Читать книгу A Great Grievance - Laurence A.B. Whitley - Страница 12

The Westminster Assembly (1643–1649)

By August 1642, Charles and the English Parliament were embroiled in civil war. Both sides appealed to the Scots for support. This, in turn, started to polarize opinion within Scotland, between moderate royalists who felt the revolution had progressed as far as it decently should, and those who believed security lay, not in trusting Charles, but in closer union with England—a union in which Scotland would be an equal partner, and whose constitution would limit royal power.1 Whereas it is probable that most of the nobility favored the former stance, the great majority of the lesser ranks sided with the General Assembly’s conviction that the Covenanting movement would best be served by opening negotiations with the English Parliament. Accordingly, since Charles refused to call a Scottish Parliament, the Privy Council voted, on the 12 May 1643, to summon a convention of estates for the 22 June.2 Meanwhile, Charles, looking for reinforcements, had opened negotiations in Ireland with a view to recalling English soldiers from there. By the time the information reached Scotland, it was believed that the troops were in fact Irish Catholics bent on destroying the protestant cause. Thus, when the convention assembled, the credibility of the king’s supporters was undermined and they were unable to stop negotiations commencing with the English representatives on the 7 August.3

The ultimate result was the Solemn League and Covenant, a treaty whose principal points were that each country would endeavor, (i), to preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and continue the reformation of religion in England and Ireland according to “the example of the best reformed churches” (in other words, presbyterianism), (ii), to extirpate popery and prelacy, (iii), to preserve the rights and privileges of both parliaments and the authority of the king, (iv), to deal with any “incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments” who oppose the Covenant, (v), to promote peace and union between the two countries, and (vi), to assist the other partner in maintaining adherence to the Covenant.4

Although the document bears the hallmarks of a proposed religious settlement, the English parliamentarians’ overriding concern was the winning of Scottish military assistance. They were prepared to accept the Covenant as a price to be paid, but the fact remained, “the more they saw of Presbyterianism, the less the parliamentarians liked it, and the more they labored to keep it out of sight.”5 Nevertheless, The English Long Parliament showed interest in the Scottish alternative to episcopacy, and had, in June, already commissioned an assembly of divines to meet at Westminster and consider what form of government might “be most agreeable to God’s Holy Word, and . . . nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland.”6 The divines met on the 1 July, and invited the Kirk to send representatives. On the 19 August, the General Assembly appointed a pool of eight commissioners, from whom a minimum of three would be constantly present at the assembly. This initial pool of Scots representatives was composed of some of the Kirk’s leading figures. From the ministry, there was Samuel Rutherford (St. Andrews), Robert Baillie (Glasgow), Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas and George Gillespie (Edinburgh), and from the elders, John, Earl of Cassillis, John, Lord Maitland and Johnston of Wariston.7 The first three Scots commissioners were formally welcomed at the Westminster Assembly on the 15 September 1643.

Business moved slowly in the early months, however the pace began to quicken when, on the 2 January 1644, the agenda turned to the theory and practice of election and ordination. Although the gathering approved the proposition that the apostles had power to ordain officers in all churches and to appoint evangelists to ordain, the Scots, through Gillepsie, challenged the translation of one of the proof texts, which read: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church” (Acts, xiv, 23).8 Gillepsie claimed that the Greek word which “Episcopal translators” had deliberately rendered as ordaining, was “truelie choyseing, importing the peoples suffrages in electing their officers.”9 This sparked off much debate until Henderson contrived a compromise which added the provision that the meeting was referring to the verse as a whole, and that it did not intend thereby “to prejudge any argument which in due time might be alleadged out of this place, either for popular election, or against it.”10 It was a liberty which the Kirk was glad to remember and put on record the following year, when it ratified the articles on ordination.11

Shortly after this, detailed discussion on the issue of ordination was halted until March. Meanwhile, discussion began on whether or not presbyterian church government was scriptural.12 Although little was conclusively settled, the Scots did well out of the debate which led to the validity and standing of presbyterianism being viewed in a more respectful light than previously.13 However, as the reopening of the discussions on ordination was to demonstrate, any endorsement of presbyterianism was not to be equated with a wholehearted acceptance of popular control of the Church.

On the 21 March, the Westminster Assembly turned its attention to the proposition that a congregation should accept a minister recommended to them by the superior church authority, unless they could show “just cause of exception against him.”14 The Scots had two difficulties with this. First, having already had experience of parochial intransigence, they felt obliged to press for a more detailed definition of what the qualification allowed, Gillespie asking, “But if they cannot shew just cause against him, what then is to be done?”15 There was also the matter of what Henderson called “the people’s interest, in point of election”16 He wanted to know how much preliminary consultation would there be? In seeking to resolve these scruples, the Scottish commissioners found themselves sandwiched between two opposing positions.

