2. There is also sobriety in the affections when they are moderate. The

objects of this world which come under the affections, are either sinful

and unlawful or in themselves lawful and allowable. Now sobriety towards

the first kind is simple abstinence, towards the second moderation. The

rule of the first is, “Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the

mind” (1 Pet. ii. 11), and, as it was said in another sense, “Touch not,

taste not, handle not.” “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of

darkness,” Eph. v. 11. As a man who would be clean should not touch pitch,

and he who would not be burnt should not carry coals in his bosom, so

ought the child of God, who walked formerly in the lusts of ignorance,

after the custom of this world, to abstain from all appearance of evil (1

Thess. v. 22.), not only from sin itself, but from all the occasions of

it, and inducements unto it, all that which hath any appearance of evil.

There is no measure of moderation here, a man must not think to give his

lusts part, and Christ part. No, he must have all or none. Ye should have

no quarters with sin, ye should be out of speaking terms with it. The

least motion of the affections and heart that way, is insobriety, and

inordinate affections. 3. But sobriety in things lawful is moderation,

when the spirit is kept within bounds, Col. iii. 1, 2. And the rule of

this is that which Paul prescribes, 1 Cor. vii. 29, “Use the world as not

abusing it,” knowing that the fashion of the world doth pass away. Love

this world as if ye loved it not. Every thing hath too much of the heart,

and Jesus Christ would have his royal palace his peculiar place here. He

may have suitable affections to God’s dispensations in this world, (for

the Christian wants none of his senses,) yet he ought not to be “greatly

moved,” as David speaks, Psal. lxii. 2. Now we consider this in three

things, (1) In seeking of any thing; (2) In enjoying of any thing; (3) In

losing or wanting any thing. That rule of Paul’s may be applied to all the

three, he should seek the world as if he sought it not. He should enjoy

the world as if he enjoyed it not. He should want or lose the world as if

he lost it not. This sobriety makes him want, in abundance, and abound, in

want,—to have nothing, and yet possess all things. All our time and pains

and affections are spent out upon these, and turn about on these three

points. Desire, attended with care and anxiety, goes out to fetch in any

thing that the mind fancies. When the soul hath gotten its desire, it

delights and rejoices in it, and when it is frustrated, disappointed, or

crossed, it grieves and torments itself. If ye find a Christian sober in

these, you find his pulse beat well. (1) Ye should then seek the world or

any thing, as if ye sought it not. We are given to idolize the creatures,

and dig broken cisterns, and forsake the fountain of living waters, to

seek the creature as if it were God, and the strength of affections uses

to be spent on it. Men have big and large apprehensions of the things of

this world, and are like foolish children amazed with pictures and dreams.

Fancy busks(506) up and adorns the object with all things suitable, and

thus the poor soul is put in expectation of some thing, and stretcheth out

itself, to the utmost of its ability, to purchase that, which being had

will not satisfy. The world promises fair to deluded minds that know no

better. But the child of God must be sober here. He ought to have a low

estimation of all created things, and conclude all under vanity and

vexation of spirit, Luke x. 41, 42. Sobriety so seeks, that it can want,

because it seeks a better thing that it cannot miss. But the poor

worldling seeks this world as his only thing, and if he want it, what hath

he more? He must have it, or else he hath nothing. The child of God should

seek as a rich man that is satisfied, and needs no more, so that he cares

not whether he obtain or not. The worldlings seek it as their portion,

their heart and affections are on it, but he seeks it not as his portion,

but as an accessory to his inheritance, Matt, vi. 33. Again we observe,

(2.) That the good man uses the world, and enjoys it, as if he enjoyed it

not. When riches increase, he sets not his heart on them. He is dead to

the world, and crucified to it. It is but an unpleasant thing to him, and

he to it. He can be refreshed with his meat more than another, because he

sees God and his love in it, yet he hath it not as his portion. He is not

excessive in gladness for any dispensation cast in the balance, one kind

of dispensation or another. That which would make another man think he was

half in heaven, or half in hell, it will not add much moment and weight to

such a spirit. It is but like the casting in of a feather in a great

balance, that will scarcely incline it to either side. (3) He loses or

wants(507) the world, as if he lost it not. That which would break another

man’s heart, sobriety will make him go light under, and not be much

disquieted for any thing. Why, what is the matter of it? Can it trouble

his peace or access to God? Can his portion be removed? What, then, should

ail him, for the light of God’s countenance is more recompense than all

the world? Proceed we now to apply this in some uses.

Use I. It discovers unto the most part of men how little they are advanced

in Christianity. Many are insober in the use of the world, and what must

their affections be? The works of darkness, that become not the children

of God nor the children of the day, are yet common in the visible church.

Insobriety in many is palpable, and written on their forehead. That

beastly sin of drunkenness abounds in many congregations. But II. We would

even convince the Lord’s own children of great short coming in this duty.

Although your carriage before men might pass free of censure of

insobriety, yet O! how many things will God put such a construction on!

There are many saints that cannot walk soberly in the use of this world.

They spend their time upon it, and this is insobriety. Scarce can prayer

and communion with God get an hour in the day from their calling, and when

ye have to spend, insobriety is written upon many passages of your

behaviour. Your meat, and drink, and clothing, should declare that ye are

waiting for a better inheritance. But O! how are your affections wedded

unto this present world! The current and stream of many of your thoughts

go this way, what shall I eat or drink, or what shall I put on for

clothing? And ye spend your spirits in projecting, and in following out

your projects. There are some evident demonstrations of insobriety in the

affections. For, (1) Most of your thoughts run upon temporal things and

certainly if your hearts were not in this world, your minds would follow

your hearts. Christians, too many amongst you spend whole days, and never

any object enters into your minds but one thing of the world after

another. Your minds are highways for the travellers of this world to come

through. It may be ye will steal an hour, or half an hour for prayer, but

the rest of your conversation is not in heaven, but void of God. According

as every hour furnishes new opportunities, so are your minds here, Phil.

iii. 20. And meditation upon spiritual things, that is the nerves and

sinews of religion, that is a rare thing. If your affections were not more

upon this world than upon Christ Jesus, would not our Saviour be uppermost

in your thoughts? Would not Christ interrupt your thoughts of the world?

Would not heaven come in the midst of your business, and get a spare look

and ejaculation? The world uses to interrupt your thoughts of God, and the

mind is given to wander in prayer. But put you upon something temporal, ye

can fix your heart as long as you please, and never wander. David was not

so. He awaked, and was still with God. He meditates upon him in the night

watches. He remembers him day and night, (Psal. lxiii. 8) and this made

him a lively Christian. But, (2) If ye be seeking any thing, ye seek it

so, as insobriety is stamped upon it. Your seeking of the world is

prejudicial to your seeking of God, and takes away much time for prayer.

Ye will be so eager in the pursuit of a momentary passing vanity, as ever

ye were in the seeking of God, Col. iii. 1, 2. Care and anxiety comes in

to be your provision, and ye put not prayer in the place of it, to make

your requests known unto God. Ye seek it as if it were your portion and

inheritance, surely this is insobriety. (3) Look upon your affections

toward present enjoyments, and are ye sober? Ye can delight in these

things, and take the sweetness of them, but the consolations of God are a

small thing to you. Any thing adds to your joy and lifts you up. Albeit ye

be not in good terms with God, yet ye can take your pleasure in the world.

Ye see not a worm and moth in your pleasures, ye are not afraid to fill

your belly with honey. Some think themselves made up when they get such a

lot. But saints, are ye sober when such a thing changes your condition? O

but the children of God look upon this world as David did in his fretting

condition, (Psal. xxxviii.) and in his prosperous condition, Psal. xxx. Ye

sit down and say, “My mountain stands strong, and I shall never be moved.”

Ye have more delight in your outward lot than ever ye had in Jesus Christ.

But, (4) When any outward thing goes cross to your mind, then your

insobriety appears. The taking(508) of a sad and cross dispensation will

evidence how ye sought the world. The taking away of a friend or idol,

will declare ye idolized it. As the saints have too longing desires for

the things of this world, and look upon them as the paradise of God, not

as Paul did, who thought the world a dead thing, so remove any thing that

ye enjoy, and your joy is taken from you. Give you something for which you

pray, your sorrow is away, and ye can no more mourn for sin; and take

something away, and your joy is gone, ye cannot delight in God. Ye vex and

disquiet yourselves in vain, and are weighed down with it. Are ye not then

under the feet of this present world, when it tramples upon you? Are ye

not servants unto it, when your condition altereth and changeth according

to the nod of outward things? Ye may know what puts you up and down that

commands you, and this is not sobriety. Ye are drunk with the creature.

The child of God should be like mount Zion, that can never be moved.

Therefore,

III. We would exhort all the saints to study more sobriety in this world.

We need no more exhortation than what Paul gives, 1 Cor. vii. 29. It is a

strange language, saints, “Set not your affections upon the things of this

earth, but on the things which are above,” Col. iii. 1, 2. “Love not the

world, nor the things of the world,” &c., 1 John ii. 15-17. Ye ought to

study such a walk abstracted from this world, that ye might be as

strangers at home, as sojourners in your own country. The child of God

should sit down in his own family among his children, as if he were

abroad, and he ought to be abroad, as if he were at home. Wherefore your

life is called a pilgrimage, and ye strangers. Engage not much your heart

to any thing of this world. Take but a standing drink and be gone, ye may

not lay down your staff and burden, that his may bear you right. (1)

Consider that insobriety is idolatry. Insobriety puts the creature in

God’s place, and sobriety puts all things in their own place. When a man’s

heart or affections are set on any thing, that is his idol and his master,

and Christ says, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” (Matt. vi. 24) these

two masters. Sure the worldling thinks not that he serves his riches, yet

Christ puts that construction upon his loving them well, Christ calls any

thing that is a man’s master his god. Now, any thing that the heart goes

after is a man’s master. That which commands a man’s affections commands

the whole man, for the affections are the man’s master, and they command

the man. If ye knew this, ye would be afraid of spending your hearts upon

vanity; ye put that vanity in the place of Jesus Christ, and so your heart

is a temple of idols, and the great gospel promise (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26)

hath not gotten place in you. The due place of the creature is to be

subservient to the Lord its Maker, to be only the footstool, that he may

have the throne. True insobriety puts the creature upon the throne, and

worships it. (2) Insobriety or love to the world hinders the love of God,

as much as is added to the one, is taken from the other, 1 John ii. 15. If

the love of the world have one gram weight of allowance more than Christ

speaks of, that is incompatible with the love of the Father. The creature

will suffer a parting of affection, and will be content with a share, like

the harlot and false mother that would be content with the divided child;

but God must have all or none, and will not share with the creature. Ye

may find it by experience when your hearts have been much set upon any

thing in this world, Christ Jesus has not been so pleasant to you, ye have

not so much delight in him. Affection must run in the channel, or it is

but weak, if once ye divide the streams. The love of the world makes the

heart carnal, it is the defilement of the whole soul, and a weight that

easily besets us, that it cannot mount up in a cloud of divine affection

to Jesus. Can the needle go to two contrary points both at once? Can it

move to the north and the south at the same time? Such an opposition is

there between the Father, and the things of the world. If then ye turn

your face on the creature, ye must turn your back upon God. Think not,

Christians, to keep love entire to God, and to set your affections on the

world. Solomon’s backsliding had this false principle, he thought to

retain his integrity, and his wisdom should abide with him, though he

would try folly and madness, Eccles. vii. 23. But did he not grow more

foolish? Did he retain his wisdom? Many have come down from their

excellence by this presumption. (3) Insobriety is the world’s sin. It is

the sin of the days of your ignorance, when ye walked after the lusts of

the Gentiles, and it is a shame for a child of God to be so. This

duty(509) is opposed to their former walking, verses 3d and 4th. There

should be a great distance between you and the world, that ye may seem men

of diverse countries. Though ye dwell in one city or in one house, ye

ought so to walk as men may think it strange, as it may be, a wonder in

the world. O but few Christians give the worldly men occasion to speak of

them for holiness, few give them any ground for wondering at and mocking

their conversation! Your conversation is so like theirs, that they need

not think any thing in it strange. Is it not a shame, saints, to be like

pagans? Christ uses such an argument with his disciples to dissuade them

from carnal carefulness, Matt. vi. 32. Sobriety is a work of the day

becoming a child of light, as Paul observes, 1 Thess. v. 4-9, importing as

much as if it were a shame for the Christian to be found much in love with

the world, as it is for a man to be drunk at nine in the morning and

staggering in the streets. There ought to be as great a difference between

you and the world, as there is between day and night, light and darkness.

