Chapter XXXI: Section II: After the Reformation (1)

When the Protestants came into power the evidence of the great change was soon seen in the proceedings of the citizens. In May, 1560, the town council of Edinburgh ordered their treasurer to pay the sum of forty pounds for furnishing the household of their minister, John Knox, and because he had been living with David Forester since he came to the town, to settle this account also; and they ordered the treasurer to pay for a lock to Knox’s lodgings. In June the council ordered that twenty pounds should be paid to John Willock, the Reformer; while the council and the deacons of the crafts resolved that the bell, called the Mary Bell, and the brazen pillars of the Church of St. Giles, should be made into cannon for the use of the town; they also directed that the silver work belonging to the town, which had been used in St. Giles’ church in bypast times, both the gilt and the ungilt, should be at once sold or coined into money; and the whole of the vestments, caps, and other gear of the church were to be sold, and the proceeds to be applied to the common works of the town, and especially to the rebuilding of the interior of the church, according to the requirements of the new order of worship. The dean of guild and the treasurer were appointed to carry these arrangements into effect.¹ The interior of the churches of Edinburgh were refitted on the 1st of August, 1560, and the deacon of the tailor craft presented the following complaint to the provost and council:――“Bearing in effect that the traves close room or seat, built and made by command of James Barron, dean of guild, at St. Anne’s altar, sometimes called the tailor’s altar, ought and should be removed, and the deacons and brethren of the tailor craft permitted to build their seats there, to be used by them and their craft at all sermons and other times convenient and none others, conform to their old possession; to this it was answered, and for plain ordinance by the provost, bailies, council, and deacons, declared, that in respect of the goodly order now taken in religion all title and claim to altars and such other superstitious practices are and should be abolished, and no further word nor claim thereof to be in time coming; but as it is commanded by God’s most holy Word, brotherly amity should be amongst us who are joined in his congregation, the nobility, provost, bailies, council, elders, and deacons, being first placed, the honest merchants and the honest craftsmen to place and set themselves together as loving brethren and friends in that and all other places of the church vacant at all times needful, providing always that nowhere the apprentices or servants of the merchants or the craftsmen, or other common people take up the places and seats of the said merchants and craftsmen; and this act to take effect without alteration in all time coming.” In the beginning of January, 1561, the town council of Aberdeen agreed to sell all the silver and brass work, the images and the ornaments of the church of St. Nicholas; and the whole of the inhabitants of the city were warned to attend on the 6th of that month and see these articles sold by auction. The caps brought one hundred and forty-two pounds, the brass work sixteen shillings the stone, the silver work was sold at twenty-one shillings per ounce, and the total sum of the sale amounted to five hundred and forty pounds. Two men, David Menzie and Gilbert Collison, dissented and protested against this sale for themselves and their adherents, but the goods were delivered to the purchasers by the voice of the majority.² On the 8th of May, 1562, the town council resolved to apply the above sum of money to the building of a pier and quay-head;³ so swiftly had the religious notions of the leading citizens changed.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 63‒65, 66,
70‒71, 85.

² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 328‒329, 331.

³ _Ibid._, page 344.

It will be seen that a new epoch had begun. When objects which had been venerated for many centuries, and were still believed to be possessed of uncommon virtues, were turned into cash and cannon, and applied to build harbours, it was obvious that a revolution had been effected. The citizens of Edinburgh entered warmly and earnestly into the reformation movement. The town council and some of the deacons of the crafts met in June, 1560, and having considered the great number of idolaters, whoremasters, and harlots who daily resorted within the burgh, provoking the indignation of God upon it, as had been oftentimes foreshadowed by the preachers, so they issued a proclamation in a comprehensive form――“That all such persons should come into the presence of the ministers or the elders, and give testimony of their conversion from such abuses before next Sunday, or failing that, the said idolaters to be defamed by setting them upon the market cross, there to remain for the space of six hours; and carrying of the said whoremasters and harlots through the town in a cart for the first fault: and burning of both classes of offenders on the cheek for the second fault, and banishment from the town; and for the third fault to be punished to the death.” On the 20th of September, 1560, the town council ordered the Act of Parliament against idolaters to be proclaimed.¹ On the 30th of October, the town council enacted that henceforward the holy day commonly called Sunday should be kept by all persons in the burgh, and that no one make market, nor open their shops, nor exercise any worldly calling on this day, but that all should attend the ordinary sermons both in the forenoon and in the afternoon: “And that from the first toll of the bell announcing the hour of the sermon to the final end thereof, there should be neither meat nor drink sold in open taverns, but that during this time they should be closed. That the flesh market, which used to be held on Sunday, should be henceforth held upon the Saturday; and that the cattle market at the House of the Muir, which had been held in past times on Sunday, should in all time coming be held on the Thursday.” At the same time they passed an act against swearing and taking God’s name in vain, under the penalty of being placed in the iron branks, “there to remain during the pleasure of the judge.” They also enjoined concerning taverns: “Because in past times the iniquity of women taverners in this burgh has been a great occasion of whoredom, insomuch that there appears to be a brothel in every tavern; therefore all vintners of wine who may engage women taverners before the next Martinmas hereafter were to be certified, that if their women committed any immoral fault they should have to pay forty pounds, except they deliver the offender into the hands of the bailie, to be banished, according to the laws, as soon as the offence comes to their knowledge.”² In November the same year, John Sanderson, the deacon of the fleshers, was convicted for adultery, and the bailies sentenced him to be carted through the town and then banished. But when the deacons of the various crafts heard of the sentence, and their aid was asked to carry it into execution, they unanimously dissented, and declared that they would not allow such extreme punishment to be inflicted upon any honest craftsman. The bailies and council then applied to the Lords of the Privy Council for their help and support in this case, and after much wrangling it was at last settled.³

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 65, 82‒83.

