Chapter V. · Part 8

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 had made great efforts for a pardon, and offered to promote episcopacy in Scotland” (p. 111), the reader is referred to a Review of that work, in the Christian Instructor (Vol. xvii. pp. 339, 340). He died not long after this at Leith (Law’s Memorials, p. 11).

Gillespie’s work, entitled “The Ark of the Covenant Opened,” (London, printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1677) has a preface from the pen of Dr. John Owen, who was with Cromwell in Scotland, as one of his chaplains, and in this way, no doubt, became acquainted with Gillespie (Wood’s Athenæ Oxomensis, vol. ii., p. 738, London, 1721). In his preface, Dr. Owen says, “My long Christian acquaintance with the author made me not unwilling to testify my respects unto him and his labours in the church of God, now he is at rest, for whom I had so great an esteem while he was alive.” Wodrow expresses his regret, that “the other three parts” of Gillespie’s work have not been printed, which, he informs us, the author “wrote and finished for the press” (Hist. of the Suff. of Ch. of Scot., vol. i., p. 204, Glasg. 1829). The Synod of Glasgow were informed, on the 8th of Oct., 1701, that “Mr. Parkhurst, at London,” possessed two unpublished parts of Gillespie’s Ark of the Covenant. They, therefore, appointed a committee to communicate with him on the subject, through some of the booksellers of Glasgow, “conceiving that the publishing of these pieces may be of use to the Church, from the experience they have had of the works of that worthy author already come to light, upon the same subject” (Records of Synod). On the 5th April, 1709, “Mr. Robert Wodrow reports, that Mr. Parkhurst continues still indisposed, so that nothing can be done with respect to the printing of Mr Gillespie’s book formerly mentioned. Wherefore, the Synod lets the matter fall out of their minutes.” Id.

Chalmers (Caledonia, vol. iii., p. 591) seems to have imagined that Patrick Gillespie was the “Galasp” ridiculed by Milton, in one of his sonnets. Warton says, this was “George Gillespie, one of the Scotch ministers of the Assembly of Divines” (Warton’s Milton, p. 339, Lond. 1791). But Milton referred neither to the one nor the other, but to Allaster Macdonald _Macgillespie_, (_son of Archibald_) otherwise known by the name of Colkittoch, or Colkitto, who commanded the Irish auxiliaries in Montrose’s army. See the new edition of Baillie’s Letters, now in course of publication, formerly quoted, vol. ii. p. 499.—_Ed_.]

117 [This is a simple marble tablet surmounted with a heart, and the emblems of mortality. It was placed in a niche in the front wall of the old parish church; but, in 1826, when the present church was erected, which is a Gothic structure, it was removed to the vestibule. It is seen in the vignette of the title page. The inscription may be turned into English, thus “Mr. Hugh Binning is buried here, a man distinguished for his piety, eloquence, and learning, an eminent philologist, philosopher, and theologian; in fine, a faithful and acceptable preacher of the gospel, who was removed from this world in the 26th year of his age, and in the year of our Lord 1653. He changed his country, not his company, because when on earth he walked with God. If thou wish to know any thing beyond this, I am silent as to any thing further, since neither thou nor this marble can receive it.”—_Ed_.]

118 [John Binning of Dalvennan was served heir to his grandfather on the 19th of March, 1672 (Inq. Ret. Ab. Ayr, 580). And the Retour of his heritable property, at the date of his forfeiture, specifies, as having belonged to him, the ten mark land of the ten pound land of Keires, comprehending the lands of Dalvennan, Yondertoun and Burntoun, Daluy, Milntown, The Fence, Drumore, Hillhead, Rashiefauld, Chappel, the mill of Keires, &c., in the parish of Straiton; the lands of Over Priest-Craig and Nether Priest-Craig in the parish of Colmonell; and a house, garden, and land in the parish of Maybole, in the county of Ayr—Inq. De Possess Quinquen (18).—_Ed_.]

