![[debate contents]](../../pix/back.gif)
Normally the original printing would simply be accepted as the correct text. In this case, however, the text itself gives reason to believe that the original printing is in error, i.e. that Burrough intended the word "not" here even though it failed to appear in print.
Observe the sentences just before and after the problematic text:
"In this thou hast not only queried, but Slandered;" [Bunyan has not only asked a question, but made an allegation about how the Quakers usually answer it, and Burrough considers this allegation to be false.]
"therefore first thy Slander I do remove," [Burrough is about to contradict Bunyan's allegation.]
"It is [[not??]] our wonted course to say, that Christ hath no other Body but his Church;" [The problematic text.]
"thou art herein as in other things, a false Accuser," [Burrough reiterates that Bunyan's allegation is false.]
"but we say the Church is Christ's Body: And it is sufficient for Salvation to know Christ Jesus to be head in us, and over us, and our selves to be Members of his Body," [Burrough explains what the Quakers do say, which Bunyan has misquoted.]The logical structure of Burrough's reply demands that its centerpiece should be a flat rejection of Bunyan's allegation. Bunyan had written:
"Hath that Christ that was with God the Father before the world was, no other body but his church? If you say no, as it is your wonted course, then again I ask you," [etc. Bunyan follows his question with the claim that the Quakers' "wonted course" is to say that Christ "hath ... no other body but his church." His follow-up questions attempt to take advantage of this.]Since Burrough considered this allegation a slander, he must have meant to deny it. Yet Burrough's crucial sentence emerged from Giles Calvert's print shop in this form:
"It is our wonted course to say, that Christ hath no other Body but his Church;" [This explicitly reaffirms Bunyan's allegation!]*This makes no sense. Bunyan himself observed that it was a non-answer:
"Now, in my query thou sayest I slander, in that I say, you Quakers allow of no other body of Christ, but the church of Christ; yet dost thou not clear thyself at all, only thou wouldst say something to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant. ... But thou dost only fling up a few words into the air, that thou mightest thereby puzzle the simple reader." [Burrough's printed answer does not deny Bunyan's allegation. The resulting passage does not even succeed in being very deceptive, but is only puzzling.]It therefore seems necessary to accept that the text as originally printed was an error, either of Burrough's pen or of Giles Calvert's press. Ellis Hookes, editor of Burrough's posthumous 1672 Memorable Works, understood this, and corrected the sentence to read:
"It is not our wonted course to say, that Christ hath no other Body but his Church;" [Bunyan's allegation is false.]We must therefore distinguish between two different "correct" readings of this text: one as reflecting Burrough's belief about the Quakers' "wonted course" in speaking of Christ's body, and one as reflecting what Bunyan and other readers of the original printed pamphlet had before them.
![[under construction]](../../pix/animcons.gif)
[Here I
mean to discuss the peculiar way in which Quakers talked about Christ's
body or flesh, especially in the 1650s. This is a complicated topic
involving Christ's pre-existence, incarnation, and ascension, the
mystical feeding on his flesh, his union with his saints, and the nature
of the church. The Quakers' attempt to avoid formal theological
language and to speak in the style of the prophets and apostles
contributed to substantial miscommunication in this area.]
[Here I
mean to discuss Bunyan's reaction to Burrough's text as misprinted,
Burrough's failure to reply, and possibly other 17th-century
developments. Bunyan probably would have found Burrough's answer
frustrating and unsatisfactory even if it had been printed correctly.
Burrough probably had not noticed the error in his first pamphlet when
he wrote his second reply to Bunyan, contributing to his sense that the
final section of Bunyan's Vindication was a hopeless mass of
misunderstandings.]
[Here I
mean to discuss especially the scholarship of T. L. Underwood, who
prepared the Oxford edition of the two Bunyan pamphlets and who has
written on the theological aspects of 17th-century controversies between
Baptists and Quakers. As a meticulous scholar he no doubt used the 1656
printing of The True Faith of the Gospel of Peace rather than
Burrough's Memorable Works. This may well have contributed to
his misconception of Quaker Christology.]