Hort's heresies

There is absolutely no question that Wescott and Hort were absolute heretics from the top of their head to the bottom of their toes. The evidence is overwhelming. There is evidence they were involved in the occult.

 

It's quite easy to slander men who have been dead near 150 years!
You are speaking out of ignorance.
I'd suggest you read their books and sermons to know their beliefs better.


Until then, look at the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre [LINK]

Also review their FAQs page [LINK]

Rob

 

Thank you for these links. I appreciate people who attempt to work diligently to clarify things. Unfortunately, most of the KJV only people often do tell half truths to make their point, which is a reason I tend to avoid their conversations. Your posts are interesting and I am glad you knew of these places.

 

I find the following a very interresting quote:

This is from the first link Deacon provided.

 

This quote comes from a letter Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, on March 4, 1890. The surrounding context from the letter is below (underlining added):

"The picture which you draw is sad, but I too, in my way, know that this is true. We want - and I know that I want, which is something - a living faith. When we are quite sure that God is speaking today - and He is speaking - we shall not grow wild in discussing how He once spoke.
I have purposely refrained from reading Lux Mundi, but I am quite sure that our Christian faith ought not to be perilled on any predetermined view of what the history and character of the documents contained in the O.T. must be. What we are bound to hold is that the O.T., substaintially as we receive it, is the Divine record of the discipline of Israel. This is remains, whatever criticism may determine or leave undetermined as to constituent parts. No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses, in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the "sun rising," it was no less necessary that He should use the names "Moses" and "David" as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History: this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"

http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_evolution.html

 

Amen to what Deacon has said.

 

As someone used to say many times on the radio....

 

There is a book containing all the letters written to and from Fenton John Anthony Westscott. There is one letter dated December 29th and 30th in the year 1851 that says:

"Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to beleive that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective illusions. We shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names.

Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us 'The Cock and Bull Club'; our own contemporary name is 'The Ghost and Guild." - The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Westcott, Chapter IV, p. 211

Westcott left the club not due to disbelief but due to the popularity of his new books and his departure from that area. After Westcott left and went to Cambridge he was still a member of the ghostly club in 1852 and received letters containing materials to examine.

 

Were Westcott & Hort Members of a Ghost Society?

By Robert L. Sumner


There is a network of publications that, by quoting each other, are mass instigators of misinformation, each seeming to feel that his own publication is the last line of defense before the capitulation of Fundamentalism to the Enemy. As an illustration of what we are talking about, in the July/August 1993 issue of Battle Cry, the publication of Californian cartoonist Jack Chick, there was an article with a two-column heading “Son of Biblical Text Editor Westcott Says: ‘My Father Was A Spiritualist’. “ Here are the opening two paragraphs:

Writing that his father had a lifelong ‘faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism,’ the son of famed biblical Greek text editor B. F. Westcott admits to a considerable public alarm at his father’s activity.

Westcott and his famed partner, Hort, were among the founders of the Ghost Society in the 1850s. Fascinated by the spirit world, their club was dedicated to pursuing knowledge of ghostly encounters with spirits.

Is this information true of false? Well, let’s just say it is a prime example of what these fellows do with a tiny germ of truth, twisting it to give their readers a false picture and make the victim look bad--in this case, 19th century men who have been dead a combined total of 195 years (Brooke Foss Westcott died in 1901 and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1892), men no longer around to defend their honor.
To get at the truth, note the following:

1) The Guild was not formed (Westcott’s association was short lived, as we assume was Hort’s) when the two were mature biblicists seeking to restore the New Testament Greek text, but when they were still students at the University of Cambridge.

2) The author of the article above erred in the name. It was not the “Ghost Society,” but the “Ghostlie Guild.” In short, it seems to have been exactly the kind of humorous name a bunch of college kids would give such a society. While an error in the name is not of earth-shaking import, it does show the inattention to detail of which these heresy hunters are often guilty.

