In Which Women Deacons Were Approved by the Westminster Assembly

Let me tell you about the time that the Westminster Assembly passed a proposition authorizing in their Presbyterian church order that women be included in the office of deacon. The story is fascinating, especially of how it ends, and, well, maybe better told by Dr. Wayne Spear in his "Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners on the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly," pp. 119-121.

The Assembly still had before it another proposition from the Second Committee, 'That widows, which we read of, I Tim. v. 3, and elsewhere, are included under the name deacons.'[211] This came up for discussion on December 28 and 29, 1643.

The Independents, especially [Sidrach] Simpson and [William] Bridge, argued most strongly in the Assembly for the inclusion of deaconesses in the church. Simpson, for example, drew from 1 Timothy 5 the points that qualifications for the widow are given, some of them the same as are required for bishops and deacons; that she is to be enrolled, i.e., elected; and that she is not to depart from her employment.[212] Significantly, he related the passage in 1 Timothy to the text that was so central in the Independents' ecclesiology, Romans 12:6-8, understanding 'he that sheweth mercy' (with a curious change in gender) to refer explicitly to the widow, or deaconess. The position taken by the Independents was supported by other leading men of the Assembly only by Lazarus Seaman and George Gillespie. 

The notion that the widow in 1 Timothy 5 was a deaconess went back at least to [John] Calvin, who also appealed to Romans 12:8. In the Institutes, Calvin held that there are two grades of deacons: those who distribute alms, and those who devote themselves to the care of the poor and sick. 'Of this sort were the widows whom Paul mentions to Timothy [1 Tim. 5:9-10]. Women could fill no other public office than to devote themselves to the care of the poor.'[213] Calvin's teaching on this point was taken up by the English Separatists; Henry Barrow's A True Description out of the Word of God, of the Visible Church (1589) made a distinction between the 'most diligent and trusty deacons' and 'most loving and sober relievers' in the church.[214] The latter, who are designated as officers,

'must be women of sixty years of age at the least, for avoiding of inconveniences: they must be well reported of for good works, such as have nourished their children, such as have been harbourers to strangers: diligent and serviceable to the saints, compassionate and helpful to them in adversity, given to every good work, continuing in supplications and prayer night and day.'[215]

Some of the strongest leaders in the Assembly argued against including widows or deaconesses as officers, holding that they were, in the Timothy passage, the recipients rather than the bestowers of the alms of the church: [Charles] Herle, [Stephen] Marshall, [Herbert] Palmer, [Thomas] Temple, and [Cornelius] Burgess all took the negative side.[216]

When it came to a vote, the Assembly was evenly divided: the proposition passed by just one vote. Had [John] Lightfoot been present, the outcome would have been different, for he strongly opposed the proposition; but, as he said, 'It was my unfortunacy to be called into the city before it came to a vote.'[217] In the next session, there was a long debate on Romans 16:1-2 as a proof text, which ended in a negative vote, and the Assembly went on to other matters.[218]

In the process of editing, the only significant change  that was made in the section was that this reference to widows was quietly dropped. Although technically this amounted to changing a previous vote of the Assembly, it was not objected to, undoubtedly because of the divided opinion in the Assembly when the proposition was originally passed. As far as can be determined, the existence of deaconesses in the church was no more than a matter of theory, even for the advocates of their inclusion. 

[211] Lightfoot, Journal, 43.

[212] Lightfoot, Journal, 94-25.

[213] Calvin, Institutes, 4.3.9.

[214] In The Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain Murray (London: Banner of Truth, 1965), 197.

[215] Murray, Reformation, 99.

[216] Lightfoot, Journal, 94-96.

[217] Lightfoot, Journal, 96; Gillespie, Notes, 5. 

[218] Lightfoot, Journal, 97-98.

