Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-20 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOLI FRIDAA, NOVEMBER 201 1857.

REV. JOHN ITACNAUGHT IN REPLY TO REV. J. IL GLAZ.EBROOK.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE Rournmuz TIMES.

Sir,—Notwithcsbaing toy letter, which you published on Monday, the 16th inst., Mr% Gla2ebrook prints, in this
morning's Coyricl-, a coutinuation of his Loaner epistle, without any reply to my queries, ar.d, I regret to say, without
any modification of the epithets I then deplored.
It is probable that Mr. G. may have had no time to answer my questions yet, and may not have been able to
prevent the appearance of his second letter. lam willing to hope this has been the case, and I, accordingly, proceed
to analyse his second letter as if it were a part or continuation of the first :

REV. J. K, GLAZERROOK'S ARGUMENT.

REV. J. MACNAUGHT'S REPLY.

TO TIT& EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COURIER.

Sir,—l was endeavouring in my last to show how very Mr. Glszebrook, it may be remembered, went so far as to
ilietingnished a position the inspiration of the Apostles infer that inspiration made the Apostles infallible. He
holds in the Christian dispensation as represented in the has not, as yet, reconciled this inference with the fact 3
Gospels altd the Acts. that (Acts 5) the Apostle Paul knew no!! that a cer-
tain man was the High Pries' ; " ant (Gal ii, 11, &c.) the
Apostle Paul " withstood the Apostle Peter to the face,
because h 3 was to be blamed."

Had our Lord continued on earth, and then begun his Mr. Glszebrook here returns to the argument from
personal reign, which is expected by some, He would have our Lord's promises of the Comforter. I have
realised the idea which characterises the Romish Church, already referred him to Mac naug 7it On Inspiration,
of our having upon earth an infallible Ruler and Teacher. Bcok 2, charter 7, for an answer to this pan of
To him the Christian world could always have appealed, his argument in general. A few words may suffice
in order to explain any difficulties arising in their own with reference to this portion of his argument in
minds, or raised by objecting philosophers, infidels, and particular. He sets out wilt the fact, tha- Jesus was
selfeekficient teachers. There advantages, however great an infallible guide to his followers. He urges that
they would have been, to be derived from our Lord's Jesus taught that the presence of the Comforter would be
personal :presence in the 'world were to be more than better for the disciples than Jesus' own infallible guidance.
'compensated 'by the outpouring of the Spirit. John xvi, One would expect the conclusion of such an argument
7: "Nevertheless," said our Lord, to his sorrowing to be, that the presence cf the C mforter, being better
" I tell you the truth. It is expedient (sumphorei) than infallibility itself, was something de7erent from
enclius tst, it is better)' or you that Igo away ; for if Igo infalZibility. But to be thus logical would not lead to
mot away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I the point Mr. Glszebrook desires to reach; awl, therefore,
elepart,=l will send Him unto you." An lin the 13th-verse logical c)nsistency must ba thrown away ; and we are
'it is premised that " the Spirit of Truth shall guide taught to believe, on peril of being called 4‘ blasphemers,"
ihodegeiei, dux erit-i:fineris, will lead the way, or show that one infinite quantity or attribute, viz., the infallibility
.you the way) into a!1 the truth." The definite article of our Saviour, is both greater tian and identical
should be carefully marked in this expression, because with another infinia quantify or attribute, viz., the
it plainly limits the teaching of the Spirit to a particular infallibilityof the Holy Spirit. Before quitting this
'class of truths. It is owing to this tact not being noticed part of Mr. G's letter I beg to draw his attention
and kept in view, that the Unitarian school of objecors to the fact that, in the portion of my book re-
-to the infallibility of Scripture fall into doctrinal error and ferred to, I have fully recognised the force of " the
blasphemy. This, however, is said by the way. To go definite article," and the propriety ef always writing about
on with the point undre. consideration. Now, if the result " the Spirit of the Truth," i e the Spirit of Christ's rove-
of this outpouring of the Spirit be only to suffer the lation. It will be remembered by you, Sir, and some of
Apostles to continue, Baccording to Mr. Macnaught, your readers, that one of the many groundless charges,
• "fallible though inspired," we can perceive, with reverence which have been brought against me, was, that I denied
be it said, neither force nor truth in our Lord's solemn the personality of the Holy Spirit, because, forsooth, I
asseveraion, that it was expedient for him to go away, in paid attention to this simple matter of scholarship on
order to send down the Spirit. His infallible teaching which Mr. Glazebrook most properly insists. However,
was, according to Mr. Macnaught, to be displaced by this accurate criticism leads Mr. Glazebrook to make a
"fallible, though inspired" Apostles, who " had the statement which is so momentous in its bearing on our
treasures of the Gospel in earthen vessels," that is, whose controversy, that I must notice it particularly. " The
• erring and blind understandings were to be permitted to teaching of the Spirit!' in Scripture, writes Mr.
• hinder the outpouring of infallible truth upon the Church. G., is plainly limited to a particular class of
truths." I had supposed that Mr. Glazebrook
taught that all Scripture was inspired and
infallible. This statement appears to intimate that, is
Mr. G's belief, inspiration and infallibility are limited to
particular parts of the Bible. If this be so, will Mr. G.
be so good as to tell us at once, by way of simplifying
matters, which part of the Bible he holds to be inspired,
and which part not inspired ? What. portion may be
infallible, and what fallible ?

