WCF XXVI:3 propriety

[jfschultz]

A discussion came up in Sunday School today concerning the sentence, "Nor doth their communion one with another as saints, take away or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions." There are a few versions (an old PCUS printing from the 1960's and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ireland) that use the word "property" instead of "propriety."

The teacher felt it should be property, but I think that the majority of editions using propriety are correct. To me "property in his goods and possessions" just does not seem like the way the divines would have put it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Interesting. I would think "propriety" makes the most sense historically, but I haven't looked deeply into this point yet. I did find an article by Dr. F.N. Lee which he quoted that section of the Confession as saying "prosperity."

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom uses the word "propriety" and has a footnote which says: [Am. ed. property]. I don't see that change made though in the 1788 American edition of the Confession, and the PCA and OPC both use "propriety."

My Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland edition, however, uses the word "property."

My denomination adheres to the 1646 Westminster Confession and our confession uses "propriety."

APM's 1646 WCF also uses "propriety."

 

[Kaalvenist]

Chris? What's the verdict?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Chris? What's the verdict?

Here is what I have found:

23. Most differences concern punctuation. For instance, in the Confession there are very few substantial differences in the text, none of which are of any consequence. Carruthers lists twelve variations in wording (Burges, Editorial Note). The one Carruthers lists at 27:3 ("œproperty" for "œpropriety") is actually a mistake as the Burges reading is in the early printed editions. And there is a thirteenth not listed by him at 16:3 ("œbesides" for "œbeside").
"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, 1 (2005) 6.

Here is my research to date from the draft critical edition of the WCF and Catechisms on which I'm working.

223. "œtitle or property": Carruthers; STNRSb,c; FOURTH; COX; DNLP; ARP; BOFC; J&H; PCUS; PCUSA-UP; RPCNA. Carruthers list this as a variant of the MS from the early editions in his preface to BURGES. However, he makes no comment on the variation in Carruthers, either correcting it to modern usage without comment, or missing it altogether (II-VII all have "œpropriety"). The words "œproperty" and "œpropriety" are doublets. While the usage of "œpropriety" in this context is now obsolete, the change in the text was introduced at a time when this was not the case, and is likely a slip of the printer. The error seems to have first occurred in STNRSb, and independently again in Watson´s FOURTH. RPa,c and BURGES et al are correct. See comments under FOURTH in the bibliography of Editions (page 215).
Currently footnote 223 at the end of WCF 26 in my critical text, unpublished.

Here is material from the appendix I title "Editions."

*FOURTH. The Confession of Faith, etc. The Fourth Edition (Edinburgh: James Watson, 1708). And "œFifth": The Confession, etc. The Fifth Edition (Edinburgh: James Watson, 1707). Warfield is correct that "œthe numbering of the editions of this type is in a hopeless muddle" (Warfield, 363). If Warfield had been aware as well, that Watson called his 1707 edition the "œfifth" and then changed that to "œfourth" for the 1708, he would no doubt have felt even more justified in that conclusion (Three Centuries, 56). Apparently the 1708 edition claims to be the "œfourth" counting from THIRD (see above). COX, evidently following this enumeration, claimed the title of "œfifth" edition. This probably has reference to editions "œwith the emphasis of the Scriptures" set in a different type which originated in Rothwell´s "œSecond Edition."6 Carruthers describes the 1708 edition as set from the same type as the 1707. It is possible that the 1707 was set at the end of the year with the type left standing and then the title page changed when printing the 1708. These Watson editions were consulted to determine the introduction point of the variant at WCF 26:3 (see p. 149), where "œproperty" is used instead of "œpropriety."7 The words are doublets,8 with the usage of "œpropriety" in this context now obsolete. However, the change in the text was introduced at a time when this was not the case.9 While this variant occurs in earlier editions, it had not appeared in the text descending from Rothwell, till Watson´s FOURTH. The variant is not in THIRD, which Watson likely followed as his text source (Carruthers, 77). Previously it had appeared in STNRSb and STNRSc. The National Library of Scotland owns two copies of Watson´s "œFourth" and one of his "œFifth".

6. Carruthers, 76-77.
7. Dr. Anette I. Hagan, Curator, Rare Book Collections, National Library of Scotland, very kindly checked these texts at WCF 26:3.
8. In fact the Divines use both words. They use "œpropriety" at LC 118 and WCF 26:3, and "œproperty" at LC 110. In 1744, a change would be introduced in LC 110, changing "œproperty" to "œpropriety," the opposite error from the one noted here.
9. The word "œpropriety" in the sense of ownership was still in use according to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755. But by 1828, Noah Webster writes regarding the meaning of "œownership" and "œpeculiar or exclusive right of possession": "œThis primary sense of the word, as used by Locke, Milton, Dryden, &c. seems now to be nearly or wholly obsolete. See Property."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

BTW, this is 'proprietary' stuff you're getting here.

