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.

6. And for this, God (whose care is equal for all successions of men) hath graciously provided, by causing Holy Scriptures to be written, by which he hath derived on every succeeding age the illumination of the former. And for that purpose, endowed the writers not only with that moral fidelity requisite to the truth of history, but with a divine Spirit, proportionable to the great design of fixing an immutable rule of faith and manners. And to give us the fuller security herein, he has chosen no other penmen of the New Testament, than those who were first oral promulgators of our Christian religion, so they have left to us the very same doctrine they taught the Primitive Christians. He that acknowledges them divinely inspired in what they preached, cannot doubt them to be so in what they wrote. So that we may enjoy virtually and effectively what wish of the devout Father, who desired to be Saint Paul’s auditor, for that hears any of the Epistles read, is as really spoken to by Saint Paul, as those who were within the sound of his voice: Thus God who in times past spake at sundry times, and in diverse manners to the prophets, and in the latter days by his son, Heb. 1:1-2, continues still to speak to us by these inspired writers, and what Christ once said to his disciples in relation to their preaching, is no less true of their writings: He that despiseth you, despiseth me, Luke 10:16. All the contempt that is any time flung on these sacred Writings, rebounds higher, and finally devolves on the first Author of those doctrines, whereof these are the registers and transcripts.

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. By the Author of the Whole Duty of Man (At the Theater in Oxford, 1678), 4-5.