The Bible is thus, according to Mr. Macnaught, not, I respectfully suggest that it is not " thus," that is, not in
in the Bishop of Chester's words, " God's own voice speak- the way described by Mr. Glazebrook, that I have argued
lug to fallen man in the words of infallible truth." It against the infallibility of the able. I have adduced
"contains," indeed, the message of God to fallen man, but facts which disprove the hypothesis of Scriptural infal-
it contains many errors; and it is, it teems, "to expect lihility, and I have shown that the reasons commonly
that men shall bow down to our irrationalities " concerning alleged in support of the Bible's infallibility are not valid.
"Incarnation, Trinity, Atonement," if we presume to argue This method of my argument is, I submit, altogether
on the "plea that all the theology of Scripture is intal- different from the process described by Mr. Glazebrook.
lible."

The Holy Spirit did, indeed, descend from Heaven, and Here, again, Mr. Glazebrook, no doubt unintentionally
it was declared by our Lord to be highly expedient, and, quite misrepresents my argument by quoting only a part
of count), necessary, that He should be specially sent down of one of my sentences. I ask, " If, in matters of sense
in order to guide the Apostles unto "all the truth;" and and reason we concede the fed ibilify of Scripture, by what
yet Mr. Macnaught is so grievously misled by his own argument can we maintain Scriptural infallibility in
hypothesis that he dares to ask the blasphemous and matters super-sensual and super-rational?" Surely Mr.
absurd question, "By what argument can we maintain Glazebrook will admit that, before a book can be believed
Scriptural infallibility in matters super-sensual or super_ infallible in difficult subjects, it must make itself look as
rational ?" So that the gift of the Spirit, which is SO if it were infallible in easy subjects. Unerring accuracy
magnified in Scripture by the circumstances under which in all matters of simple, intelligible detail is, surely, not
it was bestowed, and our Lord's declarations of its great too much to look for in a book which is said to be free
value, is regarded by Mr. Macnaught as having been the from all error, in complicated, obscure, and most abstruse
means of no infallible revelations to the Apostles, and points of metaphysical theology. Will Mr. Glazebrook
through them to the Church, on matters which yet pecu- inform us by what credential, less than unerring accu-
liarly belong to a message from heaven, viz those which racy in ordinary and intelligible matters, a claim to
are " super - sensual or super-natural." infallibility, in extraordinary and hardly intelligible
matters, can be maintained ? and until we be satisfac-
torily instructed by Mr. G. on this subject, I continue to
assert, that if, in simple matters. such as history, chro-
nology, and numeration, we find palpable errors in the
Bible—if, in matters of science, such as geology,
astronomy, &c., we find the Bible in manifest error—it
is most illogical to infer that, in matters of the greatest
obscurity, such as metcphysics and theology, the same
Bible is infallible.

