Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-17 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—Will you have •the kindness to insert the
accompanying dialogue in your paper? Some of
your readers, perhaps, may be inclined to think the
characters fictions, and the dialogue imaginary ;
but, whatever they may think of it, their thoughts
cannot effect the truth, or otherwise, of what is
therein contained. Others, again, may suspect
that Mr. Glazebrook's opponent may have had
something to do with it. To such I will say, that
Mr. Macnaught has had nothing whatever to do with
it ; nor dots he know anything at all about it.—l am,
Sir, yours truly,

A CLERGY/ a tN OF Tlll4 CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Dec. 15, 1837.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN ROBERT AND THOMAS
Which may be appropriately called, "Eyes and no Eyes ;'
or, the Art of Seeing."
Robert.—Well, Thomas, you're in a hurry. Won't you
speak to an old friend? What have you there ?
Thomas.—Ho ! Is that yon, Robert? I'm really very
glad to see you. I've just been " investing" in a copy of
the NORTHERN TIMES. Capital paper for free discussion ;it
contains now a controversy between two clergymen, which
is well worth studying.
R.-oh, you mean the controversy on Scripture Infal-
libility. I've read the letters, and as you are pretty " well
up" in theso matters, I should like to have a little conver-
sation with you on this subject.
T.—Nothing can give me greater pleasure. Yon
must come home with me, and then we can talk the
matter over quietly in my stu ly. * * * By way of
introduction, just notics Mr. G.'s inconsistent flourish at
the beginning of his flr.it letter; he says that the Bishop
does not consider Mr. M. of sufficient importance to be
noticed ; but Mr. G , in thus attacking him, plainly shows
that he himself does: he, evidently, ace uding to his
own statement, differs from the Bishop in his opinion of
Mr. M.

R.—But Mr. G. says that Mr. M. is a " Unitarian," a
" theological conjuror," &c. ; he says he is guilty of
" blasphemy" and " impiety."
T.—Well, you amuse me, certainly. Are you so
credulous as to believe every off-hand aspersion of a man's
character? You surely don't regard these grave and
offensive charges in the light of sober and legitimate
argumentation ? The language appears to me to be
unworthy of a gentleman, and still more so of a Christian,
and one who professes to be under the guidance of infalli-
bility, which, he says, is useful for sanctification, and useful
and necessary for preservation from doctrinal error.
11.—I quite ag ee with you on that point ; it is certainly
too bad to defame a man's tharacter, even if the charge be
founded; but " reee22ons a nos moutons," let us compare
their arguments.
T.—The second paragraph in Mr. M.'s rep'y to Mr. G.'s
first letter has been thoroughly discussed, and I can't see
what more there is to be said on tha subject. The same
may be said of the third paragraph, which is on the ex-
pression, " Thy word is truth "
It —I feel myself unable to discuss with you on the
second paragraph. I know that on that qaestion you
agree with Mr. M.; but with respect to the second, I have
always been taught that Thy word " means the Bible.
T.—Then it is quite time you were taught otherwise.
Excuse my frankness. You know we are discussing this
question, in a friendly way, for the discovery of truth : I
will therefore be plain with you, which you know I can be
without exhibiting any vindictiveness, which debases a
Christian. You have been taught that " Tay word " means
the Bible, but .if you will examine Mr. M.'s argument on ,
the question. you will find that he has proved it impossible ;
you will there learn that when Christ said " Thy word is
truth" he spoke not of any written word, but of the viva
voce, the Living Word, which He himself uttered, and which
He said was not His, but his Father's, who sent Him.
R.—But Mr. G. makes a distinction between " Thy
Word" and "Word of Go I," although the wo. d " Thy"
is addressed to God. He -filds fault with Mr. M for using
the expressions indifferently; he grants that they mean
the same, but objects to the convertible employment of the
expressions. This objection puzzles me, but perhaps you
can help me out of the difficulty.
T.—Tat, tut, Robert; there's no difficulty at all in the
matter. Just use your own judgment, and don't be tied
down to what another man says when you find it to be
inconsistent. When two expressions mean exactly
the same thing, it is hair-splitting hypercriticism
to object to the interchangeable use of them ;
when a man attaches so great importance to distinctions
which are only imaginary, depend upon it his cause is a
weak one ; if he had bettetarguments he would undoubtedly
produce them. It appears to me, after having deeply
pondered the subject over, that on both these questions•
Mr. Glazebrook's arguments are complete failures, and
that Mr. Macnaught exhibits a decided superiority, not
only in his reasoning, bat also in his dignifigd, calm, and
Christian deportment. These two subjects have been
pretty freely discussed, and I don't think they can eluci-
date them more; you will see in M.'s letter of the 11th
how he inflicts death upon G.'s "literary Sepoys ; " that
letter will surely make G. a little more guarded in his
expressions when indulging in such flights of rhetoric. I
think it is quite time now that they went on to the fourth
paragraph.
R.—Well, and so do I ; I wonder what they will make
of it ? But, there is another little point on which I
should like to hear your opinion; Mr. G. says, he has
proved Mr. M. to be a Socinian.
T.—This is only another sample of Mr. G.'s spurious
logic, of which the following is a fair specimen, thus—" A
fly possesses a trunk, so does an elephant, therefore, a fly
is an elephant ;" or, " a crow is black, a beetle is black,
therefore, a crow and a beetle are identical ;" this is
exactly Mr. G.'s method of proving such a charge against
Mr. M. ; you will at once sea the fallacy of the argument :
but, after all, this has nothing to do with 'the question,
whether the Bible is totally free from error ; if Mr. G.
prove Mr. M. to be a Brahmin or anything he likes, it
will by no means affect the question of infallibility, which
depends upon matter of fact, and certainly cannot be
influenced by the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Mr. M.
R.—Well, you have certainly opened my eyes on one or
two points. I will never again believe charges against a
follow Christian, till I know them to be true.
T.—You will act- well and wisely if you do so. Re-
member our blessed Lord, in his life time, had malicious
charges made against Him ; but who would now believe
them, or entertain thorn for a moment? Do you ever go
to Mr. M's church.
R.—No, I should like to go very much, for I find, now,
that a man must judge for nimeelf
7.—Well, meet me then on Sunday morning and I will
find you a seat,
R.—Agreed on. And now I must be off. Come in and
sit with me some evening, and we will talk a little more on
this subject. Good night.
T.—Good night, Robert; mind and be on your g lard
against spurious argument and fallacious logic. Good
night. Remember Sunday morning.
R. —Never fear, good night !