Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-01 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR GE THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—ln your paper of this morning, Mr. Glaze-
brook publishes two letters still with reference to
the first three paragraphs of my first letter to you.
I hope that Mr. G. will not think that I
" complain' of this. Far from it. Mr. G.'s lengthy
and laboured epistles are a proof—not only of
his skill as a controversialist—but also of the
difficulty, the obscurity, ana the untenableness (as
I humbly think) of the dogma concerning Scriptu-
ral Infallibility, which he has undertaken to
uphold.
Mr. Glazebrook's letters treat of three subjects,
on each of which I shall say a few words. '
FIRST, as to the divinely appointed superiority of
Reason over Holy Writ. I have already reminded
Mr. G. that each man's reason must decide for him
what is the Rule of Faith, and what is its mean-
ing. This function of judgment Mr. G. does not ap-
pear to deny to Human Reason; but he argues
that, because a Judge of Assize is not superior to
human law, therefore Reason's being the supreme
judge of all Rules of Faith, and being so appointed
by God, does not make Reason superior to all
Rules of Faith, but only makes Reason a "means"
of ascertaining and interpreting the Rule of Faith.
I accept Mr. G.'s illustration, and will show how
far it is applicable. A Judge of Assize is appointed
by the Monarch—not as the supreme judge—but as
one who is to exercise the judicial functions in
certain courts, subject to appeals to higher courts,
and subject, ultimately, to the Supreme Legislature
itself, acting in its sovereign and unimpeachable
capacity of judgement.
Now, within his appointed court and func'ions,
each judge is supreme. He decides what law is
applicable in each ease, and what is the meaning
of the law. Will Mr. G. tell us who, within a
judge's appointed court, is superior to that judge?
So far, then, a Judge of Assize is an alagous to Reason,
which God has appointed judge of all Rules of
Faith. But here the resemblance terminates, for
over the Assize Judge are a series of attai:iable
Courts of Appeal, Over his own private judg-
ment of human reason, I respectfully submit
there is, in this world, no higher appeal for any
man. What is to guide me in the accepting of a
faith, in the forming of an opinion, or in the
deciding on a course of action ? lam urged and
persuaded by a thousand advisers. The Bishop
of I-tome advises one course, the Archbishop of
Canterbury another, the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople a third, the Lutherans a fourth, the Cal-
vinists a fifth; a legion of counsellors distract me
with their differences of advice. The Bible is
quoted by each of them—yea, is quoted by that
evil counsellor, Satan himself—each adviser putting
forward his favourite text and his chosen interpre.
tation thereof. Will Mr. Glazebrook tell us how,
except by an appeal to my own human reason, I am
to compare and choose from among this crowd of
advisers? I am, at the last clay, to give an account
to God of the honest or dishonest use I shall have
made of the reason He has committed to my
stewardship. But, in the meantime, will Mr.
Glazebrook tell us what tribunal, higher than the
careful judgment of his own mind and heart, any
man has within his reach? And, until this ques-
tion shall be clearly and satisfactorily answered, I
once more submit and 'maintain the assertion, that
human reason corresponds rather with the Supreme
Legislature acting in the discharge of its Judicial
function, than with the Judge of Assize acting in
his comparatively limited and non-final capacity of
judge seer a particular court. Human reason,
however, is supreme even over the judicial action
of the highest human legislature ; for each human
law-maker, and each human judge, is subject to
the monitor within himself, which either accuses
or else excuses his every act : and the poor ruined
appellant, who may have been (in some Nea-
politan court of highest appeal) unjustly
ruined and destroyed, has yet within his noble,
guiltless breast, a power higher than that of wicked
tyrants, a voice more authoritative than that of
autocrats—the small peace-conferring whisper
of his own approving conscience, which is but part
and parcel of that human reason which God has
made subject to Himself alone, and superior to all
else.

Thn, by legitimately carrying out Mr. Glaze-
brook's own illustration, we are brought to a true
conclusion, the very reverse of that at which he
stopped short; the very same as that from which,
and with which, I originally set out in my first
letter.
Mr. Glazebrook's SECOND POINT is his assertion
that lam a Socinian. This assertion I distinctly,
but most courteously, deny. I am not a Socinian.
I do not question, and never have questioned, the
Divine Nature of our Saviour; and, moreover, even
on Mr. Glazebrook's own very insufficient and
unsatisfactory definition of a follower of Socinus,
I cannot be called, truly, a Socinian, for
it is beyond even Mr. Glazebrook's power
to show that I have ever " rejected any
established principle of faith." Thus much for
Mr. Glazebrook's allegations, so far as they are
personal to myself. I meet them with a direct and
unqualified denial ; and, I trust Mr Glazebrook
will henceforth remember that I am, like himself
in position though not in opinion, a clergyman of
the Established Church of England. This matter,
however, ought here to be once for all dropped,
inasmuch as the subject at issue betwixt Mr.
Glazebrook and myself, is not concerning my
orthodoxy or any other personal affair, but is the
grand theological and philosophical question as to
the Infallibility of Scripture.
Mr. Glazebrook's THIRD POINT, with which all his
second letter to-day is occupied, is the interpreta-
tion of John, xvii, 17. I endeavoured to show in
my letter of the 26th instant, that Mr. Glazebrook
was quite wrong in treating " Thy word is truth,',
as equivalent to his assertion that " The Bible is
infallible." Mr G. is shown .to be in error by the
testimony of Professor Williams, Bishop Oilivant,
of Llandaff, and our Lord's own recorded exegesis
of the Text, " Thy word is truth."
Mr. G. rejoins by leaving the testimony of
Christ and these his two disciples unanswered,
while he designates the Rev, Dr. Williams, the
learned Vice-Principal o! Lampeter College, a
" Socinian ;" and further, taking no notice of the
Bishop of Llandaff, he favours us with a disquisition
concerning " Logemachy," Interpretatio," and
" The Lord Mayor without his coach."
These matters appears to me—l say it most
respectfully—not to touch the correct interpreta-
tion of John xvii, 17; neither do they affact the
general question as to the Bible's Infallibility. I
shall, therefore. only say, with reference to them
and such expressions as Mr. Glazebrook's " disin-
genuous trick," " thimble-rig criticism," and the
like, that I leave it to Mr. G. to -reconcile such
language with the kindness of a Christian, the
self-reswct of a gentleman, or the dignity of a
clerical controversialist.—l am. sir, yours truly,
Everton, Nov. 30,1857. JOHN MACH LIGHT.

At the request of the Council, your president put him-
self in communication with the chairmen of the Exchange
Buildings, regArding the proposed alterations and improve-
=ants of this great centre of commercial information and
intercourse, and received satisfactory assurances that
whenever the plans were as far advanced as to permit their
being submitted for inspection, they should be shown to
the Council. The Council believe that ve-y great addi-
tional convenience may be afforded to the public simul.
ianaonsly with the urgently required enlargement of the
public rooms.
The subject is, undoubtedly, one deserving the earnest
attention of the mercantile community, and your Council