Series 4 > Stirling Presbytery Records 1581-1587

INTRODUCTION
XVII
archbishopric on pain of excommunication, the assembly granted
the presbytery a commission to examine Montgomery further and
to submit its report to the synod of Lothian.1
Turning from defence to attack, Montgomery complained to the
presbytery that he ‘was nocht bruthurlie nor cheritablie handillit’,
and he declined to give ‘ane plaine answer’ to the town council’s
inquiry about whether or not he would remain as minister. Only
belatedly was he persuaded to give an assurance that he would
continue at Stirling, at least until the next assembly met - ‘ and langer
as the kirk wald command him ’ - but he evasively avoided renounc¬
ing his claim to the archbishopric on the ground that ‘ the mater was
wechtie’. His continued failure either to remain at Stirling or to
promise to decline the archbishopric led the presbytery to conclude
that Montgomery had disobeyed the acts of assembly and so was
liable for excommunication. Nor was the presbytery wholly satis¬
fied with Montgomery’s disarming profession that ‘he meinis nocht
nor will, nor sail be ony uthir bischop hot sic ane bischop as Pauli
teichis in his epistillis to Titus and Timothie, that is, a minister and
preichour of the Word of God and promesis nevir to trublle or
vex his brethrein with his admissioun to the bischoprik of Glasgw’.
As a committee of the presbytery proceeded to investigate his
behaviour, Montgomery, in turn, lodged a complaint against the
elders of his own kirk session. For his part, however, Montgomery
admitted that ‘ sumtymis thruch laik of memorie and negligence in
his studie and awaytting on his buik’ he had failed to maintain ‘sic
furmalitie and sensibilnes in doctrein as become him’, but he denied
ever to have been ‘swa ovircumit with drink that his sencis faillit
him’. Although he did not ‘preceislie deny’ lending money at a high
rate of interest, he did at least accept that he should not enjoy the
fruits of the archbishopric, if the church so ruled.2
Nonetheless, after hearing that Montgomery had secured letters
charging the ministers of Glasgow to admit him as archbishop, the
presbytery lost no time in suspending Montgomery from the
ministry. Not only had the kirk session complained of their minis¬
ter’s ‘intollarablle negligence’, but the presbytery itself firmly cen¬
sured Montgomery’s pursuit of ‘ warldlie effairis and ungodlie suittis
1 See below, 6-10; BUK, ii, 528, 533-4, 542, 546-7
2 See below, 9-10,13-15, 17-22