# The Making of the Westminster Confession -- B.B. Warfield



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2007)

_The Making of the Westminster Confession_ by B.B. Warfield is available online here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 22, 2007)

Thanks, Andrew! Are there other books you know of (online preferably, but otherwise welcome) on this topic?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 23, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Andrew! Are there other books you know of (online preferably, but otherwise welcome) on this topic?



You're welcome, Steve! There are a variety of sources that you might consult which vary in accessibility/cost, but here are a few that come to mind:

S.W. Carruthers, _The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly_

A.F. Mitchell, _The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards; Being the Baird Lecture for 1882_

A.F. Mitchell & J.P. Struthers, _Minutes of the sessions of the Westminster assembly of divines while engaged in preparing their directory for church government, confession of faith, and catechism (November 1644 to March 1649) from transcripts of the originals procured by a committee of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland_ (be aware that a more comprehensive edition of the minutes is in the works here)

William Symington, _Historical Sketch of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_

William Hetherington, _History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 24, 2007)

Thank you for those, Andrew. What I am in particular looking at presently is WCF 1:8. What are my best sources for learning of the discussions & intent of its framers at that point? This so I may answer those who interpret it differently than how it was intended.

Thanks again.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 24, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thank you for those, Andrew. What I am in particular looking at presently is WCF 1:8. What are my best sources for learning of the discussions & intent of its framers at that point? This so I may answer those who interpret it differently than how it was intended.
> 
> Thanks again.



Steve -- I assume that your focus is on the first half of 1:8 (ie., providential preservation)? It is interesting that the Irish Articles (which is generally considered to be the single most influential document in the creation of the WCF and therefore usually a good place to look in answering such questions), does not mention the providential preservation of the Scriptures (though it does speak of the need to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar languages). 

The minutes concerning this area (at least without having yet seen Chad Van Dixhoorn's work) are sparse. Warfield reports on the recorded activities of the Assembly involving chapter 1 of the Confession:



> Chapter I. - "The sub-Committee for the Confession of Faith" was instructed on Friday, July 4, 1645, to "make report to the Assembly on Monday morning of what is in their hands concerning . . . the Scriptures." Accordingly on Monday, July 7, "Dr. Temple made report of that part of the Confession of Faith touching the Scriptures. It was read, debated." It was debated on July 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. It was debated in review June 17, 18, 1646. The Scriptural proofs were reported January 7,59 1647, and debated January 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: and reviewed April 6, 1647. It was debated in the House of Commons on the 19th and 28th May, 1647 ("Journals of the House of Commons," v. pp. 177, 189) ; and the respited § 8 again debated and accepted, 17th March, 1648 (ibid., v. p. 502).



David Dickson wrote the first commentary on the Westminster Confession and his exposition, I think, is instructive as to what the Divines were addressing:



> Quest. XII. "Hath not the Lord, by his singular providence and care kept pure in all ages the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek?"
> 
> Yes; Mat. 5.18.
> 
> ...



Robert Shaw's well-respected exposition of the Confession (published in 1845) continues:



> There are four heads embraced in these sections. First, That the Scriptures, in the original languages, have come down to us uncorrupted, and are, therefore, authentical. Secondly, That the Scriptures are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come. Thirdly, That the infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. Fourthly, That the Scriptures are the supreme standard of religious truth, and that the Supreme Judge, by which all controversies in religion are to be determined, is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the Scriptures.
> 
> 1. The Old Testament, except a few passages which were written in Chaldee, was originally written in Hebrew, the language of the Jews, to whom the prophetic oracles were committed. The passages which were written in Chaldee, are the eleventh verse of the tenth chapter of the Prophecies of Jeremiah; from the second verse of the fourth chapter of Daniel, to the end of the seventh chapter; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of Ezra. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the language which, at the time of writing it, was most universally known. The original language of the Gospel according to Matthew, is indeed a subject of controversy. The ancients, with one voice, affirm that it was written in Hebrew, and this opinion is supported by many modern critics; others, equally learned, maintain that it was originally composed in Greek. Several of the latest writers on this subject have adopted the opinion that there were two originals, Hebrew and Greek, both written by Matthew himself,–the one for the use of the Jews, the other for the use of the Gentiles. Though the autographs of the inspired writings have long since disappeared, yet there is ample evidence that by the singular care and providence of God, they have been preserved pure in all ages, and that the copies which we now possess generally coincide with the originals.
> 
> The purity of the Old Testament Scriptures is confirmed by the general coincidence of the present Hebrew copies with all the early translations, and particularly with the Septuagint version. It may also be observed, that although our Lord frequently reproved the rulers and teachers of the Jews for their erroneous and false doctrines, yet he never accused them of any corruption in their sacred books; and the Apostle Paul reckons it among the privileges of the Jews, that to them "were committed the oracles of God," without ever insinuating that they had been unfaithful to their trust. The animosity which has ever since prevailed betwixt Jews and Christians has rendered it impossible for either of them to vitiate these sacred writings without immediate detection. The corruption of the books of the New Testament is altogether incredible. Had any party entertained a wish to alter them, it would have been impossible for them to succeed. Copies were speedily multiplied; they were early translated into the different languages of the several nations among which the gospel was planted; the Christian fathers embodied numerous quotations from them into their writings; various sects soon arose, keenly opposed to each other, but all receiving the same sacred books, and these became a check upon each other, and rendered corruptions and interpolations impracticable. Every succeeding age increased the difficulty; and though the comparison of a multitude of ancient manuscripts and copies has discovered a vast number of various readings, occasioned by the inadvertence and inaccuracy of transcribers, yet none of these differences affect any one article of the faith and comfort of Christians.


----------

