The necessity for some such work as the present, has been long felt by many. Great detriment has accrued to the Presbyterian Church, from the want of that indoctrination in the principles of her worship and polity, which it is surely her duty to provide for all who commit themselves, and their children, to her teaching and guidance. Her members and children, have been thus attached to her, not so much by those ties of principle and conviction, which prove firm and enduring; as by merely local and personal considerations, which form, in times of difficulty, but a feeble bond of attachment. Other churches are diligent in their efforts, to imbue the young mind with the knowledge of all their doctrinal peculiarities, and if this is done in a spirit of charity and christian brotherhood, will it not promote, rather than prevent, that perfect christian union for which we hope? . . .

In the fervent hope that this little work, may lead some of the rising generation to ask for the old paths, that they may walk therein, it is committed to the blessing of the Head of the Church . . .

Preface by Thomas Smyth in An Ecclesiastical Catechism of the Presbyterian Church; For the Use of Families, Bible-Classes, and Private Members.

The Lord says in this passage that when the priest says this, then the Lord will bless them. The jussive then is an oracle, not a wish or a prayer. It is a declaration of what the Lord imparts. It is as binding and sure as a patriarchal blessing which once said officially could not be taken back. The priest here is then pronouncing the word of the Lord, declaring to the congregation the outcome of the atonement.

NET Bible Notes for Numbers 6:24-26

At the Westminster Assembly, the English Puritans, with the help of Presbyterians from Scotland, set out to achieve a great reformation of public worship in the Church of England. Note the use of the word directory rather than liturgy. The preface states that “long and sad experience hath made it manifest, that the Liturgy used in the Church of England, (notwithstanding all the pains of religious intentions of the Compilers of it,) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches abroad.”

Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism by Joel R. Beeke, Sinclair B. Ferguson, James Grier, Michael A. G. Haykin, Nelson Kloosterman, Ray Lanning, Robert Oliver, Ray Pennings, Derek W. H. Thomas, Loc. 3081.

In the family we get to know the secret of life, the secret, namely, that not selfishness but self-denial and self-sacrifice, dedication and love, constitute the rich content of human living.

Herman Bavinck, The Christian Family, 134.

How should one explain the marks of similarity between the biblical narrative and the creation sagas of pagan peoples? This similarity seems to demand that the creation story was known before Moses and that traces of it were preserved by pagans. Of course, if the narrative came to Moses completely or in part by tradition, this in no way detracts from the inspiration by which he was enabled to record it fully and infallibly.

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 201.

JAN KRANS, BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN: ERASMUS AND BEZA AS CONJECTURAL CRITICS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 35.

The concentration on two sixteenth-century critics has one notable consequence of the terminology used in this study. In present-day textual criticism, the term ’emendation’ is often used as denoting only ‘conjectural emendation’. In the sixteenth century, however, ’emendation’ was not necessarily ‘conjectural’, but simply meant the correct of a vulgate text or the editio princeps. Critics emended, improved a previous edition with respect to details. This situation remained during the period of the dominance of the Textus Receptus. In this period, emendations, the adoption of alternative readings, was done in two distinct ways, depending on the way these readings were found: they could either be derived from manuscripts or be arrived at by rational argument. Hence a distinction was made between emendatio codicum ope (’emendation by means of manuscripts’) and emendatio ingenii ope (’emendation by means of reasoning’). For the Greek text of Erasmus’ New Testament edition, for instance, the typesetters used manuscripts which had been emended by Erasmus for the most part by means of a few other manuscripts.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, 4-5.

In the present study, however, the term ‘conjectural emendation’ is used consistently to reflect the distinction between emendatio codicum ope and emendatio ingenii ope as current before the nineteenth century. It should finally be noted that most conjectures discussed in this study were never printed as part of a Greek New Testament. They have their Sitz-im-Leben in annotations and commentaries. Indeed, a recurrent theme of this study is the tendency of Erasmus and Beza to propose conjectures without actually implementing them.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, 5.

The United States Constitution begins with the words “We the People.” It expresses the assumption, basic to American constitutionalism that “ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone” [Federalist No 46 (James Madison)]. The Covenanters met this assumption head on. In [Samuel] Wylie’s words, “Civil government does not, as some modern politicians affirm, originate either in the people, as its fountain, or in the vices consequent upon the fall. . . . [I]t is among the all things committed to him [Christ] by the donation of the Father.” To state the principle positively, “God the supreme Governor, is the fountain of all power and authority, and civil magistrates are his deputies.” Fundamental constitutional authority was not in the people; it was from the divine mediator Jesus Christ, granted “universal dominion” by the Father. Thus, for the Covenanters, American governments, founded by federal and state constitutions alike, rested upon an erroneous and corrupt principle. From this basic flaw flowed the Covenanters’ criticisms of American constitutional government, and their recommendations of what was necessary to reform the American constitutional system.

“Church and State in the Early Republic: The Covenanters’ Radical Critique” by Robert Emery in Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (2009), 493-494.

Though thousands of textual conjectures have been proposed by scholars over the last few centuries, today very few find any advocates. In the most widely used edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28), there are two places where the editors have left all the Greek manuscripts behind. These are Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. In both places, there are a few versional witnesses in support of the adopted text.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 101.

In 1 Kings 4:33, the narrator presents Solomon in the mold of an ancient scribe or scholar who discoursed “about trees, from the cedar which is in Lebanon to the hyssop which grows in the wall, and . . . spoke about beasts, birds, reptiles, and fish.” Solomon had catalogued the trees from great to small and the animals according to their kinds, he could recite them as the scribes of the ancient Near East did.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 41.

The preeminent scribe in Israel’s history was Ezra. He was a priest who was also described as “a skilled scribe in the Torah of Moses” (Ezra 7:5-6; see also 7:10). In the ancient world, priests curated texts that were stored in the temple, which functioned as a national archive, and Israel was no exception to this custom (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; see also 2 Kings 22:8) . . .

Israel also had scribes in the royal sphere. We mentioned above that Solomon was cast as a scribe. Deuteronomy 17:18 portrays each king of Israel as a scribe as he writes for himself a copy of the law.

John D. Meade & Peter J. Gurry, Scribes & Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible, 43.