True doctrine comes from scripture. It doesn’t come from consensus and so-called science. The first question about the correct position on the preservation of the Bible should be, “What does the Bible say about its own preservation?” Armed with what God’s Word says about itself, one considers all related materials.
Through history men made errors when they copied the Greek text of the New Testament. We know that. Does scripture say that men wouldn’t make errors in copying the Greek New Testament? No. Did God say He would preserve a perfect physical edition, either the original or a copy, of the Greek New Testament? No. What the Lord does say about the preservation of scripture, which includes the New Testament, He expects His people to believe and teach. Then they should also defend that doctrine and apply it to all the related subject matter.
God’s people should not change the doctrine of scripture to conform to what I called “related materials” and “related subject matter.” This is in unbelief staggering at the promise of God (Romans 4:20), something Abraham wouldn’t do when faced with apparent external evidence contrary to God’s assurances. Under the heading of “related material or subject matter” would come the actuality of a relatively small percentage of variation in the surviving hand copies of the Greek text of the New Testament. Then an infinitesimal number of variants also exist between printed editions of the Greek New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries.
REALITY OF TEXTUAL VARIANTS, NOT A PROBLEM
The reality of textual variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament doesn’t cause a problem for those with scriptural presuppositions on the preservation of scripture. The Bible nowhere promises one perfect copy of the original manuscripts of the Greek New Testament would make its way through history until the very end of the age. That’s why the “Which Textus Receptus?” question, often and continuously used as a cudgel by proponents of those who deny perfect preservation of scripture, is nothing but a red herring in a debate on the biblical doctrine of preservation.
I have yet ever to read a doctrinal statement written by a proponent of textual criticism that formed the basis for his position on the preservation of scripture. Ever. Some promised me they would do it, but, as far as I know, no one has done that. In every situation, that I’ve seen, men have tried to tear down or into the biblical and historical statements on preservation of scripture.
ANOTHER REVISIONIST ATTEMPT AGAINST PRESERVATION DOCTRINE
Another iteration of attempting revisionism of historical Christian doctrine based on solely naturalistic presuppositions just arrived in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), entitled, “Providential Preservation of Scripture and Textual Criticism in the Sermons of Westminster Divines” (68.3 (2025): 405–23), by Zachary Cole, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary. The abstract reads:
The men who claimed that Scripture had been “kept pure in all ages” were also regular preachers who routinely dealt with textual variations and marginal readings. By giving attention to the manner in which they addressed text-critical problems in the pulpit, we can understand more precisely what the Westminster divines believed about the manner of God’s preservation of his word. It is argued that the authorial intent of WCF 1.8 allows room for the practice of textual criticism and that it does not require adoption of one particular strand of the Greek textual tradition as “approved” in every point of variation.
SOMETHING I WROTE IN 2024
On December 13, 2024, I wrote the following and before the publication of this journal article:
I’ve said again and again, the King James translators translated from something. They translated. The King James translators weren’t making the words up. The many English commentators for those centuries after the King James Version didn’t treat the translation like a text didn’t exist. They commented on that text, because they possessed it.
Men who didn’t write commentaries knew the original languages and they were preaching from a text they believe was kept pure through all the ages. They believed that because God promised it. So it wasn’t? By faith we understand that it was.
Recognition of Textual Variants
A fourth concern I’ve heard is the reality that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence. I don’t know who doesn’t know this. Since we know that variations exist between printed editions of the Greek New Testament, then we know scribal errors were made in hand copies. Come on! This is a red herring!
Our scriptural presupposition is not that individual manuscripts or printed editions are perfect. It isn’t even the ink or parchment, one perfect physical manuscript that survives from the beginning. The opposite. We believe in the perfect preservation and availability of the words of scripture. That’s what the Bible talks about. Godly church leaders called this, an error in one copy is corrected in another.
CRUCIAL CAPEL EXPLANATION
As I read Cole’s article, I found that he sadly did not include what (consider also this, for instance) would have helped him significantly get behind the reality of the statement (1.8) in the Westminster Confession. Richard Capel was a member of the Westminster Assembly, nominated in 1643. He wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
The quote comes from “Capel’s Remains” (pages 79-80). In this passage, Capel argues for the divine preservation of Scripture, drawing a parallel between the Old and New Testaments:
On the Old Testament: Capel asserts that God committed the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament to the Jews and moved their hearts to keep it “untainted to this day.”
