Bishop Edward Wetenhall, 1636-1713, unknown to many, was held in such high esteem that he was buried in the south transept of Westminster Abbey. The inscription reads: “Here lie buried the remains of the Right Reverend Father in Christ Edward Wetenhall D.D. Bishop first of Cork for 20 years, then of Kilmore and Ardagh for 14 years in the Kingdom of Ireland. He died 12 November, year of our Lord 1713 in the 78th year of his age.” Wetenhall (or Wettenhall) was born at Lichfield in Staffordshire on 7th October 1636 and educated at Westminster School and Trinity College Cambridge. After brief preferments at Exeter and Dublin he was consecrated bishop of Cork and Ross in 1679. In 1699 he was translated to the diocese of Kilmore. He was married twice.

In 1688 he authored a book designed to address Rome’s objections against our English Bible, the Authorized Version, of which the following is an excerpt. As you read, note Wittenhall’s commitment to Scripture being by inspiration from God, that Scripture was providentially preserved, his eschatological focus on the saints’ final accountability to God, the privilege of possessing the Scripture and to hold the Scripture’s honorably and with humility, the importance of learning the core of theology early in life and of being able to read.

“Now, to put a due conclusion to this discourse, there are some Christian Practices which the scope of it does naturally recommend and some advices which it may occasion.

And first, let the reflection on what has been discoursed touching the certainty of Holy Scriptures and their Authentic Verity raise in our hearts a due Esteem and Cordial Reverence of them as not being from Man nor merely by man, but given by inspiration of God, and in a peculiar and marvelous manner, preserved and transmitted by his special Providence from age to age, through multitudes of hands down to us, who live probably near the end of time. It was once the great privilege of the Jews that to them were committed the Oracles of God: that privilege is now common to us, with them. Though perhaps therefore we may not keep those Oracles with so superstitious a care and curiosity as they did yet let us both keep and treat them as cordial adherence, and as awful esteem. But especially let us take care that we use not passages out of them in our ordinary discourse flightingly in jest and drollery to create laughter to ourselves and others. Holy things should not be played with, and we are to remember that if we do play with them, we teach people to think we do not believe them to be Holy.

Secondly, let not a Prize be put into our hands, and we such fools as not to have hearts to use it. Have we the Word of Prophecy, surer than other miraculous revelation? Have we the Gospel of Truth too both mutually confirming and confirmed by one another and shall be so idle and gross as to be any of us in a manner uncapable of using either? Why should there be a person in a Christian Church or Nation to whom the Holy Scripture should be a Book sealed, who should know no more by the Book open and laid before him than if fast closed up. I mean who should not be able to read the glad tidings and terms of his Salvation? Good people, deny not yourselves that, which an excellent person has most justly styled, the CHRISTIAHS BIRTHRIGHT, the use of the Holy Scriptures. Take care and endeavor that both you and yours be able to read. And being so, whatever Book you read not through or rarely look into, let not the Bible be that neglected one. Rather account such a day lost in which you have not attentively and considerately read some part thereof.

Thirdly, remember him who said, Hold fast till I come, that no man take thy crown. He sists at the right hand of his Father, ready to give it, and will in good time come and give it us if we fainty not.

And lastly, as most excellent means to insure to ourselves a right use of Scripture and to preserve us from misinterpreting or misapplying them, let us be careful of the two following particulars.

First, to furnish our minds with a form of sound Doctrine gathered out of the Holy Scripture. This, it is to be hoped, we had in some degree in our early years by Catechism, and without this both Scripture and Sermons are in a great measure unserviceable. It is the Apostle’s Rule that they who Prophesy (that is in the New Testament notion of Prophesying, interpret Scripture) do it according to the proportion of Faith, Rom. xii. 6. His meaning seems to be that understanding first the several articles of the Christian Faith, we should interpret or take Scripture in consistency therewith. This rule will prevent the abuse of Holy Scripture to error and novelty.

