Of the word of the Lord. The circumstance of the person sending, the efficient, and author, as of other prophecies, so of this; he comes not unsent, he spoke not of himself, he came not without the Lord, but from him. So he affirmeth, and truly, to get more reverence, credit, and authority with them. And that it was thus from the Lord, and so canonical, the testimonies of Christ and his apostles, alleging him divers times for confirmation of doctrine and reformation of manners, proveth it; but he addeth “the word of the Lord,” not only to shew that he had but the word,– the rod and execution would come after, God making his word good,—but, as some think, to shew that he had not a free embassage, but that he was to deliver it in certain and set prescribed words. Sometime, when prophets were more frequent and perpetual in the church, and God spoke to them by dreams or by visions and apparitions, they had divers kinds of words, and had liberty for divers manners of speaking and delivery; but our prophet was such a messenger, that the commandment he had received and was credited with he must deliver in so many words, and the same he received them in ; and so he doth, for in the whole he never useth his own person, but the Lord only, as chap. 1:2, and 2:1, and 3:1, and 4: 1. Here we might observe that the writers of the Scriptures are not the authors, but God himself, of which Rev. 2:7. But one particular may we herein observe, this following:

This prophecy is the very word of the Lord. It is of divine, not human authority, which is not only here affirmed, but, lest it should be doubtful, it hath the testimony of the New Testament: the 3d chap. ver. 1, hath testimony, Mark 1:2; and chap. 4:2 hath testimony, Luke 1:78; and chap. 1:2, 3, Rom. 9:23.

Reason 1. Because this was written by a prophet, for, as all the Old Testament was written by the prophets, so whatsoever was written by them was and is canonical Scripture; therefore, 2 Peter 1:19, Luke 16: 39, Heb. 1:1, Eph. 2: 20. Now all men hold Malachi for a prophet, the last among the Jews till the coming of John Baptist.

Reason 2. Because the church of the Jews, the only church of God, did receive this, and so acknowledged it as the word of God. That they did so appears Mat. 17:10, and the apostles and the evangelists alleging of it, for it is a far more impious and heinous thing to take away scripture than corruptly to interpret them, or to add scripture if it were not of it.

Use 1. I take instructions from hence, entering the opening and expounding of this prophecy, how I ought to labor with my own heart, and to seek from the Lord assistance and grace to handle this as his word, not carelessly, handling the word and work of God negligently, taking his name in vain, coming to speak out of it without due preparation and constant study and speaking; so talk as of the word of God, 1 Peter 4:11; not handling it with vanity, and affectation; not making merchandise and playing the huckster with it; delivering it with a sincere affection, dealing faithfully with it as a faithful dispenser, giving to everyone his portion where and to whom the Spirit of God hath set them down,—to priest and people, to old and to young, to married and unmarried, to the good and profane,—without fear and flattery, or any other sinister affections, remembering that this in the first is in the whole, and to every verse, it is the word of the Lord, fearing to corrupt as well as to add, lest that I hear, as it is Prov. 39:6, “Add not to his words lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”; remembering that of Luke 12:42, that I may be a faithful and wise steward; that I may obtain that, ver. 43, 44, which, how soon it may be general or to me in particular, whether before I have gone through the whole, or this chapter, or this verse, I know not.

Richard Stock, A Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachi, 1651, (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1865), 11-12.

To show the significance of the words “pure Originals,” the writing of a central figure in the formulation of reformation thought is enlisted. William Whitaker (or Whitacre, 1547-1595), Regius Professor of Divinity and Master of St. John’s College in the University of Cambridge wrote a treatise entitled A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton.^[1] Whitaker’s reputation as a scholar was recognized even by his ecclesiastical nemesis, Bellarmine. It is reported that Bellarmine kept a picture of Whitaker in his study. When asked by other Jesuits why he kept a picture of a heretic in his study he would answer, quod quamvis haereticus erat et adversaries, erat tamen doctus adversaries, that “although he was a heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned adversary.”^[2]

When engaged in his doctoral research in the unpublished minutes of the Westminster Assembly Dr. Wayne R. Spear tabulated the frequency with which the names of various authors were mentioned in the debates at the Assembly.^[3] According to Spear’s findings, Whitaker was cited more times during the formation of the Westminster Confession that any other single author.^[4] This finding alone illustrates Whitaker’s service as a bridge of contiguous exegetically informed theology between Calvin and Willet, to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Francis Turretin (1623-1687).

In his Disputation Whitaker fervently defends the writings of Calvin and utilizes him extensively in some places as the principal basis for his discussion.^[5] Whitaker’s congruity with Calvin extended the influence of Calvin’s governance over future theological formulation. Built as it was upon the work of Calvin, even Whitaker’s diction to describe the Protestant view of Scripture was adopted by the Westminster Divines.^[6] Not only do his writings bring continuity between Calvin and the Westminster Divines but he also uses language that later Francis Turretin would borrow in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology almost 100 years later.^[7] Arguing the question of authority, Whitaker writes,

For we gladly receive the testimony of the church, and admit it is authority; but we affirm that there is a far different, more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is autopistos, that is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; it is to be acknowledged, is to be received…because it comes from God; and that we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by the Holy Ghost.”^[8]

Whitaker held that the Greek edition in his possession “is no other than the inspired archetypical scripture of the new testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian church.”^[9] Against Jerome’s Latin he argued that “Much more ought the Greek to be concluded authentical, which the churches of the Greeks have always used from the apostles times in the public liturgies, homilies, commentaries, and books,”^[10] and “That all these virtues (weightiest, purest, most venerable and impartial) must needs still be greater in the Greek edition, which is that of the apostles and evangelists, and finally, of the Holy Ghost himself.”^[11]

---

[1] William Whitaker, A Disputation of Holy Scripture Against the papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, 1588 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849).

[2] Whitaker, Disputation, 359.

[3] Wayne R. Spear, “William Whitaker and the Westminster Doctrine of Scripture, Reformed Theological Journal 7 (Nov. 1991), 38-48.

[4] Spear, “William Whitaker,” 40.

[5] Whitaker, Disputation, 193, defending Chemnitz’s and Calvin’s objections to the Vulgate. “We proceed to break the force of this portion also of Bellarmine’s defense, and to shew that the Greek original (apografh) in the new testament is purer than the Latin edition;” 293-294, Calvin’s external evidences proving the scriptures to be inspired; 340-351, extensive use of the Institutes 1.7.1-1.7.5; 514, defending Calvin; 619 we find Whitaker’s defense of Chemnitz, Bremtus and Calvin against Bellarmine.

[6] Whitaker, Disputation, 148: “For Authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all Scripture is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. Iii. 16;” 296: “We confess that God hath not spoken by himself, but by others…For God inspired the prophets with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and hands: the Scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of God.” See Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1, art. 8, “being immediately inspired by God.”

[7] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), 71, of the original language copies, autopistian; 126, of versions, autopiston.

[8] Whitaker, Disputation, 279-280.

[9] Whitaker, Disputation, 142. Also see 280: “The state of the controversy, therefore is this: Whether we should believe that these Scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the Scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.”

[10] Whitaker, Disputation, 143.

[11] Whitaker, Disputation, 144.

That the Scriptures are also strict injunctions of Divine Authority concerning our duties. The reason of our faith and obedience to the Scriptures, is  into their Divine Authority, which as it is the greatest of all, so upon less we may not depend…God is infallible in his understanding, faithful in his declarations, and so highly deserves our assent. He is Almighty and most true, and therefore we believe and hope in the promises of his word. As God, he hath a right to command, and we as creatures are obliged to obey, and so we receive his commands. God’s authority only could justly make us believe, obey, and fear, what is there declared, promised, commanded, and threatened.

