Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
The views on the preservation of scripture in 1.8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith didn’t start there. They represented the historic doctrine of preservation. It didn’t stop there either. Chapter one of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith on the “Holy Scriptures” in 1689 is nearly identical to chapter one of the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1646. The Savoy Declaration in 1658 mirrored 1.8 before that. So did the Helvetic Formula Consensus in 1675. These are a lot of different people from many different places, who believed a true gospel, which included justification by faith in Christ alone.
Statements agreeing with WCF 1.8 also preceded that one, such as The Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 and then The Irish Articles of 1615. No wonder, because scripture teaches this doctrine. First, the Bible teaches this doctrine of the providential and perfect preservation of scripture. All of these men through all of these statements didn’t get this from nowhere. What one should wonder is how someone could change the doctrine or get away with changing it without any kind of biblical explanation for the change.
When beliefs change and there is no biblical explanation, what is that? It is not of God or His Word. Neither is it good. At all. It gets even worse when people treat this matter like it doesn’t even exist. Finally, the proponents of the new, unbiblical viewpoint attack and slander those who embrace the position of all the above doctrinal statements over hundreds of years. Now they really will not touch what I’m presenting here, hardly a peep, and they would rather that modern audiences did. not. know.
James Ussher
James Ussher was the primary author of the Irish Articles in 1615. That’s the biggest reason I include the statement there, because he wrote the following in his Body of Divinity:
The Scripture is not only a pure and perfect word, but also a permanent and perpetual rule; for the Lord hath promised to maintain and continue it in his Church for ever. . . . [it is] by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.
That language obviously became an important basis of the 1646 statement in WCF, embraced by its adherents and then those of London Baptist Confession. Ussher wrote other applicable statements.
On the Sufficiency of the Original Languages
Ussher was a “vocalic” scholar, meaning he believed even the smallest marks of the Hebrew text were preserved by God to ensure clarity.
We may not think that God’s Spirit, which assisted the Prophets in the writing of the Holy Scriptures, would fail his Church in the preserving of them; but that he hath always stirred up some faithful ministers. . . . to keep them pure and uncorrupt.
On the Internal Witness (The Holy Spirit’s Preservation)
Ussher argued that the same Spirit that wrote the Bible keeps it from being lost to history.
The Scripture itself, being the word of God, hath a self-evidencing power, and by the light that is in it, it showeth itself to be of God.. . . . and the Lord by his providence hath so preserved the same, that no part of it is perished.
On “Errors” vs. “Preservation”
When addressing the critics of his day who pointed out minor differences in manuscripts, Ussher wrote:
Whatever variety of readings may be found in several copies, yet by the singular providence of God, the text hath been preserved in its purity, that in nothing which concerns the doctrine of faith and manners, there is any substantial or material alteration.
Second Helvetic Confession (1566) and Heinrich Bullinger
Going back further is the Second Helvetic Confession in 1566, mainly written by Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger’s Decades (a series of sermons) was a standard theological textbook for clergy before Ussher’s time. In it, he is more explicit about the physical preservation of the text. In The First Sermon, “Of the Word of God,” he wrote:
The Lord, for the preservation of the true religion, would have his Word set down in writing. . . . and by his providence, he hath preserved the same against the fury of the world and the devil, so that even to this day it remains whole and uncorrupted.
Bullinger argued that if God breathed the words, God must necessarily watch over those words. He wrote in De Scripturae Sanctae Authoritate:
It is unthinkable that the Almighty would suffer the light of His Word to be extinguished by the negligence of scribes or the malice of tyrants; He who gave the Word gives also the means of its survival.
I haven’t even talked about the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBC) in 1689. We’ve got Bullinger in 1566 and Ussher in 1615, the WCF 1.8 in 1646, and forty-three years later, the LBC again. One-hundred seven churches from England and Wales sent representatives to the General Assembly in London in September 1689 to endorse and sign the document. While over 100 churches were represented, there were 37 primary signatories who signed the document on behalf of the whole assembly. Famous names among them include: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Benjamin Keach.
Preface to LBC 1689
In the Preface to the 1689 Confession, the signatories explained why they used the exact words of the Westminster Assembly members. They wanted to assert that — among other things — their view of the Bible’s preservation was identical to that of those men, even though they were different on some doctrinal positions:
We did conclude it necessary to express ourselves the more fully and distinctly. . . . and also to manifest our consent with both [the Westminster and Savoy Confessions] in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion.
