Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-18 00:00:00

TO TIM EDITOR OP THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—ln my letter in your paper Nov. 20, I gave a
quotation from Dr. Arnold, in which he says, " As for the
Unitarian interpretations of St. Paul and St. John, they
are really such monerasities of extravagance, that, to any
used to the critical study of the ancient writers, they
appear too bad to have been ever entertained in earnest,"
"so impossible is it to doubt what St John meant
in so many passages of his Gospel, and what St. Paul
meant in so many passages of his Epistles." Mr. M.
claims Dr. Arnold as his " Patron Saint," and as a learned
matt and acknowledged scholar, few would hesitate to
yield to his opinion as to the correctness of a translation
of the New Testament. Dr. Arnold then has decided the
question as to the literal meaning of Scripture in favour
of Trinitarian Doctrines. Now, Ido not at all misre-
present Mr. M. when I say that he believes, and obstinately
maintains, that God has given man the right to reject, the t
undoubted meaning of Scripture. The Trinitarian, on the
contrary, says, with the great Chillingworth, " Propose to
me anything out of this book, and enquire whether I be-
lieve it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to
Human Reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart,
knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God
hath said so, therefore it is true." Now, Sir, which is the
most reasonable, and in accer lance with tree philosophy,
to yield submissively to the des.larations of infinite wisdom
in matters of pure revelation, and beyond our experience,
such as the nature of the Divine essence, and believe the
fact, only becsuse God has asserted it; or, on the contrary,
to reject the doctrines of God's word because they cannot
be fatly comprehend() l as to their mode, by
the feeble reason of a finite creature ? It
must be evident to all, that in the words quoted,—" No
demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said
it, therefore it is true." Now, in order to avoid the force
of this indisputable maxim, we learn from Dr. Arnold,
that " wherever Unitarianism has existed, together with
any knowledge of criticism or philosophy, as in Germany,
it has at once bean assumed that the Apostles were not
infallible, and that they overrated the dignity of Christ's
person." And this is exactly the course which Mr.
M. has taken. He and his friends " fool it to be totally
impossible to believe there is any kind of infallibility in
the sacred volume ;" and this includes, not only the history,
but also the " religion and theology." This is neither
more nor less than an open declaration of infidelity in its
proper sense ; for, if infidelity is a disbelief of the
genuine doctrines of Christianity—in order, however, to
protect himself from the well-deserved odium attaching to
such a declaration, he quotes the opinions of several
eminent men, such as Bishop Hinds, Archbishop Whateley,
&c.—it is natural to expect, that no honest and honour-
able mind would parade these great names before us,
unless they gave a sanction to that opinion which peculiarly
distinguishes Mr. M.'s views on Inspiration, viz., the
infallibility of the sacred writers, not only in " points of
history or natural philosophy, but also in religion and
theology." The opinions of Bishop Hinds, and Archbishop
Whateley may be held, without endangering, much less
denying, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. So far,
however, from it being a fact, that these two great
men give any sanceon to Mr. Macnaught's infidel denial
of Scriptural Infallibility on Religion, they, both of them,
on the contrary, condemn it. Archbishop Whateley thus
declares his total disagreement with such an opinion as Mr.
M. holds :—" If we reject, as false, any part of the religion
which he (an Apostle) professes himself divinely sent to
teach, we cannot consistently believe but that his pretens
sions are either an imposture or a delusion, and that he is
wholly unworthy of credit." The strongly expressed
opinion of the Archbishop is that to question the
infallibility of the sacred writers in matters of religion, as
Mr. M. does question it, is undoubted infidelity, or
disbelief of the doctrines of Christianity. Mr. M.'s
delusion on this point is so strong, so firmly does he
believe the lies of infidelity, that he does not hesitate to
question the force of this conclusion, drawn by that acute
logician, Archbishop Whateley. Mr. M. says, "We do not
see the force of the last part of the Archbishop's asser-
tion." The denial of so evident a conclusion gives very
great reason to fear that Mr. M. is "given up to strong
delusion to believe a lie." Time and specs will not allow
us to examine the opinions of other eminent men quoted
by Mr. M. They appe ,r,' however, to be very far from
sanctioning the infidelity of his views. At p. 45 of Mr.
M.'s book, he plainly acknowledges his condemnation by
Dr. Hinds and others. " Well, then, "he says, "itis on
this solemn question (the infallibility of Holy Writ in its

religious teaching) that, in the interests of truth, which

we believe to be identical with the interests of
Christianity, we are about to
,join issue with Dr.
Hinds and his friends." Let Trinitarians then remember
that they have Dr. Hinds and his friends on their side in
favour of the infallibility of the sacred writers in religion
and theology. They have Dr, Hampden—they have the
Bishop of Llande,ff—the Bishop of Manchester—they have

