Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and Stempster, was created a knight | nances, and, consequently, that babes baronet by Queen Anne, in October, had no right to baptism, and that bap1704. He married Isabella, daughter of Sir Archibald Muir, provost of Edinburgh, and had at least four sons, of whom Sir William, the subject of this memoir, was the eldest. The year of his birth we have not been able to ascertain, but it must have been at the close of the 17th, or beginning of the 18th century. He married Charlotte, second daughter of Sir James Dunbar of Hempriggs. She is stated to be his wife, in a paper dated February, 1737. Sir William's father died in 1742, when he succeeded him in his title and estate.

According to tradition, Sir William was not only a thoughtless but a wild young man. At what age he was brought to a knowledge of the truth we have not been able to learn, but it is said that his mind was awakened to divine things in reading 1 Cor. i. 26, "For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." We have no means of ascertaining the exercises of his mind at this interesting and all-important crisis; how long he was in a state of concern before obtaining peace through believing in Jesus, or by what means he was led to understand the plan of salvation; whether by reading the word of God or some religious books, or by sitting under an enlightened ministry in Edinburgh or in London. All these are particulars of a thrilling nature, on which we would fain learn something; but for the present we are compelled reluctantly to abide in the dark. Nor have we learned whether he was brought up under a presbyterian or episcopalian ministry. Suffice to say, he did not continue in the church in which he was bred. In the course of searching the scriptures he was led to see that Christians only had a right to Christian ordi

tism was not sprinkling but dipping. Whether, in the course of his journeys to England, he had come in contact with baptists we have not learned; he had, however, known of their existence, for it is said that he went to London, and was baptized there. Nearly three years ago, we instituted an inquiry, which was printed in the Baptist Magazine of August, 1844, to ascertain where, by what minister, and the precise date when he was baptized; but we never obtained any reply. Since then we have have learned that it was in London. If any of our London brethren would search their church records, probably it might yet be found. It must have been about a hundred years ago.

According to the tradition of the baptists in Caithness, it was about the year 1750 when he began preaching, after his return home, in his own castle of Keiss. His first sermon which he preached is said to have been from Rev. v. 5, "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof." It was on a new year's day; and, in commemoration of it, the baptists there have been wont on that day of the year to meet together for prayer and exhortation. Sir William began regular preaching in his castle every Lord's day. From his rank and influence, as lord of the soil, no doubt many would be led to attend his preaching in circumstances so interesting and rare. We learn that his labours were very successful. He was the means of leading some of his own tenants to a knowledge of the truth, and to scriptural views of believers' immersion. He immersed a good man of the name of John Budge, and his wife, and many others—and formed a

church in his own castle, over which he | own misfortunes, but so it was, that was pastor for about thirteen or fourteen Sir William's worldly affairs went wrong, years. The church had about thirty and his estate was alienated from the members in his time. They were wont family; Keiss being sold to Kenneth to assemble every first day of the week Macleay, Esq. It is understood by the for divine worship and for breaking of people of Keiss, that Sir William inbread. In the observance of the supper, jured his estate by building the house Sir William had a peculiar manner. of Keiss; but this seems very unlikely, Whether he had learned it from others, otherwise he must have been comparaor himself adopted it from our Lord's tively poor for a baronet. It is more example, as recorded in John xiii. we likely that this was only one cause have not learned; but he was wont among others. Keiss house, which after the supper to gird himself with a stands about a stone-cast from Keiss towel, pour water into a basin, and castle, was built by him in 1754-5. His wash the feet of the church members. own and his lady's initials, W. S. and He also kept a love feast. Sir William, C. D. and their coats of arms, with the it appears, suffered much persecution date 1754, remain over the large door from his relations and friends, and even of the house to this day. This house from his own wife, who was no friend is interesting in the history of the to his principles and preaching. Not- baptist cause here, as well as the old withstanding his rank, and opposition castle, as the church was wont to asfrom proud relatives, because a man of semble in it after Sir William left the his birth and station should stoop so castle, now an old ruin close on the low as to become a baptist preacher, he sea shore. still persevered while on his own estate in his work of faith and labour of love, in feeding the little flock which he had been honoured to gather out of the wilderness. He was also wont, it is said, to travel through the county of Caithness, doing good and making known the gospel; but whether he held meetings in these tours, or only visited the cottages of the people, we cannot distinctly say. A good man, named William Budge, servant to Sir William, was wont to accompany him in these excursions. He was baptized in Edinburgh, and died in 1818, aged 88. He stated to the friend from whom we derived this information, that wherever Sir William happened to fall in with one in whom he had confidence as a Christian, he would sit down with him and converse for hours about the gospel, partaking with all humility of such things as were set before him.