Since the true light hath shined, to discover a more excellent happiness

than the world can give, and since it hath concluded all under vanity, ye

are not answerable to your holy calling to have it in any higher

estimation. Consider also, (4) That the world is not your portion. Your

life consists not in what you enjoy, your inheritance is above, reserved

in the heavens for you. Therefore be sober. If ye believed this, that one

day ye shall put on white robes, and be clothed with immortality, would ye

so pursue after the world? It is the world’s portion, and let them who

know no better seek it as their god, and love it as their inheritance; but

fie upon believers, that have a hope laid up in heaven, and fixed as an

anchor within the vail. Should ye cause your portion to be evil spoken of,

by your groping so much after this present world? If ye walked right ye

should torment the world, and oblige them to be convinced that ye seek a

city to come, and that ye despise all their enjoyments. But, (5)

Insobriety becomes not a reasonable soul and is very unbeseeming a

Christian, even so is it to every man. Are ye not better, says Christ,

than many sparrows? Is not the life more than meat? Matt. vi. 25, Luke

xii. 23, 24. So we may say, Is not the soul better than the perishing

creature? O it is the disgrace and debasement of an immortal spirit to be

put under the feet of a piece of clay, to be subjected to vanity, and to

the poor perishing things of the world. If a man but knew himself, and his

natural prerogative above the creatures, let be(510) his Christian

privileges, he would despise the world, and think all that is in it not a

satisfying portion for his spirit. He would count it a great disparagement

to lodge upon this side of infiniteness and divine fulness. Would ye not

think it a base thing to see a king’s son sitting down among beggars, and

puddling in the filth of the city? God made man to have lordship and

pre-eminence over the creatures, and his spirit shall outlive all these

things he sees, and looks to, and what a dishonour must it be to spend an

immortal spirit on vanity, to have no eye beyond the span of time? As

Christ said, “What hath a man gained, if he lose his own soul?” What gain

ye in this world, though all things should befall you according to your

contentment, what gain ye, since ye prostitute an immortal soul unto the

service of the world, and have made it, to the prince of the world and all

things, a servant and slave?

Sermon XXI.

1 Pet. iv. 7.—“And watch unto prayer.”

“Watch.” A Christian should watch. A Christian is a watchman by office.

This duty of watchfulness is frequently commanded and commended in

scripture, Matt. xxiv. 42, Mark xiii. 33, 1 Cor. xvi. 13, Eph. vi. 18, 1

Pet. v. 8, Col. iv. 2; Luke xii. 37. David did wait as they that did watch

for the morning light. The ministers of the gospel are styled watchmen in

scripture and every Christian should be to himself as a minister is to his

flock, he should watch over himself. This imports the Christian’s

condition in this world, and expresses his exercise in it. Watching is a

military posture, and insinuates the Christian’s case in this world. He is

compassed about with enemies, and therefore he must be a soldier, 2 Tim.

ii. 3. “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus

Christ.” The Christian hath a warfare to accomplish in this world, and

therefore the church here is militant, and in heaven triumphant, 1 Tim. i.

18. Every Christian should war a good warfare, holding faith and a good

conscience. What is the reason that when Christ triumphed upon the cross,

and conquered all his enemies, and is ascended on high, that he hath not

made all believers conquerors? Is the man that sits with Christ in

heavenly places, (Eph. ii. 6) and he who was dead with Christ, and also

risen with him, is he yet a soldier, when Christ hath overcome, and gotten

the crown? And the believer, hath he not the victory that Christ obtained?

Why then is he put to fight any more? Hath not Christ completely done it?

Yes indeed, Christ hath overcome by his own strength, (Col. ii. 15) and is

now on high, yet he will have the poor pieces of contemptible clay to

overcome the Archangel,(511) the immortal spirits. It was not so much for

the prince Gabriel,(512) the messenger of the covenant, the King of

saints, to overcome his own creature, but he hath drawn out a battle and

warfare to all his followers, that, in the strength of their victory in

him already past, they may be made more than conquerors, and that there

may be a perpetual song of triumph and victory in heaven, he hath made the

saints strong, and hath made the strong weak. He hath set the poor with

princes, and the kings on the dunghill. The Christian’s heart and grace

are like a besieged city, that is blocked up upon every hand, there are

enemies without, and false friends within. Its party is great

principalities and powers, &c. (Eph. vi. 12) and these go about

continually to spy a breach. In the city, what strength can do, what

policy can do, will not be wanting. All things of the world besiege the

heart, and every sense is a port to let the enemy in. All a man’s

negotiation and trading in the world, is as dangerous as the proclaiming a

public market in a town, for the country, while the enemy is about it.

There is a desperate wicked heart within, that hath deceived many

thousands, and would surrender the city upon any occasion. Here are

fleshly lusts which war against the soul, (1 Pet. ii. 11) temptation to

sin, and to unbelief. There is a heart within that can conceive and bring

forth sin, and needs no temptation, a heart within that can seduce

temptation itself, but it follows the tempter and when to all that a

foreign power is added, Oh then, who can stand? Christ himself was

tempted, but Satan found nothing in him, and had nothing in him, but when

Satan comes he finds all in us, and we are like powder to conceive flame.

We can even tempt ourselves, as well as be tempted by another. The

Christian keeps a house that the enemy surrounds, and if he sleep he will

enter, he is here a pilgrim, and is not yet come home, yet he hath a foul

and dangerous way to go through. He is like a servant that his lord hath

left, and given provision to, and is to come home when he pleases, Mark

xiii. 33, Matt. xxiv. 32. If his master find him sleeping, woe to him.

This is his case. What then should his exercise and posture be? He should

be a watchman. (1) Watching is opposed to security and sleeping, Matt.

xxiv. 42, Mark xii. 33. He must keep his eyes open, or else he is gone, (1

Pet. v. 8) be vigilant, lest the devil attack him. The sluggard’s

destruction comes as an armed man, because of his “little sleep” and

slumber, Prov. vi. 10, and Prov. xx. 13. Security is the Christian’s

night, when he ceases from his labour, and the adversary does with him

according to his pleasure. But the Christian is in a better condition when

he is wrestling with temptation, and getting sore blows. When he is at

peace and dwells securely, as the people of Laish, he troubles himself

with nothing, but dreams over his days, but that is a decaying condition.

(2) To watch, is to observe all things, 1 Sam. iv. 13, Luke vi. 7. This is

a special point of the watchman’s duty, to let nothing pass by without

observation, whatever object would come in, to ask at it from whence, and

whither. The heart is a highway side that all things travel through. If

the Christian then be not exact in this to know what comes in, and what is

its errand, he may be surprised or he know. He should observe all the

motions of the enemy, and be well acquainted with all the subtleties of

temptations. He must know his own spirit, or his thoughts, he should also

observe all the Lord’s motions and dealings with his spirit. It concerns

him also to know what is his enemy or friend. Therefore the Christian

should get upon the watch tower of the word, and look through the

prospect(513) of faith round about him, that he may know what his

spiritual condition is. But, (3) The watchman gives warning while it is

seasonable, and the enemy far off. He raises the alarm, and all must be in

readiness. So ought ye to be. Come to Jesus Christ with all ye observe,

inform the Captain of your salvation whose soldiers you are. It is best

dealing with temptation far off, and resisting the first motions of sin,

for when it comes near hand, it gets many friends within, and it is the

watchman’s part not to give his judgment of what he sees, but to report

only. Do not ye sit down to pass the sentence on any thing, whether it be

good or evil, sin or not, but come unto Jesus, and let him speak, for

oftentimes we reason according to flesh and blood. (4) There must be no

interruption in this watching. He must give diligent heed to it, Mark

xiii. 33, 1 Thess. v. 6. It is a very laborious exercise for a Christian

to watch, all his senses will be exercised by it. He must look up, and

that steadfastly, he must stand, and when he hath done all, to stand. When

he hath overcome he must yet watch, lest he enter into temptation. He is

in greater hazard after victory than before, Ezra vi. 13. He must watch

when he is come out of one temptation lest he enter into another. The

greatest disadvantage that armies have gotten hath been after some

victory, when they were secure. Therefore we ought to give all diligence,

and love not sleep, lest we come into poverty.

From what hath been said, (1) We see how few are in a warlike posture

against Satan. Many serve under Satan’s colours, and the strong man keeps

the house. They watch not against him, but for him, they fight for him,

and not against him. Do not many Christians, in profession, even watch for

their sin, how to encompass what they would be at? Many wait on all

advantages to get their own heart’s desires, they watch against God’s

word, to hold out conviction. These are the children of darkness, in whom

the devil reigns. We also observe from this, (2) That even the children of

God are seldom found watching. There is much woful security among them and

this is the universal complaint, who of you walks as if you were among

enemies? Ye walk as if ye were in a peaceable city without gates, as the

people of Laish, who dwelt securely. Ye have no friend in all the world,

and yet what unspeakable negligence and sleeping is there among you? The

flesh is so weak, that ye cannot watch but one hour for Christ. And O! but

the intermission of one hour’s watching hath brought down many strong

ones. This made a breach upon David that could hardly be made up for ever

again. From the words, (3) We observe, that prayer is a part of a good

Christian’s exercise. We may be ashamed to speak or hear of this duty.

It is true, indeed, our religion is all compendized in this duty. Yet this

duty is so little in practice, that our religion must be but little. We

would, then, speak somewhat of prayer, and observe,

1. That it is the distinguishing character of a Christian in scripture.

The child of God, and the man that calls upon God’s name, is all one and

the same thing. The wicked man’s name is one that calls not upon God, nor

seeks him, but the godly call upon their Maker, Acts ix. 11, 1 Cor. i. 2.

All the saints in scripture have been praying men. The wicked, or natural

man, is not an indigent man, he wants nothing, and therefore seeks nothing

from God, but the Christian is one who hath nothing in himself, a beggar

by birth, one that is cast out into the open field, and he is still

seeking to make up his losses. Praying and wanting goes hand in hand

together. Prayer then is the first breathing of the new man. What sign of

life would ye know him by? Motion is an infallible sign of life and this

is the motion of the new creature. Prayer is the stirring of the soul, and

going out of itself for bread, it is the sucking of the breasts of

consolation. Grace turns a man’s face God-ward and Christ-ward. 2. Prayer

is the pouring out of an indigent man’s heart in God’s bosom. It is the

emptying of the soul, and the landing of it on God’s lee shore, Psal. cii.

2, 1 Sam. i. 10, Psal. cxlii. 2, &c. When a pious heart is overwhelmed and

sore disquieted, it prays. Prayer emptieth the vessel, and brings the soul

above the water again. It is a present ease in the time of trouble. Care

and anxiety of spirit plunge the soul over the ears, but prayer brings it

again unto dry land, Phil. iv. 6. Care burns and drowns a man’s requests,

but prayer makes them known to God in every circumstance of life.

Therefore prayer is called a “making known our requests unto God,” and

“the lifting up of our souls unto God,” Psal. xxv. 1, 2. But, 3. Prayer is

the provision of a soul, for it is sufficient to do that which carefulness

and thoughtfulness undertake to do, and effectuate not, Phil. iv. 6.

