|
IN the year 1657, when the
second volume of the session minutes of Culross terminates, we left
Presbytery still vigorous and dominant, though beginning to be rather hemmed
in and circumscribed by the policy of Cromwell, who had no idea of allowing
the civil power to be overshadowed or controlled by any one religious
denomination or ecclesiastical authority. As might have been expected, this
rendered his sway equally distasteful to Presbyterians and Episcopalians,
and, along with other reasons, contributed largely, in less than two years
after his death in 1658, to the restoration of Charles II. in 1660 — a
consummation which had been mainly brought about by the English adherents of
the latter party. In England the genius of the people has always attracted
its sympathies to a liturgical service and an Episcopal hierarchy with a
gradation of ranks in the Church. In Scotland, on the other hand, the
disposition of the people has, in ecclesiastical matters, always led them to
prefer a severely simple mode of worship and a democratic system of Church
government. Law-abiding, submissive, and obedient even to excess in
political and civil matters, the Scotch have always shown themselves most
resolute in resisting any attempt to interfere with their spiritual
independence. How far their dislike to Episcopacy might have been modified
or overcome had they been quietly left to regulate their Church matters for
themselves, is a question that cannot easily be determined. Certain it is
that the proceedings of the governments of Charles and James II. in
endeavouring to force a prelatical system upon them, and the cruelties and
injustice with which these proceedings were carried out, made such a
consummation perfectly impossible. The lapse of 200 years has not yet
sufficed to extinguish the remembrance of the oppressions endured by the
Presbyterians in the period between the Restoration and the Revolution, or
eradicate the hatred of Episcopal government and ritual which these
sufferings left planted in the Scottish mind.
It may well excite wonder how
the Scotch, with so strong a predilection for Presbytery, and such a
vigorous and successful struggle for its maintenance against the power of
Charles I., should yet have acquiesced so unresistingly in the altered state
of matters under his son. Part of this might be owing to the overwhelming
power of England, who had contributed her influences so zealously for the
restoration of monarchical government and Episcopacy. Part of it might be
due to the existence of divided counsels among the Presbyterians themselves,
who, as they always have done, and as most bodies religious or secular do,
comprised two parties—one inclined to be moderate and accommodating, the
other uncompromising and thorough in the objects which they sought to
attain. And much also must be ascribed to the trimming and unworthy policy
of a large portion of the nobility and gentry of Scotland, who, as had too
often been the case in bygone times, went over to the English side and lent
their aid to the enthralment of their country. Many were certainly faithful,
and suffered accordingly, more or less; but the tide of fashion set the
other way, and the generality, when not actually supporting, were tamely
submissive to the despotic measures of the Scottish Privy Council, which
usurped all the functions both of legislation and government.
Episcopacy was re-established
in Scotland in 1662, but it was of a different kind from what has generally
been supposed. In England, when the old Church government was reconstituted,
there was simply a return to the old state of things as it had existed
previous to the great Civil War, and all holders of benefices were required,
before St Bartholomew’s Day, to declare their unfeigned assent to everything
contained in the Book of Common Prayer. As is well known, nearly 2000
clergymen refused to do so, and were in consequence ejected from their
livings. In Scotland the terms imposed were different. There the English
Prayer-book had never found a footing, and though a Liturgy and Directory of
Public Worship drawn up under the auspices of John Knox had been used for
some time subsequent to the Reformation, they had never been made
compulsory; and the disposition of the clergy and people tending in an
opposite direction, the services of the Church had come generally to be
conducted in the so-called extempore fashion—the form which has prevailed in
Scotland down to the present day. The changes in the government of the
Church from Presbytery to Episcopacy in the reigns of James VI. and Charles
I., had introduced some changes in the mode of celebrating the sacraments
which had been greatly objected to, and never entirely or generally carried
into practice. And though government by bishops and archbishops had been
introduced, the whole machinery of the Presbyterian system, with its
ordinary services, Church courts, and discipline, was retained—the only
difference being, that the bishop held a right of veto on all proceedings,
and in the presbyteries and synods sat as a perpetual moderator. When
Charles I. and Laud, in the superabundance of their zeal, endeavoured to
introduce a service-book as well, the attempt was utterly discomfited from
the first, and resulted, as we have seen, in the total abrogation of
Episcopacy.
