An Examination of the Liturgy of the Westminster Assembly as formulated in the Directory for the Publick Worship of God

R. Dean Anderson, Jr.

Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 27-34

In our day of rather varied liturgical practice, it is well worth considering what our forefathers thought and decided on this question. Too often it is forgotten that they too had to grapple with the question of how to organise a worship service.

The Directory for Worship produced by the Westminster Assembly was one of the first products of that body to be officially approved and enacted.[1] It was early on decided to proceed with this document first, before coming to what was to be the most difficult and vexing matter of the Assembly, namely the issue of church government. At least on the question of a Directory of Worship, both Independents and Presbyterians rested on similar biblical principles. Thus it was thought a mutually acceptable document could be produced for uniformity of practice throughout the realms of England and Scotland in accord with the Solemn League and Covenant. The Directory of Worship was specifically produced to replace the Book of Discipline which was no longer in favour because of all its crypto-Romish ceremonies. A subcommittee of five men was set up to prepare a draft which was later discussed clause by clause in the Assembly.[2]

This essay, after extrapolating the liturgy from the Directory, shall first discuss several of its elements, before proceeding to several comments on the liturgy as a whole. In the initial discussion I shall endeavour to bring to light some of the debates and issues discussed by the Assembly and its committees.

The Directory for Worship actually presents two liturgies. The first is clearly for all regular public worship of God, and as such is the liturgy my comments shall focus upon. The second listed below for interest is that given for special days of thanksgiving. Nowhere in the document are these set out as such, but by careful reading they are easily extrapolated.[3]

Regular Service

Special Service of Thanksgiving

Call to Worship

Exhortation

Prayer

Short prayer for God’s assistance and blessing

Reading

Singing of Psalm(s)

The Psalm

exhortation and prayer with special reference to the occasion   

Prayer before sermon

  

Preaching of the Word  

Preaching on some relevant text

Prayer after Sermon

Prayer after sermon (including special thanksgiving)

(Optional Psalm)

  

(Sacraments)

Psalm

Solemn blessing

Blessing

Prayer

The opening prayer is given in note form, as are all prayers and forms for exhortation. According to the preface of the Directory, it was:

... our meaning therein being only, that the general heads, the sense and scope of the prayers, and other parts of publick worship, being known to all, there may be a consent of all the churches in those things that contain the substance of the service and worship of God; ....

The essential themes in this prayer are given as:

Reading

Only canonical books are to be read, and these only by a pastor or teacher (and occasionally one intending the ministry if approved by Presbytery).[4] There was quite some debate over the question of who should do the reading. Some (e.g. Palmer [P], Herle [P]) were insistent that only the pastor or teacher should read Scripture, but many others thought this too strict.[5] Palmer reasoned that the reading of Scripture is the mouth of God, and therefore only the minister (the mouthpiece of God) should do the reading. Whilst this reasoning seems valid, certainly against the pragmatic argument to the contrary that this would prove too heavy for the ministers, yet Lightfoot (E) quite rightly argued that even in the NT and known synagogue practice we see that readers differed from preachers (citing Luke 4, and Acts 13).[6]

Some thought such reading a good opportunity to test the talents of those training for the ministry. (Note that such reading could also involve some explanation of the text—see below). In the end the desire of the Assembly to take account of continental Reformed practice won the day. Uniformity even internationally was something highly desirable among the churches of Christ. Thus the argument that candidates in all other Reformed churches were allowed to read Scripture held sway, and a careful formulation was passed on the third day of debate.

The reading was to be “ordinarily one chapter of each Testament,” that is a lectio continua from week to week through the whole Bible, though certain passages could be read more frequently as well. If warranted, an explanation was to be given after the reading. Thus this reading was completely separate from the text and theme of the sermon. Here we ought to recall the situation of general illiteracy. It is also stated that “every person that can read, is to be exhorted to read the scriptures privately, and to have a Bible.” Reading the Bible in church was an important way of communicating basic Bible knowledge to the people. Our own situation today no longer requires this practice.

The Psalm

In the section on singing of Psalms it is stated that everyone able to read is to have a psalm book, and those not able, are to be exhorted to learn to read. The Directory continues: But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof. This practice (still continued among the Free Presbyterian Churches of Scotland) is clearly no longer necessary.

Prayer Before Sermon

The object of this prayer is for the minister “to get his own and his hearers hearts to be rightly affected with their sins” so that they thirst after the grace of God in Jesus Christ. An example in note form follows. Here the main points are confession of sin and prayer for forgiveness, followed by needs of Christendom, peace, rulers, etc., prayer for ministry of word and reception of hearers. The Directory continues that: “We judge this to be a convenient order, in the ordinary public prayer.” If desired, however, some of these petitions could be placed in the prayer after the sermon, and some of those from that prayer be placed in the prayer before the sermon. Going by its stated object, this prayer would seem to replace the explicit corporate confession of sin, and consequent statement of absolution so common in 16th century European liturgies. One wonders then if the title “prayer before the sermon” is really so appropriate. If the sermon is a pure gospel message, the idea seems to be to inculcate conviction of sin as a necessary prerequisite to fleeing to Christ.