HT: Steve Bradley

'Puritan' Nickname Coined 450 Years Ago

It was in 1564, according to Thomas Fuller (The Church History of Great Britain, Vol. 2 (1854 ed.), p. 474), that the term 'Puritan' first began to be used by English Bishops who opposed those who desired a purer, Reformed religion in the Anglican Church (although the movement itself began earlier). Perhaps hearkening back to the name Cathari, or Puritan, which was applied to other sects at different times in church history, it was intended as an odious slur, as was 'precisian,' and 'Presbyterian,' as used by Archbishop Matthew Parker, for instance, in his letters to describe the reforming party of his church. As with many such labels, what was intended as an insult was eventually embraced by those so-called, although other more neutral terms such as 'dissenters' and 'nonconformists' were sometimes preferred. John Geree embraced 'Puritan' and 'Nonconformist' in The Character of an Old English Puritan, or Non-Conformist (1646):

The Old English Puritan was such an one, that honored God above all, and under God gave every one his due. His first care was to serve God, and therein he did not what was good in his own, but in God’s sight, making the word of God the rule of his worship. He highly esteemed order in the House of God: but would not under colour of that submit to superstitious rites, which are superfluous, and perish in their use. He reverenced Authority keeping within its sphere: but durst not under pretence of subjection to the higher powers, worship God after the traditions of men. He made conscience of all God’s ordinances, though some he esteemed of more consequence.

Robert Bolton, for example, spoke of 'Puritan' as "the honourable nickname of the best and holiest men" (Mr. Bolton's Last and Learned Worke of the Foure Last Things (1635), p. 12).

Robert Bolton, A Discourse About the True State of Happinesse (1631), p. 163:

I am persuaded there was never poor persecuted word, since malice against God first seized on the damned angels, and the graces of heaven dwelt in the heart of man, that passed through the mouths of all sorts of unregenerate men, with more distastefulness and gnashing of teeth, than the name of puritan doth at this day; which notwithstanding as it is now commonly meant, and ordinarily proceeds from the spleen and spirit of profaneness and good fellowship, as an honourable nickname, that I may so speak, of christianity and grace.

Elsewhere he is reported to have said:

All those nick-names of Puritan, Precisian, Hypocrite, &c. with which lewd tongues are wont to load the saints of God, are so many honourable badges of their worthy deportment in the holy path, and resolute standing on the Lord's side.

Samuel Rutherford, Letters (1894 ed.), p. 512:

I assure you, howbeit we be nicknamed Puritans, that all the powers of the world shall not prevail against us.

George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies (1846 ed.), Vol. 1., p. 39:

...they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and nicknamed Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity....We know the old Waldenses before us were also named by their adversaries, Cathares or Puritans; and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to them and us.

Packer sums up the issues beautifully. J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, p. 114:

Because of their concern for preciseness in following our God's revealed will in matters moral and ecclesiastical, the first Puritans were dubbed 'precisians.' Though ill-meant and derisive, this was in fact a good name for them. Then as now, people explained their attitude as due to peevish cantankerousness and angularity or morbidity of temperament, but that was not how they themselves saw it. Richard Rogers, the Puritan pastor of Wethersfield, Essex, at the turn of the sixteenth century, was riding one day with the local lord of the manor, who, after twitting him for some time about his 'precisian' ways, asked him what it was that made him so precise. 'O sir,' replied Rogers, 'I serve a precise God.' If there were such a thing as a Puritan crest, this would be its proper motto. A precise God -- a God, that is, who has made a precise disclosure of his mind and will in Scripture, and who expects from his servants a corresponding preciseness of belief and behaviour -- it was this view of God that created and controlled the historic Puritan outlook. The Bible itself led them to it. And we who share the Puritan estimate of Holy Scripture cannot excuse ourselves if we fail to show a diligence and conscientiousness equal to theirs in ordering our lives according to God's written word.

Pagan Calendar Names

The Quakers, Brownists and Gibbites ('Sweet Singers' who followed the teachings of John Gibb (d. 1720?)) were known, among other things, for their rejection of pagan and Roman calendar names relating to both months and days of the week. Not all Puritans shared this conviction, but there was sympathy with the expressed desire to purify the calendar of heathen and popish influences, and in particular, Puritans took a particular stand about using Biblical names for the first day of the week, i.e., the Christian Sabbath or the Lord's Day.

In Puritan New England, for example, it was common to reckon days and months with numerals; therefore, when writing to express a date such as Monday, December 23rd, it would be done in this way: 23d 10m (March being the first month of the year in the Julian calendar, therefore December was the tenth month), cf. Michael G. Hall, The Last Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639-1723, p. 14).

