-.**«
 
 L I E> RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 THE BIBLE 
 
 AND 
 
 LOED SHAFTESBURY: 
 
 AN 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE POSITIONS OF HIS LORDSHIP 
 
 RESPECTING THE 
 
 HOLY SCRIPTURES, 
 
 DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY 
 AT OXFORD, ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27th, 1856 ; 
 
 §11 a ttWn 
 
 TO 
 
 JOHN D. MACBRIDE, Esq., D.C.L., 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF MAGDALEN HALL, OXFORD. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. HEiNRY BURGESS, LL.D., Ph.D., 
 
 CURATE OF CLIFTON RETNES ; EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE 
 
 AND THE CLERICAL JOURNAL ; AND MEMBER OF THE 
 
 ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE. 
 
 OXFORD AND LONDON: 
 
 JOHN HENRY AND JAMES PARKER. 
 
 1856.
 
 LONDON : 
 MITCHICLL AND SON, PRINTERS, 
 VVARPOUR STREET.
 
 THE 
 
 BIBLE AND LORD SHAFTESBURY. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 If any apology is needed for my addressing your- 
 self on the present occasion, more than is aflforded by 
 your high standing in the University of Oxford, and 
 your useful labours in Biblical Literature, it will be 
 found in the facts that you were present at the Bible 
 Meeting to which my letter refers, and took a part in its 
 proceedings ; and that, being, like my Lord Shaftesbury, 
 a layman, you may be presumed to be better able to 
 judge impartially of the matters to be brought before 
 you than one of the clerical profession. It is truth, and 
 not party interests, which I am conscious of seeking in 
 what I am about to advance ; and I would have the 
 whole subject freed, as much as possible, from class pre- 
 judices, which, as they are inevitable, are, on that 
 account, the more to be guarded against. 
 
 I should have been glad if a member of the Univer- 
 sity of Oxford had rendered it unnecessary for me to 
 defend Catholic truth against narrow party assumptions ; 
 and could I have discovered that the task was likely to 
 be undertaken in that quarter, I should gladly have de- 
 clined what I feel to be burdensome, on account of my 
 already heavy literary duties in the service of the Church. 
 But, on the other hand, I feel that the occasion is too 
 
 A 2
 
 critical to be left to chance for its improvement, and I 
 cannot allow it to be doubtful whether Lord Shaftesbury 
 is to be answered at all. I have an overwhelming con- 
 viction that his Lordship uttered almost as many errors 
 as sentences in your hearing ; and I should feel that, if 
 the opportunity of replying were allowed to pass by 
 without those errors being exposed, I should, in some 
 degree, be unfaithful to the cause of truth and righteous- 
 ness, and to the interests, as I conceive, of the Church of 
 England. At the same time, if I am wrong, I share the 
 mistake or the error with so many thousands of the 
 clergy, that it will be a worthy object for any competent 
 person to endeavour to set us right. 
 
 But let me not be mistaken when I say that I think 
 the occasion an important one. There is a crudeness of 
 expression and a want of thought in all the statements 
 of Lord Shaftesbury at the Oxford Bible Meeting, which, 
 per se, render it quite superfluous to examine them. 
 But circumstances often give importance to what in itself 
 is quite insignificant, and this happens to be the case in 
 the present instance. Lord Shaftesbury is a benevolent 
 man, who has had the happiness to originate and bring 
 to maturity some plans for the lessening of human ills, and 
 therefore he has some claim to be listened to whenever 
 he chooses to utter his opinions. He is also considered 
 the lay head of a large party in the Church, which gene- 
 rally endorses his sentiments. Further, at the Meeting 
 in question, neither yourself nor any one of the members 
 of the University present, expressed dissent from the 
 opinions of the noble Lord, and you may therefore be 
 presumed to have coincided with them.* Lord Shaftes- 
 
 * All our observations are founded on a report of the Bible Meet- 
 ing, given in the Oxford University Herald., and copied into the pages 
 
 o
 
 bury, therefore, does not stand alone as the propounder 
 of the views I propose to combat, but is to be consi- 
 dered the mouthpiece of a party, some members of which 
 are found in the University of Oxford. There are, more- 
 over, other reasons which forbid his Lordship's opinions 
 to be passed by as individual and peculiar to himself: — 
 they have been taken up, defended, and praised by a 
 portion both of the religious and secular press. Thus, 
 the Becord eulogizes the speech in the following high and 
 exaggerated terms : — " Lord Shaftesbury's speech at Ox- 
 ford has made an impression on the public mind, which 
 is due not merely to the talent and high character of the 
 speaker, but also to that ancient and venerable seat of 
 learning where it was delivered." " The speech which 
 the noble Earl delivered was weighty and powerful." 
 " Standing as he did in the presence of ' a large attend- 
 ance both of the senior and junior members of the Uni- 
 versity,' he did not fail manfully to express his belief that 
 it had, ' in some measure, departed from the faith.' " 
 " The salient points contained in the speech of Lord 
 Shaftesbury are important for the times in which we 
 live." So highly does the Record value Lord Shaftes- 
 bury's deliverances, while using the most lowering and 
 disrespectful tone towards the University of Oxford at 
 large. Of the latter I will give one specimen, and leave 
 you to decide whether there is any truth in its generali- 
 zation : — " A change has passed over the spirit of the 
 age, and the cloistered palaces of learning have been too 
 often profaned by those who, on the one hand, would 
 
 of the Record. As the latter paper corrects an important statement as 
 not delivered by Lord Shaftesbury, we have a right to infer that the 
 remainder of the report is admitted to be correct. The speeches of 
 the other speakers are not given.
 
 6 
 
 hide the Hght beneath the rubbish of human tradition, 
 or, on the other hand, would impiously dare to sit in 
 judgment on the ' true sayings of God.' " This sweep- 
 ing censure is aimed at a few individuals; while the 
 great facts of the case are dishonestly ignored. Who 
 would think, on reading the above extract, that Oxford 
 had recently produced such noble monuments of Catholic 
 truth as the " Library of the Fathers," and the " Library 
 of Anglo-Catholic Theology ?" Or that its presses had 
 lately put forth such works as those of Greswell or your 
 own? Or that its members combined had met Mr. 
 Jowett's opinions with the volume of Sermons on " Chris- 
 tian Faith and the Atonement?" But I must not enlarge 
 on this topic, my object being now only to shew that 
 Lord Shaftesbury's public utterances have a conventional 
 value, which redeems them from their inherent crudity 
 and their mere ad populum character. 
 
 The secular press has joined with the religious por- 
 tion of it in attaching importance to the Oxford Meeting. 
 Thus the Times declares that " men of good sense and 
 religious feeling throughout the country will support 
 Lord Shaftesbury's protest against a new version of the 
 Bible." We might be satirical on the subject of the 
 Times being able to estimate the " religious feeling " of 
 the country, but let that pass as irrelevant. It is enough 
 for me to have shewn that, not in their intrinsic value, 
 but in what others think of them, or in certain accidental 
 relations, the opinions of his Lordship must be examined 
 and weighed. 
 
 I will waste no time on a proposition which Lord 
 Shaftesbury handled as if its confutation were a pet 
 employment with him, namely, that the Bible is the 
 book of the poor, but not of the rich ; for I never yet
 
 found, either in public or private, in print or orally 
 delivered, such a sentiment maintained. The contrary 
 indeed is the papal view, and the contrary might well be 
 argued against such writers as Mr. Jowett, whose reason- 
 ings on the Holy Scriptures are, of necessity almost, 
 such as the well educated only could conceive or discuss. 
 1 may, however, conclude that you have never found it 
 gravely stated, " the Bible is not the rich man's book," 
 and pass over the topic, which Lord Shaftesbury pro- 
 bably only introduced as a man of straw, on which to 
 try his weapons, and warm his blood for more real and 
 formidable antagonists ; or as a windmill as preparatory 
 for a less airy edifice. Laying, then, this subject aside, 
 I find there are three distinct propositions stated and 
 maintained in Lord Shaftesbury's speech, which I feel 
 it my duty to discuss. First, that the Bible alone is 
 sufficient to convert men, or "to bring them to the 
 knowledge of the truth ;" secondly/, that imperfect ver- 
 sions of the Bible are as good as perfect ones, so that 
 revision and improvement are to be discouraged ; thirdly, 
 that Popery and the worst kinds of infidelity are to be 
 preferred to Christianity, when held with any modification 
 of Lord Shaftesbury's views of inspiration. You will 
 confess that these propositions, thus stated, have a very 
 extraordinary appearance ; but I think they are Lord 
 Shaftesbury's nevertheless; if, in any degree, I have 
 mistaken them, I shall most gladly discover my error. 
 The order is not exactly that in which I should choose to 
 discuss these topics ; but as they occur thus in Lord 
 Shaftesbury's speech, I will confine myself to it.
 
 The place of the Bible in the Christian System. 
 
