A Westminster Bibliography Part 2
Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9,
10
POLITICAL BACKGROUND of the WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY
Parliament convened the Westminster Assembly in 1643 for two chief purposes. First, the Assembly undertook to examine the doctrine of the Church of England and keep that church in harmony with Scripture and the other Protestant churches of Europe. From July to September, 1643, the Assembly busied itself with this first task. The approach the Assembly took, naturally enough, was a revision of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, the Assembly never got past Article Sixteen. note1 In October 1643 the Westminster Divines went to work on church polity and worship. When the Assembly later took up the doctrinal portion of its task, it did not attempt to further revise the Thirty-nine Articles. Instead, the divines produced a confession and catechisms de novo.
Second, Parliament requested the Assembly to advise them on such changes in the polity and government of the Church of England as would bring that church into closer uniformity with the Church of Scotland and the Reformed churches on the European continent. note2 The Church of England was never as reformed as were the other national churches of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. This lesser degree of reformation was what gave rise to the "puritan" movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. note3 The three documents with which most Presbyterians are familiar are the documents that the Assembly composed in its purpose of vindicating Reformed doctrine, yet the documents that are less familiar to us — the ones designed to establish Reformed polity and worship in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland — are actually the documents that occupied most of the Assembly's time from 1643 to 1647. note4
The religious and political history of the period as a whole divides into three easily distinguishable periods. The King and his bishops stood and fell together; the rule of Parliament saw the ascendancy also of Presbyterianism; and the triumph of Cromwell over Parliament was also the triumph of the Independents over the Presbyterians. note5
Earlier, the Second Reformation in Scotland (1637-1638) so provoked King Charles I that he went to war against Scotland to suppress it. note6 Once the Glasgow General Assembly of 1638 declared the acts of the bishops of the Church of Scotland for the previous twenty years null and void, it could be expected that the king and his bishops would react strongly and swiftly. There was no Parliament to finance Charles' adventure, however, so the task of underwriting the campaign fell to the bishops themselves. note7
The wars against the Scots thus became known as "the Bishops' Wars." The English army under Charles' command crossed the Tweed River into Scotland on June 3, 1639. The Scots returned the advance and the English (who were outnumbered 9,000 to 3,000) withdrew back across the Tweed. On June 11 peace negotiations began and the war ended a week after that on June 18, 1639. Not a shot was fired; not a blow struck; not a battle fought. The key concern for the Scots and for the purpose of this paper is found in one detail of the terms of the treaty between Charles and his Scottish subjects: "...all matters Ecclesiastical shall be determined by the Assembly of the Kirk, and matters Civil by the Parliament." note8 Andrew Melville's idea of "the two kingdoms" (one civil and one ecclesiastical) had at last become a reality in Scotland — at least for the time being.
The abortive attempt by King Charles I and his bishops to impose themselves upon Scotland emptied the King's coffers. Charles reluctantly called a Parliament in hope of receiving money from it. note9 Charles had previously refused to call a Parliament for almost twelve years — regarding the institution as a threat to his "divine right" as a king. When Charles asked for his subsidies the House of Commons refused to consider granting him supplies until after he redressed nearly twelve years worth of grievances. Charles was enraged: he dissolved Parliament and imprisoned its leading members.