² _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 85‒86.

³ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 89‒95.
Compare the _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages
345, 367‒370, and Maxwell’s _History of Old Dundee_, pages
77‒81. 1884.

These social immoralities not only engaged the attention of the burgh magistrates and the courts of the Reformed Church, but Parliament also, and the Privy Council passed acts for their suppression. There can be no doubt that a clearer sense of the enormity of social vice originated with the Reformation; the most strenuous efforts were made to purify the feelings and the sentiments of the people, as well as to purge the nation of idolatry. The first General Assembly of the Reformed Church declared that fornication should be punished according to the law of God, and that public repentance should be made by those who were guilty of this sin. All through the acts and proceedings of the Assemblies of the Church, the clergy, as may be seen, were incessantly and earnestly trying to improve the morals of the people.¹ It is somewhat disagreeable to touch much on these matters, but social vice affects the very foundation of society, and should not be summarily dismissed; a false delicacy which would ignore the roots of social evil will never do much to help the onward and upward movement of mankind towards a higher civilisation and a happier life.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 5, 19, 29, 39, 44, 54‒56,
79, 91, 98, 114, 140, 170, 180, 267, 308, 366, 377, 379, 388,
536, 953, _et seq._

As we have seen, the clergy were well supported by the authorities of the towns, and especially by those of Edinburgh, in their efforts to reform the morals of the people. In November, 1561, the bailies of Edinburgh banished an adulterer; and in May, 1562, they prepared a hole in the North Loch for dipping fornicators in, as the best means of suppressing them. On the 6th of November, 1562, the town council passed an act which directed the bailies to search all parts of the town for offenders of this description, and to apprehend them, whether man or woman, without exception of persons; “and then put them in the iron-house, and there to be fed on bread and water only for the space of a month, and afterwards to banish them from the town for ever. And suchlike offenders who had been tried and convicted by order, both the man and the woman should be scourged at the cart’s end through the streets and banished from the town; aye, and until some evidence be presented to the kirk and the magistrates of the amendment of their lives; and this order was to be observed in Edinburgh till it should please the Almighty to move the hearts of the higher powers to establish better laws for the punishment of these crimes.” In December the town council ordered a prison to be prepared for the reception of adulterers and fornicators, which should be secure and lockfast.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 129, 135,
152, 154; _Register of the Kirk Session of St. Andrews_,
pages 36, 142, 172, 180, 377, 417, _et seq._

The wish expressed in the last paragraph was realised. In 1563, parliament passed an act against notorious adulterers: and the Privy Council in 1564 passed an act prohibiting brothels, either openly or privately, under the penalty of eight days’ imprisonment with bread and water, and then to be scourged through the town, for the first fault; and for the second fault to be burned on the cheek and banished from the town for ever. At the same time the Privy Council ordered that those convicted of fornication, should be punished in the following manner:――“For the first fault they shall pay the sum of forty pounds, or else both he and she shall be imprisoned for the term of eight days, and their food to be bread and small drink, and thereafter presented in the market-place of the town bareheaded, and there to stand fastened that they may not remove for the space of two hours, from ten o’clock to twelve noon. For the second fault, when convicted, they shall pay the sum of one hundred marks, or else sixteen days’ imprisonment on bread and water only, and in the end to be fastened in the market-place, and the heads of both the man and woman to be shaven; and on conviction for the third fault they shall pay one hundred pounds, or else the above term of imprisonment, their food to be bread and water only, and in the end to be taken to the deepest and the foulest pool of water in the town or parish, and there to be thrice ducked, and thereafter to be banished from the town for ever; and thenceforward, that however often they may be convicted for this vice, the third penalty shall be executed upon them.” Parliament repeated this act in 1569; and it was then enacted that incest should be punished by death. The vice of adultery was also made punishable by death, according to the acts of parliament. But in spite of the severity of the laws this vice continued to be common; and as late as 1592 an act was passed which declared that the crime of adultery was daily increasing.¹ The citizens of Edinburgh had anticipated Parliament and the Privy Council, and it was because a section of the people were prepared to enforce a better social order that gave to these acts historic importance.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 539;
Volume III., pages 25‒26, 213, 543; _Register of the Privy
Council_, Volume I., pages 296‒298; Volume II., pages 306,
499: Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 13‒14,
22‒40, 78‒80, 100, 169.

