# Westminster



## VirginiaHuguenot

The intent of this thread is to clarify some issues that have been unclear to my mind or inaccurately stated on the Puritan Board at one time or another concerning:

1) the (formal and informal) productions of the Westminster Assembly;

2) what products of the Westminster Assembly were binding upon which churches and to what extent and in what time period; and

3) what sources can confirm these facts.

I have spent a lot of time studying the Westminster Assembly and its effects. But even so I occasionally find myself referring to the Westminster Directory for Family Worship even when I know it was not produced by the Westminster Assembly but rather the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (approved at Edinburgh, August 24, 1647). 

Perhaps this is because the Directory for Family Worship is in the same vein as the Directory for Publick Worship (which was produced by the Westminster Assembly and ratified/published by the Parliament in 1644/1645, and approved by the General Assembly of Scotland, February 1645) and the two are often published together. Also, it was approved by the Scottish General Assembly with a caveat regarding the issue of sitting at the table for the Lord's Supper. So the Directory of Publick Worship was binding upon the Church of England starting in 1644/1645. 

These little historical details tend to have some significance in discussions about the history of the Puritans and how they viewed certain matters such as exclusive psalmody, church government, etc. I don't wish for this thread to get into a substantive debate over those kinds of issues, but I am hoping that this thread can provide the historical clarification that is sometimes lacking in other threads.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (a product of the Westminster Assembly, presented to and published by the Parliament in December 1646 without proof texts, presented to and published by Parliament in April 1647 with proof texts, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in August 1647) was ratified by the Church of Scotland with a caveat concerning chapter 31. But it was binding upon the Church of England from 1646-47 forward until, I think, the Recissory Act of 1661 revoked its de jure legal status in the Church of England. However, during the reign of Oliver Cromwell who purged Parliament in 1653, the political situation being as chaotic as it was, it was not de facto binding in England for some portion of that brief era. 

I would like to clarify further to what extent the Westminster Confession was binding upon the Church of England. If any others could shed light on this or point me to credible historical sources, that would be much appreciated. 

The sources I have been consulting include: Hetherington's _History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_; Symington's _The Westminster Assembly of Divines_; Murray's _The Work of the Westminster Assembly_; Warfield's _The Westminster Assembly and its Work_; _Minutes of the Assembly of the Westminster Divines_; and with reference to certain writings by Beveridge, Gillespie, Baillie, Carruthers, McMahon and others. 

I would like to list in some detail each formal and informal product of the Westminster Assembly -- such as the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Psalter, Form of Presbyterial Church Government, the Sum of Saving Knowledge, Westminster Annotations, Westminster's Dutch Annotations, Jus Divinum, Manton's writings, etc. -- and other related or associated works such as the Scottish National Covenant, the Solemn League &amp; Covenant, etc., particularly noting when each was produced or adopted and by whom and upon whom it was binding and to what extent. 

I welcome all historical contributions to this thread. It is my hope that it will help sort out the historical context of the fruits of the Westminster Assembly, which itself will be a contribution to our discussions on more substantive matters here on the Puritan Board today.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Andrew,
_Crossed Fingers_ has a relevant appendix ("C") on Westminster. You may be able to glean a few nuggets of information that add to your store, as well as noting a few of the sources used by the author.

aside:
How much would you pay for van Dixhoorn's work on the Assembly minutes, or whatever final form this W.A. Project takes? I just hope someday I live close enough to a library that shelves it, or that it all eventually gets into electronic/internet format...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Andrew,
> _Crossed Fingers_ has a relevant appendix ("C") on Westminster. You may be able to glean a few nuggets of information that add to your store, as well as noting a few of the sources used by the author.



Thanks Bruce! Yes, I found Appendix C here and indeed it does shed some valuable light on Parliament's ratification of the Confession:



> The final form of the Confession was never approved by Parliament. The Confession was renamed Articles of the Christian Religion, and several chapters were not approved: XXX, Of Church Censures; XXXI, Of Synods and Councils; and Section 4 of Chapter XX, Of Christian Liberty. That is, the Articles were not Presbyterian. They were accepted by the House of Commons in 1649, but they were never granted the force of law.(79)
> 
> 79. Toon, _Puritans and Calvinism_, p. 59.



I'd like to research this point further to verify what North is saying. 



> aside:
> How much would you pay for van Dixhoorn's work on the Assembly minutes, or whatever final form this W.A. Project takes? I just hope someday I live close enough to a library that shelves it, or that it all eventually gets into electronic/internet format...


----------



## JohnV

As an aside, Andrew, the Dutch were never subject to the Westminster documents. They have a strong Reformed heritage as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As an aside, Andrew, the Dutch were never subject to the Westminster documents. They have a strong Reformed heritage as well.



Yes, I know that the Dutch Reformed Church was never subject to the Westminster Standards. My reference was just to the Dutch Annotations which were prepared and published in English by Theodore Haak "at the instigation" of the Westminster Assembly, although it is properly ascribed to the work of the Synod of Dordt as well. I have ever-growing respect for the _Nadere Reformatie_. 

But it's also worth quoting Jacobus Koelman (1632-1695) (there is a good article about him in the November 2005 _The Outlook_), the Dutch Reformed minister who wrote a well-known book called _The Duties of Parents_ in which he said (p. 31 of the Reformation Heritage Books edition): 



> The catechisms composed by others have served me as aids and guides. The reason why in this process I do not follow so much the Heidelberg Catechism as I do the Westminster Shorter Catechism of England, Scotland, and Ireland is simply that the latter is in all respects superior. For why should we not honestly acknowledge such an obvious truth? It would be good if the church of The Netherlands would be willing to learn and take over a variety of things from the churches in England and Scotland, things which they formulated in their church order and other formularies more clearly in accordance with God´s Word than our church has done.




[Edited on 12-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> aside:
> How much would you pay for van Dixhoorn's work on the Assembly minutes, or whatever final form this W.A. Project takes? I just hope someday I live close enough to a library that shelves it, or that it all eventually gets into electronic/internet format...



Bruce,
If you did not see them before, see my comments on Chad Van Dixhoorn's work here.

And for those who do not know, I detail in the _Antiquary_ feature of the 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ approximately when each piece of the traditional Scottish form of the Westminster Standards (kept in print by the FPCS) came to be printed with the Confession and Catechisms. It was a process which took roughly eighty years to get into the shape that became the traditional collection.

