The Assembly Subscribes the Solemn League & Covenant 
Dr. Will Barker, former president of Covenant Theological Seminary and professor of church history at the Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, has written of “The Men and the Parties” that comprised the Westminster Assembly of Divines. The full text of this article can be found here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/creeds-confessions/the-men-and-the-parties-by-william-s-barker/, but our post today focuses on the first portion of that article, where Dr. Barker provides a very helpful overview of the five groups which played a role in the history of this great Assembly.
I. The Parties
Discussions of the Assembly tend to focus on the different parties, often to the neglect of the great unity that existed among the members. It must never be forgotten that their first concern was for the gospel of Christ and for the unity of all who truly belong to him. One of the most beautiful chapters in the Confession, “Of the Communion of Saints”, begins: “All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head by His Spirit and by faith have fellowship with Him…: (WCF XXVI/1). Further, as teachers they were all Calvinists in theology and could all be called Puritans, depending on the definition of that controversial term. The main controversy among them was church government and the related matter of church discipline, including the role of the state. The parties, therefore, are perceived along the lines of church polity: episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregationalist, with two additional categories being relevant – the Erastians and the Scottish delegation.
All of the Westminster divines appointed by the Long Parliament in 1643 were ordained ministers in the Church of England, although many had refused to conform to some Anglican practices and some had temporarily gone into exile in the Netherlands. This means that they had entered the ministry in an episcopal system, and many still favored a moderate episcopacy. Men such as James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, did not attend the Assembly because it did not have the approval of King Charles I. Others dropped out in the early stages. But all were opposed to prelacy, that is, the functioning of bishops like secular princes rather than as the teaching and preaching ministers of the New Testament. Some who favored a moderate episcopacy remained in the Assembly and were gradually persuaded to prefer the presbyterian position.
The Presbyterians, who favored a system with parity of the clergy, but with a graded system of church courts so that local congregations were bonded together and in submission to a regional presbytery, and presbyteries were in submission to a national general assembly, were in the majority in the Assembly. They were of two persuasions, however: those who believed in presbyterianism by divine right – i.e., that it is the only system prescribed by the New Testament – and those who believed presbyterianism was simply the system most consistent with the principles of church government taught in the New Testament. The latter was the prevailing view among the English divines at Westminster.
CONGREGATIONALISTS OR INDEPENDENTS
Those who favored congregational church government were led by a very able and vocal group that became known as “the five dissenting brethren.” These five had all gone into exile in the Netherlands in the 1630’s and had close relations with the congregationalists in New England. These were non-separating Puritans who wanted local church autonomy while still maintaining an association among churches and with the state. Although the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay enforced the New England congregational way through the civil magistrate, the English congregationalists were led by circumstances to prefer toleration.
The Erastians, whose name is derived from a 16th-century Swiss theologian, were not in favor of any particular church polity – episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational – by divine right, but were mainly concerned that church discipline be finally carried out only with the approval of the state. This view was upheld in the Assembly by a small but learned group and was supported by many in Parliament, which had called the Assembly and whose approval was necessary for the implementation of the Assembly’s decisions.
THE SCOTTISH DELEGATION
As a result of the Solemn League and Covenant, approved by the Scottish Parliament on August 17, 1643 and subscribed by the English Parliament and the members of the Westminster Assembly on September 25, four Scottish ministers joined the Assembly in September of 1643. These were not voting members but had the right to speak. In exchange for the assistance of the Scottish army to the Parliamentary forces in the Civil War against the King, the Solemn League and Covenant sought to bring the churches of England and Ireland into conformity to the Reformed religion in Scotland in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. The Scottish commissioners, with almost a century of presbyterian history behind them, favored presbyterianism by divine right.
Such were the parties that emerged as church government proved to be the most controversial issue in the Assembly. Again we should remember that all of the Westminster divines were Calvinists. As we look back to the Assembly with gratitude primarily for the setting forth of the Reformed faith in the Confession and Catechisms, we should celebrate the doctrinal unity which it had. Where there was diversity, there was also a spirit of accommodation on the part of many. Richard Baxter, a contemporary Puritan but not a member of the Assembly, had immense appreciation of its members and its accomplishments. He later commented that if all Episcopalians had been as Archbishop Ussher, all Presbyterians as Stephen Marshall (the great preacher of the Assembly), and Independents as Jeremiah Burroughs, the divisions of the church might soon have been healed.