In 1562, the General Assembly resolved to petition the Queen for the punishment of all vice that the law of God commanded, which, as yet, was not commanded by the public laws of the kingdom: Such as blaspheming of God’s name, contempt of the Word and sacraments, perjury, breaking of the Sunday by holding common markets on that day, and profane talking. The clergy directed their efforts especially to the abolition of markets on the Lord’s-day.¹ This is a point of much interest, and well deserves to be further explained. We have seen that the Town Council of Edinburgh passed an act, in October, 1560, immediately after the establishment of the Reformation, ordering that Sunday should be observed; and it may safely be assumed that the ministers of Edinburgh had been consulted by the magistrates before this act was passed.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 19, 30.

The Privy Council passed an act in 1564, re-enacting the statute of James IV., which prohibited the holding of markets on holydays, or in churches or churchyards. But this act, like many others, had never been observed, and the Council then enjoined that no markets should be held on Sunday, nor in churchyards. And in July, 1569, the Regent issued a proclamation prohibiting markets on Sunday, which directed the authorities throughout the country to seize and confiscate the goods of those who exposed anything for sale on Sunday. The provost and bailies of Elgin were charged by the Lords of Council, in November, 1569, to put the acts prohibiting markets on Sunday into execution. It was further ordered that in all the free burghs common harlots should be banished; and the provost and bailies of Elgin were imprisoned for not executing these acts. In 1574, the magistrates of Aberdeen were enjoined by the Lords of Council to prohibit markets on Sunday, within the bounds of the freedom of the burgh, under the penalty of forfeiting all the goods offered for sale on that day.¹ Parliament, in 1579, re-affirmed the act of James IV., and added, that as markets were yet held in the towns and in the country on Sunday, and that the people still continued to work at their usual occupations on the Lord’s-day, or gamed and played, and passed the day in taverns, and remained away from the church in the time of sermon and prayers: it was therefore anew enacted that no markets should be held on Sunday, nor in churches, nor churchyards, on any other days, under the penalty of forfeiting the goods exposed for sale, and the proceeds thereof to be given to the poor of the parish. All manual labour was strictly forbidden on Sunday, and the frequenting of ale-houses, and the selling of meat and drink, and also all gaming and playing, under the penalty of severe fines, which were to be applied to the relief of the poor and helpless.²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 296, 688;
Volume II., pages 64‒65, 390.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 138.

In 1574, the Town Council of Glasgow ordered that every Sunday one of the bailies, with an officer and some other honest men, should pass through the town to visit the taverns and the flesh-market; and if any flesh was found exposed for sale after nine o’clock, it was to be confiscated, and given to the poor; and if the taverners offered any contempt, they were to be punished according to the judgment of the council. In 1576, two persons were convicted in Glasgow for selling meal in their houses on Sunday; and the same year the council and bailies agreed to a conditional restriction touching the taking of salmon on Sunday. “No salmon-cobles were to be employed on the Sunday, within the freedom of the city, by the inhabitants thereof, providing that the whole of the cobles on the waters of the Clyde, burgh and land, do likewise and keep the same, and otherwise not.” But in 1577, the Town Council of Glasgow concluded that no market should be held on Sunday, under the penalty of forfeiting all the goods exposed; yet some persons were shortly after convicted for selling flesh on Sunday.¹ The Town Council of Aberdeen, in 1580, ordained that the fish-market should in future be held within the Iron-ring, and around the Fish-cross; and that on Sunday, from the ringing of the first bell in the forenoon and in the afternoon, until the sermon be done, there should be no market, under the penalty of the confiscation of the fish to the poor. The General Assemblies were always complaining that the acts of Parliament and of the Privy Council touching the keeping of Sunday were not enforced. In 1581, the Synod of Lothian complained before the General Assembly that the act of parliament for prohibiting markets on Sunday was not put into execution, that the people still continued to hold their markets on that day, absented themselves from the church, and remained in their ignorance, and that thus atheism was increased.²

¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 21, 48, 60, 63, 65, 74.

² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume II., page 38; _Book of
the Universal Kirk_, pages 253, 284, 536.

But it is extremely difficult to change the customs of a people; and in spite of all the efforts of the clergy and the authorities, ♦the observance of Sunday for several generations after the Reformation was far from universal in Scotland. In 1588 the Town Council of Aberdeen recorded that many of the citizens stayed away from the church on Sunday, frequented taverns and alehouses, dealt in merchandise, and continued at their manual labour during the time of the sermon, contrary to the order of the Reformed Church. The council then proposed the following scale of fines to be exacted from those who absented themselves from the preaching: “Every burgess of guild and his wife for their remaining from the sermon on Sunday, thirteen shillings and fourpence; and for their remaining from the sermon on the weekly days, two shillings. Every craftsman, householder, and other inhabitants, for remaining from the sermon on Sunday, six shillings and eightpence; and every week-day, twelvepence. And in case any merchant or burgess of guild be found in his shop after the ringing of the third bell on the week-day, he must pay six shillings and eightpence.”¹ The days on which sermons were preached in Aberdeen, besides Sunday, were the Tuesdays and Thursdays; and down to the present time there is a service in one of the city churches every Thursday, though sad to tell, few of the inhabitants are even aware of it.

