The Works of the Rev. Hugh Binning

by Hugh Binning

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.

“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.

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[“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.]

[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.

4. That God does not chastise any of his children for sin.

5. That if a man, by the Spirit, know himself to be in a state of grace, though he should commit the greatest crimes, God sees no sin in him.

Three leading Antinomian teachers were brought before a committee of the House of Commons, for promulgating, in different ways, these and similar opinions, which were justly regarded as subversive of all morality.—Gataker's “God's Eye on his Israel”,—preface, Lond. 1645.—Ed.]

[Dr. Mead describes the means which were formerly resorted to in this country to check the progress of the plague. “The main import of the orders issued out at these times was as soon as it was found that any house was infected, to keep it shut up, with a large red cross, and these words ‘Lord, have mercy upon us,’ painted on the door, watchmen attending day and night to prevent any one's going in or out except such physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, nurses, searchers, &c., as were allowed by authority, and this to continue at least a month after all the family was dead or recovered.

“It is not easy to conceive a more dismal scene of misery than this, families locked up from all their acquaintance, though seized with a distemper which the most of any in the world requires comfort and assistance, abandoned it may be to the treatment of an inhuman nurse, (for such are often found at these times about the sick,) and strangers to every thing but the melancholy sight of the progress death makes among themselves, with small hopes of life left to the survivors and those mixed with anxiety and doubt, whether it be not better to die, than to prolong a miserable being, after the loss of their best friends and nearest relations.”—Dr. Mead's Medical Works p. 273.—Ed.]

[Mr. Binning had the authority of Jerome for saying this. When speaking of the Dead sea or as it is styled in Scripture, the Salt sea, his words are Demque si Jordanis auctus imbribus pisces illuc influens rapuerit statim mortuntur, et pinguibus aquis supernatant. In fine, if the Jordan, which runs into it, should when swollen with rain, carry any fish along with it, they die immediately, and float upon the surface of the bituminous waters. (Hieron Comment in Ezek. cap. xlvii.) He also states that no living creature of any description was to be found in the Dead sea. (Comment in Joel cap. ii.) According to Volney, clouds of smoke are still observed to issue from this lake, and he represents the lava and pumice stones which have been thrown upon its banks to be likewise indubitable indicators of the agency of fire. The water however of what Milton describes as—

“That bituminous lake where Sodom dam'd”

—though excessively bitter, and so heavy that the most impetuous waves can scarcely ruffle its surface is now perfectly transparent. M. de Chateaubriand who mentions this also informs us that he heard a noise upon the lake about midnight, which the Bethlehemites who accompanied him told him, proceeded from legions of small fish, which come and leap about on the shore.—(Travels, vol. 1, p. 397., Lond. 1812). He adds, “M. Seetzen, who is yet travelling in Arabia, observed in the Dead sea neither the helix nor the muscle, but found a few shell snails.”—Ibid.—Ed.]

[“What Mahomet did, lies within any man's reach. He was authorized by no miracle, he was countenanced by no prediction. But what was performed by Jesus Christ, is absolutely above the power and the imitation of man.

“Mahomet established himself by slaughter, Jesus Christ by commanding us to lay down our lives. Mahomet, by forbidding his law to be read, Jesus Christ by engaging us to search and read. In a word, the two designs are in all respects so directly opposite that Mahomet took the way, in human probability to succeed, Jesus Christ, humanly speaking, to be disappointed. And hence, instead of so irrational a conclusion, as that because Mahomet succeeded, Jesus Christ might, in like manner have succeeded before, we ought to infer, that since Mahomet has succeeded, Christianity must inevitably have perished had it not been founded and supported by a power altogether divine” (Pascal's Thoughts p. 95. Lond. 1886). Whoever wishes to see this comparison carried farther, may consult the masterly sermons of Professor White, preached before the University of Oxford at the Bampton Lecture. These contain a view of Christianity and Mahometanism, in their history, their evidence and their effects pp. 225-463. Lond. 1792.—Ed.]

[The first of Francis Quarles, Emblems Divine and Moral, is the picture of a heart. A representation of the globe covers the whole of the heart with the exception of the three angles or corners on each of which a syllable of the word Tri ni tas is imprinted.

