Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-16 00:00:00

THE ORTHERN TEVIE S.-LIVERPOOL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1857

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

TO True EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TINES.
SlR,—From the last number of the Liverpool Courier I extract the following letter, which comes from the pen of
a brother clergyman in the neighbourhood.
Of course I cannot pretend to reply to every letter which men choose to write about their views of my theology.
Still I shall, occasionally, take up any point or points that may be urged against me, and which I may deem important
and relevant. This hint may explain my re•producing and replying to Mr. Glazebrook's publication, as follows:
Ma. GLAZEBROOK'S ARG UM MR. MACNAUGHT'S REPLY TO MR. G.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COURIER.
Sir,—Mr. Macnaught will, no doubt, meet with some one
to reply to him. The bishop may not think him, very
probably, of sufficient importance to be noticed, except in
the way of censure, not by argument.

My letter (in the Daily Post, of October 21st, 1857), has
not been answered by his lordship, either in the way of
argument or of censure. As to censure, what is there
to censure in an English Christian man upholding
respectfully before the world, that which he believes to
be truth ? As to argument, I suspect that his lordship
is too learned and too acute to become the champion of
alleged Scriptural, (or any other) infailibiiity. No
doubt, his reported expressions at the Collegiate Insti-
tution, were the impulsive and partially unguarded
utterance of an extemporaneous address ; and, if so,
instead of censuring or remonstrating, his lordship
would, of course, like an humble Christian man, be
very thankful that any unintentional error should be
corrected."

Ills principle are donbtles3 Unitarian, as the following
words prove : "Is it not clear that in such cases as these
(viz , incarnation, trinity, atonement, &c) the retort is
easy and valid ? The Bible errs in the narrative of
Stephen's speech, and why may it not err in the apparent
enunciation of an irrational version of some true doctrine?"
Thus the reason of man is admitted to be the only " rule
of faith," according to the Unitarian maxim. That there
may be no mistake as to what in his opinion, is the " rule
of faith," he says, " I take leave again to assert my
solemn conviction, as of a Christian man, that there is no
infallibility in the Bible."

What are the principles of Unitarianism to which Mr.
Glazebrook objects ? Does he wish us to infer that he
himself holds ii-rational views of the Incarnation,
Trinity, Atonement, &c. _Rational views on those
subjects are deducible from a careful interpretation of
Scripture, and are confirmed and thankfully received by
the thoughtful and the pions. I have never said, nor
do I hold, that the reason of man is the only rule of
faith. But lam persuaded that the reason of man is the
judge which must decide what is the rule of faith ; and,
consequently, that the reason of man is constituted by
God to be superior to any rule of faith. Will Mr.
Glazabrook inform us how, except by the judgement of
human reason, he knows what is the rule of faith? and yet
further, how, except by the judgment of human reason,
does Mr. Glazebrook decide which is the tree mean-
ing of that rule of faith which he accepts? Mr. G. is,
no doubt, aware that there are considerable differences
of opinion between Protestants and Roman Catholics,
for instance, or between High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen, as to what is the rule of faith. And, even
when Low Churchmen have decided on rejecting the
authority of Councils and Fathers, Mr. G. is well aware
that there are endless disputes as to the meaning and
force of some of the plainest texts of Holy Writ. I
shall be much obliged, and the public will be much
instructed, if Mr. Glazebrook will inform us how, ex-
cept by the judgment of human reason, we are to know
what is the rule of faith? and what is the correct inter-
pretation thereof ? Unless Mr. G. can teach us some-
thing better, I must conclude that our Creator has
appointed the reason of man to be a court of appeal tor
deciding what is the rule of faith, and what is its mean-
ing. And, thus, it will appear that the fallible reason
of man is declared by God to be superior to—because it
is constituted the judge of—every other rule of faith.