Preaching of the Word

The whole question of whether the Directory for Worship should take up the matter of sermons was brought to the floor when certain propositions relevant to it were tabled by Herbert Palmer (P) on June 4, 1644. Jeremiah Whitaker (P) argued that such a topic was “needless and not expected” in a Directory. After long debate it was however decided to proceed. We may well concur with Whitaker that the structure of a sermon does not seem to be the sort of thing needing ratified uniformity in all churches. But as it turned out the Directory gave only a recommendation on this matter. This was due to Thomas Gataker’s (P) objection on June 5th that the overall pattern of doctrine, reason, use, so common in Puritan preaching of the 17th century, was “too strait for the variety of gifts, and occasion doth claim liberty.”[7] He was supported in this by William Gouge (P). As a result the Assembly added the clause explaining that this method should only be seen as recommended, and not prescribed. An important rider in my opinion.

According to the Directory the sermon is ordinarily to be textual, either free text, or an explication of some chapter, Psalm, or book in sequence. The permission for either a free text, or expository series was decided early with little debate (June 4, 1644). On the same day however lengthy debate was held on a proposition touching the length of sermons. The proposition read: “The preacher much for each time, as may be kept in memory by the hearers.” The nub of the debate centered on the question whether “the people’s memory must be the stint of sermons.” The proposition was voted down. It is interesting to note however that concerning the division of a sermon, the Directory states that the minister is not “to burden the memory of the hearers in the beginning with too many members of division.”

Preaching on a catechism seems to be excluded, although it must be admitted that the Westminster catechisms had not yet been drawn up. The recommended sermon outline runs as follows:

It is interesting to note that the use of Latin, Greek, or Hebrew in sermons cost quite some debate. Some (e.g. Palmer [P] who cited an article banning this in the French Reformed Churches) were vehemently opposed to this, whilst others (Lightfoot [E], Nye [I]) saw that occasionally it could be useful in explaining a particular passage. The Assembly discussed this on June 6 and 7 before referring the matter back to the committee. A compromise was finally reached after a full day of debate on June 17th, “against the unnecessary and unprofitable use of it” Lightfoot, Journal, 285.

There was also some debate about whether a blessing could follow the sermon as well as at the end of the sacrament. This idea does not seem to have been taken up.[8]

Prayer after Sermon:

The Directory once again gives a sample prayer in note form, of which the main points are: thanks for salvation in Christ, etc., prayer for continuance of gospel, petitions based on sermon, prayer for preparation for death and judgement (watching for coming of Lord), acceptance of worship. In addition it is recommended that the Lord’s Prayer be used as well. This recommendation was brought to the Assembly early on, and “ordered with little debate.”[9]

(Psalm)

The concluding Psalm was optional but apparently occasioned no debate as it was commonly sung.[10]

(Sacraments)

Baptism: The liturgy (in note form) is as follows: Words of instruction, admonishment to all to look back on their baptism, exhortation to parent, prayer, baptism in trinity, prayer of thanksgiving.

Of note here is that the common English practice of private baptism naturally came up for debate.[11] Lightfoot laconically notes: “Here began we to enter into the ocean of many vast disputes.” Various arguments were used to justify this practice,[12] though the arguments of the Scots against it won the day. Naturally all the relevant texts for baptism in the NT came up, as also the relation between baptism and circumcision.[13]

It was also debated whether or not to fix the number of sprinklings. This was however not done. Notable here is of course the allusion to the practice of the early church with three distinct sprinklings, one for each person of the Trinity. The question as to whether parents should be asked to give a profession of their faith at their child’s baptism was also discussed more than once, and a set of questions was drawn up and passed. They did not however find their way into the Directory itself.[14] Lord’s Supper: This is “frequently to be celebrated” but exactly how often is left to each congregation.[15] A preparation service the week before is to be held only if frequent observance is inconvenient. As with the prayers, no exact form is given; however a synopsis of the exhortation to take place at the observance is given in note form. Its parts are as follows:

From June 20 until July 10, and again on Nov. 12, great debates raged in the Assembly over the manner of coming to, seating, and distribution at the Lord’s Supper table. Issues such as sitting versus kneeling, successive tables versus one large table, whether the minister should break all the bread or each man for himself (and then whether the man who broke it should pass the other half on to the person beside him or put it back on the plate!), whether the minister’s admonition after the distribution of the elements should be held in the pulpit or not. On certain points the Scottish commissioners were very particular and thus aroused heated opposition from the Independents who wanted these matters left to the freedom of the churches (for fear of instituting ceremonies not required by Scripture). The result of the long debates was a very careful formulation of the liturgy, which while suggesting certain practices, ultimately left the exact manner of celebration to the local churches.[16] The Scottish churches thus found it necessary when ratifying the document at the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, Feb. 3, 1645 to explicitly stipulate that the manner of celebration was not an indifferent matter. On this whole question however, I rather agree with the Independents, that these matters whilst they may contain certain valid concerns, do not seem to require rigid uniformity. Scripture is not so specific.

