Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1711

The Golden Act was repealed as regards Church government by Charles I, but lay Patronage was not repealed. In 1649, just before the execution of Charles I, the Parliament of Scotland passed an Act abolishing Patronage,[5] but it never received Royal Assent and Scotland was soon overrun by the English. Despite further changes to Church government, (even despite Scotland having been conquered by, and incorporated into, the Puritan Commonwealth of England), Patronage was not formally repealed. Nor was it during the Restoration and the reigns of Charles II and James VII.

Following the Dutch invasion of England by the Presbyterian William of Orange, the so-called Glorious Revolution definitively restored Presbyterianism as the only legal form of Church government in Scotland. A 1690 Act (again, by the Parliament of Scotland) did not abolish patronage, but vested this power instead in the heritors and elders of each parish, who could propose a candidate to the whole congregation, to be either approved or disapproved by them. If they disapproved, they needed to give their reasons. Disputes were to be resolved by the presbytery.[6] Presbyteries were to pay compensation, typically a year's stipend, to the owner of the abolished patronage, who was to provide a formal, written renunciation in return.

The Church of Scotland mainly acquiesced in this restoration, though it felt aggrieved and the General Assembly protested to Parliament almost every year that it was contrary to the Treaty of Union.[9] The congregation of a Parish could only legally object to a presentee on the grounds of his suitability, so the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland laid down increasingly stringent educational, moral and practical qualifications for candidates for the ministry. Moreover, few patrons dared to suggest scandalously unqualified candidates.

Appointments were, however, regularly contested through the church courts - Kirk Session, Presbytery and Synod finally to be decided at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. As most objections were on the acceptability of the candidate, rather than his suitability, the Assembly usually decided in favour of the Patron, particularly as he could seek civil damages in the Court of Session otherwise.

The civil courts were involved because disputes related to the stipends and property of Parishes, to ownership of the property of the right to Patronage, who had the right to exercise it and whether time limits had been breached.

Eventually, as most ministers owed their appointment to a patron, they were unwilling to challenge the system. Many were also wary of more democratic involvement in Church governance. The status of the Church itself had been guaranteed by Act of Parliament, so it tended towards supporting legal procedures, though it protested against them. Many patrons were wary of provoking disputes, so tried to work with the heritors and elders of their parishes to present candidates who met with General Assembly criteria in terms of education, character and practical ability. This group of ministers, heritors, elders and patrons – called Moderates - formed the dominant group in the Church of Scotland during the 18th century.

Other Ministers, Heritors and Elders objected to Patronage on principle, as compromising the independence of the Church and the right of congregations freely to call their own Ministers. They viewed the whole of the 17th century as a struggle to achieve this, most notably during the Covenanter disturbances, culminating in the victory of the Glorious Revolution. Later, this Party of principled opposition was called the Evangelicals. It became dominant in the 19th century. Moreover, the buying and selling of church offices - Simony - was against Church law. When a Patron tried to sell his right (or, more normally, when this was advertised as part of the sale of an estate), the cry of Simony was raised. As no money passed to Ministers or from Ministers to Patrons, this charge had moral force, but no legal effect, either in Church or civil courts. Discontented Parishioners had many options open to them at every level of Church and Civil courts to question the suitability of a candidate, on educational, moral, or practical grounds, but more normally on the firmness of his attachment to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They could also query the right of a particular Patron, or his Commissioner, or the timing, or formal wording of a particular presentation, or whether formal Church processes had been properly carried out.

In addition to formal, legal opposition, many disputed appointments were occasions for popular demonstrations of discontent, sometimes linked to political demands for more democracy. Presbyteries were empowered to call in the army to impose a disputed appointment.

An act of Parliament, 1719, required any presentee to declare his willingness to take up his patron's offer, to prevent a patron from presenting a candidate whom he knew would not take up a post, in order to profit himself from the stipend. Many optimistically thought this was the end of patronage, as no right-thinking Presbyterian would declare willingness to accept a patron's offer, but after an uncertain few years, patronage continued as the norm.[11]

An Act by the General Assembly of 1730, by which objectors to decisions of Church courts could no longer have these objections officially recorded, was regarded by Evangelicals as a move to silence their opposition to Patronage.

When a Patron failed to nominate a candidate for a vacancy within six months, his right of Patronage fell to the Presbytery. Each Presbytery proceeded as it saw fit, but the General Assembly of 1732 passed an Act which regulated this, by establishing the 1690 rules, granting the Patronage right to the Heritors and Elders, with procedures to be followed if a congregation objected to a candidate. Some members, including Ebenezer Erskine wanted to see the regulations of 1649 applied, by which all heads of families in a congregation called a Minister. The fact that they could no longer have their objections recorded led to the first schism in the Church of Scotland - the Original Secession.

The General Assembly of 1834 enacted the Veto Act, which prohibited the installation of a patron-presented minister in a congregation if the heads of a majority of member households objected to him and gave their reasons to the presbytery.[12] This event marked the end of the dominance of the Moderates and showed the strength of the Evangelicals.

A series of civil actions in the period 1838 - 1841 in the Court of Session, and confirmed in the House of Lords declared the above Veto Act ultra vires, so it was unenforceable by law. They also indicated that the Church of Scotland, having been set up by statute, was subject to the law of the land in all civil matters. Its Presbyteries were liable to severe financial penalties if they resisted Patron's nominees using the Veto Act. Court orders were made forbidding the ordination of Ministers who might harm the interests of a Patron's nominee.[13] This led to the Great Disruption of 1843 - a walk-out of about 40% of the Ministers, led by Thomas Chalmers - and the setting up of the Free Church of Scotland. This Church at the time had no doctrinal or theological difference with the majority of Ministers who remained in the Church of Scotland, but it contained the greater proportion of evangelical ministers. Those who remained within the Church of Scotland were determined to remain within the law, and in 1874 they secured abolition of the Patronage Act.

By the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1874, 163 years after the 1711 Act, lay patronage was abolished for the Church of Scotland, thus enabling presbyteries to follow canon law in the choice of ministers. Initially, ministers were chosen by a meeting of all the heads of households and elders, but a sophisticated process of trials was then developed, which by the second half of the twentieth century, also allowed women a voice in the selection of ministers. The General Assembly introduced the innovation of deaconesses in 1898, created the concept of women elders in 1966, and the concept of women ministers in 1968.