Aug 11
A few days later, the king returned from Perth to Edinburgh. ‘The town,
with the haill suburbs, met him upon the sands of Leith in arms, with
great joy and shooting of muskets, and shaking of pikes. He went to the
kirk of Leith, to Mr David Lindsay’s orison. Thereafter, the town of
Edinburgh having convenit, and standing at the Hie Gait [High Street], his
majesty passed to the Cross, the Cross being hung with tapestry, and went
up thereon with his nobles. Mr Patrick Galloway being there, made ane
sermon upon the 124 psalm; he declared the haul circumstances of the
treason proposed by the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, whilk the king
testified by his awn mouth, sitting on the Cross all the time of the
sermon.’—Bir.
Sep 11
‘For divers guid respects and considerations,’ the king in council ordered
that thenceforth the Castle of Stirling, in which his son was kept, should
not be accessible to the whole trains of the nobility and gentry at such
times as the king himself was not present; but every earl should ‘have
access with four persons only, every lord with twa persons, every baron
with ane person, and every gentleman and other person single, and all, ane
and all, without armour, saving their swords.’ All except the earls,
lords, and barons, to ‘lay their swords fra them at the
yett.’—P. C. R
Soon after, there was an edict for
restricting the number of persons brought to court by noblemen in their
trains. An earl was enjoined to bring not ‘mony mae’ than twelve persons;
a lord, eight; and a baron, four. The indefiniteness of the order
amusingly marks the want of all stern will in King James.
Sep 14
This being the Rood Fair-day in Jedburgh, a party of rough borderers,
Turnbulls, Davidsons, and others, to the number of twenty, came to the
town, armed with hagbuts and pistols, and there presented themselves
before the lodging of Sir Andrew Kerr of Ferniehirst, ‘foment the
market-cross, and after divers brags, insolent behaviour, and menacings,
in contempt of him and his servants,’ slew his brother, Thomas Kerr, and
one of his servants. Eleven persons stood a trial for this act, when it
appeared that they were only, more suo, executing a horning of the
sheriff of Roxburgh against Thomas Kerr. Sir Andrew Kerr and others stood
a counter-trial for resisting the execution of the horning. But the only
practical result was, that one Andrew Turubull, brother of Turnbull of
Bewly, was beheaded at the Cross of Edinburgh (Dec. 16) for the slaughter
of Thomas Kerr.—Pit.
Oct 8
Francis Tennant, a wealthy merchant of Edinburgh, was hanged at the Cross
of Edinburgh for uttering pasquils against the king and ‘his maist noble
progenitors.’ Tennant had been an active friend of the Earl of Bothwell,
and when that nobleman was at his last extremity, towards the end of 1594,
this merchant-burgess had undertaken to get him delivered up to the king.
‘But by the contrair, howsoon he came to Bothwell, he revealit the cause
of his coming to him, and shew[ed] what reward he had gotten, and offerit
himself with all his guids in Bothwell’s will, affirming that he would not
betray him for all the gold in the warld.’ It was in a ship furnished by
Francis Tennant that the forlorn Bothwell escaped to France.
Francis appears to have consequently
forfeited his position in his native country. Having now fallen into the
king’s hands, he was arraigned for writing a calumnious letter against the
king, dated at Newcastle, January 17, 1597, addressed to Mr Robert Brace,
the minister, and another to Mr John Davidson, both being under fictitious
signatures; and which letters ‘he had laid down in the kirk of Edinburgh,
to the effect the same might have fallen in the hands of the people,
thereby to bring his majesty in contempt, and steir up his people to
sedition and disobedience.’ King James must have been stung to an unusual
degree of wrath by these pasquils, for, after the trial, he sent a warrant
to the justice-clerk, ordering for sentence, that Francis Tennant should
‘have his tongue cuttit out at the rate,’ and then be ‘hangit.’ Four days
later, indeed, he departed from this cruel order, and sent a second
warrant, stating that, ‘for certain causes moving us, we have thought good
to mitigate that sentence, by dispensing with the torturing of the said
Francis, other [either] in the boots, or by cutting out of his tongue, and
are content that ye only pronounce doom agains him to be hangit’
Dec 23
The baptism of the young prince, subsequently Charles I., took place this
day at Holyroodhouse. The manner in which the king obtained the means of
holding any such ceremonial is illustrated by the following letter
(printed literatim), which he addressed on the occasion to the
Laird of Dundas:
‘Richt traist friend, we greet you
heartily well. The baptism of our dearest son being appointit at
Halyrudhouse upon the xxiii day of Decem instant, wherat some princes of
France, strangers, with the specialis of our nobility, being invyted to be
present, necessar it is that great provisions, gude cheir, and sic uther
things necessary for decorations thairof be providit, whilks cannot be had
without the help of sum of our loving subjects, quhairof accounting you
one of the specialis, we have thought good to request you effectuously to
propyne with vennysous, wyld meit, Brissel fowlis,’ caponis, with sic
other provisions as are maist seasonable at that time and errand. To be
sent into Halyrudhouse upon the 22 day of the said moneth of December
instant, and herewithall to invyte you to be present at that solemnitie,
to take part of your awin gude cheir, as you tender our honour, and the
honour of the country; swa we committ you to God. From Lithgow, this 6th
of Decem’ 1600—JAMES R’
At the close of the century, in the
midst of the order of things arranged under the care of the reformed
church, we may be said to have arrived at a point where it may be proper
to take a general survey of the customs and manners of the people. We are
enabled to do this with comparative ease by the copious extracts which
have been published from the session-records of Perth, Aberdeen, Glasgow,
and Edinburgh, the burgh-records of these cities and other documents.