 

[jfschultz]

Thanks for the comments, I'll pass them on.

Concening Philip Schaff's comments, it makes sense in that the change was probably made between the original adoption in 1789 and the 1861 north-south split. The old PCUS (southern) version had "property" as does the Bible Presbyterian Church and the PCUSA Book of Confessions. The OPC and PCA have it as propriety because they went with the 1789 version. The EPC also uses "propriety." One of several reasons that Carl Mcintire & co split from the OPC to form the BPC was the opinion that the 1903 version should be used.

We have stuff split between two houses, so I went by the other house to pick up a 1829 Webster Dictionary. It notes,

PROPRIETY, n.
1. Property: peculiar or exclusive right of possession; ownership. [This primary sense of the word, as used by Locke, Milton, Dryden, &c. seems now to be nearly or wholly obsolete. See Property.]
2. Fitness, suitableness; appropriateess....
3. Proper state

Based on this, I would venture that "property" is incorrect. The first definition conveys the mid 17th century understanding of "propriety", so a correct modern term should reflect something that, like "title," declares ownership, perhaps using "deed," and not the item that is owned. "Property" if used at all should be in the last phrase "his goods and possessions" as being the item owned.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The OPC adopted Carruthers' critical text of the WCF which the PCA also followed, that is why the term is correct with "propriety."

I mispoke, these follow the Burges MS of the WCF. Carruthers was responsible both for the earlier critical text he published circa 1937 and the printing of the Burges text in 1946.

[Edited on 6-12-2006 by NaphtaliPress]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I also managed to delete all the material I just typed. Oh well, I'll try to put it all back down again later; the above doesn't make much sense without it. Not enough coffee this morning I guess; hit edit when I should have hit post.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Since I was dumb enough to have deleted all my previous post, I am trying to remember what I wrote; so recreating it as follows, with the correction already noted above.

Just to summarize. The word "œpropriety" occurs in the official editions authorized by the Westminster Assembly (II-VII; I was a partial printing of just the first 19 chapters of the WCF). Though the words held similar meaning until the mid 18th century, the exchange for "œproperty" was very likely a typesetter´s error which occurs in a few subsequent editions but the 1707-08 Watson editions brought it into the traditional text, cemented by the editions of Dunlop (1719) and Lumisden & Robertson (1728). The L&R set the traditional text and all the popular Scottish editions subsequently followed it down to the mid to late 19th century editions of Johnstone & Hunter, which is the text the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has kept in print.

John,
The OPC, and the PCA which follows it, adopted the text of the Burges MS of the WCF which Carruthers published in 1946. This is why those texts have the correct "œpropriety." The PCUSA 1789 text, as most theorize, follow perhaps a collection of late 18th century Scottish editions (which would have the incorrect "œproperty" being that all Scottish editions followed the Lumisden/Robertson text form 1728 forward). Thus the error came into the PCUSA tradition. And because the Scottish text had it wrong, it came into all the other American texts as well (ARP, RPs). The RPCNA adopted the Carruthers critical text after it came out. This is the rare occasion where Carruthers got it wrong, following the incorrect later text rather than "œall" the authoritative editions on which he was so much the expert. Thus the RPCNA retains "œproperty" following the Carruthers´ critical text of 1937 (this is also why the FPCS text is still incorrect even though they swapped out the traditional WCF text for Carruthers in the early 1990s; both retained "˜property´). The only attempt in the 19th century at a critically corrected text was the New School edition of the PCUSA standards of 1850 (Warfield writes of this project in his comments on American editions of the standards). They did correct property back to propriety. Sadly, when the Old and New School branches came back together they jettisoned this superior text for the Old School text.
That´s all I can remember saying so hopefully I didn´t erase anything profound.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
That´s all I can remember saying so hopefully I didn´t erase anything profound.

Don't sell yourself short, Chris; your profundity shines forth whenever you discuss the Confession, in my opinion. I'm just happy I can understand parts of it!

[Edited on 6-12-2006 by Kaalvenist]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Flattery will get you somewhere Sean. Seriously, I understand it is an arcane subject but since I am looking at these things I thought I'd share since the question was asked and it happened to not be a short answer.