 Lord Shaftesbury says, in reference to the alleged 
 imperfect versions of the Scriptures, circulated on the 
 continent by the Bible Society : — " Cannot the Society 
 point to the circumstance that thousands and tens of 
 thousands have been brought to the knowledge of the 
 truth by means of these alleged imperfect versions?" 
 Would to God, Sir, that this glowing description w^ere 
 true ! Happy should we feel, if by any means — and 
 much more, if by the Bible — we could record the his- 
 torical fact that myriads of souls had in oiu' times re- 
 ceived Christianity; for nothing less than this can be 
 meant, we think, by the expression, " brought to the 
 knowledge of the truth." If, indeed, this were an isolated 
 instance of the use of the terms, or if the expression were 
 not a proverbial and well-understood one in the nomencla- 
 ture of Lord Shaftesbury's party, I should not venture 
 to comment or reason upon it as conveying a specific 
 proposition. But you will admit that, being " brought 
 to the knowledge of the truth " meant, in Lord Shaftes- 
 bury's phraseology, being Christianized in a saving sense 
 — being converted — being tm'ued from darkness to light 
 — being brous;ht into a state of salvation. I should bo 
 sorry to misrepresent this matter in the smallest degree ; 
 but I do not think I am mistaken in this interpretation 
 of the terms employed ; especially as it is a well-known 
 fLict that the Bible Society always holds this language : — 
 that Bibles are appointed and sufficient instruments for 
 turning men to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
 When I state that in a long experience, from early
 
 9 
 
 childhood through about twenty-five years of intercourse 
 with the " rehgious world " in its various phases and 
 parties, I have never personally known a fellow creature 
 brought to a state of salvation by the Bible alone — 
 when I further affirm that 1 never have yet read of a 
 well-authenticated instance of such a fundamental revul- 
 sion of feeling produced by such means — you may ima- 
 gine how glad I should be to be certified of the fact that 
 "tens of thousands," within the sphere of the Bible 
 Society's influence on the continent of Europe, had been 
 so moved in the recesses of their moral nature by such 
 simple and cheap appliances. But I have heard and 
 known of many and great changes produced by reading 
 the Holy Scriptures, some of which I will mention, lest 
 I should be thought to undervalue the blessed influences 
 which the Bible sheds around it. 
 
 Inquirt/ has been excited by the Bible, as in the case 
 of the eunuch of Ethiopia, the Jews of Berea, and mul- 
 titudes of ancient and modern times. This was the case 
 with Augustine, when he obeyed the inward cafl, Tolle, 
 lege; and with Luther, when, from treating the Bible 
 scholastically, he began to study it devotionally and prac- 
 tically. I can understand then how Roman Catholics 
 in various countries in Europe, when induced to read the 
 Scriptures, may be led to forsake the errors of the 
 Papacy, and embrace a purer form of Christianity. 
 But all these cases are instances of advancing from 
 one degree of knowledge and grace to another, and not 
 examples of men being brought to " a knowledge of the 
 
 TRUTH." 
 
 The seeds of piety, implanted in the heart by early 
 education, have been made to germinate more fully by 
 the Word of God, and thus a revival or renewal of grace
 
 10 
 
 imparted has been the result. The Scriptures are often 
 like rain upon the parched ground, which, in its dry 
 state, gives little indication that the husbandman has 
 there ploughed and cast in the seed-; but a genial 
 shower dissolves the clods, and speedily produces fer- 
 tility. A prodigal son, instructed on a mother's knee, 
 prayed for and counselled by his father, and sent out 
 into the world with the paternal blessing, forgets all his 
 early privileges, and wastes his spiritual substance with 
 riotous living. But in the lonely hours of repentant 
 meditation he reads the Bible which love had placed in 
 his hand in former years, but which had since been 
 closed, and learns to retrace his steps and return to the 
 paths of peace. The history of the Church abounds 
 with instances of the revival of what appeared to be 
 dead, but none of them can properly be called a bring- 
 ing to the " knowledge of the truth." 
 
 In the records of Bible circulation, such as the reports 
 of societies, and the narratives of agents, we often hear 
 of men attributing their conversion to texts of Holy 
 Scripture, and we do not doubt that decision for God 
 has been produced in thousands of minds in this way. 
 But in almost all such cases, the Bible has been, not the 
 only means, but one among others, all of which have 
 combined together to produce such a result. In fact, is 
 there not, in most instances, a hand which gives the 
 Bible, and a voice which enforces its claims and urges to 
 its perusal ? Even if we can credit the effects which are 
 said to be produced by the Bible among the blood- 
 stained insurgents of China, what is it that rescues its 
 pages from negfect and destruction but a testimony that 
 the book is the religious book of the Christians, and is
 
 11 
 
 deserving of regard ? We grant that there is an outly- 
 ing mass of anecdote, and surmise, and hope, of various 
 degrees of probability, in connexion with the operations 
 of Bible distribution in various countries, from vi^hich we 
 may gather that the providence of God may he overruling 
 eccentric and wayward methods of operation to the ex- 
 tension of godliness. Papists profess to become Pro- 
 testants ; lukewarm Christians are aroused to more ac- 
 tivity ; men of but little knowledge become wiser ; and 
 the Bible, when read even by heathens, prepares them, 
 perhaps, to comprehend the Christian system when regu- 
 larly set before them ; although, in some instances, hea- 
 thens are prejudiced against Christianity by the bare pe- 
 rusal of its sacred books, apart from external teaching. 
 All these phenomena, or, if you please, all these results, 
 we willingly grant as following the free circulation of the 
 Bible ; but, unless we forget the right use of terms, can 
 any of these warrant the statement that by versions of the 
 Scriptures " tens of thousands have been brought to the 
 knowledge of the truth?" Lord Shaftesbury's statement, 
 backed and explained as it is by the opinions of a large 
 party of Protestants, amounts to this : — The Bible is, 
 with them, the appointed means of converting the world, 
 and therefore the first thing to be done is to broadcast the 
 land with copies of the Scriptures, with the expectation 
 that, like wheat from seed-corn, regeneration and holiness 
 will spring up. The theory being believed, all phenomena 
 are made to bear upon it, by a process inverse to the 
 Baconian method; and the good effected by all other 
 agencies together is at once attributed to the circulation 
 of the Bible. The scheme is a taking one, and just suits 
 the hasting to be rich of these mercantile times ; but the
 
 12 
 
 misfortune is, it is baseless — having no foundation but 
 in the sanguine imaginations of Lord Shaftesbury and 
 his co-religionists. 
 
 Were you, Sir, or Lord Shaftesbury, members of 
 one of the voluntary communities of Dissenters com- 
 posing, in great part, the Bible Society, I should not 
 take the trouble to expose what I conceive to be the 
 error in his Lordship's statement ; for, among the legion 
 of strange doctrines engendered by the misuse of private 
 judgment, this is one, — that man needs nothing but the 
 Bible to enable him to become a child of God, to choose 
 for himself a community and a priest, and to convert the 
 world. Nor, had the speech I am considering been 
 delivered at Exeter Hall, should I have entered upon the 
 task of unmasking its errors. But when a noble Lord, 
 a member of the Church of England, comes to Oxford, 
 and in opposition to the Church's doctrine, and in the 
 very teeth of great divines and erudite scholars, main- 
 tains and upholds for theology the flimsy figments I am 
 commenting upon, the case is far different, and will not 
 brook neglect or delay. 
 
 The Record, in some editorial remarks upon Lord 
 Shaftesbury's speech, has the following observation : — 
 "The noble Earl appeared in Oxford as a member of 
 that renowned University where he had himself in early 
 youth earned within her walls the highest honours." He 
 had therefore the less excuse for returning thither to 
 utter a doctrine which his Alma Mater never taught 
 him ; for the uniform, earnest, and unqualified belief of 
 the Catholic Church, has always been that it is the 
 Church and not the Bible that is to convert the world. 
 The Church, the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, com- 
 posed of warm and enlightened hearts, is to send forth
 
 13 
 
 its ministers to preach the Word, and by means of the 
 truth which is deposited and preserved in the Holy 
 Scriptures, to seek to enlarge its borders, found its 
 sacraments and ordinances, and bring the wanderers 
 into the one fold, under One Shepherd. Finding its 
 commission, traditionally conveyed, confirmed in the 
 Bible, and having its great cardinal truths consigned 
 and perpetuated in the pages of that blessed Book, it 
 has gone forth and conquered in ages when its doctrines 
 and precepts could only be orally delivered, and when 
 for converts to read them in a written page was an im- 
 possibility. The Word preached, and accompanied by 
 the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, has indeed 
 brought tens of thousands, yea, millions, to " the know- 
 ledge of the truth ;" but we think we could challenge 
 the world to produce a hundred instances in which the 
 Bible, without the Church, either in its direct or indirect 
 moral and preparatory influences, has turned the soul to 
 " God manifest in the flesh." 
 
 God's ways are the best ways, and it is perilous for 
 Christian men to attempt to carry on His work by plans 
 and theories of their own. " See," was the language of 
 Jehovah to Moses, " that thou make all things according 
 to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount," And so. 
 He who was worthy of more honour than Moses, gave a 
 pattern and exemplar which his Apostles were to follow 
 themselves, and to transmit by faithful men to the re- 
 motest times. The mischievous fancy that every thing 
 which Christian men need know is to be found in the 
 Scriptures, is an ignoring of that most remarkable of all 
 providential dispensations, the planting and development 
 of the Church, It is the growth of the last three hun- 
 dred years, and bitter is the fruit it has produced in self-
 
 14 
 
 will, endless divisions, and deadly heresies. Once admit 
 this entire comprehensiveness of the Bible, and the right 
 of every man to find his own system of rehgion in it, 
 and the way is open for every wild irregularity, and every 
 hateful doctrine. But Oxford has never taught this doc- 
 trine, nor, until Ichabod is written upon her walls, can 
 she ever promulgate it. The Church of England is 
 founded on Scripture as interpreted and supplemented 
 by antiquity, and not as explained by any private sub- 
 jectivity ; else what becomes of her Episcopacy, her infant 
 Baptism, and her Liturgy ? 
 
