# To/So Satisfy God's Justice (WLC 38)?



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

For you English scholars. There is a textual variance in editions of the Westminster Larger Catechism at Q38. I'll spare the history (see my forthcoming text) and let folks guess which is historically accurate. My interest is if you see the difference between the two in meaning. It is nuanced to be sure. I'm crafting a critical note on this and opinions are welcome. A critical text of the first fifty questions of the WLC should appear, DV, in the 2007 _Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. The rest should follow in subsequent issues as the Lord allows me in his good providence to get through the other 146 questions. Between 130 and 150 editions are being consulted for the critical text, including all the American versions and there will be a table comparing the Westminster and various American Scripture proof sets. To the question; what is the difference in the two following versions of the answer to Q.38?

[FONT=&quot]Q38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?[/FONT]
It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; and SO satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.

[FONT=&quot]Q38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?[/FONT]
It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; and TO satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm not an English scholar, but its seems that "so" means that the preceding clauses are what "satisf[ies] God's justice, procure his favor," and so on. "To" means the following are just parts of the list; you can take out some of the preceding clauses and the statement would still be true yet incomplete. So you would have, "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, to satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation."


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 11, 2007)

Chris,

I am no English expert, but coming from a lay-person's perspective I'll offer the following observation:


"and SO satisfy God’s justice"

I understand this as being synonomous with "and IN SO DOING satisfy God's justice". If this is the understanding, then it would suggest that the previous reasons are linked to the latter. It is by reason OF these first things that Christ is able to do the latter.


"and TO satisfy God’s justice"

I understand this as simply another "and". Instead of linking the prior group of reasons with the latter, this phrase simply acts as a simple list of reasons that Christ must be God.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 11, 2007)

I woulds say that "so" makes more sense. Read the "to" version like I have presented above and it doesn't seem to work. Particularly, "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, [to] purchase a peculiar people," isn't very compelling.


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2007)

"So" appears to me to be meaningless in the context, which probably suggests it is a typographical error.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

Well, I am sorry to say what the original text is now! One remark on the difference I have received is '"to" implies purpose, while "so" has more of the connotation of the method.' Does this make sense? The "so" is actually the original text. The "to" was an error dating to 1744 and rarely correct afterwards in any Scottish or American text. 


armourbearer said:


> "So" appears to me to be meaningless in the context, which probably suggests it is a typographical error.


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, I am sorry to say what the original text is now! One remark on the difference I have received is '"to" implies purpose, while "so" has more of the connotation of the method.' Does this make sense? The "so" is actually the original text. The "to" was an error dating to 1744 and rarely correct afterwards in any Scottish or American text.



That is interesting, Chris. I am the one who should be sorry. I wonder what the nature of the 1744 text is. Do you think that it was a deliberate change on their part, perhaps owing to an inability to make sense of "so?"

I think it is correct that "to" shows purpose, which fits in well with the nature of the question. However, in my humble opinion, if "so" means anything from a grammatical point of view, it must refer to consequence (see WCF, 6:2). In order for it to refer to manner, something additional seems to be required in the subsequent clause. If "so" refers to consequence, the Catechism has ceased listing the reasons why it was requisite that the Mediator should be God, and from that point is speaking more of the results of His work. This would be additional to the question, but not without precedence. The next question (also grammatically awkward) concludes with the results of Christ's humanity, but it does so more naturally with the use of "that," clearly indicating that it is a purpose clause.

I don't think my memory is going to like the idea of having to include emendations as a result of your fine textual research.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

No problem Matthew. But I am sorry to mess up your memorization work! My guess would be the change was due to misreading an elongated "s" for a "t". Maybe? Not sure. Here is my comment on the history:

[FONT=&quot]“to satisfy” (L&Rc): 'The “to” for “so” was introduced by L&Rc (my shorthand for Lumisden and Robertson, Edinburgh; I'll spare detailing the rest of the abbreviations) and infrequently correct thereafter. It is correct in RPab (but not RPc); Bryce; ARPa–c; M’Leod; and Perkins, but not in any American or Scottish editions since the New School attempt at a critical text published by Perkins in 1850.' I'll add that the MSS have "so" according to my eyesight and John Bower, in his collation of the two authoritative printings with the MSS for a WTS thesis, also has "so" across the board. It was nice in God's providence to have a second transcription of the MSS to look at (at least a collation as given in the thesis), but while Bower I presume worked with the originals at the Bodliean, and I only worked with reproductions, I do think I've caught errors in his readings of the MSS.