Prayer does all a man’s business. He lives by prayer, as Paul lived by

Christ living in him, &c. Gal. ii. 20. He lived the natural life of a

Christian by faith. So David says, “I gave myself unto prayer,” he opposes

this unto all that his enemies do against him. Not only doth it ease the

spirit of the present burden, but prayer does all his business, because it

puts it over into a better hand, viz., the hand of him who cares for us, 1

Pet. v. 6. It is like a child who is under his father’s tutory,(514) and

he does nothing himself, but all is done for him, and he needs to do no

more but ask, and have, to seek, and find, to knock, and it shall be

opened unto him. Prayer hath the promise of all spiritual and valuable

blessings, and the promise is true. 4. Prayer speaks a life of indigence

and dependence in the creature, and also speaks out the attributes of God,

for the supply of all our need, sovereignty, bounty, and good will in God.

It is the travelling of the poor creature between his own emptiness and

God’s all sufficient fulness. It acknowledges that he hath nothing, and

that God hath all things he can desire to make him happy. Prayer is an act

of homage and subjection to our Creator, and it is also an act of love and

reverence, for prayer looks upon God, as a Lord, a Father, and a Master.

5. Prayer is the pulse of a Christian, and here ye may find him. If he be

vigorous and frequent here, he is well, a decay in this is a woful symptom

of a dangerous and dwining(515) condition. This is the fountain of the

spirit of life, and the Spirit’s breath. For the Spirit helps our

infirmities with groans which cannot be uttered, (Rom. viii. 26, 27) and

according as the Spirit of God dwells in a man, in so far is he a good

Christian. If, then, ye would ask how ye should walk here, and thrive in

true Christianity, we would only say this, pray fervently and without

ceasing. Pray and prosper, and daily be strong, and the Lord shall be with

you. He will never fail nor forsake you. Again, consider, 6. That prayer

is not so much a duty as a privilege, and if saints knew this, prayer

would not so often be a burden unto them. Is there any privilege like

this? For prayer is an admission into the secrets of God, it is an

emptying of the heart into his bosom. It is a great part of our

correspondence with heaven. It is a swift messenger sent thither, that

never comes back with ill news. It never returns empty, but accomplishes

its intent. Prayer is as it were speaking with God face to face, as a man

speaks to his friend, and is it not an honourable privilege, that

believers are admitted to him, and may boldly come to him under all their

necessities, and have such a sympathizing friend as Jesus? What is

wonderful in scripture is, that God hath put that honour upon prayer to be

instrumental in obtaining the greatest blessings. Did not the Lord, at the

prayer of Moses, dry up the Red sea? Did he not, at the prayer of Elias,

withhold and give rain? Did not the prayer of Joshua make the sun to stand

still, till he had vanquished his enemies? Wherefore was all this? Could

he not have done it unasked? Certainly, but the Lord would put that honour

and respect upon prayer in all ages, that it might be a demonstration to

all ages and generations, how ready and propense(516) God was to hear

prayer. Nay, to speak with reverence, God will submit his own omnipotence

to prayer. Command, ask of me, and command me, says the high and holy One,

Isa. xlv. 11. O but “the effectual fervent prayer” of the righteous avails

much, 1 James v. 16. It does a man’s business, and upon less expenses; it

gives a reward in the hand, and the hope of the things sought. Withal,

prayer is like Jacob’s getting that within doors, without much toil, which

careful Esau goes about all the fields for, and toils all day to obtain.

Prayer is the most compendious way of remedy of all things else. It always

makes up losses either of the same kind, or better; for if the loss be

temporal, if the want be bodily, prayer makes it up with access unto God.

It pays in gold. If it give not the same coin, yet it is better.

We have spoken something of prayer for this end, that your hearts may fall

in love with it. It is the property of a sincere upright man, that he

calls always upon God, whereas the hypocrite will not always do it. Count,

then, yourselves as much Christians as ye find of the spirit of prayer and

supplication in you; for those that call not on God, their portion is very

terrible. God will pour out his wrath upon them. God’s face is set against

such as do not pray. And I believe the multitude of this visible kirk have

this brand upon their face, they call not upon God. God hath taken this

character to himself, “the hearer of prayer,” and those who mock at it,

their judgment hasteneth, their damnation slumbereth not.

Sermon XXII.

1 Pet. iv. 7.—“Be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.”

We now come to consider the coherence and connexion these duties have one

to another. _First_, Prayer is the principal part of the Christian’s

employment, and sobriety and watchfulness are subordinate to it. “Be

sober, and watch unto prayer.” (1.) Prayer is such a tender thing that

there is necessity of dieting the spirit unto it. That prayer may be in

good health, a man must keep a diet and be sober, sobriety conduces so

much to its well-being, and insobriety makes prayer fail. Prayer respects

a wholesome Christian at his best estate. (2.) Because prayer that is well

in itself must have much divine affection in it, that may be the wings of

it to rise upon, the oil that may keep the flame, James v. 16. Now

insobriety is the moth of divine affection. The love of this world eats

out the love of God and spiritual things; as much as the one goes up the

other goes down, like the contrary points, 1 John ii. 15. Vehement desires

would be a cloud of incense to carry the petition up unto heaven; but the

love of this world scatters it, pours water upon the heart, and makes it

neither to conceive heat nor flame. To be carnally minded is death, both

here and hereafter, Rom. viii. 5-7. It is death to duties, it kills the

spiritual life of the soul. Insobriety is carnal-mindedness, and minding

of the flesh, so that a man hath no more taste of Jesus Christ than the

white of an egg. It quite distempers his taste, and makes that only

savoury which is like itself, and all other things bitter. But, (3.)

Prayer must have hope in it. For how shall a man pray if he hope not to

come speed? If he maintain not a lively hope, he will cool in his

petitions. Insobriety is not consistent with hope to the end, 1 Pet. i.

17. He that would hope to the end must lift up his garments that hang

side, and take a lick(517) of every thing by the way; he must not let them

hang down, but gird up his affections with the girdle of truth and

sobriety. We observe, (4.) That prayer must come out of a pure heart, and

God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, John iv. 23, 24; 2 Tim. ii.

22. Insobriety makes an unclean heart; the lusts of the flesh, and the

love of the world defile the spirit, and makes it to send forth impure

streams. (5.) There cannot be lodging for the Spirit where there is much

love to the world. This grieves the Spirit, and makes him depart from us,

and so a man is best to express his own groans, or to have none at all,

which is worse. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, and the

Spirit must have a clean house; ye must touch no unclean thing, if you

would have God to receive you into the holy adoption of his children. (6.)

Prayer cannot thrive where faith is not in a good condition. For faith

purifies the heart which sends out prayer, 1 Tim. i. 6; Acts xv. 9; 2 Tim.

ii. 22; and O! but insobriety makes an ill conscience; and faith and a

good conscience scarce sail in one bottom.(518) Both fall and stand

together. How then can the soul look that Holy One in the face whose eyes

are pure, and cannot look upon iniquity but with abhorrence? how can it

look upon his holiness, when it hath been going a-whoring after the world,

and forsaking the fountain of living waters? In a word, the heart that is

not dead to this present world, will neither pray much nor well; for the

heart is otherwise taken up, hath not many wants to spread before God, nor

room for spiritual things. The creature gives him no leave to come to God.

O but communion with God is a tender thing, and subject to many

alterations and changes of weather! A little more mirth than is needful

will indispose us for prayer. A little more sadness than is within bounds

will also indispose us for this duty. Carefulness and anxiety cannot pray.

Therefore it concerns all the saints to keep their hearts with all

diligence, to keep themselves unspotted from the world. If ye would keep

yourselves in speaking terms with God, ye must not entertain the creature

too much. Any excess in your affections will divert the current of them,

that they shall not run towards God. And next, ye see a solid reason why

ye are so little in prayer, and keep not a praying temper, because ye are

too liberal and lavish of your affections upon the world. Christians, how

can ye pray, when your affections are upon the things of the earth? Will

ye seek heavenly things, or care much for communion with God, when a

present world is so much in your eye? Prayer must be wersh(519) and

unsavoury when the world is sweet; and religion turns a compliment, when

your hearts are here. Prayer is a special point of your conversation in

heaven, and the love of this world keeps your hearts beneath heaven. Your

treasure is here, and your hearts can be nowhere else willingly. Ye must

then be mortified to the world before ye can pray aright. But we would

likewise consider,

_Secondly_, That sobriety is a great furtherance to watching, and

therefore they are usually joined together, 1 Pet. v. 8; 1. Thess. v. 6-9.

This is clear. For if a man be not sober, but drink too much of the

creature’s sweetness, or bitterness, till he lose his feet, he cannot

watch, and the enemy will make invasion when he sleeps. Sobriety is the

mother of security. A surfeit of any thing indisposes the body for any

action. When the mind goes without the bounds of moderation, and stretches

its Christian liberty beyond the bounds of edification, it cannot hold

waking, a little sleep and slumber overtakes, till poverty and destruction

come like an armed man. (2.) When a man hath drunk to excess of the

creature and hath his heart engaged to it, he is in an incapacity to

discern a friend from an enemy; whatever comes in with his predominant or

idol will get fair quarters; though it may be, it will betray him. The

love of the world when it stands centry at a man’s heart, will keep out

true friends. It will hold out Jesus Christ and spiritual things, all that

seems to come in contrary terms with itself, and will let in the enemy

that will destroy the soul. (3.) Insobriety entangles a man with the

snares of the world, and so he cannot be a good soldier of Jesus. I think

the conjunction here is expressed more fully, 2 Tim. ii. 2-4. The good

soldier of Jesus Christ that wars a good warfare, must not entangle

himself with the affairs of this life. He must be sober in the use of all

things, or else he cannot be faithful to his master; he will be about his

own business when he should be watching. He will not only labour to please

the Captain of his salvation, Jesus, but he has many other things to

please besides: and if any of his too kind friends come to speak with him,

he will leave his duty and go apart with them, the watchman’s office will

take him up nothing beside. But the insober man cannot give himself wholly

to it. Because his idols cry upon him, he will prefer his pleasures before

his credit and honesty. Therefore, as ye would not expose your souls and

all ye have, to the will of temptation, be sober. The devil hath gotten

his will of a man that he can force to lie down with the creature, and

sleep in its bosom. If once Satan can gild up the world in your eyes, and

represent it amiable, and cause high and big apprehensions of it, O, ye

are in the greatest hazard from the world of being overcome wholly by it!

That was the temptation Satan sought to prevail with Christ by, but he

found nothing in him. If the devil hath taken thee up to a mountain to see

the glory of the world, and make you fancy a pleasant life here-away,(520)

take heed of it, for ye will drink drunk,(521) and forget yourselves, and

will not discern between good and evil.

_Thirdly_. Prayer must be watched unto. We must not only pray, but

continue “instant in prayer,” Rom. xii. 12. We must “continue in prayer,

and watch in the same with thanksgiving,” Col. iv. 2. It is a strange

expression, and familiar in scripture, Eph. vi. 18. O what a strange word

is it! It is either very needless, or else imports the unspeakable

necessity of prayer. “Praying always,” what needed more? But we must pray

with all manner of “prayer and supplication in the Spirit;” and more yet,

“watching thereunto;” and to express the superlative degree of the

necessity of prayer, he adds “with all perseverance.” Since the words at

the first view do speak infinitely more than we practise, let many a

Christian express their own practice and set it down beside this verse,

and blush and be ashamed. The most part of you behoved to speak thus, I

pray sometimes morning and evening, when I have nothing to do. And is this

praying always, and watching thereunto with all perseverance? To watch

unto prayer we conceive speaks these things.