On the one hand, there were the moderate English Puritans, who considered that the proposed concession already bestowed a privilege upon a congregation that was more than adequate. On the other side, there were the Independents, who argued that the proposition’s approach was the wrong way round, and that any recommending should be by the people to the presbytery. In their view, what had been suggested came “not up to the privilege of the people.”17

For their part, the Scots were in the difficult position of being unable to speak with one voice, since their own church was at the time engaged in the process of internal debate upon congregational rights in vacancies. There were those, like Rutherford, who unequivocally adhered to the belief that, “The Scriptures constantly give the choice of the pastor to the people. The act of electing is in the people; and the regulating and correcting of their choice is in the presbytery.”18 Set against that, there were those like the historian and presbyterian apologist, David Calderwood (1575–1650), who wrote from Scotland censuring the Scots commissioners for allowing the power and status of kirk sessions, and thereby congregations, to be elevated to a point that, as Baillie ruefully reported, “we put ourselfe in hazard to be forced to give excommunication, and so entire government, to congregations, which is a great stepp to Independencie. Mr H[enderson] acknowledges this; and we are in a pecke of troubles with it.”19

Gillepie’s solution was to make obtrusion the central issue. If the Westminster Assembly could be persuaded specifically to outlaw settlements renitente et contradicente ecclesia [the church being in opposition], then he felt it would be a suitable compromise: “for the prelates are for obtrusion, the Separation [separatists] for a popular voting: ergo let us go in a medium.”20 When it came to the vote on the 22 March, however, the motion which finally passed still withheld an unrestricted veto: “No man shall be ordained a minister for a particular congregation, if they can shew (any) just cause of exception against him.”21 Despite the rearrangement of words, the Scots had, in the end, made little impact on the original proposition. According to Robert Paul, the reason for this was that the basic instinct of the conservative majority in the Westminster Assembly was to see the authority and status of presbyteries as being equivalent to that of the earlier bishops. Far from seeking popular empowerment, it was instead clear that for these men, “new Presbyter certainly was but ‘old Priest writ large.’”22 Nevertheless, thanks to discretionary powers which allowed the Kirk freedom to revise the details of the section on calling of ministers, the propositions on ordination were approved, despite their shortcomings, by the General Assembly on the 10 February 1645.

Before finishing with the Westminster Assembly, however, two questions remain to be asked, namely, did all the arguments surrounding election presuppose that presentations by patrons were to be repudiated and, secondly, if the Scots had been granted a free hand to regulate the admission of ministers to vacancies, what would their preference have been?

The answer to the first question is that, although patrons and presentations are very rarely mentioned in the minutes,23 or in the notes of observers like Gillespie or John Lightfoot, master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, there is no indication that all discussion was to be founded upon the principle that they were unacceptable. An example can be seen in the unexceptionable tone with which patrons are mentioned in a debate on the 21 March: “Mr Vines: The recommending by the presbytery heals all, for do either the patron or the people choose, yet is he to be recommended by the presbytery.”24 Again, all minutes appear carefully worded so that nothing obstructs the possibility of a presbytery receiving presentations. Thus, the procedure for the admission of ministers, approved on the 18 April, simply says: “He that is to be ordained must address himself to the presbytery, with a testimony . . . especially of his life: and then the presbytery to examine him: being approved, to be sent to the church where he is to be, and preach three days; and, on the last, notice to be given, that some of the congregation go to the presbytery to see him admitted or excepted.”25 Furthermore, it is recorded for the day before, that the meeting considered what legal action might befall a presbytery should “they stop a man presented, if they find him unworthy.”26 The word presented need not necessarily infer the use of a patron’s presentation, yet it is clear that the possibility is not discounted.