The blasphemous doctrine thus is held by Mr. Mac- Again, in this his second letter, does Mr. Glazebrook
naught—that the Spirit cf Truth has failed to accomplish endeavour to defame my character, by frequently re-
the special object of his mission, and though commissioned peating his charge of blasphemy against me. As far as
to guide fallible man into " all the truth," has multiplied the logical force of this procedure is concerned, I will
the difficulties in his path, and left him to find his way only ratniud Mr. Glazebrook that Paul was not, in truth,
amongst the intricacies of error by the dim light of feeble a heretic, ai•hough (Acts xxiv, 14) he worshipped the
and limited human reason. Mr. Macnaught has not God of his fathers after the way which his opponents
reached this blasphemous conclusion with hesitation and " called heresy." Neither was my Master, in truth, a
unwillingness, but with evident delight, as a proof of his blasphemer, although ()Sett. xxvi, 65) the Jewish high
own superior sagacity, and as affording him an opportunity priest said, " Ile hath spoken blasphemy ; what further
of attacking and rejecting what he calls the " irrational need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now ye have
versions of the true doctrines concerning Incarnation, heard his blasphemies" So much for the logical weight
Trinity, Atonement, &c." of Mr. Glazebrook's epithets. These epithets must,
however, be reg tilled by Mr. Glszebrook and
myself in another bearing than that of their logical
unreality. In a social and moral point of view,
it is a grave and most pernicious practice to bandy
words that are so degrading and so envenomed as these.
Surely, I shall not again be compelled to call on one
holding Mr. Glazebrook's position to desist from, and to
recall his grieviously unjust and discourteous phraseology.

Hp.virg rejected the light from heaven, an important Once more I have the misfortune to be misunderstood by
question arises, what are the real doctrines which Mr. Mr. Giczebrock. He will always find that I thankfully
Macnaught hclds? wee the light of Heaven to recognise those facts. in
scripture and in Nature, by which God is so mercifully
teaching all men how He would have them to walk in
the path of good works which He bath prepared for
them.

It is evidently necessary that he should make an open As far as this goes, I presume it is "necessary" for every
declaration of his faith. Is ho an Unitarian? It is plain, clergyman to nuke an open declaration of his faith
from the tenor and the evident objects of his letter, that every Sunday whoa he reads prayers. In reference to
he thinks many " irrationalities" are taught in the Church " Unitarianism," which Mr. Glazebrook is so fond of
to -which he professes to belong. mentioning, I always thought that all orthodox Chris-
tians held the Unity in Trinity, and wore, therefore,
true and real Unitarians. Perhaps Mr Glazebrook
will tell me if I am wrong? If he wishes to know
whether I agree in matters of doctrine and philo-
sophy with the good man Socinus, Mr. G. had better
specify any particular opinions held by Socinue, and ask
what I think of them. Mr. Glaze ;rook seems to wonder
at my thinking that "irrationalities" have been taught
in the Church of England. lam surprised at Mr. G-.'s
astonishment. I know not what has been going on in
the .Church at Lower Darwen ; but, in other parts of
the Church, men have been found irrational enough to
maintain the doctrines of mesmerism and table-turning
by satanic egeney. Some have taught extraordinary,
notions about apo,tolical succession, baptismal regene-
radon, cor.substantiation, and millennurianism. S;,/ne
have gone so far 85 to teach that a belief in witchcraft
is not irreconcilable with infallibi'ity. These, and
almost endless other extravagarcies, have been taught
in the Church ; but I thank God, not one of them is
taught by the Church in her liturgy or elsewhere.

Does he still believe those 39 Articles which he once I regret the disrespectful and unfriendly tone of those
«signed, and on condition of teaching, which he still holds inquiries. Ido believe the 39 articles ; and I doubt
preferment in the Church, and receives her wages? I not but that, (like myself) every Calvinistic, every
trow not. The Holy Spirit teaches in Scripture that we Arminian, every High Church, every Low Church, and
/should have a conscience void of offence towards God and every Broad Church clergyman is prepaed—each in Isis
towards man. Does the light of nature, Mr. Macnaught's own gramnaticat and scrlpeural sense of Ike words—
rule of faith and practice, teach him, in The ?natter to to declare his " unfeigned assent, and consent to all and
which we now refer, the same honest doctrine? Ii not, everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
his standard of honour and honesty is infinitel 7 lower than If Mr. Gl,..zabook rhoul,i ask me whether I think it
that of the Spirit, with all the fallibility which js supposed a wise or hily thing to retain the Ace of Uniformitg,
to belong to its teaching in the Sc..riptuLefi' • and so keep up the pretence of an unreal unani-
mity among the clergy, I should be quite prepared
to tel. him or any one else, that I think the Act of Uni-
formity unwise, inasmuch as it aims at a unanimity
which id impossible, and unholy, inasmuch as it tends to
make men pretend that they exceedingly admire every
word of a book, in which every man feels there are
SOITJ3 things he would like altered. However, all
h this notwit standinz, I find myself—of my own
choice, and much to my loss in a pecuniary point
of view—a teacher in the national established church of
England. I admire and lova the great christian breadth
liberality, and power, which are conspicuous elements
in her constitution. ,She sends 112 C, in the name of
Christ, to make the unt,vodlY devout, and to make the
unrighteous just. She bends me to strengthen the
weak, to comfort the ailEcte.'d, and, by the help of God,
to make all men as like to ‘Ohrist as possible. I feel
quite honest, and perfectly honorable in trying, to the
best of my power, to carry out L'his behest of the church
and of her Lord. I have a goc d conscience towards
God and man. I hope Mr. Glazeln •ook has as brotherly
and generous sentiments towards me, A 9 I hare towards
him, and all who differ from me ;honestly.

