LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

that of arbiter in settlement disputes, and, in such circumstances, the Protester interest was, not unexpectedly, the one which received their repeated favor. Thus encouraged, the latter pursued a policy of placing like-minded candidates in vacancies, even if that involved splitting church courts and establishing rival ministries, as at Douglas (Lanark presbytery) in 1654, where the settlement of their nominee had to be enforced by English dragoons.

Armed force was not the only advantage the Protesters could draw upon. It was open to them to obtain an order ensuring only their candidate received the stipend, even though the other might be supported by virtually all the congregation. As Baillie ruefully noted: “Our churches are in great confusion: no intrant getts any stipend til he have petitioned and subscribed some acknowledgement to the English. When a very few of the Remonstrators or Independent partie will call a man, he gets a kirk and the stipend; but whom the Presbyterie, and well near the whole congregation calls and admitts, he must preach in the fields, or in a barne, without stipend. So a sectarie is planted in Kilbryde, ane other in Leinzie.”55 Having powerful backing meant that the Protester version of a presbytery could even avoid having to wait for vacancies to appear but instead could create them through depositions. Then, if the congregation still held to the former incumbent, it could be claimed that, by adhering to a deposed minister, they had showed themselves malignant. This then opened the door for the right of planting to fall into the presbytery’s hands.56

In terms of parochial placements, potentially the most significant threat for the Resolutioners stemmed from a development which came to be known as “Gillespie’s Charter.” Although there was a wing of the Protesters, led by Johnston of Wariston and Guthrie, which remained wary of too close a relationship with the English administration, this was not a concern shared by Patrick Gillespie, who, through his rapport with the regime, had received the principalship of Glasgow University in February 1653. In August 1654, he persuaded the authorities to set up an examining body, the majority of whom would be Protesters or Independents, which would vet all candidates for vacancies. The ordinance at once provoked much alarm and protest on the grounds that it appeared to turn ministerial fitness into a matter of state concern. The Resolutioners also knew that, at a stroke, it removed any advantage accruing to them from their numerical superiority in the church courts. Fortunately for them, however, the Guthrie/Wariston alignment feared the scheme might act as an encouragement of Independency, and so ruled out any participation. Since Gillespie’s own interest was not big enough to make it workable, the Charter remained an unfulfilled threat.57 Finally, in August 1656, the Resolutioners came to a compromise with the president of the governing Scottish Council whereby church courts would retain their disciplinary authority, provided they submitted returns certifying that entrants were “able and fitt to preach the Gospel,” and that those who had been inducted made supplication to the Council, pledging to live “peaceably and inoffensively” under the government and to behave “as becometh a minister.”58 This arrangement remained in place down to the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.59

      The Application of the 1649 Rules

      In looking at how the directory guidelines were applied in the 1650s, it quickly becomes clear, once obvious examples of Resolutioner/Protester manipulation of procedures have been discounted, that customs varied widely. The directory decreed that the power of electing was placed in the hands of the session, who would then intimate their choice to the presbytery, the congregation having given concurrence. The act of election was to be moderated [that is, guided, supervised] by a minister from the presbytery.

To begin with, there was variation in the ways a word like “call” was used. Some presbyteries (in common with the directory) did not speak of a call at all, but only of election. Others, like Cupar presbytery, used the term to describe the choice that had taken place and which was now being intimated to the presbytery.60 If any documentation was produced, it would frequently be in the form of a petition to the court, signed by some prominent parishioners (not necessarily elders), requesting it to proceed to the next stage in filling the charge.61 Some presbyteries spoke of a “call and invitation”62 as if they were two separate activities. In Paisley presbytery, a call is a signed document to be lodged with the court, specifying the person sought to be minister.63 By contrast, the word call could be used in courts like the synod of Aberdeen or the presbytery of Strathbogie, simply to mean a request for an expectant to come and be heard.64 How use of the word “call” came to develop will be considered later.

      There was also the matter of an election’s moderation by a member of presbytery. Although the directory specified that this should be done, little attention appears to have been given to the regulation. Usually, presbytery minutes record only that a session had met and made choice. Repeatedly, as in the case of South Leith, the elders seem to have been left to organize such elections by themselves. Again, at Paisley presbytery on the 27 February 1655, when a call from Houston was suddenly refused by the candidate named, some parishioners immediately appeared with another call to someone else. Presbytery proceeded on the basis of the second call, although neither it nor the first one had been moderated.

Mention of the Houston parishioners raises the question of whether or not the session were indeed the sole electors in every instance. Once again, it is clear that the practice varied. In general, sessions were not especially concerned to protect the exclusivity of their privilege. Similarly, if it meant vacant charges could be filled more quickly, the church courts were not inclined to be fastidious about the details of the directory’s injunctions, as at Kemback (St Andrews presbytery) in 1653, where the session, heritors and heads of families were invited jointly to elect.65 Flexibility could not, however, be allowed to drift into irresponsibility, and Aberdeen synod were shocked to discover, in April 1660, that the elders of Innernochtie (Alford presbytery) had meekly handed over their right of choice to the Earl of Mar. They were immediately instructed to elect a minister for themselves and thereby “preserve their owne liberty of nomination as iff ther hade never been done any thing theranent.”66

      Some sessions were to find, however, that they had never possessed their right in the first place. In June 1654, the session of three congregations that made up the High Kirk of Aberdeen (St Nicholas) discovered that the magistrates had, without any consultation, elected and called the minister of Ellon, John Paterson, to fill the third charge. Their protestations sparked off a period of strained relations between the two bodies, which was not ameliorated when, in December 1658, the city Council nominated Paterson again, and demanded the session’s concurrence. When the controversy climaxed before the synod of Aberdeen on the 20 April 1659, the Council produced a charter from 1638 which showed that election had been given to the provost, bailies and the people of the city. Accordingly, since the Act of 1649 had taken away the right of patronage in order to give it to the people, “thie act of Parliament doth nowayes concerne us, becaus our nomination was still befor in thie people’s hands, and could not fall under that act as bieing taken away.” The session’s response, that the directory had been commissioned in order to provide a uniform system for the whole country, failed to impress the synod and the Council won its case.

The subject of magistrates’ rights in planting churches in Scotland’s major burghs became a matter of national debate in the mid–eighteenth century, and will be discussed in a later chapter. However, it will be noted that the Aberdeen controversy is of interest in that it exposed a question that would certainly have arisen again, had the Restoration not occurred: were council

Скачать книгу