Chapter V (12)

54 “Their ministers generally brought then about them on the Sunday
nights where the sermons were talked over, and every one women as
well as men, were desired to speak their sense and their experience,
and by these means they had a comprehension of matters of religion,
greater than I have seen among people of that sort anywhere. The
preachers went all in one track, of raising observations on points
of doctrine out of their text, and proving these by reasons, and
then of applying those, and shewing the use that was to be made of
such a point of doctrine, both for instruction and terror, for
exhortation and comfort, for trial of themselves upon it, and for
furnishing them with proper directions and helps, and this was so
methodical that the people grew to follow a sermon quite through
every branch of it.” Barnet’s History of his own Times vol. i. p. 2.

55 P. 600.

56 P. 356.

57 P. 131. See also p. 576.

58 Gillespie’s Miscellany questions. p. 247. Edin. 1649.

59 P. 135.

60 P. 133.

61 Hist. of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 348.

62 Mede’s Works, _General Preface_.

63 Heber’s Life of Bishop Taylor, p. 171.

64 Pecock’s Works, vol. i., Life of the Author, p. 22.

65 Manton’s Sermons, Life of the Author, p. v.

66 Œuvres De Massillon, tome vi. p. 4; Essai Sur L’Eloquence de la
Chaire, par le Cardinal Maury, tome ii. p. 231.

67 Address to the Christian Reader.

68 Memorial for the Bible Societies in Scotland, p. 91. See also pp.
30, 90, 112.

69 P. 5.

70 Pp. 42, 48.

71 P. 55.

72 P. 303.

73 P. 80.

74 P. 279.

75 P. 90.

76 Pp. 301-303.

77 P. 74.

78 P. 36.

79 P. 46.

80 P. 165.

81 P. 216.

82 P. 76.

83 P. 248.

84 P. 657.

85 P. 619.

86 P. 217.

87 [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._]

88 [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._]

89 [Adverting to a sermon, which was preached by Mr. Matthew M’Kell, at
a field meeting in the year 1669, Wodrow says, that he was “a true
Nathanael, and a very plain dealer” (Hist. of the Suf. of Ch. of
Scot., vol. ii. p. 127). After having been, on different occasions
brought before the Privy council, and imprisoned, he was, on the 8th
of January, 1674, upon his refusing to engage not to preach, ordered
to confine himself to the parish of Carluke, and security was
required from him that he would appear before the Council at their
summons (Id. vol. i. pp. 371, 372, vol. ii. p. 248. See also History
of Indulgence, p. 36). He died at Edinburgh, in March 1681 (Laws
Memorialis, p. 183).

Wodrow does not speak with much confidence, as to the degree of
propinquity which existed betwixt Mr. Matthew M’Kail minister of
Bothwell and Mr. Hugh M’Kail, the young licentiate who was executed
at Edinburgh, 22d Dec, 1666, for being concerned in the insurrection
at Pentland. But Colonel Wallace, who commanded the insurgents on
that unfortunate occasion, styles “Mr. Hugh M’Kell son of Mr.
Matthew M’Kell minister of Bothwell” (Wallace’s Narrative of the
Rising at Pentland, in Dr M’Crie’s Memoirs of Veitch and Brysson, p.
430). The unhappy father was allowed to see his son in prison, after
his sentence. There is an affecting account in Naphtali (pp. 339,
345) of this mournful interview, and of another which took place on
the morning of the execution. The address of young M’Kail on the
scaffold concluded with these sublime expressions—“Farewell, father
and mother, friends and relations. Farewell the world, and all
delights. Farewell meat and drink. Farewell sun, moon and stars.
Welcome God and Father! Welcome sweet Lord Jesus the Mediator of the
new covenant! Welcome blessed Spirit of grace, and God of all
consolation! Welcome glory! Welcome eternal life! Welcome death!”
(Id. p. 348 Edin. 1761). We are told by Kirkton that “when Mr.
M’Kail died, there was such a lamentation as was never known in
Scotland before, not one dry cheek upon all the street or in all the
numberless windows in the market place” (Hist. of Ch. of Scot. p.
249). It was discovered afterwards, that Burnet, archbishop of
Glasgow, had in his possession at the time, a letter from the king,
forbidding any more blood to be shed. But to the disgrace of his
sacred profession, and of his feelings as a man, “Burnet let the
execution go on, before he produced his letter, pretending there was
no council day between”—Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times, vol. ii. p.
435 Oxford, 1833.—_Ed._]

