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

The Unfinished Westminster Catechism

The two catechisms produced by the Westminster Assembly, the Larger and Shorter, are well-known to Reformed Christians and students of theology and history. Less well-known is the fact that there is a third, incomplete catechism produced by the Westminster Assembly, which preceded the other two, which William Carruthers describes as "the first catechism" of the Westminster Assembly and Wayne Spear describes as "the unfinished catechism." It lacks a formal name because it was laid aside when the Assembly decided to scrap this particular catechism and move in a different direction, but from 1643 to 1647, the Assembly's efforts were engaged in the production of a catechism that only saw the light of day with the publication of its Minutes.

A.F. Mitchell traces the history of the catechism in The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (1884), pp. 408-421; but the text itself has only been published twice: 1) W. Carruthers, The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1897), pp. 21-26; and 2) Wayne Spear, "The Unfinished Westminster Catechism," in John L. Carson and David W. Hall, To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly (1994), pp. 259-266. The numbering of the questions is inconsistent but there are a total of 55 questions and answers. It begins by teaching that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and obedience and ends with what is required by the Fourth Commandment.

Although not as polished as the later catechisms produced by the Assembly, this first unfinished catechism is worthy of study, and one is able to see how it helped lay the groundwork for those which followed after, and in which new directions the Assembly decided to go with the later catechisms. One may read the text of the catechism at the link provided above. Below is a sample:

[3. What is the rule of faith and obedience ?]

The only rule of faith and obedience is the written Word of God, contained in the Bible or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament

[4.] What special proofs are there that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the very Word of God ?

The Scriptures are proved to be the very Word of God by their majesty and holiness of doctrine, and the fulfilling of the prophecies, by their exalting God and debasing man, and yet offering him sufficient means of comfort and salvation, and by their light and power in convincing and converting.

5. Are all these proofs sufficient of themselves to persuade a man to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God?

It is only the Spirit of God that makes any proofs effectual to assure the soul of this truth, that the Scriptures are the Word of God.

Westminster Directory of Church Government

The Westminster Form of Presbyterian Government is a document with which many Reformed Presbyterians are acquainted, primarily because it is published in the Free Presbyterian edition of the Westminster Standards. It is a major contribution of the Westminster Assembly to the understanding of Biblical church polity. What fewer Reformed Presbyterians know is that this was not the Assembly's only official statement on church polity. Another document, the Westminster Directory of Church Government (to be distinguished from the Directory of Public Worship, and the Directory of Family Worship, the latter of which was not published by the Westminster Assembly at all, but by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, though it is often published with the Westminster Standards), stands as often-overlooked, but perhaps more valuable contribution by the Westminster divines on the subject.

It is largely the work of Alexander Henderson, and partially based on his earlier work The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland (1641) as well as the disciplines of the French and Dutch Reformed Churches. It lead to the creation of the Provincial Assembly of London. The English Parliament approved the Form rather than the Directory and due to the opposition of David Calderwood, the Directory was not approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; hence, this document, while a product of the Westminster Assembly, is little known today.

Wayne Spear discusses two collections of Presbyterian standards published in Scotland over the years in his unpublished dissertation "Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners Upon the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly" (1976), pp. 326-327:

With regard to the printing of the Westminster Confession, it is apparent that it was one of the best-sellers in the eighteenth century in Scotland, being printed repeatedly. What requires further detailed investigation is that fact that the Confession was published along with other documents possessing varying degrees of authority within the Church of Scotland. In general, there were two types of collections which were being published throughout the eighteenth century. One was more inclusive, containing, inter alia, the First and Second Books of Discipline from the sixteenth century, and the now little-known Directory for Church-Government which was produced by the Westminster Assembly.1 A second kind of collection appeared as early as 1732, containing what came to be the standard selection of documents; the only document on church polity which it included was the Westminster Form of Church Government.2

1 The writer has examined, in Barbour Library of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, editions of this type which were printed in 1739, 1764, and 1771. All make reference to an edition originally published in 1725.

2 This collection was re-published as recently as 1970 by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Dr. Spear went on to say much more about the Directory of Church Government in an essay published by Charles G. Dennison & Richard C. Gamble, Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1986), pp. 84-85:

After long debates, and with considerable use of the art of accomodation, the Westminster Assembly produced three documents which embodied their advice for the government and worship of the church. The Directory for Worship and the Form of Church Government were both completed in December of 1644. Both documents are fairly well-known, because they have been published repeatedly in the Scottish editions of the Confession of Faith.4

The third document, A Directory for Church-Government, Church-Censures, and Ordination of Ministers, was completed on July 4, 1645.5 It was the basis for legislation passed three years later by the English Parliament setting up presbyteries in London and in counties where the Parliament had military control. Shortly thereafter, Oliver Cromwell purged the Parliament of its Presbyterian members, and the experiment in England with Presbyterian church government came to an end.

The Directory for Church Government was presented to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, and was ordered to be printed for study by the presbyteries. The rise of Cromwell in England brought about the collapse of the effort to achieve agreement in religion between Scotland and England, and no further action on the Directory was taken. The document was reprinted a number of times during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Scotland, but not in the last 200 years, and never in America.6 Today this product of the deliberations of the Westminster Assembly has been almost entirely forgotten.

This "lost" document of the Westminster Assembly, however, deserves to be better known. While it contains much material that is also in the better-known Form of Church Government, it is a much more polished document. In my doctoral dissertation, I asserted that the Form of Church Government is "a virtual mosaic, whose bits and pieces are the sentences debated and approved by the Assembly over a period of many months, and subsequently rearranged by two different editorial committees."7 It was put together in haste, as a kind of progress report. The Directory for Government clears up some of the confusion in the language of the earlier document. More importantly, it contains the results of the Assembly's deliberations on the subject of church discipline. It also adds practical details about the operation of church government. In his Baird Lectures, A.F. Mitchell said of the Directory for Church Government,

It is practical and comprehensive, a storehouse of valuable counsels as to many things in government, and still more in discipline, not touched on in the propositions [i.e., Form of Church Government], and is well worthy of being studied by Presbyterian ministers, who wish to do full justice to the system of government the Westminster Assembly sanctioned.8

4. See also Iain Murray, The Reformation of the Church (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 203-230.
5. [A.F.] Mitchell, [The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards,] 257ff.
6. Ibid., 264. See also my unpublished dissertation, "Covenanted Uniformity in Religion: The Influence of the Scottish Commissioners upon the Ecclesiology of the Westminster Assembly" (University of Pittsburgh, 1976), 327 note.
7. "Covenanted Uniformity in Religion," 257.
8. Mitchell, 264.

The Westminster Directory of Church Government is among the documents slated for publication by the Westminster Assembly Project. To read transcriptions of two editions of this document, see their digital library. This document is a treasure not to be forgotten.