of the tongue.\n\n{5d}  Pretended.\n\n{5e}  As it should be.\n\n{5f}  A nice morsel\n\n{6}  Willing or not.\n\n{7a}  I have read of a bishop who, on coming to his bishopric, ordered a\nGreek inscription to be written over his palace gate.  It was meant to\nsay, \u201cGate be thou ever open to, and never shut against a good man.\u201d  But\nwhen finished, it said, \u201cGate be thou always shut against, and never open\nto a good man.\u201d  And as the bishop was so well versed in Greek, that he\ncould not find out the blunder, he was for his learning deposed.  I give\nthis as a hint to Hugh Latimer.\n\n{7b}  I must remain in my present sentiments.\n\n{8a}  Tiresomeness.\n\n{8b}  The republic of letters.\n\n{9a}  A fit man.\n\n{9b}  Three united in one.\n\n{9c}  Winding up.\n\n{10a}  Common phrases\n\n{10b}  By what authority.\n\n{10c}  With what intention.\n\n{10d}  To ensnare the vulgar.\n\n{10e}  What harm will it do.\n\n{10f}  The law of retaliation.\n\n{11}  See a speech by a minister.  (Lectures, page 177)\n\n{12a}  Like master like man.\n\n{12b}  Thou that teachest others, teachest thou not thyself.\n\n{12c}  Wonderful to tell.\n\n{12d}  Indispensable pre-requisite.\n\n{14a}  The truth without fear.\n\n{14b}  Without over bashfulness.\n\n{16a}  I do not wish to be made a bishop.\n\n{16b}  Sudden enterprise.\n\n{16c}  Burden of proving.\n\n{16d}  Bradbury.\n\n{18}  Jesus Christ has informed us, John iii. 16, 18, \u201cthat God has\ndisplayed his love to the world in sending his Son, not to condemn the\nworld, but to save it.\u201d  Hugh Latimer tells us, page 6, \u201cthat the\nperpetuity of punishment in vindictive justice, (which by the way is a\ncontradiction in terms), is the emanation of love to the universe.\u201d\nThere is no method of reconciling these plain contradictions, but by\nallowing him to be acquainted with those sublime mysteries with which\nChrist was wholly unacquainted.\n\n{19}  A foolish argument.\n\n{21a}  Deputy.\n\n{21b}  Said for nothing.\n\n{26}  With the whole heart.\n\n{27}  Truth conquers.\n\n{28a}  The guardian of morality.\n\n{28b}  As in a looking glass.\n\n{28c}  Improper fondness of writing.\n\n{28d}  Substitute.\n\n{29a}  For decency sake.\n\n{29b}  Over much bashfulness.\n\n{30a}  For the public good.\n\n{30b}  Face to face.\n\n{30c}  By word of mouth.\n\n{32a}  Theological tracts, preface, page 19.\n\n{32b}  Molineux\u2019s Familiar Letters, page 163.\n\n{33}  Bishop Horne.","title":"The Self-Plumed Bishop Unplumed: A Reply to the Profound Erudition of the Self-Named Hugh Latimer, in His Doctrine of Endless Punishment Asserted","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":14264}