And then he goes on to assert, what I do not remember
ever to have heard before, that " Infallibility would be a
useless gift for a man ;" and he asks, in triumphal
defiance of the bishop, " Of what use an infallible book
could be to readers who, like himself and us, acknowledge
ourselves to be infallible, and liable to err in understand-
ing the contents even of the Bible itself." Had I not
r read this myself, I could scarce have believed any rational
man, an I especially a man like Mr. Macnaught, with so
overweening an opinion of his own sagacity, could have
given utterance to so great an absurdity. Our Lord, in
his prayer, John xvii, 17, said, "Sanctify them through
thy truth, thy Word is Truth." We have here the
fact declared that the Scriptures are truth, namely,
infallible; and it is also taken for granted that the truth
is revealed with sufficient clearness to be discovered. How
could such a prayer as that of our Lord have been uttered
on the supposition that, as Mr. Macnaught states, there is
"no infalliblity " in the Bible, and that it would be
" useless ?"

Mr. Glazebrook thinks that an infallible book wou:d be of
use to the fallible mind of man ; and he thinks we
possess such a book. His proof of our possessing an
infallible book is that our Lord (John xvii, 17.) rays,
" Thy Word is Truth." Will Mr. Glazebrook explain
to us what was meant by the " Word" of God in that
utterance of our Saviour Can Mr. G. shew us that
the name, " Word" of God, is neier applied to any-
thing but the Bible ? For example, (Psalm 33, 6.) "By
the word of the Lord were the heavens made, &c."
Does Mr. G. think the heavens were made by the Bible ?
or when (John i, 1) we read " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the IT
was God," Would Mr. Glazebrook have us believe the
Bible was in the beginning with God, and was God ?
But if the term, Word of God be not always applied in
Scripture as a name for the Bible, how does Mr. G.
know that it is so applied in John xvii, 17 ? Of course
Mr. Glazebrook remembers that not a syllable of the
New Testament could have been written when Jesus
said, " Thy Word is Truth." But, even supposing
our Savion, had sa'd—aa is said, and nizy be said with
perfect propriety—The Bible is Truth ; how would this
serve Mr. Glazebrook's statement? Have I ever denied
the truth of the Bible ? It is the infallibility, not the
truth of Holy Writ that I deny; and, surely, truth
and infallibility are not synonymous. If one should
say of any work on history or philosophy, that is a true
history, or a true book of philosophy, would it be
inferred that one meant that such book of history or
philosophy was free from all error, i.e., was infallible?
Until it shall be eliewn that the words true and infallb/s
are synonymous, it thus appears that Mr. Glazebrook's
otherwise very questionable argument is wholly,without
force.

Infallibility, therefore, in Scripture, is us: ful for the Mr. G. is of opinion that an infallible Bible is useful for the
sanctification of the church, and it is also useful and sanctification of the church. That the Bible, each as it
necessary for its preservation from doctrinal errors. is, with all its truth and all its errors, is a most blessed
means of sanctifying men, is a truth for which I con-
stantly thank and praise the goodness of God ; but
whether the Bible is infallible or not, will hardly be proved
or disproved by demonstrating its sanctifying influences.
But, further, Mr. Glazebrook tells us, that infallibility in
Scripture is useful and necessary for the preservation of
the Church from doctrinal errors." lam at a loss to
conceive what Mr. G. can mean by these words. Does
he mean, that in infant baptism and its contrary, in Gal-
vanism and its contrary, in Romanism and its contrary,
in all the various opposing doctrines of the Christian
Church, there is no error ? Or does he restrict the
limits of Christ's Church to that one sect of which he
and I are ministers ? Or does he, even within the pale
of the English Establishment, narrow his idea of " the
Church," so that it shall include only himself, and those
who think with him in all points of doctrine ? Let Mr.
Glazebrook tell us what he means by " the Church,"
and then we can judge how far the Church has been pre-
served from doctrinal errors, and 11;,w far such preser-
vation—if it should be found to exist—is necessarily
attributable to infallibility in the Bible or elsewhere. nit
till we are assured that " the Church" has been pre-
served from " doctrinal errors," it is rather a curious
. argument to infer scriptural infallibility from its neces-
sity, in order to secure the Church against false doctrine !

I charga Mr. Macnsught, then, with a direct contradic-
tion of our Lord's prayer.

The intelligent Christian reader will, I venture to hope,
be somewhat surprised and hurt at tho readiness with
which so grave and groundless a " charge" has been
brought against me.

