Bygone Church Life in Scotland Part 7

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 a.s.sociate Presbytery at Edinburgh, 1743, the Penal Statutes against witches are specially mentioned as having been repealed by Parliament, contrary to the express Law of G.o.d!

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

Birth and Baptisms, Customs and Superst.i.tions.

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 antic.i.p.ation 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 superst.i.tious 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 s.h.i.+rt. 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 a.s.sembled to congratulate the parents, and drink to the child's future prosperity. This gathering was known as the _c.u.mmer-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 a.s.sembly to "make public repentance in the chapel royal of Stirling, one Sunday, in time of preaching," for a.s.sisting 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 circ.u.mstances.

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 inst.i.tution 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly in 1638, and the proceedings of the a.s.sembly held at Perth in 1618 were declared null and void.

One of the articles objected to was that which p.r.o.nounced "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 superst.i.tious 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sembly had affirmed the necessity of public baptism.

The Directory for Public Wors.h.i.+p in the Presbyterian Church states, accordingly, that baptism "is not to be administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public wors.h.i.+p, 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 superst.i.tiously 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 a.s.sembly, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sembly in the former case, and the Presbytery of Ayr in the latter, merely p.r.o.nouncing 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 a.s.sembly enacted that no other sponsor than a parent should be received at a baptism, "unless the parents be dead, or absent, or grossly ignorant, or under scandal, or contumacious to discipline; in which cases, some fit person (and if it can be, one related to the child,) should be sponsor."

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

In the latter half of the seventeenth and the first of the eighteenth century, the Kirk Sessions had as much to do in repressing undue gatherings at the font as on the occasion of wedding festivities. In 1622 the Kirk Session of Aberdeen, considering "that it is come in custom that every base servile man in the town, when he has a bairn to be baptised, invites twelve or sixteen persons to be his gossips and G.o.d-fathers to his bairn," whereas the old custom was not to invite more than two, ordered that in future only two or at most four persons should be allowed to appear in that capacity. In 1681 an Act of Parliament prohibited the attendance at baptisms of more than four witnesses, in addition to parents and children, brothers and sisters; and in 1720 the Kirk Session of Kilmarnock made an ordinance that "only so many women as are necessary attend infants that are carried to the church to be baptised, and the Session think three sufficient."

Down to the time of the Westminster a.s.sembly, it seems to have been the custom in Scotland for parents, at the baptism of a child, to repeat the Creed. But in the Westminster Directory the father is merely required to promise that he will bring up the child "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Nevertheless, many Kirk Sessions overlaid this requirement with regulations of their own devising. In 1615, the Kirk Session of La.s.swade ordained that "no children of ignorant persons be baptised, except the father first lay one poynd of ten s.h.i.+llings, and a month shall be granted to learn the Lord's Prayer, Belief, and Ten Commandments, with some competent knowledge of the sacraments and catechism, which he performing, his poynd shall be returned, otherwise forfeited." In 1700 an application to the Kirk Session of Galston for the baptism of a child was refused, on the ground that the father "did not attend diets of catechising." On his promising to attend in future, and submitting to rebuke for his previous non-attendance, the child was allowed to be baptised. More than three-quarters of a century later, that is, in 1779, a man who had applied to the Kirk Session of Mauchline for the baptism of a child was subjected to a theological examination much too stiff for him; but on promising to study the knotty points propounded to him, and signing an undertaking to that effect in the minute-book, he was allowed to present the child for baptism, though the permission seems to have been regarded as a great favour.

As in England, so also in Scotland, the registration of baptisms was required at a period long antecedent to the statutary obligation to register births. Old sessional records show that fees were paid, but it is a disputed question whether these were for baptism or for registration.

Dunlop, in his "Parochial Law," quotes a legal opinion to the effect that "as to baptisms, what is paid on that account is for obtaining the Kirk Session's order for baptism, and recording that order." But an entry in the records of the Kirk Session of Galston, in 1640, after prescribing the fee to be paid for baptism, adds--"and there shall be no more exacted of any that come to this kirk for all time coming, except they desire the baptism registered, and in that case to satisfy the reader therefore, which is hereby declared to be other four s.h.i.+llings Scottish."

