imA^ 
 
 ■^i^*^?^!^' 
 
 T. NoDougRll 
 
 Is Inerrancy 
 A New Test of Orthodoxy? 
 
.^^^-i Of mfic^ 
 
 .'■0 
 
 
 BS480 
 .Ml 37 
 
 ;opY 
 
 2 
 
S INERRANCY 
 
 A New Test of .Orthodoxy? 
 
 BY 
 
 THOS. McDOUGALL. 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 Robert Clarke & Co., Printers. 
 1893. 
 
E)S ^e 
 
 iVl 
 
 ^■^ 
 
IS INERRANCY 
 
 A New Test of Orthodoxy? 
 
 /by 
 THOS. McDOUGALL. 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 Robert Clarke & Co., Printers. 
 
 1893. 
 
IS INERRANCY A NEW TEST OF ORTHODOXY? 
 
 A discussion of more or less intensity, and accompanied with much 
 rhetoric and apparent feeling, has arisen in these days, on the above sub- 
 ject. Here are declarations on the subject which, being typical, state a certain 
 position fairly : 
 
 The Eev. T. S. Hamlin, D.D., says : 
 
 "These principles are clear and true quite apart from this particular 
 doctrine or opinion of inerrancy. Tim I, for one, neither affirm nor deny. It is 
 a theory wholly in the air. No living man, no man that has lived for centuries, 
 has seen the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures. We can neither 
 prove nor disprove the theory. We are ignorant about this matter, and should 
 be content to remain so." 
 
 The Rev. Henry Van Dyke, D.D., says: 
 
 "I will have nothing to do with this theory of the inerrancy of the orig- 
 inal autographs. I neither affirm nor deny it. Whether the original auto- 
 graphs were free from the difficulties which exist in the present text, or not, is 
 one of those things which no man can find out. This theory may be true, or 
 it may be purely imaginary. God knows ; I do not. I am perfectly contented 
 with my ignorance." 
 
 The portion of the ordination vow of each minister, elder, and deacon, in 
 the Presbyterian Church, bearing on this subject, is as follows : 
 
 1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be 
 the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? 
 
 2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this 
 Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures ? 
 
 3. Do you approve of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian 
 Church in these United States? 
 
 It is claimed with great confidence, and with an assumption of the right 
 to judicially determine the question, and infallibly construe the constitution of 
 our Church, that the declaration of the General Assembly of 1892, the es- 
 sential part of which is as follows : " Our Church holds that the inspired Word, 
 as it came from God, is without error," is the imposition of a new test of ortho- 
 doxy, an essential enlargement, limitation, or variation^ of the foregoing ordina- 
 
[-1] 
 
 tion vow, a vital additiou to its terms, attempted to be imposed without au- 
 thority, aud which is denounced as follows : 
 
 The Rev. T. S. Hamlin, D.D., says: • 
 
 "Now, if the inerrancy deliverance stood upon the same footing, it would 
 be a simple and harmless matter. But the resolution carefully exalts this 
 opinion to the level of a doctrine. It asserts that 'our Church holds' it. It 
 assumes that every minister assented to it at his ordination. It calls upon him, 
 if he does not now believe it, to leave the Church. It embraces in this sum- 
 mons all ordained officers, elders, and deacons, as well as ministers. Aud, if 
 they do not withdraw, it ' enjoins' the courts of the Church to ' speedily' disci- 
 pline them and eject them. In other words, this deliverance, under the guise 
 of an interpretation of the standards, sets up a totally new doctrine, which it 
 declares the Church ' holds ' and makes it a test of ministerial and official 
 standing. 
 
 " Now, I deliberatfely and solemnly pronounce this an act of the grossest 
 usurpation, to resist which is the urgent duty of every Presbyterian that loves 
 his Church, and cherishes her historical stand for liberty, both personal and ec- 
 clesiastical. The General Assembly is as much bound by the Constitution as 
 is the humblest minister or member of the Church. It has no more authority 
 to impose the opinion of a majority of its members upon us as a doctrine, than 
 it has to declare that its views about lynching shall have all the force and 
 Aveight of a Federal Statute, and to send a district attorney or a judge to prison 
 because he fails to prosecute and convict accordingly." 
 
 To one who, as an elder, has recently subscribed to this ordination vow, 
 and who, before its subscription could say, as Hugh Miller said in his letter to 
 Lord Brougham, June, 1839: "I never signed the Confession of her Faith, 
 l)ut I do more, I believe it" this discussion on " Inerrancy" is perplexing and 
 amazing. 
 
 Hugh Miller's declaration — as the writer's subscription — was to the Con- 
 fession of Faith as it stands, " unrevisecl;" this too in the exercise of the largest 
 liberty worthy of the name — the liberty wherewith Christ makes us free ; im- 
 plicit obedience to law and properly constituted authority ; the liberty that 
 knows no other will but God's; the liberty that seeks only to know what God 
 
 has said, and then 
 
 " Theirs not to make reply, 
 
 Theirs not to reason why." 
 
 It is a liberty that has well defined convictions, is resolute in their defense, 
 believes in settling differences according to law, accepts decisions thus made, 
 
[ 5 ] 
 
 recognizes and discharges its obligations, and accords to all others the rights it 
 claims for itself. This was the liberty of the school denominated by some as 
 ultra-Calvinistic, Puritanical, sternly orthodox, narrow, unbending and inflex- 
 ible, of whom the Rev. John Kerr, D.D., in his paper on " Scottish National- 
 ity," says : 
 
 " Mr. Buckle, too, might have remembered his own remark, made we be- 
 lieve also by Rerausat, that wherever it has gone, in France, Switzerland, Hol- 
 land, Britain and America, tlie Calvinistic faith has shown itself 'the unfaiUnfj 
 friend of constitutional liberty.' Historians have found it difficult to account for 
 this, while they admit its truth. We believe it has arisen not merely from the 
 form of government with which it has linked itself, ' one of ordered freedom,' 
 but from tlie fact that it has always carried its appeal past human authority in 
 religion 'io the Word of God;' that it has taught men to think for themselves 
 as in His' sight, and to seek that personal relation to Him which makes them 
 free with the liberty of his children. It proclaims the grand divine equality, 
 ' One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren,' out of which are built 
 up again service and law and comely order in church and state, but notv tempered by 
 the action of reason and love. It may be said that this is simply Christianity, 
 and so it is ; but there are forms of Christianity more or less pronounced, and, 
 while we have great respect for the contribution that other forms have brought 
 in their own way, we believe that the Puritans of England, old and new, and 
 the Presbyterians of Scotland, have, with all their defects, led the van in the 
 cause of human freedom." 
 
