Kirk, church, chapel?

[Phil]

Not quite correct. The Scottish Episcopal Church has a history that is quite distinct from the Church of England. It was implicated in the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745 and was virtually banned subsequently. Scottish Episcopal clergy, including bishops, do not take an oath of allegiance to the crown or recognise the monarch as head of the church. This was why the first bishop of the Episcopal Church in the fledgling republic of the US was ordained by Scottish bishops. Only by the 19th Century were Scottish Episcopal clergy recognised in England. Although part of the world-wide Anglican communion of churches, clergy of the Scottish Episcopal church do not pledge any allegiance to the sovereign.

Thanks for that clarification. As I am not a member I have no real knowledge of the Episcopal church. I do remember that the attempt to foist an episcopacy on Scotland didn't go down too well though.

[Father Bill]

Thanks for that clarification. As I am not a member I have no real knowledge of the Episcopal church. I do remember that the attempt to foist an episcopacy on Scotland didn't go down too well though.

"Foist?"

[Phil]

"Foist?"

Maybe this might shed a little light on the subject of "Foisting" - http://www.covenanter.org.uk/WhoWere/

"Simply stated, the Covenanters were those people in Scotland who signed the National Covenant in 1638. They signed this Covenant to confirm their opposition to the interference by the Stuart kings in the affairs of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The Stuart kings harboured the belief of the Divine Right of the Monarch. Not only did they believe that God wished them to be the infallible rulers of their kingdom - they also believed that they were the spiritual heads of the Church of Scotland. This latter belief could not be accepted by the Scots. No man, not even a king, could be spiritual head of their church. Only Jesus Christ could be spiritual head of a Christian church.
This was the nub of the entire Covenanting struggle. The Scots were, and would have been, loyal to the Stuart dynasty but for that one sticking point, and from 1638, when the Covenant was signed, until the Glorious Revolution - when Prince William of Orange made a bloodless invasion of Great Britain in 1688 - a great deal of suffering, torture, imprisonment, transportation and executions would ensue.
King Charles I had introduced the Book of Common Prayer to Scotland in 1637 to the fury and resentment of the populace. He declared that opposition to the new liturgy would be treason, and thus came about the Covenant.
There followed a period of very severe repression. Ministers with Covenanting sympathies were "outed" from their churches by the authorities, and had to leave their parishes. Many continued to preach at "conventicles" in the open air or in barns and houses. This became an offence punishable by death. Citizens who did not attend their local churches (which were now in the charge of Episcopalian "curates") could be heavily fined, and such offenders were regarded as rebels, who could be questioned, even under torture. They could be asked to take various oaths, which not only declared loyalty to the king, but also to accept his as head of the church. Failure to take such an oath could result in summary execution by the muskets of the dragoons, who were scouring the districts looking for rebels.
The persecutions became more frequent and cruel on the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. As time went on more and more ordinary folk became involved, and skirmishes and battles took place against Government troops. In 1678 the Government raised an army of 6,000 Highlanders, who had no love for the Presbyterian lowlanders. This army swept through the west and south of Scotland, looting and plundering. They remained for many years, quartering themselves on the already impoverished Covenanters"

[Father Bill]

Foist!

[MacRobert's Reply]

Foist? ... well yes but history is seldom that simple. Welcomed by the minority but imposed on the majority would be more correct. James VI reintroduced bishops into the Church of Scotland in 1584 in an attempt bring it under his royal control. At this time there were both Calvinistic-Presbyterian and Episcopal parties in the Church of Scotland.

His son, Charles I, tried to introduce a Scottish version of the Book of Common Prayer in 1637 and had it strenuously rejected by the Covenanters. The Covenanters were horribly persecuted by the state for this opposition. The majority of those at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland rejected both bishops and the Prayer Book in 1638. Charles I tried to impose his will by force using Scottish Royalists and English forces but there was very little real fighting. By 1641 Charles had to accept that the majority of the Church of Scotland would have neither bishops nor the Prayer Book ... and by this time he had bigger things to worry about: the civil war!

However, in 1689 there were still bishops in the Church of Scotland. They refused to swear allegiance to William of Orange while James VII still lived and had not abdicated. Finally, in 1690, the Church of Scotland split into two distinct streams: the majority Presbyterian; the minority Episcopalian, but even then, with Presbyterianism dominant, many Episcopalian clergy continued to serve their Church of Scotland congregations.

Presbyterianism was now perceived as loyal to the crown. The Episcopalians, however, because of their association with Jacobitism were now seen as a threat. Following the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite risings, it was now the Episcopalians who were horribly persecuted by the state, as the Covenanters had been before them!

There was a highland-lowland dimension to all of this. Support for Episcopalianism and Jacobitism tended to be stronger in the highlands. Presbyterianism and the more radical political and religious views found more favour in the lowlands.

[Phil]

Foist? ... well yes but history is seldom that simple.

Indeed, and without going into religion in too great a detail. such establishment attitudes were undoubtedly responsible for the Pilgrim Fathers' re-location to the New World followed later by Scottish and Irish Presbyterians wishing to follow their religious beliefs without interference from the State. Even today, bishops of the Anglican church sit in the unelected House of Lords and legislate upon the laws of the land. Because they look upon the sovereign of the day as their supreme master, between them and God, you really have to ask how objective their views can be in relation to matters spiritual - particularly if those views may not coincide with those of their political masters. I should add that elevation to the higher ranks of the episcopacy is a matter for the political leaders of the day in their capacity as acting on behalf of the Crown.

[ThistleDown]

I am sure you will all proceed with caution here, keeping in mind that a discussion of historical religious fact is acceptable whilst editorialising is not.