Also, a bit of obscure trivia is that the author of at least the draft of the Directory for Family Worship was Robert Blair.

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Directory for Public Worship*

This is what I wrote on the Westminster _Directory for the Public Worship of God,_ in my Americanxmas article.


> The Parliament ordered the Directory printed, March 13, 1644/45. [5] It had been issued and approved on January 4 1644-45, [6] but in courtesy sent to Scotland for that kingdom´s approval. Robert Baillie and George Gillespie conveyed it there and presented it before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Directory was approved by "˜Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland´ on February 3, 1644/45. The Government of Scotland approved and established the Directory three days later. [7] Thus the Directory for Worship was actually more widely authorized than the Confession of Faith, or Larger Catechism, which never received the assent of the English Parliament. [8] It represents the approved views regarding worship of not only the Assembly, but of the governments of England and Scotland, as well as the Church of Scotland.
> 
> 
> 
> [5] England was still using the Julian Calendar, which set March 25th as the first of the year, and did not officially adopt the Gregorian until 1752. This type of format (e.g. March 13, 1644/45) is generally used to avoid confusion.
> 
> [6] "œ"¦ and passed them with some amendments on the 3rd of January. On the following day these amendments were the subject of a conference between the two Houses, and were finally agreed upon. The Ordinance itself, which is prefixed to the Directory, is incorrectly dated 3rd January, 1644-45." William A. Shaw, _A History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth_ (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900) 1.353.
> 
> [7] C. G. M´Crie, _Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland_ (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1892) 187-193.
> 
> [8] "œIt is not a little curious that those portions of its accomplished work which have remained through later times the most distinct and memorable accomplishment of the Assembly "“ i.e., the Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism "“ should have never received the assent of the Parliament which had called the Assembly into being, and at whose behest it had prepared those works. Shaw, 1.376.
Click to expand...


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> But even so I occasionally find myself referring to the Westminster Directory for Family Worship even when I know it was not produced by the Westminster Assembly but rather the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (approved at Edinburgh, August 24, 1647).
> 
> Perhaps this is because the Directory for Family Worship is in the same vein as the Directory for Publick Worship (which was produced by the Westminster Assembly and ratified/published by the Parliament in 1644/1645, and approved by the General Assembly of Scotland, February 1645) and the two are often published together.



A thread like this with the purpose of clarifying small but key historical details like the above is very helpful. I had always thought (assumed) that the DFW was in fact produced by the WA, largely because it is always listed among the "subordinate documents" to the Westminster Standards.

Are there any other thoughts on what relationship the DFW can or cannot be said to have to the DPW and related documents, and to what extent and in what manner and context it should be used by families today (obviously only as far as it is in accordance with the standards of both doctrine and order of the family's church)?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> But even so I occasionally find myself referring to the Westminster Directory for Family Worship even when I know it was not produced by the Westminster Assembly but rather the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (approved at Edinburgh, August 24, 1647).
> 
> Perhaps this is because the Directory for Family Worship is in the same vein as the Directory for Publick Worship (which was produced by the Westminster Assembly and ratified/published by the Parliament in 1644/1645, and approved by the General Assembly of Scotland, February 1645) and the two are often published together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A thread like this with the purpose of clarifying small but key historical details like the above is very helpful. I had always thought (assumed) that the DFW was in fact produced by the WA, largely because it is always listed among the "subordinate documents" to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> Are there any other thoughts on what relationship the DFW can or cannot be said to have to the DPW and related documents, and to what extent and in what manner and context it should be used by families today (obviously only as far as it is in accordance with the standards of both doctrine and order of the family's church)?
Click to expand...


The DFW is a product of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the church which did in fact adopt all of the Westminster Standards as authoritatively binding. Thus, publications of the Standards which come from, for example, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland will include the DFW. 

In my view the Church of Scotland set the bar when it comes to constitutionally sound and authoritative standards such as the DFW, DPW, and other such documents. But it is interesting to note, as I have already, the particular caveats the Church of Scotland in ratifying certain documents including the Confession and the DPW. 

Documents that were binding upon the Church of Scotland were not necessarily binding in other lands, including the United States. But my own denomination accepts the Confession, Catechisms and DPW as constitutional documents (but not the DFW). Nevertheless, the DFW is highly commended in my denomination and in many others that don't accept it as authoritatitve. Almost every book I have ever seen on family worship makes reference to the DFW as a helpful guide. 

I commend to all Doug Comin's _Returning to the Family Altar: A Commentary and Study Guide on the Directory for Family Worship_, which is available at low cost through Crown & Covenant Publications, and was commissioned by the (Scottish) James Begg Society, and is, so far as I know, the only commentary ever written on the DFW.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

There is a very helpful discussion of the history of the Westminster Assembly and its productions in my copy of _Encyclopedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Including the Northern and Southern Assemblies_ edited by Alfred Nevin (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publishing Co., 1884). 

Also, I have been reading a book by my friend Julius Melton called _Presbyterian Worship in America: Changing Patterns Since 1787_ which covers the history of the 1644 and 1788 Directories for Public Worship. He references what appears to be an important work by Charles W. Shields called _The Book of Common Prayer as Amended by the Westminster Divines, A.D. 1661, with a Historical and Liturgical Treatise_ (Philadelphia: Jas. S. Claxton, 1867) -- which is sometimes referred to as _Liturgia Expurgata_. There is a helpful entry on Shields in Nevin's _Encyclopedia_ as well as the _Dictionary of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America_, edited by D.G. Hart and Mark A. Noll. 

Charles W. Baird's _Eutaxia or the Presbyterian Liturgies_ (1855) may also shed some light on the history of the 1644 Directory of Publick Worship. 

In the words of the Preacher, And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (Ecc. 12.12).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From _Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation_ by John Macleod, p. 85:



> Along with his young friend and ministerial disciple, James Durham, [David] Dickson was also the author of _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_, which, *though without authority from the Church, has been often reprinted in the same volume as the Westminster documents.*


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Two notes re. the Apostle's Creed, from T.L. Johnson, _Leading in Worship_
p. 175. 1) Although not written by the apostles, the Apostle's Creed is a concise summary of their teachings. It originated as a baptismal confession, probably in the second century, and developed into its present form by the sixth or seventh century. Though not specifically commended by the Westminster Assembly for use in public worship, *it was bound with the Confession and Catechisms.*

(Originally, and is still bound and published with it--see the standard publication, which includes the DPW, Sum, etc.--BGB)

p. 35. 8) The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds have been in use in the Christian church since the third century and are approved for use by all the Reformed liturgies. The single exception might be the Westminster _Directory,_ where, *though the inclusion of the Apostle's Creed was twice approved,* it was for some reason omitted from its final form.

