'The inestimable benefits of our Redemption': the Articles of Perth, magisterial Protestantism, and the Jacobean Church of Scotland
The Articles of Perth, at the urging of James VI/I, reintroduced to the Church of Scotland kneeling to receive the Holy Communion, Communion of the sick at the end of their earthly lives, the private Baptism of infants when necessary, Confirmation, and observance of the major festivals of Our Lord. Those who, rather than peaceably accepting the lawful decision of the General Assembly, cantankerously opposed the Articles of Perth sought to portray them as 'Roman' practices - despite the fact that many of their provisions were found in other Reformed churches.
Quoting an opponent who ridiculously suggested that Roman Catholic opinion would interpret the Articles as evidence that the Church of Scotland was moving to "further conformitie with them", Lindsay wisely pointed to the practices actually encouraging conformity to the Church of Scotland:
And as for the Aduersaries [i.e. Roman Catholic commentators] it grieueth them, that by this change their mouthes are stopped, who before took occasion to slander our Church of prophanenesse for fitting at the Sacrament of impious ingratitude for neglecting the solemne commemoration of the inestimable benefits of our Redemption of contempt of the Sacraments, and crueltie, for refusing in cases of necessitie Baptisme to Infants, and the Supper of the Lord to these who desire the comfort thereof, at the time of their death: which things being now restored in our Church, they are afraid that many who before of their sect, did not so much abhorre our profession for the substance of doctrine, as for the precise excluding of these religious Rites, may now bee moued to adioyne themselues to our Church.
Lindsay here refers to the pastoral significance of three practices of the Articles of Perth - kneeling to receive the Sacrament, private Baptism of infants, and administering Holy Communion to the dying.
Hooker had noted that sitting around the Table to receive the Sacrament could convey the impression of "some show or dumbe resemblance of a spirtuall feast" (LEP V.68.3). By contrast, "our kneeling at communions is the gesture of pietie". In a context in which Roman Catholic apologists routinely described Reformed teaching as emptying the Eucharist of meaning - as Jewel put it, "that it is but a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein (as many falsely slander us we teach)" - sitting to receive could easily be taken to confirm this. Kneeling, as in the Churches of England and Ireland, and in the Lutheran churches, demonstrated that we come to the Sacrament, to again quote Hooker, "as receivers of inestimable grace at the hands of God".
On the private administration of Holy Baptism in cases of necessity, and of the Holy Communion to the dying, Lindsay rightly emphasises how these practices are means of "comfort". This reflected the teaching of the 1560 Scots Confession:
by participation of the same sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the Elect have with their head, Christ Jesus. And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are ingrafted in Christ Jesus to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted; and also, that in the Supper, rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us, that he becomes the very nourishment and food of our souls.
This being so, why would the Sacrament of Baptism be denied to dying infants? Why would the Holy Communion be denied to those preparing to leave this earthly life? Indeed, why would Roman apologists not portrary it as "crueltie" for ministers of the Kirk to deny the comfort of the Sacraments in such circumstances?
According to the illustrious divine Isaac Casaubon (from the French Reformed tradition), James VI/I particularly recognised the cruelty of denying the Sacrament of Baptism to dying infants:
But his excellent Majesty doth so highly esteem of this Sacrament, that when some Ministers in Scotland, pretending I know not what ordinances of new discipline, refused, upon the desire of the parents, to baptise infants ready to die, he compelled them to this duty with fear of punishment ...
Likewise, Jeremy Taylor in the 1650s recalled a similar story regarding James:
I remember that I have heard that K. James reproving a Scottish Minister, who refus'd to give private Baptism to a dying Infant; being ask'd by the Minister, if he thought the Child should be damn'd for want of Baptism, answered, 'No, but I think you may be damn'd for refusing it': and he said well.
King James was, of course, entirely correct. Denying the Sacrament of Baptism to dying infants was (and is) reprehensible. This is a rather good demonstration of how, contrary to Geneva but akin to Zurich and as found in the Elizabethan Settlement, the civil magistrate rightly had a role in ecclesiastical affairs, ensuring that doctrinaire positions were challenged by pastoral wisdom rooted in the experience of the laity.
This relates to Lindsay's specific point about refuting the views promoted by Roman apologists regarding the Reformed churches. A church would seemed to encourage an understanding of the Lord's Supper as "a cold ceremony only", which denied Baptism to dying infants, and denied the comfort of Holy Communion to the dying, could be seen as confirming its critics, denying those means of grace given, according to the Book of Common Prayer, for "our great and endless comfort". Such was the narrow, rather grim stance of the opponents of these practices of the Articles of Perth; it was, as Lindsay demonstrates, the Articles of Perth which promoted the sacramental richness and pastoral wisdom of magisterial Protestantism.
(The picture is of a late 17th century drawing of Brechin, Lindsay's See.)
Comments
Post a Comment