[SUPERSTITIONS AND SUPERSTITIOUS
PRACTICES]
Of some of the superstitions of the
people, particularly that regarding the pretended power of witchcraft,
abundant illustrations have been presented in the chronicle of the bypast
forty years. It may now be remarked, that, besides the witches of
malevolent character, who were objects of dread to the community, there
were ‘wise women,’ who were understood to possess the power of curing
diseases generally, and restoring the health of sickly children, by charms
and other means. We hear, in 1623, of one Janet at Black Ruthven, near
Perth, of whom ‘the bruit went that she could help bairns who had gotten
ane dint of ill wind.’—P. K S. R. At Ruthven, or Huntingtower,
there was a well the water of which was believed to have sanative
qualities when used under certain circumstances. In May 1618, two women of
humble rank were before the kirk-session of Perth, ‘who being asked if
they were at the well in the bank of Huntingtower the last Sabbath, if
they drank thereof:, and what they left at it, answered, that they drank
thereof, and that each of them left a prin [pin] thereat; which was found
to be a point of idolatry, in putting the well in God’s room.’—P.
K. S. R. They were each fined six shillings,
and compelled to make public avowal of their repentance. In August 1623,
Janet Jackson was cited before the same court for following a witch’s
advice in employing the deceased Isobel Haldane ‘to go silent to the well
of Ruthven, and silent back again with water to wash her bairn.’ It was
admitted that ‘Isobel brought the water and washed the bairn therewith,
and put the bairn through a cake made of nine curns of meal gotten from
women, married maidens,’ which was said to be ‘a common practice used for
curing bairns of the cake-mark.’
At St Wollok’s Kirk, a ruin in the
parish of Glass, Aberdeenshire, are two pools by the river’s side, amongst
high rocks, and known far and wide by the name of St Wollok’s Baths,
Wollok having been an anchoritic saint who dwelt here in the fifth
century, and is reckoned as the first bishop of Aberdeen. These pools,
always full of water even in times of the greatest drought, were resorted
to so lately as the seventeenth century, if not later, for the bathing of
sickly children. Near by was St Wollok’s Well, also believed to have a
supernatural virtue for the healing of diseases.
It was customary for great numbers
of persons to go on a pilgrimage barefooted, on the first of May, to
Christie’s Well, in Menteith, and there perform certain superstitious
ceremonies, ‘to the great offence of God and scandal of the true
religion.’ In May 1624, the Privy Council issued a commission to a number
of gentlemen of the district, enjoining them to post themselves at the
well and apprehend all such superstitious persons and put them into the
Castle of Doune.
At the Bay of Nigg, near Aberdeen,
was a well dedicated to St Fiacre, and commonly called St Fittich’s Well,
which was long held in the greatest veneration for its efficacy in
disease. On the 28th of November 1630, Margaret Davidson, a married woman,
residing in Aberdeen, was adjudged in an unlaw of five pounds by the kirk-session,
‘for directing her nurse with her bairn to St Fiack’s Well, and washing
her bairn therein for recovery of her health. .. . and for leaving an
offering in the well’ The prevalence of this custom is indicated by the
decree of the session on the same day, threatening heavy censure and
punishment to all who should be ‘found going to Sanct Fiack’s Well, for
seeking health to themselves or bairns.’
This Fiack was a Scottish saint -
believed to be a son of Eugenius IV., king of Scotland - and it is curious
to be assured, as we are, that ‘the name fiacre was first given to
hackney-coaches because hired carriages were first made use of for the
convenience of pilgrims who went from Paris to visit the shrine of this
saint’
When we consider that sanative
effects are attributed in our own time, by a great number of practitiouers
to pure water, we may be the more disposed to believe that there was some
natural ground for the faith which the simple people of old entertained
regarding saints’ wells, the saintly connection being assumed of course as
indifferent in the ease. It is remarkable, moreover, how long this faith
continued to be maintained even in its most superstitious form. We are
told in the New Statistical Account
of Scotland, that a well dedicated to the
Virgin Mary, at Sigget in Aberdeenshire, continued, till within the memory
of living persons, to be resorted to on Pasch Sunday, the votaries always
taking care to leave money or some other article beside the venerated
lymph on departing. In Easter Ross, there are wells which are still
resorted to by some of the more ignorant portion of the rustic classes.
Charms for the healing of sores and
gunshot wounds were in great vogue. In May 1631, Laurence Boak and his
wife were before the kirk session of Perth, accused of using such charms,
and they admitted that the following was the formula employed for sores:
‘Thir sairs are risen through God’s
wark,
And must be laid through God’s help;
The mother Mary, and her dear son,
Lay thir sairs that are begun.’