Secondly, to endeavor the honest and impartial practice of what we know in the fear of God, and as we shall answer the not doing according to our Lord’s will when we have known that his will. This most assuredly will prevent Scriptures being useless and besides will both lead us to a higher pitch of knowledge and secure us from dangerous errors. For amongst other parts of the Christian duty, we shall then practice meekness, humility, and a low conceit of our selves. We shall not therefore too much lean to our own understanding, we shall not exceed our own measures. And then (Psalm xxv.9.14.) The meek will the Lord guide in judgment, the meek will he teach his way. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew them his Covenant.

There are the great uses we should make of this sure Word of Prophesy, Law, and Gospel, to value and reverence it. In testimony thereof, to capacitate not only ourselves but all ours by moderate at least the lowest degree of learning (being able to read) to make use of it, and then diligently to read it and hold it fast. But especially by getting into our minds a form of sound words (a due understanding Catechetical doctrine) and by living according to what we know, to ensure to ourselves the right use of it. And is we thus take heed to this sure word, tis sure we shall do well. We shall be sure not only to our Faith, but to the End of it too. We shall be certainly and unspeakably rewarded in Glory and Bliss everlasting.”

Edward Wettenhall, A Plain Discourse Proving the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures; wherein bold attempts and aspersions of Jesuits and other Missionaries of the Church of Rome are Confuted; and all their objections against our English Bible are fully and clearly Answered (London: Printed and sold by Randall Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, 1688), 56-63

Wettenhall’s emphasis on an early understanding of Catechetical doctrine should not be overlooked. He argues for the inculcation of a prior theological framework in the minds of young people that will enable the proper dissemination of the Scripture as it is read. Children must have 1. a rudimentary knowledge of Christian theology, “a form of sound words” and, 2. a minimal reading proficiency to value and reverence the Scripture. Without this early training Wettenhall says that “both Scripture and Sermons are in a great measure unserviceable.”

Bishop Wettenhall’s observations are illuminating and something that needs additional exploration. In Wettenhall’s day there were brothers and sisters in the Lord that found the KJV problematic because they lacked rudimentary theological training in the home. They did not receive early in their lives the “form of sound words” and as such were raised in such a state “that both Scripture and Sermons” for them “are in a great measure unserviceable,” or of little help. Because Wettenhall and Standard Sacred Text are speaking of the same English Bible, it seems apparent that the lack of early theological training in the home is a perpetually besetting issue for the spiritual well-being of the saint and church.

In recent days we have seen public school parents catching up with home-schooling parents, asserting their parental authority over the school boards, and rightly taking back the education of their children from the government school. Perhaps its time for parents to expand their God-given authority and rightly take back the theological training of their children from the church and academy in such a way that their families will no longer perceive “both Scripture and Sermons” to be “in a great measure unserviceable.”

When lecturing on the superiority at a Midwest Bible College, I was invited to the home of one of the Theology Professors. Our conversation was casual but lead around to questions on the subjectivity of the mind, the proper analysis of Scripture, and finally the certainty of saving faith. As we worked through the content, the professor, without solicitation, and based on our discussion said that he could only be 99% sure he was saved. I gave no reply, but that event has remained with me. Here is someone well versed in the Scripture, indeed and teacher of Theology, but when reflecting epistemologically on what he knew could only speak of his personal, saving faith in relative terms. But one might reply, the difference between the certainty of salvation and this minimal degree of doubt is only 1%. One might even press the point to say that for practical purposes 99% and 100% are equal. Any chemical engineer knows that a 1% difference is the foundation of total loss and ruin, so apart from theological issues the marginalizing of the difference is unwise. But because saving faith, the conduit to the finished work of Christ on Calvary, is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9), not originating in the heart or mind of man, but in the Word of God (Romans 10:17) through the regenerating work of the Spirit (John 3:6-7), saving faith gives the saint 100% certainty of its efficacy (1 John 5:13). The Professor’s conundrum was not an expression of degrees of faith but of his unwillingness simply to take God at His word. The simplicity of the Gospel in his mind had been swallowed by the chasm of critical issues. Being 99% sure you’re saved is not being saved. Christ saves to “the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb. 7:25)