3) The Guild was not formed so that its members could communicate with ghosts. Quite the contrary, it was intended as a scientific society “established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effects.” Its members were to collect all such accounts possible, investigate them, discard those obviously false, and seek to document any that might be true. Members were instructed, in dealing with alleged accounts, to “request written communications, with full details of persons, times, and places,” although the informers’ names would not be used “without special permission.” Still, a guild member “making any communication should be acquainted with the names, and should pledge himself for the truth of the narrative from his own knowledge or conviction.” Even as college kids, then, Westcott and Hort were not participating in seances, playing with ouija boards, becoming involved in crystal-gazing, or sampling any other form of clairvoyance. It was first, last and ever a scientific study into the phenomenon of the spirit world.

4) One could not doubt the reality of some of these apparitions and spectacles without denying the existence of biblical demons. We refuse to do that.

5) Perhaps the most blatant misrepresentation in the entire Battle Cry article was in the opening sentence of paragraph one (see above). Here is what Arthur Westcott actually wrote about his father: “What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good.” Do you not see how the words of the son were twisted by the writer of the unsigned article? He said Westcott had a lifelong faith in Spiritualism. The son said his “father ceased to interest himself in these matters.” All the son was saying was that his father never ceased to believe in the existence and ministry of demons. Nor have we. The longer we live the more we are convinced of their reality. (And we hope no future heresy hinter will write an article after my decease calling me a Spiritualist. I am not! Nor is there evidence that either Westcott or Hort were!)

MORE HERE

 

Sumner is lying! I personally read through Westcotts own letters last night and there are two other letters that I did not quote. That club was formed and continued at least for over two years (1851 and 1852) if not longer. Westcott continued as a member and is even called a "member" two years after leaving the physical locality where the club originated. In his letters there is no repudiation of that club or membership in that club.

In those same letters, Hort at least temporarily embraced Darwins theory while Westcott was a skeptic of it. Westcott beleived in "baptismal regeneration" believing salvation was in the scaraments and church. Westcott sided with the "high churchmen" in the Church of England.

Now, you can call in second hand witnesses all day long but it does not change what his own letters say.

 

Cite your source please (and not from a bibliography of a secondary source, but the actual sources you accessed and read in context). A few notes here.

First, Sumner never says how long the club lasted, but does note their length of period of involvement was short-lived.

Secondly, when you mention "Baptismal Regeneration" by referring to it as a sacrament, I am curious if you merely attribute him holding to baptismal regeneration because he calls it a sacrament, or does he say that baptism saves in clear and unambiguous terms? There is a huge difference and most in the KJV only circle do not understand the historical significance and wide use of the word "sacrament." For instance, I believe it is a sacrament, but I reject baptismal regeneration. My view is shared by a number of well-known Baptists throughout history and it seems King James believed it was a Sacrament.

Will you just as loudly denounce Erasmus' work which was the foundation of the KJV? He clearly believed in Baptismal regeneration and many other horrors that we can list. However, I believe, like I do with Westcott and Hort, that his work should be respected despite his character and theology because we can recreate what he did.

Calling a member of an organization is not cause for alarm. I still call Catholic friends, though I have long left the Catholic Church. Erasmus interacted with a lot of men of ill repute. Will you condemn his work too? Guilt by association was one point that the Pharisees used to condemn Jesus, and a point which the KJV only people use to condemn others.

Finally, are you reading primary sources or secondary sources? As Christians, before we totally blast people by lying and making innuendo, we should get our facts straight and ensure we are accurate. The KJV only people often lie so often and distort the truth so much, that if I held them to the standard they hold others, I would reject them just because of their dishonesty.

 

Another thing Sumners completely misrepresented was his statement that they simply were defending the existence of angels or fallen angels -demons. Take note of the statement above that is put in bold letters.

 

I have personally verified everything you accuse Westcott and Hort below. I have verified from primary source materials - their own writings. What you say is true and cannot be honestly denied - all critics have to do is just read their letters.

 

So, I am curious before I respond to the other issues, what is it about Erasmus' work that is far superior to Westcott and Hort? I know that even Erasmus took issue with various versions of his works that were used in the KJV and I am not doubting his scholarship, but I do not think it was perfect. I never had someone say that Erasmus' work is far superior to Westcott and Hort.