I. To observe all opportunities, occasions, and advantages of prayer,—to

be glad of getting any occasion to sit down and pray. It is to seek out

occasions and to be waiting for them. Too many use to excuse themselves

easily that their other employments take them up, and they think on this

account they may omit prayer with a good conscience, as ministers, busied

about their calling, and at their book, think it no omission that they

pray not often. But alas, is this watching unto prayer? Ye should be as

men lying in wait upon some good opportunity to take hold of it. Prayer

would hinder no business of that kind, but much further it. Prayer would

be the compendious way of it. Ye used not to be challenged when ye get not

a commodity(522) to pray; but do ye seek opportunity when it is not

offered? Do ye look after a retiring place, and withdraw from company,

when ye cannot pray with company? This were indeed watching unto prayer.

But watching unto prayer will make men sometimes uncivil (so to speak,

that which it may be would be called uncivility). It will be a very

pressing necessity that will draw away the time of prayer, no compliment

should hinder you to go to it. If ye got a corner alone, that would invite

a man that watches unto prayer. He even seeks it when he finds it not

offering itself. The watcher unto prayer will steal much of his time from

others, and other employments, and he will not spend time unnecessarily.

II. To watch unto prayer is to accept willingly of all occasions and

opportunities offered. O! if such a man find a corner, but it will be

seasonable and sweet unto him. If he have nothing to do, and knows not how

to pass his time, then he conceives he is called to prayer, and to keep

communion with God. But how many opportunities have ye, and what advantage

make ye of them? Ye have time and place convenient, all the day or much of

it, and yet ye content yourselves with an ordinary set diet. Sure this is

not watching. Watching unto prayer would make all emergent occasions

welcome, ye would not have any impulse of the Spirit and motion to pray,

but ye would follow it, and be led by the Spirit to your duty. Ye would

not hear of any rare passage of providence, or any of God’s dispensations

towards yourselves, and other saints, but you would think it a good call

to pray and make the right use and improvement of it.

III. To watch unto prayer is to observe all the impediments of prayer, all

the enemies of that precious thing prayer, that ye ought to keep as the

apple of your eye. Whatever ye find by experience prejudicial unto prayer,

mark that. What indisposes the spirit and makes it carnal, mark that. What

fills you with confusion and astonishment, and what hinders the liberty of

your delighting in God, and rejoicing in his promises, mark that; and set

yourselves against these. O but many Christians find liberal discoursing,

and much mirth, prejudicial to the Spirit’s temper, and yet who watches

against it?

IV. Watch over your hearts that ye may keep a praying temper, and be still

in speaking terms with God. And if ye would still keep a praying temper,

1. Be frequent and often in the meditation of God. Keep yourselves in his

presence, as before him, that ye may walk under the sight of his eye,

Psal. cxix. 168; Psal. cxxxix. 1-7. Stealing out of God’s sight makes the

heart bold to sin. The temper of the heart is but like the heat of iron,

that keeps not when it is out of the fire, or like the melting of wax. If

ye be out of God’s sight your hearts will close. But, 2. Let no object

come through your mind without examination of it. Let not your heart be a

highway for all. If a good motion enter, entertain it, and let it not die

out. Give it up to God, that he may cherish it. 3. Repel not any motion of

the Spirit, but entertain it. There are three things ye would watch over,

as, (1.) Yourselves, your own hearts, Prov. iv. 23, &c. ye must keep your

heart, and it keeps all. (2.) Watch over your duty, Luke viii. 18. (3.)

The time of Christ’s coming, his second coming to judgment, Matt. xxiv.

42; Mark xiii. 33. So did David wait and watch till the Lord should

return, Psal. cxxx. 5, 6. So did Job wait all the days of his appointed

time, till his change came. Now, Christians, where are ye? Is not your

practice your shame? It is one among a thousand professors that can be

noted for much praying. Who among you can get this commendation that the

Holy Ghost gives to Anna, she served God with fasting and prayer night and

day? Your morning and evening are the limits of your duty, and it is

almost an heresy to go beyond that. Is there any tender well-doing

Christian in scripture, but he prayed much? This made David so exemplary,

and hath not Jesus Christ gone before you, (Heb. v. 7.) to lead the way?

O! but Christ’s praying so often in the days of his flesh, and making

supplication with strong cries, is a crying witness against the sloth of

Christians in this generation. Both people and pastor, how should ye be

ashamed? Hath Jesus prayed so long and often, and should not the poor

followers, indigent beggars, be all in supplication? The Christian should

name himself as David did, “I gave myself to prayer.” Many a man sits down

to his employment and prays not much, because he hath gifts and abilities.

But so did not Christ, who was able to save, yet he prayed and went about

the Father’s work with dependence upon him. And O that ministers would

seek all from heaven immediately, and people seek it from heaven also!

Think ye that the Spirit will take twice a-day for praying always, and set

times for watching thereunto? No, no, we think there is little of this

practised in this generation.

Now we come to the reason that is added in the text, “the end of all

things is at hand;” that is, the day of the Lord is at hand. Christ Jesus,

who was once here offered for sins, shall again appear without sin, unto

salvation, unto them who look and wait for his appearance; and he shall

put an end to all these things, either to themselves, by consuming them,

or to the use of them. All that ye now dote upon is perishing, and it is

not far hence that ye shall see the world in a flame, and all that ye

spend your spirits on; and Jesus Christ shall bring salvation to his own

saints, therefore be sober and watch. But how is it that the end is said

to be at hand? Are not many generations passed since this word was spoken?

It is almost two thousand years since, and yet Peter spake of it, and

Christ spake of this day, as at hand. Sure it must be nearer us now than

it was then. The day of the Lord is at hand: I. Because if we would count

years as God doth, we would call the world but of one week’s standing, for

God counts a thousand years as but one day, 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9. The world

thinks he is slack concerning his promise, and asks, “Where is the promise

of his coming?” But believers, think not ye so, reckon years according to

the duration of the Ancient of days, and by faith see the Lord’s day at

your hand, as it were to-morrow still. But, II. It is not without special

reason that the New Testament speaks of all the time from Christ’s coming

to the end, as the last time, as it were but one age or generation

immediately preceding the great day, as if the day of judgment were to be,

or this generation of the earth would pass. It is of great use to us,

because the Lord would have believers in the last age of the world come to

some great pitch of mortification and deadness to the world, and hope of

immortality, than has been come to before. He would have them be as men

waiting for the Bridegroom, and this their exercise,—every one in his

generation standing with his loins girded, and his shoes put on ready for

the journey, and his lamp in his hand, Luke xii. 37; Mark xiii.; Matt.

xxv. He would have all walking as if the day of judgment were to-morrow,

as if the King of saints were now entering into the city, and all

believers should go out to meet him as their King bringing salvation.

This then is the posture of the world, all things are near run, the

fashion of this world passes away, 1 Cor. vii. 29: and the same

exhortation is here pressed. This then, I say, is the state all things ye

see are in, it is their old age. The creation now is an old rotten house,

that is all dropping through, and leaning to the one side. The creature is

now subject to vanity and groaning, Rom. viii. 21, 22. The day is not far

hence, that this habitable world must be consumed, and O! but many a man’s

god and idol will then be burnt to ashes. 2 Pet. iii. 10-12, “The heavens

shall pass away with a great noise,” &c. God hath suffered men to live

long in this world, that they might come to repentance, and he hath kept

it so long for the elect’s sake. If it had not been for them, the world

should not be unburied till six hours at night;(523) but when he hath

gathered in all the election, then shall an end be put to all the

administrations of kingdoms, all governments, all nations. Think ye that

God had so much respect to the world, or to the kings of it? No, he would

put an end to all the kingdoms of the world, and never let them make their

testament, if the elect were completed. If Christ were completed, there

would be no marrying or giving in marriage, no more food and raiment, no

more laws and government, all your fair lands and buildings must go to the

fire. Now ask the question that Peter asks, “Seeing all things shall be

dissolved, what manner of conversation ought ye to have?” And here it is

answered, “Be sober, and watch unto prayer.” Ask at Paul, and he will tell

you, (1 Cor. vii. 29, 30, 31.) “The time is short,” what remains then, but

that he that marries be as they who marry not, they that weep as they that

wept not, &c. So then here is the duty of those who look for Christ’s

second coming; Christ hath left it with you till he come again, and put an

end to all things: “be ye sober and vigilant.” But consider what strength

this reason hath to enforce this exercise, and how suitable this duty is

to them who look for Christ’s second coming. 1. In relation to sobriety it

hath a twofold force; for, (1.) It is all the absurdity of the world, that

ye should so eagerly pursue perishing vanities; that ye should fall in

love with the old decrepit world that is groaning under vanity, and very

near consumption. The day is coming that the soul shall see all these

things destroyed to ashes, and what will it then think of this idol? This

is the thing I lost my soul for, and it is gone. And O how tormenting a

thing will it be to the conscience! How have I been put by heaven for a

thing of nought, for a vanity! Be sober, for the world cannot be a portion

to an immortal spirit. Your spirit is immortal, and will continue after

these things are gone, and it will outlive this world. Your goods and good

name, your pleasures and profits, your lands and rents, all will have an

end, and your spirit shall continue after them. Why then will ye choose

that for your portion that will take wings and flee from you, or you will

leave it? When ye see all burnt up, where then will your god and your

portion be? (2.) Christian believers, ye have another portion; for Christ,

who comes to put an end to these things, shall appear in glory, and ye

shall appear with him in glory. He shall come with salvation to you, Heb.

ix. 28; Col. iii. 4. Your life shall appear with him. Your inheritance is

above. That sweet Saviour that came unto this world for saving lost

sinners, shall come again, and will not think himself complete without

you, and till he have all his members at his right hand. And therefore,

saints, be sober. While ye are in this world, ye need not any other thing

in the interim but the hope of eternal life, to keep your hearts, and hold

them up. O but ye will think yourselves well come to it ere it be long. Ye

may laugh at the poor, blind, demented(524) worldlings, who are standing

in slippery places, and like children catching a shadow, or labouring to

comprehend the wind in their fists. They are but dreaming that they eat

and drink, and behold when the great day of awakening comes at the

resurrection, they find their souls empty, though while they lived they

blessed their own souls, and men blessed them also. Your inheritance is

above, and what need ye more that have such a hope? May ye not purify

yourselves as he is pure, and purge your hearts from all corruptions, and

use this world as strangers, in your passage through it, that owns nothing

as their own? Ye have no propriety(525) here, and therefore ye may the

better live as strangers. But, 2. In relation to watching; Christ Jesus is

coming, and is near, therefore watch. This Christ himself presses

earnestly: Be as men that wait for the coming of their Lord, since he is

not far off. Therefore, Christians, ye ought to be upon your feet, and not

sit down with the creature. Ye should entertain this hope of his coming,

and comfort yourselves by it, and be kept at your duty by it. I may say,

there is nothing that is less known among Christians. Christ and his

apostles often pressed it, as it seems he would have it the one ever

running duty, through all generations. Ye ought then to be ready for

Christ’s coming, and not be found sleeping. 3. In relation to prayer; for

if the end of all things is at hand, and Christ will soon come again, then

the Spirit’s exercise, and the bride’s should be, “Come, Lord Jesus, come

quickly.” Pray Christ back again, and say, Why tarry his chariot wheels?

Pray him back with salvation, and hasten his return by prayer. He hath

left such a dependent condition, left such an employment for us, as speaks

dependence and necessity. This is the time of promises, and we ought to

pray for their accomplishment. In heaven there will be no prayer, for

prayer shall be swallowed up in praise, faith in vision, and hope in

possession. But prayer is a duty suitable to the time, and to the

Christian’s minority, to his banishment and sojourning. Dream not of an

eternity here-away. Learn wisdom to number your days, and apply your

hearts to religious wisdom; and if ye die thus, ye may rejoice that so

many of the number are passed, and cannot return again.

FOOTNOTES

1 Baillie’s Letters and Journals, vol. iii. pp. 286-288, MSS in Bib.

Col. Glas.