It has long been popularly
supposed that when Prelacy was again triumphant at the Restoration, there
was not merely that form of Church government re-established in Scotland,
but the whole liturgical service of the Church of England, with the
Prayer-book, instrumental music, and other appendages, introduced into every
parish. Some expressions in the Waverley Novels have contributed to
strengthen this idea, which, however, is a thoroughly erroneous one, and has
been very satisfactorily dispelled by Dr M‘Crie in his review of the * Tales
of My Landlord.’ The fact is, that with the exception, perhaps, of the
King’s Chapel at Holyrood, where the English Prayer-book might be used with
the accompaniment of a choir and organ, the services in the parish churches
were absolutely identical with those of the present day. A Scottish
Episcopal minister of the period in question, speaking of the mode of
worship then prevalent, says that it only differs from the Presbyterian form
in the recitation of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. And this assertion is
confirmed by the following extract from the ‘Ecclesiastical Records of the
Synod of Fife,’ edited for the Abbotsford Club :—
“St Andrews, April 25,1666.
“Moderators are to take
notice of the vniformity of ministers in their practise of causing the Creed
to be recited at baptismes, and of saying of the Doxologie, and of making
use of the Lord’s Prayer in publik.”
Little difference was then
perceptible in outward form between the services of the Church and the
conventicle, excepting that in the former the minister had conformed to
Episcopacy by acknowledging the authority of, and receiving collation to his
benefice from, the bishop of the diocese; whilst the latter, rather than
acknowledge the authority of the prelate and what he deemed an unscriptiiral
form of Church government, had been ejected from his living, and turned out
with his family on the world a proscribed and houseless wanderer. One cannot
be surprised at the pertinacity with which the parishioners followed, in
face of all dangers, the ministry of these men, when we consider both the
high character which the latter bore, and the frequent utter worthlessness
of those who were called in to fill their places. Bishop Burnet, an
impartial witness, has given us a very striking description of the general
low character of the curates, as they were called. Notwithstanding this
name, however, their ministrations, after making the all-important deduction
in point of piety and earnestness, were just those of the ordinary
Presbyterian description.
In further connection with
this subject, reference may be made to ‘A Short Account of Scotland,’
published in 1702, and written by the Rev. Thomas Moser, minister of St
Ann’s Within, Aldersgate, when he was chaplain to a Scotch regiment. In the
preface the author says that the book was made out of some few notes he had
taken when in Scotland fourteen years previously. This would bring the date
of the account to about 1688; and after making some allowance for Episcopal
prejudices, it may be regarded as a tolerably correct picture of Scotland in
the time of the last Stewart king. It shows that up to and after the
commencement of the eighteenth century the Presbyterian and Episcopalian
forms of worship were nearly identical. After speak-mg of the failure in
Charles I.’s time to impose a liturgy, the author continues:—
"For which and some such
reasons ’tis no mighty wonder the Scottish liturgy succeeded so ill; and I
doubt whether the like attempt would not be dangerous at any time proposed,
tho’ I know withal that not only the Episcopal clergy, but generally
speaking the nobility and gentry, think veiy well of it, wish it established
by law, and would be content to be made a province to England, that the
English service might take place in that country. However, the Episcopal
Church have hitherto used no liturgy at all, no more t.han the Presbyterians
who now govern; yet they everywhere agreed in the way of worship and their
whole service on the Lord’s Day, having no other holidays except fasts and
feasts upon special occasion. For tho’ they had a calendar in the Directory
above, where there are the names of divers saints, yet ’tis more for the use
of their fairs, and to know the age of the moon, or when the sun enters the
signs, than anything else depends on these particulars. First, the
precentor, about half an hour before the preacher comes, reads two or three
chapters to the congregation, of what part of Scripture he pleases, or as
the minister gives him directions. As soon as the preacher gets into the
pulpit, the precentor leaves reading, and sets a psalm, singing with the
people till the minister by some sign orders him to give over. The psalm
ended, the preacher begins confessing sins and begging pardon, exalting the
holiness and majesty of God, and setting before Him our vileness, and
propensity to transgress His commandments. Then he goes to sermon, delivered
always by heart, and therefore sometimes spoiled with buttologies, little
impertinences, and incoherence in their discourses. The sermon finished, he
returns to prayer,—thanks God for that opportunity to deliver His Word,
prays for all mankind, for all Christians, for that particular nation, for
the Sovereign and Royal family without naming any, for subordinate
magistrates, for sick people (especially such whose names the precentor
hands up to him); then concludes with the Lord’s Prayer, to sanctifie what
was said before. After this, another psalm is sung, named by the minister,
and frequently suited to the subject of his sermon; which done, he gives the
benediction, and dismisses the congregation for that time.
