Bibliographic Information
Title: Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture
Author: T. Garnet Howard Milne
Publisher (Year): Copyright © Garnet Howard Milne 2017 (self-published or independently published; no specific publishing house is stated)
Length: The document spans multiple chapters (at least seven), plus a foreword, preface, introduction, concluding section, and a bibliography. The total length in manuscript form suggests the equivalent of a few hundred pages if printed in a standard format, though no explicit page count is given.Overview / Introduction
Main Purpose/Thesis:
Milne’s book sets out to investigate whether the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), composed in the mid-seventeenth century, believed that the complete text of the Bible—both Old and New Testaments in their original languages—was preserved in a state of “purity” and accessible to the church in all ages. More specifically, it challenges the modern assumption that the Westminster Assembly (1643–1649) silently allowed for partial corruption of the biblical text and the subsequent need for ongoing textual reconstruction. Milne contends that the Westminster divines, in line with earlier Reformers such as John Calvin and other prominent theologians (e.g., Thomas Cartwright, William Whitaker, John Jewel, etc.), affirmed that God had providentially preserved “the very words” of Scripture across history, thereby making them reliably available in the seventeenth century, in contrast to later nineteenth-century textual-critical approaches spearheaded by scholars like B. B. Warfield, Westcott, Hort, and others.
Context:
Milne’s work stands within the broader conversation of post-Reformation Protestant epistemology, pitting traditional Reformed claims of a definitively preserved biblical text against the theories of modern textual criticism, which maintain that the New Testament text suffered copying errors that might never be fully reversed. By analyzing the theological underpinnings of Reformed Orthodoxy on Scripture—specifically how the Puritans at Westminster viewed Scripture’s authority, inspiration, and availability—Milne aims to show that the WCF’s “kept pure in all ages” phrase (WCF 1:8) was meant literally: the text itself (not just its doctrines) was believed by those divines to be secured by divine providence in every generation. In turn, Milne demonstrates how later theologians such as A. A. Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield effectively reinterpreted the confession to say that we possess a “substantially pure” text—thus tacitly granting that variations and errors exist and that textual criticism must restore the original.
Author Background (Optional):
While the text does not give an extended biography, it is clear that T. Garnet Howard Milne writes from a confessional Reformed perspective, highly conversant with historical theology, seventeenth-century debates, and contemporary textual-criticism discourse. His denominational stance appears broadly Presbyterian/Reformed, with a commitment to confessional orthodoxy as outlined in the Westminster Standards.
- Chapter-by-Chapter (or Thematic) Summary
Foreword & Preface:
- In the Foreword, David J. Engelsma underscores the urgency of Milne’s topic, noting how many modern Christians doubt the church possesses the original words of Scripture. Engelsma lauds Milne for demonstrating that John Calvin and the Westminster Assembly believed the entire, originally inspired text was in their possession.
- The Preface situates the book within a contemporary setting where textual doubt abounds. Milne asserts a need to revisit the older Reformed consensus and to show that the “received text” paradigm—namely, that the collated Hebrew and Greek manuscripts widely accepted at the Reformation are trustworthy—did not envision ongoing uncertainty or radical revision.
Introduction:
- The Introduction frames the central conflict: Did the Westminster Confession (specifically WCF 1:8) teach that believers in the seventeenth century possessed the entire uncorrupted text, or did it allow for the possibility of large-scale textual corruption?
- Benjamin Warfield’s reinterpretation of the WCF is highlighted at length. Warfield held that God providentially preserved Scripture but only in a “substantial” sense, requiring the continuing labors of textual critics. Milne argues that this amounts to reading nineteenth-century textual skepticism back into the seventeenth century, whereas the Assembly’s own historical-theological context points in the opposite direction.
Chapter One: “John Calvin on possessing the complete Scripture in words and doctrine”
- Milne surveys Calvin’s commentaries and the Institutes to show that Calvin (a) believed Scripture was self-authenticating (autopistos) and (b) held that not merely the general sense but also the specific wording, “jots and tittles,” were preserved by God.
- This chapter lays a foundation for Reformed epistemology: Scripture is our external principle of knowledge (principium cognoscendi externum), while the Holy Spirit’s internal witness works in hearts to confirm that these words are indeed from God.
- Calvin’s approach to textual “difficulties” in places like Acts 7:16 and 1 John 2:14 is explained. Milne argues that while Calvin acknowledged scribal errors in isolated verses, he believed they could be corrected by the extant textual witnesses (e.g., cross-checking the Old Testament or variant Greek manuscripts). Hence, Calvin did not envision an irretrievably corrupted text.
Chapter Two: “The immediate theological context of the Westminster Assembly”
- Milne spotlights two major proto-Puritan or Elizabethan figures: Thomas Cartwright and William Whitaker. Both men argued vigorously against the Roman Catholic charge that the Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupt, insisting instead that God had preserved Scripture so perfectly that it remained a sure foundation for all spiritual controversies.