119 [The name of “Binning of Dalvennan” appears in the Act of the Scottish parliament, “Rescinding the Forefaultures and Fynes since the year 1665” (Acts of the Parl. of Scot. vol. ix. p. 165) Previous to the passing of that Act, however, a petition was presented to the parliament by Mr. Roderick McKenzie, who had been a Depute Advocate in the former reign, in which he stated, “That John Binning of Dalvennan having been forefault for being in armes at Bothwell bridge, anno 1679, and the deceased Matthew Colvill, writer in Edinburgh, John Binning’s greatest enemy, being very active to obtain the gift of his forefaulture, with a designe of his ruine, and the prejudice of his numerous and just creditors, the deceased Mr. James Gordon, minister at Cumber in Ireland, John Binning’s father in law and former Curator, to whom he was oweing a considerable soume of money, came over to Scotland, at John Binning’s desire, who was then in Ireland, to obtaine the said gift, to disappoint Matthew Colvill thereof, who prevailed with the petitioner to lend the money to pay the compositione and expenses of the gift.”

Mr. McKenzie also affirmed, that he had “no other security for the money soe lent, but a right to the said gift,” and that the money he had advanced “to the said Mr. James Gordon for the compositione and expenses of the gift, with what he has payed of John Binning’s reall and confirmed debts, far exceeds the value of his land.” In consequence of these representations, “Their Majesties High commissioner and said Estates of Parliament remitt the case of Mr. Roderick McKenzie, petitioner, anent the forfaulture of Dalvennan, to the consideratione of the commission nominate in the General Act recissory of ffynes and forefaulters, with power to them to hear the parties concerned thereanent, and to report to the next session of this, or any other ensuing parliament.”—Id. pp. 162, 163.

John Binning was declared at this period to be “altogether insolvent.” This is the reason probably, if he was not in the mean time satisfied that his claim was untenable, that his case does not appear to have been brought under the notice of parliament again, and that he did not persist in his attempts to regain possession of Dalvennan (Id. Appendix, p. 32). To confirm his title to a property, which considering the office he held, seems to have been acquired under very suspicious circumstances, McKenzie had contrived to get an act of parliament passed in his favour, in the year 1685. In this Act, he is lauded for “suppressing the rebellious fanatical partie in the western and other shires of the realme, and putting lawes to vigorous execution against them, as His Majesties Advocate Deput,” and the lands of Dalvennan are said to have been transferred to him by “Jean Gordon, as donatrix,” who was the uterine sister of John Binning, and who is described as “relect of the deceist Daniel McKenzie sometime ensign to the Earle of Dalhousie, in the Earle of Marr’s Regiment” (Id.

vol. viii. pp. 565-567). John Binning taught a school for some time (Faithful Contendings p. 66). The General Assembly showed kindness to him, on different occasions, for his father’s sake. In 1702, the Commission of the Assembly being informed by a petition from himself of his “sad circumstances,” recommended him to the provincial Synods of Lothian and Tweedale, and of Glasgow and Ayr “for some charitable supply” (Rec. of Commission, Sess. 39). In 1704, he applied for relief to the General Assembly, and stated that he had obtained from the Privy Council a patent to print his father’s works, of which twelve years were then unexpired, and that it was his intention to publish them in one volume. The Assembly recommended “every minister within the kingdom to take a double of the same book, or to subscribe for the same.” They likewise called upon the different presbyteries in the church to collect among themselves something for the petitioner (Unprinted Acts, Sess. 11). The last application he made to the Assembly for pecuniary aid was in 1717, when he must have been far advanced in life—Idem, 13th May.—_Ed_.]

120 [Mr. James Gordon was minister of Comber, in the county of Down. He was ordained about the year 1646. We find his name in Wodrow’s list of the non-conforming ministers in the synod of Ballimenoch in Ireland (Hist. of Suff. of Ch. of Scot. vol. i. p. 324). According to Dr Reid, “Mr. Gordon, after having been deposed with the rest of his brethren in 1661, continued to officiate privately at Comber for many years, but about the year 1683, in his old age, he appears to have deserted his principles, and conformed to prelacy.” Hist. of the Presb. Ch. in Ireland, vol. ii. pp. 129, 130.—_Ed_.]

121 [May 14, 1654—“Sederunt Mr John Carstaires and the Elders.

“The qlk day the session being conveened for election and calling of a minr to the kirk of Govan, and having now this forenoon heard Mr. David Veetch, with whom most are satisfied, but for the satisfaction of all persons interested, who heard him never but once, both of heritors and elders, the session have delayed their election till they hear him again in the afternoon, and the session then were to meet again for that effect.