Frances Quarles was secretary to Archbishop Usher. He died in 1644.—Ed.]

[There is no fact, connected with the history of former times, which can be more easily proved than this that religious sacrifices were prevalent throughout every part of the Gentile world. Animals, which were deemed suitable for sacrifice by one nation, might be considered improper for such a purpose by another. But in the most remote countries victims of one kind or another, and not unfrequently human victims were seen bleeding on the altars of superstition, and with the death of these, the idea of substitution, or of presenting life for life, was almost invariably connected. When sacrificing her victim, Ovid makes his votaress exclaim—“I like heart for heart, I beseech thee, take entrails for entrails. We give to thee this life for a better one”—

Cor pro corde, precor, pro obras sumite fibras.

Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus

Fast lib. vi. v. 161

But “as Kennicot observes from Delaney, whatever practice has obtained universally in the world, must have obtained from some dictate of reason, or some demand of nature, or some principle of interest, or else from some powerful influence or injunction of some Being of universal authority. Now the practice of animal sacrifice did not obtain from reason, for no reasonable notions of God could teach men that he could delight in blood, or in the fat of slain beasts. Nor will any man say, that we have any natural instinct to gratify, in spilling the blood of an innocent creature. Nor could there be any temptation from appetite to do this in those ages, when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire; or when, if it was not, yet men wholly abstained from flesh; and consequently this practice did not owe its origin to any principle of interest. Nay, so far from any thing of this, that the destruction of innocent and useful creatures is evidently against nature, against reason, and against interest, and therefore must be founded in an authority, whose influence was as powerful as the practice was universal and that could be none but the authority of God, the sovereign of the world; or of Adam, the founder of the human race. If it be said of Adam, the question still remains, what motive determined him to the practice? It could not be nature, reason, or interest, as has been already shown, it must therefore have been the authority of his Sovereign, and had Adam enjoined it to his posterity, it is not to be imagined that they would have obeyed him in so extraordinary and expensive a rite, from any other motive than the command of God. If it be urged, that superstitions prevail unaccountably in the world, it may be answered, that all superstition has its origin in true religion; all superstition is an abuse; and all abuse supposes a right and proper use. And if this be the case in superstitious practices that are of lesser moment and extent, what shall be said of a practice existing through all ages, and pervading every nation?—See Kennic, Two Diss. pp. 210, 211 and Rev. Exam. Diss. 8 p. 85-89.” Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. part i. pp. 27-29.—Ed.]

[Diod. Sic. Bibl. lib. i. p. 68.

Venit ad occasum, mun lique extrema Sesostris,

Et Pharios currus regum cervicibus egit.

Lucan lib. x. ver. 276.

The farthest west our great Sesostris saw,

Whilst captive kings did his proud chariot draw.

May's Translation.

Sesostris was so much affected and humbled, by the delicate appeal of the enslaved monarch, that he immediately commanded him, and the other unhappy kings who were harnessed to his car, to be removed from it.—Theophylact Hist. Maurit. lib. vi. chap. ii. Joan Tzetz. Hist. Chibad. iii. 69.—Ed.]

See:

Non bene conveniunt, nec in una sede morantur,

Majestus et amor.

Ovid. Met. lib. ii. v. 846.—Ed.]

[“At Stirlinge, the 12 of Septem. 1650. A shorte declaration and warninge to all the congregations of the Kirk of Scotland, from the commissioners of the General Assembly.