 At the time of the Reform of our Church, Cranmer 
 and his colleagues were required " to draw an order of 
 divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of 
 Christ, taught in the Scriptures, and to the practice of 
 the primitive Church ;' and in the preface to their work 
 they tell us, "Here you have an order for prayer, as 
 touching the reading of Holy Scripture, much agreeable 
 to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers." So in the 
 office for ordaining Deacons, we read, " It is evident to 
 all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture a7id ancient 
 authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been 
 three orders of ministers in Christ's Church." In the 
 Twenty-Eourth Article, and in the Commination Service, 
 the "custom of the primitive Chm'ch" is recognized, 
 and in the Homilies, intended not for the Clergy only, 
 but for the people, primitive antiquity, or Catholic tra- 
 dition, is everywhere alluded to, and acknowledged as 
 authority when not repugnant to the Bible. But surely. 
 Sir, I need say no more to prove that our Church, while 
 honouring the Scriptures above most Communions, does 
 not exalt them as the only authority, or the only 
 means of salvation, but gives them that place which they
 
 15 
 
 had in the first constitution and early history of the 
 Church. In reference to this subject we may quote the 
 words of Professor Blunt, which I recommend to the 
 notice of Lord Shaftesbury, and other Church of Eng- 
 land favourers of the notion of the " Bible alone being 
 the religion of Protestants." After quoting Jewell and 
 others to shew the place they allotted to tradition, he 
 says : — " Such was the language of the champions of the 
 Church of England, while they had to defend her against 
 the Bo7nanists ; and to vindicate against them the posi- 
 tion they had taken up for her. And we may rest as- 
 sured that if our Church is in fact constituted upon one 
 principle, and we undertake to advocate her cause as if 
 she was constituted upon another, we shall soon find 
 ourselves involved in more difficulties than we contem- 
 plated."* 
 
 We know that tribunals like that which Lord Shaftes- 
 bury appeared before at Oxford, will not treat our opi- 
 nions, as they did his, with " warm and prolonged accla- 
 mation ;" but we have learned to mistrust the aurapojm- 
 lariSt and to seek a firmer foundation for our religious 
 doctrines and practices than the noisy applause of public 
 meetings. It will be said that such sentiments as I have 
 advanced dishonour God's Word, and imperil the souls 
 of men by discouraging the means ordained for their 
 salvation. You, Sir, can defend me from the charge of 
 admitting these consequences, since you have the means 
 of knowing, from my writings, that the illustration and 
 exaltation of the Scriptures is one great pursuit of my 
 life ; and that if I disagree with Lord Shaftesbury on 
 this point, it is because God and not man is to point out 
 the way in which the human race is to be saved. If 
 
 * Introductory Lectures on the study of the early Fathers, p. 30.
 
 16 
 
 I call the attempt to convert nations at large, or indi- 
 viduals composing them, by means of Bibles alone, a 
 delusion and snare, it is because I believe the plan is 
 not God's plan, and am deeply conscious that the cause 
 of Christ is thrown backwards, and not advanced by 
 such an unauthorized system. To translate and circu- 
 late Bibles in foreign countries may be beneficial pro- 
 spectively, when the living Church can gain an entrance 
 into them, though even this is doubtful ; but to look to 
 them as the means, alone, of bringing men to the know- 
 ledge of the truth, . is a scheme devised by a utilitarian 
 age, and will sink, with others equally specious, into 
 merited oblivion. What would we not give to enable 
 every man, woman, and child in the world, to read the 
 Bible as we do in Christian England, or as they do in 
 some Roman Catholic countries ! But with the Word 
 must go the preparatory institutions and influences, 
 without which our Bibles would be to us sealed books. 
 Timothy was first brought to the Bible by the Jewish 
 Church, and by the " unfeigned faith " of his grand- 
 mother Lois and his mother Eunice; and, when thus 
 prepared, he approached the Holy Scriptures and was 
 made wise unto salvation by them. I might dwell on 
 another aspect of the matter, but will only now glance 
 at it. How much personal exertion and devotedness in 
 the cause of our Redeemer has been strangled in the 
 birth, or checked in its growth by this easy and plausible 
 theory of converting men by Bibles ? How many more 
 living missionaries would have gone out to reclaim the 
 heathen, but for the doctrine that the Bible, going first, 
 would either prepare the way, or render going unneces- 
 sary ! Yet such is the delusion which Lord Shaftesbury's 
 statements were adapted to spread.
 
 17 
 
 The Catholic doctrine on the subject I am discussing 
 is the following : — The Church preceded the Bible, both 
 under Moses and under our Lord. The Church is the 
 divinely-appointed instrument for converting the world — 
 the little leaven which is to permeate and influence the 
 whole lump. When men are brought into the Church, 
 then they become amenable to the. Holy Scriptures, 
 which form the statute Imo of the whole community. 
 As the Apostles did not give Bibles to the heathen, 
 but preached to them the kingdom of heaven, so we 
 know of no dispensation granted to modern times to 
 alter that arrangement. The Bible all through pre- 
 supposes a society established, having already what we 
 may call a common law, laid down by our Lord and His 
 Apostles ; which, however, in all cases of doubt, is sub- 
 jected to the written law, indited by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 It may be said that I have misapplied Lord Shaftes- 
 bury's words, or exaggerated his meaning. But if his 
 statements are taken in connexion with the known and 
 acknowledged principles and practices of his party, the 
 charge can hardly be sustained. I feel certain that the 
 impression made upon the Oxford audience was such as 
 I have been combating ; and if his Lordship meant to 
 say that the " tens of thousands" alluded to, although 
 brought up as Christians, were really heathens until the 
 Bible Society had mercy upon them, he will escape the 
 charge of teaching one false doctrine, only by embracing 
 another at once false and uncharitable. 
 
 H. 
 
 Revision of Versions of the Bible. 
 I have stated in other places that there is only one
 
 18 
 
 sensible, and indeed reasonable, view whicli can be taken 
 of this question ; namely, that as most versions are con- 
 fessedly imperfect, we should revise and improve them if 
 we can ; the whole case resolving itself into a calculation 
 of what is practicable, not what is desirable ; hence the 
 importance of such revision will present itself with 
 greater or less force to various minds, according to the 
 view taken of the place appointed to the Bible in the 
 Christian system by the Author of our Faith. If I con- 
 sider the Bible as our oiili/ guide, or attribute to it the 
 exclusiveness, as a means of grace, which Lord Shaftes- 
 bury does, I ought, as a logical inference, to be more 
 solicitous about its perfection, and freedom from error, 
 than when entertaining the opinions I have ventured to 
 bring before you. There is thus ground for an a priori 
 expectation that the Evangelical party will be strenuous 
 advocates for biblical perfection ; and this is found to be 
 a fact in their general exposition of doctrine. How 
 then Lord Shaftesbury and the Record have been brought 
 to fall back upon a view of the subject, which is almost 
 the Papal one, deserves enquiry.* But I will first leave 
 on record what his Lordship actually thinks on the 
 matter, according to his speech at Oxford. 
 
 With respect to versions circulated on the Continent, 
 he considers that an exact conformity to the original texts 
 must yield to another question : " No version, as long 
 as things remain as they are, can be made perfect ; but 
 Avhen men charge upon the Society a recklessness and 
 indifference in this matter, they must place themselves 
 
 * Some time back his Lordship declared, at a public meeting, that 
 the Bibles of the Bible Society would be so much waste paper if a new 
 version were issued. Can this material and gross view of the subject 
 be the cause of his dislike of the revision ?
 
 19 
 
 in the Society's position, and first of all ascertain whether, 
 in the versions which are circulated by the Society, they 
 could, or could not, find the way to everlasting salvation." 
 That is, human expediency is to tolerate a little departure 
 from the integrity of the Holy Scriptures. This opinion 
 is further developed by an allusion to the difficulties in 
 the way of circulating perfect versions, arising from Papal 
 governments : " We cannot take upon ourselves the re- 
 sponsibility of adopting a new course, which may be 
 opposed by the governments where now we have full 
 freedom to introduce them ; and so endanger the ever- 
 lasting salvation of the hmnan race" (!). I confess I 
 was obliged to read these passages more than once, so 
 utterly opposed did they appear to the often expressed 
 creed of Lord Shaftesbury's party. With them the Bible 
 is everything — the appointed means for converting the 
 world ; and yet its integrity is to be compromised for 
 fear of human governments, on the plea that a measure 
 of unfaithfulness still leaves to the Holy Scriptures the 
 power of saving souls ! With my view, which is that 
 of the Church Catholic, souls can be saved without a 
 material Bible at all — merely by hearing the Gospel 
 preached by living men, and, therefore, whether the 
 Bible is a translation of the Hebrew, the Septuagint, 
 or the Vulgate, is a matter of minor importance, as was 
 evidently the opinion of our Lord and his apostles — who 
 quoted the Septuagint. But how Lord Shaftesbury 
 could promulgate a sentiment so utterly adverse both to 
 his lofty ideas of inspiration, and to his exclusive notions 
 of the place of the Bible in the Christian system, is a 
 mystery. 
 
 Does not Lord Shaftesbury believe in the verbal inspi- 
 ration of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 Testaments, and also that the union of these two — the 
 Bible — is appointed of God to convert the world ? How 
 mercilessly he condemns, and utterly unchristianizes, all 
 who do not admit plenary inspiration, we shall see 
 presently ; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that I 
 am rightly stating his general creed. Surely, the right 
 argument for him to take on this subject would be, 
 " Expediency must give way to divine law ; there is only 
 one way of doing men everlasting good, and that is by 
 circulating the Bible among them : the Bible is one, the 
 Hebrew and Greek originals, or exact translations. As 
 then we are no where told that one part of the Bible is 
 more important than another, we dare not circulate 
 unfaithful versions, lest we should dishonour God, and 
 ruin the souls of men." This is the consistent view 
 taken by the Evangelical party, which yet is laid aside 
 by Lord Shaftesbury, as a matter of little importance. 
 In other words, he neglects what he can see to be true, 
 for something which he has no power whatever to dog- 
 matize upon. He can tell, according to his theory of 
 the Scriptures, whether translations are faithful or not, 
 but he cannot tell how much or how little the absence of 
 an imperfect version will "endanger the everlasting 
 salvation of the human race." 
 
