We continue our study on the terms of communion this evening. We have covered thus far the first term of communion, which reads as follows, an acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Where we find ourselves this evening is on the second term of communion, and that reads as follows, that the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the catechisms, larger and shorter, are agreeable unto and founded upon the scriptures. Last time we were together, we considered the question, why do we need confessions and And we stated three reasons. The first reason, to teach the true Christian religion. The second reason, that we need confessions and creeds to defend the truth against heresy. And the third reason, to promote the peace, purity and unity of the church. This evening we continue with the second term of communion, and what we would like to do with regard to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the larger and shorter catechisms that are stated in this term of communion, I'd like to give to you a brief history surrounding the Westminster Assembly. And so this evening will be spent basically in a history lesson. Next time we gather, we'll look at the important doctrines that are significant doctrines that are covered in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the larger and shorter catechism. But this evening, I think it's important to have some kind of a background as to what this Westminster Assembly was all about. Why did they meet? Who were the key players, as it were, in this assembly? That will be the subject matter for this evening's lesson. So let's begin with this first question. What were the major causes leading up to the Westminster Assembly? And I have essentially three major causes leading up to the Westminster Assembly. I'll give you the three at the outset, and then we'll consider them separately. First cause is the issue of the divine right of kings, and under that, particularly, the whole issue of Erastianism. The second major cause is that of fallacy. rule by bishops and archbishops. And the third major cause that led up to the Westminster Assembly was the desire of the three kingdoms, England, Ireland and Scotland, to be solemnly united together in a civil league and an ecclesiastical covenant for the purpose of uniformity. And so we'll consider these three major causes. Now, there may be other causes that might be cited, but these, in my mind, seem to be the three major causes leading up to the convening of the Westminster Assembly. So let's consider the first cause, the issue or the theory of the divine right of kings. This theory asserted that kings essentially ruled as God over the kingdoms in both the civil and ecclesiastical realms. This theory asserted that the king was absolute in his authority. If there were parliaments or church councils that existed during the reign of this king or this queen, they served as merely an advisory council. They served simply to give advice to the king or queen, because the king or queen could in effect veto the decisions of Parliament or the decisions of church councils at will. The ruler could replace members of parliament or church councils with other members, or he could place them under discipline, or he could punish them, or bring sanctions against them, or put them into prison if they violated his will. And so, beginning with Henry VIII all the way to James II, this tyrannical abuse of authority ravaged England, Ireland and Scotland. The Westminster Assembly meant not only to settle abuses in the Church, I think this is important to realize, not only to settle abuses in the Church, but also to settle abuses in the nation. For example, to define the biblical role and duties of the civil magistrate. Now, under this particular heading of the divine right of kings as being one of the major reasons or causes for the assembly, a particular application of this tyranny of the divine right of kings was manifested by civil rulers claiming to be the earthly head of the church. Now, this is known as Herostianism. so named after Thomas Erastus, a physician at Heidelberg who defended his view in the year 1568. Now this is not to be confused with Erasmus, this is Erastus. Erastianism places the Church under the immediate headship of the civil government. virtually combining civil government and ecclesiastical government into one government. The keys of the kingdom which Jesus Christ gave to the officers of the church are rather placed in the hands of the civil ruler. The state, in essence, usurps the crown rights of Jesus Christ as mediatorial king over his church. So rather than Jesus Christ ruling as head over his church, the civil ruler, the king or the queen rules as head over the church. Now, I want you to realize that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not an Erastian document. for it maintains a biblical distinction between the civil government, which has an earthly head, and church government, which has no earthly head, but only Jesus Christ as its head. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not an Erastean document because it maintains a distinction between civil rulers and church rulers or church officers. The Westminster Confession of Faith maintains a distinction between civil duties, the duties of the civil magistrate, what his role is, and a distinction between that and between the church officers' duties, the duties of the ministers, of the elders and governors who have the keys of the kingdom entrusted unto them. But we'll have much more to say about this particular issue later as we expand the doctrines of our confessional standards, and as we talk about this particular issue of the role of the magistrate. Suffice it to say, however, that Erastianism is the avowed enemy of Presbyterianism, and Presbyterianism is the avowed enemy of Erastianism, and the Westminster Assembly convened in order to deliver the Church from this kind of cruel oppression of Erastianism. We see this theory and this view of Erastianism showing its ugly head in the reign of Henry VIII in particular, the divorce of Henry VIII from his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, brought Henry into sharp conflict with the Pope, Pope Clement VII. The result of this conflict was that Henry VIII renounced the authority of the Pope and the Roman Church over the Church of England. In fact, on November 3, 1534, Parliament past the Supremacy Act, by which Henry and his successors were declared to be, quote, the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, end of quote. The Church of England simply exchanged one earthly head as supreme, namely the Pope, for another earthly head as supreme, namely the reigning monarch in England. From that particular time, we see in all the succeeding monarchs in England, none of them renounced that particular supremacy act. Under the reign of Edward VI, there was much Protestant reformation going on for his brief reign. But this particular supremacy act, where the king was the supreme head of the Church of England, remained intact. So whether it was the Romish doctrine, worship and government, or whether it was the Episcopalian doctrine, worship and government, that was being imposed upon the churches in England, Ireland and Scotland by the civil rulers, it was still the heresy of Elastianism. Whether it was Romanism or Episcopalianism that was being imposed by the civil rulers upon the Church in both forms, it was still Elastianism. The Westminster Assembly was not to be considered an Elastian assembly on the grounds that it was called to convene by the Parliament. Now, some have accused the Westminster Assembly of simply being another Erastian Assembly, because the Parliament called the Assembly into being, called them to meet. Let me simply state why I don't believe that it was an Erastian Assembly. First, Parliament did not authoritatively impose a confession worship or government upon the church, but rather convened an assembly of ministers and other fit persons in order to bring reformation to the church. These men meeting in this assembly met, they discussed, they debated as to doctrine, worship, government and discipline. and then presented these particular documents to the Parliament, which the Parliament then ratified. We find in even the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 31, section 2, these words concerning the magistrate. It says, as magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion. And it goes on in that paragraph. But it does say that it is perfectly legitimate for a civil magistrate to convene an assembly of ministers, church officers, with other fit persons in order to have advice and counsel as to the direction he should go. Now, the General Assembly of Scotland in 1647 clarifies, I think, what is being said here in this section of the Confession of Faith when it says that this section is to be, quote, applied only to times when it was requisite to reconstitute the relations of church and state after a season of disorder. That was what the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland said in regard to this particular section of the Confession of Faith. When the Church and State have fallen into disorder, disrepair, when there has been a deformation, in order to get things back on the right track, Church and State, that for a civil magistrate to call such an assembly is legitimate to seek their advice. I mean, what would a civil magistrate, where else could he appeal to find better wisdom than from an assembly of divines who know their Bibles as to what his responsibilities are? The second reason I don't believe the Westminster Assembly was an Erastean assembly, is because Parliament was acting as a nursing father to the Church, as were the kings of Judah, Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah. We find prophesied in Isaiah 49 that that Gentile rulers would be nursing fathers to the Church. They would care for the Church. They would defend the Church. They would protect the Church and the doctrines of the Lord God. They would reform and build up the Church like these kings of Judah did. And so for a civil magistrate or for Parliament to Bringing an assembly of divines together is not an Erastian where they are imposing from the civil realm, taking the keys of the kingdom away from the church and using them. This is not the same thing at all. And then thirdly, the third reason why the Westminster assembly should not be considered an Erastian assembly is that technically Parliament did not call a church synod consisting of only church officers, but rather more of an ecumenical assembly consisting of ministers, lords, and commoners. All of them qualified to sit in such an assembly, but this was not just an assembly It was supplemented at times by members of the Parliament who would set in, and they came from various backgrounds, all qualified theologically to handle the issues at hand, but nevertheless not technically a church assembly like the General Assembly of Scotland or something like that. That's not what we have at the Westminster Assembly. So this is the first reason, the first major cause leading up to the Westminster Assembly was the divine right of kings and the heresy of Erastianism. The second major cause leading up to the Westminster Assembly was the doctrine, worship, and government promoted by