LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

be restricted at all. It therefore comes as no surprise to find that even five years later, opinion on the matter was as divided as ever:

. . . some ascrybeis this power [of election] to the multitude of professouris promiscuouslie within the flock or congregatione; some to the particulaire eldershipe within the congregatione quhairunto thei require att least a tacite or prerogative conseil of the wholl people; some ascrybe it unto the most eminent for light and lyf of religione in the congregatione, neglecting otheris altho never so eminent in other respectis and concerned in that place; some ascrybe it to the presbyterie onlie without any concurrence of the people; some ascrybe this power to the presbyterie and people joyntlie, everyone acting their owne part distinctly - whose judgement seems to approach nearest unto divine truth.29

      Out of the confusion, it was a version of the system espoused by George Gillespie which won approval after the Scotish Parliament ultimately abolished patronage in 1649. This placed the power of election with the kirk session rather than the congregation and it is possible that it would have been the compromise choice of the Scots representatives at Westminster. However, before considering Gillespie’s preferences further, it is important to move on from the Westminster Assembly to look at the circumstances which led to the abolition of patronage and then return to how the Kirk coped with the far from straightforward task of agreeing upon an alternative.

      The Abolition of Lay Patronage in 1649

      The Political Background

      The Scottish decision to provide military support for the Parliamentarians against the king in 1644, provoked deep divisions north of the border. A Scottish pro-royalist party emerged, although not all of its adherents were prepared to go to the violent lengths of the Marquis of Montrose, whose military campaign on the king’s behalf got underway in August 1644. Despite the defeat of Charles at Naseby in June, and Montrose at Philiphaugh in September 1645, support for the king deepened and spread when, in the following year, he surrendered to the Scots forces, only to be handed over to the English Parliament on 8 January 1647. The fact was, most presbyterians had no liking for the churchmanship of the Independents, now gaining ascendancy in England, and when, in addition, the king was seized by the army during June 1647, there was general alarm for his safety. As a result, a group of nobles were emboldened to enter into an “Engagement” with Charles, whereby they would endeavor to restore his authority in return for concessions which included his (qualified) support for the Solemn League and Covenant and presbyterianism. Although the Estates came out in favor of the Engagement, the General Assembly remained suspicious of royal intentions, and resolved to oppose it. In the event, the Estates sent an army south, only to see it heavily defeated by Oliver Cromwell at Preston, in August 1648.

      In the tide of recrimination which followed the debacle at Preston, an anti-Engager grouping, led in particular by Archibald, eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyll, came to power. Encouraged by the Church, it immediately set about purging all public offices of “malignants,” as those tainted by any association with Montrose or the Engagement were styled. Since the nobility’s presence in the Estates was thus drastically reduced, it seemed that the opportunity had at last arrived for the hardline remnant within the Kirk to do something about the burden of patronage.

      Ecclesiastical Influence upon the Scottish Parliament

If, as Walter Makey has suggested, the purged Parliament was now obedient30 to the ministers, then the realization of cherished goals like the abolition of presentations would indeed have become all but inevitable. However, it would be mistaken to conclude that the political situation had simply been transformed into a sacerdotal dictatorship. The work of John R. Young has shown that although the executive bodies of both church and state shared a proportion of their membership, yet neither operated as if one were the captive of the other.31 Young stresses that at this juncture, as throughout the 1640s, the way ecclesiastical influence was most exerted upon Parliament was in the form of lobbying, and that this was effected through a body created by the General Assembly for such a purpose, called the Assembly Commission.

      General Assembly Commission

According to Young, the Kirk’s need for an executive arm, with powers between Assemblies to negotiate on its behalf at the highest diplomatic levels, arose previously out of the post-1638 political turmoils. Thus he traces its first, formal appointment to 5 August 1642,32 but there are strong indications, however, that the Commission in fact had earlier antecedents. These emerge particularly in Alan R. MacDonald’s book, The Jacobean Kirk, 1567–1625. Although Assembly commissioners, sent out to perform specific remits, are mentioned frequently in the early 1590s, MacDonald notes that from 1596 their function appeared to broaden out into what was, in effect, a standing commission with the capacity to act in a wide range of matters:

They sent delegations to the king and Privy Council, demanding action against Huntly, Errol, their wives and Lady Livingstone, Errol’s daughter and an openly practicing Catholic. Alexander Seton, president of the Court of Session . . . was referred to the commissioners by the synod of Lothian and Tweeddale for dealings with the Catholic earls. They even found time to deal with a dispute over a benefice in the presbytery of Glasgow. The commissioners were acting, and were seen by the rest of the Kirk, as a privy council for the Kirk, wielding the power of the General Assembly between its meetings.33

It was the king himself who then added impetus to this development, since he realized that to enhance the status of such a body was to provide himself with a vehicle on which he could to carry through his plans to restore episcopacy: “King James rewarded those who had loyally served as commissioners of the Assembly by making them bishops. What better way of providing the episcopate with powers which did not require ratification by Parliament or General Assembly? Episcopacy with teeth was thus not reintroduced at a stroke; it was drip-fed into the system via the commission of the General Assembly and ecclesiastical representation in Parliament.”34

The role and powers of the Commission were to be the source of much controversy in the following century, as the number of controverted settlements threatened to overwhelm the Assembly. Returning, however, to the situation of the late 1640s, the Commission’s function of “prosecuting the desires of the Assembly”35 became especially relevant as it utilized the Church’s strengthened position in the aftermath of Preston to press for a programme of reforms which ranged from incest to care of the poor. Also within the agenda was the question of patronages.

      The Approach to Abolition

The Commission’s lobbying campaign began on 30 January 1649 with a petition to Parliament. Calling it an old grievance, the petition based its appeal for removal on the grounds that it was a). unconstitutional, b). contrary to Scripture, c). prejudicial to free election and calling of ministers, d). a popish institution and e). condemned by the Books of discipline and the Acts of former General Assemblies. It considered its presence to be an item of unfinished business left over from the Reformation, and asked for its removal—or repeal, if any Act could be found to validate it as a law instead of merely a “corrupt custome.”36

      To assist the Estates in their deliberations, the Commission resolved, two weeks later, to have a petition and memorandum drawn up which would demonstrate in detail why patronage was unlawful. The task was entrusted to the much-respected Samuel Rutherford (1600–61), now Principal at St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, and James Wood (d.1664) third Master of the college. Their finished work was approved on the 28 February and at once sent up to Parliament.

The memorandum’s introduction37 commences with the tactful submission

Скачать книгу