“Sederunt Mr John Carstaires and the Elders.

“The heritors and elders having now heard the said Mr. David Veetch twise, and both being well satisfied, and clear, and unanimous, the satisfaction of the session being first enquired, and next of the heritors, which, being both of one mynd, cordially for the thing, a call was presently drawn up, and subt by moderator and clerk, also by session and heritors, according to order. After the forsd draught, at appointment of the presbytery and session, Mr. John preached in the sd church, and, after sermon, did intimat to the people their nomination of Mr. David to take charge in the ministrie of that congregation, and ordained, that if any person had any thing to object agt the said Mr. David being minr at the sd church, they would come and signifie it to the session, now presently to meet at the sd church for that effect, according to the practice in such cases. The session having met, and none compearand to signifie their dissent, or assent, they take their non compearance for their signification of satisfaction, so, after three severall byesses at the most patent door of the sd church, by the officer intimating the forsd words, none at all appeared. So the sd Mr. David being desired to come in to session, they presented to him their unanimous and cordiall call of election to the ministrie of the kirk of Govan, which he accepted.” Records of Kirk-Session of Govan—_Ed_.]

122 [12mo., Glasgow, 1609.—_Ed._]

123 [Macward’s words are, _a prima manu_. Het Leven en Sterven van Mr. Hugo Binning.—_Ed._]

124 [A copy of “The Common Principles of Christian Religion” is now before me which was Printed by R. S. Printer to the Town of Glasgow, 1666, and which bears to be “The 5 Impression”.—_Ed._]

125 [All the works of Binning, which were published in the lifetime of Koelman, were translated by him into the Dutch language. No fewer than four editions of these have been printed at Amsterdam.—_Ed._]

126 [See page 457.—_Ed._]

127 [See page 465.—_Ed._]

128 [A contemporary of Binning, Mr. P. Simson, minister of Renfrew, informed Wodrow, “That Dr. Strang was in hazard to have been staged for his Dictates qch wer smoothed in his printed book, _De Voluntate Dei_, and would have been removed from his place if he had not demitted.” (Life of Dr. Strang, Wodrow MSS. vol. xiii. p. 9, in Bib. Coll. Glas.) Complaints regarding Dr. Strang having been presented to the General Assembly, a committee was appointed, on the 18th of June, 1646, to examine his written dictates, a copy of which was produced by Dr. Strang, and to find out whether the doctrines which he taught were in accordance with the doctrines of their own and other reformed churches, and whether there were any expressions used by him which gave countenance to the views of the enemies of the truth. This committee was composed of some of the most able men in the church, including several professors from the four universities The list contains, along with others, the names of Alexander Henderson, John Sharpe, the author of _Cursus Theologicus_, Robert Douglas, George Gillespie, Robert Blair, Samuel Rutherford, James Wood, William Strahan, David Dickson, Robert Baillie, John Neave, Edward Calderwood and Robert Leighton, afterwards Archbishop of Glasgow. On the 27th of August, 1647, the committee gave in a Report to the General Assembly, to the effect that Dr. Strang had employed some expressions in his dictates which were calculated to give offence, but that on conferring with him, they were satisfied in regard to his orthodoxy, and that to put an end to all doubts as to his meaning, the Doctor had gratified them by proposing of his own accord the addition of certain words to what was previously somewhat ambiguous (Vita Autoris, Strangu De Interpret. Script.).

So far as can be collected from the imperfect account we have of the circumstances of the case, Dr. Strang discovered, it was imagined, a bias to Arminianism, whereas he seems to have been merely more of a sublapsarian than a supralapsarian. The “peculiar notions” he entertained were vented, we have been told, upon that profound subject _De concursi et influxu deimo cum actionibus creaturarum_ or the concurrence and influence of God in the actions of his creatures. In the two chapters of his published work which treat expressly upon this point, we can perceive nothing that is at variance with our own Confession. But this does not warrant us to infer that the dictates, as originally delivered and before they were amended and enlarged by the author himself, may not have contained some very objectionable language at least, especially when we look to the Report of the committee of the Assembly regarding them. Indeed, all that Baillie himself says, who was one of that committee, is, that Dr. Strang was pursued “without any ground at all _considerable_,” and that “he got him _reasonably_ fair off.” Letters and Journals, vol. ii., p. 338.