 Is it too much to say that among these men were to be found the intellect- 
 ual and spiritual giants of the race, men of great spiritual insight and fidelity 
 to conviction, who believed in an inerrant God and his inerrant word, and in 
 and by that faith wrought for liberty many of the blessings we now enjoy ? 
 
 What a contrast they present to some of the "advanced" scholars of 
 modern times, who, knowing no more of God and his revelation, can 
 neither affirm nor deny that the word of the inerrant God as it came 
 from him, was inerrant; this because they can not handle and cross-examine 
 the original manuscripts, and subject them to the tests of their so-called 
 " modern scholarship," and " advanced thought," and man's finite, sin-limited 
 intellect. 
 
 Passing, for another occasion, the extraordinary character of these attacks 
 on the action of the General Assembly, the supreme judicial and legislative 
 body of our beloved Presbyterian Church, also the times, places, and manner 
 of these attacks, as bearing on the question of respect for and obedience to prop- 
 
[6] 
 
 erly coustituted authority, by those who are subject to that authority, and who 
 have obligated themselves to be teachers, by precept aud example, of obedi- 
 ence to that authority ; and also the assumption of authority and superior wis- 
 dom manifested therein, and Avhich is inconsistent with that humility which 
 adorns genius and is essential to Christian peace and work, let us examine this 
 latest issue in Presbyterian ecclesiastical circles — '^Inerrancy a neiv test of ortho- 
 doxy." 
 
 In so doing, let us remember that other and important pendiug issues, such 
 as : " Have Ave a God-given, God-inspired Bible, so certain, so well defined that 
 it is worthy of the faith of the race ? " " Can a God-inspired book be false in its 
 historical statements?" "Can the saving benetits of Christ's redemption be 
 enjoyed in any other way, and by any other persons, tLan as declared by the 
 terms of the God-revealed scheme ? " — are not to be side-tracked or lost sight 
 of by the dust and clamor of this inerrancy controversy. 
 
 THE ASSERTED POSITIONS. 
 
 a. It is asserted with the greatest confidence, " that the condition or qual- 
 ity of what are called the original manuscripts of the Bible, as to being errant 
 or inerrant, is, in the absence of the originals, incapable of proof, and is of no 
 consequence as a matter of faith, or as affecting the God-inspired quality of 
 the Bible as it now is." 
 
 b. It is further asserted that the ordination vow does not embrace as a 
 part of its terms, a subscription to the inerrancy of the Word of God, as it 
 was given by Him to the race. 
 
 c. And further, that the terms of that vow are broad enough to include 
 those who believe the originals were inerrant, as well as those who believe they 
 were errant, and those who have no belief in the matter. 
 
 Let us examine these in their order. 
 
 IS THE QUALITY OR CONDITIO^J OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE 
 AS IT CAME FROM GOD, AS TO BEING ERRANT OR INEP.RANT, INCAPABLE 
 OF PROOF IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ORIGINALS ; AND IS THIS OF NO 
 CONSEQUENCE AS A MATTER OF FAITH, OR AS AFFECTING THE GOD- 
 INSPIRED QUALITY OF THE BIBLE AS IT NOW IS? 
 
 Let us pass, at thjs point, the claim that these originals having existed at 
 some time, their condition must have been settled while thus in existence, and 
 
[ ' ] 
 
 that as a matter of history the fact of their existence must rest on the same evi- 
 dence as their essential qualities, and which enable us to say they were imme- 
 diately inspired by God. 
 
 Does the absence of the original manuscripts, as evidence, conclusively pre- 
 clude proof of essential quality, while permitting conclusive proof of the exist- 
 ence of the originals, as a matter of fact? Can we separate the essential 
 qualities of a thing from the fact of its existence, and in that absence con- 
 clusively prove the fact of its. existence, and yet be incapable of proving its 
 essential qualities ? Can we prove the existence of Julius Csesar, as a man, 
 without being able to produce and examine the original ; and yet affirm, be- 
 cause of that absence, our utter inability to prove the existence in him of the 
 essential qualities of a man, and which enable us to say he was the man Julius 
 Caesar ? 
 
 In an action in a civil court, for recovery on a lost promissory note, in the 
 absence of the note, can the fact of the existence of the note be proved, with- 
 out proving the terms essential to make it a note for which judgment may be 
 rendered, — not the color, kind of paper, nor the manner of writing, but the ex- 
 istence of the essential terms, words and qualities that enable the court to say 
 that it was a " note," fixed in its terms, and definite in its obligations, and 
 therefore in fact existed, and was the note it was claimed to be. 
 
 Can there be proof of and belief in the "fact" of the existence of the 
 original manuscripts, as the Word immediately inspired by God, in the absence 
 of the originals, without proof of and belief in the essential terms and qual- 
 ities which make it the Word thus inspired by God? Is not confession of in- 
 ability to prove that the original was inerrant, a confession of inability to prove 
 there ever was an original ? 
 
 Ingersoll says: "I neither affirm nor deny there is a God. I only say, 
 I can not prove there is a God." If we can neither affirm nor deny, by 
 reason of the absence of the original manuscripts, their essential qualities and 
 terms, does this not necessarily place us in the same position as to the fact of 
 their ever having existed ? Can we separate the thing from the essential qual- 
 ities and terms, which make it possible to exist as the thing ? 
 
 Is not the concession of possible error in what God gave us as his will, the 
 destruction of the God-inspired quality of that revelation, and therefore the 
 destruction of the Bible as it now is, as the Word of God ? 
 
 Consider the conception of the character of God involved in the possibility 
 
[ 8 ] . 
 
 of error, or falsehood in his revelation to man. An infinite and omniscient God 
 gives to finite man a revelation of his will, on which he commands man to act 
 as the rule and conduct of his life. The truth of every statement in that 
 revelation is known to God. The conclusive presumption is that every state- 
 ment therein made is true in the absence of a declaration from God to the con- 
 trary. Knowing what, if any part, is errant or untrue in that revelation, if 
 any statement, or part is errant or untrue, should God fail to declare and make 
 known such errors or untruths, what must be his character? 
 
 What do men call the failure to make known the existence of error or 
 falsehood in a document by one who knows of the existence of the error or 
 falsehood, and who, as its author places the document in circulation as true, 
 or delivers the same to a party who in receiving and relying on it, pre- 
 sumes the document to be true, being ignorant of the error or falsehood therein 
 contained? Silence at times is criminal. There are times and circumstances 
 when the permitted circulation of error as truth, is criminal. 
 
