Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-23 00:00:00

TJ THE EDITOR OP THE NORTHERN 7I2dER.

Sir,—There appears to be some delay in the production
of the apology which Mr. Glazebrook owes us for his grave
misrepresentations, and for his most unfounded attacks on
my personal character mil orthodoxy. It was for Mr.
Glazabrook's own sake, quite as much as for mine, that I
gave him the opportunity of making the amende honorasle.
I hope he will yet put himself right with the public by
offering such an explanation as is to be expected, from a
gentleman and a christian, in his circumstances. However,
be that as it may, I shall lose no more time in waiting for
Mr. Glazebrook, bat shall proceed, at once, to review his
last letter which you, Sir, published on the Bth instant.
I shall begin by asking your readers whether they can
understand the object of that letter ? Mr. Glazebrook
ought, in accordance with his own proposal, to be now
applying himself to an answer of the fourth paragraph in
my first letter. He ought to be telling us which is " the
Church that has been preserved, by Scriptural Infallibility,
from doctrinal error ?" This, clearly, is what Mr. G.
ought to be doing: but it is, apparently, a task which he
was mire ready to undertake than he is prompt to ac-

complish.
If it be said that Mr. G. is still holding on stoutly to the
second paragraph of my letter, and that he is still main-
taining the proposition that Scripture is reason's supreme
judge, and that reason is not the sovereign judge over
Scripture, then I ask why does not Mr. Glazebrook grapple
with some of the numerous arguments I have advanced on
this point? For instance, with my letter (published by
you, Dec. 11) lying before him, why does he ignore every-
thing in that letter except the interpretation of one text,
2 Cor. iii. 6? Why does he quit the question at issue to
call me "Infidel?" Why does he waste time and distract
attention with a peroration implying that I send my con-
gregat'on away "in doubt and despair ?" One is at a
loss to sea the logical force, or even the rhetorical coher-
ence of Mr. G.'a letters. However, sir, I shall follow him
sten by step ; and shall not intentionally, leave any part
of his letter unanswered.
In the first place, I beg, most respectfully, to suggest to
Mr. G. that, if he were correct in saying that I " spread
the ravages of infidelity," an 1 " a thousand heretical
opinions" from my pulpit in St. Chrysostom's, it would be,
indeed, a great disgrace to me, but it would be hardly a
less disgrace to any Bishop who allowed such mischief to
be done in his diocese, without, at least, attempting to
correct the errors, or check the wilfulness of the clergyman
who dii it. The Bishop of Chester has never, in any way ,
remonstrated with me on the subject of my teaching. I
thought his Lordship alluded to me at the Collegiate
Institution last October, bat it seems I was mistaken.
Indeed, I am persuaded he is too wise, and, I trust,
too liberal to do so as long as my doctrines are in ac-
cordance with Holy Writ, and the broad Catholic teach •
ins of the Prayer Book. My views are no secret. They
are uttered every Sunday, and at other appropriate times,
without reserve. They cannot be un'tnown to my Dio-
cesan. Does Mr. Glazebrook, then, intend to charge
the Bishop of Cheater with most culpable negligence ?
Let Mr. G. remember that I cannot be charged with
publicly and habitually spreading " infidelity" and
•' heresy," without Mr. G.'s thus grievously inculpating
the Right Reverend Overseer of this diocese. Besides, if
I taught "heresy and infidelity," and " sent my flock
away in doubt and despair," does Mr. Glazsbro:k think
it probable that, for the last four years and upwards,
ever since St. Chrysostom's Church vas opened, the
Churchwardets should never have had a single pew
they could not Ist?
As to the text, 2 Cor., iii., 6, Mr. G. says, my inter-
pretation of it is a "perversion," " an arbitrary gloss,"
&c. The words of the text are, " Who (1 e., God) hath
made us able ministers of the New Testament, net of the
letter, but of the spirit ; fo: the letter killeth, bat the spirit
giveth life." Now, Mr. G. informs as that th 3 " letter"
here means " the old dispensation " (Judaism), and t'se
" spirit" here means " the Christian dispensation."
Granted. What, then, is the characteristic of Judaism,
which has been " done away ? ' Just this, that it was a