2 “A Letter from Head Quarters in Scotland”

“SIR, We came hither on Saturday last, April 19th. The ministers and

townsmen generally staid at home, and did not quit their habitations

as formerly. These ministers that are here are those that have

deserted from the proceedings beyond the water, yet they are equally

dissatisfied with us. And though they preach against us in the

pulpit to our forces, yet we permit them without disturbance, as

willing to gain them by love. My Lord General sent to them to give

us a friendly Christian meeting, to discourse of those things, which

they rail against us for, that (if possible) all misunderstandings

between us may be taken away, which accordingly they gave us on

Wednesday last. There was no bitterness nor passion vented on either

side, with all moderation and tenderness. My Lord General the

Major-Gen. Lambert, for the most part maintained the discourse, and

on their part, Mr. James Guthrie, and Mr. Patrick Gelaspy. We know

not what satisfaction they have received. Sure I am, there was no

such weight in their arguments, that might in the least discourage

us from what we have undertaken, the chiefest thing on which they

insisted being our invasion into Scotland”—Sev. Proc. in Parl. May

1, to 8 Cromwelliana, p. 102. See also Durham’s Comment on Revel.

Life of the Author, p. xi.

3 Nicoll’s Diary, pp. 68, 94.

4 Along with Dr. John Owen, Joseph Caryl, John Oxenbridge, and

Cuthbert Sydenham officiated as chaplains in the army of Cromwell in

Scotland. Orme’s Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 128. Neal’s History of the

Puritans, vol. iv. p. 490, Lond. 1822.

5 Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 127.

6 See note, p. 512.

7 Annals of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 208.

8 Baillie’s Letters, vol. iii. p. 200. MSS in Bib. Col. Glas.

9 Memorials of English Affairs from the beginning of the Reign of

Charles I. to the Restoration, pp. 444-446, Lond. 1682.

10 Hist. of Eng. vol. vi. pp. 180, Lond. 1825.

11 Memoirs of Dr. Owen, p. 126.

12 Thurlow’s State Papers, vol. i. p. 189.

13 Thurlow’s State Papers, vol. i. pp. 139, 160.

14 Orme’s Life and Times of Richard Baxter, vol. i. pp. 140, 141.

15 P. 520.

16 “At Cathcart Kirk, 19th Oct., 1652

“Mr. Robert Baylie renewed his protestation given in be him the last

daye, against Mr. Hew Binnen moderating of the Presbyterie, in his

own name and in the name of so many as would adhere to that

protestation; and that upon the additional reason that Mr. Hew

Binnen of his own accord, had gone in to hear an Englishman preach

in his own kirk in the parish of Govan, who attended Colonel

Overtoun’s regiment, and that the said Mr. Hew, be his example and

counsel, had moved the people to do the like, and did maintain the

lawfulness of this his action, in the face of the presbyterie as if

the abstaining from this should have been a needless separatione

upon his part, and the part of his people, though that having found

that some took offence at it, he did no more countenance that man’s

preaching”—(Records of Presbytery of Glasgow). At the previous

meeting Bailie had protested against Mr. Binning’s appointment to

the moderator’s chair because he maintained, another member of the

presbytery had a greater number of uncontraverted votes.—Id.

17 An Apology for the Clergy of Scotland, p. 45, London, 1692.

18 Orme’s Mem. of Dr. Owen, p. 488.

19 Christian Instructor, vol. xxi. p. 547; Biog. Presb., vol. i. p.

131; Lorimer’s Eldership, p. 155.

20 Neal’s History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 120.

21 Id. p. 318. Mr. Herle, who came to Scotland with the Earl of

Nottingham and the Earl of Stanford preached in the High church of

Edinburgh on Sunday the 27th of February, 1648. Mr. Stephen Marshall

not long after, at the request of Mr. George Gillespie one of the

ministers of Edinburgh, preached in the same church, “he,” says

Bishop Guthry “who being here four years ago professed to be a

presbyterian, but since turned independent.”—(Memoirs of Bishop

Guthry, &c., pp. 256-258, second edition). Fuller however says of

Mr. Marshall that he died a presbyterian.—(Fuller’s Worthies, book

2, p. 53; apud. Neal’s Hist. vol. iv. p. 134). And Baillie

represents him to have been the best preacher in England.—(Letters

and Journal, vol. i. p. 440.

22 Pp. 360, 362.

23 Miscellanea Scotica, vol. ii. p. 32.

24 See p. 497 _note_.

25 This was followed by a written controversy between the parties

(Wodrow MSS. vol. ix. in 13th Ad.). The same person disputed

publicly in the church of Cupar on two successive days, in 1652,

with Mr. James Wood, professor of theology at St. Andrews.—Lamont’s

Diary, p. 48.

26 Wodrow’s Hist. of the Suf. of Ch. of Scot. vol. i. p. 165. Glas.

1829.

27 See note, p. 512.

28 Balfour’s Annals vol. iv. pp. 141-160. Brown’s Hist. of Glas. vol.

i. p. 109. Peterkin’s Rec. of Kirk of Scot. p. 672.

29 P. 489.

30 Small quarto, pp. 51.

31 Shields Faithful Contendings pp. 485-488. Faithful Witness Bearing

Exemplified, _preface_, p. iv.

32 Faithful Contendings, p. 66.

33 Memoirs of the First Years of James Nisbet, one of the Scottish

Covenanters, written by himself, Append. p. 287. Edin. 1827.

34 Pp. 54-58.

35 P. 486. See also Life of the Author, p. xliii. _note_.

36 Verse 1193.

37 Mr. Alexander Peterkin, the annotator of the Records of the Kirk of

Scotland, before presenting his readers with a long extract from the

“Whigs Supplication,” (ver 94-113) describing an armed body of

Covenanters, gravely declares, it was “taken from a MS copy of a

doggrel poem (by Cleland it is thought), which the editor presented

some years ago to the Library of the Antiquarian Society of

Edinburgh.” See Rec. of Kirk of Scot. p. 533.

38 Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 360.

39 Rec. of Kirk of Scot. pp. 627-633.

40 Records of Presbyters of Glascow.

41 P. xvii.

42 Pp xxv, xxvi.

43 “The sermons preached at conventicles, which are ordinarily

circulated, are a very unsafe rule by which to judge of the talents

of the preachers, and the quality of the discourses which they

actually delivered. We have never been able to ascertain that one of

these was published during the lifetime of the author, or from notes

written by himself. They were printed from notes taken by the

hearers, and we may easily conceive how imperfect and inaccurate

these must often have been. We have now before us two sermons by Mr.

Welsh, printed at different times; and upon reading them, no person

could suppose that they were preached by the same individual.… We

have no doubt that the memory of Mr. Peden has been injured in the

same way. The collection of prophecies that goes under his name is

not authentic; and we have before us some of his letters, which

place his talents in a very different light from the idea given of

them in what are called his sermons and his life.” (Review of Sir

Walter Scott’s Tales of my Landlord written by Dr. McCrie, Christian

Instructor, vol. xiv. pp. 127, 128)—We are cautioned not to judge of

the talents of Samuel Rutherford as a preacher “from the sermons

printed after his death, and of which it is probable he never

composed a single sentence.” (Murray’s Life of Rutherford pp.

221-223)—And says Patrick Walker, the simple compiler of the “Life

and Death of Mr. Daniel Cargill,” “I have seen some of Mr. Cargill’s

sermons in writ, but I never saw none as he spake them; and I have

been much pressed to publish them, and other old sermons, which I

dare not do, upon several considerations; knowing that sermons would

have past then, and very edifying, which will not pass now, in this

critic and censorious age, without reflections; not knowing how they

were taken from their mouth, nor what hands they have come through

since.” Biographia Presbyteriana, vol. ii. p. 53.

44 The presbyterian clergy in Scotland were much offended when this

silly yet mischievous book made its appearance, as they justly

looked upon it as calculated not only to blacken their reputations,

but to inflict a serious injury upon religion. (See “A Just and

Modest Reproof of a pamphlet called The Scotch Presbyterian

Eloquence,” pp. 36, 38. Edin. 1693.)—No one is more perseveringly

held up to ridicule in it than the Rev. James Kirkton, whose

character as a man of talents, and possessing a sound judgment, has

been since sufficiently vindicated by the publication of his “Secret

and True History of the Church of Scotland.” Kirkton takes notice of

the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence, and informs us that its reputed

authors were “Mr. Gilbert Crockat and Mr. John Munroe,” adding

“Truly one would think, a thinking man who reads this piece may

wonder first, what conscience governs these men, who publish, to

abuse the world, such stories, which they themselves know to be

lies, as well as they whom they believe. Next, what wisdom is among

them, who knew well enough there are thousands of honest people to

refute their calumnies!” (p. 194)—Provoked by an insulting reference

to the book under review, an able controversial writer of that

period says “Thou hast, by the bye, mentioned the Presbyterian

Eloquence. Every body knows that book to be a forgery out of the

curates shop. But to give the world a true test both of the

Presbyterian and the Episcopal eloquence, let us appeal to the

printed sermons on both sides. Do thou take the printed sermons of

the Presbyterians, and pick out of them all the ridiculous things

thou ever canst. And if I don’t make a larger collection of more

impious and ridiculous things out of the printed sermons of the

Episcopalians, citing book and page for them, I shall lose the

cause.” (Curate Calder Whipt, p. 11.)—In such a contest as is here

proposed, religion must suffer, and truth be sacrificed. Lord

Woodhouselee therefore, does not hesitate to pronounce both the

Presbyterian Eloquence Displayed, and the Answer to it, to be

“equally infamous and disgraceful libels.” Life of Lord Kames, vol.

i. Append., p. 10.

45 Granger’s Biog. Hist. of Eng. vol. i. part ii. p. 416. London 1769.

46 Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times vol. i. p. 280. Oxford 1833.

47 Life of Professor Wodrow, p. 61.

48 Analecta, at present printing by Maitland Club, vol. i. pp. 277,

300. Biog. Presby. vol. i. pp. 236, 237.

49 Burnets Hist. of his Own Times vol. i. p. 279.

50 Watts Works vol. v. 350.

51 P. 213.

52 Journals and Letters vol. ii. p. 385.

53 Analecta, vol. iv. p. 171, vol. v. p. 342 MSS in Bib. Ad.

54 “Their ministers generally brought then about them on the Sunday

nights where the sermons were talked over, and every one women as

well as men, were desired to speak their sense and their experience,

and by these means they had a comprehension of matters of religion,

greater than I have seen among people of that sort anywhere. The

preachers went all in one track, of raising observations on points

of doctrine out of their text, and proving these by reasons, and

then of applying those, and shewing the use that was to be made of

such a point of doctrine, both for instruction and terror, for

exhortation and comfort, for trial of themselves upon it, and for

furnishing them with proper directions and helps, and this was so

methodical that the people grew to follow a sermon quite through

every branch of it.” Barnet’s History of his own Times vol. i. p. 2.

55 P. 600.

56 P. 356.

57 P. 131. See also p. 576.

58 Gillespie’s Miscellany questions. p. 247. Edin. 1649.

59 P. 135.

60 P. 133.

61 Hist. of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 348.

62 Mede’s Works, _General Preface_.

63 Heber’s Life of Bishop Taylor, p. 171.

64 Pecock’s Works, vol. i., Life of the Author, p. 22.

65 Manton’s Sermons, Life of the Author, p. v.

66 Œuvres De Massillon, tome vi. p. 4; Essai Sur L’Eloquence de la

Chaire, par le Cardinal Maury, tome ii. p. 231.

67 Address to the Christian Reader.

68 Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 91. See also pp.

30, 90, 112.

