Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-21 00:00:00

TO VIZ EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—lt appears to be the fact, that a fountain can, at
the same place, send forth both sweet water and bitter.
The very man who wrote so lugobri- us a deprecation of
the use of hard words in controversy, as that which you
• pnblished on the 16:h instant, penned the following piece
of buffoonery :—" I i spite of every effort to preserve our
gravity, we cannot help acknowledging that this pu's us
in mind of the little boy who went to the peep-show to see
the Deke' and ' Napoleon.' The lad paid his half-
penny and then naturally wished to know, which was the
Duke ?' The only reply be could obtain was,' which ever
you like ray little dear, you've paid your money, and
you've a light to choose.' " Similarly, Mr. Lowe gets us
to buy his hook on Inspiration, and having once done th's,
he tells us first that "every believer ought to know there
can be no generic difference between the varions classes of
inspiration ;'' and next he tells Ud that "there is such a
generic didereece between the classes of inspiration."
This self contradiction is repeated so frquen'ly—co
thoroughly "ad netuseant" in Mr. Lowe's book, that we
hardly care again to a.k the reverend gentleman which of
the statements he seriously means; but we enter:ain a
very strong regret that we ever invested so much as four
shillings in " Lowe's Inspiration a R:ality ;" we heartly
wish that our copy had found its way to the grocer's shop
before we saw it. And even now, were it not for the
monstrously curious dryness combined with effrontery,
which chacterise the production, we should be disposed to
commit it to the waste paper basket, in hopes th at the
ceok might light her • fire with its pages, or turn them
t► some other approotiate and honourable purpose.
Mr. l'ilaceaug,ht fi ids it easier do deal ern Mr.
Glazebrook's ton-, th an with his argument. Ile shoul I
thank, as I thank, Mr. Glaz_broek, for haring been so
pleir-epoken as to compel Mr. M. to break that most
suspicious silence he observed as to his real sentiments, in
regard to the divinity of the Saviour.
M-. M.'s lest letter, certainly throws a new light upon
the manner in which some clergyman of the Church of
E glen:4 subscribe the thirt; -nine articles. He would
have us chink thatthe question respecting the " identity," or
as he o it, the " onenesss " ofsubetance of the divine per-
sons, is unimportant andarises upon the Nicene Creed. is
however a prominent point in the articles to which Mr. M.
has sworn voluntarily, and, ex await., his assent and consent.
It is insisted upon in the Ist, 2eid, and sth articles. Now
conceive " the moral, not to say religious condition of
mind," which is indicated by the confessions of one who
has in this manner, sworn to these articles, that " I accept
the Homo-ousion article of the Faith without attaching
much imeortance to it," and "one reason for doieg so," is
that "we confessedly knew nothing of the substance, or
essence of God ; and, therefore, b say that two persons, of
whose divine substance or essence we know nothing, are of
one and the same essence or substance, may be a very
good verbal definition perhaps, but, alter all a
statement with reference to a subject on which
we set out by confessing oareelves wholly ignorant cannot
be very important." Learn from this that entire ignorance
of a subject matter is a "reason " for adopting a particu-
lar opinion upon it ! Thanks to Mr. Macnaught for this
information as to the mode you adopt to forme your
opinions !
Bat consider this a little further—Mr. M. is rather
ignorant of fhe meaning of the word " snips once," as
used in these Articles and the Nicene Creed, and he has
been further indulging himself in tho sneer Mr. G'aze-
bre righ'ly imputes to him, when he need this ex-
pression—" I suspect, however, that it would imperil the
scholarsiiip and tine orthodoxy of many a one it he were
called upon to explain what he meant by oneness of sub-
stance with a being who is (Pert. 1.) without body, parts, or
passions."
I do not question but that Mr. M. was perfectly aware
that " substance " is employed in these passages in pre-
cisely the same metaphisical sense as by Butler. in these

instances, " the selt•existent substance only excerpted,"—
Anal.: part ii chart. 1. ; and in the note a few sen'ences
lower down, " I do not mean to affirm that there is the
same degree or c `nvicion that our living powers will
continue after death, as there is that our substance will;"
and again, " without determining whether our living sub-
stance be material or immaterial ;" and repeatedly in the
dissertation "of pe,sonal ideaity " appended to the
Analogy. I submit that Mr. M. has imperilled his scholar-
ship and his candour by indulging in this sneer. Ilia
scholarship was at fault if he were ignorant of the mean-
ing of "a tbstance." lie had not candour if knowing its
meaning, be al:uled to " body, parts, and passions," as
having any connection with it.
I have said I thank Mr. GI tzebrook for compellinz Mr.
M. to break silence, with respect to his real sentiments, as
to the Divinity of the Saviour, 1111 I hays done so because
I have hopes of finding that Mr. M. means just the s, m as
the orthodox, only he gat; at his conclusioa tither "by
entire ignorance of the sebjcct," or in some other, to me,
unaccountable rummer. 1, for on,, considered Mr. M's
notorious question to the Bishop, " what logicA right
have we to promulgate, as bag sometimes beets done,
irrational versitais of 'ha true doctrines concerning Ir,c ir-
nation, Trinity, Atonement, &e., and then to expect that
men shall bow down to ore irrationalities on the plea that
all the theology of Scriptnre is infallible ?" as a formal
declaration of war against these doctrines themselves. I
was quite unablo to imagine what were the "tree doctrines"
upon these subjects, as distinguished from " our irratiara-
lities concerning" them, and I think I am net the only
one in this position. But Mr. M. having now plainly
asserted the`, in his belief, Christ is the " Supreme Jeho-
vah," co.'s heart r vives in some measure, and there
remain but a bewilderment of the logical Lenity, occasioned
by the consideration—how it is possible that Civ is', who
lived and died as a man, can, in say one's belief, be the
Supreme Jehovah, unless in that persolt's judgment. " all
the religion and theology of the Seripturt s are to be regarded
as unqucstionable and infalliblr: ?"
I respectfully submit, it is incumbent upon Mr. Mac-
naught to explain " what logical right" we have to bslieve
that " Christ is the Supreme Jehovah," seeing that " the
Bible errs in the narrative of Stephen's sprech, and may
err in the apparent enunciation of an irrational version of
some true doctrine ?"—Yours, &e., W. WYNNE.
17th Rtc..mtir, 1857.

P.S.—I wish " Diogenes" to stale on what grounds he
assigns; me Or? part of the frog in the fable. Is " Diogane."
toadying" Mr. Mac naught ? He has no right to preserve
his own " obscurity," and, under c,,ver of it, make imper-
tinent remark& W. W.
18th December, 1857.