Westminster Assembly
Part of a series on the |
History of the Church of England |
---|
The Westminster Assembly of Divines was a council of
The Assembly was called by the
The Assembly worked in the
Background
There were also conflicts between the king and the
What came to be known as the Long Parliament also began to voice vague grievances against Charles, many of which were religious in nature.[10] Parliament had many Puritans and Puritan-sympathizing members, who generally opposed the existing episcopal system, but there was little agreement over what shape the church should take.[11] Later in 1640, the Root and Branch petition was presented to the House of Commons, the lower house of Parliament. It was signed by about 15,000 Londoners and called for total elimination of the episcopal system.[12] Committees were organized in the House of Commons to enact religious reforms, leading to the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud and his supporters in the Tower of London as retaliation for their repression of Puritans. The Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber, courts which had inflicted severe punishments on Puritan dissenters, were also abolished.[13]
Calling the assembly
The idea of a national assembly of theologians to advise Parliament on further church reforms was first presented to the House of Commons in 1641. Such a proposal was also included in the Grand Remonstrance, a list of grievances which Parliament presented to Charles on 1 December that year.[15] Charles responded on 23 December that the church required no reforms. Undeterred, Parliament passed three bills in 1642 appointing an assembly and stipulating that its members would be chosen by Parliament. Charles, whose royal assent was required for the bills to become law, was only willing to consider such an assembly if the members were chosen by the clergy. This was the practice for selection of members of Convocation, the assembly of clergy of the Church of England.[16]
Defying the king, between 12 February and 20 April 1642, each
Parliament finally passed an ordinance to hold the assembly on its own authority without Charles's assent on 12 June 1643.
The Assembly was strictly under the control of Parliament, and was only to debate topics which Parliament directed. Assembly members were not permitted to state their disagreements with majority opinions or share any information about the proceedings, except in writing to Parliament.
Revising the Thirty-Nine Articles
The Assembly's first meeting began with a sermon by William Twisse in the nave of Westminster Abbey on 1 July 1643. The nave was so full that the House of Commons had to send members ahead to secure seats.[29] Following the sermon, the divines processed to the Henry VII Chapel,[30] which would be their place of meeting until 2 October when they moved to the warmer and more private Jerusalem Chamber.[31] After their initial meeting they adjourned for about a week, as Parliament had not yet given specific instructions.[32]
On 6 July, they received a set of rules from Parliament and were ordered to examine the first ten of the
The Assembly resolved, after some debate, that all the doctrines of the Thirty-Nine articles would need to be proven from the Bible.[35] Assembly members were prone to long speeches and they made slow progress, frustrating the leadership.[22] The eighth of the Thirty-Nine Articles recommended the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed, considered to be basic statements of orthodoxy, to be received and believed. The Assembly was unable to resolve conflicts between those who would not be bound by creeds and those who wished to retain the existing language that the creeds be "thoroughly received and believed". The "excepters", who took the former position, argued that the articles only require the "matter" of the creeds be believed. On 25 August the article was put off until the rest of the articles could be dealt with.[36] This early disagreement on fundamental issues revealed deep rifts between different factions of the assembly.[37]
Debating church government
From the beginning of the First Civil War, the Long Parliament recognized that they would need assistance from the Scots. In return for a military alliance, the Scottish Parliament required the English to sign the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643, which stipulated that the English would bring their church into greater conformity with the Church of Scotland.[38] The Scottish Parliament sent commissioners to London to represent Scotland's interests to the English Parliament.[39] Eleven of these, four theologians and seven members of Parliament, were also invited to the Assembly.[40] The commissioners were given the opportunity to become full voting members of the Assembly but declined, preferring to maintain their independence as commissioners of their own nation and church.[41] Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, and Alexander Henderson were the most outspoken of the commissioners.[42]
On 12 October 1643, Parliament ordered the Assembly to cease work on the Thirty-Nine Articles and to begin to frame a common form of church government for the two nations.[43] The Assembly would spend a quarter of its full sessions on the subject of church government.[44] The majority of the Assembly members supported presbyterian polity, or church government by elected assemblies of lay and clerical representatives, though many were not dogmatically committed to it.[45] Several members of this group, numbering about twenty and including William Twisse, favoured a "primitive" episcopacy, which would include elements of presbyterianism and a reduced role for bishops.[46]
There were also several
A third group of divines were known as
Several episcopalians, supporters of the existing system of bishops, were also included in the summoning ordinance, but Parliament may have nominated them to lend greater legitimacy to the Assembly and not have expected them to attend[50] because Charles had not approved of the Assembly.[51] Only one, Daniel Featley, participated,[50] and he only until his arrest for treason in October 1643.[52]
Debate on church officers began on 19 October.
