The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-28

VI ipNuIts uN " tHVtt JfVVN '"tU' " "'tON' ''N
through ,rhom cod originally communicated
his rereidtions. Ia in conflict with the statements
OF the Holy Scripture itself. which asserts that
all Scripture or every Scripture Is given by the
insriration OF God III. Tim J that the prophecy
came not Of old by the will OF man. but that
holy men OF God spake as they we're moved OF
the Holy Ghost III. Peter: and. also. with the
statements OF the standards OF the Church.
which assert that the Holy Scriptures ~
the Old and New Testaments are the
Word Of God Of infallible truth and divine
authority" Against this Judgment. sixty
three members OF the Assembly protested.
We have italicized certain words in the judg-
ment because they indicate the real question
In dispute. which was not that there are errors
in the present accessible text ofHoly Scripture.
but whether or not these errors we're In the
original autographs. 1t will be seen that the
Assembly undertook to define what were the
| original autographs: Scripture as II came to
them to whom and through whom God oriRi-
nally communicated his revelations" In the
opinion. then. OF the majority OF the Assem-
bly, the Scripture, properly so called. con-
sisted OF the writings as they we're first
written down by those to whom God origin
ally communicated his Word. We must. they
said. go back Of all the texts till we get TO
the original autographs OF the authors be-
fore we have the inerrant Scripture. Those
who disapproXe OF this Judgment describe the
dogma pronounced In It as not only mad
mlsslble but astounding: no one. they
say. has ever thought Of searching for the
original autographs, because no one can even
hope to ind them. 1t Ia true that the Protest.
ant reformers and the Puritans appealed TO
the Greek and Hebrew texts ns against the
Roman Catholic Church. which made the Latin
VulRate the final authority: but even the
Professionals did not think OF making the
original autographs their authority. They
knew that they did not possess those original
autographs. and could never possess them.
The Protestant reformers appealed to such
Greek and Hebrew texts as they knew. and de-
voted themselves chiefly to translating them
into modern languages. TO give tho Word Of
God to the people. No one in the time OF the
Reformation ventured to affirm that THE
canon OF Scripture is not in the Latin Bible. is
not in the Greek Testament OF Erasmus. ia not
In the Hebrew Bible OF Bomberg. but is
solely and alone In the original auto
graphs Of the inspired authors" not one Of
which original autographs has been in the pos-
session nf the Church since the second century
A. L. 1t was. say DR.. BriRgs's defenders. a ra-
tional position which the Council OF Trent took
when It made the Latin vulgate the authori-
tative Bible. and thus provided for a correct
official text. 1t would be. they say. a reasona-
BILE procedure for a Protestant assembly to de-
eide that the Massoretic Hebrew text Of Ben
Asher tenth century A. d. and the Greek BIZ
Bile OF the Vatican CodeX fourth Christian
century, should be the final arbiter as the
most correct texts at present attainable. But
1t Is. they submit. altogether irrational to take
the position that the inerrant Bible is to he
! found solely and alone in the original auto
graphs, which no one has seen since the Church
had q canon and which no one can ever see,
| II 10 fnrthar cr,hrp;ttal ~, A. "a
the higher criticism that the question Of the
original autographs is not 40 simple and easy
OF solution as the majority OF the General
Presbyterian Assembly OF the United States
seems to have supposed. The question arises,
Which autograph do you seek? What is to be
said as regards the story OF the resurrection OF
our Lord at the close OF the Gospel Of Mark
There can be no doubt. rs the revisers OF our
authorized version OF the New Testamenta adj
NIT. that this story was not in the Gospel Of
Mark. as that gospel came from him to whom
and through whom God originally communi-
Gated his revelations" 1t was appended TO
Mark. Yet there can be no doubt that this story
was attached to the Gospel OF Mark at an early
date. and that it was tlienceforwnrd recognized
"a no less truly and divinely inspired than any
other part Of the GOSPEL. Is II now TO he cast
out OF the Canon Of Holy Scripture because IL
was not in the original autograph Of Mark
What. again. Ia to be said concerning the two
chief texts OF Luke? Which Of these two Is
the original autograph? They have both been
recognized by the Church for centuries az
canonical. one by one section Of the Church
and the other by another section. Is it first
necessary to determine this question before
access can be gained to the original inerrant,
inspired autograph ? Or should II rather be
sufficient to recognize either or both texts as
inspired Scripture. although they are discrep-