The publication of Dr. Strang’s work, “De Voluntate et Actionibus Dei circa Peccatum” (Amstelodami Apud Ludovicum et Danielson Elzeurios, 1657. 4to. pp. 886), was intrusted to Mr. William Spang, minister of the English church at Middleburgh in Zealand. The manuscripts were sent to him by his cousin, Mr. Robert Baillie, at that time Professor of Theology in the University of Glasgow, who, after the death of his first wife, had married a daughter of Dr. Strang. “Dr. Strang, your good friend,” says Baillie, in a letter to Mr. Spang, dated July 20, 1654, “having to do in Edinburgh with the lawyers, concerning the unjust trouble he was put to for his stipends, did die, so sweetly and graciously, as was satisfactory to all, and much applauded over all the city, his very persecutors giving him an ample testimony. His treatise, _Dei circa peccatum_, he has enlarged, and made ready for the press. Be careful to get it well printed, according to the constant friendship that was always betwixt you and him.” (Letters, vol. ii. pp. 382, 383) At the request of Mr. Spang, Alexander Morus furnished a preface, and _Ad Lectorem Commomito,_ for Dr. Strang’s work.—_Ed._]

129 [“This is somewhat strange, observes Howie of Lochgoin, “that a nameless author should quarrel that book because the publisher hath omitted to tell his name, and hath only inserted the author’s name. He might have known that it was not long a secret that Mr. James Kid (who was afterwards settled minister in Queensferry) was the publisher, and upon that account suffered both long imprisonment at Utrecht, and the seizure of all that they could get of the books. And as for vouchers, Mrs. Binning the relict of the worthy author, being then alive, had connexion and much correspondence with Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Renwick, and many of the persecuted Society people, and was of the same sentiments with them, as appears by several letters yet extant in their own hand-writ—and Mr. Renwick speaks of her in some of his letters, as in the 49 and 104 pages of the printed volume of his letters but especially it appears, by a paragraph which is omitted in the printed copy, page 58, (which shall be here transcribed from the original, written with his own hand,) wherein he says, ‘Likewise, according to your direction, I challenged Mrs.

Binning upon the commendation she gave to John Wilson in her letter to you. But she says that she had not then seen his testimony, and was sorry when she saw it that it was so contrary both to her thoughts and commendation of him.’ And likewise a postscript to the 20th Letter, relative to the same matter is also omitted. And about the same time that Mr. Binning’s book was printed, while Sir Robert Hamilton was prisoner, upon account of the declaration [Sanquhar Declaration] in 1692, he wrote a letter to Mrs. Binning, wherein he complains of her unwonted silence, in his honourable bonds for such a noble Master. Yet trusting her sympathy is not diminished, he adds, ‘O, my worthy friend, I cannot express Christ’s love and kindness since the time of my bonds. He hath broke up new treasures of felt love and sweetness, and hath been pleased to give me visitations of love and access to himself, to comfort and confirm poor feckless me many ways, that this is his way that is now persecuted, and that it is his precious truths, interests, and concerns, that I am now suffering for, whatever enemies with their associated ministers and professors may allege, &c.’ ”

“By which it is evident that they had much correspondence with Mrs. Binning. And there is yet a fair and correct manuscript copy of the foresaid book extant, which was in Sir Robert’s custody, and it is more than probable that it was procured from Mrs. Binning, especially as she survived its publication without quarrelling it.

“It is unnecessary to notice what further is thrown out by the foresaid anonymous writer, against the book and the publisher, as Mr. Wodrow, in the preface to Mr. Binning’s octavo volume of sermons, printed 1760, hath modestly animadverted thereupon, and says there is no reason to doubt if it was Mr. Binning’s. He also ingenuously confesseth, that there is in it the best collection of scriptures he knows, concerning the sin and danger of joining with wicked and ungodly men, &c., and that it was wrote in a smooth good style, agreeable enough to Mr. Binning’s sentiments in some of his sermons.” Faithful Contendings Displayed, pp. 486, 487, note. See likewise Faithful Witness-bearing Exemplified, preface, p. iv.—_Ed._]