On 3 or 4 January 1644, the five leading dissenting brethren signalled a break with the rest of the Assembly when they published An Apologeticall Narration, a polemical pamphlet[57] appealing to Parliament. It argued that the congregational system was more amenable to state control of religious matters than that of the presbyterians because they did not desire the church to retain any real power except to withdraw fellowship from aberrant congregations.[58] By 17 January, the majority of the Assembly had become convinced that the best way forward was a presbyterian system similar to that of the Scots, but the dissenting brethren were allowed to continue to state their case in hope that they could eventually be reconciled.[59] It was hoped that by avoiding asserting that presbyterianism was established by divine right, the congregationalists could be accommodated.[47]
Despite these efforts, on 21 February it became clear just how fundamentally opposed the groups were. Philip Nye, one of the dissenting brethren, asserted in a speech that a presbytery set over local congregations would become as powerful as the state and was dangerous to the commonwealth, provoking vigorous opposition from presbyterians.[1] The next day, the Assembly finally began to establish a prescription for presbyterian government.[60] Owing to a strong belief in the unity of the church,[61] the Assembly continued to try to find ways to reconcile the dissenting brethren with the majority throughout 1644, including the establishment of a special committee for that purpose in March.[62] However, on 15 November, the dissenting brethren presented their reasons for disagreement with the rest of the Assembly to Parliament,[63] and on 11 December the majority submitted a draft of a presbyterian form of government.[64]
Conflicts with Parliament
Relations between the Assembly and Parliament were already deteriorating in 1644, when Parliament ignored the Assembly's request that "grossly ignorant and notoriously profane" individuals be barred from communion. While members of Parliament agreed that the sacrament should be kept pure, many of them disagreed with the presbyterian majority in the Assembly over who had the final power of
In May 1645, Parliament passed an ordinance allowing excommunicants to appeal the church's sentences to Parliament. Another ordinance on 20 October contained a list of sins to which the church would be limited in its power to excommunicate.
The Nine Queries, as they came to be called, focused on the divine right (jure divino) of church government.
The new Form of Government was much more acceptable to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. They passed it on 10 February 1645, contingent on some particularities of presbyterian government which were expected to be worked out in a forthcoming Directory for Church Government. At the same time they announced their desire to formally unite the two churches. Following the rise of Cromwell and the secret Engagement of some Scots with Charles this hope was abandoned, and the documents were never formally adopted. The General Assembly ceased to function under Cromwell and the kings who succeeded him from 1649 to 1690.[74]
Confession, catechisms, and the Directory for Public Worship
During and after the debates over church government, the Assembly framed other documents which did not cause open rifts. The
A Confession of Faith to replace the Thirty-Nine Articles was begun in August 1646. While there is little record of the actions of the Assembly during the writing of the Confession, it is clear that there were significant debates in the Assembly over almost every doctrine found in it. The Confession was printed and sent to Parliament in December. The House of Commons requested scripture citations be added to the Confession, which were provided in April 1648. Parliament approved the Confession with revisions to the chapters on church censures, synods and councils, and marriage on 20 June 1648.[77] The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had already adopted the Confession without revision in 1647. The restoration of Charles II in 1660 effectively made this legislation a nullity.[78]
The Assembly had already done significant work on a catechism between December 1643 and January 1647[79] containing fifty-five questions, before it decided to create two catechisms rather than one.[80] The Larger Catechism was intended to assist ministers in teaching the Reformed faith to their congregations.[81] The Shorter Catechism was based on the Larger Catechism but intended for use in teaching the faith to children. Parliament demanded scripture proofs for the catechisms as well.[82] The Scots General Assembly approved both catechisms in 1648.[83]
The Assembly understood its mandate under the Solemn League and Covenant to have been fulfilled on 14 April 1648 when it delivered the scripture citations to Parliament, and the Scottish Commissioners had already left by the end of 1647.
Theology
The Assembly was a product of the British Reformed tradition, taking as a major source the Thirty-Nine Articles as well as the theology of
The Confession starts with the doctrine of
Puritans believed that God is sovereign over all of history and nature and that none of what were called his decrees would be frustrated.
The divines associated William Laud and his followers with Catholicism, which they were even more strongly opposed to. Before the civil war, the divines saw these two groups as the greatest threat to the church.
Legacy
The work of the Westminster Assembly was repudiated by the Church of England during the Restoration in 1660.
The Civil War brought with it the end of the consensus among English Protestants that there should be a single church imposed by the state, though there was still not complete freedom of religion.
The Confession produced by the Assembly was adopted with amendments by
The migrations and missionary efforts of each of these groups lead to the widespread significance of the Westminster Assembly throughout the English-speaking world.
Notes
- ^ The version of the ordinance in the Journal of the House of Lords (probably least reliable) has 119 ministers, the engrossed ordinance has 121, and early printed copies have 120. Josias Shute was included in early copies until the Lords realized he was recently deceased and replaced him with Simeon Ashe.[21]
- ^ Parliament chose this term because it was that of the leader of Convocation, the assembly of English bishops, rather than "moderator", the term used by the Scots for the leader of their General Assembly.[27]
- ^ Lee Gatiss cites Richard Muller as holding that the Confession intentionally allows for hypothetical universalist views.[102] Jonathan Moore believes the Confession's language can be easily adopted by an hypothetical universalist, and points out that it could have been easily written to be much more clearly exclusive of such a view.[103] J. V. Fesko argues that the Standards lean toward a particularist view, but that they do not exclude non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalist views.[104] Robert Letham believes that the Confession at least intends to exclude hypothetical universalism, though he points out that hypothetical universalist divines were not excluded from the Assembly.[105] A. Craig Troxel writes that the Confession excludes Amyraldism, but does not discuss the other, more moderate forms of hypothetical universalism presented at Westminster.[106]
References
- ^ a b de Witt 1969, p. 112.
- ^ a b Leith 1973, p. 23.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 18–19.
- ^ Leith 1973, p. 26.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 8.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 101.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 20.
- ^ Fesko 2014, p. 49.
- ^ Paul 1985, pp. 36–38.
- ^ Holley 1979, pp. 9–10.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 3.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 56.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 58.
- ^ a b Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 12.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 59.
- ^ Holley 1979, p. 54, 96.
- ^ Crowley 1973, p. 50; de Witt 1969, p. 15; Holley 1979, pp. 151–152.
- ^ Holley 1979, p. 159.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 6.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 30.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 264.
- ^ a b c d e f Van Dixhoorn 2015.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 33.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2004, pp. 83–84; Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 14.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 23.
- ^ Crowley 1973, p. 51; Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 9.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 16.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 170.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2004, pp. 82–83.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 1.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 42.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 74.
- ^ Crowley 1973, p. 51; de Witt 1969, pp. 32–33.
- ^ Logan 1994, p. 37; Paul 1985, pp. 78, 81.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2004, p. 88.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2004, p. 98.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2004, p. 104.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 40.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 41.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, pp. 23, 170, 175.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 116.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 23.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 62.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 27.
- ^ a b Letham 2009, p. 32.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 25.
- ^ a b c de Witt 1969, p. 27.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 30.
- ^ Crowley 1973, pp. 54–55; de Witt 1969, pp. 25–26.
- ^ a b Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 14.
- ^ Barker 1994, p. 50.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 105.
- ^ de Witt 1969, pp. 66–67.
- ^ Paul 1985, pp. 143–145.
- ^ de Witt 1969, pp. 72–73.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 88.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 207; de Witt 1969, pp. 88–89.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 94.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 214–215.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 276; de Witt 1969, p. 115.
- ^ Letham 2010, p. 46.
- ^ Yule 1974, pp. 38–39; Bradley 1982, p. 38.
- ^ Bradley 1982, p. 41.
- ^ Spear 2013, p. 194.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, pp. 31–32.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 43; Yule 1974, p. 42.
- ^ Yule 1974, pp. 39–40; de Witt 1994, p. 157.
- ^ de Witt 1994, p. 158.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 33.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 207; Paul 1985, p. 509.
- ^ Paul 1985, p. 511.
- ^ a b Yule 1974, p. 43–44.
- ^ a b Benedict 2002, p. 402.