“Albeit the Lord quhosse judgments are unsearchable, and quhosse wayes past finding out, has brought the land werey low wnder the hand of ane prewaillinge enemey, yet must we not forbeare to declair the mynd of God, nor vthers refusse to hearken thereto. It wer superfluous to give answer to the maney calumnies and reproches that are blazed abroad, for albeit in every thing we cannot justify the conducte of the armey, yet we hold it our deutie to desyre every one not to beleive groundless reports, bot rather to eye the Lord, and looke vpe to the hand that smytts them. And therfor, in the first place, we exhort and warne all the inhabitants of the land, to searche out ther iniquities, and to be deeplie humbled before the Lord, that he may turn away his wraith from us. The Lord hath wounded us and chasteissed us sore, wiche sayes that our iniquities are muche, and that our sins are increessed. It concerneth the King to mourne for all the grivous provocations of his father's housse, and for all his auen guiltiness, and to consider if he hes come to the covenant, and joined himselve to the Lord, upone politicke interests, for gaining a croune to himselve rather then to advance religione and righteousness, that it is iniquitie quhilk God will not forgett excepte it be speedilie repented offe. It concerns our nobles and judges to consider wither ther carriadge in publicke matters be straight and equall, or rather savoring of seeking themselves and the thinges of this worlde, and how they walke in ther families, and in ther privat conversations. There is in maney a grate deall of perversenes and incorrigiblenes in regard of forsaking some and performing some deuties, notwithstanding publecke confessions and engagements, and this cannot bot heighlie provock the Lord. And it concerneth the officers of the armey, especially thesse quho are cheiffe among them, to weight weell quhat the Lord hes against them, and to repent of ther diffidence and carnall way of acting and undervaluing of God's people. And ministers have also neid to searche themselves concerning ther faithfullness to be sound, for wiche God is angrie, doutles even amongest thesse is muche negligence. Albeit the Lord hes suffred that armey of perfideous and blasphemous sectaries to prevaill. Yet God forbid that the land should complay with him, quhatever may be the plauseable and faire carriage of some of that enimey, yet doubtless there is ane levin of error and hypocrassy amongest them wich all the lovers of treuth wold decern and avoyd. As the Lord hes trayed the stability and integritie of his people in the land heirtofore, by the prevailing of malignants, so doeth he now tray them by the prevailing of sectaries, and wee trust they will thinke it ther deutie and commendatione to prove staidfast against them als weill as the other.

“3. Nather wold men be lesse cairfull and active to opposse the enimey, then they have beine in opposeing malignants heirtofor, our religione, lives, liberties and estaits, are als muche in hazard now as ever, all the ordinances of Jesus Christ in the land are in danger, and the foundatione lyke to be overturnid by thesse men quho are oblidged, by the band of the covenant, to mantiene all thesse and it wer a grate guiltines to ly doune and complay, and crutche under the burden of the strange impositions that they will lay upon us, and as men without head, to suffer our land to be brought in bondage and ourselves to be robbed of all thesse things quhilk are most precious and deire to us. If wee should doe so, the Lord wold be angrie with us, and our posterity could not bot curss us.

“4. We would not think that all danger from the malignants is now gone, seeing that ther is a grate maney suche in the land, quho still retein ther former principales, therfor we wolde, with als muche watchfullnes and tendernes now as ever, avoyde ther snars, and beware of complayance and conjunctione with them, and take head, that under a pretence of doing for the king and kingdome they gett not power and strenth unto ther handes, for advanceing and promoveing ther old malignant desseinges. Doubtles our saftie is in holding fast our former principales, and keeping a straighte faithe, without declyning to the right hand ore to the lefte.

“5. It concernes all the inhabitants of the land to bewarre of murmuring and complaning against God's dispensations, and questioning the treuthe and goodnes of our causse or quarreling with God, or blaming or casting off the covenant, becausse of aney thing that hath befallin them, that wer a grate iniquitie not to be pardoned. Lett us beare the indignatione of the Lord patientlie, becausse wee have sinned against him, untill he plead our causse and execut judgment for us, he will bring us fourthe to the light, and we shall behold his righteousnes.”—Sir James Balfour's Annales, vol. iv. pp. 98-102.—Ed.]

[“Causes of a soleme publicke humiliatione upone the defait of the army, to be keepit throughout all the congregations of the Kirk of Scotland.

“Albeit soleme publicke humiliations hes beine muche slighted, and gone about in a formall way by maney in this land, so that it is not one of the least of our provocations that we have drawn neire to God with our mouthes and keepit our heartes fare from him, for wich the Lord hath turned the wisdome of the wysse unto foollishnes, and the strenthe of the strong men unto weaknes, yet seing it is a dutie that hath oftin provin comfortable to uswards, God doeth new call us in a speciall way by a singular peice of dispensatione, and knowing that all quho are acquainted with God in the land will make conscience of it, wee conceave it expedient that the quhole land be humbled for the causses following.