 To make this part of my letter more clear, I will 
 imagine that instead of Lord Shaftesbury lecturing at 
 Oxford for the Bible Society, Dr. Pusey or Mr. Keble 
 had been speaking at the same place on behalf of an 
 institution for circulating translations of the Vulgate on 
 the Continent of Europe. Cannot you bring before 
 your mind, at once and easily, the abuse, the misrepre- 
 sentation, the divers and strange charges which would 
 have been brought against these divines for an attempt
 
 21 
 
 so daring, so unprotestant, so decidedly Popish ? Would 
 not this have been looked upon as the crowning sin of 
 the Tractarian party, that they were going to mutilate the 
 Word of God, for the purpose of meeting the prejudices 
 of Papists ? Yet this is the line of conduct which Lord 
 Shaftesbury defends when followed by the British and 
 Poreign Bible Society ! We meet with cases of incon- 
 sistency enough in our days, but this instance surpasses 
 all others in its outspoken boldness. 
 
 Not only is Lord Shaftesbury's view opposed to his 
 high conception of the inspiration of the Scriptures : it 
 is in downright antagonism to his Protestantism. We 
 can hardly conceive he could have delivered a speech 
 more favourable to Popery if he had taxed his powers 
 even more than he evidently did in devising the para- 
 dox|es propounded at Oxford. I presume Lord Shaftes- 
 bury would indorse this proposition, "The Bible, the 
 whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of 
 Protestants ;" which is indeed the watchword which 
 binds together a rabble rout of sects and parties in 
 opposition to Rome. But this principle is utterly relin- 
 quished in this famous Oxford oration ; and it is con- 
 ceded that an imperfect Bible, or a garbled one, is 
 sufficient for the " salvation of the human race," or for 
 "bringing tens of thousands to the knowledge of the 
 truth." Sir, is not this a strange utterance for him to 
 make who is thought to be the lay head of Protestants, 
 next to Her most gracious Majesty ? Admit that the 
 Bible may be a little garbled, a little altered by Protes- 
 tants to save souls, and what is to hinder the Papists 
 from saying, We will alter it a little more, and divide it, 
 and keep some of it out of sight ; for, in our view, that 
 will be the most successful mode of saving souls. As
 
 22 
 
 the end professed by both parties is one quite out of 
 sight, and known only to God, the adaptation of correct 
 or incorrect Bibles to further or hinder it cannot be 
 known. Such inconsistencies are produced by leaving 
 the true doctrine of the Church, that that divine institu- 
 tion is the means of converting the world. Such follies 
 are perpetrated by men who put their own subjective 
 notions in the place of Catholic truth. 
 
 I come now to consider Lord Shaftesbury's speech in 
 its relation to the Authorized Version of the Bible in 
 English, and as it is probably the most extraordinary part 
 of the whole performance, I will quote it in full : — 
 
 "There was another question agitating the public 
 mind of late, but he hoped it was now pretty nearly 
 extinct : he alluded to the outcry for a new version of 
 the English Scriptures. Now he could conceive nothing 
 more fatal to the truth in its Evangelical purity than 
 to shake the confidence of the people in the blessed 
 version they now enjoyed. What would be the first 
 great consequence? One which he could not contem- 
 plate without the greatest dismay. The consequence 
 would be, there would no longer be one version of the 
 Holy Scriptures in the English language which would 
 be generally and readily accepted by every denomination 
 of Protestant Christians throughout the world. But 
 another most serious eff'ect would be an infringement of 
 the great leading vital doctrine of the Protestant Refor- 
 mation — the right of private judgment. The great masses 
 of the people would have to pin their faith to this or 
 that minister, to what this one thought or the other 
 one held : there would no longer be a version on which 
 every one could depend, and to which every one might 
 appeal."
 
 23 
 
 Lord Shaftesbury here confesses that a part is better 
 than the whole ; that imperfection is better than com- 
 pleteness ; that blemishes are beauty-spots, by all means 
 to be retained. But this obliquity of vision is paralleled 
 by the singular want of modesty displayed by his Lord- 
 ship, in ignoring the labours of great and good men, who 
 are anxious for a revision of the English Bible. Who would 
 think, on reading this flippant passage, that the imper- 
 fections of our Bible were corrected in a thousand pul- 
 pits every Sunday, acknowledged in the writings of every 
 divine, and lamented by great numbers of the clergy of 
 the Church of England and ministers of all denomina- 
 tions ? Yet such are the facts of the case : and so far 
 from its being true that the " question is now pretty 
 nearly extinct," there can be no doubt that it is being 
 more than ever agita1%ted ; and that such indiscreet con- 
 demnation as Lord Shaftesbury's will greatly tend to 
 keep the excitement alive. 
 
 The facts of the case may be told in a few words. 
 Our present Bible is a revision of a translation, — a ver- 
 sion which indeed had been revised again and again, 
 until it took nearly its present form two hundred and 
 forty five years ago. The translators, or rather revisers, 
 in king James's time, make no pretence to perfectness, 
 but speak modestly of their labours, as being conscious 
 that they admitted of improvement. To suppose then 
 that in two centuries and a half our venerable version has 
 not exhibited faults in the light of all the learned piety 
 w^hich God has granted our country since then, is mon- 
 strously absurd, savouring more of the Vatican than of 
 England in the nineteenth century. All sensible men, 
 however, admit at once the imperfections of the version, 
 and the only question that is to be entertained is, Is such
 
 24 
 
 a revision as will remove the acknowledged faults prac- 
 ticable? In the present state of parties, it is thought 
 that we had better " let well alone : " and as the English 
 Bible contains all that is necessary for faith and practice, 
 and is at least as perfect in relation to the Hebrew and 
 Greek, as the Septuagint and Vulgate, we must submit 
 to abide by that decision. 
 
 But very different are the representations of the 
 matter given by Lord Shaftesbury : and all acquainted 
 with the controversy will see that they are as unjust as 
 they are onesided and ungenerous. He speaks of the 
 divines and scholars who are advocates of revision as if 
 they had designs upon religion and piety, instead of 
 being, as I believe most of them are, sincerely anxious 
 for the honour of God's blessed Word.* For if it is thought 
 worthy of men's best energies to improve the translation 
 of a Greek or Roman classic, how emulous should we be 
 of making an English version of the Bible as close as 
 possible to the originals ! Are not all the efforts of our 
 Biblical scholars directed to explain and illustrate the 
 text of the Bible ; and if so, ought not the results of 
 their labours to appear in our translation ? Anything 
 more really degrading to the Word of God we can 
 scarcely conceive of, than this quiet and satisfied acqui- 
 escence in imperfection and error. Again we are re- 
 minded of the Vatican, and the self-complaisance with 
 which Rome has ignored the faults of the Vulgate ver- 
 sion. 
 
 I do not exactly know what Lord Shaftesbury means 
 
 * Among many other excellent publications, I would particularly 
 name Notes on the Proposed Amendment of the Authorized Veision of 
 the IJohj Scriptures" by William Selwyn, Canon of Ely, Lady Mar- 
 garet Professor of Divinity. Cambridge, 1856.
 
 25 
 
 by " the truth m its evangelical purity," but it seems it 
 is something which cannot bear the hght, but must be 
 shrouded in common-places, and pampered with old saws 
 and ignorant assumptions. But that there is nothing to 
 apprehend on the side of old England's faith in the 
 Bible, from any revision we can give it, will appear from 
 these two considerations. Fi7-st, King James's version 
 was but a revision, yet we do not find faith declined 
 when it was introduced by authority, unless Lord Shaftes- 
 bury thinks that the Great Rebellion and the overflowing 
 of Puritan folly and tyranny proceeded from that cause. 
 Secondltj, if faith can be shaken by an admission of faults 
 in our version, that has been made every Sunday, in half 
 the pulpits of the land, ever since we were children, so 
 that the mischief is done, if such a course is mischievous. 
 I have been familiar from childhood with pulpit improve- 
 ments and alterations of the English Bible, yet I never 
 remember having my faith in its divine authority shaken 
 on that account. Lord Shaftesbury thinks there is safety 
 in concealment and darkness, and therefore he would 
 convey to the people the notorious falsehood that the 
 Bible is as perfect as need be ; we, on the other hand, 
 would preserve them from infidelity by giving them more 
 light, and while confessing the imperfections, would 
 teach our hearers that they do not affect the truth, be- 
 cause our Bible is but a translation. I ask you. Sir, 
 w^hich cause is more honest. Christian, and Protestant ? 
 
 Then what an odour of Popery there is in the state- 
 ment that it is necessary there should be " one version of 
 the Holy Scriptures in the English language, for every 
 denomination of Protestant Christians throughout the 
 world !" Surely this is the spirit of the Vatican again ; 
 an inability to conceive of any good being done, or the
 
 cause of Christian truth promoted, but by a level uni- 
 formity. Why, Sir, every Englishman who has a Bible 
 with references carries two different translations with him, 
 and has Protestantism ever suffered by this ? The last 
 statement of the speech, on this point, surpasses my 
 comprehension, and I must leave it to others more skilled 
 in platform platitudes to unravel its meaning. How the 
 right of private judgment is maintained by a false trans- 
 lation, or how it would suffer from a correct one, are 
 matters which I must leave to those whom the utterer of 
 the paradoxes may choose to enlighten on the subject. 
 As to people pinning their faith to this or that minister, 
 as an error to be avoided, we are glad that Lord Shaftes- 
 bury is Churchman enough to be afraid of it. But this 
 is the first time we were aware that the Evangehcal party 
 in the Church discouraged that easy and common mode 
 of acquiring a belief. 
 