“This is the morning service,
which, being repeated pretty early in the afternoon (because in the interim
they eat nothing), makes up the Lord’s Day duty as to public worship, saving
that they forget not the poor, who are numerous and unprovided for by law,
and so put into the bason what they think fit, either at their going in or
coming out, to be disposed of by the ministers and elders in such
proportions as the necessities of the people require and the sum will allow
’em.
“This is the Church’s way in
Scotland, and it seems to us Presbyterian; and therefore we the more admire
that the two parties should so much disagree between themselves when they
appear to the world so like brethren. Truly their difference is hardly
discernible; for their singing of psalms, preaching, and collections are the
same, —’tis the whole of their worship in both the congregations. They both
do it after the same manner, saving that after the psalm the Episcopal
minister uses the Doxology, which the other omits; and concludes his own
prayer with that of the Lord’s, which the Presbyterian refuses to do. Then
for the discipline, it is the very same. Both practise it the same way in
their parish consistories. Both have their Presbyterian and classical
meetings. Both their meetings are accountable to synods, with this
difference, that in the one synod the bishop presides, but in the other
sometimes there is a chancellor and sometimes a settled moderator in the
chair. So that the distinction of Churchman and Presbyterian is barely
nominal and impertinent in this country, and in the judgment of unprejudiced
people a very little charity might unite them.
“Their farther agreement in
christenings, marriages, burials, and the like, is obvious to eveiy
foreigner, and are administered in the following manner.”
Mr Moser’s statement in
reference to the last I have summarised as follows: The communion was
administered only once or twice a-year, and the elements were distributed to
the congregation sitting. Baptism was administered just as it is in Scottish
Churches at the present day. Marriages seem generally to have been
celebrated in church, but otherwise there was no difference. No religious
service of any kind was performed at funerals: even a clergyman, it is said,
was seldom seen there.
The above account of Scottish
religious services towards the end of the seventeenth century is extremely
interesting, as it applies both to the Episcopal and Presbyterian
persuasions, and gives us a thorough idea of the general mode of worship in
those days. It will be obvious, therefore, that neither at the Restoration
nor the Revolution, when Presbytery was supplanted by Episcopacy, and vice
versd, was there any change in the Church services that would have been
visible to a superficial observer. A great difference would no doubt have
been manifest in the fervour of the ministrations, and also in the religious
character and moral tone of the parishioners. For the bulk of the people, in
the Lowlands at least, held the tenet of the divine origin of Presbytery as
strongly as the more important tenets of their faith, and considered the
introduction of the authority of bishops as an unscriptural intrusion, which
must nullify any benefits to be received from the ministrations of those who
owned their jurisdiction. We may be the less surprised at the obstinate
resistance of the Scottish nation to what may appear so small and
imperceptible a change, when we remember the strong feeling excited on the
occasion of the Disruption of the Scottish Church in 1843, and when, in the
case of an entirely voluntary secession, and the absence of any change
whatever either in government or ritual, a large portion of the Scottish
nation, who had quitted the Church of their fathers, could for a long time
hardly regard as Christians those who had remained within her pale.
To conclude this portion of
my subject, it only remains to state that the Book of Common Prayer scarcely
attained a footing among the Scottish Episcopalians till towards the end of
Queen Anne’s reign. Its adoption seems to have been hastened by the Act of
Toleration passed in 1712, which bestowed liberty of worship on all
belonging to that denomination who used the Church of England service and
took the oath of abjuration. Many, indeed, refused the last condition, and
were subjected to penalties in consequence. And notwithstanding the gradual
adoption of the English Prayer-book, which is now universally used in the
Scottish Episcopal Church, its adherents in the northern parts, where alone
it has enjoyed any large amount of popular support, continued, till far down
in the eighteenth century, to practise the same simple Presbyterian-like
ritual which had characterised their Church in the days when Scottish
Episcopacy involved no further question than one of ecclesiastical polity.