Ezra Hoyt Byington, The Puritan in England and New England, pp. 166-167:

Our Puritan fathers made it a matter of conscience to call the days of the week by numerals, and to call the months in the same way, as the Quakers do to this day. It was a singular scruple which they had, and it had its origin amongst the Lollards, and the Anabaptists, from whom the Quakers and some other Protestant sects came. They thought it was giving honor to the heathen gods, and to pagan worship, to call their days Sunday, or Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, or to call their months January, or March, or May. But while this scruple has been so tenacious among the Friends, that even Mr. Whittier continued to follow it as long as he lived, our Puritan fathers had laid it aside before their colonies had completed their first century.

Charles Edward Jefferson, "The Puritan Sabbath and Ours," in Forefathers' Day Sermons, p. 203:

The Puritans liked to call their day of rest the "Sabbath." Sometimes they called it the "First Day." This was the expression employed in the Gospels. More frequently, they called it the "Lord's Day." They had authority for this in the first chapter of the book of the Revelation. But their favorite name was "Sabbath." This was the word which Moses had used, and David, the sweet singer of Israel, and all the Prophets, and it was, therefore, presumably the favorite of Heaven. The word "Sunday" they would not use because it was not to be found in the Bible. It was a word of pagan origin, meaning Sun's Day, just as Monday means Moon's Day, and any word coined in heathen mint could not be applied to a divine institution. Scriptural sanction was essential for all their religious names and customs, and, therefore, "Sunday" was among them a name tabooed.

George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, pp. 190-191:

Sixthly, Papists themselves teach...Yea, they condemn the very heathenish names of the days of the week imposed after the names of planets, Sunday, Monday, etc.40

40. Rhem. on Apoc. 1:10.

Maurice Grant, No King But Christ: The Story of Donald Cargill, pp. 160, 261-262:

Events soon proved the truth of Cargill's prediction. At the beginning of May [John] Gibb and his followers were all seized by the soldiers and carried to Edinburgh. The mere were imprisoned in the Canongate Tolbooth; the women were consigned to the 'correction house', the usual repository for the loose and immoral in the city. After some weeks in prison Gibb drew up a paper setting out his principles, which he presented to the Council. It was a wild, unbalanced document, aptly demonstrating the mind of its author and scarcely deserving to be treated seriously. It denounced the use of chapters and verses in Scripture, the metrical Psalms, the translation of the Bible out of the original languages, the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, the Covenants and the Form of Church Government, the Queensferry paper, the Sanquhar Declaration and even the names of months and days of the week.1

1. The view that the common names of the days and months, being derived from pagan deities, were not worthy to be used by Christians, was not confined to Gibb and his followers. As contemporary records show, it was one of the chief points of difference between James Russel and the United Societies in the years following Cargill's death. Russel's friend and associate, Patrick Grant, maintained that his and Russel's views on the subject had been shared by William Cuthill, who died along with Cargill, and that Cuthill had asserted them in the portion of his last testimony which was supressed by the editors of the Cloud of Witnesses (1714 ed., p. 118). Grant also claimed that in his letter to Gibb's followers in the Correction House Cargill himself had expressed approval of these views, but there is nothing in Cargill's letter to lend support to this. Nevertheless it is clear that some who attended on Cargill's ministry and held him in the highest respect adopted the practice at about this time. A manuscript copy of Cargill's sermon at Dovan Common on 26 June, obviously recorded by a friendly hand, is dated 'the 26th day of the sixth month'. A letter from Patrick Forman, who with four others was put to death at the Gallowlee in Edinburgh in October 1681, is dated 'the 16th of this ninth month' and his testimony 'the 8th day of the tenth month'. The practice did not, however, become general, and was not adopted by James Renwick nor the other members of the United Societies.

Jeremiah Burroughs, An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea, p. 147 (on Hosea 2.16-17):