90 [All accounts agree in stating that Mr. Hugh M’Kail, minister in
Edinburgh, was uncle to the preacher of the same name who was
executed. The minister of Bothwell, therefore, instead of being the
father, must have been the brother of the minister in Edinburgh. In
the years 1636, and 1637, when Mr. Samuel Rutherford was in
Aberdeen, according to his own description of himself, “a poor
Joseph, and prisoner,” with whom his “mother’s children were angry,”
he wrote several letters to Mr. Hugh M’Kail, in answer to others
which he received from him (Rutherford’s Letters, pp. 41, 247, 272,
292 _Sixth edition_ Edin., 1738). The name of Mr. Hugh M’Kail is
included in the list of ministers who, on the 19th of August 1643,
were by the General Assembly appointed Commissioners for the
Visitation of the University of Glasgow (Evidence of Royal
Commissioners for Visiting the Universities of Scotland, vol. ii. p.
261, London, 1837). Mr. Hugh M’Kail, minister at Irvine, was
likewise one of the ministers commissioned by the Assembly, in 1644,
to visit the church in Ulster (Dr. Reid’s History of the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland, vol. ii. p. 57). As a further proof
of the estimation in which he was held by his brethren, when it was
proposed by the Assembly, in 1648, to recommend to the general
session of Edinburgh six ministers, that they might choose four from
these to fill their vacant churches, Mr. Hugh M’Kail was selected to
be one of the number (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 303). He was a
Resolutioner (Id. p. 387). He died in 1660 (Lamont’s Diary, p. 121)
The editor of Kirkton’s History of the Church of Scotland for the
purpose of bringing ridicule upon the presbyterian clergy of that
day, quotes a passage from the MS. sermons of Mr. Hugh M’Kail. We
are much mistaken, however, if on reading that passage and after
making some allowance for an antiquated style, and a certain degree
of quaintness, one of the characteristics of the age,—the impression
produced upon the mind of any candid person, who admires strong good
sense, though presented in a homely dress, is not in a very high
degree favourable to the character and talents of the author (See
Kirkton’s History, pp. 227, 228). In the preface to Stevenson’s
History of the Church and State of Scotland, reference is made to a
manuscript, having this title, “A true relation of the Prelates
their practice for introducing the Service book, &c, upon the Church
of Scotland, and the Subjects, their lawful proceedings in opposing
the same.” This manuscript, Mr. Stevenson observes, was believed to
have belonged to “one of the Mr. Mackails, once famous ministers in
this church”. Some information respecting it will be found in the
Appendix (pp. 191, 192) to Lord Rothess’ Relation of Proceedings
concerning the Affairs of the Kirk of Scotland, printed in
Edinburgh, 1830. for the Bannatyne Club.—_Ed._]

91 [It appears from the dedication prefixed to the “Theses Theologicæ,
Metaphysicæ, Mathematicæ et Ethicæ, Preside Jacobo Darimplio, Glasg.
Excudebat Georgius Andersonus, An. Dom. 1646,” that “Hugo Binningus”
graduated “ad diem 27 Julii, Anno Domini 1646.” Under the ancient
Statutes of the University, no student was entitled to receive the
degree of master, till he had reached his twentieth year. But this
rule was not always strictly adhered to (Report of the Royal
Commission of Inquiry into the state of the Universities of
Scotland, appointed in 1830, p. 220). Binning was not nineteen years
of age at the date of his laureation. His distinguished
contemporary, Mr. George Gillespie, took his degree in his
seventeenth year.—_Ed._]

92 [General Monk, who, for the part he took in the restoration of
Charles the Second, was made Duke of Albemarle, encouraged most
during the time he was in Scotland the _Resolutioners_, while
Cromwell, on the other hand, befriended the _Protesters_ (Life of
General Monk, by Dr. Gumble, one of his chaplains, who was with Monk
in Scotland, p. 51, London, 1671). Monk professed to be a
Presbyterian (“The Mystery and Method of His Majesty’s Happy
Restoration,” by John Price, D.D., one of the late Duke of
Albemarle’s chaplains. Baron Masseres, Tracts, pp. 723, 775). “In
Scotland Mr. Robert Douglas [one of the ministers of Edinburgh] was
the first so far as I can find, who ventured to propose the king’s
restoration to General Monk, and that very early. He travelled, it
is said, _incognito_ in England, and in Scotland engaged
considerable numbers of noblemen and gentlemen in this project. From
his own original papers, I find that when Monk returned from his
first projected march into England, Mr. Douglas met him and engaged
him again in the attempt”—Wodrow’s Hist. of the Ch. of Scot., vol.
i. p. 59.—_Ed._]

93 [Physiologia Nova Experimentalis, Lugd. Bat. 1686.—_Ed._]