prelacy. Policy is the false system of worship and government wherein church authority is invested in the hand of a bishop, in the hand of an archbishop, and in the hands of their representatives. And most of the representatives who do their bidding find no qualification, they're simply appointed to those positions. that are not qualified to serve in those positions, and what you end up having so many times was that in each of these positions, bishop, archbishop, they became like positions to be bribing someone, to bestow a favor upon someone. You would make them a bishop, or you would make them an archbishop, or make them a curate of some kind serving the bishop or archbishop. You see, instead of ecclesiastical authority being placed in the hands of an assembly of presbyters or elders, which is what the scripture teaches, authority is consolidated and centralized in the hand of a bishop or an archbishop or curates who represent the bishops or archbishops. As one can imagine, the occasion for abuse of authority is greatly enhanced by this unbiblical system. Prelacy was the form of church government that best suited the theory of the divine right of kings and Erastianism in England. It fit right in together with this this idea of absolute rule, because what you had invested from the king down into the bishops, the archbishops, was the same kind of absolute authority within the church. Almost unilateral authority to rule. No checks and balances. Thus this was the heresy that was imposed upon the churches in England and Ireland, and was long attempted in Scotland, however without the same success in Scotland as in England and Ireland. This is essentially the same form of government practiced by the Romish church as well. Policy is essentially the same form of government that is practiced in the Romish church. And so whether, again, it takes the name of Romanism or Episcopalianism, it's essentially the same form of government. Now, because this form of government was borrowed from the Roman church, Guess what came along with the form of government of Rome? Also the popish ceremonies in worship, followed with the Romish form of government. So these popish ceremonies with their rites, various rites that were instituted, were imposed upon the churches as well. Things that were not commanded or authorized in the scripture. Furthermore, what came from Rome was the doctrine of Arminianism, along with Prelacy, that was imposed, that was taught from the pulpits, that man can, in various ways, save himself. That God is not the author and the finisher of salvation from beginning to end. That God is not absolutely sovereign. in salvation. This is all very understandable if you understand, again, prophecy, for prophecy is a man-instituted form of government. Even those, many of those who supported prophecy admitted that it was not by divine right of It was not a government established by the divine light of God. It was a government that was established by man. Those who held that view saw church government as basically not something essential to church government, but something accidental or something that could be man-instituted. And so even many of the adherents of prophecy confessed it was not something that they could find in the word of God, but something that was simply allowed and tolerated because it seemed to fit in well. And so because privacy was a man-instituted form of government, so it brought in man-instituted ceremonies into worship, and taught a man-centered doctrine of salvation. It all fits together. Again, therefore, prophecy is the archenemy of Presbyterianism. Presbyterianism teaches that Christ is the head of the church. Presbyterianism teaches that the word of God is the constitution of the church in doctrine, in worship, and in government. Presbyterianism teaches that God is sovereign in salvation. Man cannot contribute to his salvation. Man cannot cooperate with God in salvation. Man is dead in his trespasses and sins, and God must save him if he is to be saved at all. Prophecy and Presbyterianism, therefore, are antithetical to each other. In fact, the Presbyterians at the time of the Westminster Assembly did not believe that the unbiblical system of policy should even be tolerated by the church or by the state. That is what the Presbyterians at that time believed and taught. It shouldn't even be tolerated. Presbyterianism alone was believed to have been of divine right, as the only church government authorized by scripture. Thus the tyranny of policy was also one of the leading causes to the Westminster Assembly. The third and final cause major cause leading up to the Westminster Assembly was the desire of the three kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland to be solemnly united together in a civil league and in an ecclesiastical covenant. Let's consider the civil league aspect first of all. The Westminster Assembly believed God's glory and their mutual interests as individual kingdoms would best be realized if they covenanted together to maintain and defend the respective biblical duties of both king and subject within England, Ireland and Scotland. If the king maintained his biblical duties and the people maintained their biblical duties within the nation, and if all three kingdoms covenanted together politically, that this would best advance the interests of those three kingdoms and best promote the glory of God. Thus, a political covenant The desire for a political covenant brought representatives from these three kingdoms together. However, the Westminster Assembly also believed God's glory and the benefit of Christ's church within England, Ireland, and Scotland would best be realized if they