It were good therefore, seeing God hates and loathes it so much, that we should hate and loath it also, and therefore cast out even the name and memory of it; it were a happy thing if the names of popish, as well as heathenish, idols could be banished from the church; but I know not how it happens that we Christians still retain the use of them; the very days of the week among us are called by the names of planets, or heathen gods: not that I think it a sin, when it is the ordinary language of the world, to speak so as may be understood, for the apostle mentions the name of Castor and Pollux; but if there could be an alteration by general consent, (as our brethren in New England have), it were desirable; and still more so, that our children might not be educated in the use of heathen poems, whereby the names of heathen idols are kept up fresh amongst us: the papists themselves acknowledge so much in the Rhemish Testament, in their notes on Rev. i.10: "The name Sunday is heathenish, as all other of the week-days, some imposed by the Romans after the name of planets, some from certain idols which the Saxons worshipped, and to which they dedicated their days before they were Christians. These names the church rejecting, has appointed to call the first day Dominic, (the Lord's) the others by the name of Feries, successivly to the last day of the week, which she calls by the old name of sabbath, because that was of God, and not by imposition of the heathen." And in their Annotations upon Luke xxiv.1, "The first day of the sabbath; that is, the first after the Sabbath, which is our Lord's day. And from the apostle, 1 Cor. xvi.2, commanding a collection to be made on the first day of the sabbath, we learn," (say they) "both the keeping that day as the sabbath, and the church's naming the days of the week the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of the sabbath, and so on, to be apostolical, and the calling of the days of the week, the second, the third, the fourth, &c., to be likewise apostolical, which St. Sylvester afterward named the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Feriam." Thus you have the papists acknowledging the Lord's day to be apostolical, and the calling of the days of the week the second, the third, the fourth, &c., to be likewise apostolical. The heathenish Roman names of the days were taken from the seven planets: 1. Sol, thence Dies solis, Sunday dedicated to the sun. 2. Luna, Monday, dedicated to the moon. 3. Mars, Tuesday, dedicated to Mars. Our Tuesday is a Saxon name, from Tuisco, who they say was, since the Tower of Babel, chief leader and ruler of the German nation, who, in honour of him, called this day Tuesday, Tuisco's day. 4. Mercurius, to whom Wednesday is dedicated, and we call it so, is from the Saxon's Woden, who was a great prince among them, and whose image they adored after his death. 5. Jupiter, to whom Thursday is dedicated; so called by us from the Saxon Thor, the name of an idol which they anciently worshipped. 6. Venus, to whom our Friday, which name is given it from Friga, an idol of the Germans. This idol was an hermaphrodite, and reputed to be the giver of plenty, and the causer of amity; the same perhaps which the Romans called Venus. 7. Saturnus, dedicated to Saturn, whence our Saturday; or, as others think, from Seater, an idol of the Germans. Exod. xxiii.13, we have this charge, "In all things that I have said unto you, be circumspect: and make no mention of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." And Psal. xvi.4, David professes he will not take the names of idols into his lips.

Every Coast is Jewry

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 21 (1646):

VI. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the Gospel either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed:(c) but God is to be worshipped everywhere,(d) in spirit and truth;(e) as in private families(f) daily,(g) and in secret each one by himself;(h) so, more solemnly, in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calls thereunto.(i)

(c) John 4:21.
(d) Mal. 1:11; I Tim. 2:8.
(e) John 4:23, 24.
(f) Jer. 10:25; Deut. 6:6, 7; Job 1:5; II Sam. 6:18, 20; I Pet. 3:7; Acts 10:2.
(g) Matt. 6:11.
(h) Matt. 6:6; Eph. 6:18.
(i) Isa. 56:6, 7; Heb. 10:25; Prov. 1:20, 21, 24; Prov. 8:34; Acts 13:42; Luke 4:16; Acts 2:42.

Speaking of the people of God, John Rainolds, the Puritan who proposed and later contributed to the King James translation of the Bible, wrote, The Summe of the Conference betwene John Rainolds and John Hart touching the Head and the Faith of the Church. Penned by John Rainolds and allowed by John Hart for a faithfull report (1584), cap. 8, divis. 4, p. 491:

...with their spiritual sacrifices of praise, they may now sing the songs of the Lord in all places. To them no land is strange; no ground unholy. Every coast is Jewry, every town Jerusalem, every house Zion, and every faithful company, yea, every faithful body, a temple in which they may serve God.

George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (1642, 1993), p. 145:

How much more soundly do we hold with J. Rainolds, that unto us Christians, no land is strange, no ground unholy -- every coast is Jewry, every town Jerusalem, and every house Sion -- and every faithful company, yea, every faithful body, a temple to serve God in.

