Undertaker for us and as our Head and King, and we by virtue of that, are
obliged to crucify sin also. In verses 3d and 4th, the other consideration
is set down. There ought to be a vast difference between a believer now,
and before his conversion. He should not be the same man, but as Paul,
say, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me.” Gal. ii. 20. He should be separated from the world,
that all the world may wonder at him, and think it strange to see his
conversation. Now I conceive this exhortation is gathered from both these,
and the word of reference _therefore_ relates to the preceding verse, as
well as his reason in the words now read. Now therefore be sober. This
sobriety is not limited to meat, drink or apparel, the object of it is
more comprehensive in scripture. It uses sometimes to be expressed singly,
without making mention of any particular matter, evidently importing, that
sobriety ought to be in all things. That which we ought to be sober in is
certainly the “all things spoken of in the reason of sobriety, whose end
is at hand.” They are most distinctly expressed 1 John ii. 15-17, “All
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the
pride of life,” all that perishes is not of the Father, but of the world,
that is, the world which wicked men frame to themselves. Here then is a
large commentary on “all things.” Therefore whatever is in the world is
the matter of sobriety. Whatever comes under the senses calls for
sobriety. Whatever comes under the object of the mind is the matter of
sobriety. Nay, whatever is corruptible and perishing, or whatever the last
day of the Lord a coming shall put an end to, in all these, there must be
sobriety exercised. There is a threefold sobriety: 1. Sobriety in the
mind, or sober mindedness, Rom. xii. 3. We ought not to think more highly
of ourselves than we ought to think, “but to think soberly,” 1 Cor. iv. 6,
7, Tit. ii. 6, Rom. xi. 20, 1 Cor. vii. 2. Sobriety of mind is that
excellent lesson that Christ Jesus both taught and practised in his humble
state. “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart,” Matt. xi. 29.
Humility is not like Peter, who said, “Depart from me, for I am sinful
man, O Lord,” “Lord, thou shalt never wash my feet.” But humility is
rather like Mary, that sat down at Christ’s feet, and washed them with
tears. Sobriety of mind does not undervalue God’s gifts and graces,
neither doth it overvalue them. It thinks of itself according to the
measure of grace freely given, (Rom. xii. 3) and sobriety looks on all its
own gifts, and ornaments, as not its own but another’s, as free gifts, and
therefore it puffs not up a man against his neighbour, though he should
see a gift given beyond his neighbour. High mindedness is like the high
bending of a string of an instrument, which easily breaks in two pieces.
Sobriety walks with a low sail, and creeps through under the wind, but the
high mind is like the cedar, that moves with the wind, and falls when the
bowing twig stands still. Some will think the aspiring of the spirit a
sign of a better spirit than the humble mind, and so look down upon
others. But oh, if they walk safely, they will walk humbly with God.

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._]

  104 [Her name was _Mary_, or _Maria_ Simpson. The inventory of the
      effects of “Mr. Hew Binning, at Govane, deceiasit in ye monith of
      Sept. 1658,” is given up “be Marie Sympsone, his relict, and onlie
      exerix dative.” (Com. Rec. Glasg.). Towards the close of her life,
      Mrs. Binning became connected with the Society people. She seems to
      have corresponded with the Rev. James Renwick, one of their
      ministers, who, in a letter dated July 9, 1685, speaks of her as
      “like to die in prison,” and in another, of her having “gone to
      Ireland” (Renwick’s Letters, pp. 104, 179). Howie of Lochgoin, the
      author of “Lives of the Scots Worthies,” assures us that it is Mrs.
      Binning who is alluded to by Renwick in his Letters pp. 49, 104. He
      likewise quotes part of a letter written to her in 1692 by Sir
      Robert Hamilton of Preston, who commanded the army of the
      Covenanters at the battle of Bothwell bridge (Shields’ Faithful
      Contendings, pp. 486, 487). In a catalogue of the manuscripts of the
      Rev. Robert Wodrow, minister of Eastwood, which is in the library of
      the Faculty of Advocates vol. xxiv. folio is stated to contain “50
      letters from Mrs. Binning to Mr. Ham.” It is not known where this
      volume is now to be found.—_Ed._]

  105 [“The Rev. James Simpson was chaplain to the Lord Sinclair’s
      regiment. He appears to have settled in the charge of a congregation
      in Ulster, perhaps at Newry, which was the headquarters of his
      regiment for several years—He was still in his charge in Ireland in
      1650 in which year the Rev. Hugh Binning, minister of Govan, was
      married to his daughter.” Dr. Reid’s History of the Presbyterian
      Church in Ireland, vol. i. pp. 369, 370.—_Ed._]

  106 [What Koelman says is this that the adjoining parish to which he and
      his friends went was the one in which after sermon, the marriage
      ceremony was to be performed. Mrs. Binning it is probable was
      residing there at the time.—_Ed._]

  107 [His eloquence procured for him, according to Macward, the name of
      the Scots Cicero. Along with a distinct articulation be possessed
      great fluency. When he preached in Glasgow, which being the minister
      of a neighbouring parish was frequently the case, he was much
      admired and followed (Koelman’s “Het Leven en Sterven van Mr. Hugo
      Binning” prefixed to his translation of Binning’s Common Principles
      of the Christian Religion). With regard to the estimation in which
      as a preacher, he was held in his own parish, his mode of preaching
      being so completely different from what they had been accustomed to,
      it is said “he was more valued by Govan people after his death, than
      when alive.” Analecta, vol. i. p. 338, MSS in Bib. Ad.—_Ed_.]