 I'm going to bounce your thoughts off the two I am going to on such questions as I think they will provoke some good deeper analysis of this to make sure we at least render the right sense via a critical note; or at least come up with several best proposals on the reason for using "so" originally.
 
[/FONT]


armourbearer said:


> That is interesting, Chris. I am the one who should be sorry. I wonder what the nature of the 1744 text is. Do you think that it was a deliberate change on their part, perhaps owing to an inability to make sense of "so?"
> 
> I think it is correct that "to" shows purpose, which fits in well with the nature of the question. However, in my humble opinion, if "so" means anything from a grammatical point of view, it must refer to consequence (see WCF, 6:2). In order for it to refer to manner, something additional seems to be required in the subsequent clause. If "so" refers to consequence, the Catechism has ceased listing the reasons why it was requisite that the Mediator should be God, and from that point is speaking more of the results of His work. This would be additional to the question, but not without precedence. The next question (also grammatically awkward) concludes with the results of Christ's humanity, but it does so more naturally with the use of "that," clearly indicating that it is a purpose clause.
> 
> I don't think my memory is going to like the idea of having to include emendations as a result of your fine textual research.





NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, I am sorry to say what the original text is now! One remark on the difference I have received is '"to" implies purpose, while "so" has more of the connotation of the method.' Does this make sense? The "so" is actually the original text. The "to" was an error dating to 1744 and rarely correct afterwards in any Scottish or American text.





armourbearer said:


> "So" appears to me to be meaningless in the context, which probably suggests it is a typographical error.


----------



## panicbird (Feb 11, 2007)

The "to" makes no sense. If the final clause was meant to be simply another reason listed (as are the first two), then it would have read: "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death [first clause; gives a reason]; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession [second clause; gives a second reason]; and satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation [third clause; if it was meant to be a third reason like the other two, it would not have had "to" there]."

As it is, "so" is original. Thus, the third clause means "and in this manner/way..." "To" would be redundant and would change the established flow of the sentence, which has not seen an infinitive open a clause. Rather, the two previous clauses were dependent upon "that he might" and opened with a finite verb.

With that said, the sentence is still awkward from a 21st century perspective, since we would expect it to say, "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; AND/AS WELL AS [added] give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; THEREBY [in place of "so"] satisfying God’s justice, procuring his favour, purchasing a peculiar people, giving his Spirit to them, conquering all their enemies, and bringing them to everlasting salvation." The string of participles at the end makes it clearer to modern eyes and ears, but, perhaps, not to 17th century ones.

Or something like that.


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2007)

Chris, do you have access to the 1656(?) Latin translation? I imagine that will clear up the matter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

Yes; that's a good idea. I can get to a copy at SMU via Early English Books online. I was just looking at it within the last week but not with the idea of checking the wording here. 


armourbearer said:


> Chris, do you have access to the 1656(?) Latin translation? I imagine that will clear up the matter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

Thank you for that analysis Lon. 


panicbird said:


> The "to" makes no sense. If the final clause was meant to be simply another reason listed (as are the first two), then it would have read: "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death [first clause; gives a reason]; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession [second clause; gives a second reason]; and satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation [third clause; if it was meant to be a third reason like the other two, it would not have had "to" there]."
> 
> As it is, "so" is original. Thus, the third clause means "and in this manner/way..." "To" would be redundant and would change the established flow of the sentence, which has not seen an infinitive open a clause. Rather, the two previous clauses were dependent upon "that he might" and opened with a finite verb.
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> For you English scholars. There is a textual variance in editions of the Westminster Larger Catechism at Q38. I'll spare the history (see my forthcoming text) and let folks guess which is historically accurate. My interest is if you see the difference between the two in meaning. It is nuanced to be sure. I'm crafting a critical note on this and opinions are welcome. A critical text of the first fifty questions of the WLC should appear, DV, in the 2007 _Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. The rest should follow in subsequent issues as the Lord allows me in his good providence to get through the other 146 questions. Between 130 and 150 editions are being consulted for the critical text, including all the American versions and there will be a table comparing the Westminster and various American Scripture proof sets. To the question; what is the difference in the two following versions of the answer to Q.38?
> 
> [FONT=&quot]Q38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?[/FONT]
> It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; and SO satisfy God’s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.
> ...



Chris,

The Latin scholar in me see the difference between "so" and "to" as one different dependent clauses. "So" would be a result clause, and "to" would be a purpose clause. I am not sure that either way would be wrong, since Christ's Deity certainly results in the satisfaction of God's justice, but that satisfaction was also a purpose for the Mediator to be God. 

If you look at the Latin, it could be clear as to whether it was translated as a purpose or a result clause.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 11, 2007)

Thanks Fred. I'll get a hold of the Latin on WLC38 and post it here.


fredtgreco said:


> Chris,
> 
> The Latin scholar in me see the difference between "so" and "to" as one different dependent clauses. "So" would be a result clause, and "to" would be a purpose clause. I am not sure that either way would be wrong, since Christ's Deity certainly results in the satisfaction of God's justice, but that satisfaction was also a purpose for the Mediator to be God.
> 
> If you look at the Latin, it could be clear as to whether it was translated as a purpose or a result clause.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks Fred. I'll get a hold of the Latin on WLC38 and post it here.



Great. I'll try and help.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

*The Dillingham Latin for Q38 (from the Field of 1659 2nd ed).*

Fred, Matthew and all,
I'm linking a Gif of the page from the Latin below, as that would be more efficient given I would probably make typos in a transcription. It looks like the Latin is Qu[FONT=&quot]ò[/FONT] (quod?). Lefthand page second Q&A.


fredtgreco said:


> Great. I'll try and help.





NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks Fred. I'll get a hold of the Latin on WLC38 and post it here.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2007)

OK. The gif is not easy to read, but I take the text to be (replacing the old English "s":


> quo iustitiam Dei satisfaceret




So the Latin uses "quo" with a subjunctive verb, which I would take as a final (purpose) clause that is introduced by the comparative "quodanmodo" earlier. So I would translate this "in order that" instead of "with the result that." And I'd likely side with "to" over "so" for that reason.

My two denarii


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

That's interesting Fred. My problem is that the "to" as far as the English goes is a typo from 100 years after the Assembly. Also, I think Lon's points are on track. There's no question I'll keep the "so" in the text, but what is of interest is coming up with as thorough a critical note on the matter as possible exploring the angles to this; the Latin surely adds one.


fredtgreco said:


> OK. The gif is not easy to read, but I take the text to be (replacing the old English "s":
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## panicbird (Feb 12, 2007)

Perhaps the English typo was influenced by the Latin translation. According to Rev. Winzer, the Latin translation was done in 1656 or thereabouts. The English typo can be traced back to 1744, which leaves 88 years of circulation and memorization. It could be that the man responsible for the initial "to" in 1744 knew the Latin and when he came to a perhaps smudged or unclear "so" (with the elongated "s") his mind immediately thought "to" since that is what the Latin read. Or, upon coming the smudged or unclear "so" he consulted the Latin to see what he thought would be the correct reading. This is, of course, speculation, but, lacking anything else, it is just about all we have to go on.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2007)

panicbird said:


> Perhaps the English typo was influenced by the Latin translation. According to Rev. Winzer, the Latin translation was done in 1656 or thereabouts. The English typo can be traced back to 1744, which leaves 88 years of circulation and memorization. It could be that the man responsible for the initial "to" in 1744 knew the Latin and when he came to a perhaps smudged or unclear "so" (with the elongated "s") his mind immediately thought "to" since that is what the Latin read. Or, upon coming the smudged or unclear "so" he consulted the Latin to see what he thought would be the correct reading. This is, of course, speculation, but, lacking anything else, it is just about all we have to go on.



