|
AFTER the removal of Bishop
Ramsay from Culross in 1684, the first and second charges were filled
respectively by Mr Robert Wright and Mr Alexander Young, who were appointed
thereto in that year. Both remained faithful to Episcopacy, and were deposed
by the Scottish Privy Council at the Revolution for refusing to read the
proclamation of William of Orange. They apparently continued to officiate in
the neighbourhood of Culross for some time after their deposition, and, as
we shall see, attracted more than once the hostile notice of the
kirk-session, now presided over by the celebrated James Fraser of Brea. On
the expulsion of Wright and Young he was appointed to the first charge, but
the second charge remained vacant from the Revolution till 1698. As he was a
man of considerable reputation, a short sketch of his history, derived from
his own memoirs, before his appointment to Culross, may not be unacceptable.
Fraser of Brea, so called
from the ancestral estate which he inherited, was bom in the parish of Kirk-michael,
Ross-shire, in 1639. His family was of some note in that quarter, and his
father, Sir James Fraser of Brea, Baronet, was the author of a treatise on
certain questions of divinity.
His first settlement seems to
have been in the bishopric of Moray, where he soon got into trouble for
holding conventicles and refusing to acknowledge the bishop’s authority. He
was apprehended in 1677, examined before the Privy Council, and sent a
prisoner to the Bass, where he continued for two years and a half. After
being liberated from thence, he was again apprehended for continuing his
religious ministrations, brought before the Privy Council, and confined,
first in the Castle of Edinburgh, and afterwards in Blackness Castle. After
another long confinement he was liberated, through the intercession and bond
of his friends, on condition that he quitted the country. He took ship for
London in May, and arrived there on 16th June 1682. In July 1683 he was
apprehended and imprisoned for six months in Newgate for refusing to take
the Oxford oath. At this point his diary breaks off, and all that his
editors seem to know further about him is, that he eventually returned to
his native land, and was settled as minister of Culross. The greater part of
his diary is a record of his religious experiences, and does not contain
much that is valuable in a historical point of view. He, however, gives a
very interesting description of the then condition of the Bass. He says that
there was on the uppermost part of it “ a garden where herbs grow, with some
cherry-trees, of the fruit of which I several times tasted.” Below that, he
says, was a chapel; but as there was no chaplain, this was used as a
storehouse for ammunition. Below this, again, were the fort and rooms for
the soldiers and prisoners. On the upper part of the island there was as
much grass, he says, as pastured about twenty sheep, and there he was
allowed to take solitary walks. He mentions, too, the solan-geese, and the
difficulty of landing on the Bass. Sometimes, he says, they endured great
privations from the scarcity of provisions and water, their stores being all
brought in boats from the mainland, though rain-water was collected in the
clefts of the rocks. The soldiers did not treat the prisoners well, though
apparently they did not practise such cruelties as were exercised at
Dunnottar Castle. Fraser tells us that at the time of his marriage he was in
debt; but in the latter part of his life he seems to have been a man of
considerable means.
A break occurs in the session
records from 1684 to 1693. In the latter year they are resumed, and kept
continuously from thence down to the present day. A very decided change of
tone is perceptible in the following extracts:—
“4 January 1693.
“John Yelton, in the west
quarter, delated for beating of his wife and most unchristian carriages in
his familie, ordered to be cited against the next session; and Grange
M‘Gill1 ordered to speak to him.
“The session taking to
consideration the sad and lamentable condition of the church and parish
under their oversight, especiallie unfruitfulness under the Gospel and means
of grace, contempt thereof and opposition thereunto, the ignorance,
profanity, neglect of the worship of God in families, the abounding of
drunkenness, lying, swearing, and especiallie of the increase of the sin of
uncleanness, both fornication and adulterie, have, from their sense of their
danger and dewtie, thought fit to humble themselves before God, and to
deprecate His anger, and grace for help; and have appointed Thursday next
week for observation of the said day, with praying and fasting and
preaching, and the same to be intimat from pulpit next Lord’s Day”
If the above extract is to be
taken au pied de la lettre, Culross must have been at that time in a
dreadful state indeed. But there is a wonderful similarity in the language
of all these jeremiads throughout the session records, and it is very
questionable whether such strong and indiscriminate denunciations, which
possess always a certain morbid attraction and interest, are ever productive
of any real good.