Here at Standard Sacred Text, we believe that everyone should take God at his word, whether we understand it all or not. We do not know how the subconscious work regeneration works. We do not know how election and the free choice of man work together. But these things and others should not prevent the redeemed soul from rightly believing they are true because God said it in his Word. If God said it, and our evidence does not agree with what He has said, then we are misinterpreting the evidence. With the Apostle Paul all should say, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

            The Song was in circulation within both the religious and popular contexts of Israeli life. Pope writes, “In the Hebrew Bible the Song of Songs is placed among the Writings, ketubim, following Job as Five Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther). This order corresponds to the sequence of their use in the liturgy, the Song of Songs being read on the eighth day of Passover.” Pope, Song of Songs, 18. Pope also notes on p. 18 that Rabbi Aquiba, who regarded the Song as the “veritable Holy of Holies,” uttered the following anathema upon those who considered the Song a mundane ditty, saying, “He who trills his voice in chanting the Song of Songs in the banquet house and treats it at a sort of song (zemir) has no part in the world to come.” Although Rabbi Aquiba understood the Song allegorically, clearly other Israelis took it otherwise. Alter states, “References in rabbinic texts suggest that at least by the Roman period the poems were often sung at weddings, and, whoever composed them, there was surely something popular about these lyric celebrations of the flowering world, the beauties of the female and male bodies, and the delights of lovemaking.” Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1985), 186.

            A great Jewish savant began his commentary on the Song of Songs with these words, “Know, my brother, that you will find great differences in interpretation of the Song of Songs. In truth they differ because the Song of Songs resembles locks to which the keys have been lost.”^[1] With 1,440 glosses on the Song of Song compiled by Patristic and Medieval scholars by 1110,^[2]the Church Fathers’ allegorical reading of the Song^[3]confirm the assessment, “No other book of the Bible (except perhaps Revelation) suffers under so many radically different interpretations of the Song of Songs.”^[4]Lecturing on the Song of Songs in November 1530, Martin Luther expressed his dissatisfaction with the three primary interpretive methodologies of his predecessors, lamenting,

For we shall never agree with those who think it [the Song of Songs] is a love story about the daughter of Pharaoh beloved by Solomon. Nor does it satisfy us to expound it as the union of God and the synagogue, or like the [Alexandrian] tropologists, of the faithful soul. For what fruit can be gathered from these opinions?^[5]

            The interpretive, historic dissonance in the ecclesiastical tradition persists with no sign of an exegetically based, codified interpretation.^[6]Redford succinctly states the contrasts, “The allegorist gives the reins to his fancy and ends in absurdities; the literalist shuts himself up in his naturalism and forfeits the blessings of the Spirit.”^[7]

            The history of the Song’s interpretation, with minor exception, is entirely allegorical, the Song’s message referring to Jehovah and Israel or Christ and the Church. The one noted exception to this interpretive convention among medieval theologians was Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 who also denied the inspired character of the book. Considering the Song as a referring only to human love and non-canonical, Theodore was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 533.^[8]

            The substantive question was whether the Song is an allegory and based on its genre received by the Church as canonical. Was the allegorical interpretation of the Song the basis for its acceptance as canonical, or was the divine authority of the Song accepted and subsequently determined by Jewish and Christian scholars to be interpreted allegorically?

            John Barton’s short essay, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs”^[9] makes a compelling argument for the Song’s canonicity apart from any interpretive qualification. Barton’s research finds that in the history of the Song’s interpretation scholars make a decuit ergo factum argument rather than a factual one, that the “celebration of physical love” is the primary reason for disputing the Song’s canonicity.^[10]Barton also explains that the allegorical interpretation of the Church Fathers and medieval scholastics was “precisely practiced on books that had a high status” and that again there is no evidence that the Song was identified as canonical and secured as Scripture based on its allegorical reading.^[11]In other words, the Song’s canonical authority was recognized prior to the formulation of Jewish and Christian interpretive philosophy. The Song was interpreted allegorically because it was already accepted as canonical. Barton’s findings are consistent with the medieval convention of a four-fold method of interpreting the Scriptures (literal, tropological, allegorical, and anagogical)^[12]employed of the scholastics of the Middle Ages. This hermeneutical convention was challenged and rejected by the post-Reformation dogmaticians who emphasized a singular meaning for each text.^[13]

            Barton’s research concludes that the “allegorical reading was a consequence, not a cause of canonicity.”^[14] As canonical, the Song was read allegorically and in the Song’s history of interpreted was rendered in a manner considered fitting the Holy Scripture.^[15]

---

^[1]Quoted by Pope, Song of Songs, 89.