(Perhaps someone here knows the reason that eludes Johnson?--BGB)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From _Is the Larger Catechism Worthwhile?_ by Chad Van Dixhoorn in the October 2000 issue of the OPC _New Horizons_:



> The Apostles´ Creed
> 
> The main difference between Westminster´s catechisms and earlier catechisms has to do with the Apostles´ Creed. The standard practice of catechisms written earlier had been to expound the Apostles´ Creed, phrase by phrase, just as they did the Ten Commandments and the Lord´s Prayer. But the Westminster Assembly decided to exclude the Apostles´ Creed because it, though scriptural, was not Scripture.
> Scripture Alone
> 
> Avoiding the Apostles´ Creed gave both of the Westminster catechisms two strengths. First, the catechisms are based explicitly on Scripture, which is consistent with the position expressed in the first chapter of the Confession: all our doctrine comes from Scripture alone. Second, every catechism that uses the Apostles´ Creed reflects one of the weaknesses of the Creed: there is no mention of the importance of Christ´s life.



From _A Short History of Creeds and Confessions_ by A.A. Hodge:



> 1st. The Apostles' Creed. This was not written by the apostles, but was gradually formed, by common consent, out of the Confessions adopted severally by particular churches, and used in the reception of its members. It reached its present form, and universal use among all the churches, about the close of the second century. This Creed was appended to the Shorter Catechism, together with the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments, in the first edition published by order of Parliament, "not as though it were composed by the apostles, or ought to be esteemed canonical Scripture, . . . but because it is a brief sum of Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and anciently received in the churches of Christ." It was retained by the framers of our Constitution as part of the Catechism. 1 It is as follows:
> 
> "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (Hades); the third day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen."



From _Presbyterian Worship in America_ by Julius Melton:



> In the 1640's the Westminster Assembly of Divines formalized the developments since the day of Calvin and Knox in its Directory for Worship. The Assembly's task had been to remodel the Church of England along Presbyterian lines, in preparation for a hoped-for new day when kings and bishops would be overthrown. The divines turned away from liturgical worship, but they did not gravitate all the way to sect-type, Spirit-led worship. They settled somewhere between, and closest to Word-oriented worship. While the Directory provides no forms or examples of prayer, it gave directions and lists of topics for the clergy to follow. It sought to adhere to the directives of the Word, but in addition it set a pattern for denominational control of the basic ordering or structuring of the worship of the local congregations...Some [Presbyterians] would revere and some would loathe such features of worship as the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, or the reading of Scriptures without interpretive comment.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm not unappreciative of the foregoing, indeed I appreciate van Dixhoorn's comments especially, and agree with them. The Hodge quote rather raises another question for me, namely how has the AC dropped out of retention as a regular "part of the Catechism"? It certainly has zero constitutional weight in any of our churches, so far as I know, although the Catechisms clearly do. Melton's quote, though citing difference of practice (which would have made no difference, whether the AC was included or not), doesn't address the question of why the AC was voted on twice, and approved twice, for inclusion in the DPW, and yet was omitted in the final form. Perhaps there was further discussion, which might be addressed in pertinent minutes, newly come to light?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Bruce,

I too am interested to review the minutes on this subject in particular. I have read in Horton Davies' book _The Worship of the English Puritans_ that the Independents especially were opposed to the recitation of the Apostles' Creed by the parents during the administration of the sacrament of baptism, but that this was the prior practice of the Scots Presbyterians. Davies comments on how striking it is that the Directory excludes the AC but does not detail what happened during any voting on the AC. He says:



> The Apostles' Creed is not required to be recited by the parent. It appears that the Puritans disliked the custom, whilst some of the Independents objected to the Creed itself.



I have read that many Puritans had concerns about the language of the AC wrt Christ's descent into "hell."

From a report on Chad Van Dixhoorn's 2005 speech to the James Begg Society:



> The longest running debate in the early sessions [of the Westminster Assembly] concerned the place of creeds and confessions in the Christian Church; and this led on to a debate on the meaning of the phrase, "He [i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ] descended into Hell," found in the Apostle's Creed. One party at the Assembly favored the traditional interpretation that the "Hell" referred to was 'limbus patrum', the imagined temporary abode of the Old Testament saints; and that Christ's disembodied spirit went there after His death to release them and to lead them to Heaven. The other faction favored the interpretation of the reformer John Calvin, namely that the phrase referred to the deepest and darkest part of Christ's passion on the cross, wherein He suffered the fully poured-out wrath of God against the sins of His people. Particular attention was paid to I Peter 3:18-20, which had been used in support of the 'limbus patrum' theory. According to Calvin's exegesis, the "prison" referred to in v.19 was the bondage to sin in which were held the elect of "the days of Noah", until the Spirit of Christ effectually saved them through the preaching ministry of Noah; and these few souls were subsequently kept safe from the great Flood along with him in the ark.



The point of citing Melton's comments was not to necessarily answer the specific question of the votes that were apparently taken on the AC, but to show the mindset of the Assembly which was to adhere to the principle of sola scriptura in worship. The Directory makes a point of saying that preaching should be based on a Biblical text (this point is relevant when considering catechetical preaching), and I think the decision to append the AC, Lord's Prayer and Decalogue to the Shorter Catechism shows that the Assembly finally decided to break from precedent and categorize the AC with catechisms worthy of study but not worthy of a place in the order of worship which was to be strictly sola scriptura-based.

It is also noteworthy that framers of the DPW excluded responsive reading of any kind by the congregation consistent with the principle found in WLC Q.156, as well as the Gloria Patri and other doxologies. While affirming the principle of congregational singing and granting that parents may answer questions put to them during the sacrament of baptism, there is no congregational confession of sins or any other form of congregational (extra-Biblical) recitations. 

From what I can gather so far in my research, I don't think the AC was ever constitutionally binding in the Presbyterian Church from 1644 forwards, although many church statements can be found to say that the AC is "agreeable" to the word of God. Hodge's statement does not strike me as affirming that the AC was constitutionally binding (in the American Presbyterian Church) but rather customarily associated with the catechism. If I am mistaken in this regard, I would be glad for clarification. 

