Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-16 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—When I undertook this controversy with Mr.
Glazebrook, I did so in the hope that, by a correspondence
between two clergymen of the English Church, much truth
would be taught and no little courtesy and kindness would
be exhibited to the public. You may imagine, therefore,
the pain—the extreme pain—with which I have read
many sarts of Mr. Giazebrook's correspondence, and
especilly his letter of the 9th instant, published by you
this morning.
Mn Glazebrook begins his letter by "confessing" that it
was is the way of " aini‘sement" that ho adopted the
"artifice" of "altering the punctuation" of my words,
and so " turning" them "against myself."
sir, I wish to be as respectful—nay, as kind—to Mr.
Glazebroek as I can; but I must not be untaiteful to truth
and honesty : and I am therefore bound to say that the
mod—not to say religious—coudition of mind, which is
indicated by such a " eenttssiou" as this, is deplorable in
the extreme. That a clergyman should, by his own con-
fession, wilfully pervert the words of a brother clergyman
in order to defense him before the public, is bad enough;
bat that the wilful anti, confessedly, inaccurate defamer
should ackeo sledge himself amused by such a proceeding
is nothing less than au amazing instance of sheanelessness.
this is not a question of doctrine. It is a simple but
wretched case of wilful misrepresentation, confessed,
gloried in, and repeated—l say repeated, for Mr. Glaze-
brook proceeds once 1110..0 to "congratulate himself" on
my basing furnished niiu with the " ex,z3ssion" that I
am "nut iu opinion a ctergymen of the Chatch of Jfng-
land." Mr. Glazebrook even ventures to say I have
never denied this charge, although, in the Ne.-y letter which
Mr. Glazebrook lieu lying before him when he thus
wrote, I used these several forms of denying his charge,
Of course, sir," I wrote, " I have made no such coa-
fessien. Of course, Mr. Glazebrook quite uuderstands
that my reminder wits the very opposite of that which he
represents it as having been. His misrepresentation of my
words is as complete as possible, &c." It this, and mote
to the same effect, which I wrote un the 4th instant, and
which you, sir, published oa tie 7th, ba not a denial of
Mr. Glazebrooles charge, I am at a loss to know how a
denial could be framed.
As to all the inaelida which is contained in the follow-.
itlg expressions of Mr. Glazebrock's letter, e g " occult
principles which he (Mc. Macnaught) date not avow, but
which heisgeneraily behaved to entertain ;" "Heresy, like
the miasma of a marsh, though it cannot be handled or seen,
is known to be there by its otfansivene, ss." " Until Mr. M.
declares 'plainly and without ahy equivocation, or menial
reservazios, that he believes Christ to be the Supreme Je-
hovah he lies under grave suspicion of Arianism or Stciaian-
ism " Mr. M. " thinks his success in deception is complete."
We candor, however, after the experience we have had,
expect candour, openness, and honesty from Mr.
Macnaught." " May we not, then, with great probability,
say that Mr. M. is, As to all these and several other
attempts ti injure use by raising prejudice and sus„icion,
I beg most respectfully to rewind Mr. Giazobrook that. the,
sentiment of charity, which "is kind," which " thinketh
no evil," which " rejoiced' not in iniquity, but rejoic.th iu
the truth," which " believeth all things," and which
" &peek all dirt:iv," is declared in 1-laly Writ to be
csmatiaralid isidispensible to Caristianity.
I hope it was Mr. Glazebrimlt's memory, or his power
of logical judgment, which tailed him when he wrote, " I
never said that similarity of seaiiment on some points
necessarily proves it to exist in all," fur Mr. G. aid w rite—
(Dec. 2, published Dee. 4)—'• Mr. Macnau4ht denies that
tie is a Socieieu—this is not denying that he holds any
Socinian principles, Ste. ; " ac.d, again, in the same letter, Mr.
Glazebroult wrote " If it should turn out that he, though
a clergyman of the Church of entertains Soc.nian
principLs, this fact must entirely destroy his claim to
sincerity, &c." Ia these and o;.iat.r passages, Mr. Glazebrook
has argued oa the assumption, that a man, holding some
or even " any" Seeiniau principles, must be a Sicituen.
Tnis is plainly tantamount to " saying that similarity of
sentiments on some points necessarily proves it to exist in
all". I ant glad that Mr. Gitiz,Asrook now kerceives tue
absurdity of this argament. lam glad he now disclaims
ail recourse to it. I only wish he had thought of its absur-
dity, and eschewed it oe the 2nd of December, for then he
would nut have endeavoured to prove that Mr. Pd. was a
Socinian "by showing that Mr. _I., in common with Mr.
G., held some one or two priuci pies, which the Socinians
also hold.