What was the precise cause we cannot state, whether from his father's or his

The loss of his property seems to have occasioned his withdrawal from Caithness. He, for the remainder of his days, took up his abode in Edinburgh about the close of 1763, leaving the care of the Keiss church to John Budge, one of the brethren whom he himself had baptized, as before mentioned. He soon gave evidence of his warm attachment to the church, from the long letter which, in Jan. 22, 1764, he wrote to John Budge. He says, "Though absent, I am present with you in the spirit, joying and rejoicing in beholding your order and stedfastness of faith, with the confidence of hope which shall be even unto the end, through the faithfulness and unchangeable love of our God, who hates putting away." From this letter it appears, that even in Edinburgh he was anxious to be useful in publishing the gospel, but, by the time of his writing, he had not obtained much opportunity, but had preached once, he does not say

to be left out. From what he says it seems farther, that he had had a desire to return to Keiss, should Providence permit, but this desire does not seem to have been realised, as far as we can trace. "I have had yet no fit opportunity of preaching the word, save once; but there seems to be something of a desire among several with whom I have had private society of having truths more opened up to them. My acquaintances on that score are upon the increase. What will be brought out of it I desire to leave to the Lord. Only I beseech you all, in the name and behalf of our dear Lord Jesus, that you strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that a door of utterance and entrance may be administered of the Lord, that it may have free course and be glorified; and that I be restored to you in due time, in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ, for our mutual consolation and upbuilding." He again expresses the tenderness of his love and the depth of his anxiety for the church, towards which he felt, as indeed he says, like a father towards his own children. "My love to you, and to all that are joined with us by one Spirit in one body, and hold one fellowship in the purity of ordinances, as delivered by our Lord Jesus, the great and only Lawgiver of the churches." "I am to you all in heart as a father to his children; and ever believe me to be your faithful friend, brother, and servant, in our dear Lord Jesus." The original of this letter, of which these are but extracts, is lost; copies of it, however, are preserved in Keiss to this day, one of which was forwarded to us nearly two years ago from the friends there.

1

where. His words are too interesting have been wont to send duplicates of letters written by himself on important questions, and also letters received by him. When there in the summer of 1845, we fell in with some old letters, two of which throw considerable light on Sir William's history at this time. From them we learn that when he came to Edinburgh, there being no baptist church there, he attended for some weeks with the Glassites or Sandemanians, and that the famous Robert Sandeman himself was then preaching there. Sir William had also read some of Sandeman's writings. Being dissatisfied with some things which he had both read and heard, he withdrew from attending, and wrote his mind to Sandeman, in a letter, dated January 26, 1764. This letter we have not seen, but we have in our possession the original copy of Sandeman's reply, written two days after, dated January 28, 1764, and directed on the back, "To Sir William Sinclair of Dunbeath, Baronet, at his lodging, Borthwick's Close, Edinburgh." From Sandeman's reply, we learn that Sir William had found fault with his views on three points, namely, the obedience of Christ, the law of the spirit of life, and the nature of that perfect love which casteth out fear. Sir William seems to have considered it a serious omission, that a distinct reference was not made in Sandeman's preaching to faith in the active obedience of Christ as well as in his suffering, in order to constitute us righteous even as he is righteous. Sandeman expresses his surprise, that any one who had read or heard their doctrine should ever have suspected that they would separate Christ's active from his passive obedience; and states, that though they had many adversaries, he did not remember that either friend or foe had ever suspected them on that head before January 26; and that he was entirely ignorant of any foundation in scripture

It is evident that had an effort been made to gather materials for a memoir of Sir William, at a much earlier period, some valuable documents might have been gained in Keiss. IIe seems to

for the distinction.

In like manner | ungodly." Sir William's observations on the other points we must for the present omit; but the concluding passage of his letter is so pleasing a testimony to the value which he had for heartfelt experimental godliness, that we must insert it. Sandeman, in speak

Sandeman defends himself on the other two points, on which we deem it needless here to enlarge. On some other occasion, if Christian friends greatly desire it, we may give the whole of Sandeman's letter, and Sir William's reply. Sandeman concludes by saying, "As to your choosing to attend on our public doctrine for some weeks, and then choosing to withdraw, we have no charge to bring against you, and no title to inquire after your reasons. You was welcome to attend while you inclined, and welcome to withdraw when that inclination ceased, as we pretend no right whatever to call you to account for your conduct. I am, sir, with all due respect, your most humble servant, Robert Sandeman. Jan. 28, 1764." We cannot help remarking the manifestation of Sandemanian coolness, in this very indifferent way of letting such a hearer slip through his hands. In two days after, Sir William replied, in a letter, dated Edinburgh, 30th January, 1764. The copy which we have in our possession has every appearance of being a duplicate in Sir William's own hand writing, copied by himself for the edification of the brethren in Keiss. He begins by saying, "Dear sir, the spirit of meekness with which yours of the 28th is penned, in contradiction to the general cry against you on that head, in part encourages me, together with a love for the truth, to take up your attention in bearing with me once more, in hopes that more or less of mutual profiting, if not that of others, may, by the blessing of our God, be brought out of it." He then enters into a full and clear statement of his own views, on the three points regarding which he considered Sandeman wrong. He is earnest "for the distinction of our Lord's obedience of suffering as a sacrifice for sin unto expiation, and his obedience of righteousness unto justification of the

