sanctioned the Textus Receptus as being the Greek text which bore the mark of historic continuity and as having been preserved in its integrity within the Christian Church itself – hence it must be the providentially preserved true text (WC 1:8). Moreover, this was the very position of the Protestant dogmaticians, both Lutheran and Reformed, ever since the seventeenth century.1
Hills convincingly argued that, from a believing consistently Christian standpoint, Burgon's (and all other) position was illogical as anyone believing in providential preservation of the N.T. text must accept and defend the Textus Receptus since it is the only form in which the Traditional Text has actually circulated in print. Moreover, that to decline to defend the TR implies that God preserved a pure text all during the manuscript period but for some unexplained reason left this pure text "hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years."2 Realizing that the only bridge that would take us back beyond the extant MSS/mss of the Majority Text – the fourth century – to the lost autographa was Providential Preservation, Hills correctly saw the absolute necessity for a theological element in determining the Text.3
Hills thereby concludes (as does this author) that when we believe in and receive Christ Jesus, the logic of faith first leads us to a belief in the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures.4 This is followed by a belief in the providential preservation of this original text down through the ages and thence to a belief in the Bible text current among believers as the providentially preserved original text. This is the "common faith" which has always been present among the Church of the Living God. Indeed, Hills summarizes it best:
"But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is it important to insist that Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God? In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text".5
Dr. Hills further illustrated what he meant by his term "the logic of faith":
"For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text? We know this through the logic of faith. Because the Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. And because the Bible was infallibly inspired, it has been preserved by God's special providence. Moreover, this providential preservation was not done privately in secret holes and caves but publicly in the usage of God's Church. Hence the true New Testament text is found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts. And this providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided.
"And how do we know that the King James Version is a faithful translation of the true New Testament text? We know this also through the logic of faith. Since the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, the translation of it was God-guided also. For
1 Letis, "The Protestant Dogmaticians" op. cit., pp. 1-19. By "Protestant dogmatician" Dr. Letis means the "much maligined heirs of Luther and Calvin from the post-Reformation era of the 17th-century" (see his p. 1).
2 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.
3 Letis, The Majority Text, op. cit., p. 9.
4 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 192.
5 Ibid., p. 225.
130
continued...