Did 17th century Reformed Christians reject textual criticism?

The Westminster Confession says the following: > [WCF 1.8](https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture) : The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and **by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages**, are therefore authentical; Robert Estienne's [*Editio Regia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editio_Regia) , the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?