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. 
Rev. 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 ? n They were 
right in criticising St. Paul, as even St. J ohn 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. Row, 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 