 But we have not yet done with this notable expres- 
 sion of a noble Earl's dishke of improvement and revi- 
 sion. He is guilty of a suppressio veri which, if uttered 
 in the House of Lords, would not be considered in good 
 taste, or in accordance with the customs of polite society. 
 He speaks and reasons about a new version of our Bible, 
 whereas he must be well aware that a moderate revision 
 for the removal of confessed blemishes is all that any 
 persons have advocated in this country. It was a bold 
 step to present a bugbear to members of the University 
 of Oxford, which any decent Christian man in a small 
 provincial town could have detected as made for the pur- 
 pose ; — a frightful phantom to look upon, yet destitute 
 of real tail and claws, and stuffed with straw !* 
 
 * Although complimented by the Times, Lord Shaftesbuiy and 
 that Journal have already been appealed to in reference to their absurd
 
 27 
 
 III. 
 
 The Doctrine of Inspiration. 
 
 I approach the last part of my letter with feelings of 
 more solemnity than I could entertain in the previous 
 discussions; for while Lord Shaftesbury's statements 
 hitherto have afforded a tempting occasion for irony and 
 satire, what remains is calculated to make good men 
 sad, and to excite painful emotions. Again I must avoid 
 mistake, by quoting his Lordship's words : — 
 
 " Coming to another point, he felt bound to say none 
 
 dicta on tbis question. The venerable John Allen, Archdeacon of 
 Salop, has written to that paper, and I will print the letter as an 
 admirable summary of the case, and as a concise exposure of Lord 
 Shaftesbury's sophistries. 
 
 "To THE Editor of the Times. 
 " Sir, — I regret to see, from the report of Lord Shaftesbury's 
 speech in your columns of Saturday, the weight of his name influencing 
 the public judgment against the eftbrt made to clear our admirable 
 version of the Holy Scriptures from what all who are capable of looking 
 into the Greek Testament acknowledge to be defects. The question 
 seems to me one of plain duty. We must, as faithful men, do all in 
 our power to give purely to our less instructed brethren the meaning of 
 the original text. We must, as prudent men, seek to do this in the 
 least objectionable way. It would, as I believe, answer every purpose 
 if a royal commission were issued to ten of the greatest scholars among 
 our bishops and professors at the old Universities, with direction to 
 place in the margin such versions as seemed to nine-tenths of the com- 
 missioners preferable to the existing English text, permission being 
 granted to ministers to read such corrections in our churches. By 
 this I think we should get rid of the obscurities that arise (1) from the 
 same English word standing for difterent Greek words, as in St. John 
 i. 8, and v. 35 3 (2) from different English words standing for the 
 same or cognate Greek words, as in Romans iii. 36 ; (3) from inter- 
 polation, as in St. Matthew xx. 23 ; (4) from change in the English
 
 28 
 
 had arisen of late, or even in any former times, that he 
 had ever heard of at all approaching it in character and 
 importance. He referred to the question which touched 
 upon either the total denial, or at least abatement of the 
 plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Of all the machi- 
 nations of Satan, one more full of malevolence or astute- 
 ness could hardly have been devised. There never was 
 anything so well conceived in order to do irreparable 
 mischief and promote disunion amongst all classes of the 
 population. He did not know of a single thing so capti- 
 vating to the youthful mind as doubts thrown upon the 
 plenary inspiration of the Scriptures ; he knew of nothing 
 which so flattered the vanity of a young man, by making 
 him think that he possessed a sagacity vastly superior to 
 his forefathers, than those doubts which were so easily 
 kindled, yet so hard to be eradicated. This principle 
 met the mind in every possible manner, by various de- 
 grees and by various conclusions. Sometimes plenary 
 inspiration was denied altogether, at others admitted in 
 a modified form, and in other cases distinctions were 
 drawn where none ever existed. But those who were 
 
 tougue, as 1 Corinthians iv. 4 ; (5) from a faulty text, as 1 Joliu v. 7; 
 (6) from not attending to the article. 
 
 " All who have read the Scriptures in public must have wished to 
 read "Joshua," in Acts vii. 45, and Hebrews iv. 8. 
 
 " It does not seem desirable to leave corrections of the text to be 
 made by ministers in their sermons. 
 
 " I am unable to speak of the Old Testament. Most have, as I 
 believe, wished that the sacred name were always printed as it is in 
 Exodus vi. 3. Some one has observed that if this had been done 
 Socinianism would have been almost impossible. 
 
 " I am, Sir, your faithful servant, 
 
 " John Allen, iVrchdeacon of Salop, 
 " Diocese of Lichfield." 
 " Frees, Shrewsbury, Dec 1."
 
 29 
 
 opposed to it could not dispute, because they had no 
 position, and they never attempted proof, because that 
 would be impossible; some questioned partially, some 
 questioned altogether, whilst others did not know whether 
 to receive or reject. He knew of nothing which was 
 more fearful than this in the present day, for it cut from 
 under us the very ground on which we stand. It would 
 be far better to plunge at once into ultra-Romanism of 
 the most ultra description, or into ultra-infidelity, or even 
 into downright atheism, than to stand in such a position. 
 Far better would it be to adopt either extreme — for then 
 there was hope of recovery — but when the ground was 
 cut from under us in this manner we had no resting- 
 place for the sole of our foot, and those who had been 
 misled must go on wandering to eternity, without finding 
 a single point or conclusion which could afford them rest 
 or hope. He did not know anything which had so much 
 alarmed him as the progress of those new opinions, be- 
 cause very few persons, when they came to be examined, 
 or they could be induced to examine themselves, were in 
 the present day found to be really sound in this great 
 principle of the faith." 
 
 We might here dwell on the evident discrepancy be- 
 tween the speaker's high idea of plenary inspiration, and 
 the way in which he throws that theory aside in advo- 
 cating imperfect versions. But as I have already alluded 
 to this, I need not enlarge on the topic, but will pro- 
 ceed to more important matter. The first thing requir- 
 ing notice is the indefinite nature of the charge, including 
 as it does those who deny the Inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures altogether, and all the shades of opinion on that 
 difficult question, until we arrive at that which is held 
 by Lord Shaftesbury — which, by the way, he does not
 
 30 
 
 define or explain. He calls his view " the plenary In- 
 spiration of the Scriptures," and we believe he means 
 by that term, not the divine authority of the Bible as a 
 whole, as the sufficient rule of faith and practice, but its 
 absolute truth in every part, historical, geographical, and 
 chronological, as well as religious. There is something 
 in this confusing together of opinions, as far as the poles 
 asunder, which reflects equally on his Lordship's skill as 
 a logician, and on his Christian charity ; and it is diffi- 
 cult to unravel his exact meaning. I will, however, 
 comment on the language employed, as far as I can, in 
 its plain and literal sense, and take for granted that 
 Plenary Inspiration comprehends, in the opinion of the 
 speaker, all I have just indicated. As this is the view 
 maintained by the Record, and for the rejection of which 
 divines are called neological and infidel by that publica- 
 tion, I do not think I am mistaken in doing so. 
 
 On no question, probably, have undoubtedly good 
 men more differed, than on the nature and degree of In- 
 spiration, and hitherto they have been able to do so 
 without their orthodoxy being suspected ; for in the doc- 
 trinal standards of the Church of England, and most 
 other Chm'ches, general statements have been employed, 
 which allow of great latitude of opinion. In this feature 
 Holy Scripture itself has been followed, which everywhere 
 asserts its own claims in general expressions, which will 
 by no means bear the stringent requirements of some who 
 have written on the subject. It may be stated briefly, 
 that for fifteen centuries the doctrine of the Church on 
 Inspiration was, that the Sacred writers were moved by 
 the Holy Ghost to teach Christianity, and that their wri- 
 tings thus possessed full authority ; but it laid down no 
 theorv, nor denied a human element in the Bible, and.
 
 31 
 
 as a consequence, allowed of circamstantial fallibility. 
 As this subject is liigbly important, I will quote a few 
 testimonies of the Fathers, and more modern authors, 
 which ought to settle this question for ever in any reason- 
 able mind. 
 
 The Presbyter John, quoted by Eusebius, says, in 
 relation to the composition of St. Mark's Gospel, " he 
 (Mark) was the interpreter of Peter, and carefully re- 
 corded all that he retained from him in his memory, 
 without binding himself to the chronological order of the 
 words and deeds of Christ."* 
 
 Augustine declares that " each of the Evangelists has 
 written, sometimes more and sometimes less fully, as 
 €ach remembered, and as each had it in his heart :" and, 
 " that the words of the Evangelist might be ever so con- 
 tradictory, provided only that their tltouglits were the 
 same."t 
 
 Chrysostom remarks upon the words of St. Paul in 
 Acts xxiii. 6, " He speaks humanly, and does not through- 
 out enjoy grace ; but it is permitted him even to inter- 
 mix his own materials."! 
 
 * Kat TOVTO o Trpea^vrepo's eXcye' Ma/)«:o§ jmev epfirji'evrrj^ Ylerpov 
 fyevoyiiefos, oaa ijj.vqfiovevaev, a.Kpifiw'i er^jpay^ev' ov jueu toi ra^et -ra 
 vvo Tou 'XpiffTov tf \e')(Oevja y 7rpay(^9dvTa (Eusebius, MIcc. Hist., 
 
 iii., 39). 
 
 f " Ut quisque meminerat, et ut cuique cordi erat." ..." Qufe 
 cum ita sint per hujusmodi evangelistarum locutiones varias, sed non 
 contrarias, rem plane utilissimam discimus et pernecessariam, nihil in 
 cujusque verbis nos debere inspicere, nisi voluntatem, cui debent verba 
 servire ; nee mentire quern quam si aliis verbis dixerit quid ille voluerit, 
 cujus verba non dicit ; ne raiseri aucupes vocum apicibus quodammodo 
 literarum putent ligandam esse veritatem, cum utique non in verbis 
 tantum, sed etiam in ceteris omnibus siguis animorum non sit nisi ipse 
 animus inquirendus " (Be consensu Evang., ii., 28). 
 