As for the question of Scottish preferences on election, a prevailing viewpoint is not immediately obvious. That the Kirk was itself unable to make up its mind is evidenced by the great debate which arose on the issue when the Westminster Directory came up for discussion at the 1645 General Assembly.27 Encouraged by a recent Act of the Convention of Estates, which virtually handed all crown presentations to presbyteries,28 Calderwood’s inclination was to stay with the traditional view that a presbytery’s authority was central and that the initiative in all vacancies should remain in its hands. By way of concession, however, he was prepared to allow a congregation its choice, provided the selection was from a list provided by the presbytery. On the other side of the argument, there were those, like Rutherford, who saw no reason why the people’s freedom to choose should be restricted at all. It therefore comes as no surprise to find that even five years later, opinion on the matter was as divided as ever:

. . . some ascrybeis this power [of election] to the multitude of professouris promiscuouslie within the flock or congregatione; some to the particulaire eldershipe within the congregatione quhairunto thei require att least a tacite or prerogative conseil of the wholl people; some ascrybe it unto the most eminent for light and lyf of religione in the congregatione, neglecting otheris altho never so eminent in other respectis and concerned in that place; some ascrybe it to the presbyterie onlie without any concurrence of the people; some ascrybe this power to the presbyterie and people joyntlie, everyone acting their owne part distinctly - whose judgement seems to approach nearest unto divine truth.29

Out of the confusion, it was a version of the system espoused by George Gillespie which won approval after the Scotish Parliament ultimately abolished patronage in 1649. This placed the power of election with the kirk session rather than the congregation and it is possible that it would have been the compromise choice of the Scots representatives at Westminster. However, before considering Gillespie’s preferences further, it is important to move on from the Westminster Assembly to look at the circumstances which led to the abolition of patronage and then return to how the Kirk coped with the far from straightforward task of agreeing upon an alternative.

The Abolition of Lay Patronage in 1649

The Political Background

The Scottish decision to provide military support for the Parliamentarians against the king in 1644, provoked deep divisions north of the border. A Scottish pro-royalist party emerged, although not all of its adherents were prepared to go to the violent lengths of the Marquis of Montrose, whose military campaign on the king’s behalf got underway in August 1644. Despite the defeat of Charles at Naseby in June, and Montrose at Philiphaugh in September 1645, support for the king deepened and spread when, in the following year, he surrendered to the Scots forces, only to be handed over to the English Parliament on 8 January 1647. The fact was, most presbyterians had no liking for the churchmanship of the Independents, now gaining ascendancy in England, and when, in addition, the king was seized by the army during June 1647, there was general alarm for his safety. As a result, a group of nobles were emboldened to enter into an “Engagement” with Charles, whereby they would endeavor to restore his authority in return for concessions which included his (qualified) support for the Solemn League and Covenant and presbyterianism. Although the Estates came out in favor of the Engagement, the General Assembly remained suspicious of royal intentions, and resolved to oppose it. In the event, the Estates sent an army south, only to see it heavily defeated by Oliver Cromwell at Preston, in August 1648.

In the tide of recrimination which followed the debacle at Preston, an anti-Engager grouping, led in particular by Archibald, eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyll, came to power. Encouraged by the Church, it immediately set about purging all public offices of “malignants,” as those tainted by any association with Montrose or the Engagement were styled. Since the nobility’s presence in the Estates was thus drastically reduced, it seemed that the opportunity had at last arrived for the hardline remnant within the Kirk to do something about the burden of patronage.

Ecclesiastical Influence upon the Scottish Parliament

If, as Walter Makey has suggested, the purged Parliament was now obedient30 to the ministers, then the realization of cherished goals like the abolition of presentations would indeed have become all but inevitable. However, it would be mistaken to conclude that the political situation had simply been transformed into a sacerdotal dictatorship. The work of John R. Young has shown that although the executive bodies of both church and state shared a proportion of their membership, yet neither operated as if one were the captive of the other.31 Young stresses that at this juncture, as throughout the 1640s, the way ecclesiastical influence was most exerted upon Parliament was in the form of lobbying, and that this was effected through a body created by the General Assembly for such a purpose, called the Assembly Commission.

General Assembly Commission

According to Young, the Kirk’s need for an executive arm, with powers between Assemblies to negotiate on its behalf at the highest diplomatic levels, arose previously out of the post-1638 political turmoils. Thus he traces its first, formal appointment to 5 August 1642,32 but there are strong indications, however, that the Commission in fact had earlier antecedents. These emerge particularly in Alan R. MacDonald’s book, The Jacobean Kirk, 1567–1625. Although Assembly commissioners, sent out to perform specific remits, are mentioned frequently in the early 1590s, MacDonald notes that from 1596 their function appeared to broaden out into what was, in effect, a standing commission with the capacity to act in a wide range of matters:

They sent delegations to the king and Privy Council, demanding action against Huntly, Errol, their wives and Lady Livingstone, Errol’s daughter and an openly practicing Catholic. Alexander Seton, president of the Court of Session . . . was referred to the commissioners by the synod of Lothian and Tweeddale for dealings with the Catholic earls. They even found time to deal with a dispute over a benefice in the presbytery of Glasgow. The commissioners were acting, and were seen by the rest of the Kirk, as a privy council for the Kirk, wielding the power of the General Assembly between its meetings.33