It is also interesting to note that the original draft had a provision for certain Psalms to be sung during the succession of tables. This was eventually deleted, and seems to imply that silence was preferred.[17]

Another interesting point of contention was whether those not communing should be allowed to view the proceedings. This reminds one of their exclusion in the liturgies of the 4th century. A whole day’s debate did not settle the question.[18]

General Comments:

Reviewing the liturgy as a whole we are struck with the apparent omission of both the creed and the decalogue. With respect to the latter, there does appear to have been some debate on this matter on June 18, 1644. Lightfoot cryptically records however that “in fine (i.e., Latin “in the end”), they were waved and laid by.” [19] A note in the minutes of Dec. 16 records that the Assembly notified parliament:

...that the reason why the Assembly have sent up nothing in the Directory concerning the Creed and the Ten Comm[andmen]ts, is because they reserve it for the Directory for catechizing where they conceive it will be most proper.[20]

This seems to indicate that they did not wish to exclude either from the liturgy. However to the best of my knowledge such a Directory for catechizing never appeared.[21] Although Lightfoot gives no record of a discussion of the order of the liturgy, it is clear from Baillie that such matters were discussed by the subcommittee.[22] It is however difficult to give any meaningful evaluation of the order without knowing where the creed or ten commandments would have been positioned. That the sacraments should follow the preaching of the Word is basic.[23] In summary we may say that apart from the omission of the section on catechizing, the liturgy of the Directory of Publick Worship is carefully put together. One can appreciate the avoidance of set forms, and also at the same time the desire to regulate fairly carefully what ought to be said. As mentioned above, certain parts of the Directory seem to enter into areas unnecessary to its purpose and this seems to reflect one of the major problems in putting it together. That is, the amount of time wasted by debating unnecessary details, or points that we would (today at least) see as merely relating to circumstance (cf. Confession of Faith, I:vi). This time factor cost the Assembly a great deal, for as history was to show, the uniformity of religion came too late to make any real difference in English ecclesiastical practice.

Two points from the historical overview have struck me as very relevant for our churches today. First, the desire for a general uniformity of practice among the churches with respect to liturgy. This does not have to be a straight jacket, regulating every little detail, but general uniformity was greatly desired by our fathers, and does indeed reflect the unity of the worship of the church given to her Lord. Second, the care taken by the assembly to investigate and take into consideration the practice of Reformed churches on the continent. The Presbyterians were not so haughty that they thought that they could not learn from the experience of their continental brethren. This desire is something that has also been part of the OPC from its beginning. In this respect the OPC follows in the footsteps of its forefathers at Westminster.

Notes

[1] It was made law for England and Wales in a parliamentary ordinance of Jan. 3rd, 1645, passed by the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland on Feb. 3rd, and by an Act of parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland Feb. 6th.

[2] The committee consisted of chairman Stephen Marshall (P) [responsible for draft on preaching], Herle (P) [resp. for fasting and thanksgiving], Palmer (P) [resp. for catechizing—never included], Young (P) [resp. for reading of Scriptures & singing of Psalms], Goodwin (I) [also resp. for fasting and thanksgiving], Scots commissioners [resp. for sacraments]. See R. Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow MDCXXXVII - MDCLXII (David Laing, ed.; Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1841-2) 2.117-118, 140. For convenience, throughout this essay I have indicated the “party” standing of members by a system of letters:

P = English Presbyterian
S = Scots Presbyterian
I = Independent
E = Erastian

It may be of interest with respect to the sources used to note that Baillie was a Scots commissioner, whilst John Lightfoot an Erastian delegate.

It is interesting to note that an Independent was included on the subcommittee. The Directory was of course prepared before the great debates that finally led to the exclusion of the Independents from the Assembly. Nevertheless Goodwin did cause problems. He arrived late for the first meeting of the subcommittee, and Baillie (Letters 2.123) records: “While we are sweetlie debaiting on these things, in came Mr. Goodwin, who incontinent assayed to turn all upside downe, to reason against all directories, and our verie first grounds, also that all prefaceing was unlawfull...He troubled us so, that after long debates we could conclude nothing.” It should be borne in mind that Baillie wrote these comments in a public letter. His most cutting comments were always left for his private communications! (cf. 2.156) The Independents throughout the debates opposed all unnecessary regulations, and all notion of fixed forms. The resultant Directory therefore does exhibit a number of concessions made to them as a result, e.g., the use of notes to indicate matter for prayers and exhortations instead of fixed forms.

