like adequate expression in the repeal of the statutes against
witchcraft, and, notwithstanding the action of such as the Seceders from
the Established Church of Scotland, who inveighed against this repeal as
iniquitous, prosecutions for witchcraft entirely ceased. These "Seceders,"
who claimed to be the real representatives of the Church's teaching, were
so offended that, in the annual Confession of National and Personal Sins,
printed in an act of their Associate Presbytery at Edinburgh, 1743, the
Penal Statutes against witches are specially mentioned as having been
repealed by Parliament, contrary to the express Law of God!
And with this reference the consideration of witchcraft and the Kirk may
conveniently and appropriately end.
Birth and Baptisms, Customs and Superstitions.
Some strange customs, the origin of which does not appear to have been
traced, but which probably came down from the dark ages of Celtic
paganism, were performed in bygone times on the birth of a child. When
such an important event in family history was expected, a rich cheese was
made, which, when the anticipation was realised, was divided among the
women who, on such occasions, were injudiciously allowed to crowd the
chamber. A lighted slip of fir-wood was whirled three times round the bed,
with the superstitious idea of averting evil influences. The new-born babe
was next dipped into a vessel of cold water, tempered in a very slight
degree by dropping a burning coal into it. This may have been done with
the Spartan idea of rendering the child hardy. If a boy, it was afterwards
wrapped in a woman's chemise; if a girl, in a man's shirt. The idea
underlying this custom is not clear. Women were not allowed to touch the
child without first crossing themselves. The tiny creature was not to be
referred to in terms of admiration, lest it should be "forespoken," which
implied consequences prejudicial to its future welfare.
After the mother's recovery, friends and neighbours assembled to
congratulate the parents, and drink to the child's future prosperity. This
gathering was known as the _cummer-fealls_, or the gossips' wake,
concerning which custom the Kirk Session of Dunfermline made, in 1645, one
of the most sensible enactments to be found on the minutes of those
bodies. Considering, it is recorded, "the inconveniences arising
therefrom, as mainly the loss and abusing of so much time, which may be
better employed in attending to business at home, by such as frequent the
occasions thereof, and the prejudice which persons lying in child-bed
receive, both in health and means, being forced, not only to bear company
to such as come to visit, but also to provide for their coming more than
is either necessary or their estate may bear," the Session inhibited "all
visits of this kind, and for the end foresaid, under the pain of being,
for the first fault, censured by the Session, and there to be obliged to
acknowledge their fault, and, for the next, to make public confession of
their fault before the whole congregation."
Other singular practices were observed in connection with the baptism of a
child. It was placed in a basket, on which a white cloth was spread, with
some bread and cheese, and the basket was suspended by a crook over the
fireplace, and swung round three times. This was said to be done to
counteract the evil influence of fairies and other malignant spirits. The
bread and cheese were offered to the first person met on the way to the
church, and rejection of it was thought to presage future evil to the
babe. When several children were baptised at the same time, the boys were
presented for the rite first, for it was thought that, if a girl obtained
priority, she would in after time be disfigured by a beard.
Baptism was at one time refused to the children of persons outside the
communion of the Reformed Church. In 1567, the Countess of Argyle was
ordered by the Assembly to "make public repentance in the chapel royal of
Stirling, one Sunday, in time of preaching," for assisting at the baptism
of the royal infant, afterwards James VI., "in a papistical manner." And
even in 1716, registration of baptism was refused to the child of Harry
Foulis, son of Sir James Foulis, on the ground that it had been baptised
by a minister of the Episcopal Church. Thereupon the father procured the
baptismal register from the session clerk, and made the entry himself,
appending a statement of the circumstances.
