Part 10

And here are a few significant extracts from the Tyninghame Kirk Session Records:--"January 11, 1629.--This day James Fairlie preichit, the minister being at Edinr., at comand of the presbiterie, to assist Mr Js. Home, minister at Dunbar, anent the tryall of ane woman suspect of witchcraft in the parish of Dunbar--viz., Issbell Yong, in Eist Barns." She was accused of both inflicting and curing diseases, and was burnt for witchcraft. "17 September 1649.--Janet Nicolson execut and brunt at Hails for witchcraft. 25 November.--Item: According to the ordinance, he intimate out of the pulpit if any had any delations against Agnes Raleigh, in East Barns, suspect of witchcraft, and apprehendit there for that, they come to the session of Dunbar upon Tysday, or the presbyterie on Thursday next. On Monday the witches at Wittinghame brunt, being three in number. 9 December.--Intimation maid from the pulpit anent Patrick Yorston and Christian Yorston, in Wittinghame, if any in this parish either knew or have any delations against both or either of them, that they show it to the kirk-session. 6 January 1650.--Some of our pepell confronted with some witches in Prestonkirk parish. 13 January.--The minister demandit the elders if they knew of any suspect of witchcraft, and shew them that they were to search diligentlie such as are delated be the witches at Prestonkirk parish, when the searchers cam. Upon Tysday ane man in Wittinghame brunt for witchcraft. Upon Wednesday, the 23 of January, six people at Staintoune parish brunt. 3 February.--Item: Reported that the searchers of the witches were not yet returned from the southe, and in the meantime that Agnes Kirkland and David Stewart shall be apprehendit. On Thursday Agnes Kirkland and David Stewart, bothe of this parish, were imprisoned. Wednesday.--I (the minister) went to Dunbar, being ordained thairto, whair ten witches were execut.

"10 February.--This day the session sett doon orders aboot the watching of those that are apprehendit for witchcraft nichtlie, appointing ane roll of all the parishe to be taken up and six to watch everie nicht, and twa everie day thair, tyme aboot in order, qlk accordinglie was done. Upon the 20 of February the searcher in Tranent cam and found the mark on those that were suspect of witchcraft, and shortlie thairafter they confessit. 3 Mairch.--Item: Ordains the watch to be keipit preceisely, and ane elder to watch everie nicht in turn with them, qlk they did, and promeisit to continue. The minister shew his diligence in going to those suspect of witchcraft, both in the day and nicht-time, in examining of them, and in praying for them, both privatelie and publiklie, and performing all the other duties recognisit or practised in such cases, qlk the session heartilie and unanimouslie acknowledge and approved. Upon Tysday, the 1st Mairch, the pepell given up be Agnes Kirkland and David Stewart, both in this parish and Prestonkirk parish, confronted with them, and did pass from some and stand by others. 29 Mairch.--Appoints the watch to be better keipit, qlk they promeisit to do. 31 Mairch.--Item: Because the commission anent the witches was not as yet come, it was thocht gude to have ane cair of them still. The elders shew it was hard to get pepell to watch all the day, albeit the watch was preceisly keipit all the nicht; and thairfor it behoved them to tak something out of the box, or rather to borrow it, to give to some wha had watched this eight days byegane--viz., Robert Nisbet and George Ker, given to them 3lbs., and efter the burning of the witches. 7 April.--Item: The minister shew to the elders anent David Stewart and Agnes Kirkland, that now the commission to put them to assize had come eist to our hands, and that some that were appointed and put in the same did meet heir on Setterday, and appointed all things to be done, and in what manner; and Tysday next to be the day wherin to put them to an assize; and thairfor to appoint the watch to be well observed this twa nichts to come, and all the elders and honest men to be present on Tysday, wherunto they consentit. 9, Tysday, 1650.--David Stewart and Agnes Kirkland were execut. 14 April.--George Shorthous intromits with what belongs to Agnes Kirkland; promeisit to the session 12lbs. out of Agnes Kirkland's readiest gudes and gear, and find the box lykwys, if by any means he culd." There is no necessity to add anything to the ghastly simplicity of such sentences as these.

