14. APS, iv, 529.
15. These chiefly concerned a new prayer book and the restoration of certain practices (the celebration of Christian festivals, private baptism, episcopal confirmation, private communion and receipt of the sacrament while kneeling) which came to be known as the Five Articles of Perth. Seeing the hostility both matters engendered, James licensed the former and enacted the latter, but did not press them further.
16. “Fifteen nobles voted [in 1621] against the proposals, amongst them lords of erection who might have been expected to support the King. James had triumphed, but at great cost to the authority of the crown.” Ian B. Cowan, “The Five Articles of Perth” in, Reformation and revolution, essays presented to the Very Rev. Hugh Watt. (Edinburgh: 1967), 177.
17. Keith Brown, Kingdom or Province? Scotland and the regal union, 1603–1715. (Basingstoke: 1992), 97. See also Alan R. MacDonald, The Jacobean kirk, 1567–1625, sovereignty, polity and liturgy (Aldershot: 1998).
18. See David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–1644; the triumph of the Covenanters. (Newton Abbot: 1973), 35–36
19. That is, he was given the right to buy them from the titular or patron at nine-years’ purchase.
20. W. R. Foster, “A constant platt achieved: provision for the ministry, 1600–38” in Reformation and Revolution, 140.
21. The first, in 1606, was to see that incumbents of churches in the new erections were properly remunerated. Since the commission’s remit was, technically, limited to parishes within former abbey lands, a wider commission was established in 1617 (and renewed in 1621), with the aim of upgrading all inadequate stipends. Being a compromise, the results failed to be comprehensive, but there were significant improvements. See: Foster, “A constant platt achieved,” 127–33.
22. Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish covenanters. (London: 1976), 19.
23. Stevenson, Scottish revolution, 38.
24. Stevenson, Scottish revolution, 41.
25. See Macinnes, Charles I, 67–70.
26. See, `The humble supplication of the lords and commissioners of Parliament undersubscryveing’ [1633] and “The humble supplication of some lords and others commissioners of the late parliament” 1634], in John Row, The History of the Kirk of Scotland from the year 1558 to August 1637 Wodrow Society. (Edinburgh: 1842), 364–66; 376–81.
27. Row, The History, 351; 360.
28. Row, 381ff.; Macinnes, Charles I, 90; John Spalding, The History of the troubles and memorable transactions in Scotland and England from 1624 to 1645 Bannatyne Club 25 (Edinburgh: 1828), vol. I, 45–47.
29. Row, 398.
30. Macinnes, 185; Row, 493ff.
31. Alexander Peterkin, Records of the Kirk of Scotland, containing the acts and proceedings of the General Assemblies from the year 1638 downwards, (Edinburgh: 1843), 191.
32. David Stevenson, King or Covenant? Voices from the civil war. (East Linton: 1996), 21.
33. The letters and journals of Robert Baillie, AM, principal of the university of Glasgow, 1637–62 ed. Laing, David, 3 vols, (Edinburgh: 1841), i, “To William Spang” (his cousin and minister of the Scots church, Veere, Netherlands), 12 February 1639, 114.
34. Baillie, Letters, ii, “Letter from Archibald Johnston of Warristone to Mr Robert Baillie, 25 December 1639,” 451.
35. Pitcairn, Acts, 26.
36. Baillie, Letters, ii, 459.
37. 30 August 1639. RPCS., vii, 132. On the 31 August 1641, Parliament ordered the protest to be deleted.
38. Baillie, Letters, 459.
39. “Letter from Archibald Johnston of Warriston, to Mr Robert Baillie. 25 December 1639.” Baillie, 450–60. Johnston does not reveal the location of the other place where the issue was in contention. The background to the Glassford dispute is ably described in W. Makey, The church of the Covenant 1637–1651, (Edinburgh: 1979), 174–75.
40. Baillie, 454.
41. Ibid., 458.
42. Ibid., 459.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 460.
45. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, 73.
46. Unless it is considered that an oblique reference was made to them in the 1562 Assembly Act: “That inhibition shall be made to all . . . that hes not been presented be the people, or ane part thereof, to the Superintendant.” BUK, 12.
47. A presentee would already have been examined and “licensed” as a probationer or expectant. The Church’s intention was that he would always be re-examined before admission to his first charge.
48. Ibid., 457,
49.