 It would seem as if the inability or unwillingness to affirm the inerrancy 
 of the original manuscripts in their absence, can only arise from the conviction 
 or fear of a possibility of discovering the existence of error or falsehood 
 therein, on finding the originals, and on subjecting them to the cross-examina- 
 tion of so-called higher criticism. 
 
 What must be the character of one claiming to be God, who gives to man 
 as his will a revelation which it is possible may be errant or false in parts, and 
 if so, must be known to him, which errors or falsehoods he fails to specify or 
 correct, and which he permits to be received, believed and acted on as iner- 
 raut, and on which he asks his finite creatures to risk their all for time and 
 eternity ? 
 
 Possible error or falsehood in God's Word, not designated or pointed out 
 by Him, permitted to exist and pass current as truth, as inerrant! What kind 
 of a conception of God's absolute verity, justice, and love, have such minds? 
 Surely the inability to affirm the inerrancy of the original manuscripts, the Word 
 of God as he gave it, in the absence of the originals, does not arise from the 
 fear that on discovering the originals it might be found that the spelling, gram- 
 mar, or punctuation were not what they ought to be to suit the fastidious tastes 
 of so-called advanced modern scholarship. 
 
 To warrant the protests, the pathetic appeals, and solemn declarations 
 that are being made by Drs. Hamlin, Van Dyke and others, on this subject of 
 
[0] 
 
 the inerrancy of the original manuscript?, there must be the fear that if ever 
 they are discovered, higher criticism might find therein false historical or other 
 statements, which God had given to the race as a part of His Word, without 
 disclosing their falsity. How the higher critics would blush for their reputa- 
 tions, if they affirmed inerrancy in the original manuscripts in their absence, and 
 afterward they should be discovered, and on examination be found to contain 
 error or falsehood. This might be hard on the higher critics, but what of God? 
 How would his character be affected by such a discovery ? 
 
 The reputation of the higher critics for definiteuess of statement, exact- 
 ness, and mathematical certainty of conclusions must be carefully preserved, 
 at whatever cost, from the, possibility and effect of such a discovery. They, 
 therefore, neither deny nor affirm the inerrancy of the original manuscripts in 
 their absence, even though their position involves the destruction of God's 
 Word, making it impossible to have faith in any revelation, and above all, in- 
 volves the destruction of the character of God Himself for inerrancy, absolute 
 truthfulness, and fair dealing with man. 
 
 If the Bible as it now is — as men use these words — is inerrant, immediately 
 inspired by God, then it has always been so. If errant in whole or in part, how 
 can it be of God ? How can it be the work of an inerrant God ? No other 
 God but an inerrant God, and no other revelation but an inerrant one is worthy 
 the confidence of the race, on which the soul of man can rest its eternal destiny 
 in safety. 
 
 In the absence of the original, in order to now believe in the Bible as in- 
 spired by God in any sense, is it not necessary to prove that God gave us this 
 Word, and that it was immediately inspired by Him? 
 
 The quality of inspiration, of iuerrancy of the Word must be proven as 
 a "■fact" in order to prove that it did in fact come from God — that we have 
 any Word of God at all. How can we prove any word or message ever came 
 from God, either in the absence or presence of the so-called original, without 
 proof of the quality of its being God-inspired, inerrant? 
 
 What makes the Bible in any sense, in any part, the Word of God ? 
 
 How is the fact of inspiration — inerrancy in any part or statement — proven 
 now, in the absence of the so-called originals? 
 
 Why does not the same evidence, the same reasoning, apply to the Word 
 as it came from God to prove its inspiration, and that it did in fixct come fi'om 
 Him, as applies to the Word as it now is ? 
 
[ 10] 
 
 " INERRANCY AS TO ESSENTIALS, ERRANCY AS TO NON-ESSENTIALS. 
 
 To break the force of this position, a very curious distinction is sought to 
 be made, between inerrancy as to that which is called essential to faith and 
 practice, and what is called " merely human setting," or non-essential. What 
 or Avho authorizes this distinction, we fail to understand. It is assumed, 
 evolved from the wish of those who make it. The Bible does not make it. 
 God has not made, revealed nor authorized any such distinction. He has not 
 drawn the line, nor catalogued what are claimed to be inerrant essentials, and 
 errant non-essentials. 
 
 If such a distinction is warranted, Avhich we deny, how can the fact be 
 proved, in their absence, that the originals had the quality of being God-in- 
 spired, or inerrant, as to Avhat is claimed to be essential to faith and practice, 
 and yet there be an utter inability to prove by the same evidence the quality 
 of that which is claimed to be non-essential, what is claimed to be merely his- 
 torical, with the rhetorical pyrotechnics of "human setting," if any person can 
 define or tell what that is ? 
 
 It being conceded, as it must be, if it is in any sense the inspired Word 
 of God, that the ab.«ence of the original manuscripts does not preclude con- 
 clusive proof of, nor belief in the fact of their existence, nor of their God-in- 
 spired quality as to what are claimed to be matters essential to faith and 
 practice ; how is it possible on the same evidence to preclude proof of, 
 and believe in the God-inspired quality as to matters historical, and those 
 alleged to be non-essential, when applied to a book, a unit, a revelation 
 from God, and which nowhere asserts or intimates that any such dis- 
 tinction exists, between matters claimed to be essential to faith and prac- 
 tice, and those of so-called history or human setting? How can we take the 
 unit, the book, the thing, the fixed quantity, in the absence of its original, 
 and prove and believe, in that absence, the fact of its existence, and that in 
 matters essential to faith and practice, whatever these may be, the original had 
 the quality of being God-inspired, "inerrant," and yel assert our inability to 
 prove the quality of inerrancy as to the other parts of the unit, or book? 
 
 " Tlie Ordination Vow and the Admissions." 
 
 What must be the condition of one who has taken the ordination vow and 
 admits the following : 
 
[11] 
 
 a. God is, and is a spirit infinite, eternal and unchangeable, iiierrant, 
 never did and never could make a mistake, uo otlier God being worthy of the 
 faith and worship of the race. 
 
 b. This infinite God, a spirit, gave to finite man his creature, a revelation 
 of his will, a compilation, a unit, a fixed quantity, as the only infallible rule of 
 faith and practice, without which man could not know any thing, by reason, 
 science or otherwise, as to his will. 
 
 c. The original manuscripts of this revelation, book, or compilation, though 
 uow lost, we can demonstrate, by existing evidence, to have once existed, and 
 by the same evidence can demonstrate that they possessed the quality of being 
 God-inspired and inerraut as to all matters therein contained which we claim 
 are essential to faith and practice. 
 
 d. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we can not prove, on the same evidence 
 as demonstrates the fact of existence and their inerrant quality as to what we 
 claim to be essential to faith 'and practice, the inerrant quality of such matters 
 in said revelation as we claim are non-essentials, purely historical, and belong 
 to that indefinable, elastic quantity, " the human setting," although the reve- 
 lation makes uo such distinction or classification as to essentials and non- 
 essentials. 
 