ing of perfect love without fear, makes an observation on the hypocrisy of professors presuming or pretending to be free from fear by any illuminations or exercises of mind, without the labour and joy of that love dwelt upon in the 1st epistle of John. Sir William says, "I writt you nothing of illuminations or exercises of mind in believing, that could have given you any proper handle of judging so determinatively in this point; but as you appear resolved to bring into condemnation indiscriminately all that may be classed under these heads, I must take leave to aver, and from better authority than any that can be produced to the contrary, that without illuminations and exercises of mind in believing, there may, I grant, be a form of godliness in such outside appearance as a statue hath to a man, but the power will be denyed, so that when we think to grasp a substance, the shadow will escape our hold. I am, yours, &c."

Sandeman finally left Britain this same year for America. We have no knowledge whether Sir William went any more to the Glassites' meeting house, or what place of worship he attended after this period, nor whether his opportunities of preaching in Edinburgh increased. It was not till near the close of the following year, 1765, that Carmichael and Maclean became baptists, but, strange to say, they seem to have had no knowledge of Sir William at this time; for they wrote to Dr. John Gill of London to come to Edinburgh and immerse them and their friends, on the understanding that there was not then a baptist in Scotland, which

now turns out to have been a mistake. | printed in Edinburgh in the year 1786, Carmichael, as is well known, went to nearly twenty years after his death, and London and was immersed by Gill, and and from that period till now have been returned and immersed his friends, regularly used by the Keiss church. We which laid the foundation of the present have before us the letter written to race of Scotch baptist churches. Hence John Budge, by William Levack, the their origin is unconnected with Sir person in Edinburgh who got them William Sinclair and the Keiss church, printed for the church, stating the exwhich is about fifteen years older than pense of paper, printing, and binding. theirs. These hymns are sixty in number, some of them having as few as seven, others as many as nineteen verses. They are all written in the unpoetic style of the Scotch psalms, which either formed the model of the writer, or had become by use the mould in which his muse had been cast. As to poetry, they have no claim whatever to the name; but as to piety, they are evidently the out-pourings of a heart in which the love of God and of Christ was shed abroad by the Holy Ghost. They are mostly all entitled, Songs of praise to Christ, under various aspects-reminding us of the ancient Christians of Bithynia, of whom Pliny to Trajan says, "they sang hymns to Christ as to God." They richly abound with scripture language paraphrased, and are full of adoration of Christ's divinity, incarnation, offices, and atoning sacrifice.

We have been much disappointed in not finding the precise date of Sir William's death. After much inquiry, we have ascertained no more than that he died about the year 1767-8. It is certain that he died before 1769, in Edinburgh, as in that year his funeral expenses were paid to the firm of Young and Trotter, in Edinburgh, the undertakers by whom his funeral was conducted.

Of Sir William's family, we only know that he had a son, Captain Alexander Sinclair, who died during his father's life-time. He married Elizabeth Sutherland, and in 1760 made a life-rent disposition in her favour. In her infeoftment, dated 1767, she is described as his widow. They had a son, Sir Alexander Sinclair, who, on the death of his grandfather, Sir William, succeeded him as the third baronet. He entered the army, and died in the West Indies, January 26, 1787; when, having no family, the title went to a younger brother of Sir William's, Sir Benjamin Sinclair, who died in 1796.

Sir William seems to have been in the habit of composing hymns and spiritual songs for the use of the Keiss church; probably reading out the line from his written copy. The tradition is, that after his departure to Edinburgh, the church, still desirous to sing the same hymns, obtained his manuscript copies, through means of one of the maids of the family. From this it is possible that he wrote more than have been preserved. At length they were

We cannot but state that the church in Keiss, enthusiastically attached to these hymns, is deeply anxious to have another edition printed, as the former is fast vanishing away, but they are too poor to risk the expense themselves without the aid of friends. If a few friends could be got to advance £5 or £6, the writer stands ready to publish a second edition, with Sir William's memoir and letters prefixed, and also a short sketch of the history of the Keiss church. This would be indeed a boon to the brethren in Keiss, and would no doubt prove highly acceptable to all those who would wish to possess themselves of a copy of these hymns. The writer will be happy to receive com

« AnteriorContinuar »