There are several curious entries in Kirk Sessional Records, showing that those parochial bodies were as zealous in restricting the customary festivities at christening parties as they have, in another paper, been shown to have been in repressing undue feasting at weddings. With respect of the former, the interference of Kirk Sessions was preceded by that of the Scottish Parliament, by which a.s.sembly it was enacted, in 1581, "that no banquets shall be at any upsitting after baptising of bairns in time coming, under the pain of twenty pounds, to be paid by every person doing the contrary." In 1621 it was further enacted that, "no person use any manner of dessert of wet and dry confections at marriage banqueting, baptism feasting, or any meals, except the fruits growing in Scotland, as also figs, raisins, plum dames, almonds and other unconfected fruits, under the pain of a thousand marks _toties quoties_."

These enactments appear, however, to have had little effect. In 1695 the Kirk Session of Greenock ordained that "persons having their children baptised on the Sabbath day abstain from keeping banquets and convening people at such occasions on that day, whereby much idle discourse and sin may be evited." In 1701 it was very seriously complained by the Kirk Session of Kilmarnock that feasts continued to be held on Sundays after baptisms, and it was ordered that children should be baptised on the weekly sermon day (Thursday), except in case of necessity. But, either through attachment to old customs, or want of inclination to attend the week-day sermon, children continued to be presented for baptism on Sunday, and in 1720 the Session again ordered "that none make or hold feasts at baptising their children on the Lord's day."

In conformity with the Registration Act for Scotland, pa.s.sed in 1854, all parish registers are deposited in the Registry Office then established in Edinburgh. Most of the registers of births commence about the middle of the seventeenth century, those of only fifteen parishes, out of about nine hundred, dating from the preceding century. The register of baptisms of Errol, Perths.h.i.+re, commences in 1553, but the entries for the years preceding 1573 are transcribed from an older register which has been lost.

Many of the older registers have been injured by damp, others by fire, and not a few have suffered from the negligence of their custodians. In many of them blanks occur. In some instances session clerks of the sixteenth century recorded in their registers events unconnected with their own parishes. The clerk of the Kirk Session of Aberdeen made an entry in the register of the birth of James VI., who was born at Edinburgh, loyally and piously adding, in the curious spelling of the period (which in previous extracts in this paper, has been modernised,) "quhame G.o.d preserve in guid helth and in the feir of G.o.d, to do justice in punis.h.i.+ng of wrayng and in manttinyen the trewht all the dais of his lyfe. So be itt."

Marriage Laws and Customs.

The laws relating to marriage differ so much in Scotland from those under which dwellers south of the Tweed live, that no comparison of social and religious life in the two countries can be made without knowledge of them.

In no part of Christendom have the ecclesiastical laws relating to the relations of the s.e.xes been more strict, or more strictly enforced, than in Scotland, and in no other have there been more irregularities. It was not until more than twenty years after the Reformation that the custom of "handfasting," which had come down from old Celtic times, fell into disrepute and consequent disuse. By this term was understood cohabitation for a year, the couple being then free to separate, unless they agreed to make the union permanent. Lindsay, the chronicler, says of Alexander Dunbar, son of the sixth Earl of Moray, and Isobel Innes,--"This Isobel was but handfast with him, and deceased before the marriage." When Margaret, widow of James IV., sued for a divorce from the Earl of Angus, she pleaded that he had been handfasted to Jane Douglas, "and by reason of that pre-contract could not be her lawful husband." How such marriages were regarded at that time is shown by the fact that the marriage was dissolved by the Pope, though the issue of the Queen's marriage with Angus was p.r.o.nounced legitimate.

