Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-07 00:00:00

public of Liverpool, it would be idle to doubt. I therefore
hope that the people will look to the true question which
is to be placed at issue, that the challenge given may be
fairly taken up, and that the decision of Liverpool,
affecting as it will little more than the character of Liver-
pool alone, will be explicit and emphatic.—l am, &c.,
NELISTER.

REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT IN REPLY TO
THE REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TINES.

Sir,—ln my last letter I reminded Mr. Glaze-
brook that, although ho and I differed in opinion,
I was still, like himself in position, a clergyman of
the Church of England. By ingeniously altering
the punctuation of this, my reminder, Mr. Glaze-
brook represents me as "confessing" myself to be
"not in opinion a clergyman of the Established
Church of England." Of course, sir, I have made
no such confession. Of ourse, Mr. Glazebrook
quite understands that my reminder was the very
opposite of that which he represents it as having
been. His misrepresentation of my words is as
complete as possible ; but, I presume, it is made
in sport and for amusement, and not as a wilful
statement of untruth. I must, however, even on
this view of the case, most respectfully and
gravely protest against Mr. Glazebrook's finding
his amusement in the perversion of a brother
clergyman's serious and publio avowal of plain
truth.

Mr. Glazebrook is at great pains to show that I
hold some " Socinian principles." No doubt, Mr.
Glazebrook and I both hold some Socinian prin-
ciples, and some Roman Catholic principles, and some
principles in common with every sect 'under the sun,
for all men are alike in some respects. This
is our heavenly Father's great way of re-
minding us that we are all brothers, and that, after
all, our .broad fellowship of humanity is grander
than any narrow Sectarianism. Now, suppose I
were to remind Mr. Glazebrook that he holds cer-
tain principles in common with the Beohuanas of
South Africa, and were, therefore, to accuse him of
being culpably like those people—or suppose I
were uncharitably to insist that Mr. Glazebrook is
verging upon Mormonism, because he holds some
principles in common with the followers of Joe
Smith—or suppose I were to urge, in spite of Mr.
Glazebrook's denials and remonstrances, that he is,
at heart, a Roman Catholic, because he agreesr with
the Church of Rome in many most important princi.
ples, how unjust and absurd would Mr. Glazebrook
hold such charges against himself to be I Yet, I
most respectfully submit that Mr, Glazebrook
blames me quite as unjustly for holding some prin-
ciples in common with the Socinians. It would, as
Mr. Glazebrook well knows, be quite easy to
represent any man as belonging to any, or to all,
the sects in this manner. Nay, by an argument,
similar to that which Mr. Glazebrook urges against
me, he himself might be shown to be one of those
very Socinians whom he seems so much to dread.
Once more, however, I beg to assure Mr.
Glazebrook that, beyond knowing the so-
called Socinians to be a very excellent
and much maligned body of Christians,
I have nothing to do with them ; and, moreover, I
would suggest that my holding, or not holding,
some principles in common with the Socinians,
has nothing to do with the fast that the Sacred.
Writings of the Bible are fallible or marked by
the colours of the imperfect human minds through
which their stream has flowed io us.
It is not a little curious that Mr. Glazebrook is
nna of th. ni a a ,x7l-ti,=.l)
niA4 mistaken
ens ewith holding in common with the
Socinians. He says, that I " openly deny the
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures." This is
the very opposite of the opinion which I have so
frequently avowed. Instead of " denying," I
assert and maintain the plenary Inspiration of
Scripture, that is, I recognise the Spirit of God as
having influence(' the sacred writers in the entire
compass of their work. It is Mr. Glazebrook him-
self who says that the language of a part of St. John's
Gospel "plainly limits the teaching of the Spirit to a
particular class of truths." If this be not " denying"
the plenary or entire Inspiration of the Bible, I
know not what meaning Mr. Glazebrook's words
can be supposed to bear. So, then, it i>i not I alone
who hold "Socinian principles," for here is what
Mr. Glazebrook calls a Socinian principle which I
deny and which Mr. Glazebrook advocates.
I am glad to find that Mr. Glazebrook does not
intend to charge every man who differs from
with being " a Socinian.'' Although Mr. Glaze-
brook wrote (November 27, 1857) of Professor
Williams as having " dug a deep, large, and dan-
gerous pitfall ;" though Mr. G. wrote of my friend
Dr. Williams's " snare and pitfall ;" though he
wrote of a " pitfall provided by Mr. Williams;" and,
further, wrote that he had escaped this pitfall by
reason of " a rooted distrust of Socinians ;" yet, I
am glad to find Mr. Glazebrook did not intend to
charge Professor Williams with being a Socinian.
I say I am glad of this, not only because it is just
towards the reverend Professor, but also because
it encourages me to hope that Mr. Glazebrook,
when he shall have read my book on Inspiration,
and shall have also read Dr. 'Williams's works, such
as " Rational Godliness," " Lampeter Theology,"
" Christianity and liinduisni," &c , will acquit me,
too, of heresy, and will see that the orthodox Dr.
Williams and myself are agreed on most points
connected with the subject of Inspiration.
As to John xvii., 17, " Thy Word is Truth," your
readers, sir, must judge betwixt Mr. Glazebrook
and myself. My opponent asserts that this text
settles the debate iu his favour, inasmuch as he
declares it to be equivalent in meaning to the
words, " The Bible is infallible." I reply that to
say a book is true, or is truth, is one thing,
and to say that a book is free from all error,
or is infallible, is quite another thing. We
all believe Livingstone's South Africa to be
truth ; but surely no man believes it to be infallible.
Similirly, though in a far higher sphere, Mr. G.
an I I both believe the Bible to be "truth ;" but I
maintain that the Bible is very far from being
infallible, because, as a matter of fact, there are
many obvious mistakes in the Bible. Thus, oven
if Mr, G had shown, or could show, that " thy
word," in John, xvii. 17, meant the Bible, he would
only eFe.a.blish—what. in effect, I am far indeed
from denying—that, with all its errors, the Bible
is said by Jesus to be " truth," not that it is said to
be infallible. But the fact is, that our Lord here
speaks, not of the Bible, but of "thy (i.e. God's)
word:" and that "God's word" is not hero or else-
where, in Scripture, synonymous with " the Bible,"
is stated by Professor Williams thus" nowhere in
Holy Scripture, is the term, ' word of God' made
an equivalent or synonym for the Bible." The
same truth is stated thus by Dr. 011ivaut, the pre_
sent Biehop of Llandaff, " That the phrase, ' word •
of God,' in the New Testament, means not the