^[2]The Glossa Ordinaria on the Song of Songs, translated by Mary Dove (Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 2004), xxi. “Anselm of Laon (perhaps with his brother Ralph) is the compiler of the glossed Song of Songs, but we can only confidently ascribe to his authorship about a sixth of the 1,440 glosses. These are the glosses that are shared with surviving reportationes, ‘written reports’ of lectures on the Song of Songs which Anselm gave at Laon ca 1100-10.” Also see J. Robert Wright, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 9:286-368; Mark W. Elliot, The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church 381-451 (Tubigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 15-50.

^[3]For a succinct history of the Song’s interpretation until 1690 see Richard Littledale, A Commentary on the Song of Songs, (New York: Pott and Emery, 1869), xxxii-xl. Also see John Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” Perspectives on the Song of Songs (Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung), ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 2.

^[4]Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 352.

^[5]Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, American Edition (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress, 1955), 15:194-195. “Although difficult to trace exactly, it is highly suggestive to think that the ‘new pathway’ of Luther for the sixteenth century has historical roots in particular late medieval Christian scholarship (circa 1300) and in latter medieval ‘rabbinic’ exegesis.” Endel Kallas, “Martin Luther as Expositor of the Song of Songs,” Lutheran Quarterly, 2 (1988): 323-41.

^[6]Longman, Song of Songs, 54-55. “The question of the structure of the Song is a difficult one, as is demonstrated by the plethora of hypotheses found in the secondary literature. No two scholars agree in detail, though there is what might be called schools of thought on the subject. While we feel confident in the general conclusions reached regarding the structure of the Song, we have no illusions that the following is the final word.” Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 185: “We have no way of knowing the precise circumstances under which or for which the Song of Songs was composed.”

^[7]H.D.M. Spence, Joseph S. Excell, eds. Song of Songs, vol. 22, The Pulpit Commentary(London and New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., nd), xxiv.

^[8]Ibid., 38-39. Longman also cites John Calvin and Sebastian Castellio as two who accepted the congruity of marital love and divine love in the canon; also see Roland Murphy, “Canticle of Canticles,” The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 506.

^[9]Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” 1-7.

^[10]Ibid., 1.

^[11]Ibid., 2.

^[12]See Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Leviticum, that is, a sixfold commentary upon the third book of Moses, called Leviticus (London: Printed by Aug. Matthewes, 1631), 120. “The tropological, which is applied to moral things, allegorical, to spiritual things, and anagogical, to heavenly things, as Jerusalem signifieth the soul of man; allegorically, the church militant; and anagogically, the church triumphant in heaven.”    

^[13]Ibid. In his commentary on Leviticus, Andrew Willet (1562-1621) agrees that the content of Scripture deals with historical matters and mysteries but those elements in themselves do not prove diverging senses in interpretation. He succinctly addressed the crux of the matter by explaining, “There is a difference between the literal, or historical sense, and the application, or accommodation of it. That is the proper sense of the scripture, which is perpetual and general; it is therefore dangerous for men, of their own brain, to pick out every place mystical senses. It belongeth only to the Spirit whereby the scriptures were written, to frame allegories and mysteries.” Of particular significance Willet makes clear that there is a literal or historical sense to the words of scripture. Citing 2 Timothy 3:16, Willet states that there are four profitable uses of inspired Scripture: to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness. And thus, he says, “To devise and frame allegories and mysterie (wherein the Spirit intended them not) is none of them.”

^[14]Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” 3.

