LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Abbey, later became Lord Paisley. Cf., Cormack, Teinds, 81.

58. Alan I. MacInnes, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement, 1625–1641. (Edinburgh: 1991), 4.

59. Kirk, Patterns of Reform, 425.

60. BUK, 335, 357.

61. See Kirk, Patterns of Reform, 416–17.

62. BUK, 335.

63. Alexander Dunlop, Parochial law. (Edinburgh: 1841), 194.

64. BUK, 382.

65. APS, iii, 541–52.

66. Calendar of Scottish supplications, 4th series, vol. 7, xx.

67. In the Basilikon Doron, he counselled his son to annul “that vile Act of Annexation,” see A source book of Scottish history, eds. William Croft Dickinson, and Gordon Donaldson, vol. iii, 51.

68. Cowan, “Patronage, provision, etc.,” 92.

      Chapter Two

By the time of King James’ death in 1625, thirty–nine of Scotland’s fifty–four chief religious houses had been erected into temporal lordships. It was a practice which continued to cause deep dismay to the General Assembly and it repeatedly asked the king to stop it.1 The main cause of their annoyance was almost certainly a fear that such dismemberment would make the task of financing the Church yet more complicated.2

However, there was another ground for their concern. This was that, in the relationship between patrons and church, the secularization process was allowing greater license to the former to exploit what they could at the latter’s expense. Particularly vexing was that the state appeared ready to support patrons when they overreached themselves. One example was a complaint that surfaced at the 1598 Assembly3 concerning a loophole which patrons had been exploiting in the law against simony. Although Parliament had, in 15844, listed it as a crime, a grey area arose where presentees promised, once installed, to grant the patron a tack of the parochial teinds. Since the tack would invariably be at a rate lower than the teinds’ true value, the profits accruing to the patron thereafter could be considerable. The patrons successfully defended themselves against the charge of simony by claiming that the practice could only be considered simoniacal if what was paid to the incumbent did not provide a sufficient stipend. Presbyteries were thus put in a frustrating position. They could not but refuse collation to someone who was clearly involved in a disreputable arrangement, yet in the eyes of the law the presentation was still orderly. This meant that if they refused to proceed, the patron was now entitled to uplift the teinds indefinitely,5or at least until the presentation was either accepted or withdrawn. To crown all, not only did James ignore the Assembly’s complaint about the loophole, but actually gave it legislative validity in 1612.6

There were other ways in which patrons were allowed to stretch the law in order to transform an opportunity into a right. One was the anomaly whereby landowners assigned to themselves the rank of patron, when their entitlement was, in fact, spurious. Thus, whereas it was in order for temporal lords to assume presentation rights to patronate churches (where solely the patronage belonged to the former prelacy), there was little justification for their taking the title of patron to patrimonial churches in their possession. In the latter case, the old religious house, chapter or bishop had been the occupant of the benefice, and, on their behalf, a vicar served the cure, for which he received a stipend out of the tithes. Thus, the new landowner had, in effect, succeeded to the role of titular, and as such, he could hardly be the patron at the same time, since the incumbent was his stipendiary, not his presentee.7 Nonetheless, the new lords often simply awarded themselves the status of patron, and then were careful to have the fact recorded in any subsequent charters.

      Thus it was that with every passing year, the possibility—if it ever existed— of lay patronage being removed from the Scottish parochial landscape grew ever more impracticable. A century that began with a land owning class that was relaxed about ownership of the privilege ended in a very different atmosphere. Nonetheless, such were the twists and turns of the Crown’s relations with the Kirk over the ensuing fifty years, suddenly abolition returned, not just as a possibility, but a reality. In order to understand how the change came about, it is important to look briefly at the strategies employed by James and his son Charles as they sought to mould church and state to their liking.

      James’s Ecclesiastical Policies, 1592–1625

Frustrations over patronage were only part of a wider picture of discomfort experienced by the Kirk, as the king, almost as soon as he had granted its 1592 “Charter of Presbyterianism,” devoted the remaining years of his reign to doing what he could to include episcopacy in the Scottish ecclesiastical structure.8 It was a task that he saw as even more vital on his departure to London after the Union of the Crowns in 1603. Since this ambition raised the question whether the presbytery or the bishop should then vet presentations, and settle vacancies jure devoluto, it is necessary to see how events unfolded as the king set about achieving his aims.

James saw parity among ministers as “the mother of confusion,” and advised his son, that by “preferment to bishoprics and benefices . . . ye shall not only banish their parity (which I can not agree with a monarchy) but ye shall also re-establish the old institution of three estates in parliament, which can do no otherwise be done.”9 Pursuing the latter aim first, James passed an Act, in 1597, allowing such ministers as he should nominate to bishoprics, abbacies or other prelacies, to have a seat and vote in Parliament.10 The first appointees were in place by the end of 1600.

He had now to strengthen the bishop’s ecclesiastical authority, and having enacted legislation, in 1606, asserting his royal prerogative in all matters11 and re-establishing the episcopal office, he went on, in 1609, to restore consistorial jurisdiction to bishops and, by now, archbishops. At the Assembly convened at Glasgow in June 1610, the rights and privileges of the episcopate were agreed, laid down as Acts of Assembly, and later confirmed, with modifications, as Acts of Parliament. Among these rights it was stipulated that all presentations were now to be directed to diocesan bishops or archbishops, who could also fill benefices jure devoluto. Moreover, the bishop was to make final “trial” of any candidate, and, having found him suitably qualified, ordain him, assisted by such of the ministers as he chose to invite.12 Up until 1610, presbyteries had become the customary recipient of presentations. Now this practice

Скачать книгу