69 P. 5.

70 Pp. 42, 48.

71 P. 55.

72 P. 303.

73 P. 80.

74 P. 279.

75 P. 90.

76 Pp. 301-303.

77 P. 74.

78 P. 36.

79 P. 46.

80 P. 165.

81 P. 216.

82 P. 76.

83 P. 248.

84 P. 657.

85 P. 619.

86 P. 217.

87 [Mr. Robert Macward went to England as the secretary, or amanuensis,

of the famous Samuel Rutherford, when the latter was appointed one

of the commissioners to the Westminster Assembly (Murray’s Life of

Rutherford, p. 233). When mentioning Macward’s institution, as

Professor of Humanity in the old college of St. Andrews, in April,

1650, Lamond says of him, that he was previously “servant to Mr. Sam

Rutherford, m. of St. Andrews” (Diary, p. 16, Edin. 1830). Sir John

Chiesley was, in the same sense, and at the same period, the servant

of the celebrated Alexander Henderson, another of the commissioners

(Kirkton’s Hist. of the Ch. of Scot., _note_, p. 71). It is justly

remarked by Dr. M’Crie, when speaking of Richard Bannatyne, who was

also called _the servant_ of Knox, “that the word servant, or

servitor, was then used with greater latitude than it is now, and,

in old writings, often signifies the person whom we call by the more

honourable name of clerk, secretary, or man-of-business” (Life of

Knox, p. 349. _Sixth edition_). Mr. Macward succeeded Mr. Andrew

Gray as one of the ministers of Glasgow, in the year 1656, chiefly

through the influence of Principal Gillespie (Baillie’s Letters,

vol. ii. pp. 406, 407. Cleland’s Annals of Glasgow, vol. i. p. 128).

A sentence of banishment was unjustly passed upon him for a sermon

on Amos iii. 2, which he preached in the Tron Church, Glasgow, after

the Restoration. As to what he said in that sermon regarding the

conduct of the parliament, Baillie declares, that “all honest men

did concur with him,” though he disapproves, at the same time, of

Macward’s “high language,” and blames him, because “he obstinately

stood to all,” and thereby provoked his persecutors (Letters, pp.

453, 454). But it appears, from Wodrow (Hist. of the Sufferings of

the Ch. of Scot., vol. i. p. 213, Glasg. 1829), that when Mr.

Macward understood that what had given offence was the use he had

made, in his sermon, of the words “protest” and “dissent,” he did

not hesitate to explain he did not mean thereby a legal impugning of

the acts, or authority of parliament, but “a mere ministerial

testimony” against what he conceived to be sin. Macward retired to

Holland.

After repeated applications from Charles the Second, the States

General, on the 6th of February, 1677, ordered Mr. Macward, and

other two Scottish exiles, to withdraw from the Seven Provinces of

the Netherlands (Dr. M’Crie’s Mem. of Veitch and Brysson, p. 367).

That the States came to this determination with very great

reluctance, will appear from the following passage in one of Sir

William Temple’s Letters: “I will only say that the business of the

three Scotch ministers hath been the hardest piece of negotiation

that I ever yet entered upon here, both from the particular interest

of the towns and provinces of Holland, and the general esteem they

have of Mackand [Macward] being a very quiet and pious man” (Vol. i.

p. 291). It is creditable to the good feeling, though not certainly

to the firmness of the States General that at the time they

determined to require Macward and his two friends to leave the Seven

Provinces, they voluntarily furnished them with a certificate

bearing that each of them had lived among them “highly esteemed for

his probity, submission to the laws, and integrity of manners” (Dr.

M’Crie’s Mem. of Veitch and Brysson, p. 368). He was afterwards

permitted to return to Rotterdam, where he had been officiating as

minister of the Scottish Church at the time he was ordered to remove

out of the country. He died there in the month of December, 1681.

Dr. Steven’s “History of the Scottish Church, at Rotterdam”, p.

336.—_Ed._]

88 [In his very interesting “History of the Scottish Church,

Rotterdam,” Dr. Steven mentions (p. 72) that Mr. James Koelman was

deprived of his charge at Sluys in Flanders, for refusing to observe

the festival days and to comply with the formularies of the Dutch

church. He appears to have been a very conscientious and pious man.

Among the Wodrow MSS in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates

Edinburgh (Vol. ix., Numb. 28) there is a copy of “A Resolution of

the States of Zeeland anent the suspension of Thomas Pots and

Bernardus Van Deinse, ministers of Vlissing, because of their

suffering or causing Jacobus Coelman to preach, together with the

Placinet (or proclamation) whereby the said Coelman is for ever

banished out of the province of Zealand, Sept. 21, 1684.” Extract

out of the Registers of the Noble and Mighty Lords, the States of

Zeeland, Sept 21, 1684. It is set forth in this paper, that though

Koelman had been suspended from his office by the States of the Land

and Earldom of Zealand, in consequence of their “Resolution and

penal discharge of the 21st of September, 1674, made by reason of

his perverse opinions, and disobedience to his lawful high

superiors,” he had notwithstanding “adventured and undertaken to go

about private exercises within this province and also to preach

twice publickly within the city Vliesing [Flushing] on Sabbath the

3d of this instant moneth, September, and so hath rendered himself

guilty of the punishment contained in our forementioned Resolution,

and penal discharge, bearing that he should be banished the

province, so be he happened to hold any publick or private exercises

there.”

Mr. Koelman, Mr. Macward and Mr. Brown of Wamphray, were the three

clergymen who officiated at the ordination of Mr. Richard Cameron in

the Scottish Church, Rotterdam, previous to his coming to Scotland

in the beginning of the year 1680 (Biographia Presbyteriana, Vol.

i., p. 197). It was Richard Cameron, when in the language of one of

his friends, he was carrying Christ’s standard over the mountains of

Scotland, who repeated three times that simple and pathetic prayer,

before he was killed at Airs-moss, _Lord, spare the green, and take

the ripe_ (Id. p. 203) From a letter written from Holland, 7th

December, 1685, by Mr. Robert Hamilton of Preston, it may be seen

how much Mr. Koelman interested himself in the affairs of the

Scottish refugees (Faithful Contendings Displayed, pp. 203-205, 214,

215). There is prefixed to a Dutch translation of Binning’s Common

Principles of the Christian Religion, which was executed and

published by Koelman at Amsterdam in 1678, a Memoir of the author.

Koelman acknowledges he had derived all his information respecting

Binning from a letter which he had received from Mr. Macward,

through a mutual friend. This letter, or a copy of it, with some

other of Macward’s MSS., was in the possession of the publisher of

the duodecimo volume of the sermons of the author, printed at

Glasgow, 1760 (Preface, pp. iv, xxv). Koelman concludes his Memoir

of Binning, which contains some excellent pious reflections, but

almost no facts with which the English reader is not already

acquainted, with a feeling allusion to his ejection from his charge

at “Sluys in Vlaanderen.” After this painful separation from his

flock, besides writing many useful original works, he seems to have

employed his leisure in translating into his native language some of

the most esteemed practical writings of foreign divines, such as

_Guthrie’s Great Concern, Rutherford’s Letters_, &c. Dr. Steven’s

Hist. ut supra.—_Ed._]

89 [Adverting to a sermon, which was preached by Mr. Matthew M’Kell, at

a field meeting in the year 1669, Wodrow says, that he was “a true

Nathanael, and a very plain dealer” (Hist. of the Suf. of Ch. of

Scot., vol. ii. p. 127). After having been, on different occasions

brought before the Privy council, and imprisoned, he was, on the 8th

of January, 1674, upon his refusing to engage not to preach, ordered

to confine himself to the parish of Carluke, and security was

required from him that he would appear before the Council at their

summons (Id. vol. i. pp. 371, 372, vol. ii. p. 248. See also History

of Indulgence, p. 36). He died at Edinburgh, in March 1681 (Laws

Memorialis, p. 183).

Wodrow does not speak with much confidence, as to the degree of

propinquity which existed betwixt Mr. Matthew M’Kail minister of

Bothwell and Mr. Hugh M’Kail, the young licentiate who was executed

at Edinburgh, 22d Dec, 1666, for being concerned in the insurrection

at Pentland. But Colonel Wallace, who commanded the insurgents on

that unfortunate occasion, styles “Mr. Hugh M’Kell son of Mr.

Matthew M’Kell minister of Bothwell” (Wallace’s Narrative of the

Rising at Pentland, in Dr M’Crie’s Memoirs of Veitch and Brysson, p.

430). The unhappy father was allowed to see his son in prison, after

his sentence. There is an affecting account in Naphtali (pp. 339,

345) of this mournful interview, and of another which took place on

the morning of the execution. The address of young M’Kail on the

scaffold concluded with these sublime expressions—“Farewell, father

and mother, friends and relations. Farewell the world, and all

delights. Farewell meat and drink. Farewell sun, moon and stars.

Welcome God and Father! Welcome sweet Lord Jesus the Mediator of the

new covenant! Welcome blessed Spirit of grace, and God of all

consolation! Welcome glory! Welcome eternal life! Welcome death!”

(Id. p. 348 Edin. 1761). We are told by Kirkton that “when Mr.

M’Kail died, there was such a lamentation as was never known in

Scotland before, not one dry cheek upon all the street or in all the

numberless windows in the market place” (Hist. of Ch. of Scot. p.

249). It was discovered afterwards, that Burnet, archbishop of

Glasgow, had in his possession at the time, a letter from the king,

forbidding any more blood to be shed. But to the disgrace of his

sacred profession, and of his feelings as a man, “Burnet let the

execution go on, before he produced his letter, pretending there was

no council day between”—Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times, vol. ii. p.

435 Oxford, 1833.—_Ed._]

90 [All accounts agree in stating that Mr. Hugh M’Kail, minister in

Edinburgh, was uncle to the preacher of the same name who was

executed. The minister of Bothwell, therefore, instead of being the

father, must have been the brother of the minister in Edinburgh. In

the years 1636, and 1637, when Mr. Samuel Rutherford was in

Aberdeen, according to his own description of himself, “a poor

Joseph, and prisoner,” with whom his “mother’s children were angry,”

he wrote several letters to Mr. Hugh M’Kail, in answer to others

which he received from him (Rutherford’s Letters, pp. 41, 247, 272,

292 _Sixth edition_ Edin., 1738). The name of Mr. Hugh M’Kail is

included in the list of ministers who, on the 19th of August 1643,

were by the General Assembly appointed Commissioners for the

Visitation of the University of Glasgow (Evidence of Royal

Commissioners for Visiting the Universities of Scotland, vol. ii. p.

261, London, 1837). Mr. Hugh M’Kail, minister at Irvine, was

likewise one of the ministers commissioned by the Assembly, in 1644,

to visit the church in Ulster (Dr. Reid’s History of the

Presbyterian Church in Ireland, vol. ii. p. 57). As a further proof

of the estimation in which he was held by his brethren, when it was

proposed by the Assembly, in 1648, to recommend to the general

session of Edinburgh six ministers, that they might choose four from

these to fill their vacant churches, Mr. Hugh M’Kail was selected to

be one of the number (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 303). He was a

Resolutioner (Id. p. 387). He died in 1660 (Lamont’s Diary, p. 121)

The editor of Kirkton’s History of the Church of Scotland for the

purpose of bringing ridicule upon the presbyterian clergy of that

day, quotes a passage from the MS. sermons of Mr. Hugh M’Kail. We

are much mistaken, however, if on reading that passage and after

making some allowance for an antiquated style, and a certain degree

of quaintness, one of the characteristics of the age,—the impression

produced upon the mind of any candid person, who admires strong good

sense, though presented in a homely dress, is not in a very high

degree favourable to the character and talents of the author (See

Kirkton’s History, pp. 227, 228). In the preface to Stevenson’s

History of the Church and State of Scotland, reference is made to a

manuscript, having this title, “A true relation of the Prelates

their practice for introducing the Service book, &c, upon the Church

of Scotland, and the Subjects, their lawful proceedings in opposing

the same.” This manuscript, Mr. Stevenson observes, was believed to

have belonged to “one of the Mr. Mackails, once famous ministers in

this church”. Some information respecting it will be found in the

Appendix (pp. 191, 192) to Lord Rothess’ Relation of Proceedings

concerning the Affairs of the Kirk of Scotland, printed in

Edinburgh, 1830. for the Bannatyne Club.—_Ed._]

91 [It appears from the dedication prefixed to the “Theses Theologicæ,

Metaphysicæ, Mathematicæ et Ethicæ, Preside Jacobo Darimplio, Glasg.

Excudebat Georgius Andersonus, An. Dom. 1646,” that “Hugo Binningus”

graduated “ad diem 27 Julii, Anno Domini 1646.” Under the ancient

Statutes of the University, no student was entitled to receive the

degree of master, till he had reached his twentieth year. But this

rule was not always strictly adhered to (Report of the Royal

Commission of Inquiry into the state of the Universities of

Scotland, appointed in 1830, p. 220). Binning was not nineteen years

of age at the date of his laureation. His distinguished

contemporary, Mr. George Gillespie, took his degree in his

seventeenth year.—_Ed._]

92 [General Monk, who, for the part he took in the restoration of

Charles the Second, was made Duke of Albemarle, encouraged most

during the time he was in Scotland the _Resolutioners_, while

Cromwell, on the other hand, befriended the _Protesters_ (Life of

General Monk, by Dr. Gumble, one of his chaplains, who was with Monk

in Scotland, p. 51, London, 1671). Monk professed to be a

Presbyterian (“The Mystery and Method of His Majesty’s Happy

Restoration,” by John Price, D.D., one of the late Duke of

Albemarle’s chaplains. Baron Masseres, Tracts, pp. 723, 775). “In

Scotland Mr. Robert Douglas [one of the ministers of Edinburgh] was

the first so far as I can find, who ventured to propose the king’s

restoration to General Monk, and that very early. He travelled, it

is said, _incognito_ in England, and in Scotland engaged

considerable numbers of noblemen and gentlemen in this project. From

his own original papers, I find that when Monk returned from his

first projected march into England, Mr. Douglas met him and engaged

him again in the attempt”—Wodrow’s Hist. of the Ch. of Scot., vol.

i. p. 59.—_Ed._]

93 [Physiologia Nova Experimentalis, Lugd. Bat. 1686.—_Ed._]

94 [The Appointment of Mr. James Dalrymple, as one of the Regents of

the University of Glasgow, took place by “Id Martu 1641” (Annales

Collegæ). He was then only twenty two years of age. In the year

1635, a clause was introduced into the oath, which the Regents were

required to take at their election, binding them to resign their

situation in the event of their marriage. Accordingly, having

married in 1643, Mr. Dalrymple vacated his charge, but was

immediately afterwards re-elected. Sir Walter Scott has said of

James Dalrymple, that he was “one of the most eminent lawyers that

ever lived, though the labours of his powerful mind were unhappily

exercised on a subject so limited as Scottish Jurisprudence, on

which he has composed an admirable work.” It has been properly

observed, that during the whole of the seventeenth century, not only

at Glasgow, but in the other universities of Scotland, “the Regents,

or Teachers of Philosophy (with very few exceptions), were young men

who had recently finished their academical studies, and who were

destined for the church. The course of study which it was their duty

to conduct, was calculated to form habits of severe application in

early life, and to give them great facility both in writing and in

speaking. The universities had the advantage of their services

during the vigour of life, when they were unencumbered by domestic

cares, and when they felt how much their reputation and interest

depended on the exertions which they made. After serving a few years

(seldom more than eight, or less than four), they generally obtained

appointments in the church, and thus transferred to another field

the intellectual industry and aptitude for communicating knowledge,

by which they had distinguished themselves in the university. It may

well be conceived that, by stimulating and exemplifying diligence,

their influence on their brethren in the ministry was not less

considerable than on the parishioners, who more directly enjoyed the

benefit of attainments and experience more mature, than can be

expected from such as have never had access to similar means of

improvement.” Rep. of Roy. Com. ut. supra, p. 221.—_Ed._]

95 [About the same period Mr. Alexander Jamieson, who was afterwards

minister of Govan, obtained the appointment of Regent in the

University of St. Andrews, after engaging in a public disputation.

The description of what took place on that occasion given by Mr.

John Lamont of Newton, is not devoid of interest as a picture of the

times—1649 Apr. 10, 11—“Ther were three younge men that did disputte

for the vacant regents place in St. Leonard’s Colledge, Mr. David

Nauee, (formerlie possessing the same, bot now deposed, as is spoken

before), viz., Mr. Alex Jamesone, ane Edenbroughe man, having for

his subject, _Syllogismus_, Mr. William Diledaffe, a Cuper man, his

subject, _Liberum Arbitrium_, and Mr. James Weymes, a St. Androus

man, he having _De Anima_ for his subject. All the tyme they had

ther speeches, ther heads werre couered, bot when they came to the

disputte, they were vncouered. Ther werre three of the five

ministers forsaide present at the disputs, viz., Mr. Alexander

Moncriefe, Mr. Walt. Greige, and Mr. Ja. Sharpe [afterwards

archbishop of St. Andrews], wha had decisive voices in the electione

of a Regent (thir werre the first ministers that ever had voice in

the electione of a measter to ane of the colledges there, the

custome formerlie, and of olde, was, that every colledge had

libertie to chose thir owne measters) For Mr. Ja. Weymes he was the

warst of the three, for in the disputs, he bracke Priscian’s head

verry often, for Mr. Alex. James and Mr. Wil. Diled they werre

judged _pares_ by the wholle meitting, so that after longe debeatte,

they werre forcet to cast lotts, and the lott fell upon Mr. Alex

Jamesone wha did succeide to the forsaide vacant regents place. Mr.

Wil. Diled got a promise (bot with difficultie) of the next vacant

place. Mr. Ro. Noue, professor of Humanitie in the said colledge,

had no voice in the forsaide electione because, he was not present

at all the meittings of the disputs.”—(Lamont’s Diary, p. 4, Edin.

1830)

The last instance of a public competition for a chair in the

University of Glasgow, occurred towards the close of the seventeenth

century soon after the Revolution. It is remarkable enough that in

this case also, the result was ultimately determined by lot. “A

programme was immediately published, and on the day appointed no

less than nine candidates appeared to enter the lists in a

comparative trial. All of them acquitted themselves so well during

the whole course of a long trial that the electors were at a loss

whom to choose. Setting aside some of the nine who were thought less

deserving, they could not find a ground of preference among the

rest. It was therefore resolved, after prayer to God, to commit the

choice to lot. The lot fell upon Mr. John Law, and a present of five

pounds stirling was given to each of the other candidates. One of

the competitors was Mr. William Jamieson, a blind man known to the

learned world by his writings. He was after some years chosen to

give public lectures in the college upon Ecclesiastical History for

which he had a pension from the Crown till his death.”—MS. History

of the University of Glasgow, written by Dr. Thomas Reid, formerly

Professor of Moral Philosophy.—_Ed._]

96 [The day of his election was “iiij Cal. Nov 1646 (Annal. Colleg.)”

The _Nova Erectio_ or foundation charter, granted to the University

of Glasgow 13th July, 1577, in the minority of James VI, made

provision for the appointment of three Regents, or Professors, along

with the Principal. The first Regent was required to teach Rhetoric

and Greek, the second Logic, Ethics, and the principles of

Arithmetic and Geometry, and the third, who was also sub principal,

Physiology, Geography, _Astrology_, and Chronology (See Copy of the

_Nova Erectio_ in Evidence for University Commissioners for Scotland

vol. 8. p. 241 London, 1837). In the year 1581, the Archbishop of

Glasgow gifted to the University the customs of the city, which

enabled them to establish the office of a fourth Regent, to whom was

allotted exclusively the teaching of Greek, and, sometime previous

to the year 1637, a fifth Regent was chosen, who was Professor of

Humanity, “humanitarum literarum” (Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol xxi.

Append. pp 24, 25). This professorship however, was not permanently

established till the year 1706 (Rep. of Roy. Com. appointed in 1830,

p. 241). By the foundation-charter the Regents were restricted to

particular professions, or departments of academical instruction,

that they might be found better qualified for the discharge of their

different functions (ut adolescentes qui gradatim ascendunt, dignium

suis studus et ingenuus præceptorem repettre queant). But this

practice, as will be seen from the following minute of a University

Commission, was changed in the year 1642. “The Visitat on after

tryall, taking to consideration that everie Regent within the

Colledge has beine accustomed hithertills to continue for more years

togithere, in and on the same professione so that the schollers of

one and the self-same class are necessitat yearlye to change theire

masters, have found it more profitable and expedient, that the

present course of teaching the schollers be altered, and that everie

master educate his own schollers through all the foure classes,

quhalk is appointed to begin presentlie thus that the classes, which

are taken up with the masters the zeir they go on with them, so that

Mr. David Munro having the Magistrand [or oldest] classe now, he

take the Bejane classe [or the youngest students, the _Bejani_,

derived from the French word _bejaune_, a novice] the next zeir.”

(_Sessio 2__da__, September 17_. Evid. for Univ. Com. ut supra p.

260). This new mode of instruction continued to be followed till the

year 1727, when the old system enjoined in the foundation charter

was revived (Rep. of Roy. Com. ut supra p. 223). It is said that Dr.

Thomas Rand, the celebrated philosopher, was an advocate of the

system of ambulatory professors, which was adhered to in Kings

College, Aberdeen down to the beginning of the present century (Old

Stat Acc. of Scot., vol. xxi. Append., p. 83). The first class that

Binning taught was the class of the _Bejani_ (Wodrow’s Analecta,

vol. i, p. 338. MSS in Bib. Ad.). He and the other Regents were all

styled “Professors of Philosophy.” Appendix to Spottiswood’s Hist.

of Ch. of Scot., p. 22, London, 1777.—_Ed._]

97 [It was the custom of the Regents to _dictate_, to the students

their observations on such parts of the writings of Aristotle,

Porphyry, and others, as were read in their classes. This was done

in Latin which was the only language allowed to be used by the

students even in their common conversation. At a meeting of

commissioners from the different universities of Scotland, which was

held at Edinburgh on the 24th of July, 1648, one of the resolutions

agreed upon, was to this effect—“Because the _diting_ [dictating] of

long notes has in time past proved a hindrance, not only to

necessary studies, but also to a knowledge of the text itself, and

to the examination of such things as are taught, it is therefore

seriously recommended by the commissioners to the dean and faculty

of arts that the regents spend not so much time in _diting_ of their

notes, that no new lesson be taught till the former be examined.”

(Bower’s History of the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 244).

Binning, it is said, “dictated all his notes off hand” (Wodrow’s

Analecta, vol. i. p. 338. MS in Bib. Ad.) Had he lived it was

thought “he had been one of the greatest schoolmen of his time.”—Id.

vol. v. p. 342.—_Ed_.]

98 [Long after the publication of the _Novum Organum_ of Lord Bacon and

even after the successful application of his principles by Sir Isaac

Newton and Locke, the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle continued

to occupy the chief place, in the course of instruction, in the most

celebrated universities of Europe. The first great reform, in the

mode of teaching philosophy, introduced into the college of Glasgow,

was effected through a royal visitation, which took place in 1727.

“The improvements in this university,” says Professor Jardine,

arising from the regulations introduced by the royal visitation,

were greatly promoted by the appointment, which took place shortly

afterwards of more than one professor of singular zeal and ability.

The first of these was Dr. Francis Hutcheson. This celebrated

philosopher, whose mind was stored with the rarest gifts of

learning, illustrated, with a copious and splendid eloquence, the

amiable system of morality which is still associated with his name,

producing thus the happiest effects not only on his own students but

also on his colleagues, and infusing at once a more liberal spirit,

and a greater degree of industry, into all the departments of

teaching. Great obstacles, however, still remained. The professor of

the first philosophy class according to the practice of the times

continued to deliver his lectures in the Latin language, a method of

instruction which, although it must long have proved a great

impediment to the ready communication of knowledge on the part of

the teacher, and to the reception of it on the part of the pupil,

was not discontinued in this college, till upon the following

occasion.

