Blue-grass blade., 1891-05-02


termined that the Greek Origina
of the New Testament exceptin!
the synoptic of Matthew, and thu
Hebrew original of that, are in
spired, inspiration cannot theme,
be claimed of our canOnic New
Testament until it be conceded
that the English language pos.
sesses the exact equivalent of al
the Greek and Hebrew words in
the manuscripts from which oul
New Testament was compiled
and that King James transiators
have, without failure in one sin.
gle instance, selected these coun-
terparts.
So that the accuracy and au-
thenticity ofour current New Tes-
lament must as much presuppose
the inspiration of King james
translators as they do the inspira
ton of the original writer's.
AS soon as the theory of par
tial inspiration is admitted, not
only would we to some extent, war
rant the claim of inspiration tor
the leaders of modern religious
sects, by their devotees, but liter
airy enthusiasts would claim it for
Shakespeare or Milton, Byron or
VOltaire, to the inextricable con.
fusion of the world.
The great purpose of the sup
posed inspiration would not only
be the infallible guidance of those
who wrote, but the knowledge of
those who might read that this
infallible guidance had attended
the writing of that which they
read.
The-e.tiiRe ~salse-of the intitfi-
bifity of the supposed supernat-
ural guidance would be destroyed
unless those who read might know,
and did know, that such supernat-
ural infllible guidance had at
tended the writing of that which
they read.
While therefore it must be adj
mitted that the statement, to that
effect, of the alleged inspired
writers could not per Sc be incon-
testible evidence of such guidance,
it must be admitted that nobody
could knOU or even intelligently
beiiere that these writings bad
been supernaturally overruled
unless the writers themselves so
stated
AS the perfect understanding
and reception of this alleged fact
about inspiration would be the
pivotal point Of the interest of the
whole New Testament, and any
lack of perspicuity upon this
point would be compromise of
the credibility of the New Tesla
ment scriptures. the writers OF
the different books OF the New
Testament must be expected to
state somewhere in each of those
books that they are thus in
spired.
In answer therefore to the ar
gument of Rev. McGarvey l most
respectfully submit that he can
not find in each of those books a
statement of its author, even as
plain as ordinary writers COM
monty express themselves, that in
the writing of this book the author
of it was SO miraculously con-
trolled that he could not, or at
least did not, make Il single error
in the statements contained in it.
If Rev. McGarvey deems my
comment worthy of notice,
would be glad that he would, with
out note or comment, quote the
alleged claims of inspiration.
On the other hand, Luke plain
ly offers us the reason why men
should accept his version of the
gospel, the fact that he had "per.
feet understanding of the thing
which are most assuredly believed
among his people, and says, a'
plainly as a man could say any
thing Mterrentidily, that he wrote
from the traditions of the church
John offers, rs evidence OF the
accuracy Of what he says. that HI
personally witnessed the thing
whereof he deposes; Matthew
seems to be writing from memory
of what he saw and heard, just a,
Boswell writes about Johnson, Of
Rev. DIR. Dabney writes abou
Stonewall jackson, and Marx
could not have written from mem