♦ duplicate word “the” removed

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume II., page 62; Compare
_Burgh Records of Glasgow_, page 93.

In 1590 the General Assembly found it necessary to pass an act for restraining of markets on Sunday, the going of mills, the delivering of loads, and the selling of flour and fruit in Edinburgh; and in 1592 parliament passed another act touching the holding of markets on Sunday. It enacted that the markets formerly held on Sunday should be held on any other day of the week, except the day on which the neighbouring burgh held their market. In 1598 the town council of Aberdeen ratified the act passed before concerning the holding of markets on Sunday in the time of the sermon. From this it seems to follow that markets were still held on Sunday in Aberdeen about the end of the century, though not during the hours of worship.¹ Even as late as 1602, more than forty years after the Reformation, the General Assembly reported that the churches in many places were not well attended, owing to the people continuing to labour on Sunday, especially during the harvest and seed-time, and also by the going of the mills, and by many of the people fishing on Sunday for white fish and salmon. The Assembly ordered that all such labour upon the Lord’s Day should cease, under the penalty of incurring the censures of the Church; and at the same time the Assembly requested the King to enact some special punishment for those who persisted in working on Sunday.² The observance of Sunday in Scotland was not attained till after a long and vigilant struggle. On this point the reformed clergy and the magistrates both may have sometime been rather severe; yet it is difficult to see how they could have reached their end otherwise. The importance of the day of rest, even on the comparatively low ground of the physical and social advantages resulting from it to the people themselves, is very great, apart from the higher aims of morality and religion.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 776, 777; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 548; _Burgh
Records of Aberdeen_, Volume II., page 167.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 996; _Register of the Kirk
Session of St. Andrews_, pages 309, 314, 343, 349; _et seq._

It is true that the discipline of the Reformed Church of Scotland assumed an austere and rigid form, although on the whole it was far more moral and vigorous than the system which it superseded; but in the special region of feeling and emotion it was weaker than its Catholic rival. The strongest characteristic of Roman Catholicism has always consisted in the art of presenting to the human senses a variety of easily comprehended objects. The immense multitude of her saints and martyrs can be easily localised anywhere, and in the requisite proportion to fit the capacity of her humblest votary. In the chief church of the city or parish there may be ten, twenty, thirty, or forty altars, each dedicated to a particular saint, as in St. Giles at Edinburgh, where each of the different crafts of the town had their own special saint and altar, at which they worshipped. It must be admitted that there is something indescribably fascinating in the feeling of having the assistance and the protection of a great saint; and the element of selfishness in it merely raises the emotion to a higher pitch, and enhances the value of the benefits which spring out of the union between the saint and his devoted adherents. In this connection everything has been very skilfully arranged for avoiding any unnecessary strain on the imagination of the worshipper: the image of his patron saint is pleasingly and gracefully placed before his eyes, and he is thus relieved from all troublesome cogitation. As the God of the universe has condescended to make the Roman Catholic Church infallible, the true Catholic can have no religious doubts; he has no occasion to ruffle the serenity of his mind, for his Church has settled everything, and his simple duty is to believe what she teaches, and he cannot be wrong. This is a primary article of faith with all Roman Catholics. It has taken a firm hold on multitudes of the human race, and penetrates deeply into the minds of many earnest and able men. Hence Roman Catholicism has a stronger tendency to make men docile and submissive than Protestantism. Those who believe that the Church is infallible on earth and supreme in heaven, can have no motive to venture beyond the comparatively narrow circle marked out for them. Thus it is, that in those countries where Catholicism has most completely maintained its sway, there has been little real progress in the region of science, or philosophy, or the higher criticism, and less freedom of thought, than amongst the Protestant nations. But in the realm of the fine arts Catholicism has held her own, if she has not always been able to maintain an unchallenged supremacy. Yet our deepest thoughts touching God, the world, and man, cannot be successfully handled by the figurative arts; as these thoughts are too abstract for sensuous representation.

The discipline of the Reformed Church was brought to bear upon the people in many ways. The process of censure which she then wielded was a great power. The form of excommunication used in the Church of Scotland was drawn up by John Knox, and, as finally revised, it was adopted by the General Assembly in 1569, and ordered to be printed. It is a treatise containing an enumeration of the crimes which deserve excommunication, the forms to be followed, the pains and penalties incurred, the form of repentance, and of readmission to the society of the Church.¹ The first part treats of summary excommunication. And under this head the following crimes are noted as deserving of such a sentence: Wilful murder, adultery, sorcery, witchcraft, conjuring, charming, giving of drink to destroy children, and open blasphemy against God and his holy Word, or railing against the Sacraments. All who committed these offences were to be excluded from the society of Christ’s Church, that their impiety might be held in greater horror, and that they might be the more deeply moved when they saw themselves abhorred by the godly. Against these open malefactors the process of summary excommunication might be applied. When the offender had been tried by a jury, the Church was not to excommunicate him, but to proceed by way of admonition, and to show him how precious human life is in the sight of God, and that no one ought to shed blood, except by the sword of the magistrate; and upon sufficient evidence of repentance he was to be restored to the fellowship of the Church. If the offender was fugitive from the law and his crime well known, the sentence of excommunication was to be pronounced without delay.² There were forms also for the readmission of penitents. After confessing their sin and admitting that Satan had for a time gotten the victory over them, they had to present themselves on three Sundays before being finally restored.³

