The Self-Plumed Bishop Unplumed A Reply to the Profound Erudition of the Self-Named Hugh Latimer, in His Doctrine of Endless Punishment Asserted — A Reader’s Guide

Transcribed from the [1828] T. Tippell edition by David Price, email [email protected]

[Picture: Public domain book cover]

THE SELF-PLUMED BISHOP UNPLUMED.

PROFOUND ERUDITION OF THE SELF-NAMED

DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT ASSERTED,

MINISTER AT BRAMFIELD, SUFFOLK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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