The PCA website says:


> The inclusion of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed and the footnote regarding them with the Shorter Catechism goes back to the Westminster divines, though these are not a formal part of the Standards themselves.



The Westminster Assembly actually originally sent Parliament a revision of Article VIII of the 39 Articles with language to the effect that the AC was consistent with the Word of God and to be received and believed therefore (Davies, pp. 273-274), but this was scrapped during further labors of the Assembly as they worked towards an altogether new Confession rather than a 39 Articles revision. This too is worth further study. 

It should also be noted that Thomas Cartwright's 1585 Church Order excluded the AC. This was consistent with the view of William Perkins, his contemporary and one of the leaders of the Puritans, who viewed recitation of the AC in worship as "babbling."

The Directory was an attempt to undo the well intentioned Anglican Book of Common Prayer and weed out extra-Biblical liturgical practices regardless of whether they had a place outside of worship in the Christian life and get back to Bible-centered pure worship. Because Perkins had much good to say about the AC elsewhere, and because the Assembly commended the AC by appending it to the Shorther Catechism, I think the Puritan view of the AC (being extra-Biblical and not canonical) was that it's place was not in worship but in the area of catetechical instruction outside of worship, thus the Directory did not include it.

Again, the minutes would be the ideal resource to clarify this issue. Let's pray for the successful and speedy work of the Westminster Assembly Project. Meanwhile, I appreciate your thoughts, Bruce. You are an encouragement to me to study this intriguing issue. Thanks, brother.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Bruce,
I find this by J. Ligon Duncan,
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/church_history/s.htm


> On the 19th October 1646 the Assembly appointed a new committee to prepare the Shorter Catechism, of only three members, Anthony Tuckney, B.D., Minister of St. Michael's Quern, London, and Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge; Stephen Marshall, B.D., of Finchingfield, Essex; and John Ward of Ipswich; with the help of the only remaining commissioner from Scotland, Samuel Rutherford, Professor of Divinity in St. Andrews. Adoniram Byfield, one of the scribes, was instructed to write in the name of the Assembly to Cambridge to get Mr. Tuckney excused on account of the special employment imposed upon him by the Assembly. It is to these four men, and especially to the convener, Mr. Tuckney, that we owe the production of the Shorter Catechism. I wish I could accept the suggestion of Dr. Mitchell that the Catechism has "unmistakeable evidence of its having passed through the alembic of Dr. Wallis, the great mathematician"; but, unhappily, he was not instructed to attend the committee till the work was practically done, on the 9th November, an instruction which would not have be en given were he already in attendance. Mr. Tuckney brought in reports from the committee on 21st, 25th, 28th, 29th October, 1st, 2nd, and 8th November, and on these days it was debated in the Assembly. On the 9th November, Cornelius Burgess, D.D., and Daniel Cawdrey, M.A., were added to the committee for reviewing the Catechism, no doubt in relation to the discussions that had taken place; and Wallis was ordered to attend the committee, probably as amanuensis for transcribing. The revision was considered on the two following days, and on the 15th of November was read as far as the fourth commandment and, being approved, was ordered to be transcribed. The committee was ordered to prepare a preface to the Catechism. Next day Mr. Tuckney reported on the remainder of the Catechism, and, after reading, it was ordered to be transcribed. On the 17th the addition of the Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed was considered. Philip Nye dissented from the resolution to include the Creed, and he was joined in his dissent by William Rayner, William Greenhill, Thomas Wilson, and Thomas Valentine. The difference of judgment about the Creed caused the Assembly (instead of a further debate in full house) to add some members to the committee for arriving at an agreement. These were Richard Byfield, William Rayner, Phillip Nye, Thomas Case, Richard Vines, and Stanley Gower. A small committee, consisting of Wilson, Temple, and Calamy, was requested to submit the preface on the following morning. (This is evidently not the directions for catechetical methods previously discussed in March 1644 in connection with the Directory.) The difference as to the Creed was settled by inserting the explanation of the words "he descended into hell" in the margin and the preface, or rather postscript, was adopted. In the earlier editions of the Catechism, and in those printed with the Confession of Faith, this postscript is to be found, but not in the American editions.



I checked Chad Van Dixhoorn's transcription of the Minutes of the Assembly for the dates noted above (except they are 1647, not 1646 as the article indicates) and find no elaboration beyond what we have known from the old Minutes by Mitchell and Struthers (_Reforming the Reformation*_ volume 7, p. 740). Oh for those committee minutes; sad to say, all perished as far as we know.


> *Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of History of the University of Cambridge in Candidacy for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, September 2004. By Chad Van Dixhoorn. Seven volumes, multiple paginations. About 3100 pages.





> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I'm not unappreciative of the foregoing, indeed I appreciate van Dixhoorn's comments especially, and agree with them. The Hodge quote rather raises another question for me, namely how has the AC dropped out of retention as a regular "part of the Catechism"? It certainly has zero constitutional weight in any of our churches, so far as I know, although the Catechisms clearly do. Melton's quote, though citing difference of practice (which would have made no difference, whether the AC was included or not), doesn't address the question of why the AC was voted on twice, and approved twice, for inclusion in the DPW, and yet was omitted in the final form. Perhaps there was further discussion, which might be addressed in pertinent minutes, newly come to light?


----------



## JohnV

This is very interesting, Andrew and all. Please keep it coming. The more that is said the more it intrigues me that:


> But it's also worth quoting Jacobus Koelman (1632-1695) (there is a good article about him in the November 2005 The Outlook), the Dutch Reformed minister who wrote a well-known book called The Duties of Parents in which he said (p. 31 of the Reformation Heritage Books edition):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catechisms composed by others have served me as aids and guides. The reason why in this process I do not follow so much the Heidelberg Catechism as I do the Westminster Shorter Catechism of England, Scotland, and Ireland is simply that the latter is in all respects superior. For why should we not honestly acknowledge such an obvious truth? It would be good if the church of The Netherlands would be willing to learn and take over a variety of things from the churches in England and Scotland, things which they formulated in their church order and other formularies more clearly in accordance with God´s Word than our church has done.
Click to expand...