The sacrament of baptism has been the subject of much controversy in the
Scottish church, especially in the seventeenth century, when everyone born
north of the Tweed seems to have been, more or less, a theological
disputant. In the First Book of Discipline, in the framing of which Knox
had much to do, it was laid down that, "In baptism, we acknowledge nothing
to be used except the element of water only; wherefore, whosoever
presumeth to use oil, salt, wax, spittle, conjuration, and crossing,
accuseth the perfect institution of Jesus Christ of imperfection, for it
was void of all such inventions devised by men." The abjuring of
conjuration seems to refer to a formula of exorcism prescribed by the
first Prayer Book of Edward VI., to be used in the rite of baptism.
Concerning the use of the cross in baptism there has been an enormous
amount of controversy, and very opposite views are still held. Dr Renaud,
who wrote a ponderous volume on the subject in 1607, says: "It is as unfit
to make a cross a memorial of Christ as for a child to make much of the
halter or gallows wherewith his father was hanged." The Service Book of
1637 enjoined the use of the cross in baptism, and as that book is said,
by Spalding, to have been introduced in many parts of the country, it may
be concluded that the practice existed thereafter in some Scotch churches.
As to other baptismal ceremonies, Dr Edgar observes, in his "Old Church
Life in Scotland," that the principles laid down by Knox "are the
principles on which the Church of Scotland has always acted. She has
uniformly endeavoured, except during a brief interlude of Anglican
innovation prior to 1638, to make her sacramental forms square with the
pattern and precepts set before her in Scripture."
Another question concerning which there has been much controversy, is the
lawfulness or otherwise of private baptism. In 1618, when the historically
famous "five articles," framed by James I., as king of both England and
Scotland, were sent to the General Assembly for sanction and approval,
their adoption by that body raised a storm of indignation and opposition
which was not allayed until they were abjured by the General Assembly in
1638, and the proceedings of the Assembly held at Perth in 1618 were
declared null and void.
One of the articles objected to was that which pronounced "that baptism
might be administered at home when the infant could not conveniently be
brought to church." This was objected to as papistical, and denounced as
introducing a new and false doctrine of baptism, calculated to create a
superstitious belief that there was some spiritual efficacy in the act of
sprinkling a few drops of water on an infant's face, in the name of the
Trinity, thereby giving ground for the belief that baptism is essential to
salvation. This doctrine, though taught by the Church of England, has not
been accepted by the Church of Scotland since the Reformation.
Moreover, as non-attendance at the services of the Church was regarded as
contrary to good order, it was objected that the administration of baptism
in private houses would allow Christian privileges to be enjoyed without
compliance with Christian duty. If a child was to be accepted and
declared a member of the Church, the act should be performed by the whole
congregation, and not by the minister alone. For at least a hundred years
this was strongly and firmly insisted upon. Some doubt seems to have been
felt in 1643, as to whether the Westminster Assembly would adopt the
Scottish view of the question, as baptisms were very commonly performed in
private houses by ministers of the English Presbyterian Church. It was
with much satisfaction, therefore, that the news was received in Scotland
that the Assembly had affirmed the necessity of public baptism.
The Directory for Public Worship in the Presbyterian Church states,
accordingly, that baptism "is not to be administered in private places, or
privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the
congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not
in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and
superstitiously placed," that is, near the church door, and behind the
backs of the congregation. The view held by Presbyterians since the
Reformation thus became the law of the Church; and the General Assembly,
in 1690, strictly enjoined that baptism should not be administered
elsewhere than in church, and before the congregation. But in this matter,
as in some others, there appears to have been a laxity in enforcing the
rule of the church, which has gone on increasing. Wodrow stated, in 1718,
that private baptisms were unknown in the Church of Scotland, except in
Edinburgh and Glasgow; and only two years later the Synod of Glasgow and
Ayr had to repeat the injunction of 1690. What the state of things in this
respect is at the present day we are told by Dr Edgar, who, as minister of
Mauchline, must be considered to speak from experience. He says that, "in
some parishes there are ten private baptisms for every one public baptism;
and these private baptisms are never challenged as irregular, unlawful, or
deserving of censure."