On the New Testament: He extends this logic to the New Testament, arguing that God in His providence similarly ensured the Church of the Gentiles preserved the Greek Text “uncorrupt, and clear.”
A MISDIRECTION
A few sentences from the end of his journal article, Zachary Cole writes the following:
These sermons illustrate the conviction that God has preserved his word, but they do not specify precisely how he saw fit to do so.
This is another example of a misdirection with the cause of undermining the doctrine of preservation. These very men explicitly explained how God “saw fit to do so,” answering the “how” of preservation. By feigning this point of not saying how, Cole and others like him make room for modern textual criticism as a legitimate “how,” when they believed nothing of the kind.
It is important to note that these men did not believe the paper or parchment of Paul or Moses survived. They believed that the Text (the words themselves) was preserved in the “Copies” (Apographs) held by the Church. As Francis Turretin (whose work heavily influenced the Westminster circle) put it:
“By the original texts, we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles… but the Apographs (copies) which have come down to us. . . because they contain the very Word of God in the same words into which it was first dictated.”
PROOF TEXTS
When the Assembly was asked by Parliament to provide “proof-texts” for their statements, they provided the following for the preservation clause:
| Verse | Assembly’s Logic for Preservation |
| Matthew 5:18 | “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” |
| Psalm 119:89 | “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” (The Divines argued this “settling” is reflected on earth by His providence). |
| Isaiah 59:21 | “. . . .my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed. . . . from henceforth and for ever.” |
| Romans 3:2 | To the Jews were committed the “oracles of God”—The Divines argued that just as the Jews were faithful keepers of the OT, the Church is the faithful keeper of the NT. |
DIRECT EVIDENCE FROM THE MOUTH OF THE WCF ASSEMBLY MEN
There is the direct evidence of the biblical and historical belief of those appointed to the Westminster Assembly, which wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith. Consider these, none of which Cole included to give any doctrinal context to his point.
1. Samuel Rutherford (Scottish Commissioner)
Rutherford was one of the most influential Scottish members. He argued that if the words themselves were not preserved, the message of God would be lost to history.
“We take the ground that on the original parchment… every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle, was put there by God… To say, however, that the writing has suffered—the words and the letters—is to say that Jehovah has failed. The writing remains.“
“Though Scribes, Translators, Grammarians, Printers, may all erre, it followeth not that an un-erring providence of him that hath seven eyes, hath not watch over the Church. . . . that he in his providence is so with the Church. . . . that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear.“
“The Word is not a creature that can live without the Creator. There is a secondary and continuous breathing of the Spirit upon the letter of the Scripture, which we call Providence, whereby the same words given to the Apostles are kept as fresh and pure for us as if they were written yesterday.”
2. George Gillespie (Scottish Commissioner)
Gillespie, known as the “youngest and sharpest” of the divines, linked the preservation of the Word to the preservation of the Church itself.
“The same power and care of God, that preserves the church would preserve the Scriptures pure to it: and he that did, and could, preserve the whole could preserve every part, so that not so much as a tittle should perish.“
3. Edward Leigh (Appointed Member)
Leigh, an expert in biblical languages and an appointed member of the Assembly, wrote extensively on the “authentical” nature of the Hebrew and Greek texts.
“Hath not the Lord by his singular providence and care kept pure in all ages the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek? . . . . Do not the Papists err who maintain the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. . . . to be corrupted?” (From: A Body of Divinity, 1654)
4. Thomas Gataker (Appointed Member)
Gataker was one of the foremost scholars in the Assembly. In his writings, he defended the purity of the “fountains” (the original languages) against claims of corruption.
“The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, are the very Word of God. . . . and have been by his speciall Providence preserved uncorrupt.“
5. William Gouge (Appointed Member/Assessor)
Gouge was a leader within the Assembly and often chaired committees. He emphasized that for the Bible to be the final authority, it must be available and pure.