^[15]For useful discussions on the canonicity of the Song, see William Frederic Bade, “The Canonization of the Old Testament,” The Biblical World 37, (Mar., 1911): 151-162; David Kraemer, “The Formation of Rabbinic Canon,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110, (Winter, 1991): 613-630; Solomon Zeitlin, “An Historical Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, (1931-1932): 3:121-158; Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “The Old Testament of the Early Church (A Study in Canon),” HTR 51, (Oct., 1958): 205-226.

Because Christ is immutable and eternal, he is “able to save us to the uttermost”  — “uttrermost,” panteleV –made up of two words “all” and “end” or “perfection”– Christ is able to save “completely to the end,” to the uttermost. Vine: the neuter of the adjective panteles, “complete, perfect,” used with eis to (“unto the”), is translated “to the uttermost” in Hebrews 7:25, where the meaning may be “finally.” Thayers: παντελής, παντελές (πᾶς and τέλος), all-complete, perfect (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, Diodorus, Plutarch, others; 3Macc. 7:16); εἰς τό παντελές (properly, unto completeness (Winers Grammar, § 51, 1 c.)) completely, perfectly, utterly: Luke 13:11; Hebrews 7:25 (Philo leg. ad Gaium 21; Josephus, Antiquities 1, 18, 5; 3, 11, 3 and 12, 1; 6, 2, 3; 7, 13, 3; Aelian v. h. 7, 2; n. a. 17, 27).

This Sunday morning as we consider the vicarious, redeeming work of Christ for us, ask yourself a question. If Christ has the power to save a lost soul “to the uttermost” is he not also able to preserve His word with the same power? The answer is, of course, yes, he has the power to save the lost and keep his word.  Blessings!

Those following Standard Sacred Text have noted that that our defense is modeled after the Apostle Paul’s instruction to the church in Corinth in 1 Cor. 2 with special reference to verse 14. There are essentially only two methods of argumentation not only for the Biblical text but for all things considered – the Spiritual, or that governed by the Spirit in and by the word and the natural, without the Spirit, man functioning in his fallen, natural state. There is no middle or common ground between the two methods. The present textual debate enigma is that those who would make a personal claim to be Spiritual have succumbed to natural arguments for their flavor of the defense of the Faith once delivered unto the saints.

Since my first venture into the KJV debate in the 80’s certain patterns have emerged coming from MVOists. It is important to note that every objection is limited by the capacity of the opponent to formulate one, but among these variables, one factor remains consistent. For the KJB position the Scripture’s self-authentication confirms the object (Scripture’s authority) predicated by the subject (the KJB advocate). To make the case for the KJB nothing needs to be borrowed from a contrary position to find common ground, because the KJB position is self-contained. Other issues are discussed but not out of necessity. Allowing the Word and Spirit to speak for themselves is consistent with Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 2.

This however is not the case for objectors. Because the objection confirms only the object (or argument) predicated by the subject (the objector) it is impossible that the objection remotely relates to the self-contained KJB position unless the objector borrows some common ground between the objection and that which is objected against, or, for the sake of discussion, the KJB defender allows an exchange for some didactic purpose. Standing apart from the Word and Spirit this line of argumentation falls under the paradigm of natural. Because there is no common ground between the Spiritual and natural, the natural argument must borrow elements of the Spiritual argument to enter the sphere of a Biblical discussion. The natural perspective possesses no Spiritual elements.

The critical biblical polemic is like showing up on a baseball field with a football and trying to make the case for the fallacy of homeruns while pressing the point for field goals. To be relevant, with football in hand, some element of baseball is borrowed, such as both football and baseball use balls, to make the natural premise credible. The single point of contact may be similar, but the games are entirely different. This borrowing, no matter how minimal, argues against or at least marginalizes the credibility of the initial objection. The objector must borrow from a self-contained apologetic system he is attempting to prove invalid by utilizing the system he is trying to prove invalid.