It was on September 24th, in 1757, that Jonathan Edwards made his decision to accept the offer to become the third president of the College of New Jersey (now known as Princeton University). While the school was decidedly Presbyterian in its affiliation, Edwards was commonly known as a Congregationalist. But two separate accounts exist, contending that Edwards did in fact affirm the Presbyterian form of government.
The first of our articles appeared in an issue of the Philadelphia-based newspaper, The Presbyterian. In this letter, the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green had originally written to R. J. Breckinridge, editor of the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine. Our access to the letter comes from its republication on the pages of The Presbyterian.
Ashbel Green, “President Edwards a Presbyterian,” The Presbyterian (12 January 1839): 201.
Philadelphia, Nov. 12th 1838
Rev. and Dear Sir:—I have recollected, since I last saw you, that the fact has already been published, which I then mentioned to you in conversation;—and in regard to which you requested me to furnish you with a written statement. In the Christian Advocate, the 10th volume–the volume for the year 1832, and in the No. for March of that year, page 128—after having mentioned a class of Congregationalists, who, in my estimation, were eminent for genuine piety, I added as follows:—”We should have put down here, the name of the great President Edwards; but he was, in sentiment, a decided Presbyterian, and left a manuscript in favor of Presbyterian church government; as his son, the second President Edwards, distinctly admitted to us not long before his death. Beside, the elder Edwards was either a member of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, at the time of his death, or would soon have been so, if his lamented decease, shortly after his becoming President off the College at Princeton, had not prevented.”
The admission referred to in the foregoing extract, was made in consequence of an inquiry put, by me, to Dr. Edwards, as he and I were walking together to the place of meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, then in session in this city. I do not recollect the year. I had heard a report, which I think must have come either from my father or from my colleague Dr. Sproat,–both of whom were contemporaries and admirers of the first President Edwards–that he had written a tract, or an essay, in favor of Presbyterian church government; and I was glad to take the opportunity which at this time offered, to ascertain from his son the truth or fallacy of the report. The inquiry resulted in the distinct admission that the report which I had heard was true.
I spoke to Dr. Edwards, of printing the tract or essay, in question; but he did not seem to favor the idea, and I forbore to press it. He said, that the manuscript referred to, was among several other unpublished papers of his father, which, as I understood him, were then in his hands. Into whose hands they have passed, since the death of Dr. Edwards, is unknown to me.
Respectfully and affectionately, Yours,
* * * *
The second item appeared on the pages of The Christian Observer, in 1850. It relates a letter that President Edwards wrote to Dr. Ebenezer Erskine, of Scotland and provides a quotation from that letter, thus:
PRES. EDWARDS, A PRESBYTERIAN.
In a letter to the Rev. Dr. Erskine of Scotland, President Edwards , (whom Robert Hall calls, “the greatest of the sons of men,”) gives the following statement of his views in respect to Presbyterianism :—
“You are pleased, dear sir, very kindly to ask me, whether I could sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, and submit to the Presbyterian Form of Government. As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty; and as to Presbyterian Government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of Church government in this land, and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things.”
Such were the views of many pastors in New England, twenty-five years ago—and such we presume, are the views of many at this time, notwithstanding the efforts of Dr. Bacon, the Independent and others, to create and waken up prejudice against Presbyterianism.—It is very natural for an agitator, a man of progress, or of loose views in theology, to prefer some type of Independency. Without a Session to advise with him in the spiritual oversight of the Congregation, he can (if a manager) have his own way in controlling everything in his church. If a careful and discreet ruler, he may acquire more power in his charge as an Independent, than he could hope to gain as a Presbyterian minister.—Amenable to no permanent judicatory for the doctrines which he teaches, he can follow the impulses of his own nature, and teach all the contradictions and transcendentalism found in Dr. Bushnell’s book without losing his place or influence in his church and association.