The chief of fallen spirits was the
subject of a strange superstition, which dictated that a piece of every
farm should be left untilled for his especial honour. It went by the
respectful appellation of the Goodman’s Croft. In May 1594, the
General Assembly had under their attention that such a weird custom was
rife in Garioch, Aberdeenshire and it called for an act of the Estates
‘ordaining all persons possessors of the said lands, to cause labour the
same, betwixt and a certain day to be appointed thereto; otherwise, in
case of disobedience, the said lands to fall into the king’s hands, to be
disponed to such persons as please his majesty, who will labour the
same.’— Cal.
So lately as 1651, at a visitation
of the kirk of Rhynie in Aberdeenshire, it was admitted by Sir William
Gordon of Lesmore, that a part of his mains or home-farm was given
away to the Goodman, and used not to be laboured; ‘but he had a
mind, by the assistance of God, to cause labour the same.’
Some religious practices of the
Romish Church continued to be in vogue for many years after the
Reformation, notwithstanding all that the Presbyterian kirk could do for
their suppression. There had been a custom of pilgrimising, for
penitential purposes, to certain holy places, precisely as there still is
in the more Catholic districts of Ireland. We may presume that, as in the
sister-island, people went barefooted to the sacred spot, walked on bare
knees repeatedly round it, repeating prayers, and afterwards formally
confessed their sins to the priests who superintended the ceremonial. In
these reformed times, the affair would be of course shorn of many of its
rites; but certainly the habit of going on pilgrimage was still such as to
give great concern to presbyteries and general assemblies. One of the
chief places still in vogue was the Chapel of Grace, on the western bank
of the Spey, near Fochabers—a mere ruin, but held in great veneration, and
resorted to by devout people from all parts of the north of Scotland.
Another was the Chapel of the Virgin, at Ordiquhill in Banffshire, where
also there was a well believed to possess miraculous virtue. We find the
General Assembly which met at Linlithgow in 1608, recommending that, for
remedy of the growth of papistry, ‘order be taken with the pilgrimages
‘—specifying these two, and a well in the district of Enzie. Of course
Catholics were most disposed to making the pilgrimages. In 1592 Robert
Wauchope of Caikmuir, suspected papist, was accused before his presbytery
of going yearly barefooted in pilgrimage to the Cross of Peebles,
and he admitted having been guilty of such proceedings a few years back,
but now he had given it up as a ‘rite unprofitable and ungodly.’ We hear
of Lady Aboyne going to the Chapel of Grace every year, being a journey of
thirty Scotch miles, the two last of which she always performed on her
bare feet. About the time of the National Covenant (1638), what remained
of the Chapel of Grace was thrown down, with a view to putting a stop to
the practice; but this seems to have been far from an effectual measure.
In a work written in 1775, the author says: ‘In the north end of the
parish [of Dundurcus] stood the Chapel of Grace, and near to it the well
of that name, to which multitudes from the Western Isles do still resort,
and nothing short of violence can restrain their superstition.’
There were even practices of an
obviously heathen origin still flourishing in the country. That of
kindling fires at Midsummer and on St Peter’s Eve seems to have been among
the most difficult to eradicate. In July 1608, several inhabitants of
Aberdeen were accused before the kirk-session, of having had fires kindled
in front of their houses on one of these evenings. Gilbert Keith of
Achiries, ‘a common banner and swearer,’ confessed the fault. Mr Thomas
Menzies, bailie, gave an equivocating answer. Others alleged that the
fires had been kindled by their servants and children.—
A. K. S. R.
[HOLIDAYS AND POPULAR PLAYS.]
The observance of Yule (Christmas),
Pasch (Easter), and the various saints’ days, had been sternly repressed
at the Reformation. So were the May-games and other holiday amusements in
vogue under the ancient faith. Nevertheless, we still find all of these
matters enjoying a sort of twilight life. They assert their vitality by
the very efforts made from time to time to extinguish them. Passing over
the Robin Hood play and other Edinburgh May-sports, to which repeated
reference has been made in the chronicle, we may advert to the
corresponding doings at the Fair City of the Tay.
The people of Perth had been in the
habit, before the Reformation, of observing Corpus Christi Day (second
Thursday after Whitsunday) and St Obert’s Day. On the former, it was
customary to have a play. After the change of religion, there was a great
inclination to keep up these old practices, which the church, however,
condemned as ‘idolatrous, superstitious, and slanderous.’ In 1577, the
kirk-session of Perth prosecuted several persons for taking part in the
Corpus Christi play. Thomas Thorsails, who had borne the ensenyie or flag,
had to submit himself to the discipline of the kirk, and promise ‘never to
meddle with such things again,’ in order that he might have his bairn
baptised. A considerable number of persons had to make the like submission
that they might be at peace with the session. Nevertheless, on the ensuing
10th of December, being St Obert’s Eve, there was a procession as usual;
and several citizens were brought to submission, ‘in that they
superstitiously passed about the town, disguised, in piping and dancing,
and torches bearing.’ John Fyvie afterwards confessed that on this
occasion ‘he passed through the town striking the drum, which was one of
the common drums of the town, accompanied with certain others—such as John
Macbeth, William Jack riding upon ane horse going in men’s shoes.’—P.