Registers of baptisms have been kept, with more or less regularity, from
the time of the Reformation; and these show that, in some parishes at
least, private baptisms had become very frequent about the middle of the
eighteenth century. In referring to the evidence of the parish register of
Mauchline on this matter, the writer just quoted says: "Although such
baptisms were a violation of Church order, I cannot help remarking that
Church order was not, in this instance, clearly founded on the evangelical
principle professed by our forefathers, that all procedure in Church
ritual should be conform to the precept or example of Scripture. It seems
quite certain that, in the days of the Apostles, baptism was not always,
if ever, administered in the place of public worship and in the face of
the congregation. The eunuch of Ethiopia, Cornelius the centurion, St.
Paul himself, and the gaoler at Philippi were each baptised privately."
The Church of Scotland has been more strict in upholding the rule of the
Westminster Directory, that baptism "is not to be administered, in any
case, by any private person." This also, it may be remarked, is not in
strict accordance with the principle of the Christian Church in its early
ages, as set forth by some of the Fathers; and down even to the present
day the Church of England, while discountenancing lay baptism as a rule,
has recognised its validity in cases of necessity. The recorded instances
of refusal to admit evidence of lay baptism in the Church of Scotland
are, however, chiefly cases in which the rite had been performed by
deposed ministers. In 1708, a Kilmarnock man was cited to appear before
the Kirk Session for having had a child irregularly baptised by a deposed
minister, namely, Macmillan, the founder of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church. No further proceedings appear, however, to have been taken.
Similar cases occurred in 1715 and 1721, the General Assembly in the
former case, and the Presbytery of Ayr in the latter, merely pronouncing
the baptisms null and void.
Some differences have to be noted between the Churches of Scotland and
England with regard to the forms and customs connected with baptisms. The
former is the more strict with regard to the sponsors of the children to
be baptised. The Westminster Directory states that the child is to be
presented at the font by its father, or in the case of his unavoidable
absence, by some Christian friend in his place; and in 1712 the General
Assembly enacted that no other sponsor than a parent should be received at
a baptism, "unless the parents be dead, or absent, or grossly ignorant, or
under scandal, or contumacious to discipline; in which cases, some fit
person (and if it can be, one related to the child,) should be sponsor."
Not only was the Church more strict in this matter in Scotland than in
England, but the nature of the sponsion was different. In Knox's Liturgy,
the sponsors are not regarded as proxies for the child, but are required
to make a declaration of their own faith, in which they engage to instruct
the child. As the matter is well put by Dr Hill, "the parents do not make
any promise for the child, but they promise for themselves that nothing
shall be wanting, on their part, to engage the child to undertake, at some
future time, that obligation which he cannot then understand."
In the latter half of the seventeenth and the first of the eighteenth
century, the Kirk Sessions had as much to do in repressing undue
gatherings at the font as on the occasion of wedding festivities. In 1622
the Kirk Session of Aberdeen, considering "that it is come in custom that
every base servile man in the town, when he has a bairn to be baptised,
invites twelve or sixteen persons to be his gossips and god-fathers to his
bairn," whereas the old custom was not to invite more than two, ordered
that in future only two or at most four persons should be allowed to
appear in that capacity. In 1681 an Act of Parliament prohibited the
attendance at baptisms of more than four witnesses, in addition to parents
and children, brothers and sisters; and in 1720 the Kirk Session of
Kilmarnock made an ordinance that "only so many women as are necessary
attend infants that are carried to the church to be baptised, and the
Session think three sufficient."