 In other words, we admit a revelation came from God, was God-inspired, 
 that it once existed, and that every thing Gpd gives as his work is inerrant; 
 but in the absence of the original of this God-inspired revelation, while ad- 
 mitting Ave can prove the fact of its existence, and on proper evidence demon- 
 strate that the original possessed the quality of inerrancy as to all matters 
 which we claim are essential to faith and j^ractice, we can neither affirm nor 
 deny, can not prove on the same evidence, that what are called by us matters 
 of history, non-essentials, are either errant or inerrant? Prove theTact of exist- 
 ence and quality of inerrancy as to essentials to faith and practice, but can not 
 prove the quality of its non-essentials, its historical statements on the same 
 evidence, in the absence of the original. Whither? 
 
 By what rule of evidence, or by what process of reasoning, intelligible to 
 a man of sound mind, cau a believer in a God-inspired record, which nowhere 
 separates or classifies its statements into what are called the essentials of faith 
 and practice, and the non-essentials of what are called history or " human set- 
 ting," justify his faith in the existence of such a record in the absence of the 
 
[ 1-^ ] 
 
 original, having the essential quality of inspiration or inerrancy as to one part, 
 and deny his ability to prove the inspiration or inerrancy of the other part ? 
 
 " The Result of the Concession " 
 
 As we have said, is not the concession of possible error in what God gave us 
 as His Word, the destruction of the God-inspired quality of that Word, and 
 therefore the destruction of the Bible as it now is, as the Word of God? Is 
 not the confession of inability to prove the inerrancy of the original manu- 
 scripts because of their absence, the confession of an inability to prove the 
 fact that they ever existed, — inerrancy being the essential quality of the orig- 
 inal manuscripts to warrant the proof of and the belief in the fact that they 
 came from God and ever existed as immediately inspired by God? 
 
 Who can certainly and infallibly draw the line between what is called in- 
 errant and what is called errant ; Avhat is essential to faith and practice, and 
 what is not essential ; what is God-given and what is man-made, in the ab- 
 sence of a revelation from God on the subject ? Where is the warrant for such 
 a distinction? 
 
 God has made no such distinction, no such classification ; he has not re- 
 vealed to any man what is claimed to be his iuerrant work in His Word, and 
 what in that Word is claimed to be the errant work of man. He has not said 
 there is in it any of man's errant work. And what man dares alter, change, 
 revise or attempt to improve upon this God-inspired record, and assert that 
 any part of it, even so-called human setting is man's errant work? 
 
 What kind of faith will be the product of doctrines such as the following, 
 touching the Bible : " Thus saith the Lord," in certain parts, and ' ' Thus saith er 
 rant man," in other parts — which is which, to be determined by the whim, passion, 
 interest, or ^o-called advanced scholarship of rhan's sin-limited, finite intellect ? 
 Will not the product of such doctrines be a nerveless, boneless, sinewless faith, 
 driven about by every wind of doctrine, without stability ? 
 
 The air is filled with the pyrotechnics of liberty, the gush of charity, and 
 the clamor of " peace and work." Do not assert any thing; do not deny any 
 thing, lest hurt is given to some one's feelings, and division and dissension is 
 caused. Do not cherish or express convictions, for they are inconvenient and 
 troublesome things to have and maintain ; banish theories, only let peace and 
 plenty of it prevail, and give men a chance to work. This is the new stand- 
 ard ; the latest rallying cry of the fearfuls. 
 
[ 13] 
 
 Only peacefully permit the deadly })oisou to work so that faith in God's 
 Word be undermined, honey-combed by the sappers and miners of a thinly 
 veneered rationalism and agnosticism ! Only permit them to carry on their 
 destructive business without hindrance, and leave us without a faith or a 
 Bible, God-inspired, on which the soul of man can safely rest its eternal 
 destiny ! 
 
 Why not have convictions and express them ? Why not say in what we 
 believe, whether in an errant or in an inerraut Bible, whether in a Bible 
 part God-made and part man-made, with no one to say where God begins and 
 errant man ends, or in a Bible sent from God, immediately inspired by God, 
 inerraut in every part from beginning to end ? 
 
 Hovv must the claims and assumptions of certain modern scholars in deal- 
 ing with the inspired word of God appear to Him, " who doeth according to 
 his will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth? " 
 
 II. 
 
 DOES THE ORDINATION VOW EMBRACE, AS A PART OF ITS TERMS, A BELIEF 
 IN THE INERRANCY OF THE WORD OF GOD AS IT WAS GIVEN BY HIM 
 TO MEN? 
 
 The VOW declares "the Scriptures 'of the Old and New Testament to be 
 the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
 
 How shall this vow be construed, and what is involved in its terms? 
 
 Bides for the Construction of the Vow. 
 
 a. The party taking it should, as to its performance by himself, construe 
 it in every case of reasonable doubt, against himself and in favor of the 
 Church. He should give a generous performance of its terms, so as to carry 
 out the purpose of the obligation — the peace, purity, and faith of the Church, 
 the promotion of confidence, of certainty and faith in the Bible as God-given 
 and God inspired. 
 
 b. Its terms are to be taken in their plain, ordinary, common-sense mean- 
 ing ; not in a forced, technical, unusual sense. 
 
 c. Its terms are to be interpreted in the light of what is called the historic 
 faith of the Church; the well-known construction, as evidenced by precedent 
 and otherwise, prevailing at the time the vow was enacted and taken. 
 
[ 14] 
 
 Such being some 9f the rules of coustruction, let us now consider what is 
 involved in the terms of the vow. 
 
 The Tenns of the Voiv. 
 
 (1). It involves a belief by the subscriber, at the time of subscription and 
 as long as he remains obligated by it, in a book or unit — a definite, fixed, un- 
 alterable quantity existing as " the Word of God," and present in his mind at 
 the time of subscription as distinguished from the work or word of man. The 
 subscriber must have had present in his mind at the time of subscription a 
 Word of God — not^ a word of God and man — as a definite, existing quan- 
 tity, whose terms he understood and to which he gave intelligent assent as 
 the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 
 (2). It involves a belief that this Word of God was given wholly by God 
 and immediately inspired by Him. 
 
