Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-25 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THZ F.ORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—lt would have berJn a sufficient answer to
Mr. Macnaught's atten:‘pts to render the meaning
of the expression, " 'Thy Word," (John xvii , 17,)
doubtful to have replied, that the expressions
quoted by him for this purpose are not the same as
it. " The Word" of the Lord, (Psalm xxxiii., 6,) and
" The Word," (John i., 1), are evidently derived
from " Thy Word," the latter being distinguished
from the two former by the epithet " Thy,"
which constitutes its specific difference. The
criticism, then, of Mr. Macnaught, in this instance,
is loose, incorrect, and irrelevant. And, yet, in so
important a point, where the whole question at
issue, of the infallibility of God's Word, may have
been, and I maintain confidently, has been decided
by this declaration of Christ's, " Thy word is
Truth"—great caution ought to have been used.
Mr. Macnaught's persuasion, "that it is totally
impossible to believe that there is any sort of
infallibility in the Bible," has apparently influenced
him in his irreverent quibble on our Lord's own
words. "If I tell you ye will not believe," said
our Lord to the Chief Priest and Scribes, (Luke
xxii., 6,7,) and there is no declaration, how plain
soover, and unequivocal, which the perverseness
of Unitarian and Rationalistic criticism would not
attempt to bond to preconceived opinions. I must
plainly declare that any man who is capable of
committing a glaring error in his attempts at
criticism, like the one pointed out above, does not
deserve any, notice whatever, and I am not at all
surprised at the Bishop of Chester's contemptuous
silence.

Mr. Macnaught goes on S—". But if the term
Word of God be not always applied in Scripture
as a name for the Bible ; how does Mr. Glazebrooke
know that it is so applied, in John xvii., 17 ?"
Now, in the first place, the expression, " The Word
of God" is not in that passage at all, and that
Mr. Macnaught has substituted it for the ex
pression really used, " Thy Word," is an act of
disingenuousness, and proves plainly how closely
he should be watched in his criticisms. It is true,
he says, " the term Word," and marks that term in
italics, but his want of accuracy consists in stating
it as being part of the expression " The Word
of God," which is not the fact, (John xvii., 17.
There can be no dispute, it may be supposed, as to
whether our Lord's own words are inspired, and
this fact ought to have led Mr. Macnaught to use
a holy caution not to add to them, or take from
them, or alter them at all. It is owing to the want
of this holy awe that Mr. Macnaught has fallen
into the grevious sin of contradicting what may
be shewn to be the evident meaning of our Lord's
words. Our Lord says :—" Thy Word is Truth.'
—not " true," observe, but ‘` Truth," its substan-
tive. Then how can it contain error? as, accord-
ing to Mr. Macnaught's assertion, it does contain
error. But Mr. Macnaught disputes the fact
that these words refer to the Bible, i e ,
whether " Thy Word " is a name given here
to the Scriptures, and defies one to the proof
that. our Lord meant the Scriptures. Whether
Mr. M. acknowledge it or not, one would
suppose he cannot but perceive, that if it is proved
that in the proposition, " Thy word is Truth,"
" Thy Word" signifies the Scriptures, and that
c"rruth" is aXneita the substantive—it cannot
but mean Truth itself, unmixed with error, i. e
infallible. The proposition then will be " The
Scriptures are infallible Truth," which is the point
in dispute. No candid person can, I imagine,
deny the soundness of this deduction. No
accurate critic can deny its correctness. I am
deliberately of opinion that Mr. M. is bound in
fairness and common honesty to recant, unless
indeed he thinks himself entitled to contradict even
our Lord's own words. Mr. M'sareason has con-
vinced him " that there is no sort of infallibility in
the Bible," and he asserts that " the reason of man
is instituted by God to be superior to any rule of
Truth." Now, the question is, will' Mr. M. bow to
our Lord's own words, as to the infallibility of
Scripture, or will he boW to his own reason ? But
Mr M. demurs to the interpretation here put upon
our Lord's words. Let us, then, examine whether
it can be proved to be the only correct one.—First,
then as to the terms, "Thy Word." The terms
" Thy Word," whenever used in Scripture, signify,
the words uttered, either written, or unwritten.
In the Psalms, especially, they are used most
frequently, to signify the Old Testament Scrip-
tures, as Psalm exix , 16., " I will delight myself in
thy statutes, I will not forget Thy Word ;' " and
v. " Mine eyes prevent the night watches. thAt
I might meditate in ' Thy Word ;' " v. 103,
" Thy Word' is a lamp un'o my feet, and a
light unto my path " Indeed, so frequently
are these terms, " Thy Word, applied to
the Scriptures, that we may consider them a
distinctive name for them,—eonsecrated to that.
special purpose—so that he whose ear is
habituated to Scriptural language is immediately
reminded, on hearing them, of the Holy Scsiptures.
That the New 'Testament was not written at the
time when our Lord said " Thy word is truth,"
makes no difference whatever as to the application
of this declaration to it, because both the unwritten
word, and that which was to be written afterwards,
may be, and are, included in the general term 3
" Thy Word," because our Lord says, v. 20,
" Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me, through their war I."
Now it is only the written word that can benefit the
Church throuhout all ages. The question is,
does " Thy Word" signify the Scriptures or not,
in the passage under consideration? Oar Lord
prays Sanctify them through thy Truth." The
Truth then is God's truth, " thy truth," and it was
communicated tithe Apostles, far our Lord says;
v. 8, 0 I have given unto them the wordy which thou

gayest tne."

What than was the Truth of Gud

" the Words" which were given to the Apostles, but
thy Gospel ! When, therefore, our L rd says " Thy
Word is Truth," as explaining whet was the truth
he meant, it is in fact saying'' Thy Gospel is Truth."
Th tt the " Words " (v. 8) do signity the Gospel
we may see, Jahn xii , 48, " He that rejeeteth me
and receiveth not my words, bath one that
,judgeth
him : the.word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the list day ; (49) for I have not spoken
of myself, but t' e Father which sent me, He gave me
commandment what I should sny and what I should
speak." And again, John xiv., 10. "The words that
I speak unto you I speak not of myself." Was it
not, then, in strict accordance with these declara-
tions that our Lord should designate the Gospel in
his prayer to God as "The Word." What but the

most inveterate prejudice and bondage to a pre-
•conceiyed system could induce any one to doubt
this conclusion? No other meaning can be sug-
gested as equally probable. The common canon
of Unitarian criticism is, indeed, that any possible
meaning may be attributed to any passage, and
`I-

;ligtt we are not bound to take that meaning Which
s most probable, according to the context an i the

gratnmatical constritction. A preconceived system
in fact, allowed t, dictate the meaning, iu vio-
lation of all the common rules of interpretation. I
am quite at a loss to discover what. good reason can
be given for denying that the terms " Thy Word,"
(John zvii., 17), do not include the written word.
That there may be, and that there, are "inspired

writings," St. Paul, if he does not assert, most cei -
tainly takes for granted, which • is, perhaps, the
strongest mode of assertion (2 Tim., 16). Every
inspired writing is the Word of God ; and the Word
of God, if written, constitutes inspired and infallible

_ , _....._
Soripture. We are authorised, by the inspired
example of David, to call the =Old Testament " th 3
Word of God," because, in his addresses to God,
he designates it 1‘ Thy Word." The New Testament