Archbiship Whately, and we may well ask who have they
not, of any reput 'Aloe, against the infidel opinions of Mr,
Macnanght ? But, sir, it seems that he who was on our
side against the " monstrosities" of Unitarian criticism, is
now become our adversary on the question of the Infalli-
bility of Scriptur.. Mr. M., in his letter, November 20,
says that Dr. Arnold, in speaking of Coleridge's "Letters
on Inspiration," utters thes.l ominous words :—" They are
well fitted to break ground in the approaches to that
momentous question, which involves in it so great a shock
to existing nations—the greatest, probably, that has ever
been given since the discovery of the falsehood of the
doctrine of the Pope's infallibility." Now, sir, if Dr.
Arnold stood equally high as an authority in theology as
he unquestionably stands pro-eminent in scholarship, we
might suppose him to be well acquainted with what were
and are " existing notions" on the Inspiration of Scrip.
ture. But this is far, vary far, from being the case. The
Rev. E. Bickersteth, in a letter to his son, said :—" Dr.
Arnold's ignorance in theology is really great, with all hi s
claims to study and knowledge, and this has begot a
rashness and presumption of judgment, full of conceit and
imagined superiority, and seeking to put down those who
differ from him, whether Puseyites or Evangelicals, by harsh
words, such as priestcraft, fanatics, men of narrow minds,
B.bliolaters, and the like. The acquirements of sixty years,
instead of his limited studies, would never justify such
railings, and so he was left to fill into infi lelity about
Daniel, and into many rash speculations about Church and
State." The great theological acquirements, and the
eminent and holy character, of the late Rev. Edward
Bickersteth, gave great weight and authority to hie low
estimate of Dr. Arnold as a theologian. A somewhat
similar estimate is given in the Christian Observer, of
August, 1853. Of the great hierophant himself (Dr.
Arnold) it was said —" Ile wakes every morning with the
impression that everything is an open question." The
supercilious pedantry and intoxicated vanity of our
modern critics and theologians, remind one of the
comedian's atpo eaTZ xat TrEptVovri., TOY nXtcv "I tread
the air, and scrutinise the sun." How different the
language and habitual sentiment of the profound Bishop
Butler—" He knows absolutely nothing, who does not
know that in religion we are all children." How different,
I would observe, in passing, is this humble estimate of
man's reason from the proud, presump'uoue, and unphilo-
sophical notion of those who would elevate it above
Scripture, and make it " the supreme rule of faith."
Which of the two shall we believe—Mr. M. or the profound
Bishop Butler ?

Having seen how low Dr. Arnol I ranks as a theologian,
wo cannot attribute any weight whatever to his sanction Of
poor Coleridge's opinions on Inspiration, which he thought

would give a great shock to " existing opinions." Dr. Ar-
nold, evidently not knowing what the existing opinions on In-

spiretior ware, gave credit to,Coleridge'e description of them.

