Chapter II: Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

_Lately Published_, _Price_ 4_s._

SIX LECTURES

ON THE

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

BY T. LATHAM.

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

TIPPELL, PRINTER, HALESWORTH.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES.

{3} Assumed name.

{4a} The spirit of the party.

{4b} Against good manners.

{4c} Disguised.

{4d} In person.

{4e} A man of various learning.

{4f} Masterpiece.

{4g} Churchmen.

{4h} Pupil.

{5a} A learned man.

{5b} Between ourselves.

{5c} Slip of the tongue.

{5d} Pretended.

{5e} As it should be.

{5f} A nice morsel

{6} Willing or not.

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

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

{8a} Tiresomeness.

{8b} The republic of letters.

{9a} A fit man.

{9b} Three united in one.

{9c} Winding up.

{10a} Common phrases

{10b} By what authority.

{10c} With what intention.

{10d} To ensnare the vulgar.

{10e} What harm will it do.

{10f} The law of retaliation.

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

{12a} Like master like man.

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

{12c} Wonderful to tell.

{12d} Indispensable pre-requisite.

{14a} The truth without fear.

{14b} Without over bashfulness.

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

{16b} Sudden enterprise.

{16c} Burden of proving.

{16d} Bradbury.

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

{19} A foolish argument.

{21a} Deputy.

{21b} Said for nothing.

{26} With the whole heart.

{27} Truth conquers.

{28a} The guardian of morality.

{28b} As in a looking glass.

{28c} Improper fondness of writing.

{28d} Substitute.

{29a} For decency sake.

{29b} Over much bashfulness.

{30a} For the public good.

{30b} Face to face.

{30c} By word of mouth.

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

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

{33} Bishop Horne.