laudable Practice

Addressing how critics of the Articles of Perth condemned kneeling to receive the Sacrament as 'popish', David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38), in his 1621 account of the 1618 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth , summarised how those critics viewed the practice as contrary to the laws of the King and the Estates of Parliament: I come to consider the ordinances made, as ye alledge, against kneeling: where first yee alledge an Act made in the Assembly 1591, that an Article should bee formed, and presented vnto his Maiesty, and the Estates, for order to be taken with them, who giue or receiue the Sacraments after the Papistical manner; but by Papistical maner is meante, the giuing of the Sacrament by a Masse Priest, and the receiuing the same after the order of the Romane Church ...  Lindsay, however, points out that the purpose of such laws was to prevent conversion to the Roman obedience: The tenor wherof is those Perso...

Ye shall pray for Christ’s holy Catholick Church; that is, for the whole Congregation of Christian People dispersed throughout the whole World, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland. 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...

... now seeing all memory of bypast superstition is past, in reverence of God, and in due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical a union as we are made partakers of, the assembly thinketh good, that the blessed Sacrament be celebrated hereafter, meekly and reverently upon their knees - Articles of Perth , Article I. 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), building on his previous exposition of the Scottish formularies on ceremonies having "the nature of things indifferent", applied this understanding to the view of those critics of the Articles of Perth, who insisted on the need to sit in order to receive the holy Sacrament: And that he who sware, That he did thinke that no policie, and order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places, but that the same may, and ought to be changed, when necessitie requir...

In our last reading , prior to Advent, from the 1621 account of the 1618 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth , by David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38), we considered how Lindsay's critique of the rejection of festival days by the opponents of the Articles of Perth stood well within the mainstream of the Continental Reformed tradition. We resume the readings from Lindsay's work as he refutes those who, rejecting the Articles of Perth, appear to make the provisions of the 1560 Book of Discipline (rejecting festival days, requiring communicants to sit for reception etc.) a necessary order: 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 ca...

As we abhor the superstitious observation of festival days by the Papists, and detest all licentious and profane abuse thereof by the common sort of professors, so we think, that the inestimable benefits received from God by our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost, were commendably and godly remembered at certain particular days and times ... The Articles of Perth , adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1618, restored the observance of the great feasts of our redemption. The Second Helvetic Confession had said of these observances, "we approve of it highly". The opponents of the Articles of Perth, however, invoked the 1560 Book of Discipline , which dismissed these observances as feasts "that the Papists have invented". In particular, opponents viewed the observances as a binding of the conscience: imposed vpon the consciences of men without the expresse Commandement of Gods Word,...

In his defence of authority by which the Articles of Perth were introduced, in a  1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , David Lindsay - Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) - addressed the allegation that the practices required by the Articles were contrary to the order and discipline of the Church of Scotland as praised by Beza. Lindsay, however, points out that this is not what Beza meant by Scotland's "good order or discipline". Beza, rather, was praising the Geneva-like approach to ecclesiastical discipline: "the use of this Ecclesiasticall power in censuring of manners". What is more, not only was Beza not referring to the particular ceremonies that had been previously adopted by the Church of Scotland, it was also the case that those ceremonies did not conform to the Genevan use: But yee, no sooner heare good order or discipline commended but presently yee imagine, that your table ge...

Having considered how David Lindsay - Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) - defended the authority by which the Articles of Perth were introduced, in his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , we now turn to his defence of the provisions of the Articles themselves. 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 interp...

Today we reach a final extract from ' Answers to the Exceptions Made Against the Assembly of Perth ' in the 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618, by David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38). Lindsay here sets forth a well-established understanding of the civil magistrate's duty to uphold conformity, not for binding the conscience but as a means of securing the peace of the kirk: Since the time that Kings and Princes became Christian, it hath alwayes beene the custome that Synodicall Decrees were authorized by their Lawes; not that the allowance or authoritie of Ciuill Lawes is made a rule to a Christians Conscience, but that the externall man might thereby bee tyed to the obedience of these things, which the Church hath found to be agreeable to the Word of God, that is the only rule of conscience: and it is to bee hoped, that God shall so dispose the hearts of the whole Estate, to the loue of ...

One of the accusations historians often make of those who defended episcopal conformity in the 17th century Church of Scotland is that their case lacked force. Moderation and eirenicism, we are told, could not hold against the passion and conviction of Covenanters. There are good grounds for doubting this in the latter part of the century. (Indeed, the victory of the Covenanter tradition was the chiefly the result of contingent political circumstances , not force of argument.) And, in his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , David Lindsay - Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) - demonstrates that this also was not the case in the Jacobean Church of Scotland.  Addressing those who rejected the authority of the Articles of Perth, as accepted by the General Assembly at the request of James VI/I, Lindsay has no hesitation in directly addressing how they disorder both Church and State: And if any will still oppose ...

As David Lindsay - Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) - continues his defence of the Articles of Perth, in his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , he again emphasises that such matters of ceremony and practice are not  determined by Scripture. Contrary to those who attacked the Articles of Perth, and who exalted the previous ceremonial order of the 1560 Book of Discipline , Lindsay explicitly states that the provisions of the Articles were not "knowne verities": None of the affirmatiue voters approued the Articles for knowne verities; for when wee speake of knowne verities, we vnderstand the verities defined in Scripture, such as are the points of our faith, which no man ought to call in question: but that any man did giue his voice otherwise, then his iudgement led him, yee will hardly perswade vs, much lesse, that any man would openly professe this. This, as Lindsay has previously demonstrated , re...

Last week we saw how, in his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , David Lindsay - Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) - made the case that the Church of Scotland had authority to alter ceremonies established at the Reformation. Lindsay invoked Reformed insistence that "ceremonies are but temporal" to undermine an exalted claim for fixing that particular ceremonial order as beyond change and reform. In today's extract, Lindsay moves on to consider the various Articles of Perth , demonstrating how it was fitting that they, in changed circumstances, altered the ceremonial order of the 1560 Book of Discipline . He began by again emphasising that changing circumstances justify a change to mere ceremonies: For if by occasion of any of these circumstances, the obseruation, which was profitable at one time, become hurtfull at another, and that which serued for reformation, breedes and fosters corruption, pr...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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 thes...

In his 1621 account of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland held at Perth in 1618 , David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin (1619-34 and Bishop of Edinburgh 1634-38) reminded his opponent - "the Libeller" - that presbyterian government had not been the fixed order in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation.  Particularly addressing the charge that the Perth Assembly was not "free and lawfull" because the ministers in the Assembly had not been chosen by presbyteries, Lindsay points to how episcopacy followed the system of superintendency by which the Church of Scotland had been governed until 1592: The Libeller .... thinks, that because it was the custome while the Presbyteriall gouernment stood in force, that all Commissioners, at least of the Ministrie, should bee chosen by the seuerall Presbyteries, it should now bee so: But he must remember that sort of gouernment is changed, and now they must haue place in Assemblies, that are authorized by their calling...

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 adia...