K. S. R.
In Aberdeen, December 30, 1574,
certain persons were charged before the kirk-session of Aberdeen ‘for
playing, dancing, and singing of filthy carols on Yule Day [Christmas Day]
at even, and on Sunday at even thereafter.’—P. K S. R.
January 10, 1575—6, ‘the haill deacons of crafts within this burgh are
ordained to take trial of their crafts for sitting idle on Yule Day last
was.’—Ibid. In Perth, January 10, 1596—7, ‘William Williamson,
baxter, is accused of baking and selling great loaves at Yule, which was
slanderous, and cherishing a superstition in the hearts of the ignorant.’—P.
K. S. R.
[FROLICS AND MASQUERADINGS.]
The sessions appear to have
everywhere had great battlings with old-accustomed habits of
festival-keeping and merry-making, in which the people indulged, probably
without any idea of committing a sin. Some of their habits were connected
with superstition, and thus gave double offence.
There was a cave called the
Dragon-hole, on the face of the Kinnoul Hill near Perth. It was of
difficult access, and old tradition had her stories about it. The common
sort of people were accustomed to make a merry procession to the
Dragon-hole once a year in May; perhaps they had continued to do so since
the days of heathenrie. May 2, 1580, ‘because that the assembly of
minister and elders understand that the resort to the Dragon-hole, as well
by young men as women, with their piping and drums striking before them
through this town, had raised no small slander to this congregation,’ they
therefore ordain that each person guilty of this practice shall pay twenty
shillings to the poor, and make public repentance.
Notwithstanding all efforts at
repression, eases of excessive conviviality and of questionable frolics
are not infrequent in these moral registers. It seems to have been a
favourite prank to interchange the dresses of the sexes, and make a parade
through the town by night, singing merry songs. At Aberdeen, February 9,
1575—6, Madge Morison is ‘decreit to pay 6s 8d. to the magistrate, and
Andrew Caithness is become caution for her repentance-making when she is
required, and that for the abusing of herself in claithing of her with
men’s claiths at the lyke [wake] of George Elmsly’s wife.’ A month after,
in the same place, a group of women, ‘tryit presently as dancers in men’s
claiths, under silence of night, in house and through the town,’ are
assured that if found hereafter in the same fault, ‘they sall be debarrit
fra all benefit of the kirk, and openly proclaimit in pulpit.’
At some blithesome bridal which took
place in Aberdeen in August 1605, a number of young men and women danced
through the town together, ‘the young men being clad in women’s apparel,
whilk is accounted ane abomination (Deut. xxii. 5), and the young women
with masks on their faces, thereby passing the bounds of modesty and
shamefacedness, whilk aught to be in young women, namely [especially] in a
reformed city.’ The matter was referred to the provincial assembly, and
severe penalties threatened for future instances of the offence.—A.
K. S. R.
At Perth, in 1609, we find the kirk-session
dealing with an ultra-merry company, composed of Andrew Johnston, James
Jackson, and David Dickson, and three women, two of whom were the wives of
the first two men. They were accused of having gone about the town on the
evening of the preceding Tuesday, disguised, and with swords and staves,
molesting their neighbours. They stated that they had been supping, and
after supper, from mere merriness, had gone about the town, but without
molesting anybody. ‘It was certainly found that they were disguised;
namely, Andrew Johnston’s wife having her hair hanging down, and a black
hat upon her head; her husband with a sword into his hand; James Jackson
having a mutch [woman’s cap] upon his head, and a woman’s gown; and that
they hurt and molested several persons.’ The matter was aggravated by the
consideration that it was a time of plague, and the offenders were
convalescents new come in from the fields, with ‘the blotch and boil’
still on their persons. A public repentance was decreed to them.—P.
K. S. R.
The chief clement of conviviality
among the common people, at this time, and for several generations later,
was a light ale which the keepers of taverns made at home; hence
browster-wife
came to be a synonym for a woman keeping a
public-house. The fierier and more fatal whisky was, however, not unknown.
In the Aberdeen Kirk-session Register, under March 1606, we have two men
brought up for ‘abusing themselves last week by extraordinar drinking of
aqua-vitie.’
[OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY.]
The Protestant Church took the
observance of Sunday as a Sabbath from the ancient church; and the
Presbyterians of Scotland adopted it fully, while rejecting all the other
festivals—a fact with which Ninian Winzet did not fail to taunt them as an
inconsistency in his Tractates, published immediately after the
Reformation. [Winzet, remarking how John Knox had put down festival-days
as unsanctioned in Scripture, says: ‘I misknow not some of you to object
the command, charging sex days to labour, and the sevint to
sanctify the Lord; therefore I desire the doubtsome man to cause his
doctor and prophet aforesaid [John Knox], with all the assistance of his
best learned scholars, to answer in writ, what Scripture has he, or other
authority, by [besides] the consent of the haly kirk universal, to
sanctity the Sunday to be the sevint day. And gif he abolishes with us the
Saturday, as ceremonial and not requirit in the law of the evangel, what
has he by [besides] the consent of God’s kirk to sanctify ony day of the
seven, and not to labour all the seven days..... Why abolishes he not the
Sunday, as he does Yule, Pasch, and the rest, &c.?‘—Tractates,
1568, reprinted for Maitland Club, 1835.] Not merely ecclesiastical acts,
but several statutes of the realm, were put in effect for the purpose of
enforcing the observance of the day as a day of rest and of religious
exercises. From the terms of these, however, and from the accounts we have
of frequent punishments for their neglect or infraction, it is evident
that many years elapsed before the people of Scotland attained to that
placid acquiescence in the order for the day which we now see.
