A Great Grievance. Laurence A.B. Whitley
of the people in church affairs? If not, then, logically, they belonged in the category of patrons. In 1690, when a system for vacancy filling without patronage was next considered for legislation, the regulations recognized this was a delicate area, and so were careful to bring urban councils into the camp of the former by pairing them with kirk sessions. However, after the return of presentations in 1712, they acted on their own and often in the same manner as Aberdeen. By way of contrast, kirk sessions in the 1650s tended to follow the opposite pattern. Although there was no formal requirement upon them to consult with other bodies, it was usually accepted that if there were powerful interests connected with the parish, then these could not easily be ignored. In most towns, the kirk session were happy to respect the sentiments of those magistrates who were not already elders, and as at Cupar in 1657,67 the line between consultation and effectual joint election was commonly blurred. Another, but parallel, situation applied at South Leith, second charge, in 1657, when the election was by the session and the Four Incorporated Trades.
In the more remote areas, consultation was not just a matter of courtesy but necessity. At Birnie (Elgin presbytery) in 1658, for example, when the session decided to assert their independence over the choice of minister, the presbytery and synod hastily stepped in and suppressed the call, stating as one of their reasons that it had been “without the consent of the heritors.”68 Since neither the directory nor Act makes any reference to heritors, the statement is extraordinary, and yet it gives an indication of the niche heritors had been establishing for themselves within the election process. As lesser landlords grew in status and importance through the rest of the century, it became obvious that when next the identity of ministerial electors came to be debated, the role of the heritor could not be ignored.
Summary
The Westminster assembly did not close finally until the 25 March 1652. The original vision of ecclesiastical uniformity between the two nations, based on a presbyterian system, withered away, especially after 1645, when the military importance of the Scots diminished. In the end, its enduring significance for the Scottish Church lay in its fostering of a confession of faith, larger and shorter catechism, directory for public worship and psalter, all of which were adopted by the Kirk and retained through the ensuing centuries.
When in 1644, the agenda turned to the subject of election and ordination, the floodgates opened within the Kirk to a debate that was to continue to the end of the decade. The discussions focused upon how, in filling a vacancy, the roles of presbytery, eldership and congregation should be apportioned. The majority view was that the people should be given a voice, but the question was, how loud a voice should it be? In the end, it was felt that it could safely be no more than a dissenting voice, but the weight accorded that disagreement was the vexed issue.
Although the matter continued to stimulate debate within the Church, the Westminster Assembly did not formally condemn patronage nor was the Kirk in a position to bully the Scottish Parliament into removing it. However, the Engagement and subsequent defeat at Preston in 1648 altered the political landscape sufficiently for the 1649 abolition to take place. The procedure for vacancy–filling now had to be decided. George Gillespie’s view that an intransigent congregation could be worked upon until brought round was rejected as being impractical. As a result, the 1649 Act of abolition stated baldly that no one should be obtruded against the will of the congregation. The directory, however, inserted a qualification: for the process to be halted, the majority of the congregation had to dissent and their reasons judged by the presbytery. If these were grounded on “causeless prejudices,” then the settlement was to go ahead.
By drawing a line, the directory showed that the Church had turned its back on congregationalism. However, the intensity of the debate about the people’s role had ensured that the genie of popular rights was out of the bottle. The vicissitudes of the Restoration era were to ensure that issue was not going to go away, but rather reappear in the subsequent generation with renewed vigor.
1. See David Stevenson,“The early Covenanters and the federal union of Britain” in Union, Revolution and Religion in 17th-century Scotland. (Aldershot: 1997), 163–81.
2. RPCS , vii, 427.
3 Godfrey Davies, The Early Stuarts 1603–1660. Matrix: The Oxford History of England, 2nd. Edn. (OUP: 1959), 135–36.
4. APS., vi, 41. The Solemn League and Covenant was approved by the convention of estates on the 17 August 1643, and in London on the 25 September.
5. J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart constitution, 1603–1688. (Cambridge 1966), 252.
6. An ordinance for the calling of an assembly of learned and Godly divines, to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling of the government of the Church [12 June 1643]; the assembly was to consist of 121 clergymen, 10 lords and 20 MPs. Kenyon, 261 & 255.
7. George Gillespie (1613–48): former chaplain to the earl of Wemyss, ordained to Wemyss, without episcopal collation, in 1638; translated to Edinburgh in 1642; a resolute opponent of episcopacy.
Robert Douglas (1594–1674) admitted to Kirkcaldy 2nd. charge in 1628, called to Edinburgh in 1639; elected moderator in 1642, 1645, 1647, 1649 and 1651; probably the Kirk’s leading figure after the death of Henderson; although a commissioner, did not actually attend at Westminster.
Samuel Rutherford (1600–61) became minister at Anwoth (Kirkcudbright) in 1627; denounced and eventually exiled to Aberdeen for his resistance to the Five Articles and episcopal arminianism; appointed Professor of divinity at St Andrews in 1639; published books defending presbyterianism and setting limits on the authority of the secular power; highly regarded internationally as a Reformed Church theologian; deprived and indicted for treason after the Restoration.
John Maitland (1616–82) 2nd Earl and 1st Duke of Lauderdale; a Covenanter, but remained a royalist, and was prominent in arranging the Engagement of 1647; captured at Worcester and imprisoned until Restoration, when he was appointed Secretary of State; notorious for his policy regarding presbyterians after episcopacy restored.
For Baillie, Henderson and Wariston, see above. John Kennedy, 6th Earl of Cassillis, did not attend at Westminster.
8. The whole works of the Rev John Lightfoot, D.D., minister of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, ed., John Rogers, (London: 1824), vol. xiii, “The journal of the proceedings of the assembly of divines, from January 1st, 1643 to December 31, 1644,” 98.
9. Baillie, 129. It was a moot point, in that the literal meaning of the Greek verb cheirotoneo, was “to stretch out one’s hand.” In classical Greek, this was used in connection with signifying one’s vote, but the early Church also used the word to mean “lay hands on.”
10. Ibid.
11. February 10, 1645, Act of the General Assembly of the kirk of Scotland, approving the propositions concerning kirk government and ordination of ministers, Pitcairn, 121.
12. “Notes of debates and proceedings of the Assembly of divines and other commissioners at Westminster, February 1644 to January 1645, by George Gillespie, minister