But it seems the fallibility of men's reason is the all-
poweiful cause which renders the infallibility of Scriptures
useless. So that the fact of man's being liable to error
sometimes is an unanswerable proof that he is never right,
and never can be. This absurdity shows (according to the
ancient charge against theorists) what a man may be
deluded enough to say in defence of a theory. Truth has
been hitherto considered the great desideratum of mankind,
but the light of modern genius has at last discovered this
to be a mistake, and that the best condition of human
nature is to be that in which our senses are mocked, and
our feeble understandings befooled. I do not wonder at
the Fensation excited by the utterance of such notions from
a pulpit being great, though I much doubt whether many
persons give credit to what contradicts our common sense.

Here Mr. Glazebrook misunderstands, and, no doubt,
unintentionally, misrepresents, my argument. I have
never been guilty of tkP " absurdity " which Mr. G.
supposes. It is, sometimes, and as I humbly think,
presumptuously, argued, that God must have given an
infallible record of Christianity; for, that it would be
unworthy of Divine wisdom to send His Son into the
world as a Saviour, and not to provide for that mission
being always made known to the subsequent generations
of man. Iu reply to such an argument, I suggest that
we cannot tell what God must do. We can only learn
what he has done, and still does ; and, as to the
particular necessity which has been thus alleged to
bind the Divine Being, I reply that, if an infallible
Record or Bible be necessary in order to justify the
ways of God to man, not less necessary, on the same
principle, is an infallible mind in man in order to the
right understanding of the alleged infallible Book.
For, would it not be marvellous unwisdom in man
if he were to contrive an infallible record of some event
or some teaching and yet not provide an infallible
intepreter of that record and a power of infallibly
reading and understanding it. When it is shown that
men have the power of infallibly understanding the
signification of the Bible, then I shall feel that some
weight is to be attached to the argument which, in the
meantime, I beg respectfully to designate as incmclusive
and somewhat presumptuous, ina-much as we cannot
say what God muss do.

The fact that &cripture is fallible, may indeed bl partially
admitted by those " unlearned" persons who listen to the
old objections enumerated by Mr. Macnaught and others of
the Unitarian school, but that in such a case whatever
is, is best," cannot but be doubted by most persons, in
defiance of his assertions.

As Mr. Glazebrook cannot be acquainted with all, or even
the greater part of St. Chrysostom's covwegation,
I must take leave to say that his designating that cJngre-
gation " unlearned persons" is rather rash and hardly
called for. Let us hope that Mr. G. is more carefal
and more guarded in forming and giving utterance to his
doctrinal opinions, than he appears to be in his estimate
of men. But, if Mr Glazebrook wishes to imply that
only unlearned persons agree with me in elenyirg the
Bible's infallibility, I pray him to remember that I
have the avowed testimony, on this subject, of Archbishop
Wftately ; Bishops Hampden, Hinds, Thi,lwall ; Pro-
fessors Donaldson, Towett, Baden Powell, William.,
Wilson, Neander, Thcluck, end a host of others.

One would expect that a master of the school of scepti-
cism would be modest in his conclusions, and give utterance
t ) them not as one who speaks " with authority." It seems,
however, that, ‘. falhb:e " as he has confessed himself to be,
in some way or other, ho has arrived at a " full " assurance
of the truth. I make these assertions," he says, " fully
believing that Almighty God has given Christ to be the
one and only deliverer and Saviour of the world ; and that
he has pr,-.,videntially appointed the Bible as the sacra
deposit of the principles of Christianity."

Will Mr. Glazebrook inform us if there be any antagonism
betwixt being " modest in one's corclusione," and
" speaking with authority ' 'Was act our Master
"modest in his conclusions ? " Yet Ile spake with
authority. Is not the utterance of plain, intelligible
truth, with an affectionate spirit, always authoritative ?

Now, what is the meaning of the Bible being "a
.s no
sacred
deposit of the principles of Christianity,"
if "there 2
infallibility in the Bible ?" for " a sacred deposit of error"
is very like a contradiction in terms; if sacred means, in
this case, emanating from the source of truth, and being
entirely free from what is false, Mr, Macnaught appears,

Unless the words " sacred" and " infallible" be synony-
mous, this passage is clearly illogical. The tomb is
a sacred deposit of human ashes; but I have yet to
learn that the tomb is, therefore, infallible. I say
dust the Bible is a sacred (i. e. Venerable), though
fallible deposit of the principles of Christianity. I

in fact, to have been startled at his own assertions ; con- never said the Bible was a sacred deposit of error. This
elusions they cannot well be called, for this would imply is Mr. Glazebrook's own, and I have nothing to do
that they resulted from reasoning. with it.