Sir John Sinclair's "Statistical Account of Scotland" contains a report from the minister of Eskdale Muir, referring to the practice of handfasting as existing in that parish, under ecclesiastical sanction, at a period anterior to the Reformation. At a fair held there, unmarried men chose women to be handfasted with them, and a monk from Melrose Abbey visited the place annually, to marry those couples who wished the union to be made permanent. The first check given to the practice appears to have been the decree of the Kirk Session of Aberdeen, in 1562, that persons cohabiting under the sanction of a handfast contract of marriage should be united in lawful wedlock. But though this practice was discontinued, and those who wished to be thought respectable obtained the blessing of the Church on their marriage, irregularities continued to exist, and even to be permitted. An acknowledgment by a couple that they were husband and wife, either orally or in writing, followed or preceded by cohabitation, was regarded as a valid marriage, both by the Church and by society. In 1563, however, the General a.s.sembly of the Church ruled that no contract of marriage so made should be recognised until the parties had submitted themselves to the discipline of the Church, and the contract had been verified by witnesses of good repute.

The custom of betrothal was very general, but it varied in form in different parts of the kingdom. The presentation of an "engagement ring,"

as in England, is not found among these forms, nor does it appear that the sanction of parents was thought necessary; but after the contract was made it was usual for them to be informed and their sanction sought. Among the upper and middle cla.s.ses there was usually a betrothal feast, but among the cla.s.ses living by manual labour this was dispensed with. Dr Rogers says, in his "Social Life in Scotland," that--"In betrothal, the parties usually moistened with the tongue the thumbs of their right hands, and then pressed them together. The violation of a contract so consecrated was considered tantamount to an act of perjury." Another form of betrothal was the clasping of hands across a stream. In this way Burns, the laureate of the Scottish peasantry, and Mary Campbell vowed fidelity. In some counties silver coins were exchanged by plighted lovers, or a worn one was broken between them, each retaining one of the halves.

Marriages regarded by the ecclesiastical courts and Kirk Sessions as "regular" have always, from a long period anterior to the Reformation, been preceded by the publication of banns. In 1569 a case came before the General a.s.sembly which shows the successive steps taken at that time before the solemnisation of a marriage. It is recorded that "ane promise of marriage made, before the readers and elders, in ane reformit church, the parties contract.i.t compeirs before the minister and session, and requires their banns to be proclaimit." In 1575 the question came before the General a.s.sembly, whether the form of mutual declaration prior to the publication of banns should be longer continued; and it was ruled that it should be considered sufficient for the names of the parties desiring proclamation of banns to be given to the session clerk. Banns were ordered to be published, as in England, on three successive Sundays; but, after the Reformation, it was ruled that, on payment of a larger fee, one public announcement should be held sufficient, the words "for the first, second, and third time" being used.

It became customary towards the close of the sixteenth century for security to be given, with the notice of banns, for the solemnisation of the marriage, two friends of the parties depositing with the clerk a sum of money as a guarantee, and that for more than one purpose. In 1570 the a.s.sembly ordered that "promise of marriage shall be made according to the order of the reformed Kirk to the minister, exhorter, or reader, taking caution for abstinence till the marriage be solemnised." The minutes of Kirk Sessions show that, in numerous instances, during the latter half of the seventeenth century, such deposits were retained for the s.p.a.ce of nine calendar months after the marriage. The Kilmarnock Kirk Session was not so strict. It was there ordered, in 1670, that the deposit should be returned to the parties on the expiration of half a year. Whatever the term was, if scandal arose before it expired, the deposit became forfeited.

Kirk Sessions in some cases accepted personal security in lieu of cash, the bondsmen in such cases becoming liable in the event of scandal arising, or the non-solemnisation of the marriage. But this system, so convenient for those who could not raise the caution money, or "p.a.w.n," as it was commonly called, was in course of time abandoned. The Kirk Session of Mauchline instructed the clerk, in 1691, "to take neither bond nor cautioner for consignation money, but to require that the money be laid down, to remain in his hand for the s.p.a.ce of three-quarters of a year."

The example was followed by other Kirk Sessions, but the custom continued for a long time afterwards, and was never formally abolished, falling into abeyance gradually. Dr Edgar, in his "Old Church Life in Scotland," states that "on a page at the end of a small volume of scroll minutes still extant there is a writing, under date 23rd November, 1771, which has all the appearance of being a genuine matrimonial consignation bond."

