# My Article Published



## JOwen (May 4, 2005)

Just a note to let you all know that my article on "Presbyterian Federal Holiness" has been published in the latest issues of"The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth" (Dr. Beeke's denom mag), and the URCNA's "The Outlook". The feedback have been overwhelming and I am glad that so many have taken the time to read it.
http://www.freewebs.com/knowhim/Federal.htm

Kind regards,

Jerrold


----------



## Philip A (May 4, 2005)

Thanks Jerrold, very well done, and very helpful.

Hopefully this might also speed up the process on COLO


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 4, 2005)

We're working on it!! Trying hard...


----------



## Philip A (May 4, 2005)

Don't worry Matt, I jest!

It's not like there's nothing else I have to read, and if I really got impatient, I could read it on the computer screen. Nevertheless think that it will be of great benefit to the Reformed community when it gets done!


----------



## Poimen (May 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Thanks Jerrold, very well done, and very helpful.
> 
> Hopefully this might also speed up the process on COLO



COLO?


----------



## Philip A (May 4, 2005)

_The Covenant of Life Opened_
by Samuel Rutherford


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2005)

Someone is fearless; and in 225 pages? Rutherford is not an easy edit! COLO is actually one of two related works; any plans to do the other, _Influences of the Life of Grace?_


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2005)

I should add, that a friend who did some checking of Rutherford's Latin says it is as bad as his English, which is Scots. Any plans to translate the Latin quotations? And trying to check the Greek and Hebrew will be hard too I imagine; you need to know something about the type styles of the time to be sure. Oh, and running down his references; that is fun. I have a work done by someone, trying to document all the various works referenced in Rutherford's books, if that might be helpful. Of course if you don't plan a critical edition where these would be commented on, then you won't need that. Paperback? Oh the horror.;-)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 4, 2005)

I thought that name looked familiar. I read it in the Outlook. Cool!


----------



## smallbeans (May 5, 2005)

Jerrold - thanks for posting the link to your article. I enjoyed especially being reminded about the Rutherford piece - it is roughly contemporary to the "Gospel Covenant" by Peter Bulkeley in America. I look forward to comparing the two works. You might be interested in the discussion of Rutherford in John Von Rohr's 1986 book "The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought"

One observation about your methodology -- one of the ways in which you approach the subject is to set up the allegations of a possible contradiction between LC 166 and WCF 7. Note that two issues could relate to that allegation:

1. Whether LC 166 and WCF 7 embody inconsistent approaches to the nature of the New Covenant
2. Whether LC 166 and WCF 7 are in-principle harmonizable

I think your article really relates to #2. You are looking at near-contemporaries to the assembly and showing how they dealt with the issues involved. You could have, for instance, dealt with #2 simply by making a systematic theological argument based on scripture and logic. But you chose to illustrate how the two confessional expressions can be in-principle harmonized by showing how other people have harmonized the ideas implicit in them.

The caution I'd give is that your article gives the impression that you are also dealing with issue #1, but #1 is really an historical question that would have to be dealt with by comparing the views on the Covenant of the people who drafted LC 166 and the people who drafted WCF 7. I don't have those historical details at my command, they could be the same people, after all, but that's the way you solve the historical question of whether the confessional documents embody a contradiction. After all, it is entirely possible that the group who drafted LC166 contained men who did demur from WCF7 and thus included language that would accommodate their views. I'm not sure. I really look forward to the publishing of all the work of the Westminster Assembly Project so that we can all have more insight into the process of creating the Westminster documents.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> The caution I'd give is that your article gives the impression that you are also dealing with issue #1, but #1 is really an historical question that would have to be dealt with by comparing the views on the Covenant of the people who drafted LC 166 and the people who drafted WCF 7. I don't have those historical details at my command, they could be the same people, after all, but that's the way you solve the historical question of whether the confessional documents embody a contradiction. After all, it is entirely possible that the group who drafted LC166 contained men who did demur from WCF7 and thus included language that would accommodate their views. I'm not sure. I really look forward to the publishing of all the work of the Westminster Assembly Project so that we can all have more insight into the process of creating the Westminster documents.


Jonathan,
Obviously, such an approach would need to be done carefully in my opinion. It would be nice to have more from the sub committees of the Assembly, but I´m not sure if Chad Van Dixhoorn of The Westminster Assembly project has discovered much if any MSS of that type. He has done a complete transcription of the Minutes, which Mitchel and Struthers was not. I cannot speak for Chad, but I suspect the publications are going to come slowly. I was pleased to provide the first draft transcription of the two MS of the Larger Catechism Chad rediscovered and I hope there are more gems of that nature forthcoming. I make use of this and some other material in my contribution to _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal, due out at the end of the month. The article deals with how we should handle the Assembly MS, since we now have MS of the WCF and both Catechisms (as well as other of the documents), as far as determining the intended text. Corrections are also made to the work of S. W. Carruthers, on his critical work on the text of the Westminster Confession of Faith. See http://www.cpjournal.com for more details.


----------



## smallbeans (May 5, 2005)

Thanks for that. I also recently acquired the English Annotations from the Early English Books collection (available at some research universities) and it is interesting to have the more exegetical foundation of the assembly to be able to look at various verses and how they interpreted them.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> I should add, that a friend who did some checking of Rutherford's Latin says it is as bad as his English, which is Scots. Any plans to translate the Latin quotations? And trying to check the Greek and Hebrew will be hard too I imagine; you need to know something about the type styles of the time to be sure. Oh, and running down his references; that is fun. I have a work done by someone, trying to document all the various works referenced in Rutherford's books, if that might be helpful. Of course if you don't plan a critical edition where these would be commented on, then you won't need that. Paperback? Oh the horror.;-)



We are taking books and reproduing them as they were exactly. The only difference is that they will be in updated letters, and not old English letters. Latin, egnlish, barbarisms, will all stay the same.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 11, 2005)

*Haven\'t we met?*

Jerold,

Haven't we met?

Rich B.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 11, 2005)

Jerold,

Haven't we met?

Rich B.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 11, 2005)

ooops!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> Thanks for that. I also recently acquired the English Annotations from the Early English Books collection (available at some research universities) and it is interesting to have the more exegetical foundation of the assembly to be able to look at various verses and how they interpreted them.


Yes; EEB/EEBO is a very helpful collection. I will say, that while they are useful certainly, the Annotations do not necessarily represent the Assembly's thought on any particular scripture as they were not an official production of the Assembly. They should be used in conjuction with any other secondary individual or joint production of various divines. ie, I'm not sure they have any more weight than other such sources.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 11, 2005)

> We are taking books and reproduing them as they were exactly. The only difference is that they will be in updated letters, and not old English letters. Latin, egnlish, barbarisms, will all stay the same.


Matthew, if you don't mind my opining;  my druthers of course would be to see a critical edition. Once someone is going through the effort of entering in the type, it just seems worthwhile to me to go the extra mile and add the bibliographical helps, define any archaic words, translate the Latin, add critical notes, and of course fix any obvious or perhaps not so obvious problems with the text. I'll certainly take your efforts over nothing, and I'm not slighting the effort just differing from the approach, as fresh type is going to make it far easier to read than from a facsimile. But the downside is it makes it less likely we'll see a critical edition any time soon. But maybe some day before the printed book gets killed off by technology we'll see a critical edition in hard back of the Works of Rutherford. That would be nice!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 11, 2005)

Also, it will be great to see some of the efforts to translate and publish Rutherford's several Latin works in English for the first time come to pass. Some one has been working for some time on De Providentia, and another on his Latin lectures on Arminianism.


----------