  108 [The writer of “A Short Account of the Life and Writings of Mr. Hugh
      Binning,” prefixed to the small volume of his sermons, published for
      the first time in 1760, remarks “By the _haranguing way_ I suppose
      he means those sermons that are not divided or sub-divided into
      dominant observations and heads, marked by the numbers 1, 2, 3, &c.
      But the reader will see many of these discourses, where there are no
      figures, no first, second, third, or any number of heads mentioned,
      as regularly divided or sub-divided, as those sermons where we will
      see a good number of doctrines and heads.… Some useful sermons have
      been often perplexed with a great multitude of minds consisting of
      two or three sentences without any proof or illustrations of which
      the hearer or reader will remember or retain less than some sermons
      that contain five or six heads, or have not their distinct divisions
      marked with different figures or faces;” pp. xxii-xxiii.—_Ed_.]

  109 [It being “the perfection of art to conceal art.”—_Ed_.]

  110 [Mr. James Durham, minister of the Inner High church, Glasgow, was
      the son and heir of John Durham of Easter Powrie, now named
      Wedderburn, a considerable estate in the parish of Muirhouse, and
      county of Forfar (Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol. xiii, pp. 162, 163).
      In the time of the civil wars, and before he contemplated being a
      clergyman, he was a captain in the army. He held the office of
      king’s chaplain, when Charles the Second was in Scotland. The
      description which “Old Aitkenhead, who had it from the gentlewoman,”
      gave, of Cromwell’s visit, in April 1651, to the High church of
      Glasgow, where Mr. Durham was preaching, is this: “The first seat
      that offered him was P. Porterfield’s, where Miss Porterfield sat,
      and she, seeing him an English officer, was almost not civil.
      However he got in and sat next Miss Porterfield. After sermon was
      over he asked the minister’s name. She sullenly enough told him, and
      desired to know wherefore he asked. He said because he perceived him
      to be a very great man, and in his opinion might be chaplain to any
      prince in Europe, though he had never seen him nor heard of him
      before. She inquired about him, and found it was O. Cromwell”
      (Wodrow’s Anal., vol. v. p. 186, MSS in Bib. Ad.).

      Mr. Durham sided neither with the Resolutionists nor Protestors. For
      this he was strongly blamed at the time by Principal Baillie, who
      took a keen part in the controversy, (Let. and Jour., vol. ii. p.
      376) though after his death, he recorded, in the following terms,
      his opinion of Mr. Durham’s character and talents. “From the day I
      was employed by the presbytery to preach, and to pray, and to
      impose, with others, hands upon him, for the ministry at Glasgow, I
      did live to the very last with him in great and uninterrupted love,
      and in high estimation of his egregious endowments, which made him
      to me precious among the most excellent divines I have been
      acquainted with in the whole isle. O, if it were the good pleasure
      of the Master of the vineyard to plant many such noble vines in this
      land!” (Durham’s Commentary upon the book of Revelation, Address to
      the Reader, p. vi). The work written by Durham, entitled, “The Law
      Unsealed, or a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” has
      commendatory prefaces prefixed to it, by two distinguished English
      puritans, Dr. John Owen, and Mr. William Jenkyn. Dr. Owen wrote
      likewise a preface to the Clavis Cantici, or an Exposition of the
      Song of Solomon, by James Durham, minister at Glasgow, 4to, 1669.
      Doubts have been expressed, however, whether Wood, in his Athenæ
      Oxomenses, (vol. ii, p. 747, Lond. 1721) was warranted to attribute
      this preface to Owen, “as the preface is anonymous” (Orme’s Life of
      Owen, Append., p. 505). But the only copy of the work, which is in
      my possession, (Glas. 1723) has attached to it the name of “John
      Owen, May 20, 1669.”

      The widow of Mr. Durham, who was the daughter of Mr. William Muir of
      Glanderston, a branch of the family of the Muirs of Caldwell, was,
      in 1679, twice committed to prison, for having in her house
      religious meetings, or conventicles, as they were called in those
      days of relentless tyranny and oppression. On one of the occasions,
      she was taken to Edinburgh, and imprisoned there, along with her
      sister, the mother of Principal Carstairs. Wodrow’s Hist. of the
      Suff. of the Church of Scot., vol. iii, pp. 10, 54.—_Ed_.]