The maxim of James VI. is
well known—“No bishop, no king.” This was the main reason for the
pertinacity with which the English Court sought to force Episcopacy on the
Scottish nation, — the dread of the democratic tendency of Presbytery, and
the expectation, through having the appointment of the bishops in the King’s
hands, of restraining the Church, and thereby maintaining the uncontrolled
authority of the Crown. Charles I., though fully imbued with the most
exalted ideas of royal prerogative, had also in his disposition a good deal
of the religious enthusiast; and it was his ambition to reduce his northern
as well as southern dominions to a reception of High Church and Ritualistic
Episcopacy. The struggle cost him his throne and life. His son, Charles II.,
had no zeal for religion of any kind; but he was thoroughly desirous of
securing his own personal ease and comfort, and drawing from his subjects
what supplies of money he pleased without being subjected to any unpleasant
interference or questioning. In England his aspirations were held under some
constitutional check; but in Scotland, where the limits of authority and
submission had never been very clearly defined on either side, he and his
Ministers were more daring and successful in their arbitrary procedure. The
period between the Restoration and Revolution is about the darkest in
Scottish history. A paralysis seems to have laid hold of the nation, and for
twenty-eight long years its annals present us only with a dismal picture of
misgovemment and oppression, varied by one or two abortive and unsuccessful
attempts at resistance on the part of the Presbyterians.
The kirk-session records of
Culross, as already stated, break off in 1657, and are not resumed till
1676. What was the cause of this hiatus does not very clearly appear; for Mr
Fleming and Mr Ed-monston, who then filled respectively the first and second
charges, continued to do so till some years after the Restoration. Possibly
the session-clerk is to be credited with this negligence in the first
instance. Great confusions certainly, indeed, did arise after the
Restoration; and both ministers fell under the ban of the Archbishop of St
Andrews, the notorious James Sharp. In the ‘Ecclesiastical Records of the
Synod of Fife/ already quoted, we find, under date “St Andrews, 1 April
1668,” the following entry:—
“Deposition of Me Robert
Edmistoun.
“The Lord Archbishop
declaired that he had keepit a visitation at Dunfermling, and that he had,
upon good grounds, deposed Mr Bobert Edmistoun, minister of Culros. As for
Master Matthew Fleming, his colleige, the Archbishop delayit to proceed
again him, seing ther wer some hopes of gaining him; and for that end Mrs
Walter Bruce, William Peirson, John Shaw are appointed to tell him that he
is noticed that he hes not joyned with his brethren of the Presbitiy.”
In connection with the above,
we find in the list given in Wodrow’s ‘ History of the Sufferings of the
Church of Scotland,’ of ministers ejected from their charges in 1663 for
nonconformity, the names of Robert Edmonston and Matthew Fleming of Cul-ross.
The latter has C. appended to his name, signifying that he was confined to
his parish. My conclusion is, therefore, that Mr Edmonston having proved the
firmer of the two, and declined to make any compromise, he was deposed by
the Archbishop, as above recorded; while Mr Fleming was found more pliable.
The latter seems also to have been ultimately deprived of his charge, but
continued to reside in Culross till his death, some years previous to the
Revolution. A strange charge is brought against him and Lady Blairhall, one
of his parishioners, and is detailed in the burgh records. It is only fair
to say that it seems to have' been wholly unfounded.
After Mr Edmonston’s
deposition, the second . charge, of which he was incumbent, remained vacant
till 1684, when Mr Alexander Young was appointed to the office. It would
also appear that, for some time prior to 1676, both charges were vacant till
the appointment of Mr Burnet to the first charge in that year. From the
burgh records we gather that at this time the spiritual destitution of the
parish was extreme; and, as we shortly see, this was also accompanied by a
considerable moral declension. Though Culross and Tulliallan did not,
perhaps, experience so keenly the miseries of the period as the western and
southern counties of Scotland, they nevertheless had a sufficient share.