But if it be desirable that the members of the Church should be duly represented in the administration of its spiritual government,—if the pastor should have responsible counselors, well acquainted with the Church, and all its interests and peculiarities, to aid him in this work, the Presbyterian form of government is to be preferred. It is equally important as a shield to the minister in many cases of discipline, as well as to render him duly responsible for his personal and official conduct, teaching, and character.
[excerpted from The Christian Observer, Vol. XXIX, No. 38 (21 September 1850): 150, columns 2-3.]
A Small Learning Opportunity: On occasion you may hear the termjure divino Presbyterianism. That phrase is a short-hand for the idea—or better, the doctrinal conviction —that the Presbyterian form of church government is the only form of church government taught in the Scriptures.
In the history of the Christian Church, there have been basically only three forms of church government found, though with some variations within each form. The Episcopal form of church government is hierarchical, and typically has one or more archbishops overseeing bishops, who in turn oversee rectors, who are placed over congregations. Some of the Episcopal variations include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church With the Congregational form of government, each congregation is autonomous. Though congregational churches often form associations, the local church always retains its autonomy. Variations on this type include Baptist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, and Mennonite. And finally, the Presbyterian form of church government, which is distinguished by a series of courts, rising from the local level to the national level: Session – Presbytery – Synod – General Assembly. At each of these levels, both teaching elders (ministers) and ruling elders (non-ordained laity) sit as equal members. Session: The pastor(s) and ruling elders of a congregation comprise the Session and govern an individual congregation. Presbytery: Pastors and a representative number of ruling elders from each of the Presbyterian churches in a specified region comprise the Presbytery, and conduct the business of the Church on a regional level. Synod: This court is comprised of several Presbyteries, and thus covers a larger region. Smaller Presbyterian denominations do not typically have the Synod structure, or may only meet nationally as a Synod, in which case they do not use the General Assembly structure. General Assembly: The highest court of a Presbyterian denomination, this body meets as a national or trans-national court, with its members again consisting of elders, both ruling and teaching, sitting as representatives of the churches in the denomination.
Yet another form of a children’s catechism. This version was published in THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY’S SHORTER CATECHISM, WITH SCRIPTURE PROOFS. [Portland : Hyde, Lord and Duren. New-York City : Eli French. 1847.]
A CATECHISM IN RHYME.
Who made you, child, and bade you live? God did my life and spirit give.
Who keeps you safely, can you tell? God keeps me safe, and makes me well.
How has God shown the way of truth? The Bible is the guide of youth.
How should you act to God above? With fear and honour, praise and love.
Does God know all you do and say? Yes, and my thoughts both night and day.
Have you and evil heart within? Yes; I was even born in sin.
How does your heart its badness show? By sinful words and actions too.
Is not God angry when we sin? Yes. Oh how wicked I have been.
What do your sins deserve t’ obtain? Present and everlasting pain.
And can you save yourself from wo? I cannot save myself, I know.
Have you the power to change your heart? No; it is prone from good to start.
Who, then, can peace and pardon give? Jesus, who died that we might live.
What proves that Jesus Christ will save? His life, his cross, his death, his grave.
Can none but Christ for sin atone? The blood of Jesus Christ alone.
And how may you his grace receive? In Jesus Christ I must believe.
Must you repent with humble heart? Yes, and from every sin depart.
From God what blessings should you seek? Lord, save my soul for Jesus’ sake.
Should you love Christ, who was so good? Oh yes, with all my heart I should.
Did Christ become a little child? Yes, holy, humble, meek and mild.
What did his early his’try shew? Jesus in strength and wisdom grew.
What was foretold of Jesus’ grace? The Lambs he’ll on his bosom place.
And were the young thus loved and blest? Christ took and clasped them to his breast.
What did Christ say, though young we be? Let little children come to me.
Does Christ still view the young with love? Yes, on his glorious throne above.
How should a child begin to pray? Lord, teach me what to think and say.
Will God regard the hymns you raise? Yes, Jesus loves an infant’s praise.
Who only can direct your youth? The Holy Spirit, God of truth.
Must you of ev’ry lie beware? Yes, with most strict and constant care.
Must you all evil tempers flee? I must not in a passion be.
Must you your book and wisdom prize? Yes, I must be both good and wise.