[3] Concerning the omission of the creed and ten commandments see below.

[4] In this respect one can appreciate the development in the reformation from the time of the Belgic Confession which did not deny the use of the apocrypha in the public reading of the worship services, art. 6. See A. D. R. Polman, Onze Nederlandsche Geloofsbelijdenis: Verklaard uit het Verleden Geconfronteerd met het Heden (Franeker: T. Wever, n.d.) 1.244-5.

<[5] The matter was discussed on June 11-13. See J. Lightfoot, “The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines: From January 1, 1643, to December 31, 1644,” in J. R. Pitman (Ed.), The Whole Words of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D. vol. 13 (London: J. F. Dove, 1824) 282 ff. for other arguments used.

[6] This is confirmed in the Mishnah; cf. Meg. 4.5-6 where it seems any capable male could read the Law or prophets.

[7] Lightfoot, Journal, 278.

[8] June 18, and again November l1; Lightfoot, Journal, 285, 325.

[9] Lightfoot, Journal 277. June 4, 1644, Mr Palmer (P) reporting for the committee.

[10] See Baillie’s letter to W. Spang, April 25th, 1645.

[11] Baillie remarked in a letter to W. Spang, July 12th, 1644 (Letters, 2.204) that “The abuse was great over all this land. In the greatest parosch in London, scarce one child in a-year was brought to the church for baptisme. ” He means of course that they were baptised at home.

[12] Including that admitted by the Synod of Dort 1619, viz: of children close to death.

[13] Reviewing the arguments, I personally wonder whether it is not too strict to say that private baptisms (administered by the minister) may never take place.

[14] The questions proposed on Oct. 9 were as follows:

  1. Do you believe all the articles of faith contained in Scripture?
  2. That all men and this child are born in sin?
  3. That the blood and Spirit washeth away sin?
  4. Will you have, therefore, this child baptized?

The final passing of the set of questions occurred on Oct. 11 and again (!) on Nov.12, but there is no indication given by Lightfoot whether they were the same as those proposed, or modified in some way. It is nevertheless clear that there was plenty of debate. See Lightfoot, Journal, 314-316.

[15] This wording left the Independents free to continue their practice of weekly celebration, and the Scots theirs of periodic celebration. See Baillie, Letters, 2.148-9.

[16] For example on the question of coming to the table the Directory states: “the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it.” This was intended to allow for either, 1) that all communicants sit at the table, or 2) that only some sit at the table, and others receive the sacrament in the pews. To the latter practice the Scots vehemently objected. See Lightfoot, Journal, 291. Baillie noted in a letter of July 12th to W. Spang (Letters, 2.204), “After we were overtoyled with debate, we were forced to leave all these things, and take us to generall expressions, which by a benigne exposition, would infer our church-practices, which the most promised to follow, so much the more as we did not necessitate them by the Assemblie’s express determinations.”

[17] This could have been in accommodation to the Independents who preferred silence in this respect (as Zwingli had). Baillie (Letters, 2.149) described their typical communion as follows: “They have, after the blessing, a short discourse, and two short graces over the elements, which are distribute and participate in silence, without exhortation, reading, or singing, and all is ended with a psalme, without prayer.”

[18] The examination for profession of faith was also discussed and on Nov. 12 the following agreed upon: “None to be admitted but those, that, upon examination by the minister before the church-officers, shall be found to have a competent measure of knowledge.” This practice would then mirror exactly that of the contemporary Netherlands (A form for profession of faith in the Netherlands was never discussed until the General Synod of Utrecht 1923, and even then one was only recommended, not prescribed). Before then each local church had used its own form—the only general requirement being that the faith as summarised in the Heidelberg catechism was professed. In practice such profession was more uniform than might be expected.

[19] Lightfoot, Journal, 285.

[20] Session 342, pp. 20-21.

[21] It should be noted that the terminology is such that by “Directory for catechizing” the Assembly clearly meant an extra section in the overall Directory for Publick Worship. Each individual section was frequently called a “directory” in its own right.

[22] E.g.: Whether the Scottish custom of two prayers before the sermon be used, or the English practice of one. See Baillie, Letters, 2.123.

[23] Just as the Peace offering was to follow upon the Burnt offering, cf. Lev 3:5.

R. Dean Anderson Jr. is a native of New Zealand. He graduated with honors from Victoria University in Wellington, and then attended the Seminary of the Canadian Reformed Churches in Hamilton, Ontario. He is presently completing his doctoral work in the Netherlands.