He is evidently self-convicted of error, on reflecting, that I beg to assure Mr. Glazebrook, that lamin no danger
if he admitted that his views of inspiration had reduced of " universal doubt and uncertainty." The objective
him to a state of universal doubt and uncertainty, and truth of God surrounds us on all sides. Man has
professed to have discovered that there is no " sacred already acquired, from the Bible and from Nature, a
deposit of the principles of Christianity," the very absurdity considerable amount of subjective truth, by bringing
of this conclusion must prove that a flaw existed somewhere himself into harmony with facts. Each day we are
in his theory. making new acquirements, as individuals and as a race,
Each day we are casting off old errors, and learning
more suivectiv3 truth. The boundaries of ' doubt and
uncertainty," grow narrower. The region of knowledge
and certainty expands before the eye to the glory of
God, and to the happiness of man. Even of the Bible
and of Christianity, we are beginning to understand
more than men did iu the earlier and more infanzine
ages of the world.

Pure truth, infallibility, does not exist in the Scriptures ;
and yet, marvellous to say, Mr, Macnaught has discovered
it there.

The greater the darkness the more eas' ly he finds his
way. Light would not at all assist his feeble sight. But
to explain this apparent mystery, he is good enough to go
into particulars. The reason is, it seems, that the " Holy
Spirit was on the Apostles and men of old, disposing and
actuating them to the composition of the several -s fallible
portions which they respectively contributed to the volume
of Holy Writ." So that it turns out that the reason why
the fallibility of the Holy Scriptures has enabled Mr.
Macnanght to discover the " sacred deposit of the principles
of Christianity" is, that the fallibility unto which the men
of old were " disposed" originated in the Holy Spirit, and
had on Mr. Macnanght all the usual effect of revealed truth.
This is a greater mystery than the Trinity, and to require
any to believe it is to require men "to bow down to our
irrationalities."

Pure (i. e. moral, and useful, and beneficent) truth does
exist in the Bible, and has ever been thankfully acknow-
ledged by me. How pure (i. e. unmixed or infallible)
truth can exist in a book which teaches that Jesus was,
on his birth, carried into Egypt, and there remained till
Herod's death—whilst it also states that Jesus was, forty
days after his birth, taken to live for several years at
Nazareth, in Galilee—is part of the problem, which I
have, in vain, invited the Bishop of Chester to solve for
the edification of us all.

I cannot now proceed further ; but I merely quote from
Hartwell Herne, p. 564, p. 2, b. 2, seventh edition,
"Errors in the transcript of copies, as well as in printed
editions and trap-lations, do unquestionably exist ; but the
contradictions objected to are only seeming, not real, nor
do we know a single instance of such alleged contradictions
that is not capable of a rational solution."

