Infidels and Infidelity.

To the Editor.

Sir,—I regret that you have again made statements in your last issue, which are entirely groundless or erroneous. You have "jumped to conclusions," which have no foundation but that of your imagination, for you make "positive" assertions about me and my motives, which are founded not on reasons or proofs, but on your "opinions." And unhappily you express your "opinions," not freely, but too freely; for you express them in a way which indicates that whether consciously or unconsciously, you do not "critically" or accurately understand the force of English terms. Please do me the justice to observe:—

1. Your "opinion" about my "bluster and assumption."

(a) What does the term bluster critically mean? To bluster means "to be noisy, to bully, to swagger as a turbulent or boasting person;" and a blusterer is "a noisy tumultuous fellow, who Snakes great pretentions from vanity." Consequently you accuse me of being a blusterer, i.e., a noisy tumultuous fellow, whose bullying has originated "from vanity."

Now, Sir, I leave it to you or your candid readers to judge whether there is any truth in this positive assertion of yours? Can you in sincerity put your finger on any sentence or word in my last, which will warrant you in applying tome a term, which implies "bullying" and "vanity?" Besides, if there were a single bullying term, would that justify you, as "a Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene," to ascribe my writing the letter to "vanity."

(b) The term "assumption" is also employed inaccurately by you. Let me explain. One of the meanings of "assumption" is "supposition without proof."

Now, Sir, I assumed no proposition without proof; whether expressed or implied. For instance, the proposition assumed by me was, that "The Holy Scriptures are the Word of God," because "they do not in reality contradict each other. Some passages might be seemingly contradictory—they might have the appearance of contradiction; but in reality they were not contradictory." This proposition, I assumed, because you or your "Rob Roys" assumed that the Holy Scriptures were not the Word of God, because they contained contradictory statements. Consequently, I appeal to you and ask—when I assumed the proposition above stated—did I assume it without proof? Did I not give my proof—though briefly? And am I not now prepared to give you many proofs to establish my proposition? Ay, have I not even challenged you, that I might meet you on your own ground and disprove by proofs your assumption, and show it to be groundless? And I am astonished that you should write so rashly or inaccurately! I ask again—what "assumption" have I made, i.e., what proposition without proof?

page 255

2. Your "opinion" about "my shuffling."

A shuffle is "an evasion, a trick and an artifice." So you accuse me of "duplicity, wiliness and chicanery," which all are implied by the term "shuffling." And thus, I am again, recklessly accused by you of a "mean artifice or trick," and this accusation is laid at my door, because I wanted your writers not to write anonymously.

Now, Sir, I did want your "Rob Roys" to disrobe themselves of their assumed habiliments; but in the event of their not complying with my matter-of-fact suggestion from fear or shame: did I not challenge you? Therefore, what earnest or conscientious man, unless "a Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene," will accuse me of "shuffling," i.e., of deceit and chicanery for so doing? Wherein lies my "shuffling?" Is it in openly and honestly throwing down my glove to you, the honest and open leader of the Unitarians? It is not "shuffling," Sir; but I will not condescend to take notice of writers, who "show their teeth" in the dark, but whose eyes are affected with photo-phobia, that cannot bear noonday light. Besides, you represent me saying what I never said. I never doubted "the validity of the arguments" which anonymous writers advanced, but I doubted and do doubt their candour and courage, and surely this doubt was not and is not indicative of my "shuffling," i.e., deceit and chicanery. My doubt was and is an honest doubt—not founded on "shuffling" or chicanery, but on the principles of the Holy Scriptures, which enjoins that Christians (particularly "Christians of the pattern of the Nazarene ") ought not to be ashamed or afraid of their religion. Vide Rom. j. 16; 2 Cor. vii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 12. "I suffer," says the Apostle Paul, "nevertheless, I am not ashamed."

I, therefore, humbly ask again, why do your "Rob Roys" write anonymously? Is it not that they are either afraid or ashamed? If they have any other reason for their Rob Royism, would you, as their champion, kindly inform me thereof, but do not, please, unnecessarily and falsely accuse me of "shuffling?" If you give me any other reason or reasons, why "Rob Roys," or "Unitarians" are permitted by you to emit their "war-whoop" in the forests of gloom, I will retract what I have said regarding their cowardice. No doubt you are aware what little importance is attached to, and what penalty is inflicted on—by "Law"—the productions of anonymous cowards; and as "a Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene," you ought to show similar detestations of anonymous dastardliness.

3. Your "opinion" about "God's Grace," on which you do not rely, but on which I rely. Pray, attend to the following and observe what both Inspired and uninspired writers have said on the subject:—

(1) The Apostle Paul—"Work out your own Salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Another says :—"Open Thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Law."

(2) And it is some satisfaction to know that while you—living in the midst of "Christian light and privileges," and rejoicing in the name of "the Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene," do not rely on "God's Grace," even many of the ancient Grecian and Roman Philosophers believed in and relied on it. Seneca says:—" It is God that comes to men, yea, more, He enters into them; for no mind becomes truly good but by his assistance." Plato:—"Virtue is not to be taught but by the assistance of God."

(3) Even "the earlier Unitarians" belived in the doctrine of "God's Grace." But, of course, it is beneath the knowledge and strength of "the Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene" in Sydney to rely on "God's Grace." He can do without it: he is a mighty host in himself: by his own knowledge and strength, he can put to flight the army of Christian aliens!

4. Conclusion. The above observations have been made, not on personal, but on public grounds; for if controversy is to be conducted freely and decently, it would be well to attend to the following:—

(1) In future communications do not employ terms inaccurately nor apply page 256 epithets to your adversaries rashly and recklessly. You might use them freely, but not too freely. (Vide Art. 3, Unitarian Principles.)

(2) Do not make your "opinions" or "positive assertions" as reasons or grounds for condemning Christian adversaries. Do not make "assumptions," i.e., propositions without proof. Do not make your adversaries say what they never said.

(3) Do not rashly and recklessly judge of "the secret motives" of your Christian adversaries; for, if necessary, it could be shown from the writings of "Infidels," that they misrepresent Christian adversaries and Christian doctrines.

(4) Do not "prune" any portions of the letters of your adversaries: pray, do not "clip" even a sentence.

(5) No respectable Journalist, especially a "Christian of the pattern of the Nazarene," ought to allow anonymous writers to write in his Journal with all the barbarity or vulgarity of Vandals. Vide. A. F. R. Press, p. 186, &c..