Westminster

[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!

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