'The several Confessions of our Faith, which is one': the Articles of Perth, the Jacobean Church of Scotland, and 'the Britannick Churches'
So began the bidding prayer required to be said, according to the 1604 Canons of the Church of England, by preachers before "all Sermons, Lectures, and Homilies" (Canon LV). It sets before us the Jacobean ecclesiastical vision of the national Churches of the Three Kingdoms, with "the King’s Power within His Realms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and all other his Dominions and Countries ... the highest Power under God" (Canon I, on the King's Supremacy).
Crucial to this vision was that the Church of Scotland did not stand apart from the Churches of England and Ireland. This did not mean that diversity was unacceptable. The Church of Ireland, after all, had the 1615 Articles of Religion, different to the English Articles. The Church of Scotland also had its own Confession of Faith. What the Churches of England and Ireland shared, however, was a common episcopal and liturgical order. The Jacobean vision of the Churches of the Three Kingdoms increasingly incorporated the Church of Scotland into this order, reflecting the shared faith of the three national Churches.
It commenced with James VI instituting bishoprics for the Church of Scotland in 1603. In 1610, he directed that those holding these sees receive episcopal consecration from English bishops. Bishops were also then required to be distinctively vested, in black cassocks to the knee, black gowns, academic hoods, and black craips. In 1612, the General Assembly accepted the direction given by James that "That a liturgy be made, and form of divine service, which shall be read in every church, in common prayer". In 1618, the Articles of Perth were agreed by the General Assembly (the debate around their reception stalled progress on a liturgy). All of this demonstrated that the Church of Scotland did not stand apart from the other national Churches of James' realms.
The title I have previously given to this Jacobean ecclesiastical vision is a term later used by the Laudian Bramhall, "the Britannick Churches". In his 1621 account of the 1618 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth, David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38), invokes this vision. Lindsay challenges an opponent, who quoted Lancelot Andrewes affirming the Coronation Oaths taken by James, to uphold, respectively, the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. The opponent mischievously proposed that the Articles of Perth were a contravention of the Oath to maintain the Church of Scotland. Lindsay's response emphasised the unity of the Churches of the Three Kingdoms, grounded in what was "essentiall":
As to the Oath which (as you say) the Bishop of Ely, now Bishop of Winchester, affirmeth his Maiestie twice to haue giuen, for maintaining that forme and manner of Gods worship established by the Lawes of both Kingdomes, you might easily haue perceiued, that he did not by the forme which he mentioneth, vnderstand these indifferent points of policie, wherein some little disconformity there is, and cannot but be, in regard of the different estate of our Church and theirs; but by that forme, her vnderstood that same fashion and manner of worshipping God, as is prescribed to vs in his Word, is proponed in the seuerall Confessions of our Faith, which is one, and the same both with them and vs. So you depraue that reuerend Fathers speech, and craftily insinuate his Maiestie to be guiltie of periury, in that by his Highnesse most lawfull and earnest desire, the alteration of these indifferent things hath beene wrought: but yee should know, that these are but things accessory to the essentiall forme of Gods worship, whereunto his Maiesty did sweare at his Coronation, which to this day constantly he hath maintained, and will by the grace of God for many yeares after, yea, euen vntill that temporall crowne bee changed with that eternall.
Crucial to Lindsay's point is that the Church of Scotland did not stand apart from the Churches of England and Ireland. On "indifferent points of policie" there was "some little disconformity" - but these did not define the Church of Scotland. In other words, the particular ceremonial stance of the Church of Scotland prior to the Articles of Perth - e.g. sitting to receive the Sacrament, not observing the great festivals - were but matters indifferent, not "the essentiall forme of God's worship". The King, as the chief magistrate, had, according to his "most lawfull and earnest desire", brought about "the alteration of these indifferent things".
By contrast, the Churches of the Three Kingdoms were united by "the severall Confessions of our Faith", which articulated "the essentiall forme of Gods worship", "as is prescribed to us in his Word", under the Crown. This Jacobean vision of the Churches of the Three Kingdoms - increasingly made visible in the episcopal and liturgical order which James brought to the Church of Scotland - offered a compelling, coherent alternative to those radicals who proposed a Scottish Church which stood apart from the other national Churches of James' realms.
Too easily dismissed by later historians, who tend to view the troubles of the 1630s and the post-1688 Scottish ecclesiastical settlement as inevitable (rather than dependent upon contingent circumstances), this Jacobean ecclesiastical vision, embracing an episcopally-ordered Church of Scotland, sharing liturgical practices with the Churches of England and Ireland, had strengths, attractions, and potential worthy of serious consideration and reflection. This is what we see in the defence of the Articles of Perth offered by Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin, a significant insight into what it was for the Church of Scotland to take its place amongst "the Britannick Churches".
the essentiall forme of Gods worship, whereunto his Maiesty did sweare at his Coronation, which to this day constantly he hath maintained, and will by the grace of God for many yeares after, yea, euen vntill that temporall crowne bee changed with that eternall.