“17 January 1693.
“The which day Baillie Adam
gave in on paper a written account of the persons, both in burgh and
landward, lyable for head and through stones, and for mortcloths respective,
and further ordered that the persons lyable be ranked in their respective
quarters; and the elders of each quarter, with Jamea Anderson, be ordered to
speak to the persons owing, that they make payment and give in their due
proportion to the church treasurer, and report made hereof against the next
day/*
“Through-stones"and
“head-stones” seem to have been prohibited in churchyards in those days,
except on payment of fees, which, along with those arising from the loan of
the mortcloth, formed no inconsiderable portion of the revenues of a
kirk-session. When through or head stones were erected without permission,
or payment of the customary dues, they were liable to be trundled summarily
out of the churchyard, or thrown over the wall:—
“25 January 1693.
“John Yelton makes his
permission, and promises amendment.”
“John Johnston, in Castlehill,
delated for riotous feasting on the Lord’s Day afternoon in the time of
afternoon sermon, cited, and appearing, denyes that there was anything of
that, though urged with great seriousness to acknowledge his fault, but
acknowledges that through mistake he was not at sermon; and was then rebuked
for his absence from the ordinance, and exhorted to keep and wait on the
ordinances better in time coming.”
A resolution is passed of
this date—29th May 1693 — “that ten pounds Scots be ordered for mainteaning
of a burse for this year, and to be given in to the Presbitrie at their next
sitting.”
And on the following day:
“The ten pounds ordeaned to be given in to the Presbitrie for maintenance of
a burse, brought back again and delivered to the treasurer, was, with £5
more, ordered to be given to an hopfull young youth to be Laureat this yeare,
called James Sands, to help him to his degrees.”
“Complaint being made of
profanation of the Lord’s Day by both men and women and children, by their
wandering and gading about in streets and fields: Warning thereof and
publict admonition from the pulpit to be given next Lord’s Day; holding
furth the end thereof, and charging them to keep within doores that day, and
to be taken up with religious exercises both privat and publict.” '
The faith in charms seems
deeply rooted in the popular mind, and is by no means eradicated even at the
present day. The Church made great efforts to repress and punish such
practices as a trafficking with the powers of darkness. Here is a record of
a prosecution on this account:—
“29 June 1693.
“John Young, in the
Valleyfield, delated for charming, summoned, called, and appearing,
interrogated as to his charming, declared as follows—viz., that being some
time ago called to cure a certain sick person, he used these words: ‘ Little
thing hath wronged thee, nothing can mend thee but Father, Son, and Holie
Ghost, all three, and our sweet Lady. In etemitie let never wax, but away to
the waine, as the dew goes of yeard and stane. I seek help to this
distressed person in thy name.’ He likewise acknowledged that he used the
same words in curing of a woman in the Blaire, who was for years thereafter
weell; and that by the same words he cured Robert Bruce in the Shyres miln,—and
the disease these persons had, he said, was a splen, which he siemed to the
session to understand as of a disease put upon them through envy and splen.
And being interrogat if he used any gestures or postures whiles he was
pronouncing these words, he could not deny but that first he rubbed his own
hand upon a bare stone, and rubbed the breast, stroaking it 3 times, of the
person affected, and siemed to say that he prescribed the use of some herbs
to the patient The session did unanimously conclude him guilty of charming;
whereupon being again called, the minister did endeavor to hold out the
evill of his way, telling him that his cures were not effected without the
help of the devill, and not only to forbear the same in tyme comming, but to
mourn before God, and to seek mercie through Christ for using of the divelTs
prescriptions, and that the witches and warlocks used God's words and made
mention of the name of God and Christ in theire services; and he being
removed, the session did think fit to advise with the presbetrie how to
carrie with him.”
“28 August 1693.
"Complaint being made of
several persons, whose children are baptized on the Lord’s Day, do in the
afternoon profane the Sabbath by drinking together and talking of vain
discourses : For preventing of which abuse in tymes to come, it is ordered
that all persons having children to be baptized, when they come to the
minister that they bring an elder in the quarter with them, who may give
testimony of them; and that they be ingadged to keep no feasts on the
Sabbath, or otherwayes to have their children baptized on the week dayes.”