How must a child to others be? As I would have them act to me.
What must you to your parents shew? Obedience, love, and honour too.
What must your brother(s)* in you find? A heart that’s always mild and kind.
Must you your sister(s)† always love? Yes, and be gentle as a dove.
How must you act to all you know? I must all love and kindness know.
Do little children often die? Yes, quite as young and strong as I.
Will Jesus judge the “small and great?” Yes, and will fix their endless state.
Where shall the wicked sinner dwell? With everlasting flames in hell.
What should you wish if call’d to die? To be with Christ above the sky.
Where will good children ever be? In heav’n, their Saviour Christ to see.
THE SCHOOL & FAMILY CATECHIST by Rev. William Smith
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Questions 45 and 46
Q.45. Which is the first commandment?
A. The first commandment is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” Exod. xx. 3.
Q. 46. What is required in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment requireth us to know and acknowledge God to be the only true God, and our God, and to worship and glorify him accordingly.
To know God, &c. –To make ourselves acquainted with the character and perfections of God, as he has revealed them in his word.
To acknowledge God, &c. –To own and to confess him both in secret and in public; to believe that he alone is worthy to be feared, and admired and loved above every other object; and to profess our relation to him as his people.
To worship him accordingly. –To pray to God, and to make him the chief object of our esteem, desire, and delight, both in secret and in public.
To glorify him. –See Explic. Q.1.
Quest. by 1.WHAT is the chief end of man? Ans.Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
Chief end.—The principle purpose or design for which man was made, and to which he should, above all things, labor to attain.
To glorify God.—To do honor to his name, by loving him, and trusting in him, believing his word, and keeping his commandments.
To enjoy him for ever.—To have God’s favor, and the influences of his Spirit in this world, and to share in the happiness of his immediate presence in heaven hereafter.
The duties required in the first commandment are five in number :
To know God. –1 Chron. xxviii. 9. Know thou the God and thy Father.
To acknowledge God. –Prov. iii. 6. In all thy ways acknowledge him.
To know and acknowledge him to be the only true God. –John xvii. 3. This is life eternal that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
To know and acknowledge him as our God. –Deut. xxvi. 17. Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken to his voice.
To worship and glorify him accordingly. –Psal. xxix. 2. Give unto the Lord the glory due his name, worship the Lord, in the beauty of holiness.
Today we present the Inaugural Address of the Rev. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, delivered upon his installation as profoessor at the Princeton Theological Seminary on this day, September 21, 1900. Dr. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield was a close friend of Dr. Wilson’s, and he composed a hymn for the inaugural occasion, later published on page six as part of Four Hymns and Some Religious Verse, and which can be viewed here.
How many people know that Benjamin B. Warfield was much more than “just” a theologian and exegete of first rank?
He also wrote at least four hymns and a small grouping of religious verse. Among these, the following example was composed for the occasion of the installation of his close friend, the Rev. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, as professor of semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, on 21 September 1900:
HOW GLORIOUS ART THOU, O OUR GOD!
Opening Hymn for the Service of Installation (to the tune of St. Anne, composed by William Croft, 1708)
How glorious art thou, O our God!
’Tis Thou and Thou alone
Who dwellest in Thy people’s praise,
On Thine eternal throne.
From Charran and Chaldean Ur,
The River’s banks along,
From Canaan’s heights and Egypt’s sands,
Arose the constant song,—
From all the towns that stud the hills
Of teeming Galilee,
From marts of Greece and misty lands
Beyond the Western Sea.
How many voices, diff’ring tongues,
Harmonious, join to raise
To Thee, O Rock of Israel,
Fain would we catch the accents strange,
Fain train our ears to hear
The notes that hymn Thee, through the years,
O Israel’s Hope and Fear!
’Twas thou didst teach thy sons of old
Thy varied laud to sing,
School Thou our hearts that we may too
Our hallelujahs bring.
How glorious art Thou, O our God!
How mighty past compare!
Thou dwellest in Thy people’s praise,—
Accept the praise we bear.