dispensation of "the letter," of written records, addressing
themselves, not directly to the reason and affection of
humanity, but to the outward senses, and then to the
principles of terror and absolute literal obedience, as is
most clearly shown in such a passage as Heb. xii., 18.21.
And, on the other hand, what is the characteristic glory of
the new dispensation (Christianity) ? Is it not this. viz ,
that it is a dispensation of spirit, propagating itself, now,
by word of month to those who cannot reai; now, by the
suggestion of various books to those who can read; now,
without book or spoken word of man, to the reflective
mind of a Socrates, or to the zealous heart of a Paul—ths
Spirit of God, in each such case, working with the spirit
of man? Is not this the characteristic glory of Christianity,
that (in the laugusge of Jeremiah mod., quoted Heb. viii ,
10) it is the " covenant " in which God " pats His laws
into men's minds an I writes them on their hearts ?" So
far, then, is my interpretation from being a "delusion," &c.,
that it pree_sely accords with, and recognises Mr. Glaze-
brook's own true interpretation of 2 Cor. iii, 6, and on the
strength of tbat interpretation, we learn that the " letter,"
written, and material, and perishable —like the printed
pages of any book or Bible—is inferior to the spirit," or
living sentiment, and conviction, and principle, which—
liGe religion of Christ—addresses itself to, and takes
hold of, the mind and heart of mzn. I will only add, in
the words of Canon Stanley, in his commentary on this
verse, " The mere outward book, or ordinance," is " con
trasted with the living power of the Gospel" Thus, on the
testimony of Scripture, it is true that Reason, or the mind
of Humanity, is superior to, and mast be judge of, every
Rule of Faith—yea, even cf Holy Writ itself.

In trac!ng backwards the stream of Mr. Glaz :brook's
rhetoric, I come neat to what Mr. G. says of " poor Cole-
ridge." True, Coleridge was an " opium eater." It wai a
great folly, confessedly a great sin, and bitterly the sinner
rued it. Bat C;leridge is doad : he ii gene to a judgment
where he will be judged by One who kaows his weakness

and his temptation, as wall as his folly, and his sin. As
far as our knowledge goes, that judgment is pending, and

it wero profanity if any man shoull anticipato it. It is
not, however, I trust, in this sense that Mr. Glszebroak

refers to the Bin or folly of the great Coleridge. Ido wish,

however, that Mr. Glazebrook would not so frequently,
and, with so much irrelevance, assail the characters

of the dead. It was said by a wise man of old,

that "he who attacked the reputation of the departei

*reminded one of a dog gnawing savagely at an unresistirg
bone." When Mr. G. is again tempted to defame the

dead, or even nee•Resgly to rip up their faults, I wish he
would remember the wholesome adage which bids us spea'A
_ _ _

" Nothing but what is good of the deal" I wish he would

ponder over Tom Hool'a charitAble and reverential Beall.

meat regarding an erring but departed sister

" All that remains of her
Now is pure womanly."

Or, if these authorities ba not of enelcient weight for Mr,
Glazebrook, I must request him to remember that our
Master bade men to be chary in condemning others till
they were themselves " without sin." But, after all, what
is the force of Mr. G.'e denunciation of Samuel Taylor
C )leridge ? Does Mr. G. mean to insinuate that he who
wrote " Ch:istabel," " The Ancient Mariner," " Aids to
Reflection," " The Friend," "The Confessions of an
Enquiring Spirit," Sce., was an incompetent witness, or a
shallovi thinker, or, generally. and on plain sulljeets, a
confused or obscure writer ? Was not the very extem-
poraneous, overflowing stream of Coleridge's ordinary
conversation, a perennial source of delight, a constantly
fresh well of suggestive wisdom to all the great thinkers
of the day ? sire not the writings of Coleridge
amongst the first which are commended to an advanced
student in our Universities ? Is not a saying