In vol. 6, of the Journal of Sacred Literature, there ie
a translation of Thaluck, on inspiration ; and at page 360,
where Thaluck quotes from Coleridge, there is a note by the
translator, "Discriminating readers," he says, "will see
that Coleridge here assumes the existence of opinions which
nowhere prevails. The abettors of the theory of Caloviue
himself, would not hold that all the speeches contained in
the Bible, such as those of the friends of Job here referred
to, were given forth by their original authors, by inspire-
tion of God ; but simply that their recorders recorded
them by that inspiration. So with respect of Stephen's
mistake in Acts vii. 2 " I would remark, in passing,
however, that this supposed mistake of Stephen has been
explained by Turretin, and others.
Now, sir, I ask confidently, what shall we think of Cole-
ridge and Dr. Arnold on the " existing notions of inspira-
tion," and the great shock that they were to sustain ?
What can we think but that Coleridge, being an oPitila
eater, mistook the chimeras of his over-excited brains for
realities, and that Dr. Arnold had not sufficient knowledge
of the facts of the case to prevent him believing the waking
dreams of his friend to be unquestionable truths. It is,
howeve", to be especially remarked, what is the result
which Dr. Arnold expected from the destruction of hie
friend's chimera. It was the higher exalting, and " the
more sure establishing of Christian Truth." Dr. Arnold
very truly agrees, that the speeches of Job's friends
were not inspired, and yet he may be very far from
denying the inspiration and infallibility of sacred writer•
in their religious teachings. Mr. M. has adduced 110
proof that Dr. Arnold would not agree with the opinion
of Archbishop Whately and Dr. Hinds on this point.
Dr. Arnold's anticipation that Christian Truth would be
established, is a proof that he regarded Revelation, aid not
Rationalism, as the source of Sacred Truth. According to
the spirit of Dr. Arnold's expressions, " Christian Truth--
the Scriptures—are the supreme Rule of Faith, and not
Human Reason." We would, then, entitle Coleridgese
" Letters on Inspiration," not Confessions of an Enquiring
Spirit, but " Confessions of an Opium Eater."
So much, then, for Vie authorities on the question of the
Infallibility of Scripture ; and it will be evident that gr.
M. receives no support whatever from them in favour of
his infidel opinion on the question. If they fail him—se
he cannot deny they do fail him—in sanctioning by
destroying the infallibility of " the Religion and Theology
of the Scriptures," they are of no use to him whatever'
for this is the fundamental principle of his irrational
scheme. The foundations failing, the building falls. Ili.
Patron Saint, Dr. Arnold, tells him that Unitarian son'
timents connot be proved from the Bible, except 199
incredible " monstrosities of criticism." In attempting Of
establish the Unitarian principle of the supremacy
Reason as the Rule of Faith, Mr. M. gives us a specimen
of the "monstrosities of criticism" in the Socinian school'
He says (Dec. 8)—" I find that 2 Cor. iii., 6, Pawl
rejoices in being an able minister of the Ne/r.
Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit
for the letter killeth, brit the Spirit giveth life." " 134
thoroughly," says Mr. M., " does St. Paul exalt the reve-
lation of spirit and reason over a revelation of letter or
written record," &a. Now, we may well doubt whether
so ridiculous a gloss as this be seriously meant. In Dr
Arnold's words,..it "appears too bad to have been ever enter'
tamed in earnest." It is an arbitrary gloss, made without
the slightest reference to the scope of the Apostle's reasoning'
and to the context. This is a specimen of the Socinian $l4
I have before mentioned, of " extracting any given meaning
out of any given words. In the 7ch and 81 verses of thi.
very chapter, it is seen that St Paul is contrasting the old
and the new dispensations, and showing the superior glori
of the Christian dispensation. There is not the slightest
countenance given to the notion, that by the letter is meant
the New Testament Scriptures ; and the word " spirit"
in the 17th verse, expressly defined to be " the Lore
" Now the Lord is that spirit," says the Apoitle. We
who are called Bibliolaters endeavour, in humble deper
dance on the teaching of the Spirit of Truth, to ascertain
the " mind of the Spirit," by attending to the scope of the
argument, the grammatical construction of the Pas9sga
under consideration, to the context and to parallel pessegel'
and we thus guard ourselves against the thousand arbitrerY
meanings which a mere rationalist would impose upon the
Word of God; and when we have thus ascertaiued wileS
we believe to be the " mind of the Spirit," we yield Or
unfeigned assent to it as a fact and as truth, even in
instances where that truth is beyond our fall cernPre'

hension.
The method, in the instances which Mr. M. has followed;
in giving a meaning to St. Paul's expressions in this eaaet
is rather a play upon words than a critical interpretation
It is such an interpretation, as requires no knowledge
.°
languages, no examination of the argument, and exhibit!
a total disregard of the context. The words " spirit" an?
ci
0 letter" were, off-hand as it were, taken to mean a alan
mind and a book ; and the passage thus perverted by as
arbitrary gloss, adduced as a scriptural proof of "al
sovereignty of a law, engraven on the mind and reason oe
man, over a law written on paper." In thi, way, scripizie
may be, and is, perverted so as to prove anything. )I°ll'
m
indeed, are they to be pitied, who are compelled to lista:
to teaching of this character. Infinitely better would it 1,9
to study God's Holy Word without rote or comment, /7
dependance upon the promised assistance of the Spirit o 0
Truth, than to listen to the wild imaginings of one 1113°Ile
only rule of interpretation, is a preconceived system, 01:ft
ill regulated fancy. What else can possibly be the elle'
of constant attacks upon the infallibility of the theologi
and religion of the Bible, but to spread the ravages c),
infidelity ? What can indulging in arbitrary interpvetscr
tions of scripture effect, but the spread of a tholleslinf
heretical opinions ? Is it time that the sacred hours s'a
the Sabbath should be spent, in the service of 610
is the father of lies ; and is it thas, that they who o°,ll
believe and trust in Him, whose "blood cleanseth from ?
sin," 1 John i. 7, should be sent away in doubt and desPsll
J K. GLAzensoo'
Lower Darwen, December 15, 1857.