“31 October 1693.
“A poor young man, weel
reported of, called Mr Morton, the eldest son of the Laird of Cameron,
sufficiently known, making his moan to the session, and being likewise lame,
40s. Scots ordered to be given him.”
"17 May 1694.
“The session, taking to
consideration that several persons are contumacious and refuse to submit to
the censure of the Church, or to acknowledge her authoritie, and being
summoned, do not appear before them, have therefore enacted, that after
privat admonition the minister declare their fault in face of the
congregation, and declare them incapable of Church privileges, and cut them
off from our communion, and warn the congregation to beware of, and to keep
distance with them; and that pjayer both before and after shall be made to
bring the sinner to repentance.”
The ministers who refused to
conform to Presbytery at the Eevolution, and were in consequence deprived of
their livings, continued in many cases to officiate in the neighbourhood,
and gave great displeasure to the supporters of the new state of things.
They received the designation of curates,—a term which carried with it a
considerable degree of opprobrium, from the name having been originally
given to those who filled the pulpits of the ejected ministers after the
Restoration.
“17 July 1694.
“William Symrel appearing,
produced a testificat of his marriage by a curat; he was asked who they were
that testified of his being thrie tym proclaimed, but denyed to tell. He was
told of his sin in leaving his own parosh church and marrying in such a
disorderly way, and was ordained to come and speak with the minister, which
he promised to do.”
“14 August 1694.
“The minister by the session
is desired to move to the next ensuing presbitrie for their concurrence to
settle Mr Geo. Maire expectant for present , as colleague and helper to him
in the office of the ministrie in this place, and which was undertaken by
the minister.”
Mr Mair’s settlement as
minister of the second charge of Culross was not completed till 1698.
“21 August 1694.
"David Sands and Wm. Symrell
to be dealt with by the minister and our elders, that they may be brought to
some sense of their sin; and the curat who baptized their children to be
inquired after, and complained of to the presbitrie in whose bounds he shall
be found to reside, that he may be proceeded against.”
“5 Septr. 1694.
"Mr Bruce in Kinkairn,
married, and come to years, intending to follow his book, and himself not
able to prosecute his studies, being poore—in respect of his unblame-able
life, and to encourage such designs, ordered a rix-dollar to be given him.
He was formerlie several tymes supplied by the session.”
Mr Alexander Young, the
incumbent of the second charge of Culross, who was deposed at the
Revolution, seems to have remained in the neighbourhood and performed
various ecclesiastical functions, in defiance of the authorities. His
services appear to have been very convenient for those who were lying under
Church censure:—
“13 June 1695.
“Ordered that Mr Young's
manifold disorders, especiallie in baptising scandalous persons, and
endeavouring to draw away others after him, and hardning of wicked men in
their errors and alienation to the way of God, and being a receptacle for
all to flie to that wold shunn the censure of the Church, to be represented
to presbitrie.”
The session and Lord
Kincardine (son and successor of Alexander, second Earl) have a dispute in
reference to the appointment of a beadle, and the inconvenient proximity to
the church of some trees, between it and his lordship’s residence of Culross
Abbey, immediately adjoining:—
“13 Avgust 1695.
"My Lord Kincaim to be spoken
to by the minister not to countenance Thomas Rowan in his unwarrantable
intruding of himself to make graves, not onlie without but con-trarie to the
session’s order, with certification that he will be proceeded against by the
session in case he, the said Rowan, continue in such disorderlie practises;
as likewaies, in respect that certain trees was planted neare the kirk, and
in rain did drop thereon and thereby skaith the church, that his lordship
wold either transplant the said trees to some other place, or cause cut them
down; and the minister to report against next session my lord’s answer,” &c.
“3 Septr. 1695.
“The minister intrusted to
speak to my Lord Kinkaim, did report my lord’s answer as follows: * That he
was not willing to incroach upon the session’s due, but only desired the
session that for a time Rowan, till he was settled, might be suffered to
make the graves till New Tears mess or Candlemess; but that he could not
condescend to remove the trees out of the place they were in/ The session,
not willing to be heard with my lord, and for peace sake, did resolve till
the said tyme to conive with Rowan’s making of the graves, and to speak no
further of the trees.”