It was the king himself who then added impetus to this development, since he realized that to enhance the status of such a body was to provide himself with a vehicle on which he could to carry through his plans to restore episcopacy: “King James rewarded those who had loyally served as commissioners of the Assembly by making them bishops. What better way of providing the episcopate with powers which did not require ratification by Parliament or General Assembly? Episcopacy with teeth was thus not reintroduced at a stroke; it was drip-fed into the system via the commission of the General Assembly and ecclesiastical representation in Parliament.”34

The role and powers of the Commission were to be the source of much controversy in the following century, as the number of controverted settlements threatened to overwhelm the Assembly. Returning, however, to the situation of the late 1640s, the Commission’s function of “prosecuting the desires of the Assembly”35 became especially relevant as it utilized the Church’s strengthened position in the aftermath of Preston to press for a programme of reforms which ranged from incest to care of the poor. Also within the agenda was the question of patronages.

The Approach to Abolition

The Commission’s lobbying campaign began on 30 January 1649 with a petition to Parliament. Calling it an old grievance, the petition based its appeal for removal on the grounds that it was a). unconstitutional, b). contrary to Scripture, c). prejudicial to free election and calling of ministers, d). a popish institution and e). condemned by the Books of discipline and the Acts of former General Assemblies. It considered its presence to be an item of unfinished business left over from the Reformation, and asked for its removal—or repeal, if any Act could be found to validate it as a law instead of merely a “corrupt custome.”36

To assist the Estates in their deliberations, the Commission resolved, two weeks later, to have a petition and memorandum drawn up which would demonstrate in detail why patronage was unlawful. The task was entrusted to the much-respected Samuel Rutherford (1600–61), now Principal at St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, and James Wood (d.1664) third Master of the college. Their finished work was approved on the 28 February and at once sent up to Parliament.

The memorandum’s introduction37 commences with the tactful submission that as the ministers sought no benefit for themselves but only the removal of that which was unlawful and sinful, so they hoped that “your Lordships, in the integrity of your hearts, without any byas or eye to self-interest” would do the same. It then suggests that in doing so, their lordships might thereby free some parochial income, which could be diverted into caring for the poor—a ploy likely to incur no small popularity at a time of widespread want.

There then follows seven reasons justifying the church’s aversion to patronage. First, it is contrary to God’s law. The practice of a great man choosing the minister is as much a usurpation as his choosing the elders and deacons would be. Scripture grants to no one the right, unilaterally, to nominate any officer in the house of God; the New Testament reveals that this is given to the people and presbytery.38 Secondly, it is contrary to the received doctrine of the Kirk. Patronage is a violation of the Books of Discipline and many Acts of the General Assembly, of which last, two examples may be cited, the Acts of 1562 (session 3) and 1570 (session 2), where both imply a rejection of the practice.39 Thirdly, the office of patron is superfluous to the exercise of ministry and therefore unworthy of preservation. Moreover, since he cannot make the laborer worthy of his wages, he can hardly give him right to those wages. As for defending the minister in his maintenance, it is the magistrate’s job to do so. Fourthly, a patron should have no right to meddle in the remuneration of a properly qualified, called and admitted minister, yet as things stand, if the incumbent has not a presentation, the patron may withhold his maintenance. Any other profession would regard such interference as most unjust. Fifthly, to be lawful, patronage has to be either a spiritual, ecclesiastical or civil right. It is none of those. Sixthly, any office that can tempt either its holder or another party into corrupt agreements such as simony, ought to be banned. Seventh, patronage is both unnecessary and a complying with the practice of papists and idolaters.

The contrast with Johnston of Wariston’s treatise of just a few years earlier is interesting, in that the cautious tone is gone. The former is pragmatic, the latter is about principle. For the former, what is important is to seek a modus operandi, for the other, the issue is one of boundaries. Most of all, the latter envisages a remarkable arrangement whereby the secular arm is to protect, preserve and uphold the Church, yet deny itself any interference in its life and work. It was a proposition that did eventually receive the state’s explicit agreement in legislative form, but it was not to come until 272 years later.40

Just over a week after receiving the memorandum, Parliament debated the issue, passing the Act Abolishing the patronages of Kirks [see Appendix II] on the 9 March. The preamble repeated, in much the same language, the justifications contained in the petition and memorandum. However, once again, it should not be assumed that this was a confirmation that the legislature was merely the puppet of the ministers. The Act was part of a programme that the Kirk envisaged for national improvement, but it was also symptomatic of a flexing of muscle by the middle ranks of Scottish society. What made it possible was the dramatic reduction in the presence of the nobility in the Estates after the Preston fiasco. John R. Young’s statistics show how the nobles’ attendance dropped from 56 in the 1648 Parliament to 16 in the one beginning 4 January 1649.41 It was this crucial circumstance that freed the laird class to go on and promote measures characterized by their potential to erode the feudal hegemony of the nobility and large landowners.