The expenses incurred in these matters by the Kirk cannot be considered trifling. There are significant entries like the following: "21 July 1661.--Given for candle to watch the witch, 11s.;" but much fuller statements are also given. In 1633 two poor victims, "William Coke and Alison Dick, witches," were burned, as the Kirk Session Records testify, on the sands at Kirkcaldy. And in connection with that event these were the "Extraordinary Disbursements":--

_In primus_--To Mr John Millar when he went to Prestoun for a man to try them, L2 7 0 To the man of Culross when he went away the first time, 0 12 0 Item--For cales for the witches, 1 4 0 Item--For purchasing the commission, 0 3 0 Item--For one to go to Finmouth for the Laird to sit upon their assize as judge, 0 6 0 Item--For harden to be jumps to them, 3 10 0 Item--For making of them, 0 6 0 --------- Summa, Kirk's part, L17 10 0 ---------

_In primus_--For 10 loads of coal to burn them, L3 6 8 Item--For a tar barrel, 0 14 0 Item--For towes, 0 6 0 Item--To him that brought the executioner, 2 18 0 Item--To the executioner for his pains, 8 14 0 Item--For his expenses here, 0 16 4 Item--For one to go to Finmouth for the Laird, 0 6 0 --------- Summa, Toun's part, L17 1 0 ---------

The other items, the cost of which would bring the "Summa, Kirk's part," to L17, 10s., are not supplied.

The severity with which the witches were sometimes treated during imprisonment is sufficiently indicated by the following entries, 1597:--

_Item._ To Alexander Reid, smyth, for twa pair of scheckellis to the Witches in the Stepill, xxxii_sh._

_Item._ To John Justice, for burning upon the cheik of four seurerall personis suspect of witchcraft and baneschit, xxvi_sh._ viii_d._

_Item._ Givin to Alexander Home, for macking of joggis, stapillis, and lockis to the witches, during the haill tyme forsaid, xlvi_sh._ viii_d._

Expense on witches, aucht-score, xlii_li._ xvii_sh._ iiii_d._

It could not be supposed that ministers, who were so zealous in attacking witchcraft, would be permitted by the supernatural powers to go scot-free. In the evidence given in the Mohra witch commission, held in Sweden in 1670, the minister of the district testified that having been suffering from a painful headache, he could account for the unusual severity of the attack only by supposing that the witches had celebrated one of their infernal dances upon his head while asleep in bed; and one of them, in accordance with this conjecture, acknowledged that the devil had sent her with a sledgehammer to drive a nail into the temples of the obnoxious clergyman, but the hardness of his skull mercifully saved him. And in Scotland the Renfrewshire witches were charged with roasting the effigy of a Rev. Mr Hardy, after having dipped it into a decoction composed of ale and water; while, in 1622, one of the accusations against Margaret Wallace, burnt for witchcraft, was "that being conveined before the Kirk Session of Glasco 5 or 6 years since, by Mr Archibald Glen, minister at Carmunnock, for killing Robert Muir, his good brother, by witchcraft; she, to be revenged, laid on him ane uncouth sickness, whereof the said Mr Archibald, sweating, died; to which it was answered, that in truth the said Mr Archibald died of a consumption of his lights." In a curious sheet, "Endorism, or a strange Relation of Dreamers or Spirits that trouble the Minister's House of Kinross," we read how a minister was molested in 1718. For some time "they could eat no meat but what was full of pins"; "a stone thrown down the chimney wambled a space in the floor, and then took a flight out at the window. Also there was thrown in the fire the minister's Bible, which would not burn; but a plate and two silver spoons thrown in, melted immediately; also what bread is fired, were the meal never so fine, it's all made useless; and many other things, which are both needless and sinful to mention. Now, is it not very sad that such a good and godly family should be so molested, that employ their time no other way but by praying, reading, and serious meditation, while others, who are wicked livers all their lifetime, and avowedly serve that wicked one, are never troubled."

And let it not be inferred that Kirk Sessions were, without exception, quick to condemn. We find in the records of the Kirk Session at Eastwood that a woman, who was delated for using charms at Hallow-even and who confessed, was sentenced to be rebuked before the congregation; and in the records of Lanark Presbytery (1630), that another woman, charged with consulting with charmers and "burying a child's clothes betwixt three lairds' lands for health," was saved by penitence from punishment. And sometimes the consideration of cases, far more serious than these in the eyes of the grave Kirk Session, was wisely postponed, and postponed for ever, for we hear no more of the matter.

But in 1735 the reaction, which had long made itself felt, found something like adequate expression in the repeal of the statutes against witchcraft, and, notwithstanding the action of such as the Seceders from the Established Church of Scotland, who inveighed against this repeal as iniquitous, prosecutions for witchcraft entirely ceased. These "Seceders," who claimed to be the real representatives of the Church's teaching, were so offended that, in the annual Confession of National and Personal Sins, printed in an act of their Associate Presbytery at Edinburgh, 1743, the Penal Statutes against witches are specially mentioned as having been repealed by Parliament, contrary to the express Law of God!

And with this reference the consideration of witchcraft and the Kirk may conveniently and appropriately end.

Birth and Baptisms, Customs and Superstitions.

Some strange customs, the origin of which does not appear to have been traced, but which probably came down from the dark ages of Celtic paganism, were performed in bygone times on the birth of a child. When such an important event in family history was expected, a rich cheese was made, which, when the anticipation was realised, was divided among the women who, on such occasions, were injudiciously allowed to crowd the chamber. A lighted slip of fir-wood was whirled three times round the bed, with the superstitious idea of averting evil influences. The new-born babe was next dipped into a vessel of cold water, tempered in a very slight degree by dropping a burning coal into it. This may have been done with the Spartan idea of rendering the child hardy. If a boy, it was afterwards wrapped in a woman's chemise; if a girl, in a man's shirt. The idea underlying this custom is not clear. Women were not allowed to touch the child without first crossing themselves. The tiny creature was not to be referred to in terms of admiration, lest it should be "forespoken," which implied consequences prejudicial to its future welfare.

After the mother's recovery, friends and neighbours assembled to congratulate the parents, and drink to the child's future prosperity. This gathering was known as the _cummer-fealls_, or the gossips' wake, concerning which custom the Kirk Session of Dunfermline made, in 1645, one of the most sensible enactments to be found on the minutes of those bodies. Considering, it is recorded, "the inconveniences arising therefrom, as mainly the loss and abusing of so much time, which may be better employed in attending to business at home, by such as frequent the occasions thereof, and the prejudice which persons lying in child-bed receive, both in health and means, being forced, not only to bear company to such as come to visit, but also to provide for their coming more than is either necessary or their estate may bear," the Session inhibited "all visits of this kind, and for the end foresaid, under the pain of being, for the first fault, censured by the Session, and there to be obliged to acknowledge their fault, and, for the next, to make public confession of their fault before the whole congregation."

Other singular practices were observed in connection with the baptism of a child. It was placed in a basket, on which a white cloth was spread, with some bread and cheese, and the basket was suspended by a crook over the fireplace, and swung round three times. This was said to be done to counteract the evil influence of fairies and other malignant spirits. The bread and cheese were offered to the first person met on the way to the church, and rejection of it was thought to presage future evil to the babe. When several children were baptised at the same time, the boys were presented for the rite first, for it was thought that, if a girl obtained priority, she would in after time be disfigured by a beard.

Baptism was at one time refused to the children of persons outside the communion of the Reformed Church. In 1567, the Countess of Argyle was ordered by the Assembly to "make public repentance in the chapel royal of Stirling, one Sunday, in time of preaching," for assisting at the baptism of the royal infant, afterwards James VI., "in a papistical manner." And even in 1716, registration of baptism was refused to the child of Harry Foulis, son of Sir James Foulis, on the ground that it had been baptised by a minister of the Episcopal Church. Thereupon the father procured the baptismal register from the session clerk, and made the entry himself, appending a statement of the circumstances.

The sacrament of baptism has been the subject of much controversy in the Scottish church, especially in the seventeenth century, when everyone born north of the Tweed seems to have been, more or less, a theological disputant. In the First Book of Discipline, in the framing of which Knox had much to do, it was laid down that, "In baptism, we acknowledge nothing to be used except the element of water only; wherefore, whosoever presumeth to use oil, salt, wax, spittle, conjuration, and crossing, accuseth the perfect institution of Jesus Christ of imperfection, for it was void of all such inventions devised by men." The abjuring of conjuration seems to refer to a formula of exorcism prescribed by the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., to be used in the rite of baptism.

Concerning the use of the cross in baptism there has been an enormous amount of controversy, and very opposite views are still held. Dr Renaud, who wrote a ponderous volume on the subject in 1607, says: "It is as unfit to make a cross a memorial of Christ as for a child to make much of the halter or gallows wherewith his father was hanged." The Service Book of 1637 enjoined the use of the cross in baptism, and as that book is said, by Spalding, to have been introduced in many parts of the country, it may be concluded that the practice existed thereafter in some Scotch churches. As to other baptismal ceremonies, Dr Edgar observes, in his "Old Church Life in Scotland," that the principles laid down by Knox "are the principles on which the Church of Scotland has always acted. She has uniformly endeavoured, except during a brief interlude of Anglican innovation prior to 1638, to make her sacramental forms square with the pattern and precepts set before her in Scripture."

Another question concerning which there has been much controversy, is the lawfulness or otherwise of private baptism. In 1618, when the historically famous "five articles," framed by James I., as king of both England and Scotland, were sent to the General Assembly for sanction and approval, their adoption by that body raised a storm of indignation and opposition which was not allayed until they were abjured by the General Assembly in 1638, and the proceedings of the Assembly held at Perth in 1618 were declared null and void.