We have a distinct and separate Reformed heritages growing right side-by-side, yet not without relation of some sort. Both are rich in scholarly diligence. Both also fell prey to the currents and streams of secular influences as well. Yet the heritages themselves remained pretty well intact. For example, some Dutch Reformed churches include the lists of errors in the Canons of Dort, while other do not; some retain catachetical preaching, others do not; some retain Psalm-singing, others do not. And yet in spite of those differences, it is only opinion that these lacks or excesses are tied to the fall from the standards, but not really documentable. Just as there are churches that fell which included hymns in their worship, so also there were churches that fell that did not; just as there were churches that omitted the list of errors that remained faithful longer, so also there were those that did not. ( I'm thinking, of course, just of the Dutch Reformed churches that I am personally aware of, and that I have personally witnessed these things in. ) 

The question that will always be before us is whether, if the Dutch churches had followed Koelman's advice, would have fared any better than they did, or if they would have fared better or worse than the North American Presbyterian churches. As it stands today, according to some witnesses on this Board in the past, there is hardly a Presbyterian church left in England, and it is almost the same in Holland, that there are fewer and fewer really Reformed churches left there. It is not because of the respective confessions they each adopted, but rather because they were not held to steadfastly as church constitutions, or better, as church covenants. 

This post isn't citations of Westmister authorities, but just an observation. Just as the WA would not break that seal of Sola Scriptura by including and exposition on the Apostles' Creed, so also we should not break that same seal by now having an exposition on the Westminster Standards. They state that the only document that is constitutionally binding is the Word of God, and that, one would think, includes itself in that statement. 



> III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]
> 
> 8. Rev. 22:18-19; Rom. 3:2; II Peter 1:21
> 
> IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
> 
> 9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2
> 
> V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
> 
> 10. I Tim 3:15
> 11. I Cor. 2:4-5, 9-10; Heb. 4:12; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11, 59:21; Rom. 11:36: Psa. 19:7-11; II Tim. 3:15; I Thess. 1:5; I John 2:20, 27
> 
> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> 
> 12. II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:2
> 13. John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:6
> 14. I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]
> 
> 15. II Peter 3:16
> 16. Psa. 119:105, 130; Deut. 29:29; 30:10-14; Acts 17:11


----------



## Arch2k

I posted this quote on another thread.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I have typed out the following section from The Worship of the English Puritans by Horton Davies relevant to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> APPENDIX C
> 
> THE PURITAN ATTITUDE TO THE CREEDS
> 
> It is surprising that the Puritans who trace their theological descent from John Calvin, whose famous _Institutio_ is a commentary on the framework of the Apostle´s Creed, should have discarded the Creed in public worship. It was in universal use among the Reformed Churches and was included in the first Puritan Prayer-Books. Baillie, a Scottish Commissioner at the Westminster Assembly, lays the blame for the disuse of the Creed at the feet of the Brownists:
> 
> "˜The Apostle´ Creed they detest, as an old Patchery of evil stuff; Christ´s descent into hell, they count a blasphemous Article.´
> 
> This attitude came to be shared by the Independents. They desired to rid their public worship of any association with the corruptions of Rome and, as the Creed was an integral part of Roman Catholic worship, they discarded it. Milton expresses the Independent viewpoint admirably:
> 
> "˜They object that if we must forsake all that is Rome´s, we must bid adieu to our creed; and I had thought our creed had been of the apostles, for so it bears title. But if it be hers, let her take it. We can want no creed so long as we want not the scriptures.´
> 
> The Creed was a convenient summary of the articles of faith, it was agreed, but if Roman usage had polluted it, the Puritan would not use it. Indeed so long as he knew his Bible he did not need it.
> The Presbyterians were anxious to retain the Creeds. They had originally intended, in the first draft of the Baptismal Order of the Directory, that the father should recite the Apostle´s Creed as evidence that he was a believer. Moreover when the Westminster Divines were revising the Thirty-Nine Articles before a separate Confession was thought of, they proposed to re-translate the Creeds, explaining the harsher clauses of the Athanasian Creed. There was no intention of disowning them. They went as far as to send up to Parliament the following revision of the VIIIth Article: "˜The Creeds that go under the name of the Nice Creed, Athanasian Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles´ Creed are thoroughly to be received and believed, for that the matter of them can be proved by most certain warrants.´
> The left-wing Puritans had two substitutes for the Creeds. The Independents or Congregationalists had their own Confession of Faith, the _Savoy Declaration_. The Presbyterians used as their doctrinal basis, for the purposes of catechizing, the _Westminster Confession_. The second substitute was the use of a covenant as the basis of church-membership, which all new members of the local Church subscribed on being admitted into its fellowship. This was used mainly by the Independents and by the Baptists, but it did not win favour among the Presbyterians, although its principle was accepted in the "˜Solemn League and Covenant´ of 1643, by which Parliament had given Presbyterianism the status of the official Church in England.
> The sole difference between the _Savoy Declaration_ and the _Westminster Confession_, which were verbally similar, was that the former declared a consensus of opinion amongst the Independents, whilst the latter was accepted as morally binding amongst the Presbyterians. The character of the Independent Declaration is made plain in the preface:
> "˜"¦such a transaction is to be looked upon but as meet or fit _medium_ or _means_ whererby to express _that_ their _common faith and salvation_, and no way to be made use of as an _imposition_ upon any: whatever is of force or constraint in matters of this nature causeth them to degenerate from being _Confessions of Faith_, into _exactions_ and _impositions of faith_.´
> 
> The memory of other "˜impositions´, which had brought fire and <b>[Censored]</b> in their train, was too vividly present in the minds of the Independents to allow them to repeat the mistake. The Presbyterians, however, made their Confession the basis of their Sunday afternoon catechizing.
> The second substitute for a Creed was the Covenant. This was and important part of Independent church-order and worship. The first Independent Church in England, founded in 1616 under the leadership of Henry Jacob, was constituted on the basis of a covenant entered into by all the members. A day was appointed
> 
> "˜to seek ye Face of ye Lord in fasting and Prayers, wherein that particular of their Union together as a Church was mainly commended to ye Lord: in ye ending of ye Day they ware United, Thus, Those who minded this present Union & so joining together joined both hand each wth other Brother and stood in a Ringwise: their intent being declared, H. Jacob and each of the Rest made some Confession or Profession of their Faith & Repentance, some ware onger some ware briefer, Then they Covenanted together to walk in all Gods Ways as he had revealed or should make known to them.´
> 
> Later Independent Churches, founded in the days of the commonwealth, on a covenant b asis, were: Yarmouth in 1643, Norwich a year later, Walpole in 1647, Bury St Edmunds a year later, Wrentham in 1649, Woodbridge in 1651, Beccles, Guestwick and Wymondham in 1652, Bradfield probably in the same year, Wattesfield in 1654 and Denton and probably Basingtown in 1655. Jacob´s church-covenant was simple and comprehensive in form and served as the basis and model of all subsequent Independent covenants. Later examples are more elaborate. Occasionally, as in the case of the bassingtown covenant, they are more impressive. Indeed the solemnity of the latter covenant could hardly be equalled. As a prelude to the Lord´s Supper it was an equivalent to the _Sanctus_ of venerable use. It ws read by all the members standing. It proceeds:
> 
> "˜We do in the presence of the Lord Jesus the awful crowned King of Sion and in the presence of his holy angels and people, and all beside here present Solemnly give up ourselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God, solemnly promising & engaging in the aforesaid presence to walk with the Lord, and with one another in the observation of all Gospel Ordinances and the discharge of all relative duties in this Church of God, & elsewhere as the Lord shall enlighten and enable us.´
> 
> This solemn admission into the fellowship of Christ´s Church was the Independent substitution for Confirmation.
> Covenants were not acceptable to all the Puritans. The Presbyterians never appear to have used a church-covenant. At first the Baptists protested against it. Hanserd Knollys, their accepted leader in the days of the Commonwealth, led the attack by challenging the Independents to show that the Scriptures demanded any conditions for admission to the Church other than faith in the Lordship of Christ, repentance and willingness to be baptized. There was even a difference of opinion among the Independents themselves. John Goodwin, the Independent Minister of Colman Street Church, London, was engaged in controversy on this point with Thomas Goodwin, later to be President of Magdalen College, Oxford. Gradually, however, Baptists and Independents adopted church-covenants. The first Baptist covenant is that of the Broadmead Baptist Church, Bristol, which was produced in 1640. They declared
> 
> "˜That they would, in the strength and assistance of the Lord, come forth out of the world, and worship the Lord more purely, persevering therein to their end.´
> 
> The same Chruch reformulated its covenant five years later. It is also known that in 1656 the Longsworth Baptist Church was organized on the covenant-basis. There are, however, few Baptist covenants available before the end of the seventeenth centure. This is an indication of the truth of Burrage´s contention:
> 
> "˜even as late as 1660, probably as late as 1696, the English Baptists as a body had in reality come to no settled agreement in regard to the method of organizing their churches.´
> 
> By this time, however, most Baptist Churches had their covenants.
> Annexed to the taking of the covenant in the Baptist and Congregational Churches, is a ceremony peculiar to these two denominations. It is termed the "˜right hand of fellowship´. This was given by the Pastor of the Church to new members as a sign of their entry into fellowship of the Church. An account of the manner of receiving new members into the fellowship of the Independent Church at Burwell describes the ceremony thus:
> 
> "˜Then he gave them the right hand of fellowship: he took them by the right hand and said, Sister, you having given yourself to the Lord and to us by the will of God; in the name of Christ and with the consent of this church I Admit you a member of this church of the living God, and give you the right hand of fellowship, and the lord bless you in Zion.´
> 
> The same custiom was in general use amongst Baptists.
> Thus, while the Presbyterians retained their veneration for the Apostle´s Creed longer than the other two Puritan denominations, they and the Independents produced a modern statement of belief. Independents and Baptists used a kind of Creed as the basis for church-membership. It was not primarily a statement of belief; it was rather a promise by members of their fidelity to Christ and his Church. Hence it was named a covenant rather than a Creed.
Click to expand...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> From _Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation_ by John Macleod, p. 85:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along with his young friend and ministerial disciple, James Durham, [David] Dickson was also the author of _The Sum of Saving Knowledge_, which, *though without authority from the Church, has been often reprinted in the same volume as the Westminster documents.*
Click to expand...