  111 [See page 368.—_Ed._]

  112 [See page 406.—_Ed._]

  113 [The following account of the origin of the differences between the
      Resolutioners and Protesters, is that given by Kirkton. “After the
      defeat of Dumbar, the king required a new army to be levyed, wishing
      earnestly it might be of another mettale than that which hade been
      lossed. So he desired that sort of people who were called
      Malignants, his darlings, might be brought into places of trust,
      both in council and army, though they hade been secluded from both
      by their own consent. And this request was granted both by committee
      of estates and commission of the church sitting at Perth. But there
      was a party in both these councils which alledged confidently, that
      though the malignants were content to profess repentance for their
      former practices, yet they should be found to be men neither sincere
      in their profusions, nor successful in their undertakings. This was
      the beginning of the fatal schism in the Scottish church. For though
      the king, to secure Scotland, was content once more to take the
      covenant at his coronation in Scoon (which instrument he caused burn
      at London) yet the dissatisfied party continued still in their
      jealousies, and even of the king himself whom they doubted most of
      all. This party was called Protesters and Remonstrators as the other
      was called Resolutioners, which names occasioned lamentable
      distraction” (History of the Church of Scotland p. 53). A more
      particular account of this unhappy controversy, so fatal in its
      results to both parties, may be seen in the introduction to Wodrow’s
      history.

      Though Baillie was a Resolutioner, he seems to have had some
      misgivings as to the course he adopted. “We carried unanimously at
      last,” says he in a letter to Mr. Spang, dated Perth, January 2,
      1651, “the answer herewith sent to you. My joy for this was soon
      tempered when I saw the consequence, the loathing of sundry good
      people to see numbers of grievous bloodshedders ready to come in,
      and so many malignant noblemen as were not like to lay down arms
      till they were put into some places of trust, and restored to their
      vote in parliament.” (Letters and Journals, vol. ii, p. 366). In the
      Life of Professor Wodrow written by his son, (pp. 29, 30, Edin.
      1828) it is said, “There were great endeavours used in the year
      1659, and 1660, entirely to remove that unhappy rent ’twixt the
      public Resolutioners and Protesters in this church, and had not Mr.
      Sharp struck in by his letters from London in order to serve his own
      designs, and ruin both, and made Mr. Douglas and other ministers at
      Edinburgh cold in this matter of the union, it had no doubt
      succeeded. These put Mr. Wodrow upon an inquiry into that debate,
      and when leaving the lessons during the vacation in the summer he
      desired Mr. Baillie’s directions what to read for understanding that
      subject. The professor said to him, ‘Jacobe, I am too much engaged
      personally in that debate to give you either my judgement on the
      whole, or to direct you to particular authors on the one side and
      the other,’ but taking him into his closet he gave him the whole
      pamphlets that had passed on both sides in print and manuscript,
      laid ranked in their proper order, and said, there is the whole that
      I know in that affair; take them home to the country with you, and
      read them carefully and look to the Lord for his guiding you to
      determine yourself aright upon the whole.”—_Ed._]

  114 [This treatise was afterwards printed and is included in the present
      edition of the works of the author.—_Ed._]

  115 [See page 226.—_Ed._]

  116 [Mr. Patrick Gillespie, who was brother to George Gillespie one of
      the ministers of Edinburgh, was for some time minister of Kirkcaldy.
      On the 4th December, 1641, “Mr. Pa. Gillespie produceit,” to the
      magistrates and council of Glasgow, “a presentation grantit to him,
      be his Majestie, of the place of the Highe Kirke, instead of the
      bischope” (Glasgow Burgh Records). He was one of the three ministers
      who, in 1651, were summarily deposed by the Assembly, for their
      opposition to the Public Resolutions, and protesting against the
      lawfulness of that Assembly (Lamont’s Diary, p. 33). His sentence
      was reversed by the Synod of Glasgow (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii.,
      pp. 414, 415). Gillespie was evidently desirous to effect a
      reconciliation between the Resolutioners and Protesters, by means of
      mutual concessions (Id. pp. 388, 401, 411). In the year 1553, he was
      elected principal of the University of Glasgow, by the English
      sequestrators (Id. p. 371, Lamont’s Diary, p. 53).

      No one in Scotland had more influence with Cromwell than Principal
      Gillespie, who is said to have been the first minister in the Church
      of Scotland, who prayed publicly for him (Nicol’s Diary, p. 162). In
      April 1654, the Protector called him up to London, along with Mr.
      John Livingston of Ancrum, and Mr. John Menzies of Aberdeen, to
      consult with them on Scottish affairs (Life of Livingston, p. 55).
      He preached before the Protector in his chapel, and obtained from
      him, for the University of Glasgow, the confirmation of “all former
      foundations, mortifications, and donations made in its favour,
      particularly that of the bishopric of Galloway, to which he added
      the vacant stipends of the parishes, which had been in the patronage
      of the bishop of Galloway, for seven years to come; and also in
      perpetuity the revenues of the deanery and sub-deanery of Glasgow”
      (Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol. xxi., Append. pp. 25, 26). Through
      his influence with the Protector, he likewise procured a grant to
      the town of Glasgow, “for the use of the poor who had been injured
      by the fire in 1653,” [1652] (Brown’s Hist. of Glasg., p. 120) and
      “assisted and pleasured sundry in the matter of their fines”
      (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 390). As to what is said by the
      editor of Kirkton’s History, that after the Restoration, “Gillespie