Mr. G's letter of this moiniag is, like the rest of his
epistles, remarkable for the manner in ,which he ignored
the arguments I have advanced. For instanca, he does
not attempt to 1.0,1 us how, exc,eot bJ tho sovereign, die.
criminat lag dxision of Iluanait Reasons priva!e jag fnent,
we are to chiose the true oita out of the forty-eight entreat
interpretations of such a simple text as, " God will have all
men to be saved" 1. Tim. ii. 4. Mr. G'razeloi-ook does
not attempt to explain to us how it is that, if the Bible
dictates to tiuraa❑ Reason, and not Human Rioson to the
Bible, the same printed Book, or Bible, yields such
numerous and such divt;rse meanings to different human
minds, or, even, to the same mini at different stages of
anneal growth. flues?, and other such like arguments of
mine, Mr. Glazebrook does sot touch. However, sir, your
readers will not, I trust, forget them or the conclusions to
which they lead.
In the same manner Mc. Ghzobrook ignores the fac',
that, of the two principles, which Mr. G. tmxud me with

holding in common with " the Socinians," I showed clearly
that oue —viz , the denying to Scripture a plenary
• In3piration—w as not heed by me, but was held by Air.
Glazebrook himself, whose actual words (in his letter to the
Courier, of Nov. 18,) ars " The definite article plainly
limits the teaching of the Spirit to a particular class of
truths." Not only does Mr. Ginzebrook ignore this some-
what awkward fact, to which I now draw your reajer's
special attcation, sir, bu: he is told enough to assert again,
in this hii last lett?r, that hi "instanced two enfessedly
Socinian principles ot " !Ethic! Proh, puclor ! Proi,, mores!
Me. GlazebAnk has writen a good deal about
the old ilthansian and anti-Arian word " Honio-ousiou"
(weaning " of the saes. essence,") Now, sir, I ani free to say
that I think the old war about this word anl its herstic.il

" tionnA-oasiou" (incaning of a similar essence), was
a very unwhe awl uncharitable war. I think Gibbon's

sarca3in was very j❑st, when he spoke of " the furious

contests which the ditnrenn of a singe diphthong (o or of
excited between the liorno-ousimis and thelionni-ousians.'

I think the idea of Chri.Ftians fighticg, and excommunicating
one another, oa on:',11 a point of refined philosophical
criticism, is as lamentably silly as it is clearly unscriptural.
Still, apw that the fight is over, and now that one of the
terms, about ;which MIIZI
_fought fourteen hundred years
ago, has found a lodgment in our National Church's
thclaration of faith, I am not going to wage another
illy
war over this term. I don't see much use, or mach piety,
or Innen instruction, in this part of our Church's belief ; bat
I do see much mischief, which, in my humble julginent,
would arise from any man's leaping the communion of a
Church on such a pint; and, therefore, lam perfi:ctly
content to hold the Horal-ousiou (i. e. the oneness or
saneness—if Mr. G. prefer the latter term---. 4 essence
betwixt tao Father and the Son) as at least an article of
peace. I say, "if Air; G. prefer the term" saneness.,
because Mr. Glazebrook finds the greatest fault with me

'or translati,Jg "Humo.ousion" oneness iotead of sameness

of essence.

I am ni93t auxotis to thick well of

Mr. Glazebrook's Orthivdoxy and his Scholarship ;
but, really, I hardly know what to make of

several expressions in this his last letter. Let the reader

observe the following fact 3 G. write?, that my

Saying I hold the oneness of the Father and the Son is an

"attempt to conceal my sentiments." Again, he says that

oneness of subseanee is " am equivocal meaning" for " the
term Homo-ousion.; " and he calh this, my translation,