 (3). It involves a belief in that Word of God as being " the only infallible 
 rule of faith and practice." That is, the book to which subscription is made ts 
 the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 
 (4). It involves a belief in this fixed, existing quantity immediately 
 inspired by God as inerrant, not capable of error — as God is not. 
 
 (5). It involves a belief that this Word, as it came from God was 
 inerrant and that it remains inerrant for all time. 
 
 If these propositions are correct, the first thing that strikes us as strange 
 in this present controversy is the attempted distinction between the book as it 
 '■^wa^'" and " as it noM) is." How can there be a difference, and if there is, what 
 is it? 
 
 The subscription to the vow does not call for a belief in any 
 particular publisher's edition or style of what is called the Bible. 
 The belief is in the Word of God — not in the work or word of man — 
 and this excludes the belief that there is in the book any thing of man's as dis- 
 tinguished from God's. So far as God used any agency for the communication 
 of His will, and in so far as it was essential to make it His will — to that ex- 
 tent, as thus used, it was and is His work and Word. It is what came from 
 God; what He said was His Word ; what He gave us as His will, that consti- 
 tutes that "Word. 
 
 All that God deemed necessary to make that Word the completed fixed 
 quantity, definite in its terms, and intelligible to men as the only infallible rule of 
 
[ 15 J 
 
 faith and practrce, however minor or uniiiiportaut it may appear to our finite 
 minds, is a part of the AVord, and is of and from God, no matter what God 
 used as an agency to that end. 
 
 It must have been a fixed (juantity, a thing possessing the essential qual- 
 ities of being immediately inspired by God, His revelation ; what He designed 
 •we should receive as His Word. Being an errorless God, what He gave us 
 must have had, as an essential quality, inerrancy. Have we that Word now? 
 If we have, it is errorless. No errors can be in that of which He is the au- 
 thor. 
 
 Does that Word now exist? We, who have taken the ordination vow, 
 and have affirmed before God and men, that it does exist, and exists as a fixed 
 quantity, definite and specific in its terms, God-inspired, inerrant as a unit, 
 are conclusively estopped from ever raising the question of the exist- 
 ence of such a Word of God, or the fact of its inspiration, its inerrancy as a 
 unit. We had the privilege of doing this before we took the vow ; but, having 
 vowed, does not true liberty, implicit obedience to law and fidelity to obliga- 
 tion limit our inquiry solely to what God has said in his Word? 
 
 It is said there are discrepancies in the text as we now have it. What 
 if there are? Are these discrepancies errors or untruths, and if errors or 
 untruths, are they God's wcirk? If they are, how can it be the Word of God? 
 How can an inerrant God produce as His work an errant revelation? 
 
 Would it be within reason to charge that discrepancies in the copy of a law, 
 such as the work of the scribe, or the printer, are errors, falsehoods in the law as 
 enacted by the legislature? These discrepancies differ entirely, however, from 
 false statements of fact, errors in statement, falsehoods in the law itself, 
 placed there by the legislature, inconsistent with its purpose, and alike de- 
 structive of the character of its author and the validity of the law. 
 
 Does not this vow preclude the possibility of error in the Word of God ? 
 Does it not limit the subscriber to an acceptance of the book as immediately 
 inspired by God, and is not his inquiry limited to what God has said therein ? 
 
 As the Rev. Dr. Thomas Chalmers says in his sermon on the " Supreme 
 Authority of Revelation : " 
 
 "Now this might be all very fair, were there no Bible and no revelation 
 in existence. But it is not fair, that all this looseness, and all this variety, 
 should be still floating in the world, in the face of an authoritative communi- 
 cation from God himself Had no message come to us from the Fountain- 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 head of truth, it were natural enough for every individual mind to betake it- 
 self to its own speculation. But a message has come to us, bearing on its fore- 
 head every character of authenticity ; and is it right now, that the question of 
 our faith, or of our duty, should be committed to the capricious variations of 
 this man's taste, or of that man's fancy? God has put an authoritative stop 
 to all this. He has spoken, and the right or the liberty of speculation no longer 
 remains to us. The question now is, not "What thinkest thou?" In the 
 days of Pagan antiquity, no other question could be put ; and to the wretched 
 delusions and idolatries of that period, let us see what kind of answer the hu- 
 man mind is capable of making, when left to its own guidance, and its own 
 authority. But we call ourselves Christians, and profess to receive the Bible 
 as the directory of our faith ; and the only question in which we are con- 
 cerned, is, " What is written in the law? How readest thou?" 
 
 " In order to know the mind of the Spirit, the communications of the Spirit, 
 and the expression of these communications in written language, should be 
 consulted. These are the only data upon which the inquiry should be insti- 
 tuted. . . . Let the principle of " What thinkest thou" be explodeil, and 
 that of " What readest thou" be substituted in its place. Let us take our les- 
 son as the Almighty places it before us, and, instead of being the judge of his 
 conduct, be satisfied with the safer and humbler office of being the interpreter 
 of his language. . . 
 
 " We must bring a free and unoccupied mind to the exercise. It must 
 not be the pride or the obstinacy of self-formed opinions, or the haughty inde- 
 pendence of him who thinks he has reached the manhood of his understanding. 
 We must bring with us the docility of a child, if we want to gain the king- 
 dom of heaven. It must not be a partial, but an entire and unexcepted obedi- 
 ence. There must be no gai-bling of that which is entire, no darkening of 
 that which is luminous, no softening down of that which is authoritative or 
 severe. The Bible will allow of no compromise. It professes to be the di- 
 rectory of our faith, and claims a total ascendency over the souls and the un- 
 derstandings of men. It will enter into no composition with us, or our natural 
 principles. It challenges tiie whole mind as its due, and it appeals to the 
 truth of heaven for the high authority of its sanctions. ' Whosoever addeth to, 
 or taketh from, the words of this book, is accursed,' is the absolute language 
 in which it delivers itself This brings us to its terms. There is no way of 
 escaping after this. We must bring every thought into the captivity of its 
 obedience, and as closely as ever lawyer stuck to his document or his extract, 
 must we abide by the rule and the doctrine which this authentic memorial of 
 God sets before us. .......... 
 
 " Our business is not to guess, but to learn. After we have established 
 Christianity to be an authentic message from God upon those historical grounds 
 
[ 1' ] 
 
 on which the reason and the experience of man entitle him to form his con- 
 clusions, nothing remains for us but an unconditional surrender of the mind to 
 the subject of the message. ........ 
 