“1. The continued ignorance and profanitie of the bodie of the land, and the obstinacey and incorrigiblenes of maney, notwithstanding of all the caires that God hath takin upon us by his word, and by his workes of mercy and judgement, to teache us in the knowledge of his name, and to refraine us from the eivell of our wayes.

“2. The manifest provocations of the kinges housse wiche we feare are not throughlie repented off, nor forsaken by him to this day, togidder with the crooked and precipitant wayes that wer takin by sundrie of our statesmen for caring the trettey with the king.

“3. The bringing home with the king a grate maney malignants, and indevoring to keepe some of them about him, and maney of them in the kingdome, notwithstanding of publicke resolutions to the contrarey.

“4. The not purging of the kinges familie from malignant and profane men, and the constituting of the samen of weill affected and godlie persons, albeit it hathe beine oftin pressed upone the parliament and comittee of Estaits, undertaking and promessed to be performed by them.

“5. The leveing of a most malignant and profaine guard of horsse to be aboute the king, quho having beine sent for to be purgit aboute 2 dayes before the defaite, were suffred to be and feight in our armey.

“6. The exceiding grate slaknes of maney and aversnes and untowardnes of some in the cheiffe judicatories of the kingdome and in the armey, in guid motione and publick deuties, especially in thesse thinges that concerne the purging of judicatories and the armey from malignant and scandalous persons, and filling all places of powre and trust with men of knowen integritie and trust, and of a blamles and Christiane conversatione, togider with grate inclinations to keepe and bring in malignants to the judicatories and to the armey, as if the land could not be gydit and defendit without thesse, and grate repyning and craying out against all that is done to the contrarie, and studding to make the same ineffectual.

“7. The exceiding grate diffidence of some of the cheiffe leaders of our armey, and others amongest us quho thought wee could not be saved bot by ane numerous armey, who quhen wee have gottin many thousands togider, wold not hazard to acte aney thing, notwithstanding that God offred faire opportunities and advantages, and fitted the spiritts of the souldiers for ther deutie, for carnall confidence that was in maney of the armey, to the dispysing of the enimey and promising victorie to themselves without eying of God.

“8. The lousnes, insolencie and oppressione, of maney in the armey, and the litle or no caire that was taken by maney to preserve the corne, by wich it hath come to passe that verey much of the food of the poore people of the land have beine neidlesly destroyed, and quhile wee even remember this, we wishe that the prophanitie and oppressione of sundrie of oure officers and souldiers in Ingland, quhen we were fighting for the assistance of the parliament of that kingdome, may not be forgottin, because it was matter of stumbling in that land, so it is lyke it is ane of the causses of the sore indignatione now manifested against us by the hands of thesse men.

“9. Our grate unthankfullnes for former mercies and deliverances, and even for maney tokins of the Lords favor and goodness towards our present armey quhile they wer togider, and the grate impatience of spirit that was to be seine in maney thesse weekes past, quhilk made them limitt the Lord, and to compleine and weerie of his delaying of ane deliverance.

“10. The enving and eyeing of the kings intrest and quarrell by maney, without subordinatione to religione and the liberties and saveties of this kingdomes.

“11. The carnall selve seiking and crooked way of sundrie in our judicatories and armies, quho make ther employments and places rather ane matter of intrest and gain and preferment to themselves then of advancing religione and righteousness in the land.

“12. The not putting difference betwix thesse that fear God, and thesse that fear him not, for our services, our companie, our employments, bot acompting all men alike, maney times preferring thesse quho have nothing of God in them.

“13. The exceiding grate negligence that is in grate ones, and maney others, in performing the deuties in ther families notwithstanding of our former soleme acknowledgment of the samen; as also, our neglecte of the deuties of mutuall edificatione, and grate unfruitfullness and barrennes that is to be seene amongest all sorts of persons; togider with the following of deutie with a grate deall of mixture of carnall affections and fleschly wisdome wich grives the Spirit of God, and takes away muche of the beutie of the Lords image from our judicatories.