It was the Jacobean ecclesiastical vision: it was explicitly James' vision. As Lindsay states earlier in his work, "his Maiesties good and godly intentions" were to "procure the weale of the Church". That this Jacobean settlement was violently attacked in Scotland in the 1630s (initiating the bloody Wars of the Three Kingdoms) and rejected in 1690 (after being restored in 1660) should be a matter of deep regret for those who value James' eirenic vision for "the Britannick Churches".
(The first picture is of a late 17th century drawing of Brechin, Lindsay's See.)
I agree that subsequent developments should be a matter of deep regret, but I also submit that intransigence on both sides is to blame for the tumultuous outcome in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteWhen you write, "The King, as the chief magistrate, had, according to his 'most lawfull and earnest desire,' brought about 'the alteration of these indifferent things,'" I am struck by the irony of that statement. True, there can be expected uniformity in things indifferent (indeed, one could argue that the Book of Common Prayer qua liturgy is an adiaphoron), but if the Scottish posture at communion and the absence of observance of the great festivals were *truly* things indifferent, why impose conformity when there was the degree of resistance that there was? Are these things really indifferent or not? (I am not defending either practice, just the possibility of diversity among the Britannick Churches in which the things indifferent in which they differed really *were* indifferent.
This sort of imposition of uniformity in things indifferent led to an attempt to impose a Prayer Book on the Church of Scotland that was too avant-garde for many (most?) old-style conformists in England, to say nothing of the presbyterian element in the Church of Scotland.
Granting that however accommodating the king and his Scottish bishops may have been in the early Stuart period, the hardline presbyterians (for whom I have no sympathy) may have remained just as intransigent as before. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a policy based in seriously observing the dictum "In necessariis unitas, in non necessarius libertas, in omnibus caritas" might have resulted in a better ecclesiastical and political outcome for Scotland, if not for all three kingdoms.
I have to disagree with your foundational statement, "that intransigence on both sides is to blame for the tumultuous outcome in Scotland".
DeleteThat ceremonies may be in themselves indifferent does not mean that magistrate and ecclesiastical authorities do not have to determine which of these indifferent ceremonies should be upheld. As Lindsay makes clear, sitting to receive the Sacrament had achieved its initial Reformational purpose but, decades on, was failing to foster appropriate piety and devotion at the Sacrament. It was, therefore, no longer 'convenient'.
Likewise, with the great festivals. Superstitious connotations had disappeared. Failing to observe them, decades later, was not serving the Church's purpose.
This was *not* an "imposition of uniformity": uniformity already existed in the Church of Scotland, in terms of sitting to receive and not observing the festivals. Now the magistrate and ecclesiastical authority had legitimately determined that uniformity should require otherwise.
As regards the 1637 Prayer Book, it is a matter I will address in later posts. Suffice at this stage to say that, again, the civil magistrate and the General Assembly had agreed - under James VI/I - that a liturgy would be devised for Scotland. In the aftermath of the Articles of Perth, James prudently decided to wait before introducing a liturgy. That Charles did so some decades later was merely fulfilling what had been agreed. What is more, the 1637 Book was a distinctly Scottish liturgy, devised by Scottish bishops.
There was diversity among the Britannick Churches in the 1620s. Scottish bishops and clergy did not wear the surplice or use the sign of the Cross in Baptism. The Irish Church had its 1615 Articles. The Articles of Perth, however, ensured that the diversities were also matched by wise, unifying practices - kneeling to receive the Sacrament, the great festivals, episcopal Confirmation.
Voiding the Articles of Perth would not have satisfied the radicals in the Church of Scotland. They wanted episcopacy abolished. They refused the Royal Supremacy. And they desired a Church of Scotland separated from the Churches of England and Ireland. Much like the Puritan agitation in England - as Hooker had warned - such views were going to lead to conflict in the realm. What James did was to build support for a different vision of the Church of Scotland - a vision that only finally disappeared in 1689 because of contingent political circumstances. That is was overwhelmed post-1637 was also due to contingent circumstances. It is more than possible that a Charles with a more prudent approach to the political nations in England and Scotland would have ensured that the Jacobean Church of Scotland did not fall before Covenanting radicalism.
I understand your argument, but I will continue respectfully to disagree. (Again, I am NOT defending the Scottish practices nor the intransigence of the hardline presbyterians.) How much of our disagreement is due to underlying or assumed and unadmitted differences in political formation—mine constitutional-republican (resulting from the "Presbyterian Rebellion" of the American colonies, as some Loyalists in the South termed it) and yours constitutional-monarchical—might be a question worth raising.
DeleteAs for your final point, explicated in a full paragraph, I already granted that in my initial comment.
You conclude: "It is more than possible that a Charles with a more prudent approach to the political nations in England and Scotland would have ensured that the Jacobean Church of Scotland did not fall before Covenanting radicalism."
And that is precisely my point, whether an intentional policy of "In necessariis unitas, in non necessarius libertas, in omnibus caritas" might have gained for future generations a Scottish Church that is to this day episcopal in leadership, having evolved from the somewhat uneasy conjunction of bishop and presbytery of the Jacobean Church without schism between the two forms of polity. In that counterfactual, Archbishop Ussher's "reduction of episcopacy" might have found a sort of parallel expression in Scotland. What would have happened to the Covenanters? Perhaps, shorn of their more terroristic element, they would have become the Scottish equivalent of Dissenters.
I am aware that the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 is a *Scottish* Prayer Book that is largely the work of James Wedderburn (if memory serve), bearing Laud's name only by the accidents of history. And it is a liturgy with which I am wholly in agreement (down to calling priests, "presbyter"—cf. Hooker on this point). You may not know that the Prayer of Consecration in the "Standard Anglican Text" Holy Communion liturgy of the ACNA's 2019 Book of Common Prayer is largely the 1637 Prayer of Consecration. I don't know whether that is because of direct dependence or a matter simply of theological-liturgical convergence.
Parenthetically, for years I was convinced of the "Eastern" position of the epiclesis and that the "Scoto-American" tradition of eucharistic prayers was the more correct (pace the English tradition). With age and greater consideration, in some measure due to your own writing, I have come to see the "Scoto" part of that description as being more nuanced and complicated than just the Wee Bookies, and that the pre-anamnetic epiclesis is fully part of North American Anglicanism's Scottish inheritance through the 1637 liturgy.
Yes, we continue to respectfully disagree.
DeleteI am not convinced that our respective political formations explain the disagreement. The debates that Lindsay addresses were, yes, partly about the role of the civil magistrate, but the nature of the constitution which gave the civil magistrate was not significant in those debates.
In my reference to Charles I, I was careful to refer to a counter-factual in which his reign was marked by a "more prudent approach to the political nations in England and Scotland". This was a reference to the Personal Rule, not his ecclesiastical policies, which stood firmly in continuity with those of his father. The Personal rule - in England and Scotland - alienated from his ecclesiastical policies a significant proportion of the polity in both realms, not because of the content of those ecclesiastical policies but because of how they were implemented.
As it was, James and Charles crafted a Church of Scotland which retained distinctives - its own Confession of Faith, ministers not wearing the surplice, and (under both James and Charles) a different liturgy to England. At the same time, they wisely and prudently ensured that the Church of Scotland also shared episcopal government and some basic liturgical practices with the other national Churches of their realms. This strikes me as a "In necessariis unitas, in non necessarius libertas, in omnibus caritas" approach.
Two things broke this. Firstly, the Covenanter agitation, desiring a Church of Scotland outside the mainstream of both the Churches of the Three Kingdoms and the continental Reformed tradition. And, secondly, the Personal Rule. The fact that the Jacobean Church of Scotland was restored in 1660 and, but for contingent political circumstances in 1688-90, would have emerged from the Revolution of 1688 is testimony to its strengths.
The circumstances of the 1637 Book were tragic. Perhaps a more piecemeal approach may have been wiser - offering a Common Prayer Book, but not requiring its use; linking patronage to those who did use it; allowing it to attract support through usage. Something like this happened in the post-1660 Church of Scotland, with the English Book being widely used by bishops and many clergy.
In the end, what I am arguing for is that the Jacobean Church of Scotland, maintained by Charles, was an example of "In necessariis unitas, in non necessarius libertas, in omnibus caritas". Kneeling to receive the sacrament, the great festivals, episcopal Confirmation were not breaches in Christian liberty - they were, in classic Conformist fashion, expressions of the Christian liberty of a national Church, to which godly and peaceable conformity was rightly required.
As you've written, we shall continue respectfully to disagree.
DeleteWhere you see "in classic Conformist fashion, expressions of the Christian liberty of a national Church, to which godly and peaceable conformity was rightly required," I see the imprudent imposition of a conformist tradition in one kingdom's Church on another kingdom's Church—granting the role of a commonly-shared royal magistrate. To be clear, I am wholly in agreement if we're talking about English conformity in England (or in our latter-day and very much altered circumstances, conformity within a denominational Church). And, for that matter, I am also wholly in agreement regarding propriety of the imposed practices. Perhaps we're ultimately disagreeing about the prudence of how the conformity was sought to be imposed.
I will also point out that I already granted the historical point regarding the intransigence of the Covenanters (I even called them "terroristic") and will also admit that they are the more (though not only) guilty party.
My hearty thanks for the conversation.
Likewise, Todd. I deeply appreciate you reading the posts and engaging with them. One of the reasons I continue with this long series of posts from Lindsay is that it is aiding my own knowledge of the Jacobean Church of Scotland - a too much over-looked time in the history of the Scottish Church.
Delete