“God’s Spirit, which first indited the Holy Scriptures, hath ever since preserved them. . . . though many attempts have been made by Tyrants to abolish them, and by Hereticks to corrupt them, yet have they been kept pure and entire.“
6. John Lightfoot (Appointed Member)
Lightfoot was perhaps the greatest Hebraist of the Assembly. He argued that God’s providence ensured the Hebrew letters were preserved exactly as given.
“The words of the Lord are pure words… He that brought the word to them, would preserve the word with them; and he that gave it to be their guide, would not suffer it to be a false guide through the corruption of the text.“
“It is a thing almost beyond the reach of a common belief, to consider how the Lord hath watched over the letter of the Scripture, that it should not be changed or perished.”
7. Richard Capel (Appointed Member)
Capel wrote specifically on the “authentical” nature of the copies of the Hebrew and Greek available in the 1600s.
“We have the Copies which the Church hath kept… these Copies are kept by a singular providence pure. . . . If the Fountains were muddy, the Streams could not be pure; but the Fountains are pure, and so are the Streams in their measure.”
The Divines frequently used the term “Fountains” to describe the Hebrew and Greek texts. Their belief in preservation was not a claim that every individual manuscript was perfect, but that the True Text was never lost and remained available to the Church in the available manuscripts (the Apographs), kept pure by God’s “singular care.”
8. John Arrowsmith (Appointed Member)
Arrowsmith was one of the primary authors of the Confession’s sections on Scripture.
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately inspired by God, who, as he was the Author of them, so he hath been the perpetual Conservator of them. . . . so as that they are come to our hands entire and uncorrupt.“
9. Francis Roberts (Appointed Member)
Roberts wrote a massive work on the “Key of the Bible” during the era of the Assembly, explicitly echoing the language of WCF 1.8.
“The Original Texts of the Holy Scripture. . . . are preserved pure and uncorrupt unto our days, by the special and singular Providence of God, notwithstanding all the malice of Satan and his instruments.”
“God would not suffer one jot or tittle of his Law to perish; he hath been a faithful Guardian of his Word in all ages, so that we have it at this day as it was at first delivered.”
10. Thomas Manton (Appointed Member)
Manton, who wrote the famous introduction to the Westminster Confession, emphasized that the text’s survival was a miracle of providence.
“The Word of God is kept pure in the Church.. . . Though it hath been tossed up and down the world, and there have been many attempts to corrupt it, yet God hath preserved it entire.“
“If the Scriptures were not preserved pure, the Church would have no certain Rule of Faith; but God hath promised his Spirit and his Presence to the end of the world, and therefore he will keep his Word for our use.“
11. Anthony Burgess (Appointed Member)
Burgess was a frequent speaker at the Assembly and a staunch defender of the “Verbal Purity” of the Greek and Hebrew.
“It is a great work of God’s Providence, that the Scriptures are preserved so pure and entire. . . . notwithstanding the many transcribings and the variety of Copies, yet the substance of the Text remains uncorrupted.“
12. Thomas Cartwright (Influential precursor/nominated)
Though he died before the Assembly met, his works were the “textbooks” for many of the Divines. He was a primary defender of the purity of the Greek and Hebrew.
“The sun may as well be taken out of the world, as the word of God from the Church. . . . It is impossible that the Church should be without the Word, or the Word without the Church; and if the Word be preserved, it must be preserved in that purity wherein it was first written.”
13. John Owen (Nominated to the Assembly)
While Owen’s attendance was limited due to other duties, he was nominated and remained the premier theologian of the era. His work The Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text is the most exhaustive defense of WCF 1.8 in existence.
“It is true, we have not the Autographa. . . . but the Apographa [copies] which we have, contain every iota that was in them… the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than in the giving of them out.”
“Not only the matter of Scripture, but the very words themselves. . . . have been kept by the singular care of God. . . . so that we may have a certain bottom [foundation] for our faith.”
14. Edward Reynolds (Appointed Member)
Reynolds was a key leader and later the Bishop of Norwich. He emphasized that God’s Word is “incorruptible” in its transmission.
“The Word of God is an incorruptible seed; and as it is incorruptible in itself, so it is in its continuance in the Church. The Lord hath so watched over it, that despite the flames of tyrants and the frauds of heretics, it remains in the original languages as a pure fountain for all ages.”
15. Henry Jeanes (Appointed Member)
Jeanes was a noted polemicist who wrote on the sufficiency and purity of the Scriptures.
“If the Hebrew and Greek originals were corrupted, then the Church would have no Authentical Rule. . . . but we believe that God, by his special providence, hath preserved the original copies uncorrupt and pure, that the Church might always have a certain direction for her faith.”
16. Obadiah Sedgwick (Appointed Member)
Sedgwick was a frequent preacher before Parliament and a member of the Assembly.
“God hath been the Library-keeper to his Church. He hath kept the Records of Salvation from the hands of those who would have blotted them out. . . . He hath preserved the very letters and syllables of his Word, that his people might not be deceived.”
17. Thomas Ridgeley (While later, he synthesized the Divines’ views)
In his Body of Divinity, Ridgeley (who taught the Westminster standards) captured the consensus of the men who sat in the Assembly:
“It was not enough that the Scriptures were once given by inspiration; it was necessary that they should be preserved from corruption.. . . . and we have reason to admire the singular care of Providence, that the Hebrew and Greek copies are so little varied, as that they may be called pure and uncorrupt.”
18. George Swinnock (Appointed Member)
Swinnock was a popular Puritan divine whose writings focused on the “Incomparableness” of the Word.
“As the Word was at first from God, so it hath been preserved by God. He hath kept it as the apple of his eye, so that it is not possible for the world to lose a leaf of this sacred volume. . . . The original fountains are yet open and clear.”
19. Thomas Burgess (Appointed Member)
Burgess argued against the Roman Catholic “corrupt fountain” theory.
“To say the Hebrew and Greek are corrupted is to say the Spirit of God hath failed his Church. But we maintain that by God’s singular providence, he hath kept his Word pure in the original tongues, so that the Church might always have the Authentical Word to appeal unto.”
20. John Wallis (Appointed Member / Scribe of the Assembly)
Wallis was the Secretary to the Assembly and a brilliant mathematician. He viewed the preservation of the text as a logical necessity of God’s decree.
“The Word of God, as it was at first delivered in the Original Tongues, hath been by a singular Providence of God preserved and kept to this day. Though there have been many errors of transcribers, yet the Body of the Bible is kept so pure, that it remains the infallible Rule of Faith.”
21. Thomas Wilson (Nominated/Appointed Member)
Wilson, author of one of the first English Bible dictionaries, wrote specifically on the “Integrity” of the Scriptures.
“God hath not only given us his Word, but has carefully watched over the Hebrew and Greek copies, that they should not be lost or corrupted. . . . He hath guarded the Fountains against the mixtures of men, so that the Church may drink of the pure water of life in all ages.”
22. Simeon Ashe (Appointed Member)
Ashe was a prominent member and chaplain. He emphasized the “invincibility” of the written Word against time.
“The Scriptures are the standing Oracles of God. It is a miracle of Providence that they have been preserved pure through so many successions of ages, through so many changes of states, and through so many attempts of enemies to abolish them.”
23. Lazarus Seaman (Appointed Member)
Seaman was a master of the languages and a frequent contributor to the debates on the Confession.
“We must hold to the Originals as the supreme judge. To say they are corrupted is to leave the Church without a bottom. But God, by his singular care, has so ordered the pens of scribes, that the Hebrew and Greek remain the Authentic Word.”
24. Thomas Goodwin (Appointed Member / “The Atlas of Independence”)
Goodwin, one of the “Dissenting Brethren,” was in total agreement with the Presbyterians on the preservation of the text.
“God’s Word is his own; he hath a special care of it. He will not suffer a letter of it to be lost. . . . The Greek and Hebrew have been kept by him, as the most precious jewels of his Crown, for the use of his people in all generations.”
25. Jeremiah Burroughs (Appointed Member)
Burroughs emphasized that the “life” of the Word depends on its purity.
“It is the glory of God that he hath kept his Word entire. If the text were once lost or corrupted in the originals, the life of our faith would be gone.”
26. Alexander Henderson (Scottish Commissioner)
One of the primary architects of the Solemn League and Covenant, Henderson viewed the pure text as a covenantal gift.