¹ The General Assembly in 1563 requested John Knox to put
in order the form and manner of excommunication. In 1567
the Assembly appointed a committee to revise the order of
excommunication, composed by John Knox; and in 1568 the
Assembly nominated John Craig, John Willock, John Row,
Robert Pont, James Gray, William Christeson, and David
Lindsay, to revise the order of excommunication, which had
been penned by John Knox. _Book of the Universal Kirk_,
pages 37, 93, 131, 155. This treatise is printed in the
Collection of Confessions published at Edinburgh, 1722,
Volume II., pages 700‒752. It is also printed in the sixth
volume of Dr. Laing’s collected edition of Knox’s works,
pages 445‒470.

² As may easily be conceived, the process of summary
excommunication must have been open to grave and fatal abuse.
In 1590 the General Assembly had under consideration the
state of crime, such as murder, adultery, and incest; many
persons guilty of these evil deeds eluded the Church by
shifting from place to place, and thus continued to evade
the final sentence. The question was then asked whether
summary excommunication should be pronounced on persons
falling into such odious crimes, and it was answered in the
affirmative. But in 1595 the King proposed to the General
Assembly that summary excommunication should be utterly
abolished; the Assembly however did not comply with his
request, the subject was postponed. The point again came
before the Assembly in 1597, and without giving a final
decision, they agreed in the meantime to suspend all summary
processes of excommunication. _Book of the Universal Kirk_,
pages 779‒852, 853, 947.

³ The Church in handling those guilty of capital crimes,
proceeded with the aim of strengthening the hands of
the magistrate. See _Acts of General Assembly.――Book of
the Universal Kirk_, pages 144‒145. “Those who have been
excommunicated for their offences, should present themselves
in sackcloth, bareheaded and barefooted, on six preaching
days, and the last one after sermon, to be received in
their own clothes.”――_Ibid._ page 159. Touching those guilty
of heinous crimes but not excommunicated. “They should be
placed in the public place, where they may be known from
the rest of the people, bareheaded the time of the sermon;
and the minister must remember them in his prayer after the
sermon: after going through this, they had to appear before
the Assembly bareheaded and barefooted in linen clothes, and
humbly to request the Assembly to restore them to the bosom
of the Church.” _Ibid._, pages 176‒177, 283, 284, 309, 358,
583, 748, _et seq._

One class of offences came under the punishment of what was called public repentance, such as fornication, drunkenness, swearing, breaking the Sabbath, and common contempt of the order of the Church. Lesser offences, as vain words and uncomely gestures, were visited with admonition.

The form of excommunication and the rules of the process for the case of the absolutely obstinate sinner who resisted all admonition were minutely laid down. The final words of the sentence ran thus: “And at the command of this congregation, cut off, seclude, and excommunicate this man from the body and from our society, as a person slanderous, proud, a contemner, and a member at present altogether corrupt and pernicious to the body. And this his sin by virtue of our authority we bind and pronounce it to be bound in heaven and in earth. We further give him over into the hands and the power of the devil to the destruction of his flesh.” Every one who associated with or sheltered an excommunicated person rendered himself liable to a similar sentence.

The last part of this remarkable treatise laid down the mode of procedure for receiving the excommunicated person again into the fold of the faithful. The civil penalties attached to the sentence of excommunication was enough to make it a terrible punishment. No other punishment at all approaches that which deprives a man of all intercourse with his fellowmen; and probably if a human being were certain that no other person in the world sympathised with him, and that he was abandoned and abhorred by all men and driven from their presence, he could not live. Even the most degraded individuals need the sympathy of their fellows. Among the criminal class this is the case; the most hardened criminal feels that he has at least the sympathy of his companions and confederates. A criminal who has often eluded the hand of justice and defied the laws of his country, is regarded as a hero among his own class. Though he has been convicted often and has suffered many years of imprisonment, he is still looked upon by them as a distinguished character, and is conscious that he has their sympathy. But the man who was excommunicated in the sixteenth century was probably placed in a much more harrowing position than the worst criminal of the present day.

Fasting in the Reformed Church of Scotland was a mode of discipline which was often resorted to; and there was a treatise on the subject composed by Knox and Craig, in 1565, by the authority of the General Assembly, which reduced this exercise to a regular form.¹ When the General Assembly of 1565 proposed to hold a fast, the order and form to be observed was drawn up and printed. This form was afterwards followed, and a brief notice of the occasions on which, according to a statement afterwards added to it, it was deemed necessary to hold a national fast, will give a vivid impression of the ideas and sentiments of the clergy and of the state of society.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages, 279, 578‒581, 590; 74.
The treatise on fasting is printed in the _Collection of
Confessions_, published in Edinburgh in 1722, Volume II.,
pages 642‒700; and in the sixth volume of Laing’s edition
of Knox’s _Works_, pages 391‒429.

