'Warranted by the practice of all good Christian Princes in most ancient Synods': the Royal Supremacy in the Jacobean Church of Scotland

Having considered how 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 - articulated the case for episcopacy and conformity in the Jacobean Church of Scotland, we now turn to his defence of another significant pillar of the Jacobean vision, the Royal Supremacy. Lindsay addressed the allegation that the Royal Commissioners - representing James VI - voting in the decisions of the Perth Assembly was a rejection of previous practice in Scotland. He did so by pointing to ancient precedent for monarchs and their representatives engaging in the decision-making of councils and synods:

Whatsoeuer his Maiestie in former times hath done, remitting of his owne right, for causes knowne to himselfe, should be no preiudice to his Royall priuiledges; especially amongst these that haue abused, and set themselues obstinately to crosse his Royall and iust designes. The practice of these famous Monarchs and Kings, who were in their times nursing Fathers of the Church, shewes that Princes are not tyed to any number of Commissioners, but as it seemes good to them, or as the businesse in hand requires, so they doe.

There is, we might suggest, a wise Hookerian pragmatism evident here. In some circumstances, a monarch does not require his or her representatives in a council or synod to vote. In others, however, this can be required, as a means of securing the Church's peace and checking clerical enthusiasms. Hence, there was abundant precedent in the councils of the Primitive Church for James VI's commissioners acting at they did at Perth:

In that famous Councell also of Chalcedon, called the fourth generall, there were present for Valentinian and Martian, the Emperours eighteene Commissioners, whereof sixe were Iudges, and twelue Senators, who, as it is most euident through the whole Acts, had the chiefe moderation of the Synode, and vote definitiue therein: Neither was this pluralitie of Commissioners receiued onely in generall Councells; but also in Nationall, as in the second Councell of Orangue, Anno 529. where together with the Bishops, ten Pretors and Counsellors of France sate, and subscribed the Acts, sent thither by the King ... In the thirteenth Councell of Toledo, there sate, and subscribed sixe and twentie Dukes and Earles. In the fifteenth Coun∣cell thereof, there sate, and subscribed seuenteene Earles. In the sixteenth, there sate, and subscribed sixteene Senators ... I might bring a large Catalogue of examples; but these are sufficient to proue that which we haue in hand, to wit, that the number of Commissioners sent by his Maiestie, is warranted by the practice of all good Christian Princes in most ancient Synods.

As for what undermined such a role for Christian monarchs, Lindsay, in common with the standard Jacobean defence of the Royal Supremarcy, suggested that presbyterian critics were on the same side as the papacy:

yea, it is certayne, that Monarchs and Princes had euer these priuiledges, vntill that the Popes tyrannie increasing, did bereaue them of their right, and exclude them from all Church assemblies. 

It was also the practice of the General Assemblies of the Reformed Church of Scotland for the Crown's representatives to be recognised and to participate in these synods:

And looke wee to the custome of our owne Church; many Counsellours and Noble men haue had vote in Assemblies in name of his Maiestie ...The truth whereof is manifest by the inscriptions set before the Acts of many assemblies, wherein the Counsaile and Nobilitie are euer distinguished from Bishops, Superintendents, Ministers, and Commissioners of Prouinces and Churches ... So as wee see the practice of our owne Church, hath euer esteemed this free, that his Maiestie at his pleasure, or Regents in his minoritie, should choose what number of Commissioners they liked.

At Perth, in other words, the Royal Supremacy found expression in a manner known previously in Assemblies of the Church of Scotland and seen in the councils and synods of the churches of the first millennium. The actions of the representatives of the Crown at Perth, therefore, stood in continuity with the ancient practice of monarchs being "nursing Fathers of the Church". 

What is more, as Torrance Kirby brilliantly demonstrated in his study Richard Hooker's Doctrine and the Royal Supremacy (1990), Hooker had articulated how this was "wholly consistent with reformed doctrinal orthodoxy". As Kirby states, Hooker's understanding contributed to "the remarkable stability experienced by the Jacobean Church". It is worth noting in this context that, at the Glorious Revolution, William III's intention was that the civil magistrate would, as in the Dutch Reformed Church, continue to have an active role in the governance of the Church of Scotland. Again, then, we see Lindsay's defence of the Jacobean Church of Scotland - with the ceremonies of the Articles of Perth, episcopal order, and the Royal Supremacy - exemplifying how Reformed orthodoxy was not defined by or limited to the Genevan order; that the Reformed tradition was broader, more diverse, and capable of a more eirenic vision than imagined by the Scottish advocates of jure divino presbytery.

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