![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many people wrongly claim that Cromwell personally banned Christmas. It might therefore be helpful if this article listed the authors for the Directory for Public Worship.
The chair of the subcommittee was Stephen Marshal
Other members included:
Thomas Young, Herbert Palmer, Charles Herle
Representing the independent congregations: Phylip Nye, Thomas GoodWin
Representing Scotland: Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford,
Should this list be added to the article?
Source: Lukas Vischer (2003) Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present, page 78-79
Note: After leaving my suggestion up for awhile, I have added it to the article.
"From churchwarden's accounts in the 1640s there is no evidence that copies of the Directory were ever bought, let alone used."
This is not actually true. In my research, I have found three direct references to the purchase of Directories in Lancashire (at Prescot, Burnley and Didsbury), as well as a number of indirect references. A short article that I have written exploring the fortunes of the Directory in Lancashire will (hopefully!) be published this summer (don't know when, though, as the editors of the volume are running hopelessly late!). When I have finished my current batch of marking, I shall return and add the modest benefits of my work, if nobody objects.
Also, the references included in the original were all irrelevant to the Directory (two being about the Book of Common Prayer, and one being a general narrative of the Reformation). I would suggest that these are removed, and more relevant references are inserted in their place. For now, however, I have restricted myself to updating the existing references, and introducing those of John Morrill's very important article on the subject, and another by Chris Durston. Alex (not logged in)
I've altered the section on the use of the Directory, to be a bit more reflective of the reality. I've also added two references to very useful books - Shaw's History of the Church, which has a detailed discussion of the history of the Westminster Assembley, the creation of the Directory, and its use in parishes, and the Manchester Presbyterian Classis minutes, edited by Shaw, which give a good indication of the extent to which the Directory was adopted. There are minutes for Presbyterian classes at Bury, and also in other parts of the country, all detailed by Shaw in the History. -- Alex Craven 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
All of this is hugely helpful. I am glad that what started out as an amateur's contribution (mine) has now acquired some substantial contributions. Sorry if I was a bit brusque to anyone. Roger Arguile 16:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a PhD thesis on London Presbyterianism (my supervisor was John Morrill) during the 1640s and 1650s (which will become a book in a few years) and found evidence of the purchase of the Directory in a number of London parishes. The statement that there is no evidence of the Directory's purchase is, I think, based on Morrill's random sampling of mainly Cheshire parishes in the 1960s and 70s. It certainly is not his current position. I don't have my notes to hand, but I will pull them out and get the citations. As a shameless plug - I have also just published an article on English Presbyterian religiousity in Durston and Maltby, Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester 2007) which deals with many of these issues Elliot Vernon
Another point that occured to me when researching this issue (although impossible to prove) is that the Westminster Directory was produced in a relatively cheap format and would not have necessarily figured in Church Warden's accounts or vestry audits to the same degree as the more sumptuous editions of the Book of Common Prayer. The official Westminster Assembly edition of the Directory was 96 pages long and printed in a relatively cheap format, whereas the pre-Restoration BCPs of the 1630s were about 208 pages long. Further, the BCP lends itself to being expensively bound due to the set prayers and formulas - it needs to be in church, whereas the Directory (although it contains prayers and formulas) does not need to be in Church - it is a directory as to how a service should run, rather than being required for service. Elliot Vernon
The result of the debate was No consensus. First, it seems nom. is even having doubts. Second, the move is not obstructed so feel free to continue the discussion and move at your leisure. I believe the delay for new users to perform moves is only a few days. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Roger, I am still interested to here you expand more on my misunderstanding above - I use Wikipedia to learn! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Directory of Public Worship → Directory for Public Worship – Pretty much every source calls it the "Directory for Public Worship". See, for example, this. The disambiguation page at the target should be scrapped in favor of a hatnote. This is definitely the primary topic. JFH ( talk) 03:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many people wrongly claim that Cromwell personally banned Christmas. It might therefore be helpful if this article listed the authors for the Directory for Public Worship.
The chair of the subcommittee was Stephen Marshal
Other members included:
Thomas Young, Herbert Palmer, Charles Herle
Representing the independent congregations: Phylip Nye, Thomas GoodWin
Representing Scotland: Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford,
Should this list be added to the article?
Source: Lukas Vischer (2003) Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present, page 78-79
Note: After leaving my suggestion up for awhile, I have added it to the article.
"From churchwarden's accounts in the 1640s there is no evidence that copies of the Directory were ever bought, let alone used."
This is not actually true. In my research, I have found three direct references to the purchase of Directories in Lancashire (at Prescot, Burnley and Didsbury), as well as a number of indirect references. A short article that I have written exploring the fortunes of the Directory in Lancashire will (hopefully!) be published this summer (don't know when, though, as the editors of the volume are running hopelessly late!). When I have finished my current batch of marking, I shall return and add the modest benefits of my work, if nobody objects.
Also, the references included in the original were all irrelevant to the Directory (two being about the Book of Common Prayer, and one being a general narrative of the Reformation). I would suggest that these are removed, and more relevant references are inserted in their place. For now, however, I have restricted myself to updating the existing references, and introducing those of John Morrill's very important article on the subject, and another by Chris Durston. Alex (not logged in)
I've altered the section on the use of the Directory, to be a bit more reflective of the reality. I've also added two references to very useful books - Shaw's History of the Church, which has a detailed discussion of the history of the Westminster Assembley, the creation of the Directory, and its use in parishes, and the Manchester Presbyterian Classis minutes, edited by Shaw, which give a good indication of the extent to which the Directory was adopted. There are minutes for Presbyterian classes at Bury, and also in other parts of the country, all detailed by Shaw in the History. -- Alex Craven 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
All of this is hugely helpful. I am glad that what started out as an amateur's contribution (mine) has now acquired some substantial contributions. Sorry if I was a bit brusque to anyone. Roger Arguile 16:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a PhD thesis on London Presbyterianism (my supervisor was John Morrill) during the 1640s and 1650s (which will become a book in a few years) and found evidence of the purchase of the Directory in a number of London parishes. The statement that there is no evidence of the Directory's purchase is, I think, based on Morrill's random sampling of mainly Cheshire parishes in the 1960s and 70s. It certainly is not his current position. I don't have my notes to hand, but I will pull them out and get the citations. As a shameless plug - I have also just published an article on English Presbyterian religiousity in Durston and Maltby, Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester 2007) which deals with many of these issues Elliot Vernon
Another point that occured to me when researching this issue (although impossible to prove) is that the Westminster Directory was produced in a relatively cheap format and would not have necessarily figured in Church Warden's accounts or vestry audits to the same degree as the more sumptuous editions of the Book of Common Prayer. The official Westminster Assembly edition of the Directory was 96 pages long and printed in a relatively cheap format, whereas the pre-Restoration BCPs of the 1630s were about 208 pages long. Further, the BCP lends itself to being expensively bound due to the set prayers and formulas - it needs to be in church, whereas the Directory (although it contains prayers and formulas) does not need to be in Church - it is a directory as to how a service should run, rather than being required for service. Elliot Vernon
The result of the debate was No consensus. First, it seems nom. is even having doubts. Second, the move is not obstructed so feel free to continue the discussion and move at your leisure. I believe the delay for new users to perform moves is only a few days. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Roger, I am still interested to here you expand more on my misunderstanding above - I use Wikipedia to learn! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 00:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Directory of Public Worship → Directory for Public Worship – Pretty much every source calls it the "Directory for Public Worship". See, for example, this. The disambiguation page at the target should be scrapped in favor of a hatnote. This is definitely the primary topic. JFH ( talk) 03:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)