> In 1639 the Church of Scotland's General Assembly directed that every minister should have weekly catechizing in his parish, in addition to his sermons on the Lord's Day. The General Assembly of 1649 instructed the ministers to make catechizing an occasion to present "the chief heads of Saving Knowledge, in short view." In response to the Assembly's action, David Dickson and James Durham composed and dictated this "Sum of Saving Knowledge" around 1650. It came to be printed in Scottish editions of the Westminster Standards. Robert Murray M'Cheyne acknowledged it as the work which first brought him to a clear understanding of the way of acceptance with God.
> 
> Source


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I think I should probably acquire this book: _The Westminster Assembly: A Guide to Basic Bibliography_ by David W. Hall and J. Ligon Duncan, III -- any thoughts?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think I should probably acquire this book: _The Westminster Assembly: A Guide to Basic Bibliography_ by David W. Hall and J. Ligon Duncan, III -- any thoughts?



I picked it up not too long ago. In all reality you are probably aware of 90%+ of the resources they mention...There are a couple older out of print volumes ($100+) that they have included that maybe you could track down interlibrary loan and make available to the EPP as a thought. The annotations are good. All in all, it's inexpensive - go for it!


----------



## Arch2k

I'm not sure if this is a source valid for this thread, but either way, it looks like it would be helpful to the person wishing to grow in a greater history of the Westminster Assembly and it's works.

Lightfoot, John. The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines. 1824. 487 pp. Semi-official daily record of the Westminster Assembly by one of its leading divines. 1680. $35.

It is available from Curt Daniel's Good Books.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Eventually, I hope and Lord willing, Chad Van Dixhoorn's text of the whole MSS of Lightfoot's journal will be published which will be an improvement on the old texts, as the below and in the works. Right now it is only available in his 7 volume doctoral dissertation on the Westminster Assembly.


> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I'm not sure if this is a source valid for this thread, but either way, it looks like it would be helpful to the person wishing to grow in a greater history of the Westminster Assembly and it's works.
> 
> Lightfoot, John. The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines. 1824. 487 pp. Semi-official daily record of the Westminster Assembly by one of its leading divines. 1680. $35.
> 
> It is available from Curt Daniel's Good Books.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Chris - the link is not working. Its times out.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If you mean the Curt Daniel link that Jeff posted, it worked just now; must be an AOL thing.