volume of written Scripture, but the doctrine of divine
revelation taught in Holy ScEpture, can scarcely
be doubted by any competent critic" By reference
to John, xvii. 14, xiv. 23, &c , and ail. 48, &e ,
we have have already seen that the Saviour
Himself declares what He means by " Thy
word" in John, xvii. 17; and that meaning is
not the Bible, but the words, or sayings, or teach-
ing°, (Logoi) which the Father had given or corn.
mended the Son to speak: This point in our

At LEWIS & rOMPANY'S, Romelagh-street.
BOYS era CLOTHED from the Agoa of Six to TwontyYeara.

argument I take to be quite settled, and I think
your readers will agree with me. If Mr. Glaze-
brook should re-open this question I shall at once
propose that we refer it to the arbitrament of Drs.
011ivant and Williams themselves, or of any two
other learned men whom we may agree to name.
As to the other p3int in dispute, betwixt Mr.
Glazebrook and myself—viz., the superiority which
I assert for Human Reason over every other rule
of faith—l have asked Mr. Glazebrook to tell us
what appeal there is betwixt the decisions of
reason's private judgment and the tribunal of God
in the Day of Judgment, and if there be no appeal
higher than that of human reason, except to the
bar of the Almighty, then I submit that my case
will, in this part of it, be established, for it will
appear that there is on earth nothing higher than ,
or so high as human reason, which is tantamount to
saying, that human reason is superior to every
rule of faith.
Mr. Glazabrook informs us, as part of his answer
to my argument, (of Nov. 30) that " the law is
superior to a judge within his appointed circuit."
I never asked any question about a judge's circuit,
but about his proper "functions" and his "court."
However, very likely, Mr- Glazebrook and I mean
the same thing by our different words, and, if so,
the employment of various terms is not important.
Mr. Glazebrook's assertion that "Law is sups.
rior to a judge," is hardly correct, if Mr. G. means
by " law " the dead printed mass which is some-
times called "law." Over that " law " the judge
is so superior that he selects that statute, or that
rule of common law which he judges applicable.
He expounds what he judges to be the meaning of
that statute or that rule. It is by the living word
of his judgment pronounced that that dead law is
created into an actual and effective sentence. So
far a judge is superior to the dead letter of any law.
But, is another sense, Mr. Glazebrocek's assertion
is quite correct—viz., if " law" be regarded as the
sanctioned record of the decisions arrived at by the
Human Reason of those who framed the law, and
who appointed the judge to be their administrator
or representative, superior to all in his proper
functions, and in his own court, but subjeet, when
straying from those functions, and out of his own
-court, to an appeal to the superior judgment of
those who made the law, and who are its sovereign
or supreme administrators. In this sense,
" the law," as a record of the nation's so-
vereign wisdom, is superior to the judge ;
and for this very reason, I showed,
my last letter, that Mr. Glazebrook's Assize Judge
was not an adequate illustration of the high func-
tion of Human Reason. From the sentence of
man's highest judgments it is the Law of God that
each man hath, within himself, a court of higher
appeal. If the murderer hath been erroneously
acquitted, conscience, a faculty or a function of
Human Reason, doth rack the guilty one ; land
its sovereign condemnation is ever heard above the
ermined judge's mistaken acquittal. So, if the
innocent have been condemned, the superior judg-
ment of the mind, conscious of its integrity, can
rob the sentence of well-nigli all its bitterness.
Surely, I worked out this argument in my last
letter, which Mr. Glazebrook blames for not being
more " laboured ; " and yet Mr. Glazebrook does
not grapple with this question of the earthly
supremacy of Human Reason as a judge above all
judges, except God alone. The only argument, at
all bearing on this point, which Mr. G. brings
forth in his letter of this morning, is his quotation
from the great Chillingworth, and the inference,
apparently intended to be drawn from this quota-
tion is, that the Bible being the express or infallible
Word of God, is higher than Human Reason, just
as " the Law" is higher than a judge. Part of the
fallacy in this argument is that it assumes what Mr.
Glazebrook has yet to prove, and what I distinctly
deny, viz., that the Bible is the express or infallible