In 1572 the Assembly resolved that there should be a public humiliation among all who feared God and professed the true religion, with prayers and fasting throughout the kingdom, to begin on the 23rd of November, and to be continued to the last day of the month, “with the intent that the notorious offenders and open slanderers of the Church may be brought to amend their lives, or else to be excluded from the society of the faithful.” It was deemed necessary that before the fast the superintendents and the ministers should appoint certain days and call before them all the known offenders in their respective districts and parishes, such as murderers and their accomplices, adulterers, robbers of the patrimony of the Church and of other men’s possessions; commencing with the ministers themselves and the nobility, and then to proceed through every other class of the people, that wickedness and heinous crimes which offend the majesty of God may be purged out of the nation. A rigorous scrutiny was to be made of the diligence and the life of the clergy themselves, and also of the life of the nobility, who ought to be the chief example of the whole country.¹ The General Assembly which met in April, 1577, having considered the great iniquity that overflowed the whole face of the community, as it appeared by the light and revelation of the true religion, justly to provoke and stir up the justice of God to take judgment and vengeance on this unworthy and unthankful nation; “observing also the many perilous storms and the rage of persecution daily invading the true Church of Jesus Christ; the extreme suffering of her members in France and elsewhere, that therefore earnest recourse should be had to God by prayers, the Assembly appointed a fast in all the congregations of the realm, to begin on Sunday the 9th of July and to be continued to the following Sunday.”²

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 252‒253.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 390.

The cry of the Church was that corruption pervaded all classes of the nation, that it was therefore necessary to have recourse to fasting, and to call upon God to avert His righteous judgment impended over the people. Another specimen of the language commonly used to express their ideas and sentiments as to the grounds of fasting, may suffice to illustrate this phase of the reformed religion, as it was then understood and practised. The General Assembly in 1581, “ordained a general fast to be observed universally in all the kirks of the realm, with doctrine and instruction of the people, to begin the first Sunday of July and to be continued to the next Sunday thereafter inclusive, using in the meantime, exercise of doctrine according to the accustomed order; and the commissioners were instructed to call on the King and to request him to assist therein by sending out proclamations to that effect.” The causes of this fast are stated in the following order. “1. Universal conspiracies of the papists and the enemies of God in all countries against Christians, for execution of the bloodthirsty Council of Trent. 2. The oppression and thraldom of the Kirk of God. 3. Wasting the rents thereof without remedy. 4. Falling from the former zeal. 5. Flocking home of Jesuits and Papists. 6. Manifest bloodshed, incest, adultery, and such horrible crimes defiling the land unpunished. 7. The danger wherein the King’s majesty stands through evil company resorting about him, by whom it is feared that he may be corrupted in manners and in religion. 8. Universal oppression and contempt of the poor.”¹ About this time, the Church of Scotland stood almost alone in her bold and unflinching opposition to the pretensions of the Church of Rome. Through all the vehement and rude language of the Protestant clergy, they never forgot to plead for the oppressed and the struggling poor.

¹ _Ibid._, pages 407, 409‒410, 569‒570, 730, 747. In 1596
the General Assembly drew up a list of what was called
“The common corruptions of all the Estates within the
realm.” This report gave a fearful description of the
state of society. But there is always hope of amendment and
reform for a nation that has the heart and the honesty to
acknowledge its errors and misdeeds. The clergy were not
afraid to admit and proclaim their own shortcomings, and it
is only foolish mockery to cry peace, peace, when crime, and
injustice, and oppression, and vice, and suffering, abound
on every side. Those who wish to see this representation
of the state of society in Scotland at that period, should
consult the original document in the records of the Church,
and in other national and local documents.――_Book of the
Universal Kirk,_ pages 864‒867, 872‒875.

When a national fast was proclaimed by the Church its observance was strictly enforced. In the General Assembly of 1580, Mr. Thomas Buchanan, the minister of Ceres, was questioned for not causing the fast to be observed within his bounds; “so that when the rest of the country was humbled in fasting, there was no fasting in Fife.” His answer was that he had done all that he could to cause the fast to be observed, but there were instances which no one could remedy, and these he had particularised in his report to the Assembly.¹ As we have seen, the saints’ days, festivals, and holydays, were all discarded at the Reformation; and although sometimes here and there the people showed a tendency to revert to observances of them,² the sermons on two days of the week, the occasional fast days, and the entire devotion of Sunday to religious exercises, were amply sufficient to satisfy the spiritual needs of the people.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 451.

² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume II., pages 25, 39, 66;
_Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 332, 334, 389; _Register
of the Privy Council_, Volume II., page 390.

