“tone” of my address which your letter _does_ contain, I have to
complain respecting the answer to a very simple question I had proposed,
which your letter _does not_ contain. As I am unwilling to incur the
hazard of again offending, I will forbear from more than hinting at the
semblance of rhetorical dexterity that appears in your perhaps
undesigned turning away of attention from the PRINCIPAL POINT which I
had submitted for your consideration, in order to fasten upon me a
groundless charge, and so challenge public sympathy in your favour, as
men branded with the character of hypocrites, and secretly cognizant of
errors which were openly preached as truths. We proposed to discuss with
you “the evidence of the genuineness, authenticity, and _inspiration_ of
the holy scriptures.” You replied that you do not “deny the
_genuineness_” and seek not “to alter the _translation_ of any part of
the authorized version,” which you prefer to the abandoned version of
Mr. Belsham and his associates. You were silent, however, about the
INSPIRATION. I ventured to inquire whether I was mistaken in supposing
you denied _the plenary inspiration_ of the authorized version? My words
were, “If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.” In your
letter now before me there is not a word upon the subject; no answer to
my all-important inquiry. There is a little further disparagement of the
“improved version,” which, we are told, has been raised into a
“factitious importance in this controversy;” you will be the first to
“abandon it,” if it should be condemned by the ordinary principles of
critical interpretation—so far so good. But what of the INSPIRATION? Are
you either afraid or ashamed to speak out what you think on this
subject? I would not that you should be offended at the “tone” of my
interrogations; but again I must ask, what are your opinions upon the
_quality_ and _extent_ of scripture inspiration? The public are
anxiously expecting an answer to this solemn query, and our present
correspondence cannot close until it is answered. The way will then be
clear for our approaching discussion through the press; we shall then
understand each other, and shall have reconnoitred and appreciated the
character of the field upon which we are to take up our respective
positions. You say that “_truth_ is your object,” and not “personal
championship.” Well, then, let us have _the truth_ upon Unitarian views
of SCRIPTURAL INSPIRATION. All other argument can be only an unmeaning
play of words until this point is settled.
We are rejoiced to learn that you are satisfied with “the authorized
version,” and “the received translation,” for the purposes of our
present inquiry; and when you shall satisfy us that you admit the full
inspiration of _all and every part_ of that volume, we shall be in a
condition to inquire whether it presents “ampler and superior Scriptural
evidence for Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism.” We remember that Mr.
Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce’s Treatise, has said, speaking
of the texts usually quoted by Trinitarians in proof of the proper deity
of Christ, that “Unitarians pledge themselves to show that they are
_all_ either _interpolated_, _corrupted_, or _misunderstood_.”—Review,
pp. 270, 272. They engage to get clearly rid of them altogether. _You_,
it would appear, have given up the _interpolations_ and _corruptions_;
the _misunderstandings_, we presume, still remain chargeable against us;
but whether on the ground of _ignorance_, or of mistaken confidence in
the _inspiration_ of the texts in question, we have yet to be informed.
You will pardon my anxiety for an answer upon this head, bearing in mind
that we regard it as opening wide a door for the introduction of
_infidelity_, so to give up _any portion_ of the sacred volume as being
not of inspired authority, as to render it doubtful whether _any
portion_ does possess that authority, and thus entirely neutralize the
effect of God’s message of mercy to the minds and hearts of men.
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,
February 18, 1839. FIELDING OULD.
---------------------
_To the Rev. Fielding Ould._
Reverend Sir,—You proposed (in your letter of the 5th February) a
certain series of subjects as proper topics for the discussion between
us, and submitted the list to our notice for acceptance or rejection.
From this enumeration we struck out two particulars, _viz._, the
_authenticity_ of certain parts of the New Testament writings, on the
ground that we did not deny your postulates under that head; and the
_translation_ of certain other parts of the Scriptures, on the grounds
that, with yourself, we prefer, on the whole, the authorized version to
all others; that we would not be responsible for any new rendering
proposed in the Improved Version; and that, as we have nothing so absurd
as a _system of translation_ capable of _systematic_ treatment, any
special instances, in which we may think the common translation
inaccurate, had better be discussed in connection with the theological
doctrines affected by the texts in question.
These subjects being excluded from the list, the rest, comprising the
question of _inspiration_, and the _doctrines of your theology_, of
course stand over for discussion. We said nothing of these, because we
had no exception to take against them. As our _notice_ of the others was
to effect their removal, our “silence” about these was to _secure their
admission_.
The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or, if you really prefer it,
(as your phraseology seems to imply,) “the plenary inspiration of the
_authorized version_” remains then as an essential part of our
approaching controversy. Why you should complain that we do not step
aside with you individually, to render you an account of our belief in
this matter, we cannot divine, unless you think that, by tempting us
into your confessional by appeals to our conscience, you could impose
upon the “heretics” your penance at discretion. If it should be, that
this subject is likely to be committed to your hands in this
controversy, and you are merely anxious to know betimes what precisely
are the positions which you may be called upon to meet, a private
communication of your wish would be sufficient. The second lecture of
our series will be speedily published, and will furnish the information
which you desire.