In the year 1750 Adam Smith was appointed professor of logic and,

being rather unexpectedly called to discharge the duties of his

office he found it necessary to read to his pupils in the English

language, a course of lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, which

he had formerly delivered in Edinburgh. It was only during one

session however, that he gave these lectures, for at the end of it,

he was elected professor of moral philosophy and it was on the

occasion of this vacancy in the logic chair that Edmund Burke whose

genius led him afterwards to shine in a more exalted sphere was

thought of, by some of the electors, as a proper person to fill it.

He did not, however, actually come forwurd as a candidate, and the

gentleman who was appointed to succeed Dr. Smith, without

introducing any change as to the subjects formerly taught in the

logic class, followed the example of his illustrious predecessor in

giving his prelections in English.—Outlines of Philosophical

Education Illustrated by the Method of Teaching the Logic class in

the University of Glasgow, pp. 20-21, Glasgow 182.—_Ed._]

99 [The office of principal of the University of Glasgow was disjoined

from the cure of the parish of Govan, in 1621, and the immediate

predecessor of Binning was Mr. William Wilkie, who was deposed by

the synod on the 29th of April, 1649. “Mr. William Wilkie, I

thought,” says Principal Baillie “was unjustly put out of Govan,

albeit his very evil carriage since, has declared more of his sins.”

(MS Letters, vol. iii., p. 849, in Bib. Col. Glas.)

There are certain extracts from the letters of Mr. William Wilkie to

Dr. Balcanqubal, dean of Rochester, published in Lord Hailes’s

Memorials and Letters (vol. ii pp. 47, 48). The learned judge,

however, has mistaken the name Wilkie for _Willie_. Not knowing,

therefore, who the writer of the letter was, he says, in a note,

“This _Willie_ appears to have been a sort of ecclesiastical spy

employed by Balcanqubal the great confident of Charles I. in every

thing relating to Scotland” (Ibid.). In his preface, Lord Hailes

acknowledges that the letters he has published were “chiefly

transcribed from the manuscripts, amassed with indefatigable

industry by the late Mr. Robert Wodrow.” But Wodrow himself states,

in his Life of Dr. Strang (Wodrow MSS, vol. xiii, pp. 4, 5, in Bib.

Coll. Glasg.), that he was possessed of six original letters, which

had been written by Mr. William Wilkie, minister of Govan, during

the sitting of the famous Glasgow Assembly in 1638, and addressed to

Dr. Balcanqubal, who had come down to Scotland with the Marquis of

Hamilton, the Lord Commissioner, and was then residing in Hamilton

palace. He also informs us that these and some other letters were

discovered “after Naseby encounter, or some other, where Dr.

Balcanqubal happened to be, in a trunk found among the baggage,

which fell into the hands of the parliament’s army.” Wilkie’s

letters contained an account of the proceedings of the Assembly,

Wodrow says, not very favourable to the majority there. And he then

adds it was “from these and such other informations upon the one

side, Doctor Balcanqubal drew up The Large Declaration, under the

Kings name, in 1642.” At the time of the Glasgow Assembly, Mr.

William Wilkie was one of the regents of the university.

Since this was written, Wilkie’s letters have been printed, without

abridgment in the Appendix to vol. of a new edition of Ballie’s

Letters, published at Edinburgh by the Bannatyne club.

“The originals of all these letters are contained in folio vol. xxv.

of the Wodrow manuscripts, which is now preserved among the Archives

of the Church of Scotland.”—Id. p. 481.—_Ed._]

100 [The estate of Trochrigg which is one of the largest in the parish

of Girvan, in the county of Ayr, is now the property of John

Hutchieson Fergusson Esq. It was sold by the descendants of the

ancient proprietors about the year 1782. It was to his paternal

residence at Brodrigg that Principal Boyd retired with his family in

1621, when he resigned his office as Principal of the University of

Glasgow, and it was in this retreat he wrote the Latin poem

entitled, _Ad Christum Servatorem Hecatombe_. This beautiful poem

has been justly described to be, cannon totius fere Christianæ

Religionis, seu evangeli æ doctrinæ medullam, vel compendium verius,

cultissians dul tissimisque versibus, ex intimoque Latio petitis,

stropbarum Sopphicarum centuria lectori ob oculos proponens, “a song

embracing almost the whole of the Christian religion, or placing

before the eyes of the reader in a hundred Sapphic stanzas, the

marrow, or rather a compend of evangelical doctrine, in the most

polished and mellifluent verses and in language taken from that of

the Augustan age.” (Poet. Scot. Musa. Sacræ, p. 198, præfætio, vol.

vi., Edin., 1739. Life of Boyd, Wodrow MSS., vol. xv. p. 123 in Bib.

Coll. Glas.).

The commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Roberts Bodn, A

frocheregia Scoti, In Epistolam ad Ephesios Prælectiones, fol. pp.

1236. London, 1652) contains the substance of the Lectures, which

Boyd delivered, when he was a professor of theology in the

University of Saumur. This is attested by his cousin Mr. Zachary

Boyd, who was one of the Regents at Saumur, and attended the

delivery of them (harum prelectionum assidutis tuit auditor). Some

time after the death of the learned and pious author, a copy of the

_Prælectiones_ was transmitted to Holland to his friend Andreas

Rivetus, that he might superintend the printing of it. As Chouet, a

well known Genevese printer, happened to be in Holland at the time,

Rivetus parted with the manuscripts to him, that they might be put

to press immediately on his return to Switzerland. But,

unfortunately, the vessel in which the manuscripts were shipped was

taken by another vessel from Dunkirk, and having thus fallen into

the hands of some Jesuits they never could be recovered. Rivetus

consoled himself with the reflection that the original manuscripts,

in the author’s own hand writing, were safe in Scotland in the

keeping of the family. The church and the nation, however, being at

this period in such a distracted state, the work was not given to

the world till the year 1652, when it was published by the London

Stationers Company, (Andrea Riveti Epistoli de vita, scriptis,

moribus, et feliei exitu Roberti Bodn, ante Prelectiones Bodn)

though the General Assembly had passed numerous acts, and entered

into arrangements with different printers for the purpose. See Index

of Unprinted Acts for the years 1645, 1646 and 1647.—_Ed._]

101 [When the Presbytery of Glasgow had met on the 22d August 1649, “The

parochineris of Govane gave in ane supplicatione shewing that

whereas you are destitute of ane minister, and being certanelie

informed of the qualifications of Mr. Hew Binnen, one of ye regents

of ye colledge of Glasgow, for ye work of ye ministrie,” they were

unanimously desirous he should be sent to preach to them, “so soone

as he shall have past his tryels.” The presbytery, in consequence of

this supplication, “ordaines Mr. Patrik Gillespie, moderator of the

presbyterie to wrytt to ye said Mr. Hew, to acquaint him wt the

desyre of the parochineris of Govane, and to repar to the presbytery

to undertake his tryels for ye effect forsaid.” Records of the

Presbytery of Glasgow.

On the 5th September, 1649, “Mr. Robert Ramsay reported Mr. Hew

Binnen had exercised on the text prescribed, and had geven the

brethrene full satisfaction. He is ordained to handle the

contraversie scientia media, and to give in theses thereupon.” Id.

“Sept 19, 1649—The qlk daye Mr. Hew Binnen gave in theses upon the

contraversie prescribed unto him, de scientia media, to be sustenit

by him, he presbyterie appoint him to handle this contraversie this

daye eight dayes at nyne houres.” Id.

“Sept 26, 1649—The qlk daye Mr. Hew Binnen made his Latin lesson, de

scientia media, and sustenit the disputt thairupon, and was approven

in both. The following ministers were present, Mr. Patrik Gillespie,

Mr. David Dicksone, Doctor Jhone Strang, Mr. Zach. Boyde, Mr. George

Young, Mr. Hew Blair, Mr. Gab. Conyngham, Mr. David Benett, Mr.

Matthew Mackill. Mr. Wm. Young, Mr. Arch. Dennestoune, Mr. Jhone

Carstaires, Mr. James Hamilton.” The presbytery “ordaines Mr. Hugh

Binnen to make ye exercise this daye fyfteen dayes, and the rest of

his tryels to be ye said day.” Id.

On the 10th October, 1649, after Mr. Hugh had “exercised”—“compeared

the laird of Pollok and the parochineris of Govane, and desyred that

Mr. Hew Binnen might preach to them the next Lordis daye, qlk was

granted, and he ordained to go and preach yr.” Id.

On the 24th Oct., 1649, “Compeared the parochineris of Govane, and

gave in ane call to have Mr. Hew Binnen to be their minister.” Id.

“December 19, 1649—The qlk day Mr. Hew Binnen handled the

contraversie, de satisfactione Christi, and sustenit the disputt

upon the theses given in be him, and was approven.” Id.

On the 2d January, 1650, his admission to the ministerial charge of

the parish of Govan is appointed to take place “next Fryday.” The

minister who presided on that occasion was Mr. David Dickson, who

was one of the professors of Theology in the University of Glasgow.

Id.—_Ed._]

102 [Dr. John Strang, who was the son of Mr. William Strang, minister of

Irvine, was born in the year 1584. He studied at the University of

St. Andrews, where he took the degree of master at sixteen. After

having been a regent in St. Leonard’s college for several years, he

was ordained in 1614, minister of Errol, in the Presbytery of Perth.

When Cameron _le grand_, as he was called, (Vide Bayle’s Dict. Art.

Cameron) resigned his situation as principal of the University of

Glasgow, Dr. Strong succeeded him. He died at Edinburgh, on the 20th

of June, 1654, in the seventieth year of his age and was buried near

his distinguished predecessor, Principal Boyd. At his death, an old

friend and very learned man, _Andreas Rawinæus octogenarius_,

composed some Latin verses, as an affectionate tribute to his

memory. These may be seen in a short Life of Dr. Strang which was

written by Baillie and prefixed to Dr. Strang’s work, _De

Interpretatione et Perfectione Scripturæ, Rotterodami_, 1663. It is

from this Life the preceding particulars respecting the learned

author have been taken.

It appears to have been chiefly through the influence of Archbishop

Law, who was his cousin, that Dr. Strang was made principal of the

University of Glasgow. When the latter understood that

_Trocheregius_ wished to be reinstated in his office, a

correspondence took place betwixt them, which is in the highest

degree honourable to the feelings and character of Dr. Strang. This

correspondence is inserted by Wodrow in his _Life of Robert Boyd of

Trochrig_ (Wodrow MSS. vol. xv. pp. 99-104 in Bib. coll. Glasg.).

Butler represents Dr. Strang to have been an acute philosopher, and

second to none in the kingdom as a disputant (nullique ad hunc usque

diem, in nostra gente, hac in parte secundus. Vita Autoris, ut

supra.) The strongly expressed commendation of such a man was no

mean compliment to Binning’s talents and learning. Wodrow says he

was told by a neighbouring clergyman, Mr. Patrick Simson, minister

of Renfrew, who was ordained the same year that Binning died, and

who lived for some years after the commencement of the following

century, “yt qn they were seeking to get old principal Strang out of

the colledge, ye principal said, ‘Ye are seeking to get me out of my

place, qm have ye to fill my room? I know none, unless it be a young

man newly come out of the school, viz., Mr. Hugh Binning’ ”

(Analecta, vol. iv. p. 171. MSS in Bib. Ad.)—The Presbytery Records

show that the common head which was presented to Binning was not,

_De concursu_, &c, but one closely allied to it: _De scientia

media_.—_Ed._]

103 [See his epitaph, p. 1.—_Ed._]