- ^ Spear 2013, pp. 195–196.
- ^ a b Paul 1985, p. 518.
- ^ Benedict 2002, p. 401.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 34; Paul 1985, p. 518.
- ^ Benedict 2002, p. 401; Spear 2013, p. 196.
- ^ Spear 1994, p. 259.
- ^ Spear 1994, p. 266.
- ^ Godfrey 1994, p. 131.
- ^ Kelly 1994, pp. 110–111.
- ^ Spear 2013, p. 196.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 239.
- ^ de Witt 1969, p. 241.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, pp. 37, 229.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2012, p. 38.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 83.
- ^ Letham 2009, pp. 85–86.
- ^ Leith 1973, pp. 38–39.
- ^ Letham 2009, pp. 94–95.
- ^ Fesko 2014, p. 69.
- ^ Fesko 2014, p. 71.
- ^ Muller 2003a, p. 152; Letham 2009, pp. 121–122.
- ^ Leith 1973, p. 77.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 133.
- ^ Leith 1973, pp. 82–89.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 176.
- ^ Moore 2011, p. 123.
- ^ a b Moore 2011, p. 148.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 177.
- ^ Gatiss 2010, p. 194 citing Muller 2003b, pp. 76–77
- ^ Moore 2011, p. 151.
- ^ Fesko 2014, p. 202.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 182.
- ^ Troxel 1996, pp. 43–55; Gatiss 2010, p. 194.
- ^ Leith 1973, pp. 91–92.
- ^ Letham 2009, p. 226.
- ^ Jones 2011, p. 185.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2001, p. 111.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2001, p. 112.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2009, p. 403.
- ^ Van Dixhoorn 2009, p. 415.
- ^ a b Benedict 2002, pp. 402, 404.
- ^ Keeble 2014, p. 17–18.
- ^ Keeble 2014, p. 20.
- ^ Keeble 2014, p. 25.
- ^ Hudson 1955, pp. 32–33.
- ^ Spear 2013, pp. 196–197.
- ^ Bradbury 2013, p. 66.
- ^ Spear 1993, p. 76.
- ^ Rogers 1985, p. 140.
- ^ Bremmer 2008, p. 158.
- ^ Rogers 1985, pp. 140–141.
Bibliography
- ISBN 978-0-300-10507-0.
- Bradbury, John P. (2013). Perpetually Reforming: A Theology of Church Reform and Renewal. London: T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-64409-1.
- ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- Bradley, Rosemary D. (1982). "The failure of accommodation: Religious Conflicts Between Presbyterians and Independents in the Westminster Assembly 1643–1646". Church History. 12: 23–47.
- Bremmer, Francis J. (2008). "The Puritan experiment in New England, 1630–60". In Coffey, John; Lim, Paul C. H. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism. ISBN 978-0-521-67800-1.
- Crowley, Weldon S. (Winter 1973). "Erastianism in the Westminster Assembly". Journal of Church and State. 15: 49–64. .
- Fesko, J. V. (2014). The Theology of the Westminster Assembly. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. ISBN 978-1-4335-3311-2.
- Gatiss, Lee (December 2010). "A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards" (PDF). Reformed Theological Review. 69 (3): 180–196. Retrieved 14 October 2013.
- ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- Holley, Larry Jackson (1979). The Divines of the Westminster Assembly: A Study of Puritanism and Parliament (PhD thesis). Yale University. OCLC 10169345.
- Hudson, Winthrop S. (March 1955). "Denominationalism as a Basis for Ecumenicity: A Seventeenth-Century Conception". Church History. 24 (1): 32–50. S2CID 162042515.
- Jones, Mark (2011). "The 'Old' Covenant". In Haykin, Michael A.G.; Jones, Mark (eds.). Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (PDF). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-56945-0. Archived from the original(PDF) on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 3 March 2016.
- Keeble, N. H. (2014). "Introduction: Attempting Uniformity". In Keeble, N. H. (ed.). 'Settling the Peace of the Church': 1662 Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press – via Oxford Scholarship Online.
- Kelly, Douglas F. (1994). "The Westminster Shorter Catechism". In Carlson, John L.; Hall, David W. (eds.). To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- ISBN 978-0-8042-0885-7.
- Letham, Robert (2009). The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context. The Westminster Assembly and the Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87552-612-6.
