The Works of the Rev. Hugh Binning

[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.