In the 14th chapter of John, verses 25 and 2G, our
Lord said, " These things have I spoken unto you, being
yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the
Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Now,
in these words there is an intended and an express con-
trast of the partial information which the apostles
possessed during the life of our Lord, with the full and
perfect information, the knowledge of " all things," which
was to be communicated on tho day of Pentecost. A
similar contrast is repeated in the 161 chapter, verses 12,
and 13 : " I have yet many things to say unto you, but
ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when the Spirit of
Truth is come, He will guide you into all (the) truth, for
He shall not speak of himself ; bat whatsoever He shall
hear, ie , the truth, as the Greek expresses it, (teen ale-
theian) that shall he speak, and He will show you things to
come." Here then, again, the most important information
is repeated at a short interval, that the Spirit of Truth
would communicate full instructions, infallible knowledge,
"all the truth,"—to the apostles—to fit them for their
office of communicating the gospel to the world. But the
importance of this promise was not allowed to rest on these
two distinct and solemn declarations. The attention of
the apostles themselve', and of all the world, to whom the
gospel is made known, was fixed upon this important fact
of the inspiration of the apostles, when Christ appeared
to the eleven at Jerusalem. Our Lord's last words to them
b3fore He was carried up into Heaven" were : " And
behold, I send the promise of my Father unto you, but
tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be, endued
witte power from on high." But even this solemn an-
, nouneement of the great truth that the apostles would
be fully inspired by one " who rose from the dead" to
declare it, was not deemed sufficient. The apostles were,
we read, commanded " to tarry at Jerusalem until they
were endued with power from on high,"
In this command there is no cause assigned why the
communication of this " Power from on high " was to be
delayed so long; we are, therefore, allowed to endeavour
to discover one in the reason of the thing. The natural
effect of so long a delay would be to raise the expectations
of the apostles, and to afford them an opportunity for forming
a more adequate notion of the nature and value of the great
blessing promised than they might otherwise possess.
They would find how much they had lost in losing the
visible presence of their Lord, and their need of His
encouragement and instruction, and would necessarily
long for the descent of the Comforter and the Spirit of
Truth which was to recompense them for that loss.
And with respect to the Church in all ages, the delay in
granting the spirit to the apostles is calculated to make
the importance of the gift more marked, and to bring out
in prominent relief the inestimable services which the
apostles were enabled to perform to that church by being
" endued with power from on high." The expression
employed to describe the gift of the spirit, as well as the
peculiar designation of that spirit, ought not to pass with-
out attentive observation. The spirit is called the "Spirit
of Truth," with evident reference to the object with which
it was to be bestowed, namely, to " guide us to all the
truth," and that this was not merely for the information
of the apostles themselves, but in order to enable them to
teach others, we see proved by the account in Acts chap 1,
v. 8 Our Lord said, " Bat ye shall receive power after
the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be wit-
nesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." So
that the inspiration of the apostles, and their being thus
guided unto all the truth, was for the purpose of fitting
them for their office of communicating "ail the truth to
the uttermost parts of the earth." Tids is described (in
those important words to which we have just directed our
attention) as being " endued with power from on high."

I regret that I cannot see how these sentences disprove my
position. Nor can I perceive, even through Mr. Glaze-
brook's somewhat complicated sentences, any mark of
my opinions—so far as they are accurately represented—
being an irrational mystery.

The only force I can perceive in this quotation is, that it
acknowledges the appearance of errors in Scripture, but
supposes they can be explained away. I humbly submit,
that numerous apparent errors are so many direct
evidences that Scripture was not intended by God to
appear, or to be, infallible.

In replyto all which Mr. Glazebrook says, on the promises
of the Spirit securing infallibility to Scripture, I beg to
refer him, and any who may be interested iu this very
important branch of the subject, to " Macnaught on
Inspiration, book 11., chap. 7, pages 94 to 104 of the
2nd edition. There it will be seen that those promises
admit of a simple and natural interpretation without
reference to the idea of infallibility ; and that they fail
as promises if their meaning be forced to such an extent
as that they shall imply that attribute for Scripture, or
the Scripture wri' ars.

What other idea, then, than that of infallible inspiration Here Mr. Glazebropk's inference is—not only that the
will fully correspond with the circumstances related and Bible is infallible—but that the Apostles were
the exprwsions used. The "Spirit of Truth" guides the infallible, or free from all liability to err. If
Apostles unto "alt the truth," strengthening their memo- so, perhaps, Mr. Glazebrook will tell us how
ries, and bringing all things to their remembrance with the it came to pass (Acts 23, 5,) that Paul said,
view of enabling them to be " witnesses" of Christ to all "I moist not (or knew not) that he was the high priest?"
the orld, and thus enduing them with power from on or, yet again, which of the two Apostles was right, and
High, cannot moan leas than their infallible inspiration. which was wrong when (Gal. 2, 11, &a.) Paul " with-
This, is, indeed, " power from on high" for " earthen yes- stood Peter to the face ?"
eels," as they were like ourselves would be far from being
infallible were it not for that power. What shall we say,
then, to those "blind guides" who, in direct contradiction
of the plain testimony of Scripture, can dare to say, with
Mr. Macnaught, that the Apostles " were fallible, though
inspired, because men, they had the treasures of the Gos-
pel in earthen vessels" of fallible humanity.