Fortunately perhaps for them, they belonged to the diocese of Dunblane, of
which the gentle and saintly. Leighton had been appointed bishop at the
Restoration. He endeavoured, as far as he could, both to conciliate
nonconformists and mitigate the severity of the measures taken against them.
But his efforts in the latter direction were frowned on, both by Government
and his brother rulers in the Church; and after passing from the bishopric
of Dunblane to the archbishopric of Glasgow, he was at last fain to resign
his charge and retire into private life. No traditions regarding him are
preserved at Culross, unless it be one not very well authenticated, that in
occasional visits there he lodged in a house in the Middle Causeway,
opposite the Dundonald Arms. He was succeeded in the see of Dunblane by
Bishop Ramsay, of whom we shall afterwards hear a good deal in connection
with Culross.
Another distinguished person
who, like Leighton, exerted himself to check the arbitrary proceedings of
the time, and also, like him, only procured thereby disfavour for himself,
was Alexander Bruce, second Earl of Kincardine. He had resided for some time
in Holland before the Restoration, and had brought over from thence his
wife, Lady Veronica Van Arsen, daughter of Baron Sommelsdyck, a Dutch
nobleman. He had also there been intimate with, and assisted liberally in
their difficulties, Charles II. and his brother, the Duke of York. Shortly
alter returning to this country he succeeded, in 1662, his brother, Edward
Bruce, in the earldom of Kincardine; and he also, about the same time, seems
to have removed from the old family mansion in the Sand Haven of Culross to
the stately palace of Culross Abbey, which had hitherto belonged to his
kinsman, the Earl of Elgin. Our information regarding him is mainly derived
from Bishop Burnet, who characterises him as “both the wisest and the
worthiest man that belonged to his country, and fit for governing any
affairs but his own, which he, by a wrong turn and by his love for the
public, neglected to his ruin.”
At the Restoration, Lord
Kincardine became a member of the Privy Council; and it is to be recorded to
his credit that he was the only one who opposed the re-establishment of
Episcopacy, though his action went no further than proposing that the
opinion of the nation should first be taken on this subject. At a subsequent
period the government of Scotland was placed in his hands and in those of
the Earl of Tweeddale and Sir Robert Murray, and was conducted by them with
considerable mildness and impartiality. But this did not meet the views of
the arbitrary Court party, headed by the Duke of Lauderdale, who had little
difficulty in getting Lord Kincardine and others dismissed from their posts
as Councillors. His lordship retired in disgust into private life, and died
shortly afterwards, in 1680. His worldly affairs, as indicated by Burnet,
had Mien into such confusion, that his large estates were adjudged by his
numerous creditors, and the greater portion of them finally purchased, in
1700, under a process of sale before the Court of Session, by the celebrated
Colonel John Erskine, generally known as the “ Black Colonel.”
We are now, however, getting
a little in advance of our Culross ecclesiastical annals. In 1665 we find
the Earl of Kincardine, with others, made the subject of a complaint to the
Court by Archbishop Sharp for having countenanced by their presence a
Communion occasion at Tulliallan, at which Mr John Forrest, the minister,
officiated, with the assistance of several ejected ministers. Mr Forrest
himself was deposed, and Lord Kincardine had to write a letter of apology to
the King. It is easy to see that with such proclivities he would be regarded
with extreme suspicion.
Lord Kincardine seems to have
taken a great interest in the welfare of the Church, and to have attended
regularly the meetings of kirk-session. On the resumption in 1676 of a
record of the session minutes, which we now proceed to consider, his name is
prominently set forth. Very probably it had been owing to his bestirring
himself in the matter that a regular minute-book began again to be kept, and
a serious exertion made to remedy the disorders which had for a long time
prevailed. Here is the first entry in the volume:—
“Att the Paroche Church of
Culrois, the twenty-sixt day of March 1676.