“As we wold be humbled for thesse thinges, so wold wee also intreat the Lord that he wold sanctifie this affliction to his people that they nather dispysse his chestisings, nor faint quhen they are rebukit of him, bot that they may beare his indignatione patiently, and cleive steadfestly to the treuthe, and the covenants, and the causse of God without yeilding to the power of the enimey, or receaving ther errors, or complaying ather with them on the one hand, ore malignants on the other, and that the Lord wold poure out of his Spirit upon the people, that ther spiritts may be raissed unto ther deutie, and that they may be filled and furnished of God with wisdome and resolutione to acte against their enimies for the honor of God, ther awen preservatione; and that the Lord wold not suffer them to be tempted above that whiche they are able to beare, bot that he wold break the yoke of ther oppressors from off ther neckes, and give them salvatione and deliverance; earnestly to intreat the Lord in private and in publicke that he wold preserve with us the ordinances of Jesus Christe, the kingdom, the kings maties persone, the ministrie, from the power of ther enimies, quho seekes the destruction of all.”—Id. pp. 102-107.—Ed.]

[“About this time the king's head was filled by some unhappy men about him, especially Dr. Fraser [who was the king's physician] and Henry Seymour, with many extreme fears. After the affront at Leith, they had raised suspicions in his mind, which, upon the defeat at Dunbar, were increased, but by the separate rising in the west brought near to the head of a design to break the treaty with him, and agree upon his expences with Cromwell. Upon these motions the malignants in the north stept in, and by the forenamed persons began a correspondence for the raising of the north for his present service, under the conduct of Middleton. So many noblemen were on this unhappy enterprise. Crawford was given out for its head and contriver, albeit be professed to me his opposition to it. Lauderdale knew of it; but he has said so far to me, that I believe him he opposed it to his power. However, the thing was so foolishly laid, and the king, by the counsels of those about him, was so various in giving order for that rising, sometimes commanding and then countermanding to rise, that all the party was put in a confusion; yet, by the information of these foresaid fools, the king being put in fear, that Lorn, going timely to bury a soldier, was drawing together his regiment to lay hands on him, contrary to his former resolutions, he took horse with some two or three, as if it had been to go a hawking, but crossed Tay, and stayed not till he came to Clowe in Angus. By the way he repented of the journey, and meeting with Lauderdale at Diddup, and Balcarras coming from Dundee by accident, was almost persuaded by them to return, yet by Diddup and Buchan he was kept in Clowe. But when he came to that miserably-accommodated house, and in place of the great promised forces, he saw nothing but a small company of Highlanders, he presently sent for Robert Montgomery, who was near with his regiment, and without more ado, did willingly return, exceedingly confounded and dejected for that ill-advised start. When it was first blazed abroad, it filled all good men with great grief, and to my own heart it brought one of the most sensible sorrows that in all nay life I had felt. Yet his quick return of his own accord, and his readiness to give all satisfaction for that failure, and his kind receiving by the committee of states, among whom he ever sat after his return (though never before) turned our grief suddenly into joy, his absence not lasting above two full days. Yet all men were not so soon satisfied.

“Sundry of them who had been on the plot, fearing a discovery and punishment, flew to arms; Lewis Gordon, Ogilvie, Athol, and others, under Middleton's command, putting out a number of fair pretexts for their rising. This might have destroyed all; yet, by God's mercy, all was quickly quieted. D. Leslie, with all his horse, marched towards them; the king wrote earnestly to them to lay down. The committee of estates sent a fair act of indemnity, and so without more ado they went home.”—Baillie's Letters, vol. ii. p. 356.