The First Book of Discipline makes it peremptory that no persons should be married without the consent of the parents, unless it should appear that there was no reasonable ground for the refusal of their consent. The Westminster Directory qualifies this by ruling that the consent of parents should be obtained to first marriages, especially if the parties were under age. It is not clear whether non-age means under the age of twenty-one, or is to be interpreted by the decree of the General a.s.sembly of 1600 that, "considering that there is no statute of the kirk,...

defining the age of persons which are to be married, ordain that no minister within this realm presume to join in matrimony any persons in time coming, except the man be fourteen years of age, and the woman twelve complete." The same ages are given in the First Book of Discipline.

Deviations from even this rule sometimes occurred, and may be cla.s.sed among the permitted irregularities referred to at the beginning of this paper. The marriage of heiresses under the age of twelve was not infrequent, the plea of the guardians, that they feared the abduction of their wards if longer unmarried, being admitted. There is a record of the marriage of a girl in her eleventh year to a boy of fourteen in 1659; and no longer ago than 1859 a girl was married at Edinburgh, who was entered by the registrar as in her eleventh year. The official inspector thought there must have been an error in the registration, but inquiry proved that the entry was correct.

There was no laxity, however, in the matter of prohibited degrees of relations.h.i.+p. In 1731, an irregular marriage came before the Presbytery of Ayr. The banns had been forbidden on the ground that the woman's first husband had been grand-uncle to the second bridegroom. The lovers thereupon proceeded to Carlisle, and were there united in marriage. The Presbytery p.r.o.nounced them guilty of incest, prohibited them from cohabitation, and the interdict being disregarded, pa.s.sed sentence of excommunication.

Marriage might be refused in former times when either of the parties was found to be "under scandal." In 1565, the General a.s.sembly enacted that "such as lie in sin under promise of marriage, deferring the solemnisation, should satisfy publicly, in the place of repentance, upon the Lord's day before they be married." Many instances are recorded of persons appearing before the Kirk Session, and denying upon oath that they had committed the sin of which they were accused. The Kirk Sessions were equally diligent in their endeavours to prevent scandals. In 1621, it was reported to the Kirk Session of Perth "that Janet Watson holds house by herself, where she may give occasion of slander," wherefore an elder was directed "to admonish her in the Session's name either to marry or to pa.s.s to service."

But while the Church authorities were so zealous for the morals of the nation and the prevention of scandal, they appear to have sometimes thrown impediments in the way of lawful marriage. In the early years following the Reformation, it was a very frequent ordinance of Kirk Sessions that no persons should be allowed to marry until they were able to repeat to the minister or reader the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Either a "p.a.w.n" was required for the fulfilment of this condition or a fine was exacted in case of failure. In some parishes the Kirk Sessions went beyond this requirement, and insisted on regular attendance at public wors.h.i.+p. In 1700, the Kirk Session of Galston, "considering that there were some who lived within the parish who did not join with the congregation in public wors.h.i.+p, nor submit themselves to discipline, and yet craved common privileges of members of this congregation, such as proclamation in order to marriage, concluded that none such should have privileges, until they should engage to live orderly for the time to come." And a further entry, of the same date, states that one of the persons referred to applied for proclamation of banns, and, on the resolution being communicated to him, he "engaged, through G.o.d's grace, to live orderly, and to wait upon gospel ordinances more particularly, and was then allowed to be proclaimed."

There was some difference of opinion in the early days of the Reformed Church as to whether a pre-contract should be an impediment to marriage with another person. The minutes of the Westminster a.s.sembly show that some of the divines maintained that a promise of marriage was a "covenant of G.o.d," and could not be broken, even by mutual consent. The Church of Scotland did not adopt this view. In 1570, the General a.s.sembly directed that persons desiring to withdraw from a contract of marriage should, if nothing had followed, be allowed to do so. In the same year, an appeal was made to the a.s.sembly from the decision of a Kirk Session that a man should not be allowed to marry any woman other than a former servant of the appellant, whom he had seduced. He had applied to the Kirk Session for proclamation of banns, putting in the doc.u.ment known as a "discharge of marriage," signed by the woman he had wronged, for three or four successive years, but it was persistently refused recognition. The a.s.sembly sustained his appeal, gave him the liberty he sought, and added, "yea, and there is injury done to him already."