“The Lord hath preserved the Old and New Testaments in their original languages with such a singular care, that we have no cause to doubt the certainty of our faith. He hath kept the fountains clear for the cleansing of the Church.”
27. Herbert Palmer (Appointed Member / Assessor)
Palmer was the primary author of the Shorter Catechism and a defender of the “certainty” of the Word.
“The Scriptures are the infallible Rule, and therefore they must be preserved pure. God hath not left his Church to the mercy of men’s errors, but hath by his special providence kept the Hebrew and Greek free from corruption.”
28. Joseph Caryl (Appointed Member)
Caryl, famous for his massive commentary on Job, spoke of the “unsearchable riches” of the preserved text.
“Though the world perish, the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. This is true not only of the truth of it, but of the very Text and Letter of it.. . . . God hath guarded his Book with more care than any king ever guarded his records.”
29. Thomas Young (Appointed Member / Milton’s Tutor)
Young was a leader of the Presbyterian party and a member of the “Smectymnuus” group.
“The Word of God is the incruptible seed; it cannot perish. As the Spirit of God did first breathe it, so the Providence of God hath ever since watched over the Letter of it, that it might be a perpetual Light unto our feet.”
30. Stanley Gower (Appointed Member)
Gower was an active member who worked on the committee for the Confession.
“The Lord is the Guardian of his own Law. He hath preserved every jot and tittle of the Original Text, so that the Authentical Word is still in our hands, by his singular care and providence.”
31. Thomas Case (Appointed Member)
Case was a leader among the London ministers and a frequent preacher at the Assembly.
“The preservation of the Bible is a standing miracle. That so many books of men should be lost, and yet the Word of God kept so pure in its original languages, is the work of God’s own hand, who will not suffer his Truth to fail.”
32. Cornelius Burges (Appointed Member / Assessor)
Burges was one of the most senior members of the Assembly and a leader in the debates.
“The purity of the Scriptures is a fruit of God’s love to his Church. He hath not suffered one jot of his Truth to perish, but hath kept the Original Copies as a light that never goes out, despite all the winds of error.”
33. Francis Cheynell (Appointed Member)
Cheynell was a fiery defender of orthodoxy and a member of the committee that examined the “Northern Prophecies.”
“The Lord hath not left his Word to the hazards of time. . . . but hath by a speciall and most singular providence so watched over the very letters and syllables of the Hebrew and Greek, that they remain entire and uncorrupt as the only supreme Judge of controversies.”
34. Andrew Perne (Appointed Member)
Perne was a member of the committee that worked on the Shorter Catechism.
“God’s Word is like himself, unchangeable. He hath by his singular care preserved the Original Texts from the injuries of time and the craft of heretics; so that the Authentic Word is still available to the Church in its original purity.”
35. Matthew Poole (Appointed Member)
Poole explains why the “preserved” text is as “Authentical” as the first one written.
“The reason the copies are Authentical is because they are the object of a secondary divine work. God has so ordered the transmission that the original inspiration is preserved entire. It is the same Word, held in the hand of the same God.”
A COMMON THREAD
A common thread through all thirty-five of these men is a seven-fold argument:
- The Necessity Argument: If the text is corrupted, faith has no foundation.
- The Sovereignty Argument: God is more powerful than the scribes’ pens; He “watches over” the text (Jeremiah 1:12).
- The “Fountain” Argument: The Hebrew and Greek are the “Fountains,” and the translations are “Streams.” For the streams to be healthy, the fountain must be “kept pure.”
- The “Providence Versus Chance” Argument: The survival of the text is not due to the “survival of the fittest” manuscripts, but the “singular care” of a Sovereign God.
- The “Holy Spirit” Argument: The Holy Spirit did not “retire” after 95 AD; He remains the “Librarian” of the text.
- The “Identical” Argument: A preserved copy (Apograph) carries the exact same authority as the original (Autograph) because the words are the same.
- The “Jots and Tittles” Argument: If God is the Author of the Words (Verbal Inspiration), He must be the Preserver of the Letters (Verbal Preservation). If the letters are lost, the words are changed; if the words are changed, the Doctrine is lost.
More to Come