# A Question About the Directory for Family Worship



## sevenzedek (Dec 16, 2013)

---------------------------------------
Section III. reads:

III. *As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard.* As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.

---------------------------------------

Notice the bold text. Are they forbidding heads of families to interpret the holy scriptures to their families?


----------



## MW (Dec 16, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Are they forbidding heads of families to interpret the holy scriptures to their families?



Insofar as "interpretation" is an authoritative function, the answer is affirmative. However, what we now understand by the word "interpretation" is far more generic and applies to "conferences" about the meaning of the Word.

The concluding paragraph gives the drift and scope of the directions. The aim was to ensure each one functioned "according to their severall places and vocations." There was an ongoing debate at the time concerning private meetings. Some of the directions given by the General Assembly were concerned with maintaining congregational times of worship. In the original Acts of General Assembly the "Act against such as withdraw themselves from the publike Worship in their own Congregation" follows the Directions for Family Worship.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 16, 2013)

There are those who can, no doubt, give a better explanation than me; but I asked one of my elders about this passage once, and he said that it had reference to setting oneself up as a teacher of scripture, and thus usurping the ministerial office. There have been times when family worship has turned into extracurricular bible study (involving more than one family), which in turn has turned into a false church. This is often how cults begin.


----------



## MW (Dec 16, 2013)

TylerRay said:


> There have been times when family worship has turned into extracurricular bible study (involving more than one family), which in turn has turned into a false church. This is often how cults begin.



This is an important warning. The same type of thing has been happening with Christian home-schooling. The home school inclines them towards home church. A doctrine of "male headship" is superimposed on top of this and "heads of homes" start acting in ways similar to cult-leaders.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 17, 2013)

That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 17, 2013)

These are very rough notes on the background to the directory for family worship I wrote back circa February 2003 for a church committee working on a new text of the Westminster Stds that never materialized; it morphed into my work in _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. I never worked the notes into an article. My missing source regarding Livingstone might be filled in by David Stevenson, "Conventicles in the Kirk, 1619-1637," Records of the Scottish Church Historical Society 18 (1974) 98-114, which I do not have. 

The sad truth is that the minutes of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for much of the 1640s perished long ago. The Directory for Family Worship, or Directions for private and secret worship as it is also called, was drafted and passed in the same Assembly that approved the WCF, that of August 1647.

The concern for family devotions appears to be a concern from the beginning of the 2nd Reformation in 1638 In 1638 it was enacted, in connection with the visitation of particular kirks by Presbyteries, that care was to be had, among other things necessary, that it be tried how domestic exercises of religion be exercised in particular families, and to see what means there is in various parishes, in landward, for catechizing and instructing the youth.” See Pastoral Work in Covenanting times.

At the time the rise and influence on the established church of the Secteries and Malignants, as they were called, was of great concern to the Scots. They were scandalized even if some of the practices of the Sects appeared in any Presbyterian. Evidently one minister, a James Simpson, had had some private devotional meetings with the family of his intended bride and this was greatly objected to by some opposed to his transfer to their parish church. The proceedings are covered in the early pages of _The Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland Holden in Edinburgh in the Years 1646 and 1647._ (Edited from the Original Manuscript by Alexander F. Mitchell, D.D., LL.D. and James Christie, D.D. Edinburgh, Printed at the University Press by T. and A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1892). See the side headings for the names Haliburton, Gordon [parish], and James Simpson.

The Commission finally determined, despite some things censurable in the man’s behavior [being alone with his intended bride in a room at night before their marriage, for which he was rebuked and told not to give such offense again], that they ar not exceptions relevant to debar the said Mr. James Sympson from the Kirk of Gordon.: The Record goes on to note: In which vote Messrs. Dauid Calderwood, William Colvill, Doctor Colvill, Robert Ker, Robert Wright, Allan Fergusone, Maister of Yester, Lamington, Clarkington, desired ther dissenting voices to be marked.” Page 40.

Apparently the couple were together for devotions as that was one of the practices found objectionable by Calderwood and others. The practice of multiple families meeting together had been beneficially used by Scots minister Livingston when in Ireland. I cannot find my documentation on this, but note item 6 & 7 in the Directory for Family Worship. For space I won’t cite them.

Baillie sheds some light here by addressing this matter in relation to politics at the 1648 Assembly. In a letter dated September 1, 1647, he writes: The last year, a minister in the Merse, one Mr. James Simpsone, whose grandsire wes, as I take it, ane uncle or brother to famous Mr. Patrick of Stirling, a forward, pious, young man, being in suite of a religious damsel, sister to Mr. James Guthrie’s wife, had kept with Mr. James Guthrie, and others, some private meetings and exercises, which gave great offence to many. When they came before the last Generall Assemblie and commission of the Kirk, Mr. David Calderwood and sundrie other very honest men, opposite to Malignants, were much grieved, and by that grief moved to joyne with Mr. William Colvill, Mr. Andrew Fairfoule, and such whom such took to be more favorable to Malignants than need were. Thir two joined together, made a great partie, especiallie when our Statesmen did make use of them to bear down those who had swayed our former Assemblies.” _Letters and Journals._ David Laing, editor (Edinburgh, Printed for Robert Ogle, 1842) 3.19–20.

Interestingly, the transfer of Simpson became moot and it is in connection to this that the first of two mentions of the Directory for Family Worship are mentioned in the Commissions’ Minutes.

Edinburgh, 26 August 1647, session 22a.
The Generall Assemblie, considering that the particulars which speciallie occasioned the dissenting of some brethren from the votes of the Commission of the late Assemblie, upon 21 of August 1646, ar for the tyme to come provided for by the Directiones for secret and privat worshipe and mutuall edification: And considering also that the sentence of the said Commission for transporting a minister ot the kirk of Gordoun, vpon the 22 day of the said moneth of August, is not now to tak effect, the planting of that kirk with a minister now goeing on in another way: Therfor the Assembly, in their tryall and examination of the proceedings of the said Commission, is not to examine the said votes and sentence, nor to give any judgment in relation thereto.
(signed) Mr. Robert Douglas, Moderator.” The Records etc. page 298.

Because the problems to which Calderwood and others objected had been addressed in the Directory for Family Worship (see again items 6 and 7) and because evidently another minister ended up at Gordon Parish Church, the Assembly decided it was not going to look into the vote and those who objected to the Commission’s approving Simpson’s transfer.

The other reference in the Records to the Directory for Family worship regards reimbursing a minister’s family, who had recently died, for money he had put in bond with the Printer for the printing of some Assembly papers, including the Directions of the Generall Assembly concerning secret and private worship. The Records etc, page 319.

It think it becomes clear that at least part of the impetus, if not a large part of it, to draft and pass the Directory is clear in the document itself. THE General Assembly, after mature deliberation, doth approve the following Rules and Directions for {{{cherishing piety, and preventing division and schism;}}} and doth appoint ministers and ruling elders in each congregation to take special care that these Directions be observed and followed…”

Again, the fear at this time is the attracting away of folks from the Established church of the Scotland toward the various Sects. And they saw this as accomplished by these private meetings.

This is made particularly clear by the last, and perhaps the most revealing reference I found in Baillie. He attributes authorship to Robert Blair (1593–1666).

Robert Baillie, Letters and Journals, III.15
Regarding the Assembly of August, 1647, Baillie writes:
Never Assemblie more harmonious than this yet hes been. Our declaration to England, a very good piece, is past without a contrare voice. An act against vagers [wanderers] from their own ministers, and a large direction for private worship, drawn by Mr. Robert Blair, for the correcting of all the faults in worship, which offended many here, is past the Committee without a contrare voice; and, I think, shall passe the Assemblie also, no less unanimously; which demonstrates the trueth of what I said in my Assemblie-speech, That for all the noise some made, yet truly there wes no division as yet in our Church.”

Whether it passed the assembly without any modification, I assume cannot be known as the minutes no longer exist. And, interestingly enough, Blair never mentions it in his Autobiography (he seems more intent on the politics of that year; he was also appointed King’s chaplain when Alexander Henderson died). _The Life of Mr. Robert Blair _edited by Thomas M’Crie published by the Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1848.

I think given the above that the directory’s need and creation were because of the unsettled times with the spread of sects and heresies and the part private meetings played in this. The one reference I wanted to find but did not was to the practice of Livingston in Ireland. See articles on both Livingstone and Blair in _Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology_. The article on Livingstone mentions he defended the right of people to gather together for prayer in addition to public worship.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 17, 2013)

Such rulings seem quite rare in these days. It saddens me that I and others are not held to a higher form of godliness. Passing such edicts would be seen in our day as meddling in affairs that do not concern our church authorities. This is a real problem.


----------



## MW (Dec 17, 2013)

Chris, Thankyou for the information and sources. Very useful.


----------

