for, the heritable rights which applied to their property, of which patronage was one. Although the Kirk would have been alarmed by the powers vested in the episcopate to receive and expedite presentations, by the end of James’s reign, it looked as though the system he set in place for filling vacancies had a good chance of reaching a settled state. Charles’s misfortune was that although his intentions for teind reform had merit, the handling of so sensitive an issue required skills that he did not possess. This, along with mounting disquiet at his ecclesiastical policy, led to the revolution of 1637–8, the success of which would have been impossible without the support of the landed interest. Out of the ensuing turmoil came a renewal of the debate within the Church as to the acceptability of presentations. This in turn was intensified when attentions turned to the civil war that was brewing south of the border. As dialogue opened with the English Parliamentarians, the question arose, how far could both nations work together, or moreover, form a common ecclesiastical polity? If the latter were possible, what place would presentations have in the new regime?
Such questions were to occupy much attention north and south of the border as both nations groped towards a possible consensus at what came to be known as the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
1. 1588, 1592, and 1598.
2. Since the teinds had been specifically excluded from the 1587 Annexation Act, the presumption, in ecclesiastical circles, had been that they were being earmarked for the Church’s use. However, it became increasingly obvious that nothing specific was going to materialize: “Sometimes the teinds of the annexed churches were expressly conveyed to the grantee, and erected into benefices with grants of the patronage; at other times there was no mention of the patronage and no erection of the teinds into benefices, but in both cases the Lords of Erection generally assumed to themselves the right of presenting” [Patronage Report, #32].
3. Sess. 4, 9 March 1598; BUK, 467.
4. APS., iv, 294. The Act does not define simony, but simply lists it, along with the dilapidation of the rents of benefices, as an offence worthy of deprivation.
5. The privilege was affirmed in the Deposition of Ministers Act of 1592 [APS, iii, 542, c.9]. On the 23 July 1644, however, Parliament decided that the fruits of a vacant benefice could only be expended on pious uses [APS. vi, 128, c.47]. After the Restoration 0f 1660, the 1644 Act was rescinded. Yet, although presentations (abolished in 1649) were then re-established, patrons did not get back their right to the teinds of a vacancy. These were to be applied for pious uses for seven years, then during royal pleasure [APS., 1661, vii, 303, c.330].
6. APS, iv, 469.
7. Dunlop, Parochial law, 193–94.
8. For a discussion of this, see David G. Mullen, Episcopacy in Scotland: the history of an idea (Edinburgh: 1986).
9. Basilikon Doron, in Source Book iii, 51.
10. APS, iv, 130.
11. Although an English–style royal supremacy in the Kirk was not constitutionally possible, since unlike England, the Kirk did not issue from the conscious will and pleasure of a monarch.
12. BUK, 587; APS, iv, 469.
13. W. R. Foster, The church before the Covenants. (Edinburgh: 1975), 24–25.
14. APS, iv, 529.
15. These chiefly concerned a new prayer book and the restoration of certain practices (the celebration of Christian festivals, private baptism, episcopal confirmation, private communion and receipt of the sacrament while kneeling) which came to be known as the Five Articles of Perth. Seeing the hostility both matters engendered, James licensed the former and enacted the latter, but did not press them further.
16. “Fifteen nobles voted [in 1621] against the proposals, amongst them lords of erection who might have been expected to support the King. James had triumphed, but at great cost to the authority of the crown.” Ian B. Cowan, “The Five Articles of Perth” in, Reformation and revolution, essays presented to the Very Rev. Hugh Watt. (Edinburgh: 1967), 177.
17. Keith Brown, Kingdom or Province? Scotland and the regal union, 1603–1715. (Basingstoke: 1992), 97. See also Alan R. MacDonald, The Jacobean kirk, 1567–1625, sovereignty, polity and liturgy (Aldershot: 1998).
18. See David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–1644; the triumph of the Covenanters. (Newton Abbot: 1973), 35–36
19. That is, he was given the right to buy them from the titular or patron at nine-years’ purchase.
20. W. R. Foster, “A constant platt achieved: provision for the ministry, 1600–38” in Reformation and Revolution, 140.
21. The first, in 1606, was to see that incumbents of churches in the new erections were properly remunerated. Since the commission’s remit was, technically, limited to parishes within former abbey lands, a wider commission was established in 1617 (and renewed in 1621), with the aim of upgrading all inadequate stipends. Being a compromise, the results failed to be comprehensive, but there were significant improvements. See: Foster, “A constant platt achieved,” 127–33.
22. Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish covenanters. (London: 1976), 19.
23. Stevenson, Scottish revolution, 38.
24. Stevenson, Scottish revolution, 41.
25. See Macinnes, Charles I, 67–70.
26. See, `The humble supplication of the lords and commissioners of Parliament undersubscryveing’ [1633] and “The humble supplication of some lords and others commissioners of the late parliament” 1634], in John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland from the year 1558 to August 1637 Wodrow Society. (Edinburgh: 1842), 364–66; 376–81.
27. Row, The History, 351; 360.
28.
