D Hay Fleming
An Act passed, on 29 November 1581, by James VI with the advice of his Three Estates, ratifying and approving previous Acts “for maintenance of the liberty of the true Kirk of God and religion now presently professed within this realm and purity thereof” specifies the first three of the four Acts
5Thomas Boston.
1Taken, with editing, from Hay Fleming’s The Reformation in Scotland. Last month’s article began to give evidence that the Scottish Reformation was a thorough work. The leaders of the Church wanted “the grave and godly face of the primitive Church to be restored, ignorance expelled, and true doctrine to appear again”.
already mentioned, and also “the Confession of the Faith professed by the Protestants of Scotland”. And so, within a period of little more than 21 years, the papal jurisdiction was abolished, the mass prohibited, and the Confession of 1560 approved, by three Scottish Parliaments. On the other hand, the First Book of Discipline, drawn up by the same six men in the same year, was never ratified by Parliament.
In Knox’s opinion, the approval or ratification of the Confession by kings or parliaments was not a matter of much importance; for our religion, which is from God, “has full power, and needeth not the suffrage of man but in so far as man hath need to believe it, if that ever he shall have participation of the life everlasting”. But with the Book of Discipline it was otherwise. Unless ratified by the civil authority, some of its most important recommendations could not be carried out: for example, those concerning the stipends of ministers and teachers, the support of the poor, and the reorganisation of the universities. The Book was duly presented to the nobility. Some approved of it, and wished it to be ratified; but others, “perceiving their carnal liberty and property somewhat to be impaired thereby, grudged, insomuch that the name of the Book of Discipline became odious unto them”. Their reasons were obvious. Some of them were licentious, some had greedily seized the possessions of the Church, and some expected to share in the plunder. Those who obtained most of the Church rents were the most unmerciful to the poor ministers.
But at a Convention of the Estates held in Edinburgh in January 1561, the Book of Discipline was again brought forward and, according to one contemporary, “six whole days were spent in examination and reasoning thereon, the matter well debated, divers well satisfied, and in the end approved by common consent”. Yet this convention as such did not approve or authorise the Book of Discipline, although a considerable number of the nobles subscribed it and promised to promote its objects to the utmost of their power, provided the prelates who conformed to the new order should enjoy their revenues for life. The preachers urgently pressed for the formal establishing of the Book, and Knox used his History to show what worldlings had refused, and what the godly ministers had desired, and that posterity might “either establish [something] more perfect, or else imitate that which avariciousness would not suffer this corrupt generation to approve”.
In the Preface, the object of the Book is said to be: that a common order and uniformity may be observed in the realm concerning doctrine, administration of the sacraments, election of ministers, provision for sustaining them, church discipline, and government of the Kirk. The Book of Discipline refers to “the Order of Geneva, which now is used in some of our kirks,” and to
“our Book of Common Order”. Thus the Book of Common Order was not only used in some Protestant congregations in Scotland at least three months before Parliament overthrew the papal jurisdiction, but was recognised at that early date by those who framed the Book of Discipline. As there were then no presbyteries, synods, or general assembly, the congregations must at that time have acted with considerable independence. The first General Assembly did not meet until 20 December 1560, four months after Parliament had ratified the Confession of Faith, seven months after the First Book of Discipline had been framed, and at least as many after some congregations had adopted the Book of Common Order.
The thoroughness of the Scottish Reformation is shown in the Confession, the Book of Discipline and the Book of Common Order, not only by the vigorous language which these documents apply to the Church of Rome, but also and more effectively by the broad lines of demarcation laid down in them. Of the seven sacraments of the Church of Rome, only two were retained: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And these two, stripped of their accretions and administered in their pristine purity and simplicity, were declared to be more than bare signs.
Unlike their brethren of England, the Reformers of Scotland did not retain confirmation in any shape or form. They not only renounced “holy order” (ordination) as a sacrament but, in the admission of ministers, they approved of no ceremony beyond the public approbation of the people, and the declaration of the chief (or, presiding) minister that the person admitted was appointed to serve that kirk. They explained that they did not think that the imposition of hands was necessary, for, although the apostles used it, the miracle had ceased.2 As for apostolical succession, it was repudiated, along with antiquity, as being no sign or note of the true Church.
The Church of Scotland, like that of England, held that the canonical Scriptures contained everything necessary for salvation, but the Confession of 1560 differs from the Thirty-Nine Articles in not recognising the apocryphal books in any way – not even as profitable “for example of life and instruction of manners” (Article 6); and the Confession declares that the interpretation of Scripture appertains neither to private nor public persons, nor to any Church, but to “the Spirit of God, by the which also the Scripture was written”. In the event of controversy as to the meaning of any part or sentence of Scripture, or for the reforming of any abuse in the Church, “we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures, and into
2In the Second Book of Discipline, however, “imposition of hands of the eldership” is mentioned as one of the ceremonies of ordination, the others being fasting and earnest prayer.
that which Christ Jesus Himself did and commanded to be done”. And the framers of the Confession go on to show that they did not wish either themselves, or others, to be restrained by the opinions of fallible men.
No interpretation of any teacher, kirk, or council which was incompatible with a plain passage of Scripture could be right, no matter how universally it had been approved. As the Confession has it, everything necessary to be believed for the salvation of mankind “is sufficiently expressed” in the Bible; or, as the Book of Discipline has it, “In which books of [the] Old and New Testaments we affirm that all things necessary for the instruction of the Kirk, and to make the man of God perfect, is contained and sufficiently expressed”.
The practical outcome of all this, so far as the individual was concerned, Knox thus laid down to his queen: “Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His Word: and farther than the Word teaches you ye neither shall believe” Protestant or Papist. “The Word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrary to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt, but unto such as obstinately remain ignorant.”