[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.