[delivered on 21 September 1900]
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Let me thank you for the great honor which you have conferred upon me in calling me to take a part in the succession to the labors of those illustrious men who, in their day, made the name of Princeton known and revered throughout the world, and whose memory still is blessed. May the portion of their mantle which has fallen upon me, cause me to be filled with the same spirit which was in them, and make me worthy of a place among my learned and distinguished confrères in the present faculty of this mother of Presbyterian Seminaries.
It gives me especial pleasure and comfort, in leaving a city which for nearly a quarter of a century has been my home, to see among you here so many of the old familiar faces of those who in College and Seminary were my professors or fellow students, and to receive a charge from one whom I have always deemed one of the dearest of my Seminary friends.
Will you pardon my for expressing the hope that those of you who have known me for so many years and yet have esteemed me fitted for this place, may never be disappointed in your choice
Before discussing the subject which I have chosen for my inaugural address, a few definitions may be necessary. By Lower Criticism I mean grammar, lexicography and textual criticism ; by Higher Criticism, any literary criticism of the text or any systematic statements of truth, which may be derived from the purest possible text, in strict accordance with the rules of grammar and the most probably results of lexicography. Following these definitions, we restate the theme of our discourse as follows: A thorough knowledge of the principles of grammar, lexicography and textual criticism is necessary as a preparation for the critical study of the Scriptures along any line of thought, literary, historical or theological.
Before passing to the discussion of our subject, let us remark that the three branches of Lower Criticism are not mutually exclusive nor logically distinct. Indeed, there is a sense in which both lexicography and textual criticism may be looked upon as parts of grammar, while on the other hand, no part of grammar or lexicography can be considered without reference to the criticism of the text.
After these preliminary remarks by way of definition and limitation, I proceed to the discussion of the kind and amount of lower criticism which are demanded by the times, and which it shall be the endeavor of the incumbent of the Chair of Semitic Philology and Old Testament Criticism to impart. The first department of Lower Criticism is that which is commonly called grammar. For convenience of treatment Hebrew Grammar may be divided into three parts, Phonics, Graphics and Morphics, or sounds, signs and forms. The study of sounds, in their relation to Higher Criticism, is important only because of its bearing upon the derivation and the variations of the forms of words, and upon the errors of text arising from the confusion of consonants of similar sound. The study of Graphics, especially in MSS. and in palaeography, is necessary in order to understand the transmission of the text, and in particular the variations arising from mistakes in reading letters which, at some time, have been similar in form. And when we come to the first part of Morphics, which is commonly called etymology, it is not sufficient to study the forms of words as they are embodied in the traditional punctuation of the Massoretes. The origin of the sounds back of the written forms, the inflection and meaning of the forms, the ability to change forms in accordance with the demands of exegesis, this must be thoroughly learned before one is prepared to advance with steady tread by the paths of syntax and textual criticism to the higher regions of history, theology and literary criticism. But if the origin, inflection and meaning of single words is indispensable, what shall we say of the more complex forms of syntax? You will agree with me, that this is one of the most difficult tasks in the learning of any language. You will agree with me, further, in my belief that no part of a theological education was formerly more neglected than the study of Hebrew Syntax. In fact, it was scarcely taught at all in our theological seminaries a generation ago. If you will look at an old Hebrew grammar, you will find that very little space is given to it. One was expected to know it by intuition, or to pick it up. The advance in the importance attributed to a special knowledge of Hebrew syntax, may be gauged by comparing the different editions of Gesenius’ Grammar which have appeared in the last fifty years, or the translation of Conant with the last editions of the English version of Kautzsch’s Gesenius. We are convinced that the reason why so many of our ministers have neglected the independent exegesis of the Old Testament, has been that they were ignorant of syntax. Certainly no one acquainted with the subject would suppose for an instant that a knowledge of that difficult and varied instrument for the expression of thought, the Semitic verb, could be gained otherwise than by thorough and protracted study. The Hebrew imperfect is as varied in its usage as the Greek Aorist, the Hebrew genitive and article as the Greek, and the exegete who attempts to expound the Old Testament, without being master of these, is just as insensible to the requirements of the case as is he who would try in like ignorance to expound the Greek of the New.
