John Owen, 1658, on the Purity, Preservation, and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments

Sect. 5. The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular Head to be vindicated is; that as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, were immediately, and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us, without the least interveniency* of such wills , as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable, so by his good and merciful providential preservation, in his love to his Word and Church, his whole Word as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the Original languages; where shining in its own beauty and luster, (in all Translations so far, as they faithfully represent the Originals) it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and Authority.

*interveniency: the act or fact of intervening

John Owen, Of the Divine Originall, Authority, self-evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures: With an Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scripture’s to be the Word of God. Also A Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testaments; in some Considerations on the Prolegomena (Oxford: Printed by Henry Hall, Printer to the University for Tho: Robinson, 1658), 153.

John Andrew Quenstedt, 1617-1688, on Scripture’s infallibility

The original canonical sacred scripture is of infallible truthfulness and wholly free of error, or, what is the same thing, in the canonical sacred scripture there is no lie, no falsehood, not even the smallest error either in words or matter, but everything, together and singly, that is handed on in them is most true, whether it be a matter of dogma or of morals or of history or of chronology or of topography or of nomenclature; no want of knowledge, no thoughtlessness or forgetfulness, no lapse of memory can or ought to be attributed to the secretaries of the Holy Spirit in their setting down of the sacred writings.

John Andrew Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica, ch. 4, sec. 2 quest. 5, 1685 quoted in Arthur Carl Piepkorn, “What Does Inerrrancy Mean?” Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol XXXVI, No. 8 (Sept 1965), 578.

The “False Friends” Argument and Doing the Math

Having read Mark Ward’s book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible a couple times now I thought it good to offer a brief but pointed assessment of his main argument, that is, the False Friends Argument. In sum Ward rightfully maintains that the KJV has what he calls false friends. False friends are words that the reader thinks he knows but ultimately does not. As a result, the reader goes on his merry way thinking he understands what the Bible is saying at that point, but in reality, he does not.

Setting aside the critique that what amounts to a false friend differs from person to person and the critique that other versions of the Bible also have false friends and the critique that all of the great books of the western world [e.g., Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Dante’s Divine Comedy, and Milton’s Paradise Lost among others] contain false friends, I thought I would take a more direct approach. Concerning the words deemed false friends by Ward in Authorized, I thought I would count how many times these words appear in the KJV and then see if we can draw the same conclusions that Ward does. The following is a list of these words and the number of times they appear in the KJV according to the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

1.) Apt – 4x
2.) Careful – 7x
3.) Equal – 18x
4.) Incontinent – 1x
5.) Enlargement – 1x
6.) Honest – 7x
7.) Heresies/Heresy – 4x
8.) Kindly – 10x
9.) Fell on his neck – 1x
10.) Issues – 2x
11.) Staggered/Stagger – 4x
12.) Heady – 1x
13.) Bowels – 37x
14.) Conversation – 20x
15.) Pitiful – 3x
16.) Swellings – 7x
17.) Necessities/Necessity – 13x
18.) Miserable – 3x
19.) Approving – 1x
20.) Watchings – 6x
21.) Meats – 7x
22.) Overcharge – 1x
23.) Unicorn – 6x
24.) Commendeth – 3x; Commend – 8x; Commended – 6x; Commending – 1x
25.) Convenient/Conveniently – 10x
26.) Remove – 44x
27.) Spoil – 106x
28.) Halt – 11x

Ward also includes “judgement” and “wait on” but both are very much still in use today and in the same sense. The former in court rooms and the latter in restaurants. I excluded these because they are terrible examples of supposed false friends.

Total Number of Sampled False Friends: 353
Total Number of Words in the KJV: 788,137

Percentage of False Friends Among Total Words in the KJV: 0.000447 or 0.045%

What is more, if we remove 3, 14, 24, 26, and 27 [equaling 206 of the instances above], the total number of false friends falls to 147 which is 0.000187 or 0.019%. But to continue our run with Ward’s argument let’s use the 0.045% number.

There is about 100,000 hairs on the average person’s head. 0.045% of those hairs is 45. Are we to shave the head and start over because 45 hairs are yet to be tamed?

This is a 2020 McLaren 600 LT. It costs $256,000+.

0.045% of $256,000 is $115.20. Ward would have us, the owners of the McLaren, sell our car because we think we understand $115.20 worth of equipment, but we really don’t. Is anyone going to sell this car simply because there is some high-performance module, he/she thinks he/she understands but, in the end, does not?

Touching the reading of Scripture, our current calculations allow for approximately 5 false friends for every 10,000 words of the KJV. That said, there are 42 books out of the 66 books of the KJV that are less than 10,000 words and, in many cases, much less. In short, you may have to read multiple books of the Bible before you come across 5 of the false friends listed above and yet Ward calls us to choose a different translation.