The Convocation of Bishops continued meeting even after Parliament was dissolved. note10 The king had the right to augment the revenues of the clergy by means of grants and they could in turn give a portion of their grant revenues to the king. All this could be done without any legislative authority, so the danger of tyranny was quite real. The Convocation also published seventeen canons, one of which required all clergymen in the Church of England to take an oath in support of the government of that church. The oath said in part, "Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, et cetera, as it stands now established." note11 The emphasized term above gave rise to the name, "the et cetera oath," and drove many of the clergy into the Puritan camp because they could not consent to swear adherence to an implicit faith, i.e., a faith that required them to believe something unknown at present because the church may declare it to be true at some time in the future. note12
Having received the necessary funds from the bishops, Charles broke the treaty he made with Scotland and again marched north. The Scots were prepared to raise an army at a moment's notice. They raised their army and proceeded into England. Once again the king sued for peace with Scotland, this time transferring the discussions first to Ripon and finally to London. note13 In London the nature of the matters in dispute plus the fact that the royal treasury was once more depleted compelled King Charles again to summon Parliament. note14
The long struggle between Parliament and King came to a head with the convening of the Long Parliament on November 3, 1640. note15 It had been so long since Parliament met that demands for reform came from all over the kingdom. One of the calls for reform was on the so-called "religious question." The Parliament's Grand Committee for Religion reported to the House of Commons on December 12, 1640. The report advised that Parliament should inquire into the cause(s) of three concerns: (1) the decay of preaching in many parishes; (2) the increase of popery in the kingdom; and (3) scandalous ministers. A committee was appointed to inquire into these questions. note16
It did not take long for petitions concerning themselves with reform to become calls for abolition of the entire prelatical system. A party within the Long Parliament began calling for the complete overthrow of episcopalian government together with its abuses. Robert Baillie, who was in London for the peace negotiations between Scotland and King Charles, wrote to his wife on November 18, 1640,
"The town of London, and a world of men, minds to present a petition, which I have seen, for the abolition of Bishops, Deanes, and all their aperteanances [sic]. It is thought good to delay it till the Parliament have pulled down Canterburie and some prime Bishops, which they minde to doe so soon as the King hes a little digested the bitterness of his Lieutenant's censure. Hudge things are here in working: The mighty hand of God be about this great work! We hope this shall be the joyfull harvest of the teares that this manie yeares hes been sawin in thir kingdomes. All here are wearie of Bishops."note17
Baillie undoubtedly wrote of the famous "Root and Branch Petition" presented to the House of Commons on December 11, 1640, and bearing some fifteen thousand signatures. The petitioners requested that prelatical government, "with all its Dependencies, Roots and Branches, may be abolished, and all Laws in their behalf made void, and the Government according to God's Word may be rightly placed amongst us." note18 After several false starts, the Root and Branch Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on Thursday, May 27, 1641: "An Act for the utter abolishing and taking away of all archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, prebendaries, chanters, and canons, and all other their under officers."note19
At about the same time both King and Parliament were dangerously short of funds. Due to the nature of the ongoing peace negotiations with the Scots, King Charles was obliged to support the Scottish army in England as well as his own. He was understandably eager to have the Scottish army out of England. note20 The House of Commons had also borrowed considerably to finance its own operations. London's creditors were hardly eager to loan more money to the government, especially in light of Charles' history of dissolving the Short Parliament. The general lack of confidence in government was exacerbated when a plot was discovered in the Army to march into London and take over both the Parliament and the city. The Parliament therefore enacted a bill, "That this present Parliament shall not be adjourned, prorogued, note21 or dissolved, without their own consent." The bill passed both houses handily and even received the royal assent. note22
In the course of the debates over the Root and Branch Bill, the suggestion was repeatedly made to call an assembly of divines to lend their advice to Parliament on the religious question. Benjamin B. Warfield said,
"The most notable early attempt to secure such advice was probably that taken by the Lords March 1, 1641, note23 in the appointment of what has come to be known as Bishop Williams' Committee.... Similarly, in its discussion of the 'Ministers' petition and remonstrance' in February, 1641, note24 the Commons sought the advice of divines in its committee. The desirability of a standing Assembly of Divines for giving stated advice to Parliament was adverted to by more than one speaker in the course of the discussion of the Root and Branch Bill which was introduced on May 27, 1641: on the government to be set up after the abolishing of the prelates the debaters felt the need of advice from such a body."note25
The idea of calling an assembly of divines was also forwarded in the Grand Remonstrance of November 8, 1641, which marked the break between King and Parliament. The Parliament claimed to desire a further reformation of religion in England and to advance that reformation they maintained,
". . . we desire that there may be a General Synod of the most Grave, Pious, Learned and Judicious Divines of this Island; assisted with some Foreign Parts professing the same Religion with us, who may consider of all things necessary for the Peace and good Government of the Church, and represent the Results of their Consultations to Parliament, to be there allowed of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of Authority, thereby to find Passage and Obedience throughout the Kingdom."note26
Fully nineteen months prior to the actual passage of the call of the Assembly, such a motion was already being discussed in Parliament. Significantly for the importance of the three neglected documents, the purpose for which such an assembly was contemplated was to "consider of all things necessary for the Peace and good Government of the Church" (emphasis added). note27
As Parliament wanted either a revision or a complete rewriting of the Thirty-nine Articles, it also desired a substitute for The Book of Common Prayer. The Scots also had reasons for wanting to proceed with the project, note28 and used the zeal of the Independents much to their advantage. Both the Scots and the Independents were convinced The Book of Common Prayer should be supplanted. Robert Baillie observed, "In the meantime, we would assay to agree upon the Directorie of Worship, wherein we expect no small help from these men [Independents] to abolish the great Idol of England, the Service-Book, and to erect in all parts of worship a full conformitie to Scotland in all things worthie to be spoken of." note29 The plan was for The Directory for the Public Worship of God to replace the Prayer Book (Book of Common Prayer).