Mr Young’s illicit
ministrations are again discussed:
“2 December 1695.
"Mr Young, late incumbent
heere, complaind of for preaching and baptizing publicklie, and alienating
the hearts of poore simple people from the Gospell, and taking divisive
courses, in contempt of all authoritie; referred to the presbitrie.”
“4 February 1696.
“James Blaw, supplicating for
a testimonial to beg out of the paroshin, in respect he said he could not
get a livelihood here, was refused, but committed him to the charitie of
good people in the paroshin, and especially to his friends and relations.”
The following entry gives a
curious idea of the condition of churches in those days, when pigeons were
allowed to have their nests in the inside roof of the church, and probably
fly about during the service:—
“5 May 1696.
“The which day Bagownie
desiring that, his open seat, being mcommodat through dows’ dung and stones
falling upon these in the seat, it might have a covering; the session,
finding the same inconvenient and prejudiciall to all behind him, which are
a great manie, did for his convenience grant him that they should, out of
the church treasurie, stop these places where the pigeons were wont to
build, and whence he was discommoded.
“Those that did not keep the
church and profane the Sabbath, to be the next day admonished from the
pulpit to walk more christianlie, otherwaies their names to be read
publictlie.”
“22 Jun169&
“The session, considering the
great straits that the poor weie in through the hard year, did see it fit to
distribute another quarter to them before August; and the minister
representing the sad condition of severall godlie honest persons, both in
the town and in Edinburgh, known to several of the elders present, there was
five pounds sterlin given to the minister to distribute as he saw fit.”
The closing years of the
seventeenth century, like those of the eighteenth, were marked by a
succession of bad harvests, and great consequent distress.
On 22d June 1696 a
resignation of his charge as minister of Culross was given in by James
Fraser of Brea; but notwithstanding this step, he seems to have continued to
officiate for a little while subsequent.
“2 Febr. 1687.
"John M‘Kie, a carrier,
having lost an horse, the means of his livelihood, and representing his case
for relieff to the session, they appointed, in consideration that he was a
ver-tuous frugall person, that a collection publict should be made for him,
and intimat next Sabath day.”
“4 May 1697.
“Complaint being made of
severall profaning of the Sabbath by repairing to a well in time of sermon;
ordered that the samin be spoken of from the pulpit the next day, the evill
of it holden forth, and the guiltie warned to forbear, and to wait on the
ordinance, under pain of censure.”
A contribution is ordered
through the parish on behalf of the church clock:—
“29 June 1697.
“The knock takin down and
sent to a knock-maker in Airth, who hath condescended to help it, and put
another hand to it on the south side of the steeple, and amounting to a
considerable sum; it was ordered that this be intimated the next Lord's Day
to all in the paroshin, and a contribution voluntar for that effect to be
required, and creditable be most persons to go to the particular houses and
take and collect what everie one shall be pleased to give; and in respect of
the unseasonableness of this tyme of year, it being a bare tyme wherein
little money is going, that the persons contributes do give what they like
presently, and what farther they wold give at Michaelmas and Martinmas,
which shall be noted each man his parte.”
“7 Beer. 1697.
“Mr Thomas Mophet,
schoolmaster, gave in a complaint to the session against Jo. Allen, George
Halliday, Robt. Baid, James Baid, Jo. Drysdale, Alexr. Drysdale, Alexr.
Rowan, did violentlie break into the Quire, and that they did violentlie
abuse the scholars and beat them, and have broken the dore of the Quire: The
session ordered that the masters and parents of the said boyes should be
warned to the session, and give an account of the said scandalous riot; and
recommended to the magistrats to take in the premises course as they should
judge convenient.”
As already observed, the
so-called Quire was situated at the east end of the church, in the position
occupied by the chancel in English parish churches. Being railed off from
the body of the church, it had been assigned to the scholars, who in those
days attended church every Sunday tinder the supervision of their master.