covenanted together to bring about the nearest uniformity in doctrine, worship, and government. And so, this was the second part of their coming together, not only a civil covenant, but an ecclesiastical covenant as well, to promote the interest of religion, the reformed religion. covenanted Presbyterianism throughout those three kingdoms. I want to give some supporting quotes to establish that this was in fact the stated reason for them coming together, to come together for the purpose of uniformity in religion, in doctrine, worship and government. That this was the desire of the Parliament of Scotland and of the General Assembly of Scotland is evidenced by the following document sent by them to England in 1641. That's two years before the Westminster Assembly convened. Two years before. And this document was entitled, a long title, Our Desires Concerning Unity in Religion and Uniformity of Church Government as a Special Mean to Conserve Peace in His Majesty's Dominions. The document was written by Alexander Henderson, who was one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, who co-authored the amended National Covenant of Scotland in 1638, and who was the author of the Solemn Legion Covenant in 1643. Let me quote just a couple of excerpts from this document which I believe illustrate the desire of Scotland for a covenant of uniformity between the three kingdoms two years prior to the Westminster Assembly. The first excerpt is this, we do all know and profess that religion is not only the mean to serve God and to save our own souls, but that it is also the base and foundation of kingdoms and estates, and the strongest band to tie subjects and their prince in true loyalty, and to knit their hearts one to another in true unity. Nothing so powerful to divide the hearts of people as division in religion. Nothing so strong to unite them as unity in religion. And the greater zeal in different religions, the greater division. But the more zeal in one religion, the more firm union. In the paradise of nature, the diversity of flowers and herbs is pleasant and useful. But in the paradise of the church, different and contrary religions are unpleasant and hurtful. It is therefore to be wished that there were one confession of faith, one form of catechism, one directory for all parts of the public worship of God and for prayer, preaching, administration of sacraments, etc., and one form of church government in all the churches of His Majesty's dominions." Very clearly there it makes the point that the Parliament and the Assembly of Scotland desire to see uniformity in all these areas within the Three Kingdoms." And then one last quote from this document, "...this unity of religion is a thing so desirable that all sound divines and politicians are for it." where it may be easily obtained and brought about. And as we conceive so pious and profitable a work to be worthy of the best consideration, so are we earnest in recommending it to your Lordships that it may be brought before His Majesty and the Parliament as that which doth highly concern His Majesty's honor and the will of all His Dominions." the unity of religion. Furthermore, still citing evidence that this was one of the leading causes to the convocation of the Westminster Assembly, furthermore, the desire for uniformity in religion may be seen in the very ordinance issued by Parliament Parliament of England, dated June the 12th, 1643, wherein Parliament called for the convocation of the Westminster Assembly. And in there we find these words. Whereas amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is or can be more clear or more dear unto us than the purity of our religion. And for that, as yet many things remain in the liturgy, and I should just add a little note. When I say liturgy, they mean the worship of God. In the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church, which do necessarily require a further and more perfect reformation than yet hath been attained, and that such a government shall be settled in the Church as may be most agreeable to God's holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed Churches abroad. It is thought fit and necessary to call an assembly of learned, godly and judicious divines. In other words, again, to bring to the nearest agreement possible in government, doctrine, and worship. That was in the very call to convene issued by the Parliament. One more piece of evidence. Finally, observe that the very first document signed and ratified by the Westminster Assembly On September 25, 1643, was the Solemn League and Covenant. The Solemn League and Covenant we will discuss in great detail when we come to the fourth term of Communion, so I'm not going to go into that this evening. But we find these words in the Solemn League and Covenant. in regard to the purpose of this assembly in coming together for the purpose of uniformity in worship, or uniformity in religion. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the gospel and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, With our hands lifted up to the Most High God, do swear that we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor in our several places and callings the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government against our common enemies. the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches, and shall endeavor to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechizing, that we and our posterity after us may as brethren live in faith and love and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." And so the purpose again specifically given uniformity in religion. Thus the mutual concern to be covenanted together civilly and ecclesiastically forms the third major cause for bringing this assembly together. I just have three Actually, four very brief questions I want to ask and take just a few minutes here. The second question, the first question, remember, was what were the leading, the major causes leading up to the Westminster Assembly? Okay, the second question is then when did the Westminster Assembly begin and end? These are just some historical facts that will help you to understand a little more about the Assembly. It began July the 1st, 1643. and ended February 22, 1649, a period of five years, six months, and 22 days, in which time they held 1,163 sessions. Those would be general sessions. That does not even include all of their various meetings as they broke down into smaller groups to discuss these issues. These are just their general sessions together. The third question, what documents were produced by the Westminster Assembly? And I'll list these in chronological order in which they came from the Assembly. The first document was not written by the Assembly, but it was ratified by the Assembly, signed and ratified with the Solemn League and Covenant. in 1643. The second document, the rest of these were produced by the assembly itself, the second document was the form of Presbyterian church government in 1644. The third document was the directory for the public worship of God in 1644. The next document was the confession of faith. 1647. The next was the shorter catechism, 1647. And finally, the larger catechism, 1648. Those are the documents that came out of the Westminster Assembly. Frankly, what about those men who participated in the Assembly? Well, there were 150 men who were called to the assembly. There were 10 lords, 20 commoners, and 121 ministers. Generally, attendance ranged between 60 to 80 men present at the general sessions. 68 to 80 men gathered at each of the sessions, usually. I believe it's Robert Bailey who notes that there were generally about 12 to 20 of the Westminster Divines who regularly participated in the debates at the general session level. Only about, out of all of them, about twelve to twenty. Now, all of them that were present voted. Many of them simply listened and voted, apparently. But about twelve to twenty who were regularly involved in the debate. There are three major divisions within the assembly. to divide the assembly into those who were opposed theologically at some issue with one another. There were the Presbyterians, by far the largest group within the assembly. The Independents, who believed in a congregational form of church government, but agreed with the Presbyterians as to worship, as to doctrine. But as to church government and discipline, they varied, they differed from the Presbyterians. There were about 10 to 11 representatives within that particular persuasion of independence. And there were the Orascians. There were only two representatives. One diehard, called a rabbi. He was not Jewish, but they called him Rabbi Coleman. Both these men were experts in the Old Testament and Semitic languages. And Coleman was especially, as I said, the diehard within the assembly. Now, though the Scottish commissioners fall into the Presbyterian camp, let me just mention who the Scottish commissioners were that attended the assembly. Lord Maitland and Archibald Johnston of Wareston were the elders represented. Alexander Henderson, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford and Robert Bailey were the ministers represented. And for how few they were in number, the influence that they exerted in the assembly is phenomenal. The debates that they carried. You remember when I read from the Solemn League and Covenant, it didn't say that this covenant was for the reformation of the Church of Scotland. It said it was for the preservation of the religion of the Church of Scotland, because they had it right already. But in the solemnly concomitant, it says, for the reformation, however, of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, because those were the kingdoms that needed to be reformed. And so the commissioners from Scotland exerted such an influence within the assembly because they had been for years practicing in government, worship and doctrine the Reformed religion. Every member of the Westminster Assembly, before he could sit and vote, must take the following vow, which vow was also read afresh every Monday morning before The assembly began at the beginning of the week. This vow was read afresh every Monday morning. It wasn't signed, but it was just to refresh the memory. It was read to be a continual reminder to these members of their solemn duty. This is the vow, before they could sit, and every Monday it was read. I, in their name, do solemnly promise and vow in the presence of Almighty God that in this assembly, whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I believe to be most agreeable to the word of God, nor in point of discipline but what I shall conceive to conduce most to the glory of God and the good and peace of his church. But in conclusion, I could probably go on and say a lot more about the Westminster Assembly, but just to conclude with a brief quote by Richard Baxter, who is not really a representative, a thoroughgoing representative of the theology of covenant and Presbyterianism. However, I think that it becomes even a stronger witness, because he doesn't have an axe to grind, Listen to what he says. He was living at that time, at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Some of you know of the works of Richard Baxter. They're voluminous. I mean, they go on and on and on. His Christian directory is nearly a thousand pages of