Wording in WCF 10:4

[Marrow Man]

Someone in our SS class on the WCF noted a slight discrepancy in different versions of the WCF 10:4. The version from the reformed.org site (where I copied the chapter for the class) says the following:

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God.

However, most other versions of the WCF I have seen (including the ARP and PCA versions) have this instead:

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

It's not a huge deal, although the language in the latter is much stronger. What is the reason for the difference and which versions of the WCF have the difference?

 

[Scott1]

OPC has the second translation as well.

At
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

I'm also seeing the second version.

 

[Marrow Man]

At
Westminster Confession of Faith

I'm also seeing the second version.

That is very interesting. The version w/o proofs has it the first way, the version w/proofs has it the second way.

 

[Scott1]

At
Westminster Confession of Faith

I'm also seeing the second version.

That is very interesting. The version w/o proofs has it the first way, the version w/proofs has it the second way.

It just shows the first way is not proven!

 

[ProtestantBankie]

the 2nd is correct, the 1st looks like a redraft of some kind.

 

[Marrow Man]

How odd to do that. The only reason I was using that site is because it is easy to copy and paste into a Word document for printing (w/o the footnotes cluttering up the flow of the text). I guess I'll have to use Phil Johnson's Hall of Church History site now.

 

[Edward]

I guess I'll have to use Phil Johnson's Hall of Church History site now.

There is also a site called Puritan Board that seems to have the confessional documents. It just takes a few seconds to knock out the bracketed footnote references after you paste.

Westminster Confession of Faith - The PuritanBoard

It is strange that Reformed.org would do that with the version without proof texts. I'll have to be more careful when I'm over there.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Probably not all there is to know, but more than probably in the "more than you want know" category: the original punctuation in the first published texts is "profess. And...." (and that is what is in the MS copy). The once thought 'critical' text of the WCF in Dunlop (A Collection of Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, Books of Discipline 2vols. [Edinburgh: 1719; 1721]) changed it to a semi-colon. A similar compilation to Dunlop put out by the Reformed Presbyterians use a colon (The Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, Form of Government, Discipline, etc. [Edinburgh: Thomas Lumisden and John Robertson, 1725]). The edition that set the standard text up until the end of the 19th century, was another publication by Lumisden & Robertson of just the "Westminster" standards (The Confession of faith, the Larger and Shorter catechisms, with the Scripture proofs at large [1728]); they went with Dunlop's punctuation. This form by L&R proved so popular it was mirrored in many many printings which followed each other (altho' each introduced their own unique corruptions) to the end of the 19th century with the several types of Johnstone and Hunter editions. The Free Presbyterians of Scotland photo reprint the Johnstone and Hunter printing till today, though they did redo and correct the WCF's text in the early 1990s to conform to Carruther's critical text. The text as I say was corrected in Carruther's critical text of 1937. The RPCNA use this text for the confession. The OPC chose to go with the MS text published by Carruthers about 1946. Reformed.org unless I'm misremembering, scanned their text from the Free Presbyterian edition before it was corrected to conform to the Carruthers text, so it will have all the "traditional" errors introduced from the earliest editions through the Johnstone and Hunter editions of the late 19th century. I go over all this in my various articles etc. on the texts of the standards. See. Chris Coldwell, "Examining the Work of S. W. Carruthers: Justifying a Critical Approach to the Text of the Westminster Standards & Correcting the 18th Century Lineage of the Traditional Scottish Text," The Confessional Presbyterian vol. 1 (2005); Antiquary: The Traditional Form of The Westminster Standards, The Confessional Presbyterian vol. 1 (2005); and specifically on the WLC but using the same family of text with refined discoveries since 2005, "A Critical Text of the Westminster Larger Catechism: Q. 1–50," The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 3 (2007); and also specifically on the WLC, The Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly: A Transcription of the Surviving Manuscripts with Notes (Westminster Letter Press, 2009), Intros by Drs. Chad Van Dixhoorn and J. Ligon Duncan.

 

[Edward]

Mr. Coldwell - thank you for the detailed explanation.

 

[Marrow Man]

Reformed.org unless I'm misremembering, scanned their text from the Free Presbyterian edition before it was corrected to conform to the Carruthers text, so it will have all the "traditional" errors introduced from the earliest editions through the Johnstone and Hunter editions of the late 19th century.

For what it's worth, the guy who caught the change did so because he was following along in his version of the WCF published by the Free Presbyterian Church, If I recall correctly.

 

[Marrow Man]

I was also sent a link to this thread (asking the same question) from about 2.5 years ago.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/why-wcf-10-4-changed-american-revisions-57298/