A proponent of the False Friends Argument might retort, “Well, there are more false friends than those mentioned in Authorized.” Even if we admit them there would need to many many more, more by orders of magnitude. Furthermore, I assume that Ward chose the most obvious and impactful one’s for his book so I am not sure the quality of the examples will improve the False Friends Argument going forward. Even if such an argument were to be substantiated, the False Friends proponent would then need deal with the Relativity argument, the Other Versions argument, and the Western Literature argument mentioned above. Then there is the whole discussion revolving around western philosophy of education which Ward doesn’t even hint toward.

In summary, given the above, I believe the False Friends Argument as stated in Authorized is uncompelling in total or at best about 0.045% compelling. Indeed, there are words in the KJV that people think they understand but do not, but they are so few as construed in Authorized to stand as an argument in favor of abandoning the standard sacred text of the believing community.

William Perkins, 1558-1602, on Galatians and Scripture’s Preservation

Willet’s Cambridge classmate William Perkins reiterated his high view of Scripture in his commentary on Galatians. This was Perkins’s last book, posthumously edited by Ralph Cudworth.[1] In The Epistle Dedicatorie Cudworth writes this of the word of God:

They being of such perfection that nothing may be added unto them, nor anything taken away from them: of such infallible certainty, that heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than one tittle fall to the ground.[2]

            Located within Perkins’ commentary on Galatians 1:11 is one of the 55 “Commonplaces Handled in this Commentarie,” entitled “How a man may be assured that the Scripture is the word of God.” The term “common places” or “common-places” is a translation of the Latin loci communes, which is “the collection of the basic scriptural loci and their interpretations into an ordered body of Christian doctrine.”[3]

            The first point of two made by Perkins is that “it is a thing most necessary, that men should be assured and certified that the doctrine of the Gospel, and of the Scripture, is not of man, but of God.”[4] In the tradition of Calvin, Perkins states that assurance of this truth comes by the testimony of the Holy Spirit “imprinted and expressed” in the Scriptures and the “excellency of the word of God.”[5] Under the heading of the excellencies of the word of God, Perkins lists thirteen points, the ninth point being “the protection and preservation of it [Scripture], from the beginning to this hour, by a special providence of God.”[6]

[1]William Perkins, A Commentary on Galatians, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989).

[2]Perkins, Galatians, The Epistle Dedacatorie.

[3]Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 179.

[4]Perkins, Galatians, 27.

[5]Calvin, Institutes, 1.9.3. For a parallel to “imprinted,” Calvin writes, “and we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word.”

[6]Perkins, Galatians, 28.

Knowledge of the Sciences vs. Knowledge of Scripture

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research and writing. The bricks are free, but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from Abraham Kuyper’s Sacred Theology and particularly Chapter 2: The Fundamental, Regulative, and Distinctive Principle of Theology, or Principium Theologiae.

“When I speak of the fountains of science, I understand thereby a certain group out of a sum of phenomena, from which a separate whole of science is distilled by me.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 140.

“It is, in a word, the natural man who by his reason draws this knowledge from his object, and that object is subjected to him as the thinking subject.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 140.

But theology is different because God cannot be the mere object of human inquiry. Kuyper writes,

“For, and I speak reverently, even when I posit God Himself as the object of theology, this God is then placed on trial by the theologian, and it is the theologian who does not cast himself down in worship before Him, saying, ‘Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth,” but of his own right (suo jure) investigates Him.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 141.

“With every other object [e.g., animals, plants, stars] it was the thinking subject [man] that took knowledge; here it was the object itself [God’s revelation] that gave knowledge.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 141.

“Theology, taken in its original and only real meaning, as ‘knowledge of God,’ or as “the science of the knowledge of God,’ cannot go to work like the other sciences, but must take a way of its own; which not merely in its bends and turns, but in its entire extent, is to be distinguished from the ordinary way of obtaining knowledge (via cognitionis), and therefore assumes a principium of knowing of its own as its point of departure.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 141.

“Speaking more accurately, we should say that the material principium is the self-revelation of God to the sinner, from which principium the data have come forth in the Holy Scriptures, from which theology must be built up.’

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 143.

“It is unfortunate, however, that in olden time so little attention was paid to the formal principium.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 143.

“…the neglect of the formal principium was to bring about a revision of the Scripture in the sense of our darkened understanding, as has now actually taken place.”

Kuyper, Sacred Theology, 143.