Ocr, 28, 1857.—1 send you a few more rerAarks.
have not concluded the topic of " the impoytinit position
the outpouring of the Spirit holds in the Scriptures," and
I may write again—l shall (D.V.) come, soon to this
inspiration.

In the meantime, I quote from Dr. M'Bride, on the
Articles, p. 160, these words, " Upon the 'whole, we con-
clude that the measure of insrasiration varied with the
dignity of the subjects and the exigencies of the writers--
that for the main, they pure aed their own method and
manner, but on some important ()cessions had the very
words suggested to them, and we.lre never so left to them.
selves as not to have the Holy Spirit presiding over them,
and keeping them from. error." So that, you see, the Bible
is properly said to be inspired, 'because some of it has been
actually dictated by the Holy Spirit, and the rest actually
approved, and therefore adopted by the Spirit as his own
teaching.

And, therefore, it is true, in fact, that in St Paul's
words, 2 Tim., iii. 16 —" All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God."

I intend, too, to show from the conclusion of this very
text what is the declared object of inspiration, and in what
respect, and on what points, we are to look for infallibility.
The effects of inspiration and the only object of it,
evidently was, from this text, that the Scripture should be
profitable for doctrine, for "reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness."

Now, it is not declared to be the object of inspiration
to protect the Scriptures from all the errors of manuscripts,
nor from the difficulties arising from an imperfect knowlege
of antiquities, nor from scholastic errors, which human
learning is sufficient to remove. These are difficulties
which have accumulated by the necessary operation of
time, and they did not exist in the time of the Apostles.

You have no right to oppose a mere inference of human purely Mr. Glazebrook is not prepared to argue that
reason to the express declaration of Scripture—that it is "profitable for doctrine," &c., is a synonym for
profitable fur doctrine, &c. " infallible." Except on this supposition, of what avail
is this oft-repeated argument ?

You will see, then, there are no texts out of the pale of As he has touched this enormous subject, perhaps Mr.
inspiration, as not having been approved by the Spirit ;at G. will oblige us with information as to what edition of
least, none for the genuineness of which the concurrent the Bible is uniformly founded only on " the concurrent
authority of manuscripts can be given. authority of the manuscripts ?"

Mr. Macnaught, then, and others of the Unitarian If Mr. Glazebrook will do me the justice to read
School, have fallen into their grievous error and sin by not Afacnaught on Inspiration, Book 3, he will, .apparently
taking care to ascertain the scriptural idea of inspiration. be surprised to learn how much attention I have given
to this very topic, " The Scriptural idea of Inspiration."