One of the articles objected to was that which pronounced "that baptism might be administered at home when the infant could not conveniently be brought to church." This was objected to as papistical, and denounced as introducing a new and false doctrine of baptism, calculated to create a superstitious belief that there was some spiritual efficacy in the act of sprinkling a few drops of water on an infant's face, in the name of the Trinity, thereby giving ground for the belief that baptism is essential to salvation. This doctrine, though taught by the Church of England, has not been accepted by the Church of Scotland since the Reformation.

Moreover, as non-attendance at the services of the Church was regarded as contrary to good order, it was objected that the administration of baptism in private houses would allow Christian privileges to be enjoyed without compliance with Christian duty. If a child was to be accepted and declared a member of the Church, the act should be performed by the whole congregation, and not by the minister alone. For at least a hundred years this was strongly and firmly insisted upon. Some doubt seems to have been felt in 1643, as to whether the Westminster Assembly would adopt the Scottish view of the question, as baptisms were very commonly performed in private houses by ministers of the English Presbyterian Church. It was with much satisfaction, therefore, that the news was received in Scotland that the Assembly had affirmed the necessity of public baptism.

The Directory for Public Worship in the Presbyterian Church states, accordingly, that baptism "is not to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed," that is, near the church door, and behind the backs of the congregation. The view held by Presbyterians since the Reformation thus became the law of the Church; and the General Assembly, in 1690, strictly enjoined that baptism should not be administered elsewhere than in church, and before the congregation. But in this matter, as in some others, there appears to have been a laxity in enforcing the rule of the church, which has gone on increasing. Wodrow stated, in 1718, that private baptisms were unknown in the Church of Scotland, except in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and only two years later the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr had to repeat the injunction of 1690. What the state of things in this respect is at the present day we are told by Dr Edgar, who, as minister of Mauchline, must be considered to speak from experience. He says that, "in some parishes there are ten private baptisms for every one public baptism; and these private baptisms are never challenged as irregular, unlawful, or deserving of censure."

Registers of baptisms have been kept, with more or less regularity, from the time of the Reformation; and these show that, in some parishes at least, private baptisms had become very frequent about the middle of the eighteenth century. In referring to the evidence of the parish register of Mauchline on this matter, the writer just quoted says: "Although such baptisms were a violation of Church order, I cannot help remarking that Church order was not, in this instance, clearly founded on the evangelical principle professed by our forefathers, that all procedure in Church ritual should be conform to the precept or example of Scripture. It seems quite certain that, in the days of the Apostles, baptism was not always, if ever, administered in the place of public worship and in the face of the congregation. The eunuch of Ethiopia, Cornelius the centurion, St. Paul himself, and the gaoler at Philippi were each baptised privately."

The Church of Scotland has been more strict in upholding the rule of the Westminster Directory, that baptism "is not to be administered, in any case, by any private person." This also, it may be remarked, is not in strict accordance with the principle of the Christian Church in its early ages, as set forth by some of the Fathers; and down even to the present day the Church of England, while discountenancing lay baptism as a rule, has recognised its validity in cases of necessity. The recorded instances of refusal to admit evidence of lay baptism in the Church of Scotland are, however, chiefly cases in which the rite had been performed by deposed ministers. In 1708, a Kilmarnock man was cited to appear before the Kirk Session for having had a child irregularly baptised by a deposed minister, namely, Macmillan, the founder of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. No further proceedings appear, however, to have been taken. Similar cases occurred in 1715 and 1721, the General Assembly in the former case, and the Presbytery of Ayr in the latter, merely pronouncing the baptisms null and void.

Some differences have to be noted between the Churches of Scotland and England with regard to the forms and customs connected with baptisms. The former is the more strict with regard to the sponsors of the children to be baptised. The Westminster Directory states that the child is to be presented at the font by its father, or in the case of his unavoidable absence, by some Christian friend in his place; and in 1712 the General Assembly enacted that no other sponsor than a parent should be received at a baptism, "unless the parents be dead, or absent, or grossly ignorant, or under scandal, or contumacious to discipline; in which cases, some fit person (and if it can be, one related to the child,) should be sponsor."

Not only was the Church more strict in this matter in Scotland than in England, but the nature of the sponsion was different. In Knox's Liturgy, the sponsors are not regarded as proxies for the child, but are required to make a declaration of their own faith, in which they engage to instruct the child. As the matter is well put by Dr Hill, "the parents do not make any promise for the child, but they promise for themselves that nothing shall be wanting, on their part, to engage the child to undertake, at some future time, that obligation which he cannot then understand."