 " Every natural or assumed principle, which offers to abridge its suprem- 
 acy, or even so much as to share with it in authority and direction, should be 
 instantly discarded. Every opinion in religion should be reduced to the ques- 
 tion of, What readest thou? and the Bible be accjuiesced in, and submitted to, 
 as the alone directory of our faith, where we can get the whole will of God for 
 the salvation of man. .........." 
 
 " In the popnlar religions of antiquity, we see scarcely the vestige of a 
 resemblance to that academical theism which is delivered in our schools, and 
 figures away in the speculations of our moralists. The process of conversion 
 among the first Christians was a .very simple one. It consisted of an utter 
 abandonment of their heathenism, and an entire submission to those new 
 truths which came to them through the revelation of the Gospel, and through 
 it only. It was the pure theology of Christ and of his apostles. That theol- 
 ogy which struts in fancy demonstration from a professor's chair formed no 
 part of it. They listened as if they had all to learn ; we listen as if it was our 
 office to judge, and to give the message of God its due place and subordina- 
 tion among the principles which we had previously established. Now, these 
 principles were utterly unknown at the first publication of Christianity. The 
 Galatiaus, and C(jrinthiaus, and Thessalonians, and Philippians had no con- 
 ception of them. And yet, will any man say, that either Paul himself, or 
 those who lived under his immediate tuition, had not enough to make them ac- 
 complished Christians, or that they fell short of our enlightened selves, in the 
 wisdom which prepares for eternity, because they wanted our rational theology 
 as a stepping stone to that knowledge which came, in pure and immediate 
 revelation, from the Sou of God? The Gospel was euough for them, and it 
 should be enough for us also. ........ 
 
 " But is not this an enlightened age, and since the days of the Gospel has 
 not the wisdom of two thousand years accumulated upon the present genera- 
 tion? Has not science been enriched by discovery, and is not theology one of 
 the sciences ? Are the men of this advanced period to be restrained from the 
 high exercise of their powers? And because the men of a remote and barbar- 
 ous antiquity lisped and driveled in the infancy of their acquirements, is that 
 any reason why we should be restricted like so many school-boys, to the lesson 
 that is set before us ? It is all true that this is a very enlightened age ; but on 
 what field has it acquired so flattering a distinction ? On the field of experi- 
 ment. The human mind owes all its progress to the confinemeut of its efforts 
 within the safe and certain limits of observation, and to the severe restraint 
 which it has imposed upon its speculative tendency. Go beyond these limits 
 and the human mind has not advanced a single inch by its own independent 
 
[18] 
 
 exercises. All the philosophy which has been reared by the labor of succes- 
 sive ages, is the philosophy of facts reduced to general laws, or brought under 
 a general description from observed points of resenjblance. A proud and 
 wonderful fabric we do allow ; but we throw away the very instrument by 
 which it w'as built the moment that we cease to observe and begin to theorize 
 and excogitate. Tell us a single discovery which has thrown a particle of light 
 on the details of the divine administration. Tell us a single truth in the 
 whole field of experimental science, which can bring us to the moral govern- 
 ment of the Almighty by any other road than his own revelation." 
 
 We commend to every reader of this pamphlet a reading of the entire ser- 
 mon from which we have quoted so liberally. These are the words, the faith, 
 of one of the most gifted intellectually and scientifically of the sons of the 
 Presbyterian Church ; the giant of his time ; one of the noblest, bravest, and 
 most effective champions for liberty we have had in this century. A certain 
 school of critics would sneer at Dr. Chalmers as narrow, bigoted, behind 
 the age. May we be delivered from the unconscious self-righteousness and 
 intellectual littleness of such a sneer. 
 
 This is the jubilee year of the Free Church of Scotland, 1843-1893. 
 Fifty years ago — May, 1843 — there filed out of St. Andrew's Church, Edin- 
 burgh, that memorable procession of four hundred ministers, headed by the 
 Rev. Dr. Welsh (the Moderator of the General Assembly) and the Rev. Dr. 
 Chalmers. The world has seen but few grander testimonies and sacrifices to 
 liberty and fidelity to conviction, conscience, and the Word of God. There 
 were Presbyterian giants in those days — Chalmers, Cunningham, Candlish, 
 Duff, Guthrie, et al. — men of giant faith, intellect, and scholarship, who stood 
 as the rock for an inerrant God and His inerrant Word. What would they 
 say if with us now, as to the modern attacks of know-nothing, destructive 
 criticism on the inerrancy, the integrity of the Word of God, and that, too, 
 under the name of liberty and as consistent with and a part of the ordination 
 vow of our beloved Presbyterian Church ? 
 
 " The Effect of the Vow." 
 
 Is not the subscriber to this vow, by its very terms, by every rule of common 
 honesty, precluded from assailing any part of this book as errant, as other than 
 the Word of God, immediately inspired by Him? If the examination and in- 
 vestigations of his scholarship, of higher criticism so-called, his every thought 
 
[ 19] 
 
 and service, start from aud rest on the foundation that this is in every part 
 God's word, inerrant, immediately inspired by God, is not his business, study, 
 thought and teaching limited to ascertaining what God has said therein? Is 
 it not a violation of the terms of the vow to intimate or insinuate that in any 
 part of this God-given and inspired Word, God is absent and errant man is 
 present. Is not every thing on his part that directly tends to disturb faith in 
 this as the inerrant Word of God, equally against the vow? How can 
 he question its statements? Must they not be accepted by him as from God, 
 without question or controversy? Let there be no misunderstanding here. 
 How can there be any room, under the terms of this vow, for questioning as 
 from God any part of the fixed quantity subscribed to as the Word of God, 
 as being in any sense the separate work of errant man ? If this question is to 
 be raised and this assault made on the integrity of the Word of God, must it 
 not be done by those outside of the Church — by those who have not taken this 
 ordination vow? 
 
 Drs. Hamlin and Van Dyke. 
 
 Here let us consider the extraordinary character of the declarations of 
 Drs. Hamlin and Vandyke in the light of this vow, as to this so-called in- 
 errancy theory being wholly in the air, and as to which they can neither affirm 
 nor deny inerrancy without the original manuscripts. 
 
 When they subscribed to the ordination vow and affirmed the Scriptures 
 to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, permit 
 us to ask what book was in their minds to which they thus subscribed; what 
 was the definite, fixed Word of God to which they assented and in which they 
 believed? Was it errant, or inerrant, or a mixture? If a mixture of errancy 
 and inerrancy, what part was inerrant and what part was errant? If all in- 
 errant, then why these declarations against inerrancy now ? If errant, how 
 could it be the Word of God, so as to warrant their subscription to it as such? 
 Leaving theories, which they say they have no use for, and coming to facts 
 which they believe in, what kind of a Word of God, as a definite, fixed and 
 certain quantity, was present in their minds when, in the presence of God, 
 they solemnly affirmed it to be His Word? Was it errant? Then it has 
 always been so. If errant in whole or in part, how could it be the Word of 
 God — the only infallible rule of faith and practice? 
 
