Commentary on the WCF

[py3ak]

Which of the numerous commentaries on the WCF is the best one at showing what the intention of the Assembly was? It needn't be the greatest at arguing for the confessional propositions Biblically or anything: just the one which most accurately explains what the Assembly meant by their statements. My instinct would be to pick David Dickson, but I would like to know what others think.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I am kind of partial to A. A. Hodge's The Westminster Confession: A Commentary

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Which of the numerous commentaries on the WCF is the best one at showing what the intention of the Assembly was? It needn't be the greatest at arguing for the confessional propositions Biblically or anything: just the one which most accurately explains what the Assembly meant by their statements. My instinct would be to pick David Dickson, but I would like to know what others think.

Dickson for proximity in time (his lectures were given shortly after the confession was completed, before 1650 if I recall correctly).

 

[py3ak]

That makes sense, Chris. Thanks!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

For the best commentary at reflecting the intention of the Assembly itself, you would want to pick one that comments on the 1646 WCF, and that rules out some of the modern commentaries. In this regard, I too would pick Dickson first; then Shaw second.

 

[py3ak]

Very true, Andrew. Dickson seems like a winner, especially in the nice reprint done by Presbyterian Armoury.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Very true, Andrew. Dickson seems like a winner, especially in the nice reprint done by Presbyterian Armoury.

Banner of Truth have reprinted it in hardcover format. The PA edition might be sold out or out of print at present.

 

[py3ak]

Reformation Heritage Books has it!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The PA edition is very fine; so is the BoT edition. The latter has a poem I like which appears also in an 18th century facsimile edition that I have:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f107/upon-truths-victory-over-error-22808/

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Robert Wodrow on David Dickson's Truth's Victory Over Error:

The following book, as it were, breaks the truths of our Confession small, and prepares them for the meanest capacities. The learned author brings in the different errors under proper heads, and in a most plain and solid way refutes them from the Holy Scriptures. At once he discovers the design of the particular branches of our excellent Confession of Faith, he establishes the truth therein laid down, and guards against the gangrene and poison of contrary errors, with judgment and perspicuity, and in a manner far above any character I can give.

For what it's worth, as an aside, John R. De Witt provides a nice foreword to the BoT edition. He rightly notes, following the lead of John MacLeod's Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation, that Dickson's commentary on the Confession was not, in fact, the first published (I can't say which was prepared first). Dickson's was the first sympathetic commentary on the WCF. There was another published in 1651 that was antagonistic. However, also following MacLeod, De Witt misattributes its authorship to Henry Parker, when in fact it was written by William Parker.

Parker, William. The late Assembly of Divines Confession of faith examined. As it was presented by them unto the Parliament. Wherein many of their excesses and defects, of their confusions and disorders, of their errors and contradictions are presented, both to themselves and others. London, 1651.

 

[py3ak]

I suppose Mr. William Parker's would find many a cheerful reader in our time. It would be interesting to see it for historical curiosity.