Silly Vassal

Andrew Melville to King James VI of Scotland (in 1596 at Cupar, Scotland) in reply to the king who reminded Melville that he was the king's vassal, particularly in matters ecclesiastical:

Sirrah! ye are God's silly vassal; there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland: there is King James, the head of this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the King of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member.

Erastianism is the doctrine of the supremacy of the state in matters ecclesiastical (in sacris as opposed to circa sacra). As articulated by the man from whose name the doctrine is taken, the doctrine did not extend quite so far; Thomas Erastus (1524-1583) originally argued, in a treatise written in 1568, but only published posthumously in 1589,* that it was not in power of the church to excommunicate church members (the pastoral office could persuade but not censure by withholding the sacraments), but it was left to the civil magistrate to punish sinners. It was Richard Hooker, who began to publish Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie in 1594, and Hugo Grotius, writing on behalf of the Remonstrants in 1617 when he published De Imperio Summarum Potestatum Circa Sacra (On the Power of Sovereigns Concerning Religious Affairs), who contributed most notably towards promulgating what we now know as 'Erastianism'. Erastus himself was a notable physician, perhaps the best in Germany in his day, and a lay member of the Heidelberg consistory at the very same time that the Heidelberg Catechism was written. In that capacity, he resisted efforts to introduce Presbyterian church polity.

The Erastian cause was represented at the Westminster Assembly by such men as Thomas Coleman and John Selden. They failed to win the Assembly to their point of view, however. George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly, wrote a masterful refutation of Erastianism entitled Aaron's Rod Blossoming: Or, The Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated (1646). The Westminster Confession of Faith is decidedly anti-Erastian (although a fundamental misapprehension of the doctrine of church-state relations as stated in WCF 23.3b and elsewhere has ironically often led to the misdirected charge of 'Erastianism' against the original Confession, which would have surprised the Erastian party at the Assembly). The Assembly took great pains in a petition to Parliament to try to persuade it to steer clear of Erastianism, even noting that Erastus himself was a better physician than a theologian.

Journal of the House of Lords 7:524 (August 4, 1645) (see also A.F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards, p. 294):

Nor do we find that there hath been any great Doubt or Question made thereof in the Church, until Erastus, a Physician, who by his Profession may be supposed to have had better Skill in curing of the Diseases of the Natural, than the Scandals of the Ecclesiastical Body, did move the Controversy.

Ultimately, the British Parliament ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith as the doctrine of the Church England, with the following exceptions: WCF 20.4 (concerning the magistrate's authority to censure in connection with Christian liberty), chapter 30 (on church censures), and chapter 31 (on synods and councils). The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland too added a caveat when ratifying the Confession in 1647 to avoid even the appearance of Erastianism by explaining that it understood the magistrate's authority described in 31.2 as confined only to "kirks not settled or constituted in point of government" and affirming that that the power to convene church synods is directly given by Christ to the church and not dependent on the magistrate for its exercise (meaning that magistrates who are enemies of Christ and the church cannot legitimately prevent the church from convening such an assembly). Yet the Church of Scotland, known for its adherence to the crown rights of King Jesus, that is, the principle that Christ alone is head of the church and not the sovereign magistrate, whose encroachments must be resisted, did not actually amend the Confession at any point and found nothing in WCF 23 to be Erastian.

For a helpful guide to Erastian views contrasted with Biblical and Presbyterian principles, see William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian (1863) -- see chapter 8 in particular here.

* The original title was Explicatio gravissimae quaestionis utrum excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus. "It consists of seventy-five Theses, followed by a Confirmatio in six books, and an appendix of letters to Erastus by Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolph Gaulther, showing that his Theses, written in 1568, had been circulated in manuscript. An English translation of the Theses, with brief life of Erastus (based on Melchior Adam's account), was issued in 1659, entitled The Nullity of Church Censures; it was reprinted as A Treatise of Excommunication (1682), and, as revised by Robert Lee, D.D., in 1844." (Wikipedia) Theodore Beza responded to Erastus' treatise directly in 1590 with Tractatus de vera excommunicatione.

What's In A Nickname?

The Puritans had a thing or two to say about nicknames, Robert Bolton in particular. He spoke of 'Puritan' as "the honourable nickname of the best and holiest men" (Mr. Bolton's Last and Learned Worke of the Foure Last Things (1635), p. 12).