But one might protest, how can you claim that it is impossible that the number of paperback books critical of the KJB only remotely relate or do not relate at all to Standard Sacred Text apologia for the KJB? A cursory review of the literature will quickly show a pedantic, redundant, evidential similarity of such consistency that the whole can be lumped into one genre reminiscent of the Byzantine “text type.” There are not a host of arguments critical of the KJB; rather, there is one evidential conglomerate published ad infinitum critical of the KJB with such consistency as to be predictable and with such frequency as to be worn out. The monolithic objection only confirms the object (or argument) predicated by the subject, which in this case is plural, subjects. Our answer to claims of success to the overthrow of the KJB is simply, “Of course you end up with that answer if that is where you start” because the scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject. If you make the rules, you can win the game, as if forgetting God has already given his Rule to which all lesser rules must yield. Any capacity of the critic to relate to the self-contained apologetic system of the self-authenticating text must borrow elements from the system being disparaged. The protest is thus answered.

For instance, manuscript evidence is vitally important to an evidential defense of quantified canonical collating process but is secondary or tertiary to the self-contained argument of Scripture’s own self-authentication. We greatly appreciate the work but the argument for evidence will only confirm the object predicated by the subject and within these self-imposed limits is merely sectarian and provincial, secondary, and tertiary to Scripture’s claims for itself. Furthermore, there is no common ground between the relativity of the proposed evidence and the absolute certainty of God’s word. The evidence only becomes valid as it aligns itself with the self-authenticating Word. If the critic is to locate common ground, something about the certainty of God’s word must be borrowed to create a bridge to the evidence, because certainty does not exist in the critical world.

This “something” is highly problematic to the critic. Consider the following example, “I do not believe the minority reading can be self-attesting.” In this statement we identify a splendid example of an evidentialist borrowing from the KJB apologetic by using the term “self-attesting” thereby establishing a bridge between the two positions. The relative use of percentages and numbers common to evidential arguments are foreign to the terms the Bible uses for itself, but in this statement the relative use of numbers is tied with the pre-critical argument for Scripture’s self-attestation, which by definition means, it does not need numbers or percentages to validate its Authority. Though the statement was not developed, are we to assume then, that a majority reading is self-attesting? Once self-attestation is integral to the argument, the full weight of Protestant Orthodox theology comes to bear on the evidence, but this is not what the evidentialist asks for. Indeed, if it were, they would cease being an evidentialist altogether. And if not inferring the majority reading is self-attesting why say it at all?

How then should one proceed considering this bridge? The idea of a “bridge” begs the question “A bridge to what?” or “Common ground to what purpose?” As noted above, the bridge is necessary for the critic to have a perceived impact upon the self-contained nature of a KJB defense but does not seem intended to provide the common ground of congruence or agreement as noted in continuing discussion. After all, the critic is standing on a baseball field with a football saying, “Listen to me. I have a ball!” The bridge is therefore only conceptual, a device to borrow apologetic credibility for an evidential system incapable of achieving its goal of determining what is and is not Scripture.

The solution is a change in logical sequence of the critic’s debate. For the critic, the change does not require a change in the strength of the evidence, only a subjugation of the evidence to the self-attesting Word. This change of sequencing accepts the self-contained argument for the self-attesting Word as primary while providing credible secondary evidential support for the self-attesting word. And this change in sequence is not an insurmountable dilemma, having already identified the value of borrowed pre-critical categories, no matter how slight, for objections against the pre-critical apologetic.

Because the scientific method confirms the object predicated by the subject, the scientific method by any definition is incapable of relating to the word of God just as the natural man considers the things of the Spirit foolishness. If you want to call the critical text, the majority text, the XYZ text the word of God, as the word of God, the next line in the discussion must be, the text is the self-attesting, self-authenticating, self-interpreting canonical collation of the preserved apograph. After borrowing these words from the Standard Sacred Text defense of the TR/KJB there would indeed be common ground for additional discussion. But until then, the critic with his football must retire to the bleachers, or head over to the football field, while those who have come to enjoy America’s pastime, cruise over in their Chevy Corvette, enjoy a hotdog at the concessions stand and in the warm summer breeze hear the words, “Batter up!” Blessings!

Edward Stillingfleet was a British theologian and scholar, considered an outstanding preacher as well as a strong polemical writer defending Protestantism. In his work Origines Sacrae he argues for the truth of Scripture in history. What he published in 1680 rings true for us today. Must the extent of God’s omnipotent power “pass the scrutiny of our faculties, before it obtains a place for Divine revelation?” Stillingfleet argues,

“Secondly, to commensurate the perfections of God with the narrow capacity of the human intellect; which is contrary to the natural idea of God; and to the manner whereby we take up our conceptions of God; for the idea of God doth suppose incomprehensibility to belong to his nature; and the manner whereby we form our conceptions of God, is by taking away all the imperfections we find in ourselves, from the conception we form of a being absolutely perfect, and by adding infinity to all the perfections we find in our own natures. Now this method of proceeding doth necessarily imply a vast distance and disproportion between a finite and infinite understanding. And if the understanding of God be infinite, why may not he discover such things to us, which our shallow apprehensions cannot reach unto? what ground or evidence of reason can we have that an infinite wisdom and understanding, when it undertakes to discover maters of the highest nature and concernment of the world, should be able to deliver nothing but what comes within the compass of our imperfect and narrow intellects? And that it should not be sufficient that the matters revealed do none of them contradict the prime results or common notions of mankind (which none of them do) but that every particular mode and circumstance, as to the existence of God, or the extent of his omnipotent power, must pass the scrutiny of our faculties, before it obtains a place for a Divine revelation?”

Has the Church come to place regarding the Scriptures that because the promises of God can’t be classified, categorized, or easily referenced, that after the “scrutiny of our faculties” it concludes that what God said just couldn’t happen, an indictment against the “narrow capacity of the human intellect” when contemplating divine matters?

Edward Stillingfleet (1635–1699), Origines Sacrae, or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith, as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures, and matters contained therein (London: printed by M.W. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul’s Church-yard, and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall, 1680), 234-235

Doing research on volume 3 of the Standard Sacred Text series, A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text, I have been reading through many pages of 16^th and 17^th Protestant theologies. On a personal level, the Christ-centeredness and biblical consistency of their arguments is a refreshment to my soul. I told my family that unless you knew the Lord as your Savior you could not read this stuff for very long before your conscience, suffering under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, had enough. Imagine, John Wollebius work, which I am quoting below, was in its 3^rd edition in 1660. Few have heard of John Wollebius, Doctor of Divinity and Ordinary professor at the University of Basil, Switzerland, yet he stands with Voet and Turretin as one of the most influential Protestant dogmaticians. What stands out broadly is the consistency of their argument and their polemic against the external criteria of the Roman Catholic sanctioning of the Latin Vulgate as the word of God.

These men and their encyclopedic theological systems have so much to teach the contemporary Church. To our detriment, with minor exceptions, these Protestant orthodox systematic theologies have been forsaken by the modern academy, so much so, that to quote them seems something quaint and distant, not at all like current theological structures.

The quote below relates to the issue of external criteria for what is and is not Scripture, and for Wollebius, the ecclesiastical authority of the Church of Rome. Touching external criteria as you read this quote, substitute any external criteria that comes to mind – the historical critical method, CBGM, a favorite writer, personal preference, etc., — for Church. You will get a sense in the 21^st century of what Dr. John Wollebius, Professor at the University of Basil and his colleagues were up against in the 17^th century. Though the presentation of the controversy has changed, the controversy itself is the same.

“The Romanists argue the Churches authority alone, which we they have in such high esteem, that they will have the whole authority of Scriptures to have its dependence from the Church; and for this only cause they will have it to be God’s Word, because the Church is witness of it. But this is not to make the Church a witness of Scripture’s divinity, but to make herself capable of divinity. But we will prove by these ensuing arguments, that the testimony of God’s Spirit alone is it, which firmly assures us of the Scripture’s divinity.”

John Wollebius, The Abridgement of Christian Divinity, 3^rd ed. (London: Printed for T. Mabb. For Joseph Nevill, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Plough in the New Buildings in Paules Church-yard, 1660), 6.

The Controversy: How Does Scripture Prove Itself to be the Word of God?

It is well known, that this question hath been much disputed between us, and our Adversaries, for many years, and that two things especially have been insisted on by them, to prove the Scripture no competent Rule of Faith, viz. the obscurity, and the imperfection of it. In this dispute they have labored to puzzle and plunge us, by putting us to show, how Scripture proves it self to be (what we account it) the Word of God.

First Principle

To this we may justly think it a sufficient answer to say, (as one, yea may have said long since) that in every profession the Principles are indemonstrable, assented to without discourse; and the Scriptures are the Principles of Christian Religion, and therefore first we must grant them to be the very Word of God, and then say, they contain all points needful to be known. And since Scripture avoucheth it self to be the word of God, 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1:20, 21. Luke 1:70. It is rational in us to believe it. Notwithstanding our Adversaries are not satisfied, but insist much on this question, viz. How we know, that the Scripture, that faith it is in the Word of God, is so in very deed.

Summary of the Argument

To this the Protestants have long since answered, “That they know this first and principally by the illumination of God’s Spirit, as the inward means, and then by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves, as the outward means; and lastly, by the ministry of the Church inducing us to assent.”

Scriptures Self-Authentication

Here we do not say, that the certainty of Scripture is written in any particular place, or Book of it, but the virtue and power that showeth it self in every line and leaf of the Bible, proclaimeth it to be the Word of the eternal God; and the sheep of Christ discern the voice and light thereof, as men discern light from darkness, and as children are known by their faces and favors, resembling their parents.

Thomas Ford, Scripture’s Self-Evidence: to prove its Existence, Authority, Certainty in it Self, and Sufficiency (in its kind) to ascertain others, That it is inspired of God to be the Only Rule of Faith (London: Printed for Edward Brewster, and are to be sold at Mr. Marriotts at Scrivener; over against Hicks-Hall, in St. Johns Street, 1667), 39-41.

Clement of Alexandria (153-217?): The Stromata, or Miscellanies

For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospels, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin been preserved.

He, then, who himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subject to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as it is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.

For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might easily state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration.

Philip Schaff, ed. ,”The Stromata,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 7.16, 551.

John Rodgers, a staunch disciple, and friend of William Tyndale edited the Matthew’s Bible under the pseudonym of Thomas Matthew in the hope that his work would not be immediately recognized as that of Tyndale.^[1] Tyndale’s martyrdom cut short his translation of the Old Testament completing the Pentateuch and Joshua through 2 Chronicles.^[2] For the remainder of the Old Testament, including the Psalms, Rogers relied upon Coverdale. In Psalm 12 :6-7 Rodgers translated, “The words of the Lord are pure words, even as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever.”^[3]

Following Coverdale, Rogers again makes a clear connection in his translation between the pure words being the antecedent to “them keep” by omitting any intervening words between the noun and verb. Rodgers also continued the divided rendering of “keep them,” the words, and “keep us,” the people, indicative of the principle that God’s covenantal promises with Israel and the Church assure the safety, care, and salvation of both. By this translation The Matthew’s Bible contributes to the argument that Psalm 12:6-7 speaks to the providential preservation of God’s word. John Rodgers was the first to be martyred at Smithfield in 1555 under the reign of Mary I of England who sought to restore Roman Catholic rule. It was said of Rodgers that in his death, “He broke the ice valiantly.”

Rest assured; this is never going to happen to an advocate of the historical critical method. The historical critical method has far more in common with those that martyred Rodgers than with Rodgers who gave his life for the Scripture in English including, for example, a central controlling committee, elite arbitrators of the text, and scholarly usurpation of canonical authority.

---

[1] Olga S. Opfell, The King James Bible Translators (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1982), 18-19.

[2] See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1959); Robert McCrumm, William Cran, Robert MacNeil, The Story of English (New York: Viking Penguin Inc, 1986); Ira Maurice Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1923); Brian H. Edwards, “Tyndale’s Betrayal and Death,” Christian History, 6 (1988).

[3] The Bible Which all the Holy Scripture translated into English by Thomas Matthew, 1537 (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilm).