LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

the 23 July 1637, the bishop of Edinburgh attempted to read from `This Popish-Inglish-Scotish-Masse-Service-Booke’29 in the pulpit of St Giles, whereupon, a riot broke out. In the aftermath of this disturbance, some of the discontent that had been rumbling now began to express itself through protest and petition. Eventually, the widespread opposition united around the momentous National Covenant, which was first signed in Edinburgh on the 28 February 1638. It was principally drafted by the advocate, Archibald Johnston# of Wariston, and the minister of Leuchars, Alexander Henderson#. Both were radical presbyterians, yet the document endeavored to be comprehensive, condemning neither the king nor, expressly, episcopacy, but rather appealing to the religious practices of the Reformation and calling for resistance to “popish” encroachments upon the Kirk’s liberty in forms of worship, doctrine and discipline. Patronage was not referred to, yet what was meant by discipline was soon to be the subject of earnest debate.

      Charles at first determined to face down the protest, but his high commissioner, the Marquis of Hamilton, advised him that such was the universality of its support, concessions would have to be made. Accordingly, Hamilton announced, in September 1638, that the service book, code of canons, court of high commission and the Perth Articles were to be abandoned. Also a General Assembly was convened, at Glasgow, on the first of November. Presbyteries, for the first time, organized a large complement of elders to go up to the Assembly, most of whom were not ready for compromise. The result was that the Assembly’s enactments went much further than the terms of the Covenant had suggested: all Assemblies since 1605 were declared null, the service book, code of canons, high commission court and Five Articles were all condemned and episcopacy was abjured.

Since Charles had managed to alienate so many interests, the Covenant attracted support from all over the country, including the Highlands, although the Aberdeen area was a notable exception30. In the matter of leadership, the part played by the nobility and gentry was decisive, both in the Assemblies of 1638 and August 1639, and thereafter, in Parliament, which held its first session of the new era on 31 August 1639. Thanks only to their support, could the Covenanting agenda, including the abolition of episcopacy, be ratified by Parliament (June 1640), or at the same time military success be achieved in the “Bishops’ Wars,” first in the confrontation at Berwick (resolved June 1639), then at Newcastle (resolved, at London, August 1641). After the London treaty was ratified by the Scots Parliament, Charles gave it royal assent, thereby ostensibly giving legal recognition to the new regime. As a result, although expressions of dissent from moderates and royalists like the Marquis of Montrose prevented comprehensive unanimity, the Covenanting cause nevertheless ended 1641 in what appeared to be a strong and secure position. This being the case, it might well be wondered what had been happening meanwhile with regard to lay patronage. Was the time now ripe for the Kirk to revive the debate about its place, and perhaps even press for its abolition?

      Lay Patronage and the Revolution of 1637–1639

      When they reflected upon the revolution, presbyterians knew that the overthrow of episcopacy had been dependent upon the support of the higher social ranks. It was a debt the moderator of the 1638 General Assembly acknowledged in fulsome tones when delivering his closing speech:

And I must say one word of those Nobles whom Jesus Christ hath nobilitat indeed, and declaired sensiblie to be worthie of that title of nobilitie. Ye know they were lyke the tops of the mountaines that were first discovered in the deludge, which made the little valleyes hope to be delyvered from it also; . . . the Sun of righteousnesse hes beine pleased to shyne first upon these mountaines; and long, long may he shyne upon them, for the comfort of the hilles and refreshing of the valleyes; and the blessing of God be upon them and their families.31

      The natural result of this obligation was that the presbyterian party were wary of antagonizing the aristocracy by declaring patronage a grievance much in need of reform. On the other hand, as will be seen, it was not an issue that was about to go away, and it is illuminating to note how some of the leading figures in the Kirk struggled to reconcile the demands of diplomacy with the desire of the Second Book of Discipline to terminate patrons’ presentation rights.

The most valuable insights into contemporary attitudes to patronage are found in the papers of Robert Baillie# (1599–1662), who was minister of Kilwinning (Irvine presbytery) until his appointment to the chair of divinity at Glasgow university in 1642. Baillie was a man of moderate principles, and appears as someone who was happiest “straddling to some degree the divide between presbyterian and Episcopalian.”32 This stemmed more from open–mindedness than the desire to trim, and made him willing, on issues like royal authority and episcopacy itself, to modify his views according to the merits of the situation. His opinions on the subject of patronage, however, remained consistent during the period of the revolution, and these were that, although it might be good to give the topic of reform a public airing, the time was “not seasonable,” and to do so would only stir up difficulties, especially with the king, as largest patron.33

Despite its boldness in other matters, the Glasgow Assembly of 1638 shared Baillie’s circumspection. According to Johnston of Wariston, the Assembly avoided making subscription to the Second Book of Discipline compulsory, purely in order to avoid raising “scrouples anent teynds and patronages.”34 Instead, while avoiding any objection to presentations, it simply required that “there be a respect had to the congregation, and that no person be intruded . . . contrare to the will of the congregation.”35 The issue of patronage would not, however, lie down, but instead surfaced for debate at the Assembly of 1639. Alarmed at the damage any prolonged confrontation on the matter would do to the presbyterian cause generally among the landed interest, Johnston hurriedly intervened to emphasize that no harm was intended against the rights of patrons, and he prevailed upon the Assembly not only to affirm that this was their view, but also to express their gladness that parliament had recently ratified “the Act of Parliament 1592, quhairin Laick Patronages ar expreslie reserved.”36

Interestingly, Johnston’s intervention failed to reassure the king’s commissioner to the Assembly, John Stewart, first Earl of Traquair, who felt sufficiently worried to enter a minute in the registers of the Privy Council, disassociating himself from any hurt which might yet occur to the king’s patronal rights, and reserving the Crown’s right thereafter to seek redress.37 Almost certainly, Traquair saw that a popular, reforming movement like the one he was witnessing, would be difficult to control, and that the Covenanting leaders had put themselves in a particularly precarious position on the matter of presentations. On the one hand, they had been rousing the people to assert their spiritual liberty, while at the same time, they were asking them to refrain from challenging the continuation of a privilege like patronage, purely on the expedient that it was “maist convenient for the Kirk at this tyme to silence these questions, and tolerat many thingis (quhairof they wald faine haiff redres) for the setling of the substantiall Governement of this Kirk.”38 Traquair would have seen it as inevitable that those less able to discern the diplomatic niceties of the situation would, eventually, break ranks. In the event, he was correct.

What became the focus of contention was whether or not the Covenant’s reference to the “discipline” of the Church, should be directly equated with what was laid out in the Second Book of Discipline. If so, it was a serious matter, for members of a congregation would therefore be in breach of their sworn allegiance to the Covenant, if they accepted a presentee who had not been elected by them. This was precisely the argument put forward by the people of Glassford (Hamilton presbytery), when they took an aversion to the patron’s choice for the vacancy there,

Скачать книгу