Totally torn in two
The 'disruption' saw Scotland's Kirk split for more than 85 years. James Irvine Robertson explains why it happened.
The free kirk, the wee kirk, the kirk without the steeple; the auld kirk,the cauld kirk, the kirk without the people.
In 1603, James VI inherited the English throne. The monarchy left Edinburgh for London for good. Parliament followed in 1707. Scottish national identity coalesced around the two remaining great institutions – the Law and the Church.
Since the reformation the struggle between radicals for a Presbyterian and democratic form of worship against centralised control by bishops and the king had been at the foundation of almost continual conflict.
The former had been triumphant; ministers were elected by the congregation. With the Kirk’s influence over the moral character of the people and its control of schools and poor relief, it cradled the nation in its hand. This pre-eminent position had been enshrined in the Treaty of Union.
But in 1712 the new British Parliament casually restored lay patronage which gave the land owners, the heritors, the power to select ministers for vacant parishes.
In theory the candidate still needed the approval of the congregation – the Call – but in fact the civil courts supported the lairds and soldiers were sometimes needed to enforce the chosen succession in the teeth of parishioners’ opposition. The Kirk had become part of the establishment and the ‘Call’ became increasingly seen as a formality.
Many Presbyterians found this an intolerable interference by secular interests in the church and many thousands seceded to form their .....
To read the rest of this article you can buy this issue
or subscribe to Scotland Magazine to have every issue delivered direct to your door.
By James Irvine Robertson
Section : Scottish History
Page number : 20