New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-25
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE.


Dr. Smith said:
The denial Of fundam entail doctrine, constitutes
law IL the doctrine Of the charge Is iuit.aIhSa,i
s@a i bn # he has not denied t. Or the
rine is not fundamental, there is no htresy oy',i,
the prosecution rs took issue with them both IN
the Presbyiery ana in the synod chaiemsg t.r
proof that this doctrine Is fdndamehal I'ies'D ~,
that we are concerned with me doctrine o, IN.
charge ne eyaenre nCt b yf no vet egmae
n,at,er If INJURY The views Of the prosecution are
before 1s as ,fr doc,r.nes are fundamen;al? The
burden OF proof Is upon them. j is ineir p,ace 10
ea ,y DO ths the charge must be dismissed. be-
c9,se II ls Insufficient In law. First, let Ms be sure
tnat we une' ~ he findamenta The Holy Spirit
So controlled the inspired writer's IN Their com CON-
pftcrances absolutely ,ruthfu-free from error when
1Intcrnreted In ther natural and intended sens.
Careful consideration OF this statement SHOWS Ud'
tT r., en ,s not concerned with the Scriptures
u now have. for it speaks % the Inspired writers
IN tbe'r composition Of the Holy Scriptures 1t -
,b Intention Of the charge to assert mehing OF
~ ~ nrtoinal autographs Of the biblical books We
ore doubly assured OF this, because IN me I"",I
court I asked the committee concerning r. sald:
S2n,' .s, .be advocate Of this doctrine 20 ex-
risqS those discrepancies which they Themselves &c
re r. we do this we shall find that they Apply
their apparently rigid theory no. 10 me ~ ,
%h,ch no one has yet recovered. They maintain not
that the Scriptures are inerrant but that me or's
nal Scriptures inerrant That the c2ihnl'l.r
might not cave the court IN doubt on THIS p1!h'
I snggested that trey add TO the charge a dStlnct
clause onecfyng the autographs. To THIS the chal,
man reoled that the original autographs are a.,
ready sufficiently designated In the language OF
the charge for IL speaks OF the HOY spirit con
tro OF the writer's in their composition or me 10Y
Scrlptures We may take II as certain, then, INN!
the charge has TO do with the so-calied orbiha'
Autographs
INIcRRANCY OF THE AUTOGRAPHS
DR. Smith then discussed the point that the charge
IL concerned not with the organs OF revelation Dut
with the writer's OF Scripture. and that the result
Of this process was to make the original autographs
contain nothing but absolute truth He shid IN
part: Now the only question for ms at this time Is
whether his doctrine IS fundamental doctrine OF
the Scriptures and the Confession OF Faith IL -
incumbent upon the committee 10 show that iher-
rancy OF the autographs is fundamental. can hey
do il? | maintain that they cannot. NOTICE. IL ID
NOT n question OF Individual opinion. The committee
NAV have A very high doctrine OF inerrancy' tney
may have very distinct idea OF It's Importance 10
their religious faith their religious phIosophS'
Rut that does not make 1t fundamental Inc ma
,ority OF the Assembly may agree with the com
mittee in holding the doctrine and IN hoaihg 10 's
inheritance in their philosophy. But this wou'd NOT
,usufv this majority in calling 1t fundamen.ai'
Fundamental doctrine means fundamental 70 'ne