followed. Nobility and royal favorites manipulated the system to advance their confederates and pillage the Church’s assets. It was not, however, until the aftermath of the Reformation itself, that laymen came out from the shadow of the Crown and, through the temporal lordships, were able to amass personal collections of patronages. Not surprisingly, James VI later came to regret what he had done to allow such a stockpiling to happen,67 but by then it was too late. His generosity had more than turned the clock back four centuries, it had laid in place “the untrammelled exercise of a far greater degree of individual lay patronage than had ever been possible in pre-Reformation Scotland.”68
1. It should also be mentioned that, where founding families were perhaps not available to protect religious establishments, the Church also had a policy, during the early Middle Ages, of appointing local magnates as advocati, or defenders of churches. Their use faded from the thirteenth century onwards. Although the reward for their protection was originally pecuniary, it is possible their identity, and hence their privileges, often became fused with that of hereditary patrons.
The term advowson, more commonly used in England to describe the right of presenting to a benefice, derives from advocatio.
See Alexander Dunlop, Parochial Law (Edinburgh: 1841), 187; John M. Duncan, Treatise on the parochial ecclesiastical law of Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1869), 77–79; T.B. Scannell, Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary (London: 1928), 13.
2. Peter M. Smith, “The advowson: the history and development of a most peculiar property.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 26 (2000), 321.
3. Duncan, Treatise, 81. simony: see glossary.
4. The patronage could already belong to the Church (jus patronatus ecclesiasticum); alternatively, if a patron did not present within a certain period, the right fell to the bishop. The time allowed could vary. In medieval Europe, including Scotland, the time generally allowed was four months for lay presentations, and six for ecclesiastical ones. For the wealthier benefices belonging to monasteries and cathedrals, Pope Innocent VIII’s Indult of 1487 allowed the Crown eight months to make nominations. This was later extended to twelve. In 1567 the period in all cases was fixed at six months. [Acts of the Parliament of Scotland c.7. hereinafter cited as APS].
5. Collation can be used exclusively to describe institution to a living where the bishop is himself the patron, thus presentation and institution are the same act. Here it will be applied, however, simply to episcopal institution in general.
6. Registrum de Kelso, Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh: 1846, 5; John Cunningham, “Freewill offerings, tithes and other means of supporting religious services, historically considered”, in The Church and the People (St Giles Lectures) (Edinburgh: 1886), 91; Cormack, Teinds, 19.
7. Although Ednam was eventually given over to the monks of Durham.
8. The Scottish representative was Bishop Gregory of Ross, see Cormack, Teinds, 57
9. George P. Innes, “Ecclesiastical patronage in Scotland in the 12th. and 13th. Centuries”, Records of the Scottish Church History Society (cited hereinafter as RSCHS), XII, part 1, (1954), 69.
The spiritualities of a benefice were its revenues and offerings, as well as the manse and glebe, held or received in return for spiritual services. The temporality referred to the land and the profit pertaining to its jurisdiction. Thus, in the case of Ednam, the ploughgate was the temporality, and the tithes the spirituality.
10. Ian B. Cowan, “Some aspects of the appropriation of parish churches in medieval Scotland”, RSCHS, vol. xiii, (1959), 206. Cowan cites the example of Scoonie and Markinch churches, which were granted, c. 1055, to the Culdees of Loch Leven.
11. J.H.S. Burleigh, A church history of Scotland, (London: 1960), 52.
12. Benefactors often appeared to be more concerned about retaining the patronage to prebends, and similar benefices, than to their parish churches. Thus by 1560, only around 80 parish churches out of the total of 1028 remained in the gift of individual lay patrons [see, Ian B. Cowan, “Patronage, provision and reservation, pre-Reformation appointments to Scottish benefices”, in Ian B. Cowan, and D. Shaw, (eds), The Renaissance and Reformation in Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1983), 90; James Kirk, “The exercise of ecclesiastical patronage by the crown, 1560–1572”, in Cowan and Shaw, Renaissance and Reformation, 94]. The reason for their interest in prebends was because they provided a means of increasing the income of clerical relatives or friends without transgressing the canon law which disallowed the tenure of more than one office involving the cure of souls.
13. Ian B. Cowan, The parishes of medieval Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1967), v; Cowan, “Some aspects of appropriation, etc,” 205.
14. Cowan, “Patronage, provision and reservation,” 82.
15. George P. Innes, “Ecclesiastical patronage . . . in Scotland in the later middle ages”, RSCHS, xiii (1957–59), 73.
16. See the series, Calendar of Scottish supplications to Rome, published by the Scottish History Society (hereinafter cited as SHS): 1418–1422, eds. E.R. Lindsay, and Annie I. Cameron, (3rd series, vol. 23, 1934); 1423–1428, ed. Annie I. Dunlop, (vol. 48, 1956); 1428–1432, eds. Annie I. Dunlop, and Ian B. Cowan, (4th series, vol. 7, 1970), xx.
17. APS. ii, 5; ii, 14; ii, 16.
18. APS., ii, 144; ii, 166.
19. Gordon Donaldson, “The rights of the Scottish crown in episcopal vacancies” Scottish Historical Review (cited hereinafter as SHR), xlv (1966), 34, where it is argued that collation, here, refers only to those livings of which the bishop was actually patron, and not to all ecclesiastical benefices in the diocese. Cowan’s point is that, even if this were so, the king lost no time in extending his privilege. The royal expansionism did not, however, go on to include parish churches with known lay patrons. These were left alone. Ibid., 90.
20. Donaldson, “Rights,” 34.
21. APS., ii, 309–10.
22. Cowan, “Patronage, provisions etc,” 91.
23. See Gordon