Here Kuyper observes that in his time men using their darkened or faithless understanding treated the Scripture as a mere object, taking from it whatever knowledge they liked. In such a context, these men made a revision of the Scriptures. When in fact these men should have understood that Scripture being the sovereign words of God only give knowledge and cannot be taken at the will of men and made a mere object.

If the question, “Is the story of the woman caught in adultery, Scripture?” and if the question, “Is the story of the woman caught in adultery part of the New Testament?” are theological questions, and they are, then we must turn to the principium cognoscendi, the Scriptures, as source, ground, and foundation for answering those questions. Scripture answers these questions, and the answer is not modern textual criticism.

A Scriptural Example of Moving from One Version to Another

Mortimer Adeler in How to Speak; How to Listen, reminds his reader that an example is not for proving but for explaining some element of one’s position. Additionally, it is commonly understood that an example does not meet at every point the thing being explained. If I offer an example of how a Golden Retriever is a dog by pointing to a German Shepherd, there will be considerable overlap in the comparison, but it will not be perfect overlap. Such is the nature of comparative examples.

The thing I aim to explain is the mechanism whereby a faithful Christian can faithfully move from one version of the TR to another or from the Geneva Version to the King James Version. I say a “faithful Christian” because they are faithful in holding to version X at Time 1 and at Time 2 he/she is faithfully moving to another version. To do this I want to draw on the grounding Scriptural concept of the faithful’s moving from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant exemplified most clearly in the persons of Nicodemus and the apostle Paul.

By version I mean, “a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form.” Put simply the New Covenant is a particular form which differs in certain respect from an earlier form i.e., the Old Covenant. The Reformed Orthodox understood these two covenants to be the same in fundamental substance but to differ in several respect, accidental respects. For our purposes we will focus on five of those respects: time, clarity, perfection, amplitude, and duration [Hereafter: the 5Rs]. Turretin says of the similarity of the two covenants,

“The orthodox maintain that the difference between the Old and New Testaments (broadly considered) is only accidental, not essential (as to the circumstance and manner and degree of the thing); not as to the thing itself, which was the same in each.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XVIII.

On the differences he writes the following we have our 5R,

“…as to time because the Old preceded Christ, while the New follows him.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XVIII.

“As to clearness and obscurity because in the New the mysteries are far more clearly set forth, the veils and shadows and ceremonies and types being take away.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XIX.

“As to perfection, for although the Old Testament had an essential perfection as to the substance of the covenant of grace, still it did not have an accidental perfection as to degree.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XXII.

“As to amplitude because the Old Testament was restricted to one nation – salvation was then only of the Jews…But the New is extended to all indiscriminately.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XXIV.

“As to duration because the Old had become antiquated and should continue only until the time of reformation. The overthrow of the Jewish republic, the confusion of the tribes and the irreparable destruction through so many ages of the temple…evinces this even openly.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 2, Twelfth Topic, Q. 8, Sec. XXV.

First, let us touch on these terms and their use regarding different versions of the same covenant. Note that the orthodox regards the covenant essentially the same and only accidentally different. As it touches the “Which TR” question, we would say the same of all the tradition of the TR. The differences between the TR’s can be subsumed under the 5Rs. Erasmus’ TR and the Elzevir TR where substantially the same but different as to time, clarity, perfection, amplitude, and duration. Before I dive in, the following comparisons could be made between versions of the TR or versions of the KJV. I will choose either one to keep it simple, but the comparison is not only limited to the Greek or the translation but could be applied to both.

In time, the Old Covenant came before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ while the New came after. In like manner, Erasmus’ came before the work of Stephanus and Beza while the Elzevir’s came after those works.

In clarity, the Old Covenant was composed of shadows and figures while the New Covenant clarified those shadows and figures in Christ as Savior and Lord. In like manner, the work of Stephanus and Beza clarified the work of Erasmus.

In perfection, the Old Covenant was complete for its time but was made more complete in the New Covenant at the consummation of the Christ-complex [i.e., the virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension]. In like manner, the work of the KJV translators made more complete that which was already complete for its time in the Geneva.

In amplitude [i.e., breadth or range], the Old Covenant made a way to atone for sins and right worship of the holy God for a specific family, Abraham’s family, Israel. The New Covenant made a way to atone for sins and for right worship of God in Christ for all of humanity – Jews and Gentiles. In like manner, while the Geneva was the clear and complete translation for its time, the KJV provided greater breadth and range for the English-speaking believing community so much so that the KJV was the standard sacred text across oceans, denominations, social strata, and cultures for 400 years.

Finally, in duration, the Old Covenant was clear, ample, perfect for its time, but the New Covenant is eternally durative in Christ. In like manner, as was mentioned above the when compared to its versional peers, TR/KJV has held the position of standard sacred text for over four centuries.