The Directory for the Public Worship of God was not adopted by the American church in 1729 when it adopted the Confession and Catechisms. As Julius Melton points out in his Presbyterian Worship in America,
"When it came to worship, the colonial synod [of 1729] only 'recommended' the Directory to its members, 'to be by them observed as near as circumstance will allow, and Christian prudence direct.' The synod of 1729 therefore gave only a qualified endorsement to the Directory...."note30
As a result, the document is not well known to many Presbyterians in this country. Even in Scotland, the Act of Parliament recognizing the Directory was annulled at the Restoration in 1660. The Directory was never again acknowledged by the civil authorities in Scotland. note31
The Westminster Assembly regarded worship and church government both to be strictly by the appointment of God, as evidenced by the minutes for Session 633 of May 4, 1646:
"The Assembly entered upon the debate of the jus divinum [divine right]. Upon a debate it was Ordered — To inquire how many ways the will and appointment of Jesus Christ is set out in Scripture. Resolved upon the Q., These words, 'in reference to church government,' shall not be added."note32
The Assembly's decision not to limit the idea of divine appointment to the topic of church government gives us reason to believe that the Assembly was setting forth the same principle with respect to worship as well. The principle of jus divinum or sola Scriptura, as it applies to worship, we now call "the regulative principle of worship." note33
The Assembly's work on The Directory of Worship appears to have taken about a year. Very soon after the arrival of the Scottish Commissioners, a committee was appointed to begin work on the Directory. The Committee met, perhaps for the first time, on December 15, 1643. Baillie claimed the Committee on that date appointed a sub-committee "of five, without exclusion of anie of the committee to meet with us of Scotland for preparing a Directorie of Worship."note34 By the end of the following year (December 27th, 1644) Parliament received the last part of The Directory.note35 The Directory was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on February 3, 1644/45. note36
The Westminster Assembly's greatest controversy was in coming to a consensus view of church government. The fact that a majority did come to an agreement has evidence from another of the three neglected documents: The Form of Presbyterial Church Government.note37 There were three distinguishable and irreconcilable views represented at Westminster. note38 First was the Erastian view that held the civil government to be a sort of "chief pastor" of the church. The Erastian view was reflected in the earlier church settlements in England in which the monarch was head of the church.
The second view was that of Independency. The Independents were only seven to eleven in number, depending upon how one counts. The best known of them were Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge and Sidrach Simpson. Depending upon the issues before the Assembly they could also generally count on Joseph Caryl and William Greenhill. But the chief strength of the Independents lay not in the Assembly, but in the Parliament and later in the army.
The Independents were the successors of a sect that originated in Elizabeth's reign under Robert Browne. The "Brownists," as they came to be known, regarded the English church as a mere creature of the state. They believed that each particular congregation was and should be independent of every other congregation. Each assembly would then have full authority to settle its own doctrine, discipline and ritual. Many of the Independents had been persecuted under both Stuart and Tudor monarchies exiled to Holland and New England.
With the opening of the Long Parliament in November, 1640, many of these exiles returned from the Netherlands and the Independents rapidly increased all over the kingdom. Yet they had modified their original ideas (or rather they had modified the ideas of the original Brownists) such that they acknowledged many of the parochial churches to be true churches. They professed to agree with the doctrines expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles and they moderated their Independency to such an extent that they ultimately allowed that an "offending church" could be examined for doctrine and discipline by neighboring churches and, if found wanting, could be excommunicated by them. note39
Finally, the majority of the divines held to some view of Presbytery, though there was not a complete unanimity as to everything that the position entailed. All three of these views will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. note40
In 1643 the parliamentary party fell upon hard times in its prosecution of the Civil War against the king. By the autumn of 1643 the western part of England, with only a few exceptions, had declared for the king. The north was also in the royalist camp with the exception of Lancashire. Though the parliamentary army had gained some strength in the eastern counties, it held the midlands by the barest of margins.