Thus it was, in the same parliamentary session, power was given to presbyteries and kirk sessions to pressurize landowners into shouldering concern for the poor in their locality. Again, on the 8 March, the Act in favours of the Vassals of Kirk-lands revived one of the contentious aims [see above, Chapter Two] of King Charles in his legislation of 1633. Charles had tried to “liberate” the vassals of the Lords of Erection by stripping the latter of their superiority and vesting it in the Crown. To the frustration of the former, this had not happened. Now, this Act attempted to make good the deficiency and the lords were obliged “to accept the same sums from the vassals themselves whilk they are liable and bound to accept from His Majesty for redemption thereof.” Another example was the legislation of 29 June, which sought to enhance the status of others beside the aristocracy in the shires and burghs, by encouraging the revival of the office of Justice of the Peace.42

By such means, Parliament attempted to free the lesser landowners from the dominance of the magnates and allow them greater freedom to contribute to the life of their localities. Accordingly, when the Act abolishing patronage appears, it is as a part of this context. As a motivation, there was indeed the principle that it was a burden under which the Church “groaned,” but there was also the underlying reality that the great man with the block of patronages was no longer to have the same sway in parochial matters. This realization was undoubtedly in the mind of those like the Earl of Buccleuch (who had seven churches in his gift) when, in protest, he and others walked out of the chamber during the debate. The contemporary writer, Sir James Balfour, describes the scene: “The Parliament past a most strange [i.e., foreign, alien] Acte this monthe, abolishing the patronages of kirkes, which pertained to laymen since ever Christianity was planted in Scotland. Francis, Earl of Buccleuch, and some others, protested against this acte as vrangous [wrongous] and all togider derogatory to the just rights of the nobility and gentrey of the kingdom of Scotland, and so departed the Parl: House.”43

The objectors had Balfour’s sympathy, especially as two other facets to the debate caused him annoyance. The first stemmed from his conviction that the leading role played by Argyll, the Lord Chancellor (John Campbell, first Earl of Loudoun) and Johnston of Wariston in favor of the Act, was entirely driven by their fear of losing the Kirk’s favor. The second was that the phraseology of the Act gave the implication that the people were about to be given the liberty to choose their own ministers. He considered this to be hypocrisy, since such an outcome was never likely. Whereas there was probably truth in his first point, Balfour’s claim that the people had been duped in their expectations was exaggerated, since it is clear that the wording, “suit and calling of the congregation,” is open to a variety of interpretations. Indeed, the framers recognized as much in the Act itself.44

Balfour was, however, correct about the disunity and confusion which surfaced at the Assembly four months later over what selection system should replace patronage. On the other hand, some clash of opinion should not have been unexpected. For reasons of tact and expediency, the Kirk had perennially shied away from plenary debates about patronage, so there had never been a regular opportunity for differing opinions to be aired and agreement reached on an alternative system. Differing opinions were to be expected: what did take observers, like Baillie, by surprise was the intensity with which they were expressed.

The directory for the election of ministers [see Appendix III]

The 1649 Act remitted it to the July meeting of the Assembly to draw up a directory which would determine in what way the congregation’s interest could be fittingly expressed when a vacancy is filled, and to form that into a standing rule. When the debate began, the starting point for most members’ thinking was the views previously expressed by George Gillespie. Despite his death on the 17 December the previous year, he had been held in the highest regard,45 and so when, shortly after, Gillespie’s brother Patrick published a series of articles by him, including one on congregational consent in vacancies, it was given widespread attention.

Although the work was concerned with proving, from scripture and the practice of the early Church, that the approval of the people is essential for a valid ministry, it was equally emphatic in rejecting any separatist notion of giving the people a juridical power, that is to say, one in which their judgement was legally binding. That would be to place “the whole essentality of a calling in election, accounting ordination to be no more but the solemnization of the calling.”46 In Gillespie’s view, the most sensible course was for the eldership of a vacant church, with the advice of the “ablest and wisest men of the congregation, especially . . . magistrates,” to elect a candidate, and then seek the congregation’s consent for their choice. This consent was not, in Gillespie’s eyes, to be considered a suffrage. The eldership had already decided the issue: their secondary task was to strive to carry with them at least the majority of the congregation.