The second division of Lower Criticism is lexicography, the science or art of determining the meaning of words. By most students of the Old Testament, this department of research is given over entirely to the dictionary makers. What appears in a standard current dictionary is considered final and decisive. I remember that when I was in the Seminary two great theologians carried on an important discussion, which depended upon the meaning of a single word, and neither of them thought it necessary to appeal to other authorities than the English edition of Gesenius. Who was Gesenius, that our Presbyterian ministers and professors should appeal to his dictionary as the final court in linguistic matters? Should a rationalist of his type, whose opinions in Higher Criticism would be rejected as untenable, shall the work of such a man be accepted as the standard in the field of lexicography? Do a man’s views of God not enter into his definition of miracles and prophecy and holiness and sin? Those of you who are conversant with Gesenius’ dictionary will remember the frequently recurring note: See my Commentary on Isaiah, in loco; and there we find the discussion of the reasons for defining the word as it is given in the dictionary. In short, a dictionary is but the dicta of the writer on the words defined. The exegete should be prepared to go back of the dictionary so as to examine the reasons for the definition. As my learned colleague, in his masterly review of the meaning of the word for inspired, so every searcher after truth should, so far as possible, be prepared to search out the meaning of any disputed term and to thoroughly investigate his premises before arriving at a conclusion. But it is a pertinent question here to ask, whether this is ever in the range of possibility for the ordinary theological student? To which I answer : Yes; in large part.
Every theological student learns enough Hebrew to use a concordance. Now, a concordance of a language like the ancient Hebrew, whose entire literature is found in a single book, gives a comprehensive survey of the usage of a given word. If the construction in which the word occurs is always exactly the same, little information can be gained in this way ; but if the word is of frequent occurrence, and is found in several or many different connections, a tolerably accurate definition of most words may be made without further help than a concordance. If there is profit in using Cruden’s and Young’s concordances in the explication of the text, much more might one argue the utility of using those in the original languages in which the Word of God was written, as “The final appeal in all questions of faith and practice.” The Greek and Hebrew concordances are the airbrakes on hasty conclusions, the safety-valves of the Church against the rash judgments of professional dictators or ignorant enthusiasts.
A second aid which the ordinary student may find in determining the meaning of words, is that to be derived from the meaning of forms. If it be true that forms have meaning, then a knowledge of the usual meaning of these forms will enable the student to demand that the lexicon shall give a sufficient reason for any departure from the customary meaning of a form.
A third aid which the ordinary student can use in the control of the dictionary is to be found in the ancient versions into Greek and Latin. These versions are fortunately within the reach of all, and their daily use in the interpretation of the original is to be most highly commended. It will not merely keep up and increase a knowledge of those languages upon which so much time has been expended, but it will certainly call attention to matters of grammar and exegesis which would otherwise be entirely overlooked. But as to the point in question, it will be immediately perceived that when there is a difference between one or more of the ancient versions and the lexicon as to the meaning of a word, that there is a subject worthy of the investigation of the exegete. To my mind no better method for mastering the ancient Hebrew, and at the same time for retaining and perfecting our knowledge of the classics, can be found than the study of the ancient versions in connection with the original text, discovering and seeking to explain every slightest variation of thought or expression. As tests of dictionaries and suggesters of new ideas they are invaluable and unsurpassed. While ordinary students must remain satisfied with the study of the Greek and Latin versions, the extraordinary student will acquire Syriac and Aramaic in order to make use of the other great primary versions, that he may derive a full benefit from these great masterpieces of interpretation of the word of God which have been handed down from antiquity.
A fourth aid in the control of lexicons is not open to the ordinary student. It is that to be derived from the cognate languages. Its value in correcting the errors of citation and logic on the part of lexicographers can scarcely be overestimated. I shall never forget the shock which went through my frame when upon looking at an Arabic dictionary in confirmation of a statement made by that imperial scholar, Ewald, with regard to the meaning of a word, I found the facts to be the very opposite to that which he had stated to be the case. It caused a revolution in my methods ; I have never since accepted the references to the cognate languages in the commentaries and dictionaries without first making an investigation for myself, and even then often with the admission to myself that the inductions of meanings in the dictionaries at hand may be incomplete or misunderstood. Some of the commentaries and lexicons cannot be comprehended without a partial knowledge of Arabic and Syriac at least. Would that every one who had the opportunity of perfecting himself in the use of all the means which God has given us for ascertaining with as much fullness as possible the meaning of every word which the Holy Scriptures contain would avail himself of the advantages which this institution may afford of learning these sister tongues of the inspired.