The English Parliament then decided to call upon Scotland for aid because of Scotland's recent wars with King Charles and his bishops. Parliament may have thought that the recent Scottish victories over the king in the Bishops' Wars would intimidate the royalist forces. The Scottish Parliament agreed to send 21,000 men to the English Parliament's assistance, but only on the understanding that the Solemn League and Covenant would be accepted in England as it was in Scotland. The Solemn League pledged the two nations to unite for the reformation of religion "according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches." There can be no doubt that the Scots understood that to involve a "Presbyterian Reformation." As historian John Brown said, "As we follow the course of events, it becomes clear that it was not Presbyterianism that brought on the war, but the war that brought in Presbyterianism." note41
The Westminster Divines, at the direction of Parliament, resolved on October 17, 1643, "that this Assembly shall first confer and treat concerning Discipline and Government." note42 Clearly, the Westminster Assembly's reason for dropping its work on the Thirty-Nine Articles and beginning its work on discipline and government was the recent arrival of the commissioners from Scotland and the terms of the Solemn League and Covenant. The Assembly presented The Directory for Ordination of Ministers to Parliament on April 20, 1644. The leading propositions of church government (discussed later in this paper) were presented to Parliament November 8, 1644. The Assembly finally incorporated its resolutions on church censures and presented them to Parliament July 7th, 1645. note43 These three items taken together comprise The Form of Presbyterial Church Government.
The preliminary work on The Directory for Worship was started quite some time before the issues of church government were settled. Though a year may seem to be a long time, it is relatively short considering that the debates on church government began in October, 1643 and continued into and through 1646. note44 George Gillespie presented his famous landmark book against Erastianism, Aaron's Rod Blossoming, to the Assembly on July 30, 1646note45 as part of the debates over church government.
The Scots demonstrated repeatedly that their primary interest in the Westminster Assembly was to have the churches of England and Scotland designed along the same form of government and discipline. The political situation in England provided the northern kingdom with the opportunity it needed to bring Presbyterianism to England. It is true that there were numerous English Presbyterians in the Assembly. However, had the Parliament not required the assistance of the Scottish army in the field, it is quite doubtful that the Form of Government issuing from the Westminster Assembly would have been the same, though the Directory for Worship would likely have not undergone many changes from the final document as we know it today.
Parliament resolved in November, 1648, that King Charles should be brought to trial and when justice had been served the people should be free to choose another king.note46 Parliament therefore moved the King from the Isle of Wight to Hurst Castle on the opposite shore of England. On December 5, 1648, the House of Commons declared that the King's answers to various interrogatories "were calculated to serve as a basis for peace."
The vote on the resolution was 140 to 104. At 7:00 the following morning, two army regiments occupied all the avenues leading to the House. note47 When the Members of Parliament arrived, forty-one leading Presbyterians were arrested and many others were refused entrance. note48 The resistance of the House was still not overcome, however. The Parliament resolved not to proceed to any business until its members were restored. The next day (December 7th), forty additional members were taken prisoner — which left the fanatics in charge of the Parliament. At that point the House voted 50 to 28 to take into consideration the proposals of the army. Cromwell was finally present for the vote on the 7th and declared simply, "God is my witness that I know nothing of all that has passed in this house; however, since it has been done, I am content." note49 Samuel R. Gardiner suggested that Pride's action irritated to the point of alienation even many of the Independents in Parliament. note50 There is probably some merit to his thesis due to the fact that 104 had voted against entering into peace discussions with King Charles, but two days later only 50 could be found to support the purge. note51 The Army ordered the Parliament to dissolve itself and "to confer with the General [Cromwell] for the discharge [unjailing] of the members." note52 When the Members were finally released and asked their jailors by what power they had been detained they received the short answer, "by the power of the sword." note53 Gardiner further maintained,
"There can hardly be a doubt that Cromwell had been consulted as to the proposed interference of the army; but the special form it took had been rapidly determined, almost certainly only on the preceding day, so that there had been no time to obtain his opinion on the adoption of a purge in place of a dissolution."note54
One can only think with a certain sadness of that day five years earlier when Oliver Cromwell stood with 228 members of the House of Commons, his hand raised toward heaven, and promised to be faithful to the Solemn League and Covenant. Perhaps Cromwell was not disinclined at that point to make common cause with Presbyterians or perhaps he simply did not yet want his true colors to be known. He swore to God at the taking of the Covenant in 1643. He swore to God again in December, 1648. And God alone will be his judge. note55
With Colonel Pride's march on London and purge of the Presbyterians in Parliament in 1648, it mattered little what advice the Westminster Assembly gave Parliament. Parliament by that time had turned its ear away from the Assembly and to the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. The Independents thus accomplished with horse and sword that which they had been unable to accomplish by reason or politics.