This assertion is not only an error as contradicting With regard to Mr. Glazebrook's charging me with
Scripture, but it is also, in itself, an impiety, or, rather, "impiety" and " the greatest blasphemy," I will
a great blasphemy; for it is saying that the Holy Ghost only say that I trust he will one day learn to regret this
was granted, according to the Scriptures, to give authority unkind, and, as I think, injudicious employment of epi-
to the utterance of the Apostles, and :,et that their utter- thets. My hope is that both he and I love the Lord Jesus
antes were fallible. With reverence for the subject, let us Christ in sincerity—that we both wish to serve Him by
ask, is it not the greatest blaspheuy thus to charga the speaking the truth faithfully, in love, and by acting use-
Spirit of Truth with adopting an expedient so evidently fully and brotherly in the world—that we both may be
calculated to propagate falsehood, and thus mislead the ripened for a glorious hereafter.
church?

I conclude for to day, though I intended to give a quo- I conclude by expressing a hope that Mr. Glazebrook will
tation from Dr. M'Briee on in,piration, but I reserve it fcr fcrbear his quotation from Dr. lkl‘Bride, &c., until he
another time.--Yours, &c, J. K. GLAZ ErROOll. shall have given us answers to the questions raised by
Lower Darwcn. his letter, and pointed out by me in this communi-

cation.—Youre, &e.,
Everton, Nov. 13, 1857.

JOIIN MACNAUGHTT

At LEWIS & CO IIPANY'S, Ranelagh-3treet.
tOYS are CLOTHED from the Ages of Six to Twenty Year

ThIPROVi-11F.fiTS IN FETTEI-LANE.—Tho bl,:ck of 110USC8
adj.seent to Clifford's-inn, L:t the Fteet-street end of Fetter-
lane, is t, 1)., removed Burin; the coarse of next week.
The effect of the removal of these houses will be to throw
open to view from Fir.et-street the new RecorcT-office, and to
afford an easy approach to the Judges' Chambers and the
numerous cftices connee:ed with t" em. L will also tend
very much to facilithte the trifle along that hitherto most
inconvenient thoroughfare.

At LEWIS & COMPANY'S, Ranelagh-street.
BOYS are CLOTHED from the Ages of Six to Twenty Years.

MEETING OF ROIL TAMENT. —The Times on Saturday
said that Parliament wculd meet fourteen days after the
council to be held on Monday, and the Morning Post
anticipates that the houses will assemble on December the
Ist or 3rd.

BENEFITS OF THE CHIMNEY.—A great deal has been
written of late years in disparagement of the open coil
fire and the chimney, in comparison with the stove and
flue; but Professor Faraday has shown the chimney to
possess very important functions in sanitary economy.
Thug, a par!our fire will consume in twelve hours forty
pounds of coals, the combustion rendering 42,000:gallons of
Air unfit to support life. Not only is that large amount of
deletericui product carried away, and rendered inflexions
by the chimney, but five times that quantity of air is also
carried up by the draught, and ventilation is thus effectually
maintained.

THE WIVES AND CHILDREN OF OUR INDIAN ARMY.—
We deeply regret to learn that the wives and children of
the soldiers recently despatched from Woolwich for active
service in India are in great distress. A number of ladies
connected with the garrison have, in the most praiseworthy
manner, taken up their case, and formed themselves into a
committee with the view of collecting subscriptions. Their
efforts have been so far successful, the sum of £305
having been already collected. An application has also
been made to the Lord Mayor for permission to devote to
the assistance of the widows and children, the funds col-
lected by the Woolwich branch of the Indian Relief
Committee ; and we understand that it isin contemplation
to give several entertainments, the proceeds of which will
be applied in a similar manner.

At LEWIS & OMPA NY'S, Ranelagh-street,
BOYS are CLOTHED from the Agee of Biz Twenty Year".

ROTS' CLOTHINO DUDE WITH GREAT TASTE, at LEWIS and
COMPANY'S,/ Itandsel-Bbreet,

THE ALLEGED CRUEL TREATMENT OF A 136