- The Roman Catholic position insisted that only the Vulgate was authorized and reliable, and that the church’s magisterium was necessary to certify Scripture’s authority. In contrast, Cartwright and Whitaker insisted that the church recognized, but did not bestow, the authority of Scripture. Crucially, they argued that God’s providence guaranteed that even after centuries, the biblical text was not lost or hopelessly corrupted.
Chapter Three: “How did the seventeenth-century Puritans understand the purity of the extant original language texts of Scripture?”
- Delving deeper into Westminster-era theologians like John Lightfoot, Anthony Tuckney, James Ussher, Thomas Hill, and others, Milne shows a consistent pattern: these Puritans regarded the original Hebrew and Greek texts as providentially preserved.
- They repeated arguments from Calvin and Whitaker—e.g., that no “essential” portion of God’s Word was missing or irreparably compromised; that Roman Catholic allegations of corruption were refuted by the Spirit’s promise to preserve Scripture.
- Milne documents how these theologians equated “authentical” (a term in WCF 1:8) with having the same authority and purity as the original autographs, not just in overall doctrine but in words.
Chapter Four: “The role of Providence in the preservation of Scripture in all ages”
- This chapter unpacks the theological significance of providence. For the Westminster Assembly, as well as earlier Reformed writers, the notion that God superintends history guaranteed the safeguarding of His Word.
- Milne contrasts this with Warfield’s later claim that only after the nineteenth century had certain manuscripts (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) come to light, enabling a more “scientific” reconstruction of the text. Warfield’s model effectively implies that the early modern church had an incomplete text.
- By contrast, seventeenth-century divines used providence language to mean that the text, in its fullness, was always in the possession of the church—though in multiple copies, no single manuscript being wholly perfect, yet collectively unimpeachable and complete.
Chapter Five: “Discordant views: The interesting case of the unconventional John Goodwin”
- Milne identifies the Arminian-leaning London minister John Goodwin as an example of a seventeenth-century figure who diverged from the Puritan consensus. Goodwin taught that only the substance of Scripture’s doctrine was preserved, not necessarily the precise words.
- Multiple Westminster and post-Westminster divines wrote against Goodwin, insisting that every word—indeed every “jot and tittle”—belonged to Scripture’s divine inspiration.
- By rebutting Goodwin, the assembly men clarified that WCF 1:8 indeed aimed at a fully preserved text. Their stance, as Milne shows, was that “sense” (or “substance of doctrine”) cannot be extracted from an unreliable textual foundation. Word and sense are inseparable.
Chapter Six: “James Ussher on the purity of the original language texts of Scripture”
- Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656) is crucial because his “Irish Articles” of 1615 heavily influenced the Westminster Confession. Milne demonstrates that Ussher also believed strongly in the integrity of the entire biblical text.
- Milne notes how Ussher opposed the views of Louis Cappel and others who suggested that the Hebrew vowels (and certain consonantal readings) were uncertain. Ussher believed conjectural emendation must be minimal, if not altogether unwarranted, given God’s providential oversight.
- Ussher’s statements, read in context, reinforce the conclusion that the Puritan consensus before, during, and after the Westminster Assembly saw the original texts—Hebrew and Greek—as thoroughly reliable and intact.
Chapter Seven & Conclusion: “A Biblical summary of the Reformed religious epistemology” and “The state of the Text of Scripture compared”
- Milne finishes by systematizing the Reformed approach: (1) Scripture is the principium cognoscendi externum; (2) it is self-attesting and self-evident as divine revelation; (3) the Holy Spirit internally confirms Scripture to believers’ hearts; and (4) God’s promise that not “one jot or tittle” would fail implies unbroken preservation of the text’s words.
- The final conclusion is that Warfield and subsequent conservative evangelicals, in adopting the modern textual-critical method, diverge from the older Reformed tradition. Milne strongly implies that the Warfieldian stance, while pious, undermines the straightforward sense of the confession and fosters a measure of skepticism foreign to the Reformation heritage.
- Strengths
Strength 1: Thorough Historical-Theological Research
Milne’s greatest strength is the depth of his engagement with primary sources. Across seven chapters, he cites a wide array of seminal Reformed theologians—Calvin, Cartwright, Whitaker, Ussher, John Lightfoot, Anthony Tuckney, and more. He compares their statements in detail and situates them within the controversies with Rome, thus explaining how doctrines of inspiration, canonicity, and textual preservation were intimately bound up with confessional Protestant identity.
Strength 2: Clarification of Epistemological Presuppositions
By highlighting how the Reformed tradition frames Scripture as both self-authenticating and verified by the inward witness of the Spirit, Milne demonstrates how textual purity was more than just a footnote to Reformation theology. It was integral to the certainty of faith itself. This explicit tie between theological method and textual beliefs is an invaluable correction to many accounts that treat textual criticism as purely “scientific” or historical without theological ramifications.
Strength 3: Nuanced Exposition of the Seventeenth-Century Context
Milne’s close examination of the debates between the Puritans and the Roman Catholic scholars—chiefly over the Vulgate’s status versus the extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts—foregrounds the real stakes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He shows why Reformed theologians insisted that the “original languages” were accessible in their purity: without them, “Scripture alone” as the supreme court of appeal would collapse.