----------



## JohnV

I keep reading about this David Hall. I've got to find out who he is. His introductory in _Jus Divinum_ leaves me with a lot of questions. Does anyone have any biographical stuff on him? Where can I reliably find out about him?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

John,
I have never met David face to face but we have worked together on projects since 1994 when we began work on _Jus Divinum._ I also did some research in Westminster period literature for his work on creation days on which he was leading point in the PCA when they were dealing with that issue. He writes a lot and is a good historian. He is on the contributing editor board of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal, and below is the bio he provided that appears in the 2005 issue.


> Dr. David W. Hall, Ph. D. Dr. Hall is the Senior Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA), Powder Springs, GA, and is the author or editor of several books, including _The Arrogance of the Modern_ (1997), _Savior or Servant: Putting Government in Its Place_ (1996), _Election Day Sermons_ (1996), _Paradigms in Polity_ (1994), _The Practice of Confessional Subscription_ (1997), and _The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding_ (2003). He previously served as Pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church and the Founding Director of the Kuyper Institute in Oak Ridge, TN.
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I keep reading about this David Hall. I've got to find out who he is. His introductory in _Jus Divinum_ leaves me with a lot of questions. Does anyone have any biographical stuff on him? Where can I reliably find out about him?
Click to expand...


----------



## JohnV

Thanks, Chris. Other than spelling "saviour" wrong, he looks well educated. I'll use some of this to look into him further. Thanks again.


----------



## JohnV

Actually, Chris, I'm trying to understand some things. I think I've got the gist of the book pretty well, but I was having trouble fitting in some things from Hall's introductory comments. I thought that if I knew more about him that it might help in understanding what he was trying to get across. 

For example, just off the top, his concept of "original intent". I think I need to know more about his idea on that. And there's other things too. It'll just help in understanding that part of the book. 

Please forgive my impertinence. I was being stupid in trying to be light-hearted. I don't mean any disrespect.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

John,
Well, you know us Americans and our spellings. You might look at Hall's creation material where he would be dealing with original intent also. I haven't read him on this in a long time so cannot be much help without a refresher for which I do not have the time right now. I know that my pastor had some disagreement with his historical handling of the provincial assembly on some point but don't recall what now.


> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Actually, Chris, I'm trying to understand some things. I think I've got the gist of the book pretty well, but I was having trouble fitting in some things from Hall's introductory comments. I thought that if I knew more about him that it might help in understanding what he was trying to get across.
> 
> For example, just off the top, his concept of "original intent". I think I need to know more about his idea on that. And there's other things too. It'll just help in understanding that part of the book.
> 
> Please forgive my impertinence. I was being stupid in trying to be light-hearted. I don't mean any disrespect.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think I should probably acquire this book: _The Westminster Assembly: A Guide to Basic Bibliography_ by David W. Hall and J. Ligon Duncan, III -- any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I picked it up not too long ago. In all reality you are probably aware of 90%+ of the resources they mention...There are a couple older out of print volumes ($100+) that they have included that maybe you could track down interlibrary loan and make available to the EPP as a thought. The annotations are good. All in all, it's inexpensive - go for it!
Click to expand...


It's a helpful little booklet. I was surprised that the Westminster Annotations did not get mentioned, though. It's a good basic bibliography, as the title says, but not a complete bibliography. Worth having for those interested in getting a handle on works by and about the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

From _Memoirs of the Westminster Divines_ by James Reid (pp. 301-302):



> Mr. Gataker also engaged with other eminent divines in writing the learned Annotations upon the Bible, which were published under the name of the "English Annotations," and not the "Assembly's Annotations," as they have been frequently called. I have long used a copy, which is entitled on the back "English Annotations." And Messrs Baillie and Gillespie, who were Commissioners from the Church of Scotland to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, call these the English Annotations. {a} And Dr. Cornelius Burgess, who was an eminent man in that Assembly, and had the best opportunity of correct information respecting these Annotations, gives the following account of them: "It is indeed true, that some members of that Assembly, joining with some others, did compile some Annotations upon the Bible, which many take to be the work of the Assembly. But take this for an undoubted truth, those Annotations were never made by the Assembly, nor by any order from it; nor after they were made ever had the approbation of the Assembly; or were so much as offered to the Assembly at all, for that purpose or any other." {b} The same Parliament which called that Assembly, employed the authors of those Annotations. And some Divines who were members of that Assembly were concerned in writing these Annotations. Such mistakes are not here pointed out with any envious intention, but solely from a love of the truth.
> 
> {a} Baillie's Letters, vol. ii. pp. 22, and 167. Gillespie's Aaron's Rod, pp. 20-68-97.
> {b} Dr Burgess's No Sacrilege nor Sin to Purchase Bishops' Lands, chap. iv. 2d edit. pp. 87,88.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Since no author or title is given, I will refer to this as an Ode to the Westminster Assembly, from James Reid's _Memoirs of the Westminster Divines_, pp. 62-63:



> The great Assembly once renown'd,
> Whose fame in foreign parts did sound,
> Displac'd on earth, in haste remove
> Their session to their house above.
> Seraphic TWISSE went first 'tis true,
> As Prolocutor, it was his due:
> Then Borroughs, Marshall, Whitaker, Hill,
> Gouge, Gataker, Ash, Vines, White, -- still
> Sharp swords soon'st cut their sheaths -- Pern, Strong,
> Spurstowe, Tuckney, Calamy, they throng
> The gate of bliss, as if they fear
> That heaven would fill e'er they got there.
> He's with the rest, the praise so sing,
> Of our most loving Lord and King;
> There no dissenting brethren be,
> But all as one, in one agree.
> One mouth, one mind, one heart, one way;
> No strife, which side shall bear the sway.
> All doubts resolv'd, all knots unty'd,
> All truth in the God of truth espy'd:
> With warmest love they there embrace
> Each other, full of perfect grace:
> Their glory's great, their wealth is vast;
> But O the pleasure that they taste
> I' the tree of life, and in the sight
> Of that blest face, that's all delight.
> What tongue can tell, what mind can think,
> What joy 'tis of this spring to drink!
> Go fawning world, tempt me no more,
> With thy skin-deep fading store, --
> Thy best, thy whole is but a toy
> To that these happy souls enjoy.
> My God invites to angels fare,
> To which thy trash cannot compare:
> On swinnish husks why should I feed,
> When I may eat what's meat indeed?
> O let my heaven-born soul expire
> Itself in sallies, and desire
> Only to rest, and make its stay,
> Where Thou ART ALL IN ALL _for aye_.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

There is some helpful discussion of the relationship between the English Annotations and the Westminster Assembly in William Barker's _Puritan Profiles_, pp. 242-243, and 256-257.