Middleton, like the Marquis of Montrose, had been at one time a covenanter. After the Restoration, he was appointed to open the Scottish parliament, as his Majesty's commissioner. But this did not prevent him from taking part in the debate, when the Act Rescissory, by which the presbyterian form of church polity was completely destroyed, was under consideration. Mr. David Dickson, along with some others, was delegated by the presbytery of Edinburgh to present to the Earl of Middleton a petition upon this subject. Middleton told Mr. Dickson “he was mistaken if he thought to terrify him with papers,—he was no coward.” Mr. Dickson dryly replied, “They knew well he was no coward ever since the bridge of Dee.” This was a skirmish which took place on the 19th of June, 1638, in which Middleton had displayed great zeal for the covenant, in opposition to Charles I. He took no notice of Mr. Dickson's sarcastic remark.—Kirkton's “History of the Church of Scotland,” p. 118.—Ed.]

[Sir James Turner and Colonel Urrey were sent to the west of Scotland with their respective regiments, in 1648 to overawe and reduce to obedience, those who were averse to Hamilton's Engagement. (Guthry's Memoirs, p. 272 second edition). This service seems to have been perfectly congenial to the habits and taste of Sir James Turner, who appears, says Sir Walter Scott, (“Tales of a Grandfather,” vol. ii. p. 211. Edin. 1829), by the account he gives of himself in his Memoirs to have been an unscrupulous plunderer, and other authorities describe him as a fierce and dissolute character. On coming to Glasgow, the way he took, as he himself tells us with considerable gusto, “to make the hardest headed Covenanter in the toune to forsake the kirk and side with the Parliament,” was to quarter on suspected persons “two or three troopers and halfe a dozen musketeers.” In the same heartless strain he proceeds to say—“Finding my Glasgow men groune prettie tame, I tenderd them a short paper, which whoever signed I promisd, sould be presentlie easd of all quartering.” It was nothing but a submission to all orders of Parliament, agreeable to the Covenant. This paper was afterward, by some merrie men christend Turner's Covenant. (Memoirs of his own Life and Times by Sir James Turner, pp. 53, 54 printed at Edinburgh, by the Bannatyne Club, in 1829). As he was deprived of his rank by the Act of Classes in 1649, Sir James Turner was one of those pretended penitents, of whom according to Bishop Burnet, “all churches were full” after the passing of the Public Resolutions. (Memoires of the Duke of Hamilton, p. 425.) “Martii 12, 1651. The qlk day was given in ane lettre from the comission of the kirk, the tenour whereof follows,—Reverende and loving brethrene, having received a petition how general adjutant James Turner, acknowledgeing verie humblie his sin, in ye great accession he had to that unlawful engadgement against England, and partcularlie his impious carriage in your citie by perturbing divine service, he seems to be verie sensible of his former miscarriage. We however still continue him under conference wt presbyteries hear. Bot if we shall find him in a condition to mak publik satisfaction, we desire to know of you, if he can com and staye there wt safetie, and without danger from the enemie, that he may satisfie in ye kirk of Glasgow, which we thinke the most convenient place for removing the scandal, that if he can be secur, he may be appoynted to com to you, and if not, we may tak such other course as shall be thought most convenient. We have no more to say, bot commending you in all thingis to ye Lordis direction, we remain your loving brethrene the comissioners of ye generall assemblie. Perth, 13 Feb 1651. Sic subscribitur, Mr. Robert Douglas, Moderator.” (Records of the Presbytery of Glasgow.)

What Principal Baillie says of the oppressive conduct of Sir James Turner at Glasgow, during the time of the Engagement, is this—“Some regiments of horse and foot were sent to our town, with orders to quarter on no other but the magistrates, council, session, and their lovers. These orders were executed with rigour. On the most religious people of our town, huge burdens did fall. On some 10, on some 20, on others 30 soldiers and more, did quarter, who, beside meat and drink, wine, and good cheer, and whatever they called for, did exact cruelly their daily pay, and much more. In ten days, they cost a few honest but mean people, 40,000 lb., besides plundering of those whom necessity forced to flee from their houses.” Letters and Journals, vol. ii. p. 294.—Ed.]

[That is, “He says, I say, he denies, I deny.” It is the parasite Gnatho that is referred to. Terence makes the shameless sycophant proclaim his own infamy—

Quicquid dicunt, laudo, id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque

Negat quis? Nego. Ait? Aio.—Eunuchi Act ii. Sc. ii.