What was the authoritative status of those saints in the New Covenant given the prior existing Old Covenant? 1.) the New Covenant was essentially the same but accidentally different as touching the R5. 2.) the New Covenant superseded and absorbed the Old Covenant, thus, to hold to the sacrificial system after the death of Christ was contrary to the prescriptive will of God [i.e., immoral]. 3.) the move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant was a work of the Holy Spirit through the word and faith. Simply because God in the person of Christ upbraided the Pharisees for not accepting Him as Messiah and the subsequent New Covenant did not mean the Pharisees accepted this truth and moved from the old version to the new version. Still, those like Nicodemus and Paul did and that by the power of the Holy Spirit through the word and faith. 4.) there is only one covenant and one version of that covenant in play at a given time. In the Old Testament, to claim that sacrifices were superfluous because of Jesus’ coming sacrifice would have been disobedience to God. In like manner to say that we must continue the sacrificial system even though Christ has already died would also be disobedience to God.

What was the epistemic status of Old Testament saints given the advent of the New Covenant? Given all the above, is anyone warranted in besmirching the belief in the Old Covenant at Time 1 for an Old Testament saint at Time 1? No, such a claim would not only besmirch the belief of the Old Testament saint but also the character of God as covenant maker and keeper. Can we say that in Time 1 the Old Testament saints did not have a real covenant with God under the Old Covenant? Again, no, and for the same reasons immediately above.

With the advent of the New Covenant at Time 2, assuming that an Old Testament Jew [e.g., Nicodemus] also knew of the New Covenant as expressed in and through Jesus of Nazareth, could that Old Testament Jew hold to the Old Covenant and not be in violation of God’s prescriptive will? No. And this lack of changing from the Old version to the New version led to Israel’s being set aside. Only at the advent of the New Covenant did holding to the Old Covenant priorly construed become an immoral act, and not before. Which is to say that Nicodemus could have been a faithful saint in his youth and before the coming of Christ. Then at the coming of Christ recognized Him as the Messiah and instigator of a better covenant, thus believing and living a life where the Old Covenant is subsumed under the New. In this scenario Nicodemus is always faithful. Faithful in holding to the Old Covenant at Time 1 and equally as faithful in transitioning and holding to the New Covenant at Time 2. At no point can his belief be impugned.

In like manner, a Christian or Christian community can hold to Erasmus’ TR at Time 1 and then a Christian or Christian community can hold to Beza’s at Time 2 and that Christian or Christian community remains faithful in both the holding and transitioning. Again, in like manner, a Christian or Christian community could hold to the Geneva at Time 1 and then hold to the KJV at Time 2 and remain faithful in both the holding and transitioning.

You may ask, “Certainly the New Covenant was progression on the Old, how do you know the KJV was a progression on the Geneva.” My answer is in large part because the KJV has been the standard sacred text of the English-speaking community for over 400 years or approximately 20% of the Church’s entire existence if you take the beginning of the Church to be Pentecost. The English-speaking Church moved from the Geneva to the KJV, and it has been that way longer than the USA has been a nation. I take the KJV longevity to be more than a mere historical fact though. I take the KJV longevity among the English-speaking church as the leading of the Holy Spirit through His word to His people by faith. The phenomena of the longevity of the TR and the KJV is a historical fact that is the result God’s providence via the Holy Spirit working in and through His word for the preservation of His people and word.

Summary:
1.) God gave two versions of His covenant which were essentially the same but accidentally different as to time, clarity, perfection, amplitude, and duration.
2.) At no point did God institute these different versions of the covenant at the same time and in the same way.
3.) A faithful saint could faithfully hold to the Old Covenant at Time 1 and faithfully transition to and hold to the New Covenant at Time 2 without such a transition causing the saint to be immoral or besmirching his/her belief.

In like manner,
1.) God though His singular care and providence has given us different iterations of the TR and KJV and they differ accidentally as to time, clarity, perfection, amplitude, and duration.
2.) Given their differences as to time, clarity, perfection, amplitude, and duration, at no point could these different versions of the TR and KJV be equally God’s word at the same time and in the same way.
3.) A faithful saint could faithfully hold to Version A of the TR or Version X of the KJV at Time 1 and faithfully transition to and hold to Version C of the TR and the 1769 KJV without such a transition causing the saint to be immoral or besmirching his/her belief.

Richard Stock, 1651, on Inspiration and the Self-Interpreting Nature of Holy Scripture Contained in his Commentary of Malachi

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.

William Whitaker, 1547-1595, on Scripture’s Authority

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.

Nathaniel Ingelo, 1659, on Divine Inspiration in 2 Peter 1:20-21

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.