The declared intention is to make us wise unto salvation ; The early part of this paragraph is only reeetition, in
in this view they declare " all the truth," and, therefore, new words, of what has been said before in this very
no error, i e., are infallible. It is no declared object to letter. As to Scripture being an " infallible directory
protect the Scriptures from all the usual conditions of for the sinner," I reply, true, if Mr. G. uses the word
ancient writings. They have, however, in fact, been so far infallible, incorrectly, as a synonym for " unfailing."
preserved, that, notwithstanding their antiquity, they are No sinner, who goes honestly to the Bible for direction,
still an infallible directory to the sinner for doctrine will fail to be directed aright to the God of mercy, who
(2 Tim., iii. 16,) for reproof, correction, and instruction in sent Jesus to be our Saviour. On the other hand, if by
righteousness. They are " the Word of God," and in an infallible directory" Mr. G. means an unerring
despite of those blind guides whose confused minds con- directory, then I ask for proof, and remind him of fac s
found things that differ, we appeal to them with confidence, in contradiction. Mr. Glazebrook and I are not at
not as the word of fallible men ; and, in quoting the issue as to the Bible containing, and so being " the
weeds of this sacred and infallible oracle, we say, " Thus word or oracles of God" but I maintain that they are
saith the Lord."—Yours, &c., J. K. GLAzEZROOK. oracles of God written by men, who as they say of
Lower Dar wen. themselves (Acts 14, 15,) were "of like passions
with others," and consequently were not likely to ba
infallible either in word or letter.
I trust, sir, that I have now finished my part of this correspondence; and, in thanking you for the space you have
afforded me, I will merely say that this controversy about the Bible's infallibility is just parallel to that which was
waged, of yore, as to the infallibility of Aristotle and his interpreters, the Schoolmen. Until that battle was fought
and won, science was stationary; for men did not observe facts, and generalise on them, but they quoted passages
from Aquinas, or some one else, and argued, with verbal nicety, about what must follow from such and such
-a
saying
of the Schoolmen. Whilst that state of things lasted, errors were obstinately upheld and propagated. Men fought—
yes, literally, fought most bloody and protracted wars—for their opinions. Ignorance is mother to jealousy, and anger,
and hatred. Since the infallibility of scholastic texts has been abandoned, and since men have looked at the truths
of nature, rather than at the assertions of great names in antiquity, science has grown and become ennobled, and her
votaries have learned much of truth and not a little of mutual respect and forbearance for one another. So it will be
when, as is rapidly coming to pass, the Dagen of Scriptural Infallibility has fallen before the God of Truth.
Then facts in human nature will be noticed—the great fact of Christ's Divine Life will be intelligently studied
and diligently imitated —we shall know more of religion, and do more of morality ; for we shall better love both
man our brother and God our father. It is for that day, and in that hope, that we should work content--if such
be the will of God—only ourselves to sow, in order that those who come after us may reap.—Yours truly,
Everton, November 18th, 1857.
j 0112.7 MACNAITOETT.

REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK'S REPLY TO THE
REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT.

thus spoken of Unitarian criticism :—"As for the Unitarian
interpretations of St. Paul and St. John, they are really
such monstrosities of extravagance, that to any one used
to the critical study of the ancient writers, they appear
too bad to have been ever entertained in earnest. And
thus, wherever Unitarianism has existed, together with
any knowleege of criticism or philosophy, as in Germany,
it has at once assumed that the Apostles were not infallible,
and that they over-rated the dignity of Christ's person.
So impossible is it to doubt what St. John meant in so many
passages of his Gospel, and what Sr. Paul meant in so
many passages of his Epistles." I object, then, to this
Unitarian unfounded assumption, that the Apostles were
not infallible, and I charge Mr. M. with making it for the
similar purpose of getting rid of what he chooses to call
"irrational versions of the true doctrines concerning
incarnation, trinity, atonement, &5.." "So impos-
sible does he find it to doubt" that the grammatical
meaning of Holy Scripture is against him, and, he
asks, "why may nct it (the Bible) err in the apparent
enumeration of an irrational version of some true
doctrine ?—I have never objected to the right use
of reason in matters of faith, (for this, alas, is
not a Unitarian principle, in merely " deciding what is
the rule of faith, and what is its meaning ?")—ln that
case, it is the means of ascertaining the rule, it is not the
supreme rule itself, according to Mr. M.'s words, con-
stituted by God to be superior to "every other rule of
faith." The insinuation. that I entirely discard the use of
reason is, therefore utterly false; and I do "teach some-
thing better."
No. 3 —Mr. M. goes on : Mr. G.'s "proof of our
possessing an infallible book is, that our Lord
(John xvii. 17) ear, "Thy Word is Truth." Will Mr.
G. explain to us what was meant by the "Word" of God
in that utterance of our Saviour; and then Mr M. gives
us an example of one of those " znontrosities of extrava-
gance " in criticism, which is so peculiar to the Unitarian
school. —He dexterously and designedly omits the word
"thy," and asks if the " Word " of God is never applied
to anything but the Bible ? For example, (Ps. xxxiii. 6.)
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made." Now,
this is either trifling with words, or an hallucination. If
the expression, the " Word of God" be granted to mean
both the written ,and the unwritten utterances of the Diety,
doea this prove that it does not mean even those written
utterances themseh