small little print on almost every possible issue. Here is a well-read man, well-studied man. But anyway, his assessment of this assembly. The divines there congregated were men of eminent learning and godliness, ministerial ability and fidelity. And being not worthy to be one of them myself, I may the more freely speak that truth which I know, even in the face of malice and envy. that so far as I am able to judge by the information of all history, the Christian world since the days of the apostles had never a synod of more excellent divines." Testimony of Richard Baxter. And so, that concludes our historical survey. concerning the Westminster Assembly, the major causes leading up to the Assembly, some information about the Assembly. Next time, we will look at the doctrinal position, what is actually taught in the confessional standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism, those distinctives of the confessional standards. questions that I may have raised for you that you would like to have further elaboration on, anything like that. Do you have your hand up, Ian? Ian, go ahead. Is the Pope a church leader who is also ruling over civil government, or is he a civil ruler who is also ruling over the church? Okay, that's an interesting question. I think that the answer to the question would be that he was a church ruler who saw his power unlimited and that he actually ruled over all the civil rulers as well. So that he saw himself as the representative of Jesus Christ upon the earth and not only therefore as mediatorial head over the church, but over the civil realm as well. And so he did not draw the line at simply being ruler within the church, but over all civil rulers as well. He didn't confine his power at all. He is also the civil head of the Vatican. I don't know when the Vatican, as far as an actual incorporated you know, territory came into being. I'm not sure when that occurred as far as in history. I don't think that it goes back to the time, perhaps at the time of the Reformation, there was an actually incorporated period. I mean, I don't think he drew the lines. It's simply, you know, this little piece of geography. He extended it over the whole world. But I can't answer the question. I think you're right, though. He would see now himself as being head of that particular geographical area in a unique and special way. That's true. Any other questions, comments? Yes, Lyndon? Do you know of any obvious distinctions between the policy of the Roman Catholics and the policy of the Episcopalians? Well, the policy of the Roman Catholics would be there would be a certain infallibility that would be associated with their councils, with their church, that when they rule in council together that the church speaks infallibly. I'm not familiar with anything of that nature coming from the policy of Episcopalianism, claiming infallibility. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the ecclesiastic head of the Church of England, but over him is the king or the queen of England. And so what you end up finding throughout this period of history is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is basically taking his orders from the King or the Queen, fulfilling the desires, the will of the ruling monarch. Bishop Loud, for example, is a case in point who persecuted the church continuously while he was in power. Do they still have that same government, the church standing in the church? Do they still have the same government? Yes, they do. Still, in the Church of England, the monarch is, the ruling monarch is the head of the church. That's never been revoked. You can see the problems that that a country would have where the civil ruler is the head of the church. He would use the church for his own designs, for his own purposes. Any other comments or questions? Mike? I was just going to mention, taking off of Ian's question, you said that basically the policy and the Romish theory of civil government before the Rathskean. Whereas my understanding was, whereas the Rathskean, as you mentioned, is the civil government ruling the church, the Romish theory was the church ruling the government. So it's kind of a reverse situation. There is somewhat of a distinction there, and actually that's what Ian was basically pointing out. Yeah, good point, good distinction. The policy of Episcopalianism came from the policy of Romanism. It wasn't just something invented out of their heads. They did derive it from Rome, but it was inverted, as you said. The king ruled over the church in the Episcopal type of policy, whereas the pope ruled over the state in the Romish form of policy. Alright, if there are no other questions, then we'll end our lesson for this evening. For a free newsletter and a complimentary copy of our large discount mail-order Christian book catalog specializing in Reformation resources, contact Stillwaters Revival Books. On the internet, we are at www.swrb.com. By email, we're at swrb at swrb.com. Our mailing address is 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton. That's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N, Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. By phone, After February of 1999, our area code will change and we can be reached by phone at 780-450-3730. And keep in mind that William Hetherington, commenting on the Solemn League and Covenant, the epitome of Second Reformation attainments, in his History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1856 edition, page 134, writes, No man who is able to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and aim, will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document ever framed by uninspired men.