“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.”