We are sorry that you discover any want of “candour” in our last letter;
and surprised that, this being the case, you can esteem it “courteous.”
We regard a violation of “candour” as the greatest outrage upon
“courtesy;” and despise, above all things, the hollow and superficial
manners, which are empty of all guileless affections and Christian
sentiments. In saying that you charged us with hypocrisy, we committed
no breach of candour, but only the mistake, which we are now happy to
correct, of supposing that your language faithfully represented your
meaning. That you did not think of the _word_ “hypocrite” when you wrote
to us, we cheerfully believe; but that you thought of us as doing that
which makes a hypocrite, your own explanation renders more evident than
it was before. You attribute to us “a latent and half-formed
conviction,” that “our principles might not bear the light of
investigation,” and “a consciousness” of “the difficulty of maintaining
them.” Now there can be no “difficulty,” where the tribunal is wisely
chosen, in maintaining any set of opinions, except from the superior
force of the antagonist considerations; there can be no “consciousness”
of such “difficulty,” except from consciousness of this opposing
superiority;—to be conscious of a preponderant evidence in favour of any
system, is at heart to believe it; and he who believes one system, and
publicly upholds another, is, as we interpret the word, _a hypocrite_.
We perceive, however, that you made this charge without precisely
meaning it; and we think no more of it.
We disclaim any intention of hinting that you “proposed a platform
controversy, in order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to
turn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices.” We simply
affirmed, that oral discussion would have afforded a better refuge for
our imputed “weakness” than the press. But surely it does not follow
that, because the consciously weak might prefer such a method, therefore
all who prefer it must be consciously weak. It would, indeed, be a
strange mistake of all the symptoms by which the characters of men can
be known, if we attributed to you any suspicion that you could be
mistaken. You are quite aware that your earnestness appears to us
perfectly sincere, and even to transgress the bounds of a modest
confidence.
We remain, Reverend Sir,
Yours, with Christian regard,
HENRY GILES.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
February 21, 1839. JAMES MARTINEAU.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—Before we proceed with our proposed discussion, it is
necessary to determine, with a little more of accuracy than has been
hitherto stated, what our controversy is to be about.
We thought that you, in common with Unitarians generally, acknowledged
the Scriptures of the New Testament, as contained in what is commonly
called “The Unitarian or Improved Version,” to be inspired of God, and
consequently of infallible truth.
This however you, as individuals, have disclaimed; and, therefore, we
are compelled to ask _what you do_ acknowledge INSPIRED REVELATION?
Is our discussion to be,
1. Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of truth? Or,
2. Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is it?
We affirm the inspiration by God of the Holy Scriptures, as contained in
our authorized canon, and are willing to refer every question for
decision to their ascertained meaning.
Do you agree in this?
Our standard being known, it is a matter of obvious fairness that we
should ask to have yours stated.
Either you admit the divine inspiration, and consequent infallible
truth, of the Bible, or you do not.
Or, you so admit a part, and reject a part. You will be so good as to
state clearly how this matter stands.
Are you believers in a WRITTEN and INFALLIBLY-ACCURATE REVELATION from
God to man?
If so, _what is_ that Revelation?
If you admit only _parts_ of our Bible as inspired, you will oblige us
by stating _what parts_.
The character of the discussion must obviously depend upon this: is it
to be a discussion upon EVIDENCE or upon INTERPRETATION? It would be
manifestly a waste of time in us to enter upon the interpretation of
what you might afterwards get rid of, (so far, at least, as you are
concerned,) by declaring it only the opinion of a _fallible man_.
We remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of truth,
HUGH M‘NEILE,
FIELDING OULD,
March 4th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.
---------------------
_To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._
Gentlemen,—You ask us, Is our discussion to be,
1. “Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of TRUTH?” Or,
2. “Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is
it?”
We answer, distinctly, that our controversy is upon the meaning,
ascertained by INTERPRETATION, of the _Hebrew_ and _Greek_ Scriptures.
Should any questions of criticism arise respecting what is the text to
be interpreted, these must, of course, be argued separately, upon purely
_critical_ grounds.
We conceive that the real controversy between us respects the nature of
Christianity itself;—you holding the Revelation to consist in doctrines
deducible from the written words; we holding the Revelation to be
expressed in the character and person of Jesus Christ, and to be
conveyed to us through a faithful and authentic record. Which of these
two ideas is Scriptural?—that is our controversy.
Of course, “the standard” by which we must test “the truth” of these
ideas is the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures, so far as they
throw light on its contents. Whichever view of Christianity is supported
by the _meaning_ of this standard, is the true one. The method of
ascertaining the meaning of any writings is the same, whether those
writings are of natural or supernatural origin; so that the process of
interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the theory of
verbal inspiration. The admission of an “infallible truth” in the Bible
(which, however, is known with _certainty_ only to God; for you, after
admitting it, are disputing with heretics of your own communion what it
is), cannot alter, in any respect, the true grounds of our controversy.
It is a controversy of interpretation, and no theory of verbal
inspiration can make it anything else.
This theory, however, we conceive to be altogether fallacious, both in
its principles and its results; and if you wish to make it the subject
of our controversy, we have no objection. We leave it to your choice,
whether we are to discuss the theory of verbal inspiration, or whether
we are to discuss the meaning of the original Scriptures, as ascertained
by the acknowledged principles of interpretation.
We confess to not a little surprise that three clergymen, coming forward
to discuss Unitarianism, should be found to express themselves so
inaccurately, or from such defective information, as to speak of “the
Unitarian or Improved Version,” and to represent the work, thus falsely
described, as acknowledged by Unitarians generally to contain the New
Testament as inspired by God. The theory of verbal inspiration, which we
deny altogether, we are not likely to claim in favour of a Unitarian
translator. We have repeatedly stated, that the “Improved Version,” is
not the “Unitarian Version;” nor is it “commonly” so “called.” And now
we say, once more, that our controversy is not about the Improved
Version, but about the Greek Testament.
When you accepted our invitation, with its terms, it was understood that
all the preliminaries of our controversy were to be arranged by mutual
agreement. You were aware, and we have in our letters distinctly stated,
that the theory of verbal inspiration stood as a part of that
controversy; you knew, also, that in a few days a distinct statement of
our opinions upon the nature of the Bible, in the form of a printed
lecture, would be before the public. We therefore look upon your letter,
in the _Courier_ of Wednesday last, as altogether unnecessary; and we
answer, thus publicly, what ought to have been matter of private
communication, only because we are resolved not to allow any
informalities, on your parts, to prevent our coming to a public
discussion of our respective views of Christianity.
We are, Gentlemen,
Yours respectfully,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN H. THOM.
March 11, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—In our last letter we gave up the “Improved Version,” so far
as you, _as individuals_, are concerned, because, _as individuals_, you
disclaimed it. We are surprised, therefore, that you should revert to
it, and the more so, because you have now ventured to say, not only that
_you_ disclaim it, but also, in the face of known facts, that it is not
“the Unitarian version,” nor is it “commonly so called.” When you
disclaimed it _for yourselves_, we did not demur. But when you go on to
disclaim it _for the Unitarian body_, (for which, by the way, you have
no authority,) we strenuously deny your assertion, and call in evidence
the language of all the best writers upon the controversy.
You have misstated our question. We did _not_ ask, “Is our discussion to
be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of _Scripture_?”
We did ask, “Is it to be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged
standard of _truth_?” We receive the Scripture as a _standard of truth_.
The substitution of the one word for the other, in this question, has
mystified your whole letter.
We collect, however, from your letter, and from Mr. Martineau’s sermon,
to which you refer us, (and which we consequently conclude contains the
sentiments of you all,)
1. That you do not believe in a _written and infallibly-accurate
Revelation_ from God to man.
2. That Paul the apostle may have “_reasoned inaccurately_,” and
“_speculated falsely_.”[7]
3. And that, consequently, you feel yourselves at liberty to judge his
statements (and all the statements of Scripture) as you do those of any
other books.
You seem to think that this is of little consequence, and say that “the
process of interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the
theory of verbal inspiration.”
We reply that such a process can lead to nothing but waste of time. For
when we shall have proved some great truth, or condemned some fatal
error, upon the authority of Paul, or some other inspired writer, you
have kept an open door for yourselves to escape from the whole force of
our demonstration, by saying that, in the words on which we rely, the
sacred writers “_reasoned inaccurately_,” or “_speculated
falsely_,”—while, if any passages in those writers _seem_ to favour your
views, you have adroitly retained the privilege of ascribing to them a
sort of inspiration.[8]
No, gentlemen, we are not to be deceived so, into an attempt to fix the
chameleon’s colour. If the apostles may “reason inaccurately,” and
“speculate falsely;” if the inspiration under which they wrote did not
infallibly preserve them from error, then there is no standard of truth
upon earth. Of what avail is it, then, to refer to the _Greek_
Testament, or the _Hebrew_ Scriptures? The Scripture, instead of being
(what David called it, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost) “a
lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path,” degenerates into a
mixture of light and darkness, which we dare not implicitly follow, but
of which we must judge by some superior light in ourselves.
We observe, further, that, according to the light that is in you,
historical proof of miracles having been wrought in attestation of what
the writers of Scripture say, would NOT be proof against inaccuracy in
their reasonings, or falsehood in their speculations.
This notable conclusion you come to, by elevating nature into the
miraculous, and thus depressing the miraculous into the natural; since
you say that the whole force of the impression made by proofs from
miracles arises from a “SUPPOSED _contrast_” between miracle and
nature.[9]
You have thus advanced a step beyond common Deism, and rendered
yourselves inaccessible even by miracles. This is conclusive, and
demands the serious attention of all who have hitherto been disposed to
receive instruction from you. We confess that we can go no further! for,
if there be only a _supposed contrast_ between miracles and nature, we
cannot prove the attesting interposition of God on behalf of the
statements of Scripture, and must give up as worthless the appeal which
Jesus makes to his miracles, in answer to the inquiry of John’s
disciples: “_Go_,” said he, “_and show John again those things which ye
do see and hear; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the
poor have the Gospel preached to them_.”—Luke vii, 22. Upon your
principles, gentlemen, this appeal is worthless; for even if the
wonderful things here stated be established as historical facts, still
they contain no proof, because between these wonders and the course of
nature there is only “a _supposed_ contrast.”
Thus then, by your avowal, that even miracles cannot prove inspiration,
you are left in undisputed possession of the field of infidelity. We
have no common property of reason with you, and without determining
whether men who reject the evidence of miracles are of an order of
beings above or below ourselves, we feel that discussion with them is
impracticable.
While, therefore, we shall continue to use all lawful methods of
argument and persuasion, in the hope of being useful to those who,
though called Unitarians, are not so entirely separated from our common
humanity as you seem to be, we have no hesitation in saying that, with
regard to _yourselves_ as individuals, there appears to be a more
insurmountable obstacle in the way of discussion than would be offered
by ignorance of one another’s language; because the want of a common
medium of language could be supplied by an interpreter, but the want of
a common medium of reason cannot be supplied at all.
We remain, Gentlemen, yours respectfully,
HUGH M‘NEILE.
FIELDING OULD.
March 18th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.
-----
Footnote 7:
_To grant that Paul reasons, and be startled at the idea that he may
reason incorrectly—to admit that he speculates, and yet be shocked at
the surmise that he may speculate falsely_,—to praise his skill in
illustration, yet shrink in horror when something less apposite is
pointed out,—_is an obvious inconsistency_. The human understanding
cannot perform its functions without taking its share of the chances
of error; nor can a critic of its productions have any perception of
their truth and excellence, without conceding the possibility of
fallacies and faults. We must give up our admiration of the apostles
as men, if we are to listen to them always as oracles of
God.—_Martineau’s Sermon_, pp. 34, 35.
Footnote 8:
I believe St. Matthew to have been _inspired_; but I do not believe
him to have been _infallible_.—_Sermon_, p. 27.
Footnote 9:
All peculiar _consecration_ of miracle is obtained by a precisely
proportioned _desecration_ of nature; it is out of a supposed contrast
between the two, that the whole force of the impression
arises.—_Sermon_, p. 24.
---------------------
_To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._
Gentlemen,—We regret the misstatement of your question, which appeared
at the commencement of our letter of the 13th instant. We regret still
more that it did not occur to you to attribute it to its real cause,—the
carelessness of a printer or transcriber. In the autograph manuscript
which remains in our hands, your question is correctly stated thus—“Is
our discussion to be upon a mutually-acknowledged standard _of truth_?”
How the word “truth” became changed into “scripture,” we cannot tell;
and not having read our letter after it was in print, we were unaware of
the mistake until you pointed it out. Whatever “mystification” it
introduced, you will consider as now removed.
Your letter announces your retirement from the promised controversy.
Knowing that in taking this step you could not put yourselves in the
right, it is only natural perhaps that you should resolve to set your
opponents in the wrong, and to cover your own retreat by throwing scorn
on their religious character. Theology appears in this instance to have
borrowed a hint from the “laws of honour;” and as in the world a
“passage of arms” is sometimes evaded, under the pretence that the
antagonist is too little _of a gentleman_, so in the church a polemical
collision may be declined, because the opponent is _too little of a
believer_.
You refuse to fulfil your pledge to the public and ourselves on two
grounds:—
I. Because we do not acknowledge the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures.
II. Because we think it impossible to infer from miracles the mental
infallibility of the performer. It is of no use, you say, to argue about
divine truth with those who do not believe in “a written and infallibly
accurate revelation from God to man.”
We will concede, for the moment, and under protest, your narrow meaning
of the words “inspiration” and “revelation;” and without disturbing your
usage of them, we submit that the reasons advanced by you afford not
even a plausible pretext for having violated your pledge. First, as to
the plea that we are put out of the controversy by our unexpected denial
of the intellectual infallibility of the sacred writers; and that to
argue about the meaning of the Bible is a waste of time, till its verbal
inspiration is established. We reply,—