COMMUNION WITH GOD by John Owen. Abridged and made easy to read by R. J. K. Law.
The editor, having read something of this great author, not surprisingly, desired that others would share the rich treasure. Conscious of the weighty style of Owen, the editor has sought to simplify him and so hopefully attract many to these writings.
Two questions immediately arise. The first is, ‘Is it competent for an editor to condense?’ Our answer is plainly ‘no’. This is the province of the author and none but he. Those who edited the puritan works, originally, were most scrupulous on this issue and it will be observed rather than change even an obvious misspelt word, the editors draw attention to their observation by means of an asterisk and a footnote. Works that are masterpieces cannot be altered. This criticism applies equally to all attempts that have been made to simplify the works of others, as for example Bunyan’s works. The second question is, ‘Is it possible?’ Again we are compelled to say ‘No’. Owen’s works are works of great genius which manifests itself in the choice of words their cadence and rythym. The deep spirituality of the man pervades almost every paragraph and the reader is drawn into his devotional spirit by his constant use of the personal pronouns.
In order to substantiate such criticism we would refer to the following changes in the abridged version.
Owen uses the Scripture largely and in the abridged version these are often reduced to a text reference. Besides, the editor has dared to use a version to which it is most unlikely Owen would have given his approval. Owen made use of italics where he would stress a point and the omission of these has left the reader without the meaningfulness of such expressions.
Owen had a carefully studied plan which was indicated by the use of numerals — these, too, have disappeared.
More seriously still, is the use of expressions which do no credit to the author as substitutes for his language.
Referring to the Saviour’s loving discourse at the time of his disciples’ sorrow on account of His leaving them Owen says that the Saviour relieved them thus — ‘Take no care of that, nay, impose not that upon me, of procuring the Father’s love for you.’ This is replaced by “Jesus, in effect, says ‘Don’t worry about that. I do not have to pray that the Father may love you. . . .'”
Similarly elsewhere Owen’s words ‘This also argues a holy greediness of delight’ are replaced by ‘Doesn’t this show the soul’s great delight in Christ.’
There are moreover, passages, where it is difficult to see to what advantage the words of Owen have been changed.
Owen’s ‘Yea, and as this love is peculiarly to be eyed in him . . . Christians walk oftentimes with exceedingly troubled hearts concerning the thoughts of the Father towards them’ We have — ‘This love is especially to be recognised as in God . . . Christians are often very worried as to whether God loves them or not.’ Here, it appears that the stress which Owen is laying on the peculiar love of the person of the Father is obliterated.
There seems to be no advantage to replace the term ‘the spouse’ by the ‘Shulamite’. Naturally there are many passages omitted which reveal the depth of feeling in the author and portray his profound humility and reverence for the things of God. Such an omission is in the words ‘… Woe woe would it be to us, should he change in his love.’
As to how far the matter is simplified, one has reason to ask, when the passage ‘A sweet saviour expresses that which is acceptable and delightful’ is replaced by ‘The scent of a soothing aroma symbolises all that is acceptable and delightful’. Many of the references to the distinction of the persons within the Godhead are passed over as also the explanation of the union of the two natures of Christ in the one person.
On the whole as one reads the substitutes one feels a degree of vexation. It seems questionable how proper it is for the publishers to produce the book with the name of Owen prominent and also his photograph.
The deep humility of John Owen is lost when — ‘It is but a little, from him who hath the least experience of it of all the saints of God; who yet hath found that in it which is better than ten thousand worlds; who desires to spend the residue of the few and evil days of his pilgrimage in pursuit hereof — in the contemplation of the excellencies, desireableness, love, and grace of our dear Lord Jesus.’ Instead of such we have simply — ‘This is but a little glimpse of that communion which we enjoy with Christ.’
Surely it is better than the present generation of professed Christians would be urged to read the puritans in their original than to attempt to suit their low level. Such reading would make them realise how dwarfed this generation is and so act as a means of rebuking their pride.
The editor has done similarly with other volumes of Owen but it cannot be expected that the result will be any other than with this one.
A. E. W. MacDonald
APOSTASY FROM THE GOSPEL. An attempt by R. J. K. Law to abridge part of Volume VII of the works of the late Dr John Owen, D.D.
We have reviewed above Mr Law’s abridgment of Volume II of the works of Dr. Owen and in doing so made the observations that it was incompetent in our opinion, for an editor to deal in this way with an author’s works and also that it was not possible to accomplish the task satisfactorily.
Added to this we observed that much is lost of the saviour of the original and the clear numbering of Owen’s paragraphing is put aside and in many instances, text references are given where Owen gives the full words of Scripture and these always in the Authorised Version — Mr Law taking the liberty of substituting a Version of which we can hardly think Owen would approve.
In this volume we observe that the condensing has left out much of Owen that is valuable in connection with warnings about Apostasy and portions most suitable to the present time in the history of the church — such passages as these:
Owen warns against ‘the cold, formal pronunciation or reading (as is the manner of some) of a well-composed oration doth not well express this labouring in word and doctrine.’
He also warns against the immodest apparel of professing Christians denouncing the “vanity of apparel, with foolish light, lascivious modes and dressings therein, and an immodest boldness in conversation among men and women.”
It appears that more ‘liberality’ is attributed to Owen than is due when the editor translates Owen’s words, ‘Love unto the saints without dissimulation; readiness to bear in meekness with different apprehensions and palpable misapprehensions, not intrenching on the foundation: freedom from imposing your sentiments on those who cannot receive them, and from judging rashly on supposed failures; readiness for universal communion in all religious duties with all that ‘love the Lord Jesus in sincerity’ — thus “We must avoid that lack of love and refusal to unite in worship and fellowship with other true Christians who may differ with us in the outward order of worship.”
In some instances there appears to be a softening of the language of Owen who speaks thus ‘… brings that person into great spiritual danger of suffering God’s wrath for ever,’ for which is replaced the words — ‘is a high aggravation of sin and a certain presage of destruction.’ The majestic style of Owen is in many parts replaced by a very unworthy substitute — phrases which one recoils from as to their value in the English language, for example: ‘But aren’t all …’ ‘Take it or leave it attitude’.
The Editor’s use of the expression ‘the writer of the epistle’ may leave the unwary reader to conclude that Owen was not well assured in his own mind that the epistle was written by the apostle Paul. Many useful references to history and to the original languages, wherein Owen exhibits his vast learning, and almost all the references of Owen to Mohammedanism are omitted. There is no substitute for reading the Puritans but to read them for oneself and it is questionable whether the Title ‘Puritan Paperbacks’ is justifiable.
A.E.W. MacDonald