Shortly after Pride's Purge, Thomas Watson preached a sermon to the "Rump" Parliament that was left. In his sermon, titled "God's Anatomy Upon Man's Heart," Watson said the hypocrite is "zealous in lesser things and remiss in greater... zealous against a ceremony, a relic, or painted glass... but in the meantime lives in known sin, lying, defaming, extortion, etc.... Many make religion a cloak for their ambition. Come see my zeal, saith Jehu, for the Lord. No Jehu, thy zeal was for the kingdom. Jehu made religion hold the stirrup till he got in the saddle and possessed the crown. This is a most exasperating sin." note56 Predictably, the Rump did not thank Watson or invite him to print his sermon.
1 Lightfoot described the event as follows: "On Thursday the 12 of October, 1643, we being at that instant very busy upon the sixteenth article of the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and upon that clause of it which mentioneth departing from grace, there came an order to us from both houses of Parliament, enjoining our speedy taking in hand the discipline and liturgy of the Church..." Bishop John Lightfoot, Works, XIII, 18. Hereafter Lightfoot.
2 "An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, etc." cited in W. M. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991 reprint of 1856 edition), 97-99. Hereafter Hetherington.
3 See chapter one in Blue Banner vol. iv, number 3-4.
4 Minutes, xxvii.
5 Edward Lewes Cutts, Turning Points of English Church History. (London: SPCK, 1889), 257. Cutts makes no effort to mask his disdain for the Puritans and his admiration for Charles I.
6 Hetherington, 78-79.
7 Thomas M'Crie, The Story of the Scottish Church from the Reformation to the Disruption (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, nd.), 170.
8 F. N. McCoy, Robert Baillie and the Second Scots Reformation (Berkeley, CA: U. of CA Press, 1974), 62-63. It would not be unfair to date the modern idea of the separation of church and state from June 18, 1639 because of the terms of this treaty.
9 What came to be known as "The Short Parliament."
10 Such continuation of the Convocation without Parliament in session was without historical precedent and probably illegal.
11 Hetherington, 79-80.
12 Ibid., 80.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., 81.
15 John R. DeWitt, Jus Divinum: The Westminster Assembly and the Divine Right of Church Government (Kampen: Kok, 1969), 9. Hereafter DeWitt.
16 W. A. Shaw, A History of the English Church During the Civil Wars and Under the Commonwealth 1640-1660 (New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green And Company, 1900), I, 15-16. Hereafter Shaw.
17 Robert Baillie, Letters and Journals (Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1841-42). II, 273-74. Hereafter, Baillie.
18 Cited in DeWitt, 11.
19 Cited in Shaw, I., 78. A chancellor is the titular head of a university; a commissary is a representative of a bishop who has jurisdiction in remote parts of a diocese or performs the bishop's duties in his absence; a dean is a high church official often in charge of a cathedral church; deans and chapters are the electors of the bishop. The chapter can be either a general meeting of the members of a religious order or a meeting of the canons of a collegiate or cathedral church and presided over by a dean; an archdeacon is an assistant to the bishop. He superintends other members of the clergy; a prebendary is a clergyman who receives his income from the tax or produce of property owned by a cathedral or collegiate church; a chanter is a person who sings in the choir of a cathedral church; a canon is a member of a group of clergymen belonging to a cathedral chapter.
20 Of course, the Scottish presence in England was also a source of encouragement to King Charles' enemies in Parliament, while forming a hindrance to his own military plans.
21 "Prorogue" means to discontinue the regular meetings of a lawmaking body for a period of time.
22 Hetherington, 84-86.
23 Warfield was using the modern dating in which the year begins January 1.
24 See previous footnote.
25 B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991 reprint of 1959 edition), p. 10, note 17. Hereafter Warfield.
26 Cited in DeWitt, 15.
27 Per part one of this series, the three neglected documents are the Directory for the Public Worship of God, Directory for Family Worship, and Form of Presbyterial Church Government.
28 The Scottish Church only barely escaped the imposition of Laud's Service Book in July 1637. One can understand a desire to rid the island of the book altogether.
29 Baillie, II, 117.
30 Julius Melton, Presbyterian Worship in America. (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1967), 17.
31 W. Beveridge, A Short History of the Westminster Assembly, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), 91. Hereafter Beveridge.
32 Minutes, 227.
33 The fact that the Assembly very clearly held to the idea that God does not desire or permit worship in accordance with human traditions is discussed later in chapters 3 and 6.
34 Baillie, II, 118.
35 On December 27th, the Assembly sent to Parliament the Directory for fasting and the Directory for singing of Psalms. There is no record in the Minutes that any further sections were later adopted and/or sent to Parliament. Minutes, 23-24. Lightfoot, in his journal entry for November 11, 1644, stated, "And, first, in the title [of The Directory for the Publick Worship of God], there was singing of Psalms left out; which I moved again and again to be put in, and so it was accordingly." Lightfoot, 325.
36 Hetherington, 343.
37 Another document which came from the Westminster Assembly came to be known as The Grand Debate. It will be the subject of a subsequent paper. It consisted of a debate between the Independents and the Presbyterians on the question of the subordination of congregations to presbyteries.
38 The Grand Committee on Church Government met from September 20, 1644, through October 25, 1644. The committee was for the purpose of reaching an accommodation between the Independents and the Presbyterians. However, the committee was so divided on the accommodation (10-9 against) that they no longer met after October 25th. George Gillespie, "Notes of Debates and Proceedings of The Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster," p. 107 in The Works of George Gillespie. Gillespie's works were published in the mid-nineteenth century as part of a subscription called A Presbyterian's Armoury. Each subscriber bound the volumes as he saw fit. Therefore, there is not a standard pagination that runs through all of the volumes. The "Notes" are paginated i to xv and 1 to 120. We will follow that pagination throughout this paper, with the work referenced simply as Gillespie.
39 This very strange view of excommunicating an entire gathered church they called "disfellowshipping." See Charles Sidney Carter, The English Church in the Seventeenth Century. (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), 40.
40 Seven members of the Assembly brought a dissent against the propositions concerning church government. Those "dissenting brethren" (or Independents) apparently wanted to work both sides of the table. A committee was appointed to draw up answers to their dissent and the Assembly decided that it would act as a committee of the whole in perfecting its answers to the dissent. Amazingly, the dissenters wanted a hand in framing the answers to their own dissent! When that was denied, Lightfoot explained, "This the Independents, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Goodwin, were so shameless as to except against; and to challenge to be present at the drawing up of our answers: but Mr. Bridges was more reasonable." Lightfoot, 338. The resulting papers, known to history as The Grand Debate, will be discussed in a subsequent dissertation.
41 John Brown, The English Puritans, (New York: Putnam, 1910), 133.
42 Gillespie, 1.
43 Beveridge, 89.
44 DeWitt, 62.
45 Minutes, 261. See chapter 8 for a discussion of the details.
46 F. C. Dahlmann, The History of the English Revolution. Trans. by H. Evans Lloyd. (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1844), 199.
47 A regiment generally consisted of about 3,000 men during wartime and it was typically commanded by a Colonel. Modern armies do not use regiments in the same way they were used in the 1640's. 48 This measure was executed under Colonel Pride, but the presence of two regiments strongly suggests that the operation was commanded at brigade or army echelon.
49 Cited in Dahlmann, op.cit., 200.
50 S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, (London: Longmans, Green, 1893), IV, 270.
51 Either that or Pride was so stupid he was arresting the wrong people.
52 "Journal of the House of Commons," VI, 94, cited in Gardiner, op.cit., IV, 271.
53 Ibid., 272.
54 Ibid.
55 See Mitchell, Westminster Assembly, 183.
56 Cited in H. R. Trevor-Roper, Religion, The Reformation, and Social Change, (London: Macmillan, 1967), 335.
Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 12:15:14 PM