Robert Bolton, A Discourse About the True State of Happinesse (1631), p. 163:

I am persuaded there was never poor persecuted word, since malice against God first seized on the damned angels, and the graces of heaven dwelt in the heart of man, that passed through the mouths of all sorts of unregenerate men, with more distastefulness and gnashing of teeth, than the name of puritan doth at this day; which notwithstanding as it is now commonly meant, and ordinarily proceeds from the spleen and spirit of profaneness and good fellowship, as an honourable nickname, that I may so speak, of christianity and grace.

Elsewhere he is reported to have said:

All those nick-names of Puritan, Precisian, Hypocrite, &c. with which lewd tongues are wont to load the saints of God, are so many honourable badges of their worthy deportment in the holy path, and resolute standing on the Lord's side.

Samuel Rutherford, Letters (1894 ed.), p. 512:

I assure you, howbeit we be nicknamed Puritans, that all the powers of the world shall not prevail against us.

George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies (1846 ed.), Vol. 1., p. 39:

...they make godly and zealous Christians to be mocked and nicknamed Puritans, except they can swallow the camel of conformity....We know the old Waldenses before us were also named by their adversaries, Cathares or Puritans; and that, without cause, hath this name been given both to them and us.

In the tradition of David, the "sweet Psalmist of Israel," many individual Reformers, Puritans and Reformed have been known to contemporaries and to posterity by nicknames dubbed and bequeathed by both admirers and opponents. Here are a handful to consider.

Thomas Adams, English Puritan (1583-1652) -- "prose Shakespeare of the Puritan theologians"
William Ames, English Puritan (1576-1633) -- "Learned Doctor Ames"
William Bates, English Puritan (1625-1699) -- "Silver-Tongued"
Richard Baxter, English Puritan (1615-1691) -- "Chief of English Protestant Schoolmen"
Wilhelmus à Brakel, Dutch Puritan (1635-1711) -- "Father Brakel"
John Bunyan, English Puritan (1628-1688) -- "Immortal Tinker" and "Immortal Dreamer"
Jeremiah Burroughs, English Puritan (1600-1646) -- "Prince of Preachers"
Richard Cameron, Scottish Covenanter (1648-1680) -- "Lion of the Covenant"
Thomas Cartwright, English Puritan (1535-1603) -- "Father of English Presbyterianism"
John Cotton, English-American Puritan (1585-1652) -- "Patriarch of New England"
Samuel Davies, American Presbyterian (1723-1761) -- "Apostle of Virginia"
David Dickson, Scottish Covenanter (1583-1662) -- "Apostle of the Covenant"
John Duncan, Scottish Presbyterian (1796-1870) -- "Rabbi Duncan"
Jonathan Edwards, American Puritan (1703-1758) -- "America's Greatest Theologian" and "Last Puritan"
Hans Egede, Danish-Norwegian Lutheran (1686-1758) -- "Apostle of Greenland"
John Eliot, English-American Puritan (1604-1690) -- "Apostle to the Indians"
Bernard Gilpin, English Reformer (1517-1583) -- "Apostle of the North" and "Northern Apostle"
William Gouge, English Puritan (1575-1653) -- "Father of the London Divines" and "Arch-Puritan"
John Howe, English Puritan (1630-1705) -- "Platonic Puritan" and "Puritan Plato"
John Kennedy of Dingwall, Scottish Presbyterian (1819-1884) -- "Prince of Highland Preachers"
John MacDonald, Scottish Presbyterian (1779-1849) -- "Apostle of the North"
Thomas Manton, English Puritan (1620-1677) -- "King of Preachers"
Stephen Marshall, English Puritan (1594-1655) -- "Geneva Bull"
Joshua Moody, English-American Puritan (1633-1697) -- "Angelical Doctor"
James Nalton, English Puritan (1600-1662) -- "Weeping Prophet"
John Owen, English Puritan (1616-1683) -- "Prince of the Puritans"
William Perkins, English Puritan (1558-1602) -- "The Calvin of England"
John Robinson, English Separatist (1575-1625) -- "Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers"
Richard Rogers, English Puritan (1550-1618) -- "Enoch in His Age"
Thomas Shepard, English-American Puritan (1605-1649) -- "Soul-Melting Preacher"
Richard Sibbes, English Puritan (1577-1635) -- "Heavenly Doctor Sibbes"
Henry Smith, English Puritan (1560-1591) -- "Silver-Tongued Smith"
Charles Spurgeon, English Baptist (1834-1892) -- "Prince of Preachers"
Solomon Stoddard, American Puritan (1643-1729) -- "Northampton Pope" and "Pope of Connecticut Valley"
Willem Teellinck, Dutch Puritan (1579-1629) -- "Father of the Dutch Further Reformation"
Pierre Viret, Swiss Reformer (1511-1571) -- "Angel of the Reformation" and "Smile of the Reformation"
John White, English Puritan (1575-1648) -- "Patriarch of Dorchester" and "Founder of Massachusetts"
John Wycliffe, English Reformer (1385-1384) -- "Morning Star of the Reformation"

