Talk:Directory for Public Worship

List the authors
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.

Purchase of copies of Directory
"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)


 * The comment is from Judith Maltby's book p.60 but I am grateful for the corrections about churchwardens accounts. As to the references I think that you will find that Proctor and Frere and McCulloch both contain references to the directory (P&F 158-162 including a detailed description of the contents, as you may not know. McCulloch's book is more general but covers the period. I have removed it Roger Arguile 21st. June 2006
 * PS I fear that the comments by Alex demonstrate that he has not read the referred-to books, at least not carefully. John Morrill's contributions are referred to in Maltby p.60 as above. As elswhere I would prefer if people had the courage to identify who they are and how they know what they know. I would commend both P&F and Maltby to those who have not read them. Roger Arguile (again)


 * Hello again. I would do this by email, but you haven't left one.  I have finally bothered to create an account for myself, so feel free to contact me by email, rather than clutter up this page.  In answer to the PS, I am Dr Alex Craven, I got a PhD researching Lancashire in the 1650s last year, and my research included much about the Church.  As I said above, I am waiting for a short article to be published by the Ecclesiastical History Society (it seems that I was wrong, and the volume can be expected summer 2007), which deals specifically with the Directory in Lancashire.  I used the direct evidence of churchwardens accounts and the surviving minutes of the Presbyterian classes plus the indirect evidence of parish registers to chart how extensively the Directory was followed in Lancashire, and with what success.  (I found that the Directory was introduced into a number of Lancashire parishes, as we might expect, but was tremendously unpopular).


 * I have read Maltby, and found her book tremendously enjoyable, but obviously skewed largely towards the Prayer Book. Morrill's article is one of the most important works on the subject, so I felt that it should be referenced.  His research has determined the thinking of most historians on this subject since - see, for instance, the work of Ronald Hutton in this area.  I hadn't read P&F, but are there really only four pages of relevance?  I have read MacCulloch - it is a set text for the Reformation course I teach at Manchester uni - so was aware of its content.


 * Anyway, I believe that this is a collaborative affair, so I hope that I haven't come across in any way combatative - that was not my intention. I have now finished my marking, but I'm busy trying to finish some more drafts for publication.  However, I'd be happy to help build up this page, but I don't want to seem like I'm treading on anybody's toes.  Cheers, Alex--Alex Craven 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * Alex, this really adds colour to the topic. Did you get your paper published yet? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:45, 8 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

Article name (currently 'Directory of Public Worship')

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)

Requested move

 * Directory of Public Worship → Directory for Public Worship (England 1644). It seems (from a little Google research, and the article itself) that people prefer for over to. I am creating a WP:Disambiguation page at Directory for Public Worship to avoid confusion with other Directories of similar names. I think that the old name should redirect to the disambiguation page. Please comment about the move here. —Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. I think Directory of Public Worship → Westminster Directory for Public Worship is better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Westminster Directory for Public Worship is best. When doing your searches, be sure to look at the Publick/Public variants. --S Roper 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful for some justification to be offered for the change. The Directory is known as such in Proctor and Frere. There is a danger of confusion in using Westminster since there was also a book presented to the Westminster Assembly in 1644. This is not that book. It full ttile was ' A Driectory for the Public Worship of God thorugh the three kingdms of England, Scotland and Ireland. Together wtiht an ordinance of Parliament for th taking away of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Staqblishing and Observing of this present Directory throughout the kingdo of England and the Dominion of Wales.' So why Westminister, pray. Roger Arguile August 2nd. 2006


 * PS The prime reason for calling it the Westminster Directory is that it was adopted by the Scottish Presbyterians (as from Westminster in February 1645). But this is to mislead by failing to refer to the primary intended use of the book which was in England as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer (which was not in use in Scotland by that time). RA


 * Roger, Would you be kind enough to proofread and edit the disambiguation page I made at Directory for public worship since I fear it adds to the confusion?   I am an amateur Wikipedia hobbyist, not a historian, so I apologise for overreaching myself in this instance.
 * Reading this article more closely I see that
 * the Westminster Assembly received and printed a book from John Knox called "Directory for Public Worship" in 1644.
 * The Assembly sent this to Parliament, who rewrote it and passed the redraft (later in 1644.) This parliamentary Act was called "Directory of Public Worship" by Proctor and Frere.  This 1644 Act is the most interesting book historically as -a- it was intended to replace the BCP and -b- it was the source text for the Scottish Act and was adopted by Presbyterians worldwide.
 * Finally, nobody calls it the Westminster Directory for Public Worship because that is ambiguous.''
 * Is this a correct understanding of the true situation?
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Presbyterian Reformed Church uses the Directory as part of its standards. They call it the "Westminster Directory of Public Worship." --S Roper 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha - yet another variation. I note (out of pedantry) that they use the Scottish Act as the source text on their website, no doubt as a result of their connection with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.