The third department of Lower Criticism is Textual Criticism, the purpose of which is to discover the original text. One would suppose that the first endeavor of all students of the Bible would be to discover the very words which were written through the inspiration of God. It is only lately, however, that any critical apparatus, approximating in any suitable degree what it should be, has been prepared. The publication of the Polychrome edition of the Hebrew bible and the amount of textual changes suggested in many of the latest commentaries, such as Klostermann’s, and in religious magazines, like the Expository Times, have rendered it necessary for the intelligent and conscientious reader to gain as good as possible a knowledge of the correct principles of Old Testament textual criticism. While Old Testament books are costly, every man can have at least one polyglot which will give most of the data upon which the conclusions of the critics are based. As to the methods of textual criticism, this is neither the time nor the place to enter into a full statement of what they are. Let it suffice to say that they should be objective rather than subjective. The purpose of the critic should be to find out what the author said, not what he would like him to have said, nor what he thinks he ought to have said. Such a method, moreover, must be scientific, i.e., it must seek to secure a complete induction of the facts without selection or exclusion, because of preconceived opinions or tendency theories of any kind whatsoever. What the men of God wrote, that is the task of the critic to discover and to pass on to the exegete, the historian and the theologian, that they may have correct premises on which to base the conclusions in their commentaries, histories and theologies.
Here let me guard against two common misconceptions. One is the supposition that the Hebrew original of the Old Testament has been so preserved as to render all revision objectless. No one can hold such a theory in view of the evidences of the Hebrew MSS. and the parallel passages alone. No more will any one who accepts the evidences of the New Testament quotations in their bearing upon the text of the Old, and who recognizes the need for a revision of the New Testament, have a locus standi in defending the impeccability of the text of the Old.
The other error is that the ancient translators or the later revisers of their versions were so characterized by prejudices and tendencies that their translations were intentionally inaccurate and biased from the start, so as to render them largely useless in enabling us to re-establish any original Hebrew text. In answer to this it may be said that (except in isolated instances and books) no sufficient proof of these intentional variations from the original text has as yet been produced. My own conviction is (and this is a conviction based upon a more or less extensive study of all the versions), that all of them, primary and secondary, by whomsoever made, bear undeniable evidence of having been designed to be faithful to their original. Had we the original texts of the versions, we could doubtless, with the aid of the Hebrew textus receptus, reconstruct in most instances the originals from which they were translated. As it is, the first question to be asked when we find a variation in a version is, why this variation? Was the original of it different from the textus receptus? Did the translators misunderstand the original? Do we misunderstand either the original or the translation, or is either one or other text corrupt? It will be seen that before one is fitted to answer these questions with anything like accuracy, he must be acquainted with all the departments of grammar and lexicography mentioned above. Phonics, palaeography, the concordances, versions and cognates will all contribute their portion toward the settlement of every question of text. The failure to use any one of these factors may cause an error in the result.
Such, then, are the three great divisions of Lower Criticism—text, grammar, lexicon—and knowledge of all three is indispensable to any one who will rightly divide the Word of Truth. A correct view of the possibilities and attainments of textual criticism, a thorough knowledge of all the parts of grammar, an intelligent control of lexicography – these must be the possession of him who would understand the biblical literature of the day ; these give the logical premises for all conclusions based upon the Word of God. These are the foundations upon which are to be built the stately structure of literary criticism, history and theology.
We shall seek to lay the foundations deep and broad and firm in the minds of our students, that all men may admire the uprightness and strength and beauty of the superstructures which they shall build.