words of God. How, I ask Mr. G., do you know
that the Bible is superior to human reason ? Be-
cause, replies Mr. Glazebrook, Mr. Chillingworth
wrote that, whatever is in the Bible is that which
"God hath said," and, of course, that which " God
hath said," or God's express and infallible words,
must be above every human thought. But, then,
hath God spoken or said the express words of the Bible
so that they are infallible? This is just the ques-
tion that I had hoped Mr. Glazebrook would, by
pea. vrn _
course, "however, my Reverend opponent assumes
this point, and occupies time and space in discus-
sing my orthodoxy, or the contrary, e. g. Mr. G.
asks if I told the Home-ousion ? Of course, I
told the Homo-ousion, or oneness of substance
betwixt the Father and the Son. If not, how could
I repeat the Nicene Creed? I suspect, however,
that it would imperil the scholarship and the
orthodoxy of many a one—of course I do not mean
such an one as Mr. Glazebrook--if he were called
upon to explain What is meant by onenesss of
substance with a Being who is (Article I.) " without
body, parts, or missions ;" and who, as to His essence,
dwelleth i 4 light which no man can approach 'unto."
This, however, by the way and merely to defend
myself from one of the numerous darts with which
Mr. Glazebrook has thought proper to assail me.
Now, sir, I think my case for the superiority of
reason over all rules of faith is, in its general bear-
ings, pretty well before the public. In my last
letter, and in this, I have advanced an argument on
this subject which is, so far, untouched by Mr.
Glazebrook. I need not, therefore, repeat or dwell
on the more abstract and philosophical aspects of
the question ; but I shall conclude this letter by
submitting to your readers a simple case, in the
way of illustration. We are in possession of the
Bible, which we believe to be (or to contain) the
Word (or teaching) of God. Now, suppose we find
in the Bible (1 Tim., ii. 4) such a very simple
statement as this—" Who (i. e. God) will have all
men to be saved " I wish to know how I am to
ascertain the right meaning of this apparently most
easy text ? The more I study the text, the more
various do I find are the meanings which have
been attached, and are still attached, to its words.
Take, first, the words " to be saved," and ascertain
their meaning :-
1. To be, after all the cares and sins of this
world, rescued from hell-fire in the world to comet
2. go be among those who shall escape destruc-
tion at the end of the world.
3. To be rescued from sin now, and so, and only
so, by the mercy of God, to escape the misery and
remorse which always follow sin, as the effee
follows from the cause.
Which of these three meanings] is truly taught
in the text ?

Then, take next, the words " will have."
1. Do they imply that God is determined, and
that His Nvill in the matter cannot be resisted, but
men must be saved ?

2. Do they imply that the Divine wish is for our
salvation, and that it will be our foolish sin to
thwart that wish, as we can if we so choose?
Which of these two different instructions are we
to gather from this portion of the text?
Or, again, take the apparently unmistakeable
words, " all men," and inquire what the learned and
the pious say is their signification ?
1. Do they denote 'all the elect only, as not a few
Christians say, and may they mean that the reader
is not one whom God wishes to be saved ?
2. Do they denote all who hear of the Gospel only,
as some say ?
3. Do they denote all, and only all, who, without
being foredoomed by an irresistible decree of
election, accept the Gospel when they hear it?
4. Do they mean the utmost that they can mean
—viz.. that God is beneficent to all, and wishes all
men, in all countries, to be good and consequently
happy ?

filch of these four significations am I to attach
to this part of the text ?

Or, yet again, who is the " God" referred to
1. 13 God, as some men terribly seem to imply,
a dreadful Being, who requires blood before ho can
bo placated ?

2. Or, is Ho Love, and did He, out of His love,
and in manifestation of that love, Himself send
forth the Only-begotten, to seek and to save the
wandering pradigals ?
Which of all these possible—nay, actual—inter-
pretations of one simple verse am I to adopt ? Or,
rather, which of all their manifold combinations
shall I adopt? Who will toll me ? Who will guide
me 4 Does any. man say, " Hear the Church

BOY', CLOTHING MADE WITH GREAT TASTE AT LEWIS sad
COMPANY'S, Ranelsgh-street.