The problem with Gillespie’s plan was that it contained too much room for uncertainty, especially over the issues of advice and dissent—a difficulty remarked upon by one contemporary commentator, who felt he would “not contend to understand all the particulaires mentioned.”47 For men like Rutherford and Wood, however, there was no need for such confusion. Whereas Gillespie’s concern was not to promote the franchise of the untutored many over the privileged few, but rather to keep what he saw as a spiritual act (vacancy–filling) in the hands of the church’s spiritually–commissioned officers, in Rutherford and Wood’s eyes, the issue was otherwise. The question for them was straightforward: the power of election resided “in the body of the people, contradistinct from their eldership.”48 It was a premise they promoted with some passion.

The most bitter resistance to Gillespie’s views, however, came from David Calderwood. His revulsion against congregationalism, expressed at the time of the Westminster Assembly (see above), led him to feel that any arrangement which did not make presbytery unequivocally the electors (although the people could dissent), was a betrayal of presbyterianism. Baillie records that the sharpness of his protestations were such that he was fortunate to escape censure, although the court did afford him the honor of commissioning a written response to his objections.

The paper reveals how the main constituent of Calderwood’s argument was that the Assembly’s inclinations were a departure from the Second Book of Discipline, which had stated: “Election is the choosing out of a person or persons, most able for the office that vaikes, by the judgement of the eldership [i.e., presbytery] and consent of the congregation.”49 In reply to this, it was argued that church and society had moved on since that era. Since the Book did not “determine every particular belonging to the practice of election,” and that nothing in the new version was contrary to God’s word, men were surely free to alter the doctrines of men. Then, moving their reasoning onto less certain ground, the authors claim that the Book did not give the power of choosing to the presbytery only “as if the consent of the people were not an essential ingredient and part of election,” but to both jointly. Accordingly, the kirk session is not given “complete and free” election, but only a nomination by vote, which the people must acquiesce with.50

The respondents’ answers underline the difficulties encountered by the Church when it sought to make the second Book its guide on the planting of parishes. Baillie watched the interpretations ebb and flow and considered Calderwood had the better of the argument, nevertheless his own inclinations remained with the majority who favored a version of Gillespie’s ideas. The general sticking-point for the Assembly, however, remained the matter of how the candidate(s) for nomination were to be brought to the attention of the session—was presbytery to be the sole source? In the event, a compromise was reached whereby the presbytery would send candidates to be heard, but if the session petitioned them to allow, in addition, a hearing of someone else, then they would endeavor to facilitate it.

In reality, since malignant congregations (or their sessions) were to be denied participation in the vacancy process, the directory’s final form ended up giving most advantage to the presbyteries. Baillie, however, still disliked the plan, believing there was a danger presbyteries might decide to hold back altogether from becoming involved, and thereby leave the field clear for trouble-makers to promote the cause of virtually anyone.51 In the event, the ensuing political upheavals brought about a situation even worse than he imagined.

The Period of Cromwell

The beheading of Charles I on the 30 January 1649 caused a pro-royalist reaction north of the border. Partly because of this and partly through annoyance that the execution had been done without any consultation, the Scots Parliament proclaimed the Prince of Wales as the new king on the 5 February. Two days later, it passed further legislation, clarifying the limitations to be put upon his authority and making presbyterianism and the Covenants a central fixture to any subsequent negotiations with him. Commissioners were sent to Charles in Holland but because of his reluctance to agree to any of the key conditions, nothing was settled until a year had passed. By May 1650, Charles realized he was running out of options for regaining his throne and accordingly came to terms at Breda, although it was not until actually arriving at Speymouth that he finally, on the 23 June, subscribed the Covenants. News of Charles’s return stimulated Cromwell into action and he crossed the Tweed with an army on the 22 July. The Scots army, although larger, was weakened by purging of its supposed malignant elements, and was routed at the battle of Dunbar on the 3 September.

The Dunbar disaster damaged the Kirk’s credibility and coherence. The Covenanting hardliners in the south and west (especially Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Galloway) banded together52 and issued, on 17 October, a Remonstrance in which they detached themselves from supporting the king’s cause unless he showed real repentance for his sins and repudiated the company of malignants. During November, both the Committee of Estates and the Assembly Commission conducted angry and divisive debates on the “Western Remonstrance” before deciding to reject it. Polarization of opinion increased when, in response to further success by the English forces at Hamilton (1 December), Parliament decided to approach the Church with a plan to bolster both national unity and military effectiveness by relaxing the ban on Engagers and royalists. The Commission’s reaction was to agree that the crisis warranted such a move, and gave it their approval on the 14 December. However, Parliament’s determination to rally mixed support and the Commission’s continued adherence to the policy, set the Kirk on the path to schism.

