New-York tribune., 1891-05-24
which are not in our Bible and rejected which we

which are not in our Bible and rejected which
receive.
In the third century, Origen made three classes OF
writings authentic, nonauthenuc and doubtful, ana
among the latter he included James, Jude Ild and LILO
John and Id Peter 1t is, however, unnecessary to
20 any further is evident that the opinion OF the
early Church in regard to the books of the new Tesla
ment was state Of fux, and the Christians OF that
day would have been amazed at some OF our modern
ideas of Biblical inspiration At last the two councils
of Hippo and Carthage already mentioned decided on
list identical with ours, and the question OF the New
Testament Canon was thus practically settled, although
for a considerable period certain latitude OF tnoe-
pendent dgment allowed. And, as we have
seen the Oldest manuscripts of the Bible are clear Wit
nesses to the fact that the question was open when
they were written.
In 1916, the Council of Trent fixed the Canon ior
the Roman Catholic Church, including the apocryphal
Old Testament books. The Reformers rejected 'hese
books simply on their own judgment. Luther was IN
clined to reject also james, Hebrews, Jude and the
Apocalypse Zwingli rejected the Apocalypse, ana
Oecolampadius included James, Jude, Id feter' Ito
and lid John and the Apocalypse among the Apocry'
phal books But the Canon 1t stands was finally
fixed and it has so remained since
This great question important to Christians, was
settled by discussion and argument, and not by any
supernatural methods, and this fact OF itself throws
food OF light the nature and character OF the bipe
and the attitude of the early Church toward IT, IL
was not the attitude Of those who today withstand me
men who are honestly aud reverently trying TO learn
| what the Bible has to say for itself 49,.
Many of the facts used In this paper have been TAKEN
from the addresses Biblical criticism at the last
EPseOpSM MhC SrSa Wrote the Bb book which gives an
admirable summary Of the latest ana most spprDVa pro -
present in popular form some of the conclusions to
which critics q the Bible have come as We'll as 70 hesa es
Conclusions We cannot better close the discussion oi
the subject than BY quoting from recent ntseIanse
learned scholar and devout Christian is known TO an
There is difference between the fact OF IN IN,
ipmeT TSo" is I asserted by the Bible and the ereeds
the Church the latter LDa Is Sa mSt,eF ,apT Ga Hun a
serts that holy OF God spake as they were mover
BY the Holy Ghost or as ne the Sed d Ve'Th Sy phe T Hoy
Ghost" 1t does not say how they were moved ,,n H0
to what extent they were moved u 1 aseE p both the
work Of men and the work Of Cod & oMt IL ooeS ho' "a
the aeaT three Sf sc theories S@S Of inspiration tho
verbal or literal the penaTy ana the TSe ar i'm
possible in the present state of exegess and not hed
by any commentator OF note; n, Identifies inspira
ton with diciaon and makes the sacred writers mere
clerks or penmcn Of the Holy Ghost This theory was vas
eao8saG Dy in Controversy with the Roman
Catholic Church who insisted upon an infalllbe church
per oracle was set up against the nvnS oracle In
u1 pn tS theory was not held By the Reformers WHO
combined the greatest reverence for the wod S,s 81 "G
free views on tsS iesr ss theological cton
IA aS s hsontc,y inconsistent with recomized facts such
m The obvous differences OF style and mode OF reason.
nr n the numerous variations Of the existing text me
discrepances between the Hebrew text anu '"'
Sepuagint. -, .,s Ia a, m psa nm.
| ,aes Cod had provided az the same tiLne iT
insS,uhie transmission and preservatton-that Is,
So Inssu,b transcribers and for nfailble trans
etors Sor the great mass Of men depend upon trans
,aovs which are made by imperfect, fallble men, and
d,ter very much Nobody claims inerrancy for the
rvEs asod vsrson or the King James version. or tho
Rishops, Bibe, or wycfes version, or Luther's yer
om pr the Vugate or any other version old or new;
r. has heen stated that there are $4,000 departures OF
,Se revsed New Testament from the authorized yer.
sion including 5000 changes In the Greek text used
| by the reviSers. -. - s..... .. ,n.-..n.v
| arc forced 10 conhne lncrrancy 10 the Hebrew ana
| S.rcek This Is modern American IN
| ycntIon and a mere hypothesis In the air.
| n is scarcely worthy OF q moments notice. -. .
| Nobody has ever seen the autographs, or Is hkeU
to nnd them; they are lrretrevably lost. 80
| We have no Hebrew MSS. older than the eighth
centnry and no Greek y ;. older than the fourth ana
these Mss as well ~ the oldest Transitions ana
onotatons OF the Christian fathers present many thou
sands of textual variations, which have kept critics
] husy for these 300 years. However unimportant
they are an nnsurmonntabc barrier 20 verbal nsprar
ton Not even the Pope OF Rome would dare to ex.
ercise his infaloy In tho department OF textual o.
literary criticism