 These gentlemen can not claim, when they subscribed to this vow, that 
 the whole subject of it was in the air, indefinite and chaotic, and that there was 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 not present in their minds a definite, fixed book or quantity of any kind, cer- 
 tain in its terms and intelligible to their faith. They must have had in their 
 minds as the object of their faith an existing, definite book or compilation 
 whose terms, statements and contents they knew and to which they subscribed 
 as the Word of God. Did they believe that book to be inerrant, God-inspired, 
 in all its parts, terms, and statements, and therefore the Word of God ; or did 
 they believe that some of its parts were errant and some inerrant, with no definite 
 idea as to which was which? If so, how could they affirm it as a whole, as a 
 unit, to be the Word of God ? How could they believe, we repeat, a book 
 errant in parts to be as a Avhole the Word of an inerfant God ? If they be- 
 lieved it to be inerrant in all its parts and tliat it is the Word of God, and 
 is the only Word God has given to the race, why can they not affirm it was 
 and is and always has been the inerrant Word of God ? How can it be iner- 
 rant now and yet have been errant at some other time, when it is the only rev- 
 elation given by God, fixed in its terms and definite in its contents? 
 
 Unless the Word of God, the work of an inerrant God, can in any part 
 be errant and still be the Word of God, which we claim is an utter impossi- 
 bility, must it not have been, when received, and must it not ever continue to 
 to be, inerrant ? 
 
 Is there room for any other construction of the ordination vow than that 
 its terms embrace a belief in the Word of God as inerrant — inerrant when 
 God gave it — inerrant now — and inerrant it must ever remain, and that this 
 excludes even the negative, can't-affirm-or-can't-deny attitude as to the iner- 
 rancy of what are called the original manuscripts, and excludes the belief that 
 the Word of God is now or ever has been errant in any of its parts ? 
 
 III. 
 
 ARE THE TERMS OF THE VOW BROAD ENOUGH TO EMBRACE THOSE WHO BELIEVE 
 THE SO-CALLED MANUSCRIPTS WERE INERRANT, AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE 
 THEY WERE ERRANT, AND THOSE WHO CAN NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY 
 EITHER THEIR INERRANCY OR ERRANCY? 
 
 If the foregoing position is correct, that the subscriber to the ordination vow 
 that the Scriptures are the Word of God must have had in his mind, and must 
 in so subscribing have affirmed that this Word of God, a fixed quantity, definite 
 in its terms, and existing as a book or unit — is the Word of God, inimediately 
 
[21 ] 
 
 inspired by Him, it must be, and must have been so, when given, and like all 
 God has given, iuerraut, unchangeable, perfect and complete; then must not 
 the terms of the vow necessarily exclude the negative, know-nothing, can' t- 
 prove attitude as well as they certainly exclude a belief in errors in the ori- 
 ginal manuscripts, or in the Word of God ? 
 
 Shall the writer be compelled to regard as in good standing as a Presbyte- 
 rian elder one who denies we have a Word of God, denies its inspiration or 
 inerrancy? If not, how does this differ from being compelled to treat as a loyal 
 Presbyterian elder .one who, having subscribed to this vow, affirms there were 
 errors in the original, errors in tlie Bible as it now is; that the original was 
 not inerrant, neither is the Bible as it is, iuerrant— that it is only true in parts 
 and is false in parts, without any revelation of such a classification ? 
 
 The inerrancy, God-inspiration, and infallibility of the Word of God in 
 all its parts and as a unit, as a whole, is the foundation of our faith — is the 
 only rock of certainty on which we can rest. To assail, doubt, or deny that 
 inerrancy — that God-inspiration — is to.strike a blow at the rock on which our 
 faith rests; and that blow is struck, too, by those who claim to belong to our 
 household of faith, are in good and regular standing therein, and have ob- 
 tained that standing and position for assault by a subscription or affirmation 
 to a solemn vow that the Scriptures thus assailed are the Word of God, the 
 only infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 
 Is it unjust, unfair to say, that those in our ranks who assail the integrity, 
 the inspiration of God's Word in parts, by affirming it contains eri'ors or 
 falsehoods, would not be listened to by one of the thousands that now read 
 what they say, but for the position they are given by the church whose faith 
 they are now engaged in destroying? 
 
 The Neiv Faith. The New Vow. 
 
 Are we not warranted in charging the attempt to so enlarge the ordination 
 vow to be the creation of a new faith, a radical departure from her historic 
 faith, a new creed and a new standard for the Presbyterian Church? To en- 
 large the terms of the vow in the name of liberty so as to permit men to 
 be ministers, elders or deacons in the Presbyterian Church who deny the 
 inerrancy of the Word of God in all its parts, who affirm it to be errant, 
 false in parts and inerrant in parts, is to create a faith which the Presby- 
 terian Church never has believed in, and is to throw a burden on and 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 make it repugnant to the consciences of those who subscribed to it as in- 
 terpreted b}' the historic faith of the Church and by the plain, natural, com- 
 mon-sense meaning of its terms. Are not these the men that are imposing a new 
 test of orthodoxy and insisting on a fellowship which the conscience should not 
 be asked to tolerate, and this in the name of liberty ? The vow that tolerates 
 differences in non-essentials and accords liberty therein, as rigidly excludes 
 differences on essentials — on the fundamental doctrines of our Presbyterian 
 faith, and this is the only liberty worthy of the name. 
 
 If this be true, how can the can't-affirm, the can't-prove-or-ean't-deny attitude, 
 as Avell as the belief in errors, falsehoods, in the original, be embraced in the 
 terms of the vow ? Is not any attempt, even in the name of liberty, or for 
 peace, to enlarge the terras of the vow to include them, the making of a new 
 faith; an enlargement of the terms and scope of the vow compelling those who 
 have subscribed to it to accept as their faith something they never agreed to do ? 
 How can two walk together unless they be agreed ? Why should they be com- 
 pelled to fellowship if in disagreement o^n essential articles of faith? To com- 
 pel a man who believes in the inerrant Word, that is now and ever has been 
 inerrant, who believes that without that inerrancy in all its parts as it cam'e 
 from God and now is, it can not be the Word of God, to fellowship with one 
 who believes the Bible is now or ever has been errant in some of its parts, is to 
 make a man violate conscience, surrender principle and make shipwreck of faith. 
 To force this on him in the name of liberty is intolerance and oppression. 
 