130 [See page 527.—_Ed._]

131 [See page 527.—_Ed._]

132 [See page 528.—_Ed._]

133 [Ibid.—_Ed._]

134 [The word _reduce_ is here used in its literal etymological sense, as signifying _to bring back_ or to _restore_.—_Ed._]

135 [The allusion here appears to be to the doctrines of the Quakers who, in Binning’s time, were increasing in the west of Scotland, and accustomed to rail, with impunity, at ministers in the face of their congregations. See Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii., pp. 393, 413, 419.—_Ed._]

136 [That is _felt_.—_Ed._]

137 [These terms were made use of as descriptive of themselves by the sect called the Familists. See Discovery of Familism, p. 7 _apud_ Baillie’s Anabaptism, pp. 102-127, Lond. 1647.—_Ed._]

138 [That is, propound a nice question.—_Ed._]

139 [That is, careless.—_Ed._]

140 [The heathen poet whose words these are, (“We move towards what is forbidden”), describes well the perversity and the imbecility of our nature. Vid Ovid Amor. lib. iii. eleg. 4 ver. 17 Met. lib. vii. ver. 20.—_Ed._]

141 [That is, the most natural.—_Ed_]

142 [That is, a twist or undue bend.—_Ed._]

143 [That is, "His will stands for reason." Juv. Sat. vi. ver. 222.—_Ed._]

144 [Mr. Binning was a Supralapsarian. In this and the two following Lectures he treats of the “high mystery of predestination,” the consideration of which, though it should be handled with special prudence and care, (West. Conf. of Faith, ch. 3) is nevertheless, full of sweet pleasant and unspeakable comfort to godly persons. Art. of Ch. of Eng. Art. xvii. His views of this mysterious doctrine are stated with singular clearness, and the objections to it, which he notices and answers, are brought forward with the utmost ingenuousness and candour and expressed, it must be admitted, as strongly as a caviller could desire.—_Ed._]

145 [The reader will remember that at this time the country was convulsed from one end of it to the other.—_Ed._]

146 [That is, Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling.—_Ed._]

147 [This was the only consolation which one learned Roman could administer to another on the death of a friend. “This is hard,” said he, “but what cannot be remedied is more easily borne, with patience.” Hor. Carm. lib. I. carm. xxiv.—_Ed._]

148 [Or _by the by_.—_Ed._]

149 [That is grains or particles.—_Ed._]

150 [What a sublime answer was that which one of the deaf and dumb pupils of M. Sicard gave to the question, “What is eternity?” It is “a day,” said Massieu, “without yesterday or to-morrow,—un jour sans hier ni demain.” The thoughts of our author on this boundless theme are hardly less sublime.—_Ed._]

151 [That is, to have the same desires and aversions, that, in a word is strong friendship—_Sallust in Catil._ c. xx.—_Ed._]

152 [That is, twist.—_Ed._]

153 [Lycurgus, the Spartan lawgiver, made no law against ingratitude, it is said, because he conceived that no one could be so irrational as to be unthankful for kindness done to him.—_Ed._]

154 [That is, quarter.—_Ed._]

155 [The discourse ends so abruptly here, as plainly to show that it is an unfinished production, and was not designed by the learned and pious author for publication.—_Ed._]

156 [Perhaps the word ought to be museum, used in the sense of a place for study.—_Ed._]

157 [That is, not to speak of.—_Ed._]

158 [This simple vernacular expression, which is used by other Scottish theological writers of the period as employed here, is particularly expressive. It signifies a place where either foes or friends have agreed to meet. Is that place the temple of the Lord? There surely will peace and harmony prevail. Is our Daysman there? He will make intercession for us and reconcile us to God.—_Ed._]

159 [That is, orders us into his Son.—_Ed._]

160 [The following baneful and impious doctrines, which were, in England, in those days, openly proclaimed from the pulpit, and disseminated through the press, were, it seems, not altogether unknown in the northern part of the island:

1. That the moral law is of no use at all to a believer, no rule for him to walk or examine his life by, and that Christians are free from the mandatory power of it.

2. That it is as possible for Christ himself to sin, as for a child of God to sin.

3. That a child of God need not, nay ought not, to ask pardon for sin, and that it is no less than blasphemy for him to do this.