----------



## MW

Towards clarifying some of the points made in the initial post in this thread, the following may be helpful. It is an extract from the Act anent subordinate standards of the Free Church of Scotland, 1851.

Thereafter, for the better prosecution of the work on hand, and in the face of the manifest purpose of the king and his adherents to crush it altogether, this Church, by commissioners duly named by the General Assembly, took part in the Assembly of Divines, which met at Westminster in 1643. And having in view the uniformity contemplated in the Solemn league and Covenant, she consented to adopt the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, Directory for Public Worship, and Form of Church Government, agreed upon by the said Assembly of Divines.

These several formularies, "“ as ratified, with certain explanations, by divers acts of Assembly in the years 1646, 1648, and particularly in 1647, "“ this Church continues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of doctrine, worship, and government; "“ with this difference, however, as regards the authority ascribed to with them, that while the Confession of Faith contains the creed to which, as to a confession of his own faith, every office-bearer in the Church must testify in solemn form his personal adherence; "“ and while the Catechisms, with relative Larger and Shorter, are sanctioned as directories for catechising; "“ the Directory for Public Worship, the Form of Church Government, and the Directory for Family Worship, are of the nature of regulations, rather than tests, "“ to be enforced by the Church like her other laws, but not to be imposed by subscription upon her ministers and elders. These documents, then, together with a practical application of the doctrine of the Confession, in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, "“ a valuable treatise, which, though without any express act of Assembly, has for ages had its place among them, "“ have, ever since the era of the Second Reformation, constituted the authorized and authoritative symbolic books of the Church of Scotland.


----------



## MW

> I would like to clarify further to what extent the Westminster Confession was binding upon the Church of England. If any others could shed light on this or point me to credible historical sources, that would be much appreciated.



The Westminster Confession was not approved by both Houses of Parliament in its entirety. (Mitchell, Westminster Assembly, 368, 369.) By adopting the Savoy revision, the Protectorate laid it aside. As far as I am aware the king did not ratify Parliament's approval of the Confession, so it did not become "legally" binding on the Church of England.


----------



## Catechist

Nor am I aware that the king ever ratfied the Confession?

Howbeit, when, "From the king's arrival in 1642 until its surrender in 1646 Oxford was the royalist capital of England, housing not only the king and his court, but also the central law courts, the exchequer, parliament, and a mint. Some judges and court officers moved to Oxford; those who remained in London were held to have forfeited their places and were replaced. In 1643 parliament issued several orders forbidding the courts to move, and in January 1644 ordered all court officers to take the covenant or lose their places. Thus in 1644 and 1645 there were two sets of courts, one in Oxford and one in London..."

"In June 1643 the king issued a proclamation inviting members of parliament to Oxford, and declaring the Westminster parliament guilty of high treason. When parliament met in Oxford on 22 January 1644, the king addressed 44 lords and 118 members of the house of commons in Christ Church hall..."

From: 'Early Modern Oxford', A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 4: The City of Oxford (1979), pp. 74-180. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol4/pp74-180


----------



## MW

Thankyou for the reference, Kevin. Blessings!


----------



## Catechist

I like how Rutherford responded in Lex Rex, respecting the "legal" argument of powers, enjoining the king's supremacy with the power and authority of the parliament of Scotland, past. 

See especially, question 43 Assert. 2, which reads,

"The king, at his coronation, (Parl.1, James VI act 8,) swears "to maitain the true kirk of God, and religion now presently professed, in purity, and to rule the people according to the laws and constitutions received in the realm, causing justice and equity to be ministered without partiality." This did king Charles swear at his coronation, and was ratified, Parl 7, James VI act 99. Hence he who, by the oath of God, is limited to govern by law, can have no prerogative, or rather supremacy, (enacted Parl. 8, James VI act 129; Par. 21, act 1, James; and Parl.1, Charles, act 3,) cannot be contrary to the oath that king Charles did swear at his coronation, which brings down the prerogative to governing according to the standing laws of the realm." It cannot be contrary to these former parliaments and acts, declaring that "the lieges are to be governed by the laws of the realm, and by no particular laws and special privileges;" (but absolute prerogative is a special privilege above, or without law which acts stand unrepealed to this day; and these acts of parliaments stand ratified by Parl. 1 Charles, 1633."

The "standing laws of the realm" are appealed to by Rutherford, which reduces the king's royal prerogrative, or rather supremacy, to that which is limited and not contrary to previous laws enacted by parliament. 

King James VI of Scotland reigned for 36 years before also becoming King James the first of England, when the union of the crowns met with one king over both in 1603. 

Assert 3, reads, "Parl. 8, James VI in the first three acts thereof, the king's supremacy, and the power and authority of parliaments, are equally ratified under the same pain: -- "Their jurisdictions, power, and judgments in spiritual or temporal causes, not ratified by his Majesty, and the three estates convened in parliament, are discharged." But the absolute prerogative of the king above law, equity, and justice, was never ratified in any parliament of Scotland to this day."

Representatives are to regulate the power of the king. King Charles I gained the majority of the representatives from Westminster Parliament to move to Oxford, based upon this law-principle. Even though the king himself was high prerogative in principle. 

Rutheford asserts, "James I, could not do anything in his oath in England. The parliament's approbation of the battle of Stirling against king James III is set down in the printed acts, because he had not the consent of the states."


----------



## Catechist

Odd, I didn't place a  in the above post?


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Catechist_
> Odd, I didn't place a  in the above post?



In your post, Kevin, you ended a a bracketed section with a semi-colon. That is the same configuration of keys that signifies a winking smilie. I try to remember to always leave a space between the before and after bracket so as to avoid that happening. 

Most of the problems with using the smilies have been worked out, but some still remain.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

There is a wealth of resources about the products of the Westminster Assembly found here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I've been reading 1) _The Grand Debate Concerning Presbytery and Independency_ (1652) by the Westminster Assembly; and 2) _The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the `Grand Debate'_ by Robert S. Paul. 

Excellent stuff!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Westminster Assembly and Related Documents Homepage


----------