Sometimes, however, contracted persons declined to set each other free, and forbade the publication of banns with any other person. In 1689, one John Meikle was cited to appear before the Presbytery of Ayr, to show cause why he forbade the banns of Janet Campbell. He pleaded that Janet had been engaged to him, and on that ground he objected to her becoming the wife of any other man. The Presbytery decided that Janet was free to do so. In 1777, a woman applied to the Kirk Session of Mauchline to have her banns stopped, on the ground that she had changed her mind, and had become engaged to another man. The first lover opposed the application, pleading that she was his "by the covenant of G.o.d." The Kirk Session did not admit his plea. The publication of banns was stopped, and a minute of the Session justifies this decision, on the ground that "there would be an obvious impropriety in proceeding further in the proclamation, after being certified by the woman of her resolution not to marry the pet.i.tioner."

There were some superst.i.tions connected with marriage as to lucky and unlucky days and seasons. Perths.h.i.+re couples refrained from wedlock in January, and everywhere it was declined in May. In the Lowlands, Friday was considered an unlucky day for weddings, but in the Highlands, it was the day generally chosen for the ceremony. These notions had no weight with the compilers of the First Book of Discipline, who expressed their opinion that Sunday was the day "most expedient." On the other hand, the Westminster a.s.sembly advised that marriages should not be solemnised on the Lord's day. The latter may have been influenced by the same reason that moved the Kirk Session of Perth to adopt, in 1584, a resolution that "forasmuch as sundry poor desire to, because they have not to buy clothes, nor to make bridals, marriages should be as well celebrated on Thursday, within our Parish Kirk in time of sermon, as on Sunday." The former, on the other hand, probably had in view the disorderly scenes to which a wedding was often the prelude. The General a.s.sembly, in 1645, adopted the view of the Westminster Directory, and marriages from that date were generally solemnised on the day of the weekly lecture.

In former times, and down to the first quarter of the present century, the celebration of a marriage otherwise than in church was regarded as irregular and clandestine. In 1581, the General a.s.sembly "concluded by common consent of the whole brethren, that in times coming no marriage be celebrated, nor sacraments administered, in private houses." At that time, and long afterwards, ministers were liable to deposition, and were actually deposed, for marrying persons in private houses. It is a fact, nevertheless, that though the law of the Church remains as settled in 1581, marriages celebrated in private houses have not been regarded as irregular since the beginning of the last century; and the records of the General Sessions of Edinburgh show that, as long ago as 1643, private marriages were not infrequent in that city, where, however, they were restricted to the well-to-do cla.s.ses by a fine of twenty marks.

Weddings were usually followed by great festivities, which were generally on a scale so extensive, and carried to so great an excess, that the records of Kirk Sessions during the seventeenth century show numerous regulations for their restriction. They fixed the number of guests who might be lawfully entertained on such occasions, and the hour at which the festivities should cease. Many of the customs observed were peculiar to the country, or to certain parts of it. In the Highlands, until about a century ago, the bride walked round the wedding party at the close of the ceremony, saluting each with a kiss. A dish was then pa.s.sed round, in which each deposited a coin, the amount collected being given to the bride. The term "penny wedding" appears to have arisen from this custom.

Owing to the large number of guests entertained, which Kirk Sessions did not venture to reduce to less than forty, it was usual for the neighbours to a.s.sist in providing for them. Landowners gave beef, mutton and venison; farmers, poultry and dairy produce; and the minister and the schoolmaster lent cooking utensils. The bridal feast was followed by a dance.

Some peculiar rites, of ancient and pagan origin, were practised at the home-coming of the bride. The guests a.s.sembled at the door, on the threshold of which a sieve containing bread and cheese was held over her head, and, as she entered the house, a cake of shortbread was broken over her head, the young folk present scrambling for the fragments. The ceremony was completed by the bride sweeping the hearth with a broom.