But some of the old traditions and customs associated with the saints still exhibited signs of life amid the changed forms of worship and belief. This was strikingly manifested in connection with the venerated wells of the early saints. The General Assembly, in 1573, determined that the discipline of the Church should be used against all who went on pilgrimage to wells; and it was deemed an offence that the magistrates ought to punish. In 1580, the Church requested the government to make a special punishment for all those who went on pilgrimages to wells and churches, as a number of persons had lately passed on pilgrimages to the Holy Rood of Peebles, and to other places. The following year, the General Assembly craved that an act of parliament should be passed against persons who go on pilgrimages, and perform superstitious practices at wells, crosses, images, and altars, or observe feasts on days dedicated to saints. Accordingly parliament passed an act in 1581 forbidding pilgrimages to wells, chapels, and crosses, the observance of any festival days, “and such other monuments of idolatry――as making bonfires, singing of carols in and about the churches at certain seasons of the year, and the observance of other superstitious rites to the dishonour of God and the contempt of true religion.” A severe fine was to be imposed upon all who broke the law for the first time, and for the second offence the penalty of death was to be inflicted.¹ But only two years later, a question came before the Assembly as to how the ministers who permitted people to repair on pilgrimages to wells close beside their own manses, without reproving, but rather encouraging them by entertaining them with meat and drink, should be punished? The Assembly concluded that a minister guilty of such neglect of his obvious duty, deserved to be deprived of his office.² In spite, however, of the acts of parliament and the discipline of the Church, numbers of the people still continued to visit the wells, to go on pilgrimages to certain churches, to make bonfires, and to keep holydays.³ In fact, many of the wells were resorted to down to the present century, and within my own recollection there were wells supposed to possess special virtues, which were frequently resorted to by the people.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 280, 462, 535‒536; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 212.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 638.

³ _Ibid._, pages 720‒721, 874, 1055, 1120.

The relation of the sexes at the time of the Reformation was in an extremely unsatisfactory state. In the preceding volume of this work, it was shown that the institution of marriage had passed through various modifications, and that though the Roman Catholic Church had often attempted to make it a public and solemn act, she had only partly succeeded in overcoming the loose habits of the people.¹ In this volume it has already been indicated that the principle of celibacy imposed upon the Roman priesthood and the religious orders had the effect of lowering, instead of elevating, the feelings and sentiments naturally associated with the institution of marriage. The obvious fact could hardly fail to strike the mind that, if marriage is a good and lawful connection instituted for the continuance and comfort of the race, the consequent inconsistency of prohibiting any class or profession from entering into it becomes palpable; for what is absolutely necessary to the continuance of the race, and calculated to increase the sum of human happiness, cannot be denied to any class of men without introducing a most invidious, immoral, and warping distinction. The principle of moral consistency is utterly shocked by the rules of a celibate priesthood, as if this pretension of unhuman purity exalted them above their fellow-men, and prepared and enabled them to become qualified instructors of mankind; as if the natural sentiments which cluster round the domestic hearth must be eradicated from their breasts; and that when thus shorn and dwarfed, they are better able to feel and understand what is needful for the well-being of humanity. First extinguish the strongest and most essential sentiments of the human heart, and then you have a priesthood admirably fitted to maintain their position as the enemies of all progress, of all liberty, of all freedom of thought; a priesthood that for ever struggles to uphold a belief in traditions and legends, in signs and wonders, and enfolds their adherents in a mesh of puerilities and absurdities well suited to the spirit of the Dark Ages.

¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 153‒156, 244, 428.

The first General Assembly of the Reformed Church agreed to adopt the law of Moses, touching the degrees of blood relations in marriage. By it first cousins were allowed to marry with each other, and all remoter degrees, but in the direct line of descent marriage is forbidden throughout; this became law by act of parliament in 1567. It was found, however, to be difficult to bring the people under restraint in the relation of the different sexes; as men and women had a custom of cohabiting after promising to marry, without publicly solemnising their marriage. The Church was forced to take severe measures against defaulters of this character, and the reformed discipline was sternly applied. It was enacted by the General Assembly that those who wished to be married must give in banns to their parish minister and be proclaimed on three successive Sundays. In 1579 it was stated in the General Assembly that some of the ministers would solemnise marriage only on Sunday, while others married people upon week-days, which had raised much slander; and the Assembly was called upon to give a decisive answer on the point. The answer of the Assembly was, that when parties had been thrice proclaimed they might be married on any day of the week if a sufficient number of witnesses were present.¹ But some persons were still married without proclamation of banns, and the General Assembly of 1597 resolved that none should be joined together in marriage, unless thrice proclaimed in their own parish church, according to the custom observed in Scotland; and that any minister who contravened this rule should be deprived of his office, and the other parties ordained to satisfy the Church by public repentance.²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 26;
_Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 5, 30, 32, 66, 72, 73,
114, 440‒441.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 939.

It was not necessary that marriage should be celebrated by a clergyman, and though it was the law of the Church that banns should be proclaimed, the consent of the parties might be declared simply before witnesses. Even when no formal consent appeared, marriage was presumed from cohabitation, if the parties were reputed to be husband and wife. Before the civil courts of Scotland evidence of this description was often held to prove marriage.¹ When marriage was solemnised according to the order of the Church, it was called regular, when otherwise, clandestine, which, however, was held to be valid, though penalties were sometimes annexed to it.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II.; Erskine’s
_Principles of the Law of Scotland_, page 66; 1802. The
complete system of registration, established about forty
years ago, will ultimately supersede the necessity of having
recourse to such evidence touching marriages.