“Whatever they say, I applaud. If again they deny that, I applaud that too. Does any one deny a thing? I deny it. Does he affirm it? I affirm it.”—Ed.]

[This disastrous attack was made by the forces in the west, from whom had proceeded, what was called the Western Remonstrance, which had been condemned both by the Committee of Estates, and the Commission of the church. (“Causes of the Lord's Wrath in Scotland,” p. 60, printed in the year 1660). “Befoir this feight at Hammilton, Collonell Ker inquyred the judgement of his inferior officers the night befoir, quhat thai thocht of the caice of effaires, as they then stood, and schewed thame that he wold joyne with nane quho wes not for the Remonstrance, nor yit with those quho wold not declyne the Stait,—I meane the committee of Estait as it then stood.” (Nicol's “Diary of Transactions in Scotland,” p. 37) The following letter from Cromwell describing the defeat at Hamilton, is interesting in itself as well as on account of the writer. “Sir, I have now sent you the results of some treaties amongst the enemy, which came to my hand this day. The Major General, and Commissary-Generall Whaley marched a few days ago towards Glasgow, and the enemy attempted his quarters in Hamilton, and entred the town, but by the blessing of God, by a very gracious hand of Providence, without the losse of 6 men, as I hear of, he beat them out, kild about 100, took also about the same number, amongst which are some prisoners of quality, and near 100 horse (as I am informed), the Major Gen. being in the chase of them, to whom also I have since sent the addition of a fresh party. Col. Kerre (as my messenger this night tells me) is taken, his Lieutenant-Col. and one that was sometimes Major to Collonel Straughan, and Keires Captain Lieutenant. The whole party is shattered, and give me leave to say it, if God had not brought them upon us, we might have marched 3000 horse to death, and not have lighted on them, and truly it was a strange Providence brought them upon him. For I marched from Edenburgh on the north side of Cloid, appointed the Major-General to march from Peebles to Hamilton, on the south side of Cloid. I came thither by the time expected, tarried the remainder of the day, and untill neer 7 o'clock the next morning, apprehending the Major-Gen. would not come by reason of the waters. I being retreated, the enemy took encouragement, marched all that night, and came upon the Major-General's quarters about two houres before day, where it pleased the Lord to order as you have heard.

“The Major-Gen. and Commissary Gen. (as he sent me word) were still gone on in the prosecution of them, and saith, that except 150 horse in one body, he heares they are fled by 16 or 18 in a company, all the country over. Robin Montgomery was come out of Sterling, with 4 or 5 regiments of horse and dragoons, but was put to a stand when he heard of the issue of this businesse. Straughan and some other officers had quitted some 3 weeks or a month before this businesse, so that Ker commanded this whole party in chief.

“It is given out that the malignants will be all (almost) received and rise unanimously and expeditiously. I can assure you, that those that serve you here, find more satisfaction in having to deale with men of this stamp, then others, and it is our comfort that the Lord hath hitherto made it the matter of our prayers, and of our endeavours (if it might have been the will of God), to have had a Christian understanding between those that feare God in this land, and ourselves, and yet we hope it hath not been carryed on with a willing failing of our duty to those that trust us, and I am persuaded the Lord hath looked favourably upon our sincerity herein, and will still doo so, and upon you also whilst you make the interest of God's people yours. Those religious people of Scotland, that fall in this cause, we cannot but pitty and mourne for them, and we pray that all good men may do so too. Indeed there is at this time a very great distraction, and mighty workings of God upon the hearts of divers, both ministers and people, much of it tending to the justification of your cause. And although some are as bitter and as bad as ever, making it their businesse to shuffle hypocritically with their consciences and the covenant, to make it lawfull to joyne with malignants, which now they do (as well as they might long before) having taken in the head of them, yet truly others are startled at it, and some have been constrained by the work of God upon their consciences, to make sad and solemn accusations of themselves, and lamentations in the face of their supream authority, charging themselves as guilty of the blood shed in this warre, by having a hand in the treaty at Breda, and by bringing the king in amongst them. This lately did a Lord of the Session, and withdrew, and lately Mr. James Leviston, a man as highly esteemed as any for piety and learning, who was a Commissioner for the Kirk at the said treaty, charged himselfe with the guilt of the blood of this war, before their assembly, and withdrew from them, and is retired to his own house. It will be very necessary to encourage victuallers to come to us, that you take off customes and excise from all things brought hither for the use of the army. I beg your prayers, and rest your humble servant, O. Cromwell. Edinburgh, 4 Dec. 1660.”—Sev. Proc. in Parl. Dec. 12 to 19, apud Cromwelliana, pp. 94, 95.—Ed.]