The main demands of the new church
were for a complete abstinence from work and market-holding, as well as
from public amusements, and a regular attendance on the sermons. We have
seen some instances of the struggles of the church to induce mercantile
people to abandon Sunday-marketing. So lath as 1596, it is evident that
their wishes were not fully attained, as we find the presbytery of Meigle
then complaining to the Privy Council of the obstinate refusal of the
people in their district to abandon a Sunday-market. Two years later, the
Town Council of Aberdeen was content to ordain that ‘nae mercat, either of
fish or flesh, shall be on the sabbath-day in time of sermon ‘—a
clear proof that they did not look for a complete suppression of marketing
on that day, but only its cessation in time of church-service. There are
many similar indications that at this early period taverns were allowed to
be open, and public amusements permitted, at times of the day apart from
‘the sermons.’ It is somewhat startling to find the General Assembly
itself, in 1579, expressing indifference to marriages being solemnised on
Sunday (B. U. K.), and only so late as January 1586, discharging
‘all marriages to be made on Sundays in the morning in time coming.’ Nor
is it less surprising to find a kirk-session, so late as 1607, requiring
that ‘the mill be stayit from grinding on the Sabbath-day, at least by
eight in the morning.’ It clearly appears to have been common in 1609
for tailors, shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen, to work till eight or
nine every Sunday morning, ‘as gif it were ane ouk
day.’—A. K. S. R.
Breach of the Sunday arrangements
was usually punished by fines. In Aberdeen, in 1562, for an elder or
deacon of the church to be absent from the preachings, inferred a penalty
of ‘twa shillings;’ for ‘others honest persons of the town,’ sixpence.
November 24, 1575, it is statute that ‘all persons being absent fra the
preachings on the Sunday, without lawful business, and all persons ganging
in the gait or playing in the links [downs], or other places, the times of
preaching or prayers on the Sunday, and all persons making mercat
merchandise on Sunday within the town sall be secluded fra all benefit of
the kirk unto the time they satisfy the kirk in their repentance, and
[the] magistrate by ane pecunial fine.’ Notwithstanding this statute, we
find the Town Council in 1588 referring to the fact, that a great number
of the inhabitants of the burgh keep away from church both on Sundays and
week-days, and give themselves to ‘gaming and playing, passing to taverns
and ale-houses, using the trade of merchandise and handy labour in time of
sermon on the week-day;’ for which reason it is ordained that all shall
attend the sermons on Sunday, ‘afore and after noon;’ as also every
Tuesday and Thursday ‘afore noon,’ under certain penalties—a householder
or his wife, 13s. 4d.; a craftsman, 6s. 8d.; ‘and in case ony merchand or
burgess of guild be found within his merchand booth after the ringing of
the third bell to the sermon on the week-day, to pay 6s. 8d.’ These
ordinances were acted upon. November 28, 1602, ‘the wife of James
Bannerman, for working on the Sabbath-day, [is] unlawit in 6s 8d.’ ‘The
same day, the session ordains that nae baxters within this burgh work, nor
bake any baken meat, in time coming, on the Sabbath-day.’ Four Aberdeen
citizens were, January 16, 1603, ‘unlawit, ilk ane of them, in 3s. 4d.,
for their absence fra the sermons on Sunday last, confessit by
themselves.’—Ab. C. R. Soon after we find a bailie and two elders
appointed to go through the town in time of sermon, and searching any
house they pleased, note the names of all they found at home; likewise to
watch the ferry-boat, and note the names of ‘sic as gangs to Downie, that
they may be punishit.’—A. K. S. R.
At Perth, January 8, 1582—3, ‘it was
ordained that an elder of every quarter shall pass through the same every
Sunday in time of preaching before noon, their time about, and note them
that are found in taverns, baxters’ booths, or on the gaits, and delate
them to the Assembly, that every one of them that is absent from the kirk
may be poinded for twenty shillings, according to the act of parliament.’
Soon after, a married woman named Hunter was fined three pounds for her
absence from church during the bygone year, and other three pounds for her
absence during the time of fasting. In September 1585, tavern-keepers were
subjected to a heavy fine for selling wine and ale in time of sermon. In
1587, the Sunday penalties were extended to the Thursday sermon. February
21, 1591—2, John Pitscottie, younger of Luncarty, and several other
persons, ‘confessed that on the Sunday of the fast, in the time of
preaching in the afternoon, they were playing at foot-ball in the Meadow
Inch of the Muirton, and that the same was an offence; therefore they were
ordained on Sunday next to make their repentance.’