You will all have noticed that throughout this discourse I have emphasized the study of the cognates, and of the primary versions, at least, for those who would fully master the details of Lower Criticism. Only after having learned these will they be fully furnished for the more attractive but not more important work of Higher Criticism. Not forgetting that the primary object of the Theological Seminary is to train men for the Gospel ministry, I should like to see Princeton, and I think that the Church would like to see Princeton, offer to young men of the Presbyterian faith facilities for the acquisition of any branch of knowledge that will help them to discover and defend, in its full meaning, every word of God. It shall be my aim and ambition, with the hoped for hearty aid of the faculty and directors of this institution, and of our Alma Mater across the way, to present to every student the opportunity of acquiring any language which, as cognate to the Hebrew, throws light upon its grammar and lexicon, or any language in which a version of the Bible was made before the Sixth Century, A.D. Some of my fellow professors have kindly offered to assist in this plan, which is only an extension of what has hitherto been offered. With the assistance which the University can render, and which we are happy to believe it will be glad to render, we hope that soon it will not be necessary for any of our students to go abroad to perfect themselves in any branch of theological science.
In my plans for the offering of increased facilities for the more thorough understanding of the Old Testament, I have projected a number of works and series of works which seem necessary to fill out the apparatus criticus. In the completing of these works, I shall invoke the assistance of the students whom I expect to train, the advice of my fellow professors, and, when needed, the financial aid of the friends of this Seminary.
And may God grant His grace and His strength that all our labors may be well done and fully done, to the increase of knowledge and faith, to the honor of His Word and the glory of His name.
Photo source: Inset from a photographic postcard of the 1919 Grove City College Bible Conference, preserved as part of the Robert Dick Wilson Manuscript Collection, at the PCA Historical Center.
At last, He Had Arrivedby Rev. David T. Myers You would have thought that he was a king making a royal entrance into his kingdom, so great was the rejoicing among God’s people to his arrival on the shores of the American colonies. And indeed, John Witherspoon was certainly the man whom God has chosen to lead […]
What Type of Preaching is Necessary Today for a Spiritual Awakening?by Rev. David T. Myers Our question in the title is a key one. We have read in history of various revivals of religion which took place in our country from her earliest days, including the first great awakening under George Whitefield, Gilbert Tennent, Jonathan […]
A Highly Religious Man with Strong Presbyterian Beliefsby Rev. David T. Myers We might more readily suggest any number of men and ministers of whom this title might describe. But when it is known that this description was given to a man, indeed a minister, by the name of Richard Denton in the early sixteen […]
Nothing spectacular in wordby Rev. David T. Myers We might not have even noticed William Floyd in history had he not been in place and time a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was like countless others in the early history of our nation. From a family which had emigrated from the old country, […]
Seeing My Father’s worldby Rev. David T. Myers He never even heard the hymn which he wrote, sung by a choir or congregation. He never heard it as an instrumental musical piece. That is because he wrote it as a poem in 1901 and it wasn’t published until 1916, set to music for the Presbyterian […]
God’s Providence in the Church.by Rev. Henry A. Boardman, pastor of Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church, from 1833 until his retirement in 1876. The Church has lived on through all changes, not without feeling them. It is the only earthly witness which has seen these vicissitudes from the beginning; for it is older by two […]
“Tell me about them big arms!” Cornelius Washington Grafton was born on December 21, 1846 and died on this day, August 1st, in 1934. Trained for the ministry at Columbia Theological Seminary, Rev. Grafton was for forty-three years the pastor of the Union Church Presbyterian Church in rural Mississippi. Most of our resources on this memorable […]
Edward Terris Noé was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 18, 1919 to parents Bradford Massey Noé and his wife, Lydia Terria Noé. He was educated at Johns Hopkins University, New York University and at the National Bible Institute (1947), and upon graduation at NBI, he married Ruth Helen Buswell, of New York City, on […]
Today’s entry is drawn directly from Alfred Nevin’s Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian Church (p. 333), with just a little elaboration. Third in an Illustrious Line of Medical Doctors H. Lenox Hodge was born in Philadelphia, July 30th, 1838. His father was the eminent physician, Dr. Hugh L. Hodge. [His uncle was the equally eminent Princeton Seminary […]
Teaching a Nation’s Leaders Considered by many to have been the foremost educator in the South, Moses Waddell was of Irish parentage and was born in Rowan (now Iredell) county, North Carolina, on July 29th, 1770. He received his academic education at a school which was opened in the neighborhood under the name of Clio’s Nursery. […]