Down to the time of the Westminster Assembly, it seems to have been the
custom in Scotland for parents, at the baptism of a child, to repeat the
Creed. But in the Westminster Directory the father is merely required to
promise that he will bring up the child "in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord." Nevertheless, many Kirk Sessions overlaid this requirement with
regulations of their own devising. In 1615, the Kirk Session of Lasswade
ordained that "no children of ignorant persons be baptised, except the
father first lay one poynd of ten shillings, and a month shall be granted
to learn the Lord's Prayer, Belief, and Ten Commandments, with some
competent knowledge of the sacraments and catechism, which he performing,
his poynd shall be returned, otherwise forfeited." In 1700 an application
to the Kirk Session of Galston for the baptism of a child was refused, on
the ground that the father "did not attend diets of catechising." On his
promising to attend in future, and submitting to rebuke for his previous
non-attendance, the child was allowed to be baptised. More than
three-quarters of a century later, that is, in 1779, a man who had applied
to the Kirk Session of Mauchline for the baptism of a child was subjected
to a theological examination much too stiff for him; but on promising to
study the knotty points propounded to him, and signing an undertaking to
that effect in the minute-book, he was allowed to present the child for
baptism, though the permission seems to have been regarded as a great
favour.
As in England, so also in Scotland, the registration of baptisms was
required at a period long antecedent to the statutary obligation to
register births. Old sessional records show that fees were paid, but it is
a disputed question whether these were for baptism or for registration.
Dunlop, in his "Parochial Law," quotes a legal opinion to the effect that
"as to baptisms, what is paid on that account is for obtaining the Kirk
Session's order for baptism, and recording that order." But an entry in
the records of the Kirk Session of Galston, in 1640, after prescribing the
fee to be paid for baptism, adds--"and there shall be no more exacted of
any that come to this kirk for all time coming, except they desire the
baptism registered, and in that case to satisfy the reader therefore,
which is hereby declared to be other four shillings Scottish."
There are several curious entries in Kirk Sessional Records, showing that
those parochial bodies were as zealous in restricting the customary
festivities at christening parties as they have, in another paper, been
shown to have been in repressing undue feasting at weddings. With respect
of the former, the interference of Kirk Sessions was preceded by that of
the Scottish Parliament, by which assembly it was enacted, in 1581, "that
no banquets shall be at any upsitting after baptising of bairns in time
coming, under the pain of twenty pounds, to be paid by every person doing
the contrary." In 1621 it was further enacted that, "no person use any
manner of dessert of wet and dry confections at marriage banqueting,
baptism feasting, or any meals, except the fruits growing in Scotland, as
also figs, raisins, plum dames, almonds and other unconfected fruits,
under the pain of a thousand marks _toties quoties_."
These enactments appear, however, to have had little effect. In 1695 the
Kirk Session of Greenock ordained that "persons having their children
baptised on the Sabbath day abstain from keeping banquets and convening
people at such occasions on that day, whereby much idle discourse and sin
may be evited." In 1701 it was very seriously complained by the Kirk
Session of Kilmarnock that feasts continued to be held on Sundays after
baptisms, and it was ordered that children should be baptised on the
weekly sermon day (Thursday), except in case of necessity. But, either
through attachment to old customs, or want of inclination to attend the
week-day sermon, children continued to be presented for baptism on Sunday,
and in 1720 the Session again ordered "that none make or hold feasts at
baptising their children on the Lord's day."
In conformity with the Registration Act for Scotland, passed in 1854, all
parish registers are deposited in the Registry Office then established in
Edinburgh. Most of the registers of births commence about the middle of
the seventeenth century, those of only fifteen parishes, out of about nine
hundred, dating from the preceding century. The register of baptisms of
Errol, Perthshire, commences in 1553, but the entries for the years
preceding 1573 are transcribed from an older register which has been lost.
Many of the older registers have been injured by damp, others by fire, and
not a few have suffered from the negligence of their custodians. In many
of them blanks occur. In some instances session clerks of the sixteenth
century recorded in their registers events unconnected with their own
parishes. The clerk of the Kirk Session of Aberdeen made an entry in the
register of the birth of James VI., who was born at Edinburgh, loyally and
piously adding, in the curious spelling of the period (which in previous
extracts in this paper, has been modernised,) "quhame God preserve in guid
helth and in the feir of God, to do justice in punishing of wrayng and in
manttinyen the trewht all the dais of his lyfe. So be itt."
Marriage Laws and Customs.
The laws relating to marriage differ so much in Scotland from those under
which dwellers south of the Tweed live, that no comparison of social and
religious life in the two countries can be made without knowledge of them.
In no part of Christendom have the ecclesiastical laws relating to the
relations of the sexes been more strict, or more strictly enforced, than
in Scotland, and in no other have there been more irregularities. It was
not until more than twenty years after the Reformation that the custom of
"handfasting," which had come down from old Celtic times, fell into
disrepute and consequent disuse. By this term was understood cohabitation
for a year, the couple being then free to separate, unless they agreed to
make the union permanent. Lindsay, the chronicler, says of Alexander
Dunbar, son of the sixth Earl of Moray, and Isobel Innes,--"This Isobel
was but handfast with him, and deceased before the marriage." When
Margaret, widow of James IV., sued for a divorce from the Earl of Angus,
she pleaded that he had been handfasted to Jane Douglas, "and by reason of
that pre-contract could not be her lawful husband." How such marriages
were regarded at that time is shown by the fact that the marriage was
dissolved by the Pope, though the issue of the Queen's marriage with Angus
was pronounced legitimate.
Sir John Sinclair's "Statistical Account of Scotland" contains a report
from the minister of Eskdale Muir, referring to the practice of
handfasting as existing in that parish, under ecclesiastical sanction, at
a period anterior to the Reformation. At a fair held there, unmarried men
chose women to be handfasted with them, and a monk from Melrose Abbey
visited the place annually, to marry those couples who wished the union to
be made permanent. The first check given to the practice appears to have
been the decree of the Kirk Session of Aberdeen, in 1562, that persons
cohabiting under the sanction of a handfast contract of marriage should be
united in lawful wedlock. But though this practice was discontinued, and
those who wished to be thought respectable obtained the blessing of the
Church on their marriage, irregularities continued to exist, and even to
be permitted. An acknowledgment by a couple that they were husband and
wife, either orally or in writing, followed or preceded by cohabitation,
was regarded as a valid marriage, both by the Church and by society. In
1563, however, the General Assembly of the Church ruled that no contract
of marriage so made should be recognised until the parties had submitted
themselves to the discipline of the Church, and the contract had been
verified by witnesses of good repute.
The custom of betrothal was very general, but it varied in form in
different parts of the kingdom. The presentation of an "engagement ring,"
as in England, is not found among these forms, nor does it appear that the
sanction of parents was thought necessary; but after the contract was made
it was usual for them to be informed and their sanction sought. Among the
upper and middle classes there was usually a betrothal feast, but among
the classes living by manual labour this was dispensed with. Dr Rogers
says, in his "Social Life in Scotland," that--"In betrothal, the parties
usually moistened with the tongue the thumbs of their right hands, and
then pressed them together. The violation of a contract so consecrated was
considered tantamount to an act of perjury." Another form of betrothal was
the clasping of hands across a stream. In this way Burns, the laureate of
the Scottish peasantry, and Mary Campbell vowed fidelity. In some counties
silver coins were exchanged by plighted lovers, or a worn one was broken
between them, each retaining one of the halves.
Marriages regarded by the ecclesiastical courts and Kirk Sessions as
"regular" have always, from a long period anterior to the Reformation,
been preceded by the publication of banns. In 1569 a case came before the
General Assembly which shows the successive steps taken at that time
before the solemnisation of a marriage. It is recorded that "ane promise
of marriage made, before the readers and elders, in ane reformit church,
the parties contractit compeirs before the minister and session, and
requires their banns to be proclaimit." In 1575 the question came before
the General Assembly, whether the form of mutual declaration prior to the
publication of banns should be longer continued; and it was ruled that it
should be considered sufficient for the names of the parties desiring
proclamation of banns to be given to the session clerk. Banns were ordered
to be published, as in England, on three successive Sundays; but, after
the Reformation, it was ruled that, on payment of a larger fee, one public
announcement should be held sufficient, the words "for the first, second,
and third time" being used.