On the one side, moderates or “Resolutioners,” still hoped that Charles would live up to the trust placed in him, and they gave their blessing to his coronation at Scone on the 1 January 1651. In addition, on the second and third of June, they agreed to the repeal of the Act of Classes of 1649, which had discriminated against malignants, and also approved the Act against the Western Remonstrance, which demanded that it be formally renounced by its adherents.53 On the other side, the Remonstrant party, led especially by James Guthrie (Stirling first charge) and Patrick Gillespie (Outer High kirk, Glasgow), clamored with mounting disgust against what it saw as the Church’s defections. Matters climaxed over the General Assemblies held, because of the advance of Cromwell’s army, at St. Andrews and Dundee in July and August. A clumsy attempt to prevent opponents of the Resolutioners from attending resulted in angry scenes and a protest being lodged by Rutherford, after which over twenty colleagues joined him in walking out. From this point, a bitter breach opened up between the Resolutioners and the Remonstrants (or Protesters), who thereafter refused to countenance the validity of the Assemblies. Unfortunately for the former, their backing for Charles’s invasion of England and subsequent defeat at Worcester on the 3 September, meant that as Cromwell now took control of Scotland, his administration throughout the 1650s would give its favor to their numerically inferior rivals.54

The Settlement of Vacancies

Although the 1649 directory was in place at the start of the period of the Protectorate, any assessment of how it worked is immediately complicated by the partisan split within the Kirk and the readiness of the state to interfere. This began on the 4 June 1652, when Cromwell’s commissioners announced that they were intending to purge the Kirk of all unsatisfactory ministers and replace them with those they considered suitable. In practice, their role tended to be 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 members truly interchangeable with elders as representatives 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 at Edinburgh, from unpublished manuscripts,” ed, David Meek, in The presbyterian’s armoury: the works of Mr George Gillespie in two volumes. Edinburgh: 1846, 9. [hereinafter cited as Gillespie, “Notes”].

13. See Robert S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, (Edinburgh: 1985), 314.

14. Lightfoot, Journal, 230.

15. Ibid., 232

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 231.

18. Ibid., 231.

19. Baillie, Letters, ii, 182.

20. Lightfoot, 232.

21. Ibid., 233; “any” appears in Lightfoot’s record of the day’s vote, but it is absent from the minutes.

22. Paul, Assembly of the Lord, 322.

23. See, Minutes of the sessions of the Westminster Assembly of divines, Alexander F. Mitchell, & John Struthers, (eds.) (Edinburgh: 1874).

24. Lightfoot, Journal, 231.

25. Ibid., 250.

26. Ibid., 253.

27. 7 February 1645. Gillespie, Notes, 120.

28. 6 January 1644; Act anent presentation of ministers, APS, 66.

29. Wodrow mss [NLS Wod.Fol.xxviii, 28], “Concerning the people’s interest in calling them pastoris”: notes on calling of ministers addressed to Rev William Tweedie [of Slamanan, Linlithgow presbytery]. Anon. c.1650.

30. Makey, Church of the Covenant, 78.

31. Young, John R., “Scottish covenanting radicalism, the commission of the kirk and the establishment of the parliamentary radical regime of 1648–1649.” RSCHS, xxv, (1995), 355. Young uses attendance figures to show, for example, that “Nine of the 16 nobles (56%), 11 of the 46 gentry (24%), and seven of the 51 burgesses (14%) recorded in the parliamentary rolls of 4 January 1649 were also members of the commission of the kirk established on 11 August 1648. Yet only a small minority of these lay elders were in semi-regular attendance according to the 44 recorded sederunts of the commission of the kirk between 12 August 1648 and 4 January 1649.” Ibid., 353–54.

32. Ibid., 345.

33. MacDonald, The Jacobean Kirk, 65.

34. MacDonald, Jacobean Kirk, 119.

35. Peterkin, Records of the Kirk, 330.

36. The records of the commissions of the general assemblies of the church of Scotland holden in Edinburgh the years 1648 and 1649, A.F. Mitchell, and J. Christie, (eds), Scottish History Society, vol. xxv, II, (1896), 184.

37. Ibid., 205–11.

38. Ibid., 207. The proof-texts cited are, Acts 1, v. 26; Acts 6, vv. 3 & 5; Acts 14, v2; I Timothy 8, v. 22, and Titus 1, v. 5 (Acts 14 and I Timothy 8 are clearly mistaken. In view of their prominence in the ordination debates at the Westminster Assembly, it is very likely that the intended references are Acts 13, v2 and I Timothy 5, v. 22).