[“The very heathens had a notion of the unlawfulnesse of confederacies with wicked men. For as Victorinus Strigelius on 2 Chron. 25, noteth out of Æschylus his tragedy, intituled Seven to Thebe, Amphiaraus a wise vertuous man was therefore swallowed up in the earth, with seven men, and seven horses, because he had associat himself with Tydeus, Capaneus and other impious commanders marching to the siege of Thebe.” (“Gillespie's Miscel. Quest.,” p. 178.) Æschylus makes Eteocles give the following description of the character of Amphiaraus, and foretell his destiny.—(“Septem cont Thebas,” ver. 597.)

“Nothing worse

In whate'er cause than impious fellowship,

Nothing of good is reap'd for when the field

Is sown with wrong the ripened fruit is death

So this seer

Of temper'd wisdom, of unsullied honour,

Just, good, and pious, and a mighty prophet,

In despite to his better judgment join'd

With men of impious daring, bent to tread

The long, irremeable way, with them

Shall, if high Jove assist us, be dragg'd down

To joint perdition.”—Potter.

Regarded simply as a poetical fiction, the account which Statius has given of the fate of Amphiaraus is particularly striking and beautiful—(Thebald. lib. vii. ver. 815-823)—Ed.]

[“He that is not inclined to-day will be more inclined to-morrow.” This is reversing the saying of the poet—

Qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit

Ovid, Remed. Amor. ver. 94.—Ed.]

[“She does not see what is in the bag behind her.”

Sed non videmus manticæ quod in tergo est.

Catul. Carm. xxii. ver. 21.

There is an allusion here to one of the fables of Æsop. Jupiter, says Aesop, placed two bags upon men. The one, which contained their own faults, he put upon their back, and the other, which was filled with the faults of others, he suspended from their neck, upon their breast. In this way, we cannot see our own misdeeds, but, perceiving those of others, we censure them freely. Phæd. Fab. Æsop, lib. iv. fab. 10.—Ed.]

[Crede mihi, bene qui latuit, bene vixit; et intra

Fortunam debet quisque manere suam.

“Believe me, he who has not attracted the notice of the world has lived well, and every one ought to keep within his own proper sphere.” Ovid Trist. lib. iii. eleg. iv, ver. 25.—Ed.]

[The heathen mythologists represented the Sirens to be three in number, and described them as effecting the destruction of mariners, by luring them from their course with their singing.

—They the hearts

Enchant of all, who on their coast arrive

The wretch, who unforewarn'd approaching, hears

The Sirens' voice, his wife and little ones

Ne'er fly to gratulate his glad return;

But him the Sirens sitting in the meads

Charm with mellifluous song, although he see

Bones heap'd around them, and the mouldering skins

Of hapless men, whose bodies have decay'd.

Hom. Od. lib. xii. v. 39. Cowper's Translation.]

[Quid non mortalia pectora cogis

Auri sacra fames?

Virg. Æneid, lib. iii. ver. 56.

“O sacred hunger of pernicious gold!

What bands of faith can impious lucre hold?”

Dryden's Translation.

Nihil enim est fam angusti animi, tamque parvi, quam amare divitias nihil honestius, magnifi entrusque, quam pecuniam contemnere, si non habeas si habeas, ad beneficentiam liberalitem que conferre. “There is no surer characteristic of a narrow and little mind than to love riches, nothing more amiable and noble than to despise money if you possess it not—if you possess it, to be beneficent and liberal in the use of it.” Cic. De Offic. lib. i. cap. 20.—Ed.]

---