In the same town, January 29,
1592—3, ‘the Lady Innernytie being called, and accused for absenting
herself and the rest of her family from the hearing of the word on
Sabbath, compears and confesses that she does it not, neither in contempt
of the word nor of the minister, but only by reason of her sickness, and
promises when she shall be well in health, to repair more frequently to
the kirk and hearing of the word.’ This lady was the wife of Elphinstone
of Innernytie, a judge of the Court of Session, and a Catholic. It is
therefore probable that her submission was hypocritical. July 31, 1598,
‘Andrew Robertson, chirurgeon, being accused of breaking the Sabbath-day
by polling and razing of the Laird of.... , declared he did it quietly at
the request of the gentleman, without outgoing.’ He was ordained to make
repentance, and warned for the future. It will be understood that under
the designation of chirurgeon both surgery and the functions of the barber
were embraced.
The Perth kirk-session also exerted
itself to prevent Highland reapers from sauntering on the streets on
Sunday, waiting to be hired (August 1593); and they took strong measures
to put an end to the practice of cadgers departing from the Saturday
market on Sunday morning (March 1599). Four persons were rebuked in
November of this last year for ‘playing at golf on the North Inch in the
time of the preaching after noon on the Sabbath ‘—a sport which would not
now be indulged in on Sunday in any part of Scotland. April 13, 1601,
‘George Murray [was] accused for suffering of ale to be sold in time of
preaching on the Sabbath in his house. [He] answered that he was in the
kirk himself:, and his wife also; but his servant came, and brought his
wife out of the kirk to ane daughter of Tullibardine’s [Murray of
Tullibardine—the family since become Dukes of Athole], to give her some
clothes which she had of hers in custody, and in the mean time caused fill
drink to the said gentlewoman and her servants with her.’ Murray was
dismissed with an admonition.
By a stern act of the Aberdeen
town-council, passed in 1598, a severe tariff of fines was ordained for
various ranks of people on their staying away from Sunday and week-day
Services in the churches, every husband to be answerable for his wife, and
every master for his servants. A burgess of guild or his wife was to pay
13s. 4d. for absence from church on Sunday. ‘Likewise, following the
example of other weel-reformit congregations of this realm, [the council]
statutes and ordains that the wives of all burgesses of guild, and of the
maist honest and substantious craftsmen of this burgh, sall sit in the
midst and body of the kirk in time of sermon, and not in the side-tiles,
nor behind pillars, to the effect that they may mair easily see and hear
the deliverer and preacher of the word; and siclike ordains, that the
women of the ranks aforesaid sall repair to the kirk, every ane of them
having a cloak, as the maist comely and decent outer garment, and not with
plaids, as has been frequently used; and that every ane of them likewise
sall have stules, sae mony as may commodiously have the same, according to
the decent form observed in all reformit burghs and congregations of this
realm.’—Ab. C. R.
While it is thus apparent that
observance during time of sermon and attendance thereupon were the
principal objects held in view, it clearly appears that the day, in its
totality, was then a different thing from what it now is. It was, as in
Norway still, held to commence at sunset of Saturday, and to terminate on
Sunday at sunset, or at six o’clock. As illustrations of this fact, two
curious notices may be cited. In May 1594, the presbytery of Glasgow is
found forbidding a piper to play his pipes on Sunday ‘frae the sun rising
till the sun going-to." When a fast was ordained in Edinburgh, in December
1574, on account of impending pestilence, it was to commence ‘on Saturday
next at aucht hours at even, and sae to continue while [until] Sunday at
six hours at even.' An act of the presbytery of Glasgow, January 1, 1635,
ordered that the Sabbath be from 12 on Saturday night to 12 on Sunday
night;’ a clear proof that there was previously a different arrangement.
Another curious fact, indicative of
a progress in the ideas of the reformed kirk as to Sabbath-keeping, is
that there were ‘play-Sundays’ till the end of the sixteenth century. The
presbytery of Aberdeen ordered in 1599 that ‘there be nae play-Sundays
hereafter, under all hiest pain.’—A. P. R.
In April 1600, in obedience to an
ordinance of the General Assembly, it was arranged at Aberdeen—and of
course a similar arrangement would be made in other places—that ‘on
Thursday, ilk ouk [every week], the masters of households, their wives,
bairns, and servants should compeir, ilk ane within their awn parish kirk,
to their awn minister, to be instructit by them in the grunds of religion
and heads of catechism, and to give, as they should be demanded, ane proof
and trial of their profiting in the said heads.’
After this arrangement had been
made, the religious observances of the citizen occupied a considerable
share of his time. He was bound under penalties to be twice in church on
Sunday, to make Monday a ‘pastime-day, for eschewing of the profanation of
the Sabbath-day,’ to give Tuesday forenoon to a service in the parish
church, to do the same on Thursday forenoon, and on that day also to
attend a catechetical meeting with his family. Three fore-noons each week
remained for his business and ordinary affairs. Notwithstanding this
liberal amount of external observance, the General Assembly appointed, in
1601, ‘a general humiliation for the sins of the land and contempt of the
gospel, to be kept the two last Sabbaths of June and all the week
intervening.’
[LICENTIOUS CONDUCT.]
Licentious conduct was from the
first an object of severe observation to the reformed church, and many
sharp measures were taken and harsh punishments inflicted for its
repression.
In 1562, the kirk-session of
Aberdeen ordained as its punishment, for the first offence, exposure
before the congregation; for the second, carting and ducking; for the
third, banishment from the town. A subsequent act of parliament imposed
still severer punishment—’That is to say, for the first fault, as weel the
man as the woman sall pay the sowm of forty pounds, or than [else] he and
she sall be imprisoned for the space of aucht days, their food to be breid
and small drink, and thereafter present[ed] to the mercat-place of the
town or parochin, barehead [ed}, and there stand fastened, that they may
not remove, for the space of twa hours.’ To this punishment some additions
were made for a second offence, as cold water for food, and a shaving of
the head. A third inferred ducking and banishment.
At Aberdeen, in 1591, in a case
where a marriage relationship existed, the punishment inferred the depth
of horror with which the offence was on that account regarded, the man
being ordained to be banished from the town, but first to be set up at the
cross on three several market-days, bound to the pillar by a pair of
branks, and having a paper-crown on his head inscribed with his crime;
also to stand on three several Sundays at the kirk-door, in haircloth,
barelegged and barefooted, while the people are assembling; after which to
be exposed in like guise at the pillar of repentance during the whole time
of worship.
November 20, 1582, the kirk-session
of Perth ordains John Ronaldson, having offenders of this class in his
custody, ‘to put every one of them in a sundry house in time coming, to
give them bread and small drink, to let none of them come to the nether
window [probably a window where they could see or converse with the people
passing on the street]; and when they come to the cross-head, that they
shall be fast locked in the irons two hours, their kurchies [caps] off
their heads, and their faces bare, without ane plaid or any other
covering.’
A stool or seat was raised in a
conspicuous situation in each church, where penitents under this as well
as other offences had to sit during service, and afterwards bear the
rebuke of the minister. Many entries in the session records shew the
difficulty there had always been in getting penitents, while in this
situation, to remain unmuffled or uncovered. The only correction that
seems to have been available was to ordain that such a sitting went for
nothing. The Aberdeen session, August 1608, ordain that, ‘because, in
times past, most part of women that come to the pillar to make their
public repentance, sat thereon with their plaids about their head, coming
down over their faces the hail time of their sitting on the stool, so that
almaist nane of the congregation could see their faces, or knaw what they
were, whereby they made nae account of their coming to the stool, but
misregarded the same altogether ‘—the officer should thenceforth take the
plaid away from each penitent ‘before her upganging to the pillar.’ The
Perth session, in August 1599, had to take sharp measures with Margaret
Marr, because being exalted to the seat of repentance, ‘she sat in the
back side with her face covered, and being desired by John Jack, officiar,
to sit on the fore side, and uncover her face that she might be seen, she
uttered words against him in a bitter manner, and extended her voice in
such sort that she was heard through all the kirk in time of sermon, and
so behaved herself uncomely in the presence of strangers, to the great
slander of this congregation.’ In very gross cases, a paper-crown was
added to the external marks of infamy inflicted on delinquents.
As a specimen of the interference
with private life to which the clergy were led in their anxiety to
suppress licentiousness—the kirk-session of Perth (1586—7) would not
suffer two unmarried sisters to continue to live together in one house,
but ordained them to go to service, ‘or where they may be best entertained
without slander,’ under pain of imprisonment and banishment from the town.
A custom obtained in those days of
entering into conjugal life on the strength simply of a contract of
marriage. It was called hand-fasting. The ceremony of marriage
might take place afterwards or not, as the parties pleased. This the
reformed clergy denounced as immoral, and they set themselves to correct
it. The Aberdeen session, December 10, 1562, ordained, ‘Because sundry and
many within this town are hand-fast, as they call it, and made promise of
marriage a long space bygane, some seven year, some sax year, some langer,
some shorter, and as yet will not marry and complete that honourable band,
nother for fear of God nor love of their party ‘—that ‘all sic persons as
has promised marriage faithfully complete the samen betwixt this and
Fasteren’s Even next to come;’ penalty left blank. Such parties are also
ordained in the meantime to live as single persons. April 12, 1568, the
same session ordained that ‘neither the minister nor reader be present at
contracts of marriage-making, as they call their hand-fastings, nor make
nae sic band.’
The kirk-session records of the
period must be held as revealing on the whole a very low state of morals,
particularly among the humbler classes of the people.
[ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE IN
OTHER MATTERS.]
Ecclesiastical discipline took upon
it in those days to interfere with many matters in which it would be set
at defiance in our day. It was part of the earnestness of the general
religious feeling, while as yet no one had ventured to think that there
are points which may best be left to the private consciousness, or which,
at least, it can serve no good end to make matter of public regulation.
Of the sharp dealing of the
Presbyterian preachers and their courts with avowed Catholics, we have
already seen abundant illustrations, and more will yet be presented.
Having become satisfied that the Catholic religion was a system of
damnable error, our ancestors acted logically on the conviction, and
thought no measure, however forcible or severe, misapplied, if it could
save the people of that persuasion from the unavoidable consequences, and
prevent the evil from spreading. To purge the land of papists and
idolaters was therefore an object held constantly in view by the
church-courts.
The slightest suspicion of being
papistically inclined was sure to bring any one to trouble. One David
Calderwood in Glasgow being found in possession of a copy of Archbishop
Hamilton’s popish catechism, the presbytery sent a minister ‘to try and
find of the said David’s religion.’ Another citizen of Glasgow was taken
to task, on a charge of having, in the way of his profession as a painter,
painted crucifixes in sundry houses. A Lady Livingston being suspected of
unsoundness in the faith, in order ‘that she may be won to God,’ a
deputation was sent by the presbytery to confers with her, ‘anent the
heads of religion,’ and she was summoned under pain of excommunication.
The same reverend body, hearing of one James Fleming, an Irishman, sent
‘to inquire of him his religion.’ On the 5th of June 1599, they are found
taking measures for discovering Irishmen in their bounds, and ascertaining
‘wha are papists and pernicious to others they haunt amang.’
That to receive a Catholic priest
into one’s house was a serious matter in those days, there is abundant
evidence, some of which will be found in the sequel. But even to receive
or keep company with an excommunicated papist, inferred severe pains; and
in the Perth kirk-session register there are several instances of these
being inflicted. For example, Gabriel Mercer was, in 1595, ordered to make
public declaration from his seat in church of his offence in entertaining
for three days Elphinstone of Innernytie, an excommunicated papist. The
same order was given in 1610 in the case of Alexander Crichton of Perth,
‘who was convicted on his own confession of haunting and frequenting the
company of Robert Crichton, excommunicate papist, eating and drinking with
him in taverns, and walking on the
street.’—P. K. S. R.
In 1598, we find the presbytery of
Glasgow concerning itself about a young man who had passed his father
without lifting his bonnet. He was judged ‘a stubborn and disobedient son
to his father.’ About 1574, the kirk-session of Edinburgh was occupied for
some days in considering the case of Niel Laing, accused of making a
pompous convoy and superfluous banqueting at the marriage of Margaret
Danielston, ‘to the great slander of the kirk,’ which had forbid such
doings.
The absence of external appearances
of joy in Scotland, in contrast with the frequent holidayings and
merry-makings of the coutinent, has been much remarked upon. We find in
the records of ecclesiastical discipline clear traces of the process by
which this distinction was brought about. To the puritan kirk of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries every outward demonstration of natural
good spirits was a sort of sin, to be as far as possible repressed. To
make marriages sober and quiet was one special object. It was customary in
humble life for a young couple, on being wedded, to receive miscellaneous
company, and hold a kind of ball, each person contributing towards the
expenses, with something over for the benefit of the young pair. Such a
custom has been kept up almost to our own time, but much shorn of its
original spirit. In the latter years of the sixteenth century, it was
customary for the party to go to the Market-cross, and dance round it. At
Stirling, October 30, 1600, the kirk-session, finding ‘there has been
great dancing and vanity publicly at the Cross usit by married persons and
their company on their marriage-day,’ took measures to put a stop to the
practice. It ordained ‘that nane be married till ten pounds be consigned,
for the better security that there be nae mair ta’en for ane bridal lawing
than five shillings according to order,’ ‘with certification, gif the
order of the bridal lawing be broken, the said ten pounds sail be
confiscat.’
In like manner the kirk-session of
Cambusnethan, in September 1649, ordained ‘that there suld be no pipers at
bridais, and who ever suld have a piper playing at their bridal, sall lose
their consigned money.’ And in June next year the same reverend body
decreed that men and women ‘guilty of promiscuous dancing,’ should stand
in a public place and confess their fault.
The power of the kirk to enforce its
discipline and maintain conformity, was a formidable one, resting
ultimately on their sentence of excommunication, of which the following
contemporary description may be given: ‘. . . . whasoever
incurs the danger thereof is given over in thir days by the ministers, in
presence of the haill people assembled’ at the kirk, in the hands of
Satan, as not worthy of Christian society, and therefore made odious to
all men, that they should eschew his company, and refuse him all kind of
hospitality; and the person thus continuing in refusal by the space of a
haill year, his goods are decerned to appertain to the king, sae lang as
the disobedient lives.’—H. K. J. [' .
. . in that church excommunication is so terrible, that few will have
any manner of conversation with one excommunicated and the generality of
the people, when they see a man whom their ministers declare to be
excluded from heaven, are easily induced to think him unworthy to live on
earth.’—Ed. Phillips’s Cont. of Baker’s Chronicle, 1670, p. 617.]
No unprejudiced person can doubt
that the Presbyterian clergy of this age were in general correct in their
own deportment, and sincerely anxious to promote virtue among the people;
but it is also evident to us, under our superior lights, that they carried
their discipline to a pitch at once irreconcilable with the natural rights
of mankind, and calculated to have effects different from what were
intended. It dived too much into the details of private life, was too
inconsiderate of human infirmity, was extremely cruel, and altogether
erred in trusting too much to force and too little to moral suasion. Even
the innocent playfulness of the human heart seems to have been viewed by
these stern moralists as an evil thing, or at least a thing leaning to the
side of vice. On the injurious tendency of any system which equally makes
a crime out of some peculiarity of opinion, or indifferent action, and of
an actual infraction of the rights of our fellow-creatures, it were
needless to insist. |