 X AvOpajTriutvi dtaXe'^eTai Kac ov 7ravra-)(ov iij^ y^dpno's cnroXavec, 
 aWa Km Trap' eavTov ti av^-xw pel-rat eia(j)epeiv.
 
 32 
 
 As I am not writing a treatise, these extracts will be 
 sufficient to shew that the early Church, while entertain- 
 ing very exalted views of the Scriptures, allowed a human 
 element to the writers, with its consequent lapses of 
 memory, and want of knowledge in matters not pertain- 
 ing to the great object of their mission. We shall find 
 the same concessions in more modern authors, whose piety 
 and orthodoxy have yet never been doubted. I might 
 quote largely here, but I prefer to sum up all in one autho- 
 rity—that of the Rev. T. Hartwefi Home, who, as a com- 
 piler, only expresses what he had found to be the senti- 
 ment of the orthodox on the subject. He says, in the new 
 edition of his Introduction, just published, " When the 
 Scriptures are said to be thus divinely (or plenarily) 
 inspired, we are not to understand that the Almighty 
 suggested every word, or dictated even every expression. 
 From the diff'erent styles in which the books are written, 
 and from the different manner in which the same events 
 are related and predicted by different authors, it appears 
 that the sacred penmen were permitted to write as their 
 several tempers, understandings, and habits of life, directed; 
 and that the knowledge communicated to them by in- 
 spiration, on the subject of their writings, was applied in 
 the same manner as any knowledge acquired by ordinary 
 means. Nor is it to be supposed that they were ever 
 thus inspired in every fact which they related, or in 
 every precept lohich they delivered. They were left to the 
 common use of their faculties, and did not, upon every 
 occasion, stand in need of supernatm-al communication." 
 Vol. i., p. 528. 
 
 As ultra-Protestants are often high and intolerant 
 advocates for verbal inspiration, I will quote, for their 
 benefit, and to lower their crests a little, a passage or two 
 from Luther and Calvin, their " masters in Israel."
 
 33 
 
 Luther, in his Preface to Linken's Annotations on the 
 Books of Moses, says, " Doubtless the prophets studied 
 the writings of Moses, and the last prophets studied the 
 first, and wrote down in a book the good thoughts which 
 the Holy Spirit excited within them. But allowing that 
 these good faithful teachers and searchers of the Scrip- 
 tures sometimes build with a mixture of hay, straw and 
 stubble, and not entirely with silver, gold, and precious 
 stones, the foundation nevertheless remains unshaken ; as 
 for the other, the fire will consume it." 
 
 So much for Luther. Calvin is equally explicit. On 
 Heb. xi. 21, he says, " We well know that the apostles 
 were not so very precise in the matter of quotation ; but 
 in reality there is little difference." 
 
 I will close with an extract or two from Tholuck, 
 who says, on the state of opinion on Inspiration in En- 
 gland : " A freer treatment of the question — namely, 
 the limitation of inspiration to the subject matter — has 
 from the first, along with individual advocates of a more 
 rigid view, found place in the English Church. Several 
 Dissenters also, eminently distinguished for their exem- 
 plary piety, occupy the same liberal ground. The Pres- 
 byterian Church of Scotland alone, has continued, up to 
 the present day, to adhere to the strictest acceptation of 
 the idea of Inspiration." Again, on the whole subject, 
 he says, "It has been proved that the assumption of an 
 inspiration extending to the entire contents, both to the 
 subject matter and form of the sacred writings, has so 
 little claim to the honour of being the onlv orthodox 
 doctrine, that it has only been the opinion of, compara- 
 tively speaking, a very small fraction. . . . But what is of 
 still greater importance, we find also throughout the Old 
 and new Testaments numerous proofs of inaccuracy in 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 statements of fact. An anxious orthodoxy has of course 
 endeavoured to rebut these accusations, and everywhere 
 to maintain absolute accuracy. This has been accom- 
 phshed, however, only by so many artificial and forced 
 supports, that the Scripture, set right after this fashion, 
 wears more the appearance of an old garment with in- 
 numerable seams and patches, than of a new one made 
 out of an entire piece. It is true that the adversaries of 
 Christianity have fallen upon many discrepancies where 
 none are really to be found ; but in many places where 
 we can compare Scripture with Scripture, we meet with 
 difficulties where either the contradiction will not admit 
 of removal at all, or but very imperfectly. If now, by 
 an examination of Scripture in detail, we discover a 
 human side, on account of which the Bible is not to be 
 declared free from defects and errors, then the question 
 is. How can a theory of inspiration, which shall be con- 
 sistent with these phenomena, be established ? We have 
 shewn that by a great number of theologians, both Pro- 
 testant and Catholic, a positive divine co-operation 
 was asserted only in relation to that portion of the con- 
 tents of Holy Writ which was revealed, or the truths 
 which were the proper objects of faith,"* 
 
 I beg it may be remembered that I do not express 
 my concurrence with all or any of these views. I hope 
 the numerous occasions on which I have advocated the 
 full inspired authority of the Holy Scriptures against 
 gainsayers, will render unnecessary any professions or 
 reclamations on my own part. My object is to shew that 
 Lord Shaftesbury has ventured to set up an opinion of 
 
 * Tholuck on Inspiration ; a translation of which by a competent 
 hand was inserted by me in the Journal of Sacred Literakire, for July 
 1854. I wish the treatise was available in a separate form.
 
 35 
 
 his own, utterly unsupported by his own Church, or by 
 Cathohc consent, on this important subject. And for 
 what purpose has he done this ? To make worse than 
 Papists, Infidels, or Atheists, all who do not come up 
 to his own arbitrary idea of what Inspiration should be ; 
 or, in other words, to bring a railing accusation against 
 many of the excellent of the earth, at the feet of any 
 one of whom Lord Shaftesbury might have sat with great 
 advantage both to his doctrine and temper. What less 
 than this can be meant by his saying of " any abatement 
 of the plenary inspiration of Scripture," that " of all 
 machinations of Satan* one more full of malevolence or 
 astuteness could hardly have been devised?" Lest there 
 should be any mistake, he renews his charge by saying 
 that " sometimes plenary inspiration Avas admitted in a 
 modified form," and then predicating of this his horrible 
 sentiment, which oiigU to have left him no Oxford man 
 to Ksten to the close of his speech : "It would be far 
 better to plunge at once into ultra-Romanism of the 
 most ultra description, or into ultra-infidelity, or even 
 into downright Atheism, than to stand in such a 
 position." ! ! ! 
 
 I confess, Sir, that there is a wildness in these pre- 
 sumptuous denunciations of difi'ering opinions, which on 
 ordinary occasions would have led me to treat them as 
 the ravings of delirium or madness ; and, even admitting 
 the sanity of the speaker, the gross confusion as to moral 
 distinctions which pervades the statement might properly 
 allow them to be treated with neglect and contempt ; 
 but, unhappily, they are accepted as gospel by others, 
 
 * It is to be lamented that writers and speakers of Lord Shaftes- 
 bury's school pretend to such a minute acquaintance with the movements 
 of the spiritual world, both in heaven and hell. 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 and a refutation is therefore necessary. Fortunately for the 
 Church, his Lordship has conjured up another bug-bear 
 on which to exercise his polemical weapons, for the shades 
 of doctrine which he treats as heretical and damnable have 
 the sanction of the wise and good ; and opinions which he 
 treats as " new," are as old as the Church itself. Who 
 could imagine, if not a little acquainted with the history 
 of the doctrine of Inspiration, that the Bible itself lays 
 no claim to the plenary or verbal inspiration which Lord 
 Shaftesbury thinks the essence of Christianity ; but 
 rather, that by presenting to every reader discrepancies 
 and different accounts of the same events, has actually 
 compelled TRQn to dissent from such high-sounding theories. 
 I believe my own views of Inspiration are higher 
 than those of many writers of the present day, but so 
 long as those writers, or any others, admit the divine 
 authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice, 
 I feel I have no right to question their orthodoxy, their 
 piety, or their usefulness. How dare I, as a feeble 
 mortal, soon to give account to my own Master, judge 
 and condemn Christ's followers because, in matters not 
 revealed, they differ from my opinions ? If Mr. Mac- 
 naught, Mr. Jowett, or any one else, propounds views 
 which bring down the sacred writers to a level with 
 Milton or Shakespere, I consider he does thus contradict 
 revelation ; and I have not hesitated to combat and 
 expose such sentiments; but if any Christian brother 
 admits that the Bible teaches a religion which only God 
 could reveal, and in a mantier which only the Holy Ghost 
 could point out, he holds all I have a right to demand, 
 although he may think verbal inspiration a human folly, 
 and greatly modify even that which is called plenary. 
 Wliere the Church has not decided, it is an upstart conceit
 
 37 
 
 for any man to venture to do so ; and we have seen that 
 she allows the latitude which Lord Shaftesbury, in Vatican 
 style again, calls dangerous and damnable. In the Arti- 
 cles and Catechism she treats the Scriptures merely in a 
 practical way, as authority for her doctrines and ordi- 
 nances. In the Nicene Creed she states that the Holy 
 Ghost " spake by the prophets." In the Collect for the 
 Second Sunday in Advent she says, " Blessed Lord, who 
 hast caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learn- 
 ing." The Bible is thus raised by our Church to a position 
 of divine origin and authority ; a position perfectly com- 
 patible with views of inspiration remote ixam. plenary. 
 