“The whilk day their did
conveene within the session hous of the said church ane noble and potent
Earle, Alexander, Earle of Kincardin, Johne Sands, ane of the lait baillies
of Culrois, and Patrick Sands in Yaleyfield, lait elderis of the said
church-seasion of Culrois, with Maister Johne Birnet, minister thairof; and
considering the manifold disorderis that hes bene in this church through
want of discipline thir many yearis bygone, they thairfor thought it most
fitt to ad some new persons within the toun and landwart paroche of Culrois,
who, together with thameeelves, might concur and assist the minister in
exercing of Christian discipline within the said church in tyme coming, and
in taking notice of the people within the samyne; and for that effect,
having nominat and choysen Bobert Newall thair present dork, did
unanimouslie elect, nominat, and choose thir persones following to be elders
in the said church— they are to say,
And the foirsaidis elderis,
conveaned as said is, did, with consent of the said number, recommend the
premiss to the presbitrie their approbatione as to the forme and maner
therof.
“This is seene and approven
by the presbitrie of Dum-fermling, March 29, 1676, and subscryvit befor. Sic
sub.? scribitur. M. Shaw, Pres. See.”
The next entry is important
as giving an account of the session registers as they then existed:—
“The teventh day of May 1676.
“The samyne day William Blaw
ther reported that he had receaved from Gavin Weir, lait reader and
precentor within the said church, two registers containing the actis and
references of the sessions of Culrois—one therof from the elleventh of
January 1629 to the eight of September 1646, the other register being from
the twentie of October 1646 to the first of December 1657. As also the said
William Blaw declared that he had receaved some other registers of baptisme
and marriage, with some papers and bonds, conforme to ane inventar under
Gavin Weir’s owne hand, whilk inventar is ordained to be kept in retentis.”
The reader will perceive that
the above account corresponds strictly with the materials composing the
kirk-session records up to this date, and which I have just been reviewing.
Between 1657 and 1676 it is evident that no minutes of the session
proceedings had been kept; and latterly, from there being a vacancy in both
charges of the Abbey Church, no meetings of session had been held at all,
and a period of disorder and confusion had ensued. Endeavour was now made to
remedy this state of things—mainly, I have no doubt, through the influence
of the Earl of Kincardine; but, as both the burgh and kirk records show, in
the then condition of the country it was hopeless to expect any material
improvement.
Here is something like a
return to old Presbyterian discipline:—
“16th July 1676.
“The said day the Bearchers
declared that they found Christian Makforlane cutting caill in tyme of
divyne service, who was therfor ordained to be cited in befor the sessione
against the next sessione day.”
Christian fails to appear,
and is cited three times to do so without effect. How the case was settled
we are not informed.
The condition of Culross is
reported to the presbytery, and then to the synod and bishop. The Bishop of
Dunblane, to whose superintendence Culross belonged, was now James Bamsay,
who had succeeded Leighton in that office a few years before. He had
originally been minister of Kirkintilloch, and had been translated from
thence to Linlithgow, of which he was minister when the notorious ceremony
was performed of burning the Solemn League and Covenant—an act in which
Linlithgow stood alone among Scottish burghs. From Linlithgow, Ramsay passed
in 1670 to be parson of Hamilton and Dean of Glasgow, and in 1673 he was
made Bishop of Dunblane. He is said to have advocated both political and
ecclesiastical reform, and was the friend both of Burnet and Leighton, the
latter of whom he aided strenuously in a vain endeavour to effect a union
between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. By the active part which he
took in drawing up the Glasgow remonstrance against the Act of Supremacy,
and by advocating the calling of a national synod, he incurred the
displeasure of the Court party. It is more difficult to understand the
disapprobation of the latter of Ramsay’s proposal of the compilation of a
liturgy; but, as we have seen, the introduction of any manual of that sort
formed no part of the schemes of those who then governed the affairs of the
Church. Indeed, with regard to some of them, such as Archbishop Sharp and
the Duke of Lauderdale, there seems little doubt that, notwithstanding all
their political servility and tyrannical measures, their own predilections
as regards the services of the Church were for the Presbyterian form of
worship. Be this as it may, a Royal letter was procured through the
influence of Sharp, ordering the translation of the Bishop of Dunblane to
the see of the Isles. Ramsay proceeded to London to obtain a reversal of
this sentence; and Sharp having also repaired thither, a fierce altercation
ensued between the two dignitaries. Ramsay's representations seem, however,
so far to have prevailed, that in 1676 he was reponed in his bishopric of
Dunblane. At this point we proceed again with our extracts:—
“17 September 1676.