94 [The Appointment of Mr. James Dalrymple, as one of the Regents of
the University of Glasgow, took place by “Id Martu 1641” (Annales
Collegæ). He was then only twenty two years of age. In the year
1635, a clause was introduced into the oath, which the Regents were
required to take at their election, binding them to resign their
situation in the event of their marriage. Accordingly, having
married in 1643, Mr. Dalrymple vacated his charge, but was
immediately afterwards re-elected. Sir Walter Scott has said of
James Dalrymple, that he was “one of the most eminent lawyers that
ever lived, though the labours of his powerful mind were unhappily
exercised on a subject so limited as Scottish Jurisprudence, on
which he has composed an admirable work.” It has been properly
observed, that during the whole of the seventeenth century, not only
at Glasgow, but in the other universities of Scotland, “the Regents,
or Teachers of Philosophy (with very few exceptions), were young men
who had recently finished their academical studies, and who were
destined for the church. The course of study which it was their duty
to conduct, was calculated to form habits of severe application in
early life, and to give them great facility both in writing and in
speaking. The universities had the advantage of their services
during the vigour of life, when they were unencumbered by domestic
cares, and when they felt how much their reputation and interest
depended on the exertions which they made. After serving a few years
(seldom more than eight, or less than four), they generally obtained
appointments in the church, and thus transferred to another field
the intellectual industry and aptitude for communicating knowledge,
by which they had distinguished themselves in the university. It may
well be conceived that, by stimulating and exemplifying diligence,
their influence on their brethren in the ministry was not less
considerable than on the parishioners, who more directly enjoyed the
benefit of attainments and experience more mature, than can be
expected from such as have never had access to similar means of
improvement.” Rep. of Roy. Com. ut. supra, p. 221.—_Ed._]

95 [About the same period Mr. Alexander Jamieson, who was afterwards
minister of Govan, obtained the appointment of Regent in the
University of St. Andrews, after engaging in a public disputation.
The description of what took place on that occasion given by Mr.
John Lamont of Newton, is not devoid of interest as a picture of the
times—1649 Apr. 10, 11—“Ther were three younge men that did disputte
for the vacant regents place in St. Leonard’s Colledge, Mr. David
Nauee, (formerlie possessing the same, bot now deposed, as is spoken
before), viz., Mr. Alex Jamesone, ane Edenbroughe man, having for
his subject, _Syllogismus_, Mr. William Diledaffe, a Cuper man, his
subject, _Liberum Arbitrium_, and Mr. James Weymes, a St. Androus
man, he having _De Anima_ for his subject. All the tyme they had
ther speeches, ther heads werre couered, bot when they came to the
disputte, they were vncouered. Ther werre three of the five
ministers forsaide present at the disputs, viz., Mr. Alexander
Moncriefe, Mr. Walt. Greige, and Mr. Ja. Sharpe [afterwards
archbishop of St. Andrews], wha had decisive voices in the electione
of a Regent (thir werre the first ministers that ever had voice in
the electione of a measter to ane of the colledges there, the
custome formerlie, and of olde, was, that every colledge had
libertie to chose thir owne measters) For Mr. Ja. Weymes he was the
warst of the three, for in the disputs, he bracke Priscian’s head
verry often, for Mr. Alex. James and Mr. Wil. Diled they werre
judged _pares_ by the wholle meitting, so that after longe debeatte,
they werre forcet to cast lotts, and the lott fell upon Mr. Alex
Jamesone wha did succeide to the forsaide vacant regents place. Mr.
Wil. Diled got a promise (bot with difficultie) of the next vacant
place. Mr. Ro. Noue, professor of Humanitie in the said colledge,
had no voice in the forsaide electione because, he was not present
at all the meittings of the disputs.”—(Lamont’s Diary, p. 4, Edin.
1830)

The last instance of a public competition for a chair in the
University of Glasgow, occurred towards the close of the seventeenth
century soon after the Revolution. It is remarkable enough that in
this case also, the result was ultimately determined by lot. “A
programme was immediately published, and on the day appointed no
less than nine candidates appeared to enter the lists in a
comparative trial. All of them acquitted themselves so well during
the whole course of a long trial that the electors were at a loss
whom to choose. Setting aside some of the nine who were thought less
deserving, they could not find a ground of preference among the
rest. It was therefore resolved, after prayer to God, to commit the
choice to lot. The lot fell upon Mr. John Law, and a present of five
pounds stirling was given to each of the other candidates. One of
the competitors was Mr. William Jamieson, a blind man known to the
learned world by his writings. He was after some years chosen to
give public lectures in the college upon Ecclesiastical History for
which he had a pension from the Crown till his death.”—MS. History
of the University of Glasgow, written by Dr. Thomas Reid, formerly
Professor of Moral Philosophy.—_Ed._]

96 [The day of his election was “iiij Cal. Nov 1646 (Annal. Colleg.)”
The _Nova Erectio_ or foundation charter, granted to the University
of Glasgow 13th July, 1577, in the minority of James VI, made
provision for the appointment of three Regents, or Professors, along
with the Principal. The first Regent was required to teach Rhetoric
and Greek, the second Logic, Ethics, and the principles of
Arithmetic and Geometry, and the third, who was also sub principal,
Physiology, Geography, _Astrology_, and Chronology (See Copy of the
_Nova Erectio_ in Evidence for University Commissioners for Scotland
vol. 8. p. 241 London, 1837). In the year 1581, the Archbishop of
Glasgow gifted to the University the customs of the city, which
enabled them to establish the office of a fourth Regent, to whom was
allotted exclusively the