We have. . . . used the very same words with them, both in these articles. . . . to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us.
Hanserd Knollys (Primary Signatory of LBC)
Knollys was the most linguistically gifted of the group, a teacher of Hebrew and Greek. In his work The World that Now Is, and the World that is to Come (1681), he explicitly defends the purity of the manuscripts:
The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. . . . were written in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues by the Prophets and Apostles, by Divine Inspiration; and have been by a singular Providence of God kept pure and uncorrupt in the Original Tongues.
He further clarifies the “authentical” nature of these texts:
The Original Texts are the Standard and Rule by which all Translations are to be tryed and corrected. . . . for God hath preserved the same in His Church throughout all Ages.
Benjamin Keach (Another Primary Signatory of LBC)
Keach was the primary defender of the faith among these Baptists. In his massive work Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (1681), he writes about the Incorruptible nature of the Word:
The Word of God is a pure Word, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. . . . and this Word, by the watchful Eye of Divine Providence, hath been preserved from being lost or corrupted, notwithstanding all the craft of Satan, or the malice of its enemies.
In his Gold Refin’d; or, The Baptism of Believers Prov’d (1689), he echoes the final appeal of WCF 1.8:
We must always have recourse to the Originals; and we find that the Original Greek is kept pure, and that the word Baptizo signifies to dip or overwhelm.
He frequently defended the idea that for the Bible to be a rule of faith, it must be perfectly preserved in its “Body” (the words). In The Banquetting-House (1692), he writes:
If the Word of God were not kept pure in the Languages in which it was written, our Faith would be built upon the failings of men [translators]. . . . but God has watched over every Tittle of the Hebrew and Greek, that His People may have an Infallible Standard.
William Kiffin (Another Major Name of the Primary SIgnatories of LBC)
Kiffin’s writings were often more practical and focused on church order, but in his A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion (1681), he foundations his entire argument on the exactness of the preserved Word:
That the Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith and Practice, and that they have been preserved by the Care of God in that Purity that they were first delivered to the Church; otherwise we should be at a great loss for a Rule to walk by.
He also notes:
God, who at first gave the Word, hath also undertaken the Preservation of it. . . . that the Church in all after-ages might have a sure and certain Guide.
Other Signatories of the Second London Baptist Confession
Nehemiah Coxe (Primary Compiler)
Coxe was adamant that the Hebrew text was preserved exactly as it was given to Moses and the Prophets. In his Discourse of the Covenants (1681), he argues:
The Authority of the Holy Scriptures. . . . depends not upon the Church, but upon God the Author of them: and as He hath by His singular Care and Providence kept them pure in all Ages, so we have the Original Fountains to have recourse unto… even to the smallest point [jot] of the Hebrew.
Hercules Collins (Signatory)
In his Orthodox Catechism (1680), Collins explains that the purity of the text is what makes it authentical (legally binding):
We appeal to the Originals, because they were immediately inspired by God, and by his singular Care and Providence kept pure in all Ages. . . . for the Streams [translations] must be tried by the Fountain, and where they vary from the Pure Original, they are to be corrected.
Christopher Blackwood (Signatory and Early Baptist Scholar)
In his Exposition of Matthew, he writes about the impossibility of God’s Word being lost:
It is a thing impossible that any part of the Canonical Scripture should be lost, or so corrupted that the sense is changed; for God’s Care is more for His Word than for the Heavens and the Earth. . . the Hebrew and Greek are the same today as they were when they first dropped from the Penmen.
Their Two Front War
These men were fighting a two-front war for the Bible.
Against the Quakers: Who they felt relied too much on “inner light” over the written text.
Against Rome: Which argued that the Greek and Hebrew were corrupted and only the Latin Vulgate (and the Church’s authority) was reliable.
By using the language of perfect preservation, they were asserting that the Baptist faith was not a new religion, but was built on the ancient, uncorrupted foundation of the Apostles.
This series took a turn with this post into what preceded and then proceeded from the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, especially the latter with the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. These posts relate the existence of textual variants to the teachings of scripture, the presuppositions of the Westminster Assembly members and then believing men before and after them. The next post will chronicle the continuation of these beliefs by others.
More To Come