“The session thinks fitt some
thing be done for removing the scandalla which fell out the preceding years
when there was no session; and referrea therfor to the presbytrie for
advice.”
“1 October 1676.
"Anent the old scandalls, the
minister declares that he had craved advice of the presbytrie, bot they
declined to meddle with it, the case being extraordinarie; therfor referred
it to the synod for advice.”
The following brief minute
points to a state of matters that continued to within the memory of many
persons still living, and was only terminated by Lord Exmouth’s bombardment
of Algiers in 1816. The suzerainty of all these Barbary States belonged
still in the seventeenth century to the Sublime Porte:—
“10 March 1678.
“Collection for the prisoners
with the Tarcks to be intimate the next day.”
The next entry is a peculiar
one, and records the appointment of James Ramsay, Bishop of Dunblane, to the
incumbency of Culross—a living within his own diocese. Mr Burnet had been
translated to the parish of Monymusk:—
“14 September 1679.
“Whilk day the session was
convened be the Right Reverend James, Bishop of Dumblane, who declared to
the said session that he had a presentation from the Earl of Kincardine to
the minister’s place vacant. The heritors present and members of session do
veiy gratefully acknowledge the Earl’s kindness to them in presenting the
said James, Bishop of Dumblane, to be their minister.”
Here come two interesting
entries, which are readily explained by a reference to Mr Moser’s account,
previously quoted, of the Episcopalian and Presbyterian services as
conducted in his day in Scotland. We there learn that marriages were
generally celebrated in church; and in such a case it was desirable that
they should take place on the occasion of the week-day sermon, both with a
view to the convenience of the minister and the edification of the marriage
- party. The practice of having a “ sermon day ” every week, in addition to
the regular services on Sunday, had originated in the palmy days of
Presbytery, and, as we learn from the burgh records, was maintained after
the Restoration. It has now Mien almost wholly into desuetude, but was kept
up to a recent period in Glasgow, and became famous there in connection with
Dr Chalmers’s celebrated Astronomical Discourses, which were delivered on a
week-day in the Tron Church.
The second entry quoted below
refers to the singing of the Doxology or Gloria Patri at the close of the
psalm—a practice which, as Mr Moser informs us, was a distinguishing
peculiarity of the Episcopalian service:—
“11 December.
“It is thought fitt that
those who have minde to marrie upon sermon-day, be oblidged to be present at
sermon; wherfor the session ordains that the bridegroom shall pay 12 lb.
Scots ad pios usus when he is after the third belL”
“The doxologie is moved to be
sung, which was never in use since the reatauration of the Government; which
was accordingly done the following Sabbath.”
“2 May 1680.
“Those who stay in the
kirkyeard in tym of reading, to be delated be the collectours.”
“4 June 1680.
“Those who have not brought
in their offering for the bell are to be advertized to bring it in upon
Sabbath, or, at farthest, to B. Halliday upon Thursday.”
“John Moutray to apeak with
the deacon of the cordinars anent the removall of the black stoole.”
“8 July 1680.
“Mr Robert Colvill hes
mortified to the kirk, for the minister’s use, ane cellar.”
“29 December 1680.
“Tennants of Blair and Bordie,
delated for carying fish from the cruives to Dunfermline upon Sabbath last,
to be cited.”
“10 May 1681.
“Intimation the next Sabbath
to be given from the pulpit that none keep their doors shut when the
searchers offer to come to see who is at home in tym of divine service/’
“15 November 1681.
“The heritors are desired to
meet upon Saturday at 10 o’clock about the ordering of the windows, and
considering how soon the little bell may conveniently be hung.”
The following entries are
interesting as showing that, till near the close of the seventeenth century
at all events, the kirk-session of Culross claimed a right of property in
the chapel and burying-ground attached, founded by Archbishop Blackadder of
Glasgow in honour of St Mungo at the east end of Culross, and generally
known as St Mungo’s Kirk and St Mungo’s Kirkyard. They are described in a
separate chapter; and in the account of the girdle-smiths some notice will
be found of Mrs Margaret Anderson or Sands, who comes into collision on this
occasion with the kirk-session, as she also did at another time in reference
to her own craft of girdle-making with the Culross magistrates:—
“24 April 1682.
