350 



sense, and if the revelation were strongly attested, yet if it attributed to 

 God a character utterly unworthy of the Supreme Being, I should persist 

 in rejecting it. I endeavoured to lay down in my own paper, that if a 

 miracle came to me strongly attested — take the miracle of St. Ambrose, 

 as attested in a letter to his sister — still if that miracle contradicted my 

 moral sense, I should not believe the testimony, but should reject it at 

 once. Many of the miracles of mediaeval history are not devoid of a fair 

 share of outward testimony. 



Eev. G. W. Weldon. — I confess that while I agree in the main with what 

 has fallen from Mr. Titcomb and the last speaker, I am much inclined to 

 approximate nearer in my thoughts to the author of this paper, and I will 

 tell you why. When Mr. Titcomb said that the people of Berea were more 

 noble than the people of Thessalonica, in that they searched the Scriptures 

 daily, that — if what St. Paul said were true— confirms what Mr. Howard 

 says in his paper, because they merely asked the question, " Is this man 

 speaking according to the testimony which we already possess ? " They were 

 right in criticising St. Paul, as even St. John says, " Believe not every spirit, 

 but try the spirits whether they be of God." The only way of doing that 

 was by an appeal to the testimony already received ; and, so far, it was 

 hardly a case in point for breaking down Mr. Howard's views. With regard 

 to what was said by Mr. Kow, I do not think it is a question whether St. 

 Peter or St. Paul wrote the second epistle ; it is only a question whether 

 what has been received as St. Peter's epistle should be received at all. That 

 is the point. As in the case of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, he 

 may have written it or not. Good men, thorough believers in the inspira- 

 tion of the New Testament, do not believe he wrote it : but the question is, 

 is the record divine and authoritative ? If so, it makes very little difference 

 who wrote it ; for the books of the Bible, having passed through the alembic 

 of critical analysis, should be accepted as above testimony. 



Mr. Row. — I meant as to whether or not the book is canonical ? 



Mr. Weldon. — Well, the real point that I wished to refer to is this, that 

 as Mr. Howard says with regard to moral sense, I do not think our moral 

 sense is a fair interpreter of the truth or falsehood of a miracle. We can 

 only believe on testimony as to the truth of a miracle handed down to us ; 

 and if our moral sense were applied to the miracles contained in the Bible, 

 there are several of them that I should reject ; but on an appeal to fact and 

 testimony by divine authority, I accept them. I will give an illustration of 

 what I mean. A friend of mine in Cambridgeshire, a very good farmer, who 

 knew nothing about moral sense or critical interpretation, said to me on the 

 subject of Jonah and the whale, " I do not know anything about verification 

 and all that sort of thing, but if the Bible told me, not that the whale 

 swallowed Jonah, but that Jonah swallowed the whale, I should believe 

 it on the authority of the Bible." Then the question of the angel of 

 death killing 185,000 people in one night is a question of testimony. 

 Therefore, though I think Mr. Howard may find it convenient to make a 

 little alteration with reference to authoritative and dogmatic submission, not 