Theodidactic

Theodidactic, or 'God-taught,' is a term which describes how the whole counsel of God, including the judicial laws delivered by Moses, whose force expired along with the state of Israel, except to the extent that they reflect the general equity of the moral law, can and should inform Christian magistrates seeking to rule with wisdom and discretion. George Gillespie wished, for his part, that the judicial laws, being a part of God's Word, "were more consulted with." William Gouge said that they "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly."

As to the whole counsel of God, the Westminster Divines teach that it provides all that we need for the life of man to be lived to God's glory, and yet some things "common to human actions and societies,... are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6).

The whole counsel of God, then, does not exclude the application of the light of nature and Christian prudence in the regulation of what is appropriate and common to human societies, but provides general rules which are always to be observed, even by Christian magistrates.

To explain further, I wrote the following in a chapter called "The Puritan Legacy Considered" at the conclusion of an essay by Dr. Steven Dilday on Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie, found in Steven Dilday, Two Essays on the Thought of George Gillespie (2009, ed., R. Andrew Myers), pp. 48-49:

And finally, this Biblical paradigm [the Puritan view of magistracy] is theodidactic,4 allowing for the employment of magisterial wisdom and discretion grounded in the whole counsel of God, rather than being confined to a blanket application of Mosaic law. As Gillespie noted:

I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with.5

The judicial laws of Moses are indeed of great use to Christian magistrates today,1 being part of the whole of Scripture, all of which is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16); and, although they are no longer nomos/law, having "expired with the state of Israel" (WCF 19:4), they are still didache, that is, part of the teaching of the Word of God.

4. The contribution of Rev. Matthew Winzer to the understanding of this term is gratefully acknowledged.

5. Ibid [Aaron's Rod Blossoming], 2.

1. Judicial laws, grounded in moral equity, "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly." William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (London, 1655; Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006, reprint of 1980 Kregel Publications ed. and 1866 Nichols ed.) vol. 1, 505.

That right discernment of judicial laws, as to what of general equity binds Christian magistrates today and what of that which was peculiar and temporary with respect to a nation whose polity has ceased does not, requires intimate acquaintance with the whole of counsel of God, goes without saying. Like Joshua, the Christian magistrate ought to "meditate...day and night" upon the whole of God's Word, including "the book of the law" that he might rule with wisdom and good success (Jos. 1.8).

That discernment is reflected in the Reply of Thomas Cartwright to the Answer to the Admontion to Parliament, as quoted by Archbishop John Whitgift in his Works, Vol. 1, p. 270:

And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of a people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the circumstances of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contempuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question. And therefore, although the judicial laws are permitted to the discretion of the prince and magistrate, yet not so generally as you seem to affirm, and, as I have oftentimes said, that not only it must not be done against the word, but according to the word, and by it.

And in Cartwright's Second Reply he adds:

It is not that the magistrate is simply bound unto the judicial laws of Moses, that that he is bound to the equity, which I also called the substance and marrow of them.