TO TIIE EDITOR OP TIIE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir—l have numbered the paragraphs of Mr. Mac-
naught's reply to my first letter, in order to prevent con-
fusion, and they who take the trouble to read the cor-
respondence may easily do the same in their copies. I begin, then, with No. 1, and Ido not intend to notice
any remarks of Mr. Macnaught except those that appear to
be cardinal points. "As to censure, what is there to cen-
sure," says Mr. 111,, " in an English Christian man up-
holding, respectfully before the world, that which he
believes to be the truth ? " Now, suppose Mr. M. to deny
" respectfully before the world" the divinity of Christ,
would there be nothing to censure in a professedly Cnristian
man and minister thus violating the oaths which he took
at his ordination ? So much, then, as to censure. "As
to argument," says Mr. M., " I suspect that his Lordship
is too learned and too acute to become the champion of
alleged scriptural or any other infallibility." This sus-
picion, then, is to believed in preference to the plain
declaration of the Bishop of Chester, in his speech at the
Collegiate Institution, which does not appear to have been
repudiated. The Bishop is reported to have "this message
of pardon and restoration, in God's own voice, speaking to
fallen man, through his blessed Son, in the words of In-
fallible Truth and Ete,-;gal Life." Has the Bishop, "like
an humble, Christian man," thanked Mr. M. for contra-
dicting this opinion ? So far as we know, he appears,
on the contrary, to have observed a very significant silence
Very probably the Bishop thinks, with Dr. Faussett, in
his lecture on the Thirty-nine Articles, 1841 :---.4. It is an
irksome task to trace the mazes and unravel the entangled
web of sophistical reasoning," and that in some cases all
the law allows one to do, is to let men of "perverse minds
alone "

No. 2.—Mr. M. asks, " What are the principles of Uni-
tarianism to which Mr. G. objects? I object to the infidel
dogma that human reason is the supreme, and Scripture
the subordinate, rule of faith. I object to this presump-
tuous deification of human reason, and I object to the
followit g deduction of Mr. Macnaught, as both infidel and
!I-the. "And thus," he says, "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 " A declaration so utterly false as this cool i only
he the result of ignorance, imbecility, or wilful, erversion
It is dangerous to study in the Unitarian and Raionalistic
school.; it is the school of pride and ignorant presumption,
the very ,synagcsu. of Satan. The late Dr. 4=41 t.fis

The "Unitarian school is notorious for being able to
extract "any given in,saning out of any given words," and
the above is a spscimen a this critical legerdemain. Mr.
G. *,n, does mot " think' Ihwt the heavens were made by

Mr. Macnanght says, "I make them (these assertions) I cannot unders;cand Mr. Glazebrook. What does he wish
without having one earthly hope of gain by making them." me to try a' ad 1 9
aose
It is evident, too, that he has at present expressed no
intention whatever of losing by them,by sacrificing the ad-
vantages which he is enjoying, in consequence of having
professed to believe the contrary.

I Vim' of cause, most willing to abide by any decisions
He " invites the Bis hopll of Chester to correct or con-
firm" his assertions. Wi he be ruled by the decision of which my Diocesan may "rule "in the legitimate
g exercise of his Episcopal authority. Is Mr. Glazebrook
that bishop as to the propriety and honesty of his holdin
his present preferment with his present sentiments ? commissioned by the Bishop of Chester to act on his
Lordship's behalf, and to ask me more than that ?

These sentences surpass my power of grammatical
analysis ; and, I simply, cannot understand them.

Dr. M'Bride is a venerable man of learning and piety, for
whose opinion I have great respect : but if he makes a
statement which I know to be contrary to the facts of any
case, I must regard his judgment as erroneous, I can-
not " see" that the Bible is infallible simply because
Dr. M'Bride says it is so.

The Inspiration of all Scripture has never been questioned
by me. Mr. Glazebrook it is who speaks of "the
Spirit's teaching being limited to particular classes of
truth." I believe that all Scripture was given by
inspiration of God : but I do not believe that inspiration
implies infallibility.

