RSCHS, vol. xiii, (1959), 206. Cowan cites the example of Scoonie and Markinch churches, which were granted, c. 1055, to the Culdees of Loch Leven.
11. J.H.S. Burleigh, A church history of Scotland, (London: 1960), 52.
12. Benefactors often appeared to be more concerned about retaining the patronage to prebends, and similar benefices, than to their parish churches. Thus by 1560, only around 80 parish churches out of the total of 1028 remained in the gift of individual lay patrons [see, Ian B. Cowan, “Patronage, provision and reservation, pre-Reformation appointments to Scottish benefices”, in Ian B. Cowan, and D. Shaw, (eds), The Renaissance and Reformation in Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1983), 90; James Kirk, “The exercise of ecclesiastical patronage by the crown, 1560–1572”, in Cowan and Shaw, Renaissance and Reformation, 94]. The reason for their interest in prebends was because they provided a means of increasing the income of clerical relatives or friends without transgressing the canon law which disallowed the tenure of more than one office involving the cure of souls.
13. Ian B. Cowan, The parishes of medieval Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1967), v; Cowan, “Some aspects of appropriation, etc,” 205.
14. Cowan, “Patronage, provision and reservation,” 82.
15. George P. Innes, “Ecclesiastical patronage . . . in Scotland in the later middle ages”, RSCHS, xiii (1957–59), 73.
16. See the series, Calendar of Scottish supplications to Rome, published by the Scottish History Society (hereinafter cited as SHS): 1418–1422, eds. E.R. Lindsay, and Annie I. Cameron, (3rd series, vol. 23, 1934); 1423–1428, ed. Annie I. Dunlop, (vol. 48, 1956); 1428–1432, eds. Annie I. Dunlop, and Ian B. Cowan, (4th series, vol. 7, 1970), xx.
17. APS. ii, 5; ii, 14; ii, 16.
18. APS., ii, 144; ii, 166.
19. Gordon Donaldson, “The rights of the Scottish crown in episcopal vacancies” Scottish Historical Review (cited hereinafter as SHR), xlv (1966), 34, where it is argued that collation, here, refers only to those livings of which the bishop was actually patron, and not to all ecclesiastical benefices in the diocese. Cowan’s point is that, even if this were so, the king lost no time in extending his privilege. The royal expansionism did not, however, go on to include parish churches with known lay patrons. These were left alone. Ibid., 90.
20. Donaldson, “Rights,” 34.
21. APS., ii, 309–10.
22. Cowan, “Patronage, provisions etc,” 91.
23. See Gordon Donaldson, The Scottish Reformation, (Cambridge: 1960), 36.
24. The First Book of Discipline, ed. James K. Cameron, (Edinburgh: 1972), The fourth head: “Concerning ministers and their lawful election,” 96 & n.3. The fourth head several times uses the word “present.” However, as Cameron points out, 99 n.16, this was designed to mean either, a congregation presenting a candidate to the church council of the principal town for examination, or, a church council presenting a qualified examinee to a parish for assessment and election. The congregation had the right to reject such a candidate, but not for ”unreasonable” causes. In such a way, the attempt was made “to exercise a balance between the rights of the people and the rights of ministers and councils of the Church.”
25. John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland (hereinafter cited as Knox’s history), ed. William Croft Dickinson, (Edinburgh: 1949), ii, 149.
26. Ibid., 152. Knox says the reply was issued on the 21 August 1565; Dickinson suggests it may have been the 29 July. See n.4 there.
27. Ibid., 175.
28. The booke of the universall kirk of Scotland: (hereinafter cited as BUK), ed., Alexander Peterkin, (Edinburgh: 1839). 36.
29. For examples, see Kirk, “The exercise of ecclesiastical patronage etc.” 104; see also memo by Archibald Johnston of Wariston, in The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, AM, 1637–62, ed., David Laing, (Edinburgh: 1841), ii, 455.
30. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, 150.
31. Knox’s History, 177.
32. Register of the Privy Council of Scotland (hereinafter cited as RPCS.), P. Hume Brown, (ed.), i, (Edinburgh: 1899), 487–78.
33. One example was that although the impoverished ministers were now to receive assistance, it appeared to the Assembly of 26 December, to have been offered in the form of simply a pension of money and food. This triggered much heart-searching among the members, on the grounds that if they accepted the offer, they might prejudice their continuing claim to all of what they considered the Kirk’s just patrimony. In the event, material need triumphed over principle, and the funding was accepted.
34. APS, iii, 23.
35. BUK, 103; for a description of how the non-parochial benefices were made available to the new church, see Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, 154–55.
36. BUK, 154.
37. see James Kirk, The Second Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: 1980), 102.
38. “As to the mode of appointment, the practice varied. On some occasions the congregation presented a minister to the superintendent, either chosen by themselves directly, or by commissioners appointed by them; while in others the superintendent and his council suggested or proposed a minister to the congregation”: Report from select committee on church patronage, (Scotland;) with the minutes of evidence, appendix and index. House of Commons, 23 July, 1834 (hereinafter cited as Patronage report, 1834), 6.
39. Second book of discipline, iii, 4; xii, 9–10.
40.