A thanksgiving is ordered for
the Peace of Rys-wick and a sufficient harvest. The Church guards with great
jealousy its doctrine of spiritual independence, and proclaims the
thanksgiving as ordered by her own authority, though it had been already
promulgated by command of the Privy Council. The Scottish Church has always
resisted strenuously the theory of the Sovereign being the Head of the
Church ; and to this day the Royal Commissioner to the General Assembly is
supposed to sit there under called them in, they were sharply rebuked, and
cited apud acta to appear before the congregation the next Sabbath, in the
ordinary place, to receave a more public rebuke therefor.”
“28 February 1699.
“According to the Act of the
last session, the millers of the Shyres mill, Thomas Philip, David Philip,
and Patrick Jack, were rebuked on the Sabbath, before the congregation after
forenoon's service.”
“20 March 1699.
“It is appoynted that a
letter be written to Brae shewing the earnest desire of the sessione and
people for his return,, and Baillie Adam ordered to write it ”
There is some obscurity about
the proceedings of Mr Fraser of Brea and his relations to Culross. He
resigns his charge on 22d June 1696 :—
“Taking to consideration the
great charge of this parish and kirk of Culross, and my great inabilitie to
do that dewtie to them a minister owes to his flock, partlie through my age,
partlie through my manie avocations and diversions, and constraned passing
some tyme in the north, and in Edinburgh and other places, and multitude of
persona coming to me for advise and other waies, so that I cannot get that
dewtie performed to the parish that were needful and I myself very desirous
of: Wherefore, and for other grievances and discouragements, and that the
place may be the better supplied, I do demit my office and charge of the
ministrie in this place, hereby giving those concerned full leave to move to
the Presbetrie to get the kirk declared vacant, and to proceed to the
calling of another minister to this place, and to settle him here dewlie.”
The session refuses to accept
Mr Frasers resignation, which, however, is given in and registered. He
continued to act as minister of Culross with Mr John Blair, who had recently
been appointed as his helper temporarily till a colleague or second minister
could be legally established in the parish. From the Revolution, when Mr
Fraser was appointed—on the deposition of Mr Wright and Mr Young—up to 1698,
when Mr Mair was elected, as already detailed, to the ministry of the second
charge, the latter remained vacant, and its revenues seem to have been drawn
by Mr Fraser, as minister of the first.
Of this date—18th September
1698—we find “an account of seven pounds Scots given in, distributed to the
randie beggars.” [This generally means strolling or vagabond beggars, but on
this occasion the expression is probably to be understood as denoting
stranger or casual poor. The distress through the country from scarcity was
then so great, that multitudes would be wandering from place to place in
quest of food, and the ordinary disfavour attaching to “ gan-grel bodies ”
and u randie beggars ” would be for a while in abeyance.]
Mr Fraser had from time to
time been sent on missions to the north of Scotland to look after the
condition of the Church there; and in 1696 he received a call from
Inverness, to which he might probably have ultimately acceded, but before a
settlement could be effected he died at Edinburgh on September 1699, in his
sixty-first year. He was twice married, and by his first marriage left one
daughter—Jean—who married Hugh Rose of Kil-ravock. The first charge of
Culross remained vacant from Mr Fraser’s death till 1708, when Mr James
Cuthbert was appointed. Meantime the whole duty of the parish seems to have
been done by Mr Mair.
It would appear that various
payments had been made to the deposed Episcopal incumbents, Mr Wright and Mr
Young. The former of these died at Edinburgh in 1721; and we are informed
that his wife was Katherine Edmonstone—a daughter, probably, of the minister
of that name. Mr Young and his family, as we have seen, had made several
applications to the kirk-session for assistance, and his wife latterly had
rather churlishly been refused, on the ground of her not attending the
ordinances of the Church. Doubtless these “ curates,” continuing to reside
and occasionally officiate in the parish, occasioned a great deal of
trouble; whilst many of their old hearers attended their ministrations in
preference to the parish church, and received from them the ordinance of
baptism for their children. It is probable that they were much less
stringent than their Presbyterian rivals in matters of discipline.
Various cases of Sabbath
desecration are thus recorded:—
“2 May 1699.
“Robert Dalgleish, younger,
being cited, and compearing, was sharply rebuked for his insolent carriage
when reprehended by the minister for standing on the Parlie hill with others
after sermon; and upon his confession and promise of amendment, was
dismissed.”
“6 June 1699.
“Elspet Liddel, being dted
for staying at home in time of divine service upon the Lord’s Day, and being
called upon, compeared, and was convict of her guilt, having no other
pretence but that her dore wanted a lock, which obliged some of them always
to stay at home one of the dyets, whereupon she was not only admonished, but
also sharply rebuked, her excuse being rejected, and she certified that if
she should be found in the like again, she should be convened before the
congregation.”
“2 August 1699.
"Elspet Iiddel, delated for
buying of harring fro John Belfrage, and selling again upon the Sabbath day,
both he and she are ordered to be cited against the next session, together
with Christ. Paton, a witness, and any other witness that may be found.”
“8 August 1699.
“Elspet Iiddel compearing,
seemed to be convinced of her fault in selling of harron on the Sabbath day;
and upon her promise of amendment, was dismissed”
“15 August 1699.
“Gilbert Young, a boy, being
cited for breaking of yeards on the Sabbath, compeared, and was dealt with
and sharply rebuked for sundry faults, which he could not denay, and was
referred to the civil magistrates for causing whip him. His mother compeared,
and denayed any accession thereto, which could not be proven; so she was
only dealt with to be at pains for her childe's correction and instruction,”
&c.
“9 April 1700.
“Ordered to be cited to the
next session, Wm. Watsone, for staying at home ordinarly on the Sabbath, and
contempt of Gospel ordinances, together with Agnes Horn, Marion Craich, and
Jannet Ronnald for the like fault, particularly last Sabbath. The minister
appointed to intimate the next Lords* Day, that whosoever, getting charity
from the session, does not observe the ordinances, and shall not from
henceforth amend, shall have their name put out of the poors-roll, and shall
receive no allowance that way, either weekly or quarterly.”
“7 May 1700.
“Report being made of some
children and youths going on Sabbath morning to a well in Castlehill meadow,
and profaning the Sabbath by ane unsuiteable carriage, it is ordered that
ther shall be a general reproof hereof from the pulpit on the next Sabbath,
with certification that if ther be not amendment therein, there shall be a
procedure against them by Church censures, and that the parents shall be
made answerable for their children, and masters for their servants; and the
like with respect to any other such abuse by gathering together in crowds,
bearing of water, or the like.”
This resorting of young men
and maidens to a well in the “ merry month of May,” taken in connection with
a similar reproof administered three years previously at the same season,
seems to indicate some festivity or May game which had come down from the
old Roman Catholic times. Th<* dressing and decorating of wells in
commemoratior. of the patron saint who was supposed to preside over them,
survives still as a popular pastime in some places in England. The well
above referred to seems to be that known as “ Axns Well,” near Dunimarle.
Here is a gift of a peculiar
kind to the session:—
“9 July 1700.
“The moderator reported that
my Lord Blairhall sent him a decreet, by which he fyned in his Barron Court
Rot. Clerk, in Bargatie, in thretie pounds Scots, that the same might be
given by him to the session for the use of the poor; for which the session
desired him in their name to give thanks to my lord.”
The Lord Blairhall here
referred to was the Hon. Dougal Stewart, brother of James, first Earl of
Bute, who had married Mary Bruce, the heiress of Blairhall, and in virtue of
his right thereby acquired, assumed a title from the estate on being raised
to the rank of a Lord of Session. The property was sold by his grandson.
A double charge of
Sabbath-breaking and slander is here recorded:—
“20 August 1700.
“Elizabeth Donald having been
charged with breach of Sabbath, and using a nickname against one, was cited,
and appearing, was rebuked for anything therof could be made appear; and
having confessed her fault and promised amendment, and to go and crave
pardon of the woman she had nicknamed, was dismissed, with ane exhortation
to pray, and walk more warily.”
A “Forbes Mackenzie” Act of
the ecclesiastical authorities in 1702 follows:—
“Upon the occasion of the
former complaints anent the unseasonable and unseemly drinking of some in
taverns, and the taverners their selling ale to them, the session thought
meet to enact, and hereby do enact, that whosoever shall be found without a
clear and manifest necessity to be drinking in taverns, or to be selling ale
to persons in their houses after 10 of the clock at night on Saturday, or on
any time of the Sabbath, shall be proceeded against with the censures; and
this to be intimat from the pulpit the first Lord’s Day after the forenoon
sermon.”
The Presbytery and
kirk-session take in hand the restraining of excesses at marriages, “
whether penny brydals or free ” :—
“29 Feb. 1704.
“Anent the Act of the
Presbyterie, insert here the last session day, in reference to pennie
weddings, and for rendering the same the more effectual within this parish,
the session agrees and resolves—1st, That no elder of this session shall
countenance any such wedding as is there prohibited, or pipeing and danceing,
especially promiscuously, at any wedding whatsomever, under the pain of
suspension from their eldership for the first fault, and more high censures
afterwards in case of continuance therein, or being more frequently guilty
thereof. 2d, That every elder of the session shall be obliged to delate
whatever transgressions of the said Act within their respective quarters,
and for that end to* use suitable means for his information there-anent,
under the pain of sharp censure. 3d, That every person to be married shall,
before his or her publick proclamation in order thereto, be obliged to give
up their names before at least two or three members of the session, whereof
one is to be a magistrate, and either consign or pawn or pledge, as the said
magistrate shall think fitt to appoint, which is allways understood to be a
suitable one, or else have a cautioner to engage, under the pain of a
competent penalty in case of transgression of the said Act; which pawn or
penalty, in the said case of transgression, is to be for-faulted by the said
persons for the use of the poor. 4th, That by and attour this, the person or
persons guilty shall be sharply prosecuted with Church censures.”
The chalices or sacramental
cups belonging to Culross are lent to Saline, to be used at an approaching
Communion:—
“1 August 1704.
“The session allows the
giving in loan their four Communion cups to Saline, upon sufficient security
given for their restoration, with some small recompence for the use of the
poor, which security was given by one of their most responsal elders.”
The four silver cups above
mentioned are still the property of Culross church. Two of them, as the
inscription beans, “were provided out of the session funds; ” and the other
two were presented by Alexander, second Earl of Kincardine.
In further reference to the
above occasion, we find of same date:—
“The minister recommended it
to the elders present to be taking notice of and visiting their several
quarters, and particularly to be doing what they can that way this week, and
to be enquiring anent who have thoughts of communicating at Saline the next
Sabbath, and stirring up every one seriously to what they see to be their
duty, who all promised compliance therewith.”
The extract here quoted
affords evidence of the practice of communicating in other parishes besides
that to which the individuals belonged. It becomes intelligible in this way
how the Communion might sometimes cease for years to be celebrated in a
particular church, and yet the ordinance be enjoyed by the inhabitants of
the parish. Here is another entry to the same effect:—
“8 Augutt 1707.
“This dyet was mostly spent
in distributing tokens to persons who are to communicate next Sabbath at
Torrie-bum.”
The number of communicants
actually belonging to the church of Culross was, in May 1706, 252, as stated
in a list at commencement of session-book. This is about the same number as
at the present day. But an entry of 8th August 1708 gives some important
information as to stranger communicants.
It states, in reference to
the Communion celebrated at Culross on that day—“ The number of communicants
would have been about six hundred, whereof near to 300 of this parish, and
the rest out of 19 or 20 different parochs.”
It may be as well that I
should say something here of those Sacramental occasions which formed in
bygone days so peculiar a phase of Scottish country life. At one time they
may have been characterised by great fervour and earnestness of devotion;
but latterly they degenerated into very unseemly scenes, such as Bums has
depicted so graphically in his “Holy Fair.” They came, indeed, to be
regarded as a sort of Sunday outings or picnics, and were, as far as many of
the attenders were concerned, no more religious or spiritual in their
character than an ordinary wake or fair. The story is often repeated in this
part of the country, and seems to be quite authentic, that on the occasion
of servants engaging themselves with a new master or mistress, it was quite
common for them to stipulate that they should have leave granted them to
attend either Torrybum Fair or Camock Sacrament.
Both of these parishes march,
in Scottish phrase, with Culross; and to this day Torrybum Fair, with its
horse-races and its other attractions, has by no means yet lost its
celebrity. But the Sacramental occasion at Camock—or, as it used to be
rather irreverently termed, “ Camock Fair ”—has long been only a
reminiscence of the past. I have already referred to John Row as the
probable originator of the reputation which the Camock Communions in
after-days enjoyed—though at one time they were far eclipsed, in point of
numbers attending them, by Culross. The ministers of Camock—and more
especially the last incumbent—under whose auspices these assemblies were
held, used to consider their credit involved in collecting on such occasions
the most popular preachers in the district.
As the parish church would
have been far too amall to accommodate all the persons who flocked hither
from different parts of the country, the sacred edifice itself was reserved
for the partakers of the Holy Communion, which was administered in a
succession of services or tables, numbering frequently as many as five or
six, and each protracted to a considerable length. The multitude, or 01
iroWoi, consisting both of communicants and non-communicants, were assembled
in the open air, either in the churchyard or in some open space adjoining;
and there a succession of religious services ox preachings was conducted in
turn by various ministers, who delivered their discourses from a species of
covered pulpit—or tent, as it was generally called. The audience behaved for
the most part in a sufficiently decorous manner as long as they were present
at the services; but they might withdraw themselves whenever they pleased,
and, as Bums says, “ gie the jars and barrels a lift that day.” And the
after-scenes in the public-houses and streets, as also on the roads in
home-going, were frequently extremely unseemly. The “wabster lads” from
Dunfermline, as well as the “tag-rag and bobtail” from all quarters,
resorted to Camock for a day’s amusement; and the Communion occasion there
was a great annual scandal. The suppression of these discreditable scenes
was at last effected by the Rev. William Gilston, on his appointment to the
ministry of the parish in 1827. On his representation the heritors readily
concurred with him in the abolition of the tent or open-air services at the
celebration of the Sacrament. The occasion, in consequence, lost its
attractions for holiday-seekers, and a great and lasting improvement was the
result. It was not at first, however, as might have been expected, generally
appreciated; and perhaps the greatest testimony to its reality was borne by
a Camock matron, who expressed herself on the subject thus: “New folks mak
new fashions. There’s my freend Mrs -” (naming the landlady of the
public-house) “used to tak often five pounds at the time o’ the Sacrament,
and I dinna believe that yesterday she got half-a-croon! ”
Camock was one of the last
places in this district where the old fashion of the tent-preaching was kept
up on the occasion of the celebration of the Sacrament by ministers of the
Established Church. It was maintained for a while longer by one or two of
the Dissenting communities, more especially by the Secession church at
Inverkeithing; but they, too, were ere long forced to acquiesce in the
necessity of its abandonment. Viewed merely in a conservative point of view
as a relic of the past, there can be no doubt of these gatherings having
been often, with their surroundings, very interesting. At Camock the tent
was erected in the picturesque little valley below the village bridge, where
the ground slopes down from the church to Camock Bum, and the audience
reclined or seated themselves on the grassy banks. Mr Gilston, the worthy
clergyman above mentioned, who has recently departed at an advanced age,
informed me, that during his youth he was once present at a Sacramental
occasion of the Cameronians held on the bank of the Water of Urr in
Galloway. The whole service, including the Communion rites, was conducted in
the open air. But the prolixity then practised was so great, that though the
service had begun at ten o’clock, it was half-past two in the afternoon
before the officiating minister had finished the ceremony of “fencing the
tables,” preparatory to the celebration of the Communion. On this occasion,
indeed, it was simultaneous, the circumstance of its taking place in the
open air obviating the necessity of a succession of services. These were
protracted sometimes in the churches to an incredible length. And as there
was always an evening sermon after all the services were concluded, it
occasionally happened that the Sunday itself was not sufficient for the
accomplishment of all the celebration. A relative informs me that she has
conversed with an aged woman who remembered being detained in the Abbey
Church of Dunfermline till one o'clock on Monday morning, at a Sacramental
occasion during the ministry of Ralph Erskine. She disclaimed, however,
having experienced any sensation of weariness in listening to Mr Erskine
discourse on the “Attributes,” which was long after remembered in
Dunfermline as the “kail-pat sermon,” from the circumstance of the delay on
that eventful evening having spoilt the Sabbath-night’s supper. |