 What I plead for is charity within the bounds of 
 Catholic consent and orthodoxy ; so that, while ourselves 
 holding more, probably, than the Church has ever re- 
 quired, we should not make our superfluity the judge of 
 other men's shortcomings. Let it be made to appear, 
 by Lord Shaftesbury, or any one else, that the Bible and 
 the Church do demand a belief in the inspiration of every 
 statement in the Old and New Testaments, and the case 
 is decided, and all impugners of the decision are heretical. 
 But in the face of the notorious fact that such a demand 
 is not, and never has been, made ; and that learned and 
 devoted Christian men maintain a lower view of what 
 inspiration is, it appears to myself an unpardonable 
 assumption for any man to unchristianize his brethren 
 on any such subjective grounds. Obedience to Christ, 
 arising from a love to His Person and work, which would 
 lead its possessor to prefer imprisonment and death to a 
 denial of His Name, has been, and is now, united with 
 a different estimate of the Holy Scriptures from that 
 formed by a party in the Church. A recognition of the 
 Divinity of our Lord, and His having made " a full, per-
 
 38 
 
 feet, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for 
 the sins of the whole world ;" an entire confidence in 
 the divine origin and supernatural continuance of the 
 visible Church, and a daily dependance on the Holy 
 Ghost, the Comforter, for aid and illumination on the 
 road to heaven, — are perfectly compatible with a convic- 
 tion that, in minor matters, the sacred writers were left 
 to the ordinary resources of honest witnesses, with no 
 motive but to tell what they knew to those they in- 
 structed. If this is true — if the dogmas of men on this 
 subject are neither required by the Bible nor necessary 
 for obedience to the faith or holiness of life — it may 
 surely be asked of Lord Shaftesbury and his party, 
 " Now, therefore, why tempt ye Christ to put a yoke 
 upon the neck of the disciples ? 
 
 What does Lord Shaftesbury mean by affirming that, 
 without his notion of plenary inspiration, a Christian 
 man cannot dispute^ because he has no position, — that 
 he never attempts proof, because that would be impossi- 
 ble, — that the ground is cut from under him, and he has 
 no resting place for the sole of his foot? I have at- 
 tempted again and again to conceive of some modicum 
 of truth in these strange propositions ; but the more I 
 reflect, the stronger is my conviction that the statements 
 are as dangerous as they are unwarranted and uncharita- 
 ble. Surely if every doctrine, every precept, and every 
 prophecy, found in the Gospels and the Epistles are 
 thoroughly believed as indited under the promised aid of 
 the Holy Ghost, a foundation is laid for the defence of 
 Christianity against all enemies and gainsayers, to which 
 an assertion of the entire truth of every circumstantial 
 statement of fact would add very little strength indeed. 
 These, Sir, are the buttresses of our holy religion, the
 
 39 
 
 miracles, the prophecies, the revealed doctrines, which 
 the Church has borne witness to now for eighteen cen- 
 turies, and against which the gates of hell have not pre- 
 vailed ; but, in Lord Shaftesbury's logic, all these are 
 nothing at all, — they allow of no firm position, and 
 admit of no reasoning and proof in regard to the great 
 concerns of salvation, unless they can be propped up by 
 the weak and insignificant aid of every disputed text or 
 doubtful assertion ! When I read such reasonings, when 
 I hear such dogmatism, I have before me puny mortals 
 endeavouring to prop up the everlasting hills with human 
 masonry, lest they should topple down after their majes- 
 tic reign for unknown ages ; or superstitious Romanists, 
 endeavouring to give greater durability to St Peter's in 
 the holy city, by the bones and ragged vestments of 
 departed saints ! So far from Christianity being aided 
 by such claims for entire infallibility, it is, in my opinion, 
 weakened and injm'cd ; because reason is discouraged in 
 its proper province, and scepticism is supplied with 
 abundant food. 
 
 A young man reads his Bible prayerfully, and en- 
 deavours to study it so as to fit himself for the ministry 
 of the Gospel. He meets with an apparent discrepancy 
 in the Evangelists, and asks his tutor to solve the diffi- 
 culty for him. According as the tutor may be himself 
 a believer in the Catholic or the modern view of Inspira- 
 tion will be the kind of guidance he will afford. We 
 will suppose that he is the latter, and that the question 
 propounded by his pupil relates to the varied accounts 
 of the exclamation of the disciples when in danger of 
 shipwreck. St. Matthew gives the words, " Lord, save 
 us : we perish," — St. Mark, " Master, carest thou not 
 that we perish?" — St. Luke, " Master, master, we perish."
 
 40 
 
 The pupil enquires, "You have taught me that every 
 vi^ord of Holy Scripture is true in the nature of things, 
 and yet I find three versions of what must originally 
 have been one speech : How can these things be recon- 
 ciled?" The teacher replies. Such doubts are to be 
 repressed, for they " cut from under you the very ground 
 on which you stand ;" and with such cavils and ques- 
 tionings, you will be in a worse position than " an ultra- 
 Romanist of the most ultra-description, an ultra-infidel, 
 or even a downright Atheist." Or, if not quite so dog- 
 matic, he may say, " The discrepancy is apparent, not 
 real ; for you ought to remember that there were several 
 disciples, and no doubt the different cries of three of 
 them are faithfully recorded." If the pupil is a meek 
 subject of implicit faith, in whose mind no ardent thirst 
 for the living waters of truth is found, he may be con- 
 tented with this eluding or solution of his difficulty ; 
 and, in that case, is in a fair way to become a member of 
 the Church of Rome whenever a clever mind may take 
 the pains to proselyte him. But if, as the statement of 
 his doubt implies, he is of a quick apprehension; he will 
 soon penetrate through the sophism of his instructor, 
 and say. Unless my objection is more satisfactorily met, 
 I shall be compelled to be sceptical ; for is it at all likely 
 that if three disciples cried out differently, they would 
 have adopted the varied appellations of Kvpie, AiSdo-Koke, 
 and 'ETriarara? 
 
 But suppose the instructor takes a lower and more 
 moderate view of the Divine authority of the Bible, he 
 will then reply : " These discrepancies are to be admitted 
 as patent on the face of the text ; they ma?/ be reconcilea- 
 ble, if we had all the information which the sacred writers 
 had respecting the events they relate, and it is unwise to
 
 41 
 
 presume what we cannot harmonize to be necessarily a 
 contradiction. But neither the Bible nor the Church 
 demand us to believe that Inspiration extended to verbal 
 identity, or to the exact conformity with what occurred in 
 every particular. There is, therefore, nothing in such 
 discrepancies to offer a stumbling-block to any right- 
 minded Christian, content with what has sufficed for the 
 Church in all ages. Hear how St. Augustine meets the 
 very difficulty you propose to me. He says 'What 
 matters whether the disciples uttered any one of these 
 three cries, or other loords which no Evangelist has re- 
 corded, so long as what is related amounts to the same 
 sentiment ?'* Build your faith on the great doctrines of 
 Holy Scripture, as testified by the Church, and you need 
 fear nothing from even greater difficulties than these." 
 This, I think, would be discreet and true teaching, and 
 yet it is branded by Lord Shaftesbury in the terms I 
 have already quoted. 
 
 I have mentioned Mr. Jowett, but I beg I may not be 
 thought to place him along with Mr. Macnaught. Sure 
 I am that, while I deeply differ from the former writer, 
 I respect his genius and his piety, and think him used 
 too barbarously for an enlightened Christian age. I have 
 no doubt Lord Shaftesbury's attack was mainly in- 
 tended for him ; because the Record, thinking him down 
 by the blow of the self-constituted theological Peer, 
 
 * Una eademque sententia est excitantium Dominum, volentium- 
 que salvari ; nee opus est qua;rere quid horum potius Christo dictum 
 est. Sive enim aliquid horum trium dixerint, sive alia verba quae 
 nuUus Evangelistarum commemoravit, tantumdem tameu valentia ad 
 eandem seutentise veritatem, quid ad rem interest? De Co?isensu 
 Evang., ii., 24. I quote from Mr. Alford's note on Matt. viii. 25, 
 and take this opportunity of expressing the great service done by that 
 gentleman in exposing the weak points of the Harmonists.
 
 42 
 
 gave him a cowardly kick while on the ground. In that 
 paper, in the leading article from which I have already 
 quoted, while praising the Earl, the writer reviles the 
 Professor in the following language : — " To the hon- 
 our of Dr. Macbride and Mr. Golightly, the erring Pro- 
 fessor was challenged to sign the thirty-nine Articles. 
 He faltered for a moment ; but, recovering his hardihood, 
 bolted the test, and declared before God that he himself 
 believes those doctrines which his own publications 
 plainly contradict." This is the language of one whose 
 mind is too coarse to distinguish between mental ob- 
 liquity and moral depravity, and w^e wish he would come 
 forth from his cowardly retreat, that we might more 
 plainly tell him so. We give Mr. Jowett full credit for 
 conscientiousness, and cannot but think that you. Sir, do 
 the same. Unless we can search the heart, can we con- 
 cede less to a scholar and a gentleman ? 
 