So then, after all, Mr. Glazebrook is of opinion, that "the
effect of inspiration, and the only object of it evidently
was, that Scripture should be profitable for doctrine "
(i.e. for teaching), " for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness." This is precisely my view
of inspiration; and, because the raanifest errors of the
Bible forbid my believing it infallible, and because
a book may be most profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness, without
being infallible, therefore, I deny the infallibility of the
Bible, and I deny that there is any necessity for believ-
ing it to be infallible. Unless Mr. Glazebrook can show
that a book, in order to be useful, must be infallible, I most
respectfully submit that he has, logically, conceded all
for which I argue.

Neither is it declared to be object of inspiration to protect
the Scriptures from errors of any sort ; but that object
is only to make them generally instructive and useful
in the furnishing a man of God for all good works.
However, Mr. Glazebrook here proceeds to make a very
important admission. Either from manuscripts, or from
ignorance of antiquities, or from scholastic reasons, Mr.
Glazebrook acknowleAges that errors have crept into
the Bible—" difficulties," he tells us, "have accumu-
lated" there. If this be true, we have no infallible
Bible now, at all events ; and this admission will not
increase the probability of such an attribute having
ever been attached to the sacred writings,

Most of these difficulties, which rationalists and The nnsatisfaetoriness of such explanations is shown,
infidels rejoice to reiterate, have been satisfactorily among other illustrations, by the vast number
explained by learned men, and this fact entitles us to of different hypotheses which are put forth, from
believe that the rest will yield to learned investigation. time to time, in order to remove some old and invincible
We have no right to argue from their existence that the difficulty. See, for instance, the vain ingenuity with
object of inspiration is not gained. They are but the which Buckland, Pye Smith, Hugh Miller, and a host of
vapours that rest at the foot of the Mount of God, which others, have triad, by various and mutually destructive
lifts its head above them to Heaven, methods, to get rid of the insuperable contradiction
between Genesis and Geology. As to the object of
inspiration not being gained, Mr. Glazebrook himself
tells us the only oly'ect of inspiration was to make the
Bible a useful book of religious instruction ; and that
that object has been most gloriously attained, the whole
history of the last 2,000 years doth most triumphantly
establish.

The Unitarian asks, in the words of Macnanght, " The Again this taunting of some parties whom Mr. Glazebrook
Bible errs in the narrative of Stephen's speech, and why calls " Unitarians !" Mr. G. is so averse to Monotheism
may it not err in the apparent enunciation of an irrational that one feels almost disposed to enquire whether he is
version of some true doctrine" (he Trinity for example ?) a Tritheist, or a Polytheist, or what number of Gods
No, we reply, that error is only apparent ; mere human he worships. It would be more to Mr. Glazebrook's
learning can explain it, and has explained it, as it has done purpose if he would tell us how the Bible can be
other greater difficulties. infallible, and yet contradict itself, as it does when Acts
vii. 16 is compared with Genesis xxxiii. 19, and
Genesis 50. 13.

the Bible "—but he does thir:ft that Mr. M.'s mode of
criticism, would make the B4ble into almost anything in
meaning. But, Mr. M. favours us with another specimen
of critical skill, when bre says, " we read (John 1. 1) 'ln
the beginning was the "Word, and the Word was with God,
and the word was clod P—would Mr. G. have us believe
the Bible was in the beginning with, and was God?"
Now we begin to discover why the word "thy " was
omitted—it serves the uncandid purpose of enabling Mr.
M. to confoilnd things that differ—" Thy Word" and " The
Word " sze two very different expressions. For myself,
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that,
" The Word" spoken of, (John i. L) was Jehovah mani-
fest in the flesh. Will Mr. M. be equally explicit on this
point ? or does he inculde such a notion among the
irrational versions concerning " the atonement, &c," The
reserve which may be concealed under the "eteetra," is
somewhat suspicious, when that convenient generlization
proceeds from the Rationalistic and Unitarian school.
Is the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity on Unity, one
which Mr. M.'s reason rejects as irrational? The
orthodox of Mr. M. en this point, the truth of which rests
on revelation, is evidently in great peril, for he says in
his letter, "Many of us feel it to be totally impossible to
believe that there is any kind of infallibility in the Srcred
Volume." I must defer prerceeding with this subject to
another time. J. GLAZEBROOK.
Lower Darwen.

THE RATEPAYERS OF TOXTETH PARK, AND
THE GUARDIANS