 " What the Voiv Does Not Cover." 
 
 How can the ordination vow embrace in its terms, even under the name 
 of liberty and toleration of differences, direct contradictions of essentials, of 
 fundamental articles of faith ? How can it permit a belief in an errant God, 
 and also in an inerrant God? How can it permit a belief in the Word 
 of God as a unit, true in some statements, and false in others? How can 
 it permit a belief in Christ as God and man in the absence of the original, 
 and also a belief in Christ as a mere man? How can it permit a belief that 
 neither affirms nor denies, because of the absence of the original Christ, that 
 he was God, possessed the qualities of God, and also a belief that he was 
 not God ? 
 
 The enlargement of the ordination vow in the name of liberty to permit 
 such contradictions is intolerance, is a violation of the terms of the vow, and 
 
I 
 
 [23] 
 
 is the creation of a new test or standard of orthodoxy which the conscience re- 
 jects, common honesty repudiates, and which is a libel on liberty. 
 
 Is not this modern school of can't-tells, of know-notliings, can't-prove, can't- 
 affirm-or-deny that the Word of an inerrant God, as it came from Hira, 
 and now is, must have been, and must be inerrant, attempting to create a new 
 ordination vow, and a new faith for the Presbyterian Church, under whose en- 
 larged terms, in the name of liberty, Martiueau and Newman are as good 
 Presbyterians as Thomas Chalmers and Archibald Alexander ? The reason, 
 the conscience, of every subscriber to the ordination vow of the Presbyterian 
 Church as it now stands, has a right to revolt against such a construction of 
 its terms, and the creation of such a standard of orthodoxy, and this in the 
 exercise of the largest liberty and legitimate toleration of differences. 
 
 We have had no new revelation from God. It is the same old Bible. 
 Modern scholarship can neither add to nor take from what God has said. Its 
 mission is limited to ascertaining what God has said under the enlightening in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 . Loyality to our ordination vows and fidelity to our obligations ought not 
 to be affected by the modern clamor for a larger liberty, nor the needless fear 
 of strife, dissensions and secession in this crisis forced on our beloved Presby- 
 terian Church, nor the discussion and feeling incident to it. Let us remember : 
 
 a. That no men, or class of men, in our Church, have a monopoly of the 
 spirit of patience, fairness, peace and a desire for the winning of souls. 
 
 The unconscious self-righteousness, which seems to have prompted and 
 which characterizes some recent sermons and appeals, is appalling. Who au- 
 thorizes anyone to assume that those who differ from him are any less earnest 
 in soul-winning than he is; any less fair or patient in discussion, or any less 
 desirous for peace and work consistent with the maintenance of the historic 
 faith of our Church? 
 
 b. The constitution of our beloved Church, by which we are all bound, 
 and which we ought to be zealous in maintaining, has provided competent tri- 
 bunals to determine all questions of faith, and to those tribunal's must be left 
 the decision of the pending cases — whether the issues involved and the teach- 
 
 , ing of those charged with violation of their ordination vows are important and 
 essential or otherwise. As the Supreme Court of the United States has well 
 said : 
 
[24] 
 
 " It is of the essence of these religious unions and of their right to es- 
 tablish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, 
 that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, 
 subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for." 
 
 c. May we be saved from the insanity of folly of denouncing our Gen- 
 eral Assembly, the supreme judicial court of our Church, as a " mob," " swayed 
 by impulse " — as " any thing but a deliberative body" — when its decisions do not 
 conform to our preconceived opinions or wishes. May we be saved from the 
 like folly of eulogizing it as a solemn and deliberative body, actuated by wis- 
 dom and justice, " only" when its decisions do conform to our views and wishes. 
 Let us imitate the Supreme Court of the United States in its appreciation of the 
 importance of that tribunal and the fitness of its members for the decision of 
 the important questions committed to its care. We quote the language of that 
 court in tli€ Walnut Street Presbyterian Church case, Watsoji v. Jones, 13 
 Wallace, 610: 
 
 "Nor do we see that justice would be likely to be promoted by submitting 
 those decisions to review in the ordinary judicial tribunals. Each of those large 
 and influential bodies (to mention no others, let reference be had to the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal and the Presbyterian churches), has 
 a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical law of its own, to be found in their 
 written organic laws, their books of discipline, in their collections of precedents, 
 in their, usage and customs, which as to each constitute a system of ecclesiastical 
 law and religious faith that tasks the ablest minds to become familiar with. ' It 
 is not to be supposed that the judges of the civil courts can be as competent in 
 the ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men in 
 each are in reference to their own. It would, therefore, be an appeal from the 
 more learned tribunal in the law which should decide the case, to one which is 
 less so.'" 
 
 d. Let us bear in mind that God reigns, that our beloved Church with its 
 historic faith, is his special care, and that no man or body of men in our 
 Church are essential to her permanent welfare or to the wise solution of all that 
 God has committed to her keeping. 
 
[25] 
 
 THE INERRANT WORD. 
 
 Inspired of God, inerraut Word, 
 
 The Falher'.s will revealed. 
 Eternal truth, Altuighty Lord, 
 
 Unerring wisdom sealed. 
 lu all its parts, in every line, 
 
 As frvni His hand it came, 
 Inerrant is the book divine. 
 
 Unchangeably the same. 
 
 Infinite love gave us the Word, 
 
 Inerrant skill each page, 
 God's gift to man with treasures stored 
 
 For every need and age. 
 No skill of self-sufficient man 
 
 Can change its verity; 
 No sneer nor hate of sceptic can 
 
 Destroy its purity. 
 
 Inerraut God, no word of Thine 
 
 Is work of errant hand ; 
 Help finite minds, Spirit divine. 
 
 Thy Word to understand. 
 "Tlius saith the Lord," and erring man 
 
 Hears only to obey; 
 God's gracious Avill and holy plan, 
 
 Man's only rock and stay. 
 
 Thy Church, O God, will stand secure 
 
 On Thine inerrant Word, 
 And in the conflict still endure 
 
 And triumph in her Lord. 
 People of God, here rest your faith : 
 
 Eternal truth will live ; 
 To those who trust Him, as He saith, 
 
 Eternal life He'll ofive. 
 
 Cincinnati, March 5, 1893. 
 
fulord rzr^ 
 
 PAM PHIET BINDER 
 
 ^Z3 Syrocuse, N. Y. 
 ^^ Stockton, Calif. 
 
BS480.M137C.2 
 
 Is inerrancy a new test of orthodoxy? 
 
 Princeton Theological Semlnary-Speer Library