and Covenant of 1643, a document that had led to a Scots attempt to impose Calvinism and Presbyterianism on England. Ironically, this attempt to separate church and state meant that the Church of Scotland became more like a parliamentary church.

In Scotland the union of church and state after 1688 was effected implicitly, from the bottom up. Presbyterianism militantly rejected the idea of the civil magistrate as simultaneously the head both of church and state, and rejected an episcopacy chosen by the king. Instead it developed, as English Presby-terianism did not, an elaborate formal structure of church governance to regulate itself without state intervention, rising in a pyramid from the parish kirk-session through the presbyteries and synods to the General Assembly, meeting annually in Edinburgh. It entailed the separation of the church from the state: following the union of 1707, Scots ministers could not vote in parliamentary elections, as clergy did in England; Scots ministers could not sit in the Westminster House of Commons; the Scots church had no direct representation in the House of Lords. No Scots equivalents of England's Corporation or Test Acts restricted civil office to Presbyterians; but, in so heavily and coercively Presbyterian a society, such provisions were unnecessary. So effective was the link between church government and local government that few ministers became magistrates, in strong contrast to English practice.

This formal separation of church and state generated little Scottish reflection on the nature of the establishment. Instead it gave rise to conflict within the ranks of Presbyterians, and to limited but bitter controversy in the one area where the church might claim wholly to regulate its own affairs: its claim to appoint ministers, a claim set against landowners' and the crown's pre-Reformation rights of patronage. Patronage was property and therefore inheritable; so were rights to the teind (tithe), for, as with the tithe in England, the teinds in Scotland had often been appropriated by landowners at the Reformation, and (despite repeated and unavailing petitions to parliament from the General Assembly after 1740) only a proportion of it now found its way to the local minister. Both practices were offensive to zealous Presbyterians, who in their campaigns against them drew on popular egalitarianism and resentment at local wealth.

Patronage had been revived along with the restored episcopacy in 1660. Triumphant Presbyterianism abolished private patronage in 1690, and in 1707 the Act of Union had embodied guarantees to maintain the existing Scottish church settlement. In 1712, however, the Tory-dominated Westminster parliament restored lay patronage in Scotland, and Whig ministries after 1714 declined to remedy what many Scots perceived as a major grievance. Many

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment