I've discovered something interesting about the 1764 translation of the original Malew registers by Vicar Thos Quayle, involving the earliest Baptisms that supposedly begin 1651. This is the document that appears on Family Search.

The first three pages are a continuous list of Baptisms beginning "1651 Kirk Malew Christenings" that have had years inserted periodically at the side, probably by the Vicar himself, going up to 1654. On the fourth page, after 3 baptisms likely a carry-over from before, the Baptisms begin to be listed by year starting 1653.

I became suspicious that something was wrong with these first three pages when I pulled out the children of a William Gelling:
1654: "John Gellin son to Wm baptized September..."
1653/54: Margrett Gellin daught to Will: Webster bapt: March 21st"
1653: "Issable Gellin daught: to Willm Gellin May [blank]"
1655: "[blank] Gellin daught: to Gellin Webster Aug't [blank]".

The latter two appear properly under the proper year title but the first two are both on the third page of the continuous list, with Margrett several entries above John. Just above Margaret is:
1653/54: "William Gellin son to Jo: (milner) bapt March 16th".
But he matches this Burial:
1650/51: "William Gellin infant buried March the 17th"
which is 3 years earlier.

I then looked at all the infant Burials in the well-organized Burial register 1649-53, and discovered that no less than 3 of the infant burials in 1649 are in the bottom half of the third page of baptisms marked "1654", including the John Gelling above.

So beginning with the 3rd entry on page 3 is the year "1654" and all the following entries January to lady-day March are in fact 1650/51, then the rest of the page must be 1649.

The entries starting mid-page2 marked "1653" must be 1650, because Humphrey Tumman baptized Sept 3 was buried as an infant on Sept 5 1650.

Unfortunately there was a dearth of infant burials 1651-52 range, so it was hard to sort it out completely. I'm guessing that Thos Quayle had some loose tattered pages, missing the year heading, that he tried to piece together as best as he could.

One nice result of this, besides being able to sort out the family I was researching, is that the Baptisms begin 1649, not 1651, and that it may be possible to re-do this set of records into a correct sequence.