39. The text of the Acts in fact reads: 29 December 1562: “[inhibition shall be made to all] that hes not been presented be the people, or ane part thereof, to the Superintendent.” 5 March 1570: “[it pertains to the jurisdiction of the Kirk to have] Electione, examinatione and admissione of them that are admittit to the ministrie.” BUK, 12 and 124.

40. An Act to declare the lawfulness of certain Articles declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual prepared with the authority of the General Assembly of the Church. Acts of the British Parliament, 1921, c.29.

41. John R. Young, The Scottish parliament 1639–1661, a political and constitutional analysis, (Edinburgh: 1996). The remaining membership was composed of gentry (46 minimum to 52 maximum) and burgesses (51 min. to 58 max.).

42. 1 March 1649, Act anent the Poore, APS, vi, 389; 8 March 1649, Act in favours of the vassals of Kirk-lands, APS, vi, 408; 29 June 1649, Act anent JPs and their Constables, APS, vi, 470.

43. Sir James Balfour, The historical works of Sir James Balfour of Denmylne and Kinnaird, Kt. and Bt.; Lord Lyon, king of Arms to Charles I and Charles II, ed., J. Haig, (Edinburgh: 1824), iii, 391.

44. Doubtless aware of this, the framers added the qualification: “because it is needful that the just and proper interest of congregations and presbyteries . . . be clearly determined by the General Assembly, and what is to be accounted the congregation having that interest, therefore it is seriously recommended unto the next General Assembly clearly to determine the same, and to condescend upon a certain standing way for being a settled rule therein.” APS , vi, 412.

45. see letter to him from the Assembly Commission, 23 September 1648. Also, his family was awarded a pension by parliament on his death “as an acknowledgement for his faithfulness,” see “The works of Mr George Gillespie, minister of Edinburgh,” ed., W.M. Hetherington, i, xxx, in The presbyterian’s armoury in three volumes. (Edinburgh: 1846).

46. The presbyterian’s armoury, ii, pt.2, George Gillespie, “A treatise of miscellany questions,” ii, “Of the election of pastors with the congregation’s consent,” 11.

47. “Concerning the Presbytery’s interest, etc.”

48. Baillie, Letters, iii, 94.

49. Kirk, Second book of discipline, 102.

50. Wodrow mss, NLS. Wod.Fol.xxix, 22. `Answer to the paper of Mr Calderwood against the directory for election of ministers presented to the General Assembly.’ nd.

51. Letters, iii, 95.

52. They had previously done so in the aftermath of the battle of Preston in 1648, when they marched on Edinburgh and helped establish the anti-Engager regime. The incident was called the Whiggamore Raid.

53. A similar Act of 1646 was also repealed. APS, vi, 676–7, 683–84.

54. The areas where the Protesters had a strong interest were the west, south-west, Lanarkshire and Fife.

55. Letters, iii, 244, 248.

56. Ibid. 257.

57. see F. D. Dow, Cromwellian Scotland 1651–1660, (Edinburgh: 1979), 101, 197–98.

58. Register of the consultations of the ministers of Edinburgh and some other brethren of the ministry, Scottish History Society, 3rd. series, (Edinburgh: 1921), i, 202.

59. Dow, Cromwellian Scotland, 207.

60. Cupar presbytery minutes, 10 May 1655.

61. Ibid, 12 March 1657.

62. 26 May 1657, see W. A. Stark, The book of Kirkpatrick Durham, (Castle Douglas: 1903).

63. Paisley presbytery minutes, 27 February 1655.

64. Synod of Aberdeen minutes, 21 April 1652, in Selections from the records of the kirk session, presbytery, and synod of Aberdeen. Spalding Club, (Aberdeen: 1846), 216–7; Extracts from the presbytery book of Strathbogie, 1631–54, 11 June 1651, Spalding Club, (Aberdeen: 1843), 195–96.

65. 23 March 1653, Selections from the minutes of the presbyteries of St Andrews and Cupar 1641–98 Abbotsford Club. (Edinburgh: 1837), 66. The laird of Kemback nonetheless challenged the prebytery’s method of election.

66. 19 April 1660, Selections, Spalding club, 260.

67. Cupar presbytery minutes, 19 October 1654.

68. “Proceedings in the presbytery of Elgin, in the settlement of a minister at Birnie, 1658,” Report on Church Patronage, app. ii, 144. The earl’s candidate was settled on the 22 June 1659.