There is a place of Scripture which the Papists do impertinently allege for the obscurity, (i.e.) the dishonor of God’s word, which as it is nothing to their purpose, so it doth most excellently serve to prove what we have in hand. ὑμῶν τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any interpretation. The design of the Apostle was the same with mine, to exhort Christians to give heed to Scriptures, as such Oracles which could not deceive them. He affirms the prophetic word surer than a private revelation, which he , James and John had in the Mount, and commends the diligent heed they gave to it, till the day-star should arise, peradventure till the truth of the prophecies of Christ shined forth in their accomplishment. But the stress of all this hope in the Scriptures, lies upon this, that none of them were ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, private impulse; meaning, as Saint Paul says in other words, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. All Scripture is divinely inspired. And this appears by the verse that follows. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So that ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται signifies they are not of men’s private will, but from the divine spirit. The Prophets did not go on their own head, as we say, but on God’s errand. When God reproved those that went without his biding, he says thus, I sent them not, and yet they ran. (Jer. 23:21). So that the fence will be, those holy men who delivered the Scriptures, upon which you rely, wrote not what came into their minds as from themselves, but they set down God’s will.

Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E.T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 35-38.

In the Treatise of the government of the tongue published by me heretofore, I had occasion to take notice among the exorbitances of that unruly part, which sets on fire the whole course of nature, and itself is set on fire from hell, James 3:6, of the impious vanity prevailing in this age, whereby men play with sacred things, and exercise their wit upon those Scriptures by which they shall be judged at the last day, John 12:49.

Richard Allestree, The Lively Oracles Given to us or The Christian’s Birth-right and Duty, in the custody and use of the Holy Scripture (At the Theater in Oxford, 1678), Preface.

So here what a large encomium and high commendation the Holy Ghost gives of the Scriptures, even such as is given to no other book in the world besides.

1. He commends them in respect of one special property and adjunct, viz. their Holiness. The Holy Scriptures.
2. From their effects, they are able to make us wise unto salvation.
3. From their Authority, Utility, and Perfection, verse 16, 17.

The Holy Scriptures. Tis not simple “holy” but “the holy.” Those eminently holy letters, those sacred Scriptures; the article is emphatic, and therefore the Holy Ghost to distinguish these sacred writings from all profane writings, gives then such adjuncts and epithets as are incompatible to all other writings whatsoever. Now the reason why God would have his word written is this, viz. that it might be kept the better, and be propagated to posterity, and be more easily kept, and vindicated from corruption than revelations could have been, 1 Peter 1:19.

Observe: The word of God is holy Scriptures. This is its proper adjunct and excellency; tis holy, Rom. 1:2. They are perfectly holy in themselves, all other writings are profane further then they draw some holiness from them, which yet is never such, but that their holiness is imperfect.

1. In respect to their Author and principle cause, viz. the most holy God.
2. In respect of the penmen and instrumental cause, they were holy men of God, 2 Peter 1:21.
3.  In respect of their matter; they treat of the holy things of God. They teach nothing that is impure or profane. They teach us holiness in doctrine and practice. They call upon us for self-denial, universal obedience, and teach us to do all things from holy principles, and for holy ends.
4. In respect of their ends and effect, viz. our sanctification, John 17:17, by reading and hearing, and meditation on God’s word, the Holy Ghost doth sanctify us, Psalm 19:8,9. The word of God is not only pure, but purifying, not only clean per se, but effectively a cleaning word.
5. By way of distinction and opposition, they are called Holy to distinguish them not only from human and profane, but also from ecclesiastical writings. They have their grains of allowance, but the holy Scripture is pure and perfect.

1. This must bring us to pure minds to the reading, hearing, and handling of God’s holy word. The word is pure, and therefore calls for a pure frame of Spirit in him that reads it: for as no man can rightly sing David’s Psalms without David’s spirit, so no man can rightly understand the word of God, without the Spirit of God. Carnal, sensual hearts, and such divine works will never agree. A vessel that is full of poison, cannot receive pure water, or if it could the vessel would taint it. Tis not for unclean beasts to come high these sacred fountains, lest they defile them with their feet.
2. Take heed to profaning the holy Scriptures by playing with them or making jests out of them. It’s a dangerous thing, Ludere cum sacris. See 7 sorts of profaners of the holy Scriptures condemned, in Mr. Trapps True Treasure, Chap. 4 Sec. 1 to 8.
3. Love the Scriptures for their purity. As God is to be loved for his purity, so is his word. Many love it for the history or for the novelty, but a gracious soul loves it for its purity, because it arms him against sin, directs him in God’s ways, enables him for duty, discovers to him the snares of sin and Satan, and so makes him wiser than his enemies.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 267-268.