- —————— (2010). "Catholicity Global and Historical: Constantinople, Westminster, and the Church in the Twenty-First Century" (PDF). Westminster Theological Journal. 72: 43–57. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2012.
- Logan, Samuel T. Jr. (1994). "The Context and Work of the Assembly". In Carlson, John L.; Hall, David W. (eds.). To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- Moore, Jonathan D. (2011). "The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption". In Haykin, Michael A.G.; Jones, Mark (eds.). Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (PDF). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-56945-0. Archived from the original(PDF) on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 3 March 2016.
- Oxford Scholarship Online.
- —————— (2003b). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. ISBN 978-0-8010-2617-1.
- Paul, Robert S. (1985). The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the 'Grand Debate'. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-09341-7.
- ISBN 978-0-664-25496-4.
- Spear, Wayne R. (2013) [1976]. Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: the Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books. ISBN 978-1-60178-244-1.
- ———————— (1994). "The Unfinished Westminster Catechism". In Carlson, John L.; Hall, David W. (eds.). To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- ———————— (1993). "A Brief History of the Westminster Assembly". Evangel. 11 (3): 73–76.
- Troxel, A. Craig (1996). "Amyraut 'at' the Assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement". Presbyterion. 22 (1): 43–55.
- doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/92780. Retrieved 22 December 2015. (Subscription or UK public library membershiprequired.)
- ————————, ed. (2012). The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920683-4.
- ———————— (2009). "The Strange Silence of Prolocutor Twisse: Predestination and Politics in the Westminster Assembly's Debate over Justification". Sixteenth Century Journal. 40 (2): 395–41.
- ———————— (Summer 2001). "Unity and Disunity at the Westminster Assembly (1643–1649): A Commemorative Essay". Journal of Presbyterian History. 79 (2): 103–117.
- ———————— (2004). "New Taxonomies Of The Westminster Assembly (1643–52): The Creedal Controversy As Case Study". Reformation and Renaissance Review. 6 (1): 82–106. S2CID 218621194.
- de Witt, John Richard (1969). Jus Divinum: The Westminster Assembly and the Divine Right of Church Government (Th.D. thesis). Kampen, the Netherlands: J. H. Kok. OCLC 31994.
- ————————— (1994). "The Form of Church Government". In Carlson, John L.; Hall, David W. (eds.). To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 978-0-85151-668-4.
- Yule, George (May–August 1974). "English Presbyterianism and the Westminster Assembly". The Reformed Theological Review. 33 (2): 33–44.
Further reading
- Baillie, Robert (1841) [1642–1646]. Laing, David (ed.). The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Alex Lawrie & Co.
- —————— (1841) [1647–1662]. Laing, David (ed.). The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: Alex Lawrie & Co.
- Gamble, Whitney Greer (25 November 2014). 'If Christ fulfilled the law, we are not bound': The Westminster Assembly Against English Antinomian Soteriology, 1643–1647 (PhD thesis). University of Edinburgh. hdl:1842/10585.
- Gatiss, Lee (August 2010). "'Shades of opinion within a generic Calvinism': The Particular Redemption Debate at the Westminster Assembly" (PDF). Reformed Theological Review. 69 (2): 101–119. Retrieved 14 October 2013.
- Hetherington, William Maxwell (20 July 2010) [1853]. History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Centre for Reformed Theology & Apologetics.
- Jones, Mark (2011). "John Calvin's Reception at the Westminster Assembly". Church History and Religious Culture. 91 (1–2): 215–227. .
- Letham, Robert (2015). "The Westminster Assembly and the Communion of the Saints". In Balserak, Jon; Snoddy, Richard (eds.). Learning from the Past: Essays on Reception, Catholicity, and Dialogue in Honour of Anthony N. S. Lane. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-567-66090-9.
- Lightfoot, John (1824) [1643–1644]. "Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines". The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot. Vol. 13. London: J.F. Dove. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
- Mitchell, Alexander F. (1884). The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. Retrieved 14 October 2013.
- Mitchell, Alex. F.; Struthers, John, eds. (1874). Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines While Engaged in Preparing Their Directory for Church Government, Confession of Faith, and Catechisms. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
- Warfield, Benjamin B. (1908). "The Westminster Assembly and Its Work". The Princeton Theological Review. 6 (2). Retrieved 14 October 2013.