Francis Turretin provides guidelines for the exercise of this discernment likewise, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 165-167:

Twenty-Sixth Question
Whether the judicial law was abrogated under the New Testament. We make distinctions.
...
III. In that law various ends must be distinguished....Undoubtedly those things are to be accurately distinguished which in the law were of particular right (which peculiarly applied to the Jews in relation to time, place and Jewish nation: such was the law concerning a husband's brother, the writing of divorcement, the gleaning, etc.) from those which were of common and universal right, founded upon the law of nature common to all (such as the laws concerning trials and the punishment of crimes widows, orphans, strangers and the like, which are of moral and common right). As to the former, they may well be said to have been abrogated because the Jewish polity having been taken away, whatever had a peculiar relation to it must also necessarily have ceased. But as to the latter, it still remains because it enters into the nature of the moral and perpetual law and was commanded to the Jews not as Jews simply, but as men subject with others to the law of nature. For distinguishing those things which are of common and particular right, a threefold criterion can be employed. (1) That what prevails not only among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles (following the light of right reason) is of common right. Thus the Greeks, Romans and others had their laws in which are many things agreeing with the divine laws (which even a comparison of the Mosaic and Roman law alone, instituted by various persons, teaches). (2) What is found to be conformed to the precepts of the decalogue and serves to explain and conform it. This is easily gathered, if either the object and the matter of the laws or the causes of sanctioning them are attended to. (3) The things so repeated in the New Testament that their observance is commended to Christians.

The Christian magistrate, therefore, as a minister of God (Rom. 13.4) -- like the minister of the Word who must rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15) -- must be informed by the Word of God, which generally is his rule, as it is of all Christians, according to the moral law; and as the judicial law is of special interest to magistrates as a divine exemplar, so it is to be referred to and "consulted with" as they provide "good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly," with appropriate distinctions made according to the "light of nature and Christian prudence." Hence, as the Apostle says, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15.4), and thus the judicial law too may teach us, and is therefore theodidactic, that is, not nomos, but didache.

Lost Treasures

Puritans were "people of the Book," and as such, they read and wrote prolifically. "Puritanism was an intrinsically bookish movement" (N.H. Keeble, "Puritanism and Literature," in John Coffey and Paul C.H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, p. 309). We are grateful to those who republish their works today and it is a blessing when long-lost works suddenly come to light.

There are some works by Puritans that, in God's providence, may never again see the light. Here are some of those lost treasures that I have read about from time to time. It makes one wonder, with pious reverence, "What if...?"

Samuel Rutherford is said to have prepared an exposition of Isaiah, and Robert Blair an exposition of Proverbs, both of which would have contributed to the Scottish Puritan Commentary Series, but are supposed to be lost.

Henry Ainsworth, famous for his Annotations on the Pentateuch, Psalms and the Song of Solomon, his Psalter and other writings, also had many other Biblical expositions which were not published following his "untimely" death (he is thought by some to have been poisoned). A search for those unpublished commentaries was made by John Dury on behalf of Samuel Hartlib and John Worthington (tutor of Matthew Poole, who is also thought by some to have been poisoned), who were seeking to aid the work of a committee charged with preparing a planned revision of the King James Bible with marginal notes and desired to find Ainsworth's unpublished manuscripts. Dury sought for Ainsworth's nachlass in the Netherlands, but ultimately his son refused to allow them to be published and, as far as I know, they are lost to history.

Willem Teellinck wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, Verklaeringe Over de Vijf Boecken Moses (Exposition of the Five Books of Moses), which was ready for print shortly before he died at the age of 50, but was lost.

Patrick Simpson, cousin of George Gillespie, reported (as recorded by Robert Wodrow, Analecta, Vol. 1, pp. 159-160) that at his death (at the tender age of 36), "He had all his sermons in England, part polemicall, part practicall, prepared for the press; and but one copy of them, which he told the printer's wife he used to deal with, and bad her have a care of them. And she was prevailed on by some money from the Sectarys, who wer mauled by him, to suppress them." And so his English sermons were lost.

William Ames' personal library was donated to Harvard College and formed the nucleus of it, but it was all (save one copy of John Downame's The Christian Warfare) destroyed by fire in 1763.

But who knows, perhaps some of these are waiting to be discovered after all? There may be lost treasures, more precious that pirates' gold, yet to be found.

Two Essays on the Thought of George Gillespie

Master Poole Publishing has published two separate books by Dr. Steven Dilday on the thought of Westminster Divine George Gillespie with respect to eschatology and religious toleration. The first is entitled "The Eschatology of George Gillespie: An Introductory Analysis and Evaluation" and the second is "Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie." Now these two essays have been combined in one book. The combined and separate editions are all available at Master Poole Publishing. Visit our website here:

http://stores.lulu.com/dildaysc