“It is recommended upon the
D. of Gild to look umquhile. Robert Sands 'writs of his house that’s near St
Mungo’s kirkyeard, that they encroach not upon it.”
“31 Ap. [rie].
"George Wilson, Dean of Gild,
reports that Bobert Sands marches to the kirkyeard on the east, and is of
opinion that ther is not so much wast ground betwixt the house and the kirk
as is disponed to him.
"George Wilson is to try yet
more fully.”
“21 May.
“George Wilson reports that
Margt. Andersone, relict of umquhile Bobert Sands, hes 6 rud of ground from
her house to the kirkyeard, and John Sands offered in her name 50 m, or the
annual rent of it yearly.
“George Wilson, Bob. Hunter,
Wm. Blaw, Bob. Bill are to agrie with Margt. Anderson for that peice of
ground betwixt her house and St Mongo’s Kirk.”
“28 June.
“These appointed to agrie
with Margt. Anderson, report that she will not stand to her first offer; the
D. of Gild is to cause stop the bigging.
“11 July.
“Grange desires ther may be a
collection for building a bridge abov the water that runs betwene Shyrsmilne
and Grange. This to be spoken of when the sess. is more frequent.” .
“27 Augut
“Margt. Anderson’s business
to be spoken to the clerk, that securities may be drawn.”
As nothing further is
recorded about Margaret Anderson’s case, it .may be concluded that her
dispute with the kirk-session regarding the piece of ground adjacent to St
Mungo’s Kirk was amicably adjusted.
"17 Septr. 1688.
“Three basins sent for from
Edinburgh—one for baptisms, the other two for bearing the bread elements at
the Communion.”
“26 Setptr. 1688.
“Some one to be thought upon
against the next day who may serve as officer, to whom the care of the bells
and dock may be committed.”
“10th Oct. 1688.
“Collection for Grange Bridge
to be intimat. Letters to be sent to the neighbouring parishes for help to
repair Grange Bridge.”
“17 Octr. 1682.
“The hospitall men are to be
advertized to wait better upon the publick ordinances.
“Given two dollars for to buy
a suit of clothes, shoes, and stockings to Robert Marret, who is going to a
trade.
“Sarah Gibson is to get as
much from the treasurer as will buy shoes.”
“8 Julie 1688.
“The which day it was thought
fitt by the members of the session that the Communion tables be sett in the
body of the Church.”
Formerly they had been in the
so-called “quier” or chancel.
“15 Julie 1683.
“The which day it was intimat
that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrat the next Lord’s
Day, and the people were exhorted to be present on Saturday next at th&
preparation sermon.
“The which day the elders
were desyred to be present at the distribution of the tokens the ensuing
week, to give notice if there be any under scandall who are to communicat.”
"21 Julie 1683.
“The which day the elders
were placed for ordering the elements at the tables.”
This seems to have been the
only time between at least 1676 and 1684 that the Communion was celebrated
in Culross.
The following entry is about
the only one in the present volume where any reference is made to public
affairs. A general thanksgiving had just been ordered throughout the kingdom
for the King's escape from the Ryehouse Plot:—
"2 Septr. 1683.
“The people were exhorted all
of them the next Lord’s Day to conveine, to testifie their thankfulnes to
God for the great delyverance or King hath mett wt all a late from the
conspiracie laid against him; and publict edict having been read from pulpit
for that effect.”
The whole of the records in
this volume (1676-84), which was compiled under the reign of Episcopacy, are
meagre in the extreme. In the two previous volumes the session proceedings
are chronicled with great minuteness, and exhibit a state of zeal and energy
in the Church of Scotland which seem to have been lamentably deficient under
the sway of Prelacy. Little more is detailed than a formal record of the
meetings of session, and of the sums of money collected and disbursed.
Whatever may be said of the rigour and oppression of Presbyterial
surveillance, it is quite refreshing to turn to the more active state of
things as evidenced by the parochial records after the Revolution.
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME |
