“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.