Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 in the section on the Holy Scriptures reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.
But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
God by His singular care and providence kept the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek pure in all ages. The Assembly members responsible for that statement said and wrote a lot about how that occurred. Together they said and wrote that God used Israel and the church as His chain of custody to keep the Word “pure in all ages.” Here is how the leading Assembly members described the roles of Israel and the church in that preservation.
Israel as the “Librarians” of the Old Testament
The Assembly members frequently referred to the Jewish people as the capsarii (book-bearers) or librarians for the church. They argued that while Israel may have rejected the Messiah, they were meticulously faithful in preserving the physical text. According to Project Gutenberg’s “A Day in Old Rome,” the capsarii were ancient Roman slave attendants who carried books, writing tablets, and school materials for children. Israel was charged with guarding the divine truths, ensuring the transmission of the law and prophecies that pointed to the Messiah.
Leigh and Lightfoot (Members of the Assembly):
In his Critica Sacra, Edward Leigh wrote:
The Jews were the faithful guardians of the Old Testament. . . . Though they were most bitter enemies to the Christian religion, yet they did not corrupt the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but kept them pure and uncorrupt.
Furthermore, he wrote:
God would not permit the Jews to change one letter of the Law, for even in their deepest apostasy, they held the Scriptures in such high veneration that they would rather die than alter a tittle of them.
John Lightfoot (The Assembly’s foremost Hebraist) argued extensively that the Masoretic points and the Jewish preservation of the text were part of God’s “providential hedge” around the Law, ensuring that not a “jot or tittle” was lost before it reached the church. There were others, like Thomas Manton (Assembly Member):
The Jews were the most faithful guardians of the Scriptures; they counted the letters, the words, and the jots. Though they lost the spirit of the Word, they kept the body of it for us, so that the Church might have an incorruptible witness.
The Church as the Witness and Keeper
For the New Testament and the continued preservation of the Old, the Assembly viewed the church not as the author of scripture’s authority, but as its official guardian. William Whitaker (Whose work Disputations on Holy Scripture was the primary source for WCF Chapter 1):
The church is the witness, the guardian, and the herald of the scriptures. . . . but it does not follow that the authority of the scriptures depends upon the church.
Theophilus Gale (Assembly Member):
The church is the Conservatrix [Preserver] of the Oracles of God. . . . She keeps them as a precious jewel, but she does not give them their value.
Samuel Rutherford (Scottish Commissioner):
The church is not the mother of the Scriptures, but the nurse. She does not give life to the Word, but she holds it up to the world, and by her constant use and public testimony, she declares it to be the very breath of God.
William Twisse (Prolocutor/Chairman of the Assembly):
The church is the witness and keeper of the Word. As a public notary keeps a record, the church preserves the original apographs (copies) so that the truth may be tried and found pure in every generation.
Robert Baillie (Scottish Commissioner):
The Lord hath so ordered it, that in the darkest times of Popery or persecution, the church has never been without a pure copy of the Greek and Hebrew. It is the church’s glory to be the vessel that carries this treasure across the sea of time.
Both Israel and the Church
The Assembly members believed that God used human means (scribes and printers) but guided them with a specific, “singular” oversight. Thomas Gataker argued that even though slips of the pen might occur in individual manuscripts, the body of the church (both the Jewish church of old and the Christian church) always possessed a sufficient and pure text by God’s extraordinary providence. Richard Capel (Assembly Member) wrote:
By the good providence of God, the copies we have are sufficiently pure to be the rule of faith. . . . the Church hath been a faithful keeper of these records.
There were others, like George Gillespie (Scottish Commissioner):
To the Jews were committed the oracles of God, and they were, by a singular providence, made the Library-keepers for the Christian church. . . . though they were enemies to our faith, they were faithful servants to our text.
On the Transition from Israel to the Church
A unique theme in their writing is the passing of the torch from the Old Testament people to the New.
John Lightfoot (Assembly Member):
Israel was the gardener of the Old Testament, but when the Sun of Righteousness arose, the garden was given over to the church of all nations. The Hebrew remains the root, but the church is the fruit-bearer that keeps the root watered.
Thomas Gataker (Assembly Member):
That which the Synagogue did for the Law, the church now does for the Gospel. Both are links in one chain of providence. . . . ensuring that the authentic Word is available to the people in their own language.
Summary of their Theology
The Assembly members viewed the preservation of Scripture as a cooperative providence:
Divine Origin: God inspired it immediately.
Jewish Preservation: Israel acted as the safety deposit box for the Hebrew text until Christ came.
Ecclesiastical Preservation: The church acts as the standard-bearer for both Hebrew and Greek, ensuring they remain “pure in all ages.”
Universal Access: Because the vhurch is the keeper, she has the duty to translate it into vulgar (common) languages so all can hear.
Keeper Rather Than Author
To understand why the Westminster Assembly members were so insistent on the church’s role as a “keeper” rather than an “author,” we have to look at their battle with the Roman Catholic Church of the 17th century. The Roman Catholic argument (the “Circle of Authority”) was that since the church decided which books were in the Bible, the Bible’s authority rested on the church. The Assembly members rejected this, arguing instead that the church simply recognizes the Bible’s self-evidencing light, much as a person recognizes the sun — not by giving it permission to shine, but by seeing its light.
Here are further quotes and arguments from the Assembly members on this specific tension.
1. The Church as a “Signpost,” Not the Destination
The Assembly members used the analogy of a “crier” or a “signpost” to describe the church’s relationship to the Word.
George Gillespie (Scottish Commissioner):
The Church is Index, not Judex; a discoverer, not a judge. She points to the Scriptures and says, ‘This is the Word of God,’ just as a man points to a king. His pointing does not make the king a king, but only signifies him to be so.
Edward Leigh (Assembly Member):
We receive the Scriptures by the testimony of the Church, but we believe them by the testimony of the Spirit. The Church’s voice is the first motive, like the woman of Samaria who called her neighbors to Christ; but once they saw Him, they believed for His own sake, not hers.
2. The Jews as “Unwitting” Witnesses
A major point of 1.8 is that the Hebrew text remained “pure.” The Assembly members argued that God used the Jews’ very obsession with the letter of the Law to protect it against their own rebellion.
John Lightfoot:
The Jews, by a strange and marvelous providence, were made the preservers of those very prophecies which condemn them. They kept the jewels of the Church in their own cabinet, even while they themselves remained outside the house.
Thomas Manton:
If the Jews had corrupted the Hebrew text, Christ and His Apostles would surely have rebuked them for it. But they never did. Instead, they appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures as the final authority, proving that Israel had been a faithful, if blind, librarian.
3. The “Pure in All Ages” Argument
The Assembly members had to explain how the text remained pure despite centuries of copying by fallible men in the Church.
William Whitaker:
The Church hath always had the oracles of God, and though some copies might be more or less correct, the Providence of God so watched over the whole that no saving truth was ever lost or corrupted in the body of the Church.
Richard Baxter (Associated with many Assembly members):
The Church is the witness of the fact that these are the same books written by the Prophets and Apostles; but the Spirit is the witness of the truth of them. The Church keeps the record, but God keeps the Church.
The Crucial Distinction in WCF 1.8
The reason 1.8 insists on appealing to the Hebrew and Greek is that the Assembly members believed the church’s authority was only valid as long as she stayed true to those original languages. As an example, hear Samuel Rutherford:
The Church is under the Word, not over it. If the Church lose the Hebrew and the Greek, she loses her own charter. Therefore, she must be a faithful keeper, lest she become a blind guide.
The Westminster view can be visualized as a divine relay race where the baton (the Word) is never dropped because the Coach (the Holy Spirit) ensures its safe passage. I know that when some of you read this, you will say that they didn’t have a church or were not the church or a true church. Even if they were not, the teaching or the principle is still right. They are saying the truth of scripture for their doctrine.
More to Come