Strength 4: Systematic Rebuttal to Warfield’s Reinterpretation
Warfield has often been hailed as the champion of biblical inerrancy, and his authority as a Reformed orthodox scholar is unquestioned in many circles. Yet Milne devotes ample space to showing that Warfield’s acceptance of major tenets of modern textual criticism put him at variance with the Westminster divines’ literal reading of “kept pure in all ages.” This is not a merely polemical approach: Milne quotes Warfield at length and offers a systematic critique, which contributes to a more historically precise understanding of Warfield’s relationship to confessional Presbyterianism.
Strength 5: Consistency of Tone and Scholarly Rigor
The work remains notably consistent in tone—forthright, indeed, but also scholarly and meticulous. Milne methodically walks through scriptural references, confessional documents, and historical treatises with an eye to detail. This approach benefits readers seeking an advanced historical-theological argument rather than a superficial or sensational treatment.
- Weaknesses
Weakness 1: Selectivity in Handling Contemporary Textual Scholarship
While Milne addresses Warfield, Westcott, Hort, and their legacy, he only peripherally treats more recent developments in textual criticism (e.g., the work of present-day evangelicals who might integrate textual criticism with inerrancy or adopt different theories of preservation). Readers may want deeper engagement with the wide array of contemporary text-critical arguments to see how Milne’s position might respond to them.
Weakness 2: Possible Overstatement of Early Modern Consensus
Though Milne rightly shows that mainstream seventeenth-century Puritanism strongly upheld a pure text, there were scattered dissenters (e.g., John Goodwin) and some who admitted small textual uncertainties. While he mentions these outliers, Milne’s approach is sometimes so confident that the Westminster consensus was absolutely unanimous that one might wish for a fuller exploration of any doubts or reservations within the period itself.
Weakness 3: Limitation of Scope Regarding Canon Formation
The book contends that the entire canonical text was settled and pure, but the question of canon (which books are included vs. excluded) is only lightly touched on. Milne mentions how the WCF recognized 66 books, but he does not give extensive treatment of how Reformed Scholastics dealt with, say, the Antilegomena or other historically disputed books. While the main theme is textual purity, a more robust discussion of canon formation could amplify his thesis on how the Reformed tradition recognized the extent of Scripture.
Weakness 4: Relatively Dense Prose for the General Reader
Because Milne writes at a distinctly scholarly level—consistent with specialized historical and theological work—less academic readers may find portions of the text quite technical, especially the discussions on textual variants. The footnotes, quotations in older English, and occasional Latin or Greek references can be overwhelming to anyone not accustomed to academic theology.
- Conclusion / Final Assessment
Overall Impression:
Has the Bible been kept pure? meticulously reconstructs the views of the Westminster Assembly and other Reformed writers on the doctrine of biblical preservation. Milne contends convincingly that they all, in one way or another, believed in the ongoing availability of the precise words of Scripture throughout church history. Contrary to the modern assertion—echoed by Warfield—that we only have an essentially reliable text requiring scholarly reconstruction, Milne’s historical analysis leads him to conclude that the seventeenth-century Reformed believed they possessed the authentic autographic text in the sum total of manuscripts available. Such a standpoint rooted their Sola Scriptura principle in the conviction that no “essential portion” of God’s Word was missing.
Key Takeaways:
- The Reformed Orthodoxy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (e.g., Calvin, Cartwright, Whitaker, Ussher) had a robust doctrine of providential preservation of Scripture that included the very wording of the biblical text.
- They integrated textual purity into their overarching theological method: God could not leave His church bereft of the very Word that was necessary for life and godliness.
- Modern evangelicals who follow a Warfieldian line of partial uncertainty about the text—and who accept that new archeological discoveries might render major textual changes—stand in tension with the older confessional tradition’s plain reading of WCF 1:8.
- This is not purely a historical footnote: one’s doctrine of Scripture directly shapes how one handles controversies, confidence in preaching, and assurance in the promises of God.
Recommended For:
- Scholars and graduate-level students of historical theology, especially those researching post-Reformation orthodoxy and early modern debates over scriptural authority.
- Clergy and denominational leaders within confessional Reformed or Presbyterian traditions who wish to understand the historical context behind WCF 1:8.
- Those interested in the theological implications of textual criticism, both modern and early modern.
- Lay readers with strong interest in the “Textus Receptus vs. eclectic text” controversies, though they should be prepared for dense academic detail.
Rating (Optional):
4.5/5 for historical-theological clarity, with the main shortcoming being limited engagement with more recent textual theories and the relatively dense style. Nonetheless, this remains an outstanding work of historical scholarship, directly challenging prominent assumptions about the Westminsters’ stance on textual purity.
In sum, T. Garnet Howard Milne’s Has the Bible been kept pure? stands out as a forthright and comprehensive study that seeks to recover the original Reformed perspective on Scripture’s providential preservation and its corollary: that believers can have full confidence that they possess the text of God’s Word in every age. Though the work is specialized, its detailed survey of seventeenth-century theologians is well worth the effort for those desiring a deeper grasp of the confessional Reformed tradition’s commitment to an authoritative, fully preserved biblical text.
