# Immediate help needed on Original and the Revised WCF 23



## chbrooking (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm trying to set out the original and the revised WCF 23.
I get to par. 4 and there's a discrepancy between what Beeke and Ferguson provide and what CRTA provides. Would someone tell me the definitive wording of the original?

B&F have:

... nor free the people from their due obedience to them ...

CRTA has:

... nor free the people from their obedience to him ...

Which is it?

Thanks,
chb


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 29, 2010)

Reformed Confessions - The PuritanBoard


----------



## py3ak (Jul 29, 2010)

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland edition has "due obedience to them". Until Chris Coldwell can chime in, that seems like the one most likely to be the authoritative reading.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2010)

I have the original version and the American Revision in the Confessions section. Original here: Westminster Confession of Faith - The PuritanBoard



> IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, *nor free the people from their obedience to him*: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2010)

Of course, as soon as I type that I went to the Westminster Assembly Project (http://www.westminsterassembly.org/westminster-standards/) and they have this: 



> 23:4 It is the duty of people to pray for the magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority,* nor free the people from their due obedience to them*: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.



Of course, they also note this at the top:



> This is a popular text of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is hoped at some juncture that we will be able to produce the original text of the Confession with scripture texts.


----------



## chbrooking (Jul 29, 2010)

I thought this was going to be a simple question. Now it seems that it's not so simple. I wonder if it will develop into a critical text/textus receptus debate.

As Josh would assure us, somebody, somewhere knows. I'd love it if said somebody would chime in. I have 59 minutes till I'm supposed to know.  That's when our men's group starts.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 29, 2010)

Here is Carruther's note: "obedience to him". The plural occurs in VII only; but that it is a deliberate and correct amendation is evident, for throughout the section magistrates are dealt with in the plural. Dillingham saw this point and has "debitae illis obedientiae"; but even Carruthers [Sr.] has the wrong text." We would need some evidence I think to confirm it as an official correction and edition seven is the butchered Parliament edition. Even the Burges MS has the singular. At some point the Free Presbyterians corrected their edition to the MS published by Carruthers (their 1967 and 1970 editions I believe); later they went back to the critical text published by Carruthers and that begins appearing in 1994. That would account for the two text being in circulation. Historically the text has always been "to him". The Parliament edition had no progeny as far as any church adopting it (far as I know), and no subsequent editions either if I recall correctly. Grammatically a correction may be called for but even the PCUSA text retained "to him" from the very beginning. So, I'm not sure how obvious it needed correcting. There is no evidence the Assembly corrected it; it could just as easily have been corrected by those involved in printing the Parliament text. On should search the journals of Parliament to see if a change was proposed; but my guess would be the printers did it. Any way, that's the background as far as my notes go.


----------



## chbrooking (Jul 30, 2010)

Very helpful, and you even beat my deadline. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is Carruther's note: "obedience to him". The plural occurs in VII only; but that it is a deliberate and correct amendation is evident, for throughout the section magistrates are dealt with in the plural. Dillingham saw this point and has "debitae illis obedientiae"; but even Carruthers [Sr.] has the wrong text." We would need some evidence I think to confirm it as an official correction and edition seven is the butchered Parliament edition. Even the Burges MS has the singular. At some point the Free Presbyterians corrected their edition to the MS published by Carruthers (their 1967 and 1970 editions I believe); later they went back to the critical text published by Carruthers and that begins appearing in 1994. That would account for the two text being in circulation. Historically the text has always been "to him". The Parliament edition had no progeny as far as any church adopting it (far as I know), and no subsequent editions either if I recall correctly. Grammatically a correction may be called for but even the PCUSA text retained "to him" from the very beginning. So, I'm not sure how obvious it needed correcting. There is no evidence the Assembly corrected it; it could just as easily have been corrected by those involved in printing the Parliament text. On should search the journals of Parliament to see if a change was proposed; but my guess would be the printers did it. Any way, that's the background as far as my notes go.


 
Thanks Chris. At least on this point, you confirmed that our version on the PB is the original. If you find any textual errors please let me know because my goal is that the text we have is the most accurate.


----------

