'The nature of things indifferent': the Articles of Perth and the case for the Jacobean Church of Scotland
Yee are not able to produce any warrant for the vniforme iudgement of the Church, nor Canon of Assembly, nor act of Parliament, nor confession of faith, nor publike protestation, which either condemnes the points concluded at Perth, as vnlawfull to bee vsed in the worship of God; or establisheth the contrary as things necessary, that cannot be altered in no time succeeding. And as for your 59 yeares practise, it cannot change the nature of things indifferent, and make these formes and circumstances, which are of themselues alterable, become necessary and vnchangeable: yea, by the contrary, the prescription of a long time giues iust cause often of alteration, because either the things practised, which at the beginning were profitable, become hurtfull, or that which was conuenient in the time preceding, becommeth inconuenient: or because the same things are abused to superstition and prophanenesse: or because an opinion is bred, by long custome, of necessitie.
A good case can be made that Lindsay is echoing Cranmer's 'Concerning Ceremonies'. Cranmer had likewise insisted that ceremonies could be altered and changed by ecclesiastical and public authority:
ceremonies ... retained for a discipline and order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's Law.
Ceremonies which had been legitimately introduced could be altered because they had, with the passage of time, degenerated, ceasing to serve their original purpose:
Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church, and have had their beginning by the institution of man, some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition ... they were so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the rude and unlearned.
Lindsay, in other words, was deploying a Cranmerian critique of "certain Ceremonies" to those critics of the Articles of Perth who regarded the order of the Book of Discipline as not having "the nature of things indifferent" and thus being "necessary and unchangeable".
What is more, Lindsay then pointed to these critics as themselves failing to adhere to the teaching of the Scots Confession and the Book of Discipline. Both these texts, he asserted, defended the powers of ecclesiastical councils to alter ceremonies:
This I make manifest by the one and twentieth article of the Confession of our faith, confirmed in the first Parliament holden by his Maiesty, anno 1567. Decemb. 15. which ye affirme your selfe to haue sworne and subscribed. The words of the article are these, about the end thereof. The other end of generall Councels was for good policie, to bee constituted and observed in the Church whereas (in the house of God) it becommeth all things to be done decently and in order: not that wee thinke that any policie and order in ceremonies, can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as Ceremonies (such as men haue deuised) are but temporall, so may and ought they to bee changed, when they rather foster superstition, then that they edifie the Church vsing the same (Article 20 of the Scots Confession, 1560);
Likewise in the seuenth chapter of the second booke of Discipline, registred amongst the acts of the generall Assembly, anno 1581. we haue two conclusions to the same purpose, set downe in these words: The finall end of all Assemblies, is first to keepe the Religion and Doctrine in puritie, without error and corruption: Next, to keepe comlinesse, and good order in the Church. For this orders cause, they may make certaine rules and constitutions, pertaining to the good behauiour of all the members of the Church in their vocation. Secondly, they haue power also to abrogate and abolish all statutes and ordinances, concerning Ecclesiasticall matters that are found noysome, or vnprofitable, or agree not with the time, or are abused by the people (Chapter 7 of the Second Book of Discipline, 1581).
Both the Confession and the Book of Discipline, therefore, provided a clear pathway for consent to the Articles of Perth, reflecting mainstream Continental Reformed thought that such ceremonies are inherently changeable and subject to the consideration of a the councils of a national church. The notion proclaimed by the opponents of the Articles of Perth, that sitting to receive the Sacrament was an unchangeable decree, or that abolishing festival days was necessary (a stance contrary to the Second Helvetic Confession), did not reflect the formularies of the Church of Scotland. As Lindsey went on to comment, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was at liberty to accept the Articles of Perth:
Hereby it is euident; that seeing the matters controuerted, are but matters of circumstance, forme, and ceremony, as afterwards shall be proued, that neither the Church in generall, nor any member thereof in particular, did, or might lawfully binde themselues by oath, subscription, or any other obligation, not to change or alter their practise and customes touching these things: for all they that subscribe the Confession of faith, and the second booke of Discipline, did sweare, that they thought these things should and might be altered when necessitie required.
In other words, the emergence of the Jacobean and Caroline Church of Scotland, sharing in the rites and ceremonies of the Churches of England and Ireland, was a thoroughly legitimate development, in accordance with the Confession and Book of Discipline, contrary to the agitators opposed to the Articles of Perth, who exalted a particular set of ceremonies and liturgical order to a standing refused both by the Church of Scotland's formularies and the mainstream of the Continental Reformed tradition. The Jacobean, Caroline, and Restoration Church of Scotland, therefore, had much deeper roots than is often recognised in historical accounts.
(The picture is of a late 17th century drawing of Brechin, Lindsay's See.)
Comments
Post a Comment