'Of matters indifferent, not particularly determined by Scripture': a Hookerian case for conformity in Jacobean Scotland

Last week, we considered the defence of episcopacy offered by David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38), in his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618. Central to that Assembly had been the Articles of Perth, which James VI called the Assembly to approve. These Five Articles strengthened the bonds between the three Churches in James' realms by directing that communicants should kneel to receive the holy Sacrament; permitting administration of holy Communion to the sick in the home; likewise, administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, when necessary, in the home; restored Confirmation administered by bishops; and instituting observance of the great festivals of our Lord. Many of these practices, of course, were also to be found in other Reformed Churches.

Just as his defence of episcopacy was profoundly Hookerian, so too was Lindsay's defence of the Articles of Perth. The matters at hand were adiaphora, not doctrinal. Conformity to ecclesiastical order and the command of the civil magistrate was, therefore, the issue at stake, as Lindsay declared in response to the extravagant claims of opponents of the Five Articles:

But here the question is, of no substantiall point of Doctrine, but of matters indifferent, not particularly determined by Scripture, but depending vpon the Prince, and Churches pleasure to haue them practised, or not. In which the Prince might by his owne authoritie impone a necessitie vpon all his Subiects to obey the same, except they could shew euident proofes out of the Scripture, that the same were absolutely vnlawfull. And in case of disobedience, hee might iustly threaten them by his authoritie. Yet all these particular terrours and threatnings (which yee mention) with the wrath of Authoritie, imprisonment, exile, depriuation, &c. were directed onely to such, as without reason should bee found obstinate and refractarie, who, by reason ought not onely be threatned, but punished. For if men will not regard authoritie, but doe as their conceit (which some falsly call conscience) leades them: if neither the Prince his command, nor acts of Synods, can bind them to obedience; may not these threatnings, yea, ought they not to bee vsed towards them, as it hath euer beene the practice in all Councels? 

Unlike opponents of the practices upheld by the Articles of Perth, Lindsay demonstrates a Hookerian wisdom in emphasising that they are not "particularly determined by Scripture" and thus left to the national Church and the civil magistrate to order. To pronounce that they are contrary to Scripture would be as absurd and extravagant as claiming that Scriptures require these practices. Instead, as affirmed by the Second Helvetic Confession, there can be "a manifold diversity of rites" in the Churches of Christ. The Reformed Churches were, the Confession declares, to be judged by doctrine, not rites which could and did legitimately differ between these churches: "the true harmony of the Church consists in doctrines and in the true and harmonious preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and in rites that have been expressly delivered by the Lord". 

By contrast, to reject the command of ecclesiastical authority and the civil magistrate in "matters indifferent" was to break the peaceful order of a Church. This, as Cranmer had stated in Concerning Ceremonies, was no small matter:

And although the keeping or omitting of a Ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing; yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God, Let all things be done among you, saith Saint Paul, in a seemly and due order: The appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common Order in Christ's Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto.

As Hooker similarly noted, without a seemly acceptance of such common order on matters "where the worde of God leaveth the Church to make choice of hir own ordinances", the peace of the Church is threatened:

if against all this it should be free for men to reprove, to disgrace, to reject at theire owne libertie why they see done and practised accordinge to order set downe ... what other effect could hereupon ensewe, but the utter confusion of his Church under pretense of beinge taught, led, and guided by his spirit (LEP V.10.1).

This is also what Lindsay had stated at the very outset of his work, in its Preface addressed 'To the Reverend and Godly Brethren, the Pastors and Ministers of the Church of Scotland':

As in our Church (blessed be God,) touching the truth of Doctrine, there is no controuersie, so there is no doubt (deare brethren) but in the controuerted points of Policie, wee would soone agree, if wee did consider what is the power of the Church in these matters, the extent of her power, and the obedience that is due thereto.

Lindsay's warning, much like that delivered by Hooker to the Elizabethan Church of England, was prophetic. The refusal by malcontents to accept ecclesiastical authority and the command of the civil magistrate on "matters indifferent" did indeed bring disorder to both the Church and Kingdom of Scotland, disorder which endured over decades and ultimately led to bloody and destructive civil wars. As Lindsay had explicitly warned the malcontents:

And is it not lawfull to lay before your eyes the danger that may follow vpon your disobedience? for looke all the Letters and harrangues of the godly Emperours, the generall Councells, and such as were speciall persons therein; yee shall finde them euer lay before the eyes of such as were conuocated, as the speciall motiues, that might serue to induce them to condescend vnto things that were proponed, and serued to the good and peace of the Church. 

(The picture is of a late 17th century drawing of Brechin, Lindsay's See.)