Church history, 201.
41. Ibid., 197; Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (hereinafter cited as DSCHT), ed., Cameron, Nigel M. de S., (Edinburgh: 1993), 254.
42. John Erskine of Dun, superintendent of Angus and Mearns, Miscellany of the Spalding Club. (Aberdeen: 1849), iv, 99–100; Erskine to Earl of Mar, 10 November 1571, see Violet Jacob, The lairds of Dun. (London: 1931), 302.
43. APS, iii, 106; iii, 137; iii, 212.
44. BUK., 219.
45. Duncan Shaw, The general assemblies of the church of Scotland 1560–1600. (Edinburgh: 1964), 58.
46. BUK, 182; 200; 213; 220.
47. See James Kirk, Patterns of reform: continuity and change in the Reformation Kirk (hereinafter cited as Kirk, Patterns) (Edinburgh: 1989), 371.
48. APS, i, 90.
49. According to Cowan, only 148 parishes out of 1028 were unappropriated by 1560. See Cowan, The parishes of medieval Scotland , v. 226.
50. A bishop was in an interesting position as a patron. To his patrimonial, or mensal, churches, he simply appointed stipendaries, but where he had actually acquired the patronage of churches within his diocese, his practice could only be to confer and collate the parson, since he could not present to himself. See, James, Viscount of Stair, Institutions of the law of Scotland, ii, 487. (Edinburgh: 1981).
51. Donaldson, “Crown rights, etc,” 33.
52. DSCHT, 198; William Forbes, A treatise of church lands and tithes in two parts (hereinafter cited as Forbes, Tithes. (Edinburgh: 1703).
53. SRO., Caprington Letter Book, fo. 6.
54. APS., 11, 424.
55. “Thus Dryburgh tended to be at the disposal of the Erskines, Paisley and Kilwinning of the Hamiltons, Whithorn of the Flemings, Crossraguel of the Kennedys, Culross of the Colvilles and Jedburgh of the Humes.” Cf., Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, 39.
56. APS, iii, 433.
57. These lordships simply evolved, thus, for example, the commendator, Robert Keith, who was infeft of the lands of the Abbey of Deer, became Lord Altrie, and Lord Claud Hamilton, infeft of Paisley 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
