We have seen over the past three chapters some of the operation of the practices of accountability of the Church of Scotland in the eighteenth century. This chapter brings these threads together and places them in a broader context. It looks at three types of contrast: that between the policies promulgated in documents printed at the national level and the practices at local level; that between practices at the beginning of the century and those which had emerged by its close; and that between practices in different areas of the country. The broad system of accountability that emerges from these contrasts, which is characterised by an emphasis on detailed record keeping and a systemic rather than a personal form of accountability, is then placed in a broader context. In particular, we look at the complementary and reinforcing role of law and education, the other two great Scottish institutions that endured after the Union. The strands are brought together in a detailed examination of another case that has received less attention in the subsequent historiography than Humbie or Cambuslang, that of Monymusk. Its bitterly contested stand-off between a determined heritor and an equally determined minister illustrates the tactical use of some of the practices we have seen already, as well as the impact of changes in university education and the status of the clergy.

Our initial contrast is between the practices advocated by the framers of the various printed guidance manuals of the early century and before: the Overtures of 1696, the modified Overtures of 1704 and Pardovan's Collections. Part of these documents, extracted as the Form of Process in 1707, did indeed endure, although its operation occasioned considerable debates over its application, especially in attempts to discipline ministers. As we have noted, Clark argued that it gave an enduring legalistic cast to church governance that is of considerable relevance later in the chapter. However, our investigation of the detailed operation of practice across the eighteenth century should convince us that Pardovan is not a reliable guide to church governance in practice. We saw the tenor of his suggested questions about ministerial conduct in Chapter 2. As a reminder of their flavour, he went on to ask ‘Is he at variance with any? Is there any that reproaches him?