In connection with marriage some curious points were occasionally brought before the General Assembly. In 1575 this question was asked: “Whether the contract of marriage which used to be made before the proclamation of banns between the man and the woman should be made by words of the present time. The man saying to the woman, I take thee to be my wife, and the woman saying to the man, I take thee to be my husband; or should there be no promise made till the very time of the solemnisation of the marriage. Answer――Parties to be married should come before the session and give in their names, that their banns may be proclaimed, and no further ceremony used.” Again, it was asked what should be done in the following case: “A man and a woman in the presence of some of the parishioners were married in the parish church, or hand-fast by the reader, and thereafter mutually cohabited together at bed and board as married people, and were so reputed and holden. The minister of the same church, at the woman’s desire, a good space after, leads a form of divorce between them in this manner: he calls the woman before him, and caused her to swear that her husband never had any sexual intercourse with her, and thereupon, without further questions at the man, decerns them separated and divorced from each other, the man always dissenting and still claiming her as his wife. Whether is this form of divorce allowable in a Reformed Church that has received the Gospel, and if it be not, what correction does the minister deserve who usurped and used this manner of process and judgment?” The Assembly answered: “That this divorce was not lawful, and that the minister should be suspended and make public repentance.” Once more: “A certain man with his accomplices ravished and took away a woman, and thereafter married her without proclamation of banns, but did not solemnise the marriage in the face of the Church, but in a private house. Whether is this marriage lawful, or are children begotten therein legitimate or not? and what punishment should the minister receive who so abused marriage?” The Assembly answered that the minister should be deposed.¹ In 1579 it was asked in the General Assembly: “What order should be taken with the persons who went to a popish priest to be married, and their banns not being proclaimed, should they be esteemed as married persons, and if not, what discipline should be used against them?” It was answered: “This connection is no marriage, and therefore ordains the persons to be called before the particular assemblies, and to make satisfaction as fornicators; and upon a new proclamation to be married according to the order of the Reformed Church, and the papist priest to be punished.”²

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 143, 144, 345.

² _Ibid._, page 441. In the Register of the Kirk Session of
St. Andrews, which covers the period from 1559 to 1600,
there is great collection of interesting information on the
social state of the people; the Register was issued by the
Scottish History Society in 1889‒90.

The question, at what age the young should be allowed to marry, came before the General Assembly in 1600. It was then stated that great inconveniences had arisen from the untimeous marriages of young persons before they were of age meet for entering into this union. As yet there was no statute of the Church defining the age at which persons might marry; but it was then enacted that henceforth no minister should join in matrimony any persons, except the male be fourteen years of age, and the female at the least twelve years: the Assembly directed their commissioners to request parliament to ratify this act.¹ When the Church was making an act on this important social point, she might have shown a little more wisdom, and not given her sanction to the marriage of persons at this early age. In justice to the Church, however, it must be mentioned that there was still an heirship of feudalism involved in the marriage of a certain class of individuals. This was a pecuniary casualty due to the superior from the heir of his former vassal, after the age of fourteen if a male, and if a female twelve; and thus there was an engrossing interest attached to the marriage of a portion of the landed class while they were minors, and under the control of their superiors. This marriage casualty arose from the right which the superior had over the person, as well as over the estates of the minor heir; and it was chiefly restricted to ward holdings, except where a special clause in the charter imported it. It was the privilege of the superior to dispose of the heir in marriage, and to take the marriage portion to himself; but if the minor heir refused the offered match, and named another, then he was not entitled to the possession of his lands after the ward terminated, till the superior was refunded the double of the value of the portion which would have accrued to him from the offered marriage. Seeing, however, that no man nor woman could be forced to marry, it was the interest of the superior to have the power of arranging this important affair, while the heir or heiress was very young; and so an extremely complicated mode of attaining this end was gradually introduced into the law of the kingdom.² Cases arising out of these peculiar rights of the superior, in connection with the marriage of his vassals, frequently came before the courts;³ and under various modifications these invidious privileges continued till 1748, when they were finally abolished.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 953. Erskine says, “But
by our law, children may enter into marriage without the
knowledge, and even against the remonstrances, of a father.”
――_Principles of the Law of Scotland_, page 66.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II.; Volume III.

³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 311, 324,
326; Volume II., pages 470‒472, 447, 693; Volume III., pages
250, 312, 318, 547, 667, 687; Volume IV., pages 222, 418,
422, 712; also Volumes V. and VI.

Regarding divorce, the doctrine of the Reformed Church was clear and emphatic. She insisted that marriage could only be dissolved either on the ground of adultery, or wilful desertion; and for obvious reasons she endeavoured to make divorce difficult. The Church firmly maintained that divorced persons should not be permitted to marry their paramours; and at her request, Parliament passed an Act in 1600 prohibiting such unions.¹ There are two sides to this social question, and at that time there was ample justification for the Act.