In a recent interaction I had on the frontier of the digital Wild West an accusation was brought against the Standard Sacred Text position by Dr. Elijah Hixon which stated that TR specific or KJV specific arguments are fine so long as they don’t address the details. But as soon as the details are taken with sufficient seriousness said arguments fall apart in his view. Today I would like to address the fact that we here at StandardSacredText.com do indeed take the ”details” quite seriously but it seems to me that those of Hixon’s persuasion do not. Let’s take a look.

First, Hixon is not entirely clear about what accounts as the “details”. That said I assume he means the textual critical details – the nuanced ins-and-outs of lower textual criticism – things like manuscript families, manuscript types, internal evidence, external evidence, the host of error types that come about by scribal error, conjectural emendation, textual criticism as an art, and perhaps even the greatness and utility of the CBGM.

Second, I acknowledge and admit text critical material should be pursued, examined, and deliberated over. I admit that a form of textual criticism is part of the process that brought us the TR and the TR tradition. That said, there are two details which I would ask Hixon et al to consider – one methodological and the other epistemological.

Methodologically, while we admit textual criticism is part of the process of getting the TR we do not admit that modern textual criticism is the method whereby that process took place. That is, by our lights, there are significant differences between a species of textual criticism proceeding from the Renaissance Humanism of Erasmus or the decidedly Christian approach of William Tyndale and the Modernist/Post-Modernist/Post-Christian textual criticism enjoined upon us at present.

Epistemologically, while we admit textual criticism is part of the process of getting the TR we do not admit that modern textual criticism is the primary impetus or even means whereby the church recognizes/knows the Bible to be the Bible. In fact, modern textual criticism is at best, given the methodological objection above, the handmaid, the maidservant of theology and particularly the church. Textual criticism is slave to the church and particularly the Scripture through the church.

The Scripture is canon and is therefore the rule. The Scripture is rule and textual criticism is ruled by the rule. Do the work, but know that said work is more like the prodigal son tending swine, especially in the context of Post-Modernism, than it is a Saruman-like scholar musing is his white tower. It is indeed the case that textual critical work is the work of a bondslave but you needn’t labor as you do under the presuppositions of Post-Modernism. The primary mode of knowledge that this or that passage is the New Testament/the word of God is the Spirit of God speaking through the word of God to the people of God by faith.

Solomon observes,

“There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Ecclesiastes 10:5-7

We have lived to see this evil in the church. While textual critics, the servants, ride on the horseback in a place of honor; the church, the bride and fellow heir with Christ, are made to walk. In the end, according to Solomon, it is the church’s fault that this is the case. But that is for another post.

Third, the TR position has wrestled with the “details” of textual criticism which is clear by virtue of the fact that the TR has made decisions about trouble passages like the long ending in Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the longer reading of 1 John 5:7. They are all included. Indeed, decisions were made about every reading in the New Testament. Decisions were made and the details dealt with. There are Greek readings and Old Latin readings which are older than many Greek manuscripts supporting the decisions made by those like Erasmus and the KJV translators.

Admittedly, there are other manuscripts that have come to light since the collation of the TR, but given my second point, who determines if those readings are the New Testament/God’s word? Answer: Not scholars, not the CBGM. The believing community, the church does. So while the Greek underlying the ESV does not have the woman caught in adultery, the ESV does because the believing community calls for it regardless of the scholar’s opinion. Sure, there’s those ominous brackets but the text is in still there. So which side is failing to deal with the details now?

Fourth, if anyone is failing to deal with the details it is the critical-text position. For starters they seem to fail in dealing with the observed details above. After that I encourage you to read the leading material on textual criticism especially among evangelicals to see how much of their argument is anchored in Scripture or Christian theology or a distinctively Christian worldview. You will find that these details, distinctively Christian details are largely absent. There is little more than a nod at very best that it is the Spirit of God through the word of God to the people of God that decides on what is or is not the New Testament/the word of God. In other words, they do not deal with these details. To borrow words from Dr. Hixon, the evangelical text-critical argument stands until it’s called to wrestle with distinctively Christian details.