What surprises me is that in the book you cited, is rather interesting. It seems to note Westcott's strong belief in the innerancy and providential belief in the Word of God (p. 422) and while Hort embraces an apriori view of Scripture, he did have some struggles especially with the "Q" source. They did have a discussion on the use of a single source for the synoptics (in modern language called "Q"). This is not an issue of doctrine or heresy. Yet, it seems he had an a priori view of Scriptures being from God.

Next, I read the section on dealing in Baptismal Regeneration. First, he wanted to remain neutral. Secondly, and this is where we need a fuller understanding of the Episcopal view of Baptismal Regeneration and that of the Catholic View, which he differentiates in this section. He notes he has difficulty with the Episcopal view and the Roman view. Yet, he never goes into detail on what that might be.

Yet, this is a bigger problem and brings up more questions than it answers. For instance, Luther believed in a form of Baptismal Regeneration and many Episcopals, as seems to be a part of the problem Hort is expounding upon, used the language. This is one of the cases in which more confusion exists than does not. He cited an author and I was unable to find this author's book, but it seems he was an episcopal who outlined the 39 articles. Without reading his work, I am not certain we can definitively state his view of Baptism Regeneration. I think that was what the issue was. Now, the text states that the protestant view of his day had some more dangers than the Roman Catholic view, but he still seemed to disagree with both views. Thus, I am more curious than I am enlightened by the quote.

You misquote the text of Sumner who said, "The guild was not formed when the two were mature Biblicists." They were in college. Even if they were considered active members two years later (and I am still considered an active member of a church that I have not been a part of for 6 years because they haven't taken me off their list) seems at best speculative. There seems to be two accounts. From there, we cannot make a definitive statement and probably should ere on the side giving deference.

 

Well doc, don't you believe in ghosts?

Matthew 14:22-26

25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit [ghost, phantom, apparition, etc]; and they cried out for fear.

Apparently the Jews believed.

Hmmm...

WM

 

BTW, some of the discussion is also ludicrious on the outset for two reasons:

1. Some of their "heresies" are not heresies. Two examples are below:

Evolution. I am a strong 6 day creationist, but even B.B. Warfield, the author that influeced 100 years of innerancy writing, was not what I am.

Covenant Theology. To place this as a dividing line would also place Spurgeon, Bunyan, Luther, Calvin, Pink, and on and on and on.. as people who differ on this issue. I would include myself among that list.

2. The issue is whether their work is accurate and true, not what their theology is and is not. As noted before, Erasmus was not necessarily a man I would want my kids to grow up to become like, but I respect his work. I find it hypocritical that they attack the men Westcott and Hort and not attack the man Erasmus. WHy not attack their work which can be replicated instead of attacking them personally? I think the only reason they are attacked is because their work is difficult to attack rationally and they disagree with it, but instead of attacking the work it is easier to attack the men.

 

You don't consider evolution a "heresy"?????? It is a direct denial of the existence of God and replaces God with time plus chance! It is a direct denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is a direct denial of the fall of man, of the diety of Christ. If that is not "heresy" nothing is!

Hort wrote that the doctrine of the Substitutionary atonement was an "immoral" and "unchristian" doctrine. He really couldn't make up his mind what theory of atonement he did believe in but he said that he leaned more to the ransom to Satan view of the atonement. You may not call that hersy but I do!

This is a completely fabricated straw man of your own imagination. Westcott and Hort were extremely selective in what they incorporated into their revision of the Greek Text and their theological biases were influential in the readings they omitted versus what they included. Their view of inspiration dictated how they treated the materials they were handling. On the other hand Erasmus was far more objective. He even conceded to including 1 John 5:7 if a manuscript were produced that included it. When a manuscript was produced he was true to his word. He had no theological bias that determined what he would include or exclude.

 

Boy!!! YOu know this is an absurd response! The society established by Westcot and Hort and company refused to assume even the existence of angels until it could be authenticated by evidence:

"I forget who thinks it highly unphilosophical in us to assume the existence of angels which by the way we don't do, for our classification is only of phenomena though I don t suppose any of us would shrink from the assumption" -Hort Writing to Mr. Chambers, May 11, 1852 quoted from Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1

Note he called it an "assumption" rather than the clear teaching of God's Word! This society questioned even the authenticity and authority of God's word on this subject but rather refused to beleive anything they could not substantiate with existential proof.