 But, alas ! not only are the days of chivalry gone by, 
 when woman was protected by public sentiment, all over 
 Europe, from brutal and ruffianly treatment ; but in the 
 Church of our Lord, the noble charity which " hopeth 
 all things " seems to be falling into decay. Men hke 
 Lord Shaftesbury think they are called to pry into 
 the secrets of the Divine mind ; and, having such high 
 endowments as to be able to tell who are saved and lost, 
 the love which " suffereth long and is kind " is a grace 
 too lowly for them to cultivate. When will the time 
 come when the Christian republic shall have its code of 
 honour as well as the world, and w^hen the brow shall 
 mantle with shame as we hear one Christian traduce 
 another! That blessed era will, we believe, arrive; but 
 it has not yet come ; and when its first day dawns it will 
 become as great a rarity for one man, whether peer or
 
 43 
 
 commoner, clergyman or layman, to censure the brethren 
 as Lord Shaftesbury has done, as it would now be im- 
 possible for him to treat his political opponents in the 
 same way in the House of Lords. 
 
 I have no sympathy, I hope, with error ; but I have 
 for the erring, who are to be reclaimed by Christian ten- 
 derness, not driven to despair by severity. " Count him 
 not an enemy, but admonish him as a brother," is St. 
 Paul's injunction respecting those who "obey not the 
 Word." That there is much evil abroad, both in the 
 Church and without it, I am fully conscious, — there always 
 has been, and probably always will be, — but it cannot be 
 lessened by an ignorant dogmatism or an uncharitable 
 insolence. God, in his inscrutable providence, has 
 allowed these last days to be remarkable for an extension 
 of the means of knowledge, and for a consequent gene- 
 ral mental activity, such as probably was never before 
 known in the history of the world. In proportion as 
 knowledge has been increased, should have been the care 
 of good men to exalt the Church, as containing the only 
 counteracting principles to an intellectual hcentiousness, 
 — a grand object to outweigh an undue or morbid sub- 
 jectivity. Listead of taking this wiser course, men have 
 placed the Bible in the hands of their fellows, as an 
 object sufficient for all spiritual wants, and told them 
 they are themselves quite able to frame their religion 
 from it. The result is, that men have obeyed the pre- 
 cept, and the popular mind is now acquainted with what 
 was once confined to the learned, the peculiar phenomena 
 of Holy Writ, and the nature of its evidences. Hence 
 arises the necessity for a treatment of a new disease, 
 which we may call an abnormal inquisitiveness respecting 
 the mode of the divine operation in the Holy Scriptures.
 
 44 
 
 Lord Shaftesbury would remedy the evil by a human 
 theory enforced by intolerant and bigoted authority ; he 
 would maintain that the Bible has no discrepancies, but 
 is throughout infallible, and declare those to be worse 
 than Papists and Atheists who dare to differ from that 
 view. 
 
 This plan I conceive to be altogether wrong, — wrong 
 in the truth of things, and wrong in reference to Christian 
 morality. Our religion should fear darkness more than 
 light, blind authority and passive obedience more than in- 
 quisitiveness. Surely, Sir, after so many centiu-ies spent 
 in blaming Papal tactics, we are not now about to adopt 
 them? Yet there is an extreme Puritanism in the 
 Church, which is driving fast to the rocks which Protes- 
 tants think they have for ever escaped. We cannot re- 
 press thought, but must rather give it a right direction. 
 We must not hoodwink our fellow Christians, but rather 
 tell them to look up again and again from the mists of 
 error, until they see all things clearly. If the Author of 
 Christianity has allowed the Gospels to relate the same 
 events in different ways, as the accounts of the inscrip- 
 tion upon the cross ; or in apparently contradictory ways, 
 as the narrative of the repentance and death of Judas ; it 
 is plain that if the Bible is read by the people these discre- 
 pancies must be discovered. Which is the safest plan in 
 treating the questions which must arise from this state 
 of things ? Shall we affirm black to be white, or discord 
 to be harmony, or variation to be identity ; or, allowing 
 the phenomena, shall we shew that our holy religion is 
 perfectly independent of them, both in its origin, its 
 developement, and its ends ? 
 
 I must now draw my long letter to a close, and 
 gather together the various and scattered threads of my
 
 45 
 
 argument. On three great subjects, of vital interest to the 
 Church, Lord Shaftesbury declaimed at Oxford, before a 
 miscellaneous audience, and made assertions which were 
 unbecoming, both as to their doctrine and spirit. What I 
 have advanced proves that, whether my criticisms are right 
 or wrong, that speech was suggestive to myself of serious 
 objections, and I have felt bound to lay them before the 
 public. If I have expressed myself warmly, it is because 
 I have felt strongly ; and if I have been obliged to treat 
 somewhat harshly one whom I wish to respect, it is be- 
 cause the Church demands more attention from me than 
 men, were they kings or princes. I believe Lord Shaftes- 
 bury means well, but so do those who differ from him ; 
 and one object of my addressing you will be gained if 
 his Lordship and ourselves, and all who may read these 
 observations, become more tolerant in opinion, and more 
 careful and guarded in its expression. Perhaps it may 
 also appear that the statements of speakers at public 
 meetings are not to be taken for granted, and that the 
 applause of a crowd is not always the test of truth. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Yours, with the greatest respect, 
 
 HENRY BURGESS. 
 
 Clifton Reynes, Newport Pagnel. 
 December 13tli, 1856.
 
 46 
 
 P.S. Since my letter was jfinished, I have met with 
 so appropriate an illustration of the danger of demanding 
 more than the Bible and the Church do, in our defence 
 of Holy Scripture, that I cannot refrain from bringing it 
 under your notice. The Rev. John Macnaught, in his 
 Bssay on Inspiration, has altogether denied any specific 
 inspiration of the sacred writers, and maintained that 
 the real difference between the writings of Isaiah and St. 
 Paul, and Homer and Milton, is in the subjects treated 
 of, and not in any higher degree of divine control over the 
 minds of the former. In accordance with this theory, 
 which is contrary both to what the Bible claims for itself, 
 and to Catholic consent, Mr. Macnaught utters senti- 
 ments regarding the " Holy men of old who spake as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost," most offensive to 
 any devout mind, and most inconsistent with his position 
 as a Minister of the Church of England. Thus, in re- 
 ference to the expressions of St. Paul, in the fifteenth 
 chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, verses 19 
 and 32, he says : — 
 
 " Now, let it be gravely and piously asked, What do these 
 passages state, and what do they teach ? They state that, on 
 the supposition of there being no compensation or reward in 
 an after world, the persecuted life of a holy man — whose motto 
 is, Overcome evil with good — is more unhappy than the exist- 
 ence of the most vicious or the most base, who escapes detec- 
 tion and flourishes in the sordid luxury of an unhallowed pros- 
 perity. They teach that, apart from the hope of reward and 
 the dread of punishment, a life like that of Sardanapalus or of 
 Tiberius at Caprese is preferable to that of Paul. On these 
 principles, men who, like the Sadducees, had no firm grasp of 
 a belief in the spirit- world, should have set themselves to 
 gratify their animal desires and propensities, and would only 
 have been carrying out the maxim as became them as
 
 47 
 
 rational beings who were to end their existence after a while ! 
 . . . Surely Paul knew better than this, his hypothetical teach- 
 ing. He assuredly knew, and habitually taught, better than 
 this exceptional and conditional teaching when he wrote to 
 the Corinthians. , . . Grant this [i. e., that the writings of the 
 Apostles, &c., were fallible], and then, in these mournful 
 utterances of the Apostle, you only find that he was well nigh 
 overcome by evil, and for a moment was induced to write un- 
 advisedly when he laboured under the vexatious questioning, 
 and opposed the worldly-minded unbelief and want of spiritu- 
 ality, of those lucre-loving Corinthians." 
 
 Here, then, is clearly an attack on the very substance 
 or " subject matter " of revealed truth ; a procedure re- 
 moved, tofo ccelo, from that of maintaining discrepancies 
 in matters of lesser importance ; and, on this account, 
 Lord Shaftesbury might justly have said that this writer 
 " cuts away the ground from under us." 
 
 The question then occurs, How is reasoning like Mr. 
 Macnaught's to be met? By admitting his premises, 
 but denying his conclusion. I would grant to him that 
 the sacred writers are not infallible in accidentals, but 
 would maintain that this does not in the least affect their 
 infallibility in their great appointed work of religious 
 teaching. I believe such works as his can never be satis- 
 factorily answered but in this way ; and a proof of this 
 is furnished by a little volume which professes to reply 
 to " Macnaught on Inspiration," by the Rev. J. B. Lowe, 
 of Liverpool. The latter denies, for example, what Mr. 
 Macnaught had asserted, " that there are two accounts 
 of what gave to the field of blood its name of 'Acel- 
 dama.' " Now when St. Matthew tells us that the 
 priests bought the field ; and St. Luke that Judas him- 
 self purchased it ; there are plainly two accounts of the
 
 48 
 
 transaction which, with our light, can only be reconciled 
 by violations of common honesty and common sense, I 
 think Mr. Lowe should have admitted this at once, but 
 have shewn that such a discrepancy has no bearing on 
 the question of the inspiration of the Evangelists as re- 
 ligious teachers. He would then have disarmed his 
 opponent, whereas now he has made him bolder in the 
 use of his unlawful weapon. In a letter lately published 
 he prints the two accounts of the purchase of Aceldama 
 side by side, and triumphantly and truly taunts Mr. 
 Lowe wdth the falseness of his denial ! I do think we 
 may say with great propriety on this subject, 
 
 Nee tali auxilio nee defensoribus istis 
 Causa eget. 
 
 If we can maintain inspiration, as held by the sacred 
 writers themselves, and by the Church, while we con- 
 cede that they are not infallihle in every point and par- 
 ticular, we break at once half the arrows in the quiver 
 of infidelity. 
 
 H. B. 
 
 December 16^A. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 21, line 10, lox paradoxies read paradoxes 
 ,, 23, „ 16, for fl^/7a/a/e<Z read agitated.
 
 ^i 
 
 ^i-'k^ 
 
 /E^«KJ^.a! 
 
 :jS 
 
 ^^^,