This is very possible, especially if you consider that the Latin of the post-Middle Ages was not exactly the crisp grammatically correct Latin of Cicero. It is just as likely that the usual Classical categories of Final (Purpose) and Result Clauses became conflated, and that the Latin author who used _quo _+ the subjunctive intended to have a result clause (so) instead of a purpose clause (to).

This is all very interesting (to me at least) and further shows why Latin is morally uplifting!  I think it will get me back into Latin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

My guess would be no, as to whether the typesetter went back to the Latin. Rothwell clearly did and Dunlop after him, but this was not normal. And the Edinburgh typesetter would much more readily have several English texts at hand to consult and it would be unlikely he had a Latin edition. The 1744 was the third edition set by Lumisden and Robertson of Edinburgh. They initially published an edition in 1728 which was so popular it has bascially fixed the formal content and order of the Scottish standards ever since (see my articles in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ volume 1 [2005]). They followed up with an almost identical volume in 1736, but the 1744 was a new format and less elegant if the microfilm copy I have of it is anything by which to judge; thus it required a freer setting of the type and would have been harder to check since the type on the page would not be identical to any previous volume. Normally the typesetter slavishly copied a prior printing, to the point the catchwords are often the same at the bottom of the page. My first guess as I say, would be a simple misread of an elongated "s". My research indicates the 1744 was set from the 1736 L&R rather than jumping back to the 1728 first edition they published. I have a prized example of the 1736 in my hand now to check. It looks pretty clear as far as the type. If anything someone might have thought it was an "f" because the only difference in the form is a very slight cross on the "f". But, and this is interesting, and I think the likely culprit, on the line immediately above and over the word "satisfy" is the word "to" from the preceeding "to his sufferings". It is more likely the typesetter's eye strayed slightly and read the "to" instead of the "so"; not an uncommon error in transcription I suspect. I think this is the more likely explanation for the introduction of the "to" for the "so". Looking at the letter form I don't think the "s" could have been confused with a "t" unless the letter dropped out altogether and that is not unheard of and perhaps another explanation; and the typesetter simply guessed at "to". 


panicbird said:


> Perhaps the English typo was influenced by the Latin translation. According to Rev. Winzer, the Latin translation was done in 1656 or thereabouts. The English typo can be traced back to 1744, which leaves 88 years of circulation and memorization. It could be that the man responsible for the initial "to" in 1744 knew the Latin and when he came to a perhaps smudged or unclear "so" (with the elongated "s") his mind immediately thought "to" since that is what the Latin read. Or, upon coming the smudged or unclear "so" he consulted the Latin to see what he thought would be the correct reading. This is, of course, speculation, but, lacking anything else, it is just about all we have to go on.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

Interesting Fred. This is all helpful. I never thought the slip of one letter could be this interesting!


fredtgreco said:


> This is very possible, especially if you consider that the Latin of the post-Middle Ages was not exactly the crisp grammatically correct Latin of Cicero. It is just as likely that the usual Classical categories of Final (Purpose) and Result Clauses became conflated, and that the Latin author who used _quo _+ the subjunctive intended to have a result clause (so) instead of a purpose clause (to).
> 
> This is all very interesting (to me at least) and further shows why Latin is morally uplifting!  I think it will get me back into Latin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

I should add that the English edition has been probably pinpointed which Dillingham used to make his translation. It is a copy of the second authoritative private printing for the Assembly's use owned by Emmaual College, Cambridge. This edition was the first with the Scripture proofs. It has hand written corrections to the scripture proofs, which were a real problem in that printing, which all are corrected in the 1656 Latin edition. I can confirm the text of the EC copy has "so" from John Bower's collation who examined this edition and and other original examples of that private printing (and he notes no variants reading "to").


----------



## JohnV (Feb 12, 2007)

Chris:

I'm no grammarian or English expert. But from an analytical point of view there are three ways to go:

1. analysis of the text, as you are doing at present;
2. anaysis of grammar use at the time of writing, something like Lon's doing;
3. analysis of the theology, i.e, what it should read. 

Lon might be right. I'm not a historian either, so I can't say for sure. But it could just as easily be that the word "and" was considered redundant at that time, thus causing the difference in the rendering. It would turn out, then, as Matt and Fred suggest. Either way, it seems that the same end was desired by both interpretations. That leaves us with the question of which, "purpose" or "result", is best, or perhaps both. Neither are wrong, but it might weigh more heavily one way than the other. 

The "to" seems more "confessional", speaking from man's side. The rest of the Confession has this sort of language about it. See the discussion on the Pope as antichrist. The "so" speaks more from God's side, as there never was a question as to whether the result would be achieved, and the purpose would be more revelational for man. 

It might not be worth anything, but these are my thoughts.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

Fred,
Do you think you can draft a clear transcription of the Latin in Q38 from the Gif? It does flow into the gutter a bit and it may be some punctuation is hidden but I think the wording is what is key at the moment.


----------



## panicbird (Feb 12, 2007)

Chris,

Have you studied much textual criticism of the Scriptures? That is basically what you are doing with the Confession, so it might be of some help, especially in seeing what sorts of mistakes were common (of course, there are significant differences between textual criticism involving ancient hand-written manuscripts and that involving relatively modern typeset books). As I recall, the mistake you described (the eye wondering to a similar word) is common.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

Not to any extent Lon, but I have been told this before so that is why it came to mind when I saw the placement of the text on the page.


panicbird said:


> Chris,
> 
> Have you studied much textual criticism of the Scriptures? That is basically what you are doing with the Confession, so it might be of some help, especially in seeing what sorts of mistakes were common (of course, there are significant differences between textual criticism involving ancient hand-written manuscripts and that involving relatively modern typeset books). As I recall, the mistake you described (the eye wondering to a similar word) is common.


----------



## MW (Feb 12, 2007)

I was expecting a simple "itaque." As it stands, the Latin translator seems to have taken the words of the Catechism as providing a further reason why the Mediator must be God. I note that the translator used "quo" in the next answer to render "that he might." Another possibility is that the adverbial "quo" may be taken in the sense of "therefore." This would best align with the English use of "so."

For what it's worth, the Standards employ the adverbial "thus" to convey the idea of "in this manner," and generally use "so" to indicate something consequential. I would be inclined to take the original reading of "so" in a consequential sense.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I was expecting a simple "itaque." As it stands, the Latin translator seems to have taken the words of the Catechism as providing a further reason why the Mediator must be God. I note that the translator used "quo" in the next answer to render "that he might." Another possibility is that the adverbial "quo" may be taken in the sense of "therefore." This would best align with the English use of "so."
> 
> For what it's worth, the Standards employ the adverbial "thus" to convey the idea of "in this manner," and generally use "so" to indicate something consequential. I would be inclined to take the original reading of "so" in a consequential sense.


Thanks for that insight Matthew.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 18, 2007)

I overlooked something. Any one find any interest in the fact the MSS read:
"and so, satisfy ...."? Q42 is similar with "and so, set apart ...."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 19, 2007)

There is a comma after the "so" in Q42 in the authoritative editions and the MSS also. "and so, set apart."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 21, 2007)

I'm still soliciting opinion on this (see the above as well); I transliterated the clearer Latin text of 1656 from EEB microfilm; it is not in EEB online as the 1659 is. No problem of text in the gutter in the 1656 though. Pardon types; no Latinist here. I think its pretty clean if not perfect.
Here is the text:Q. Quae necessitas id exegit ut Deus esset idem qui Mediator? 
R. Necessum erat ut Deus esset ui Mediator, cùm ut humanam naturam sub irâ Dei infinitâ, ac potestate mortis laborantem sustentaret,z & quodammodo suffulciret nè succumberet; tum verò etiam ut perpessionibus suis, obedientiae ac intercessioni pretium faceret ac efficaciam;a *quò justitiae* Dei satisfaceret,b favorem ejus conciliaret,c populum acquireret peculiarem,d Spiritum suum iis daret,e eorúmque hostes omnes debellaret,f ipsosque perduceret ad aeternam salutem.g​


----------

