The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1893-08-02

in Greek (Which at the time OF the
writing of it was most generally
known to the nations) being imme-
diately inspired by God and by His
singular rare and providence, kept
pure in all ages, are authentical; so
as in all contro~ ersies of religion
the Church is finally TO appeal unto
them"
This was adopted go years ago,
at time when there was not a
Hebrew Bible or Greek Testament
which the, Westminster Divines
did not know had errors in them
AT the same time they said that
the original manuscripts had been
kept in all ages. Thus it seems to
be the doctrine of our Confession
that our present Hebrew and Greek
Testaments are as pure to-day as
they ever were. So that if any one
thinks it probable, as Prof. Briggs
does, that the first manuscripts Of
the Bible had many small unim-
portant mistakes in them, he has
the Confession of Faith to support
that conclusion. For if they have
been kept pure in all ages, our cop
les are as pure as the first ones; but
no scholar in the world will say our
present copies are faultless; such
then must have been the copies
written by inspired men. 1t has
been thought impossible for inspir-
ed men to make mistake of any
kind. They have done it in speak
ing some times. Men do not need
divine aid to commit mistakes.
Why may not God have allowed
them writing under inspiration to
fall into some slight inaccuracy
AS He has allowed all good men to
make some mistakes why may lie
not have allowed inspired men to
have done the same? 1t seems to
me we must accept such conclu.
sion If we adhere to the Confession
of the Presbyterian Church. How
did the many little mistakes get in
to our Bibles? We say men put
them in by Gods permission but
not by His direction. Our present
Bibles are as pure, the Confession
of faith says, as they ever were
When the first manuscripts must
have had some inaccuracies in
them, but they were written by in
spired men. With the Confession
of Faith before them, how could o
body of 600 men 80 confidently af-
firm that the first manuscripts OF
the Scriptures had no mistakes in
them, when every biblical scholar
knows our present Hebrew and
Greek Testaments, having been
kept pure in all ages, contain mis-
takes. If we put the Hebrew Bi.
BILE with 1000 mistakes in it into the
hands of a Hebrew scholar and ask
him, 'Is that the inspired and infal-
lible Word of God ?" he will say,
at certainly is" II then Bible
with mistakes in it is Gods Word,
J why would not the original manu-.
script with similar mistakes in it,
be Gods inspired Word? There
: was not a man in The General AS
sembly, voting to condemn Briggs,
who will not acknowledge that our
, present errant Bible is Holy Script
ure, and yet he voted Briggs a her
etic for holding that the first man
uscripts were not free probably
from error.
His accu5ers say our present
, Hebrew Bibles are not errorless /;
but the "heretic" more careful and
logical, says the original Hebrew
Bible may have had and probably
did have some mistakes in it. The
. accusers say we know our Bible
J has mistakes-the "heretic" says 81
do not positively assert the first
Bible had mistakes in it-"Down
with Briggs" on probability, says
the majority, while they them
selves affirm unqualifidely that
their Bible is known to have mis-
takes. This being so, who is the
hereto? Let it ever be remem-
bered that DR.. Briggs maintains
that the mistakes he has discover
ed are trivial in themselves and
were in all cases made by man and
were not inspired. That the orig
inal manuscripts of the Bible were
the inspired Word of God, notwith-
standing the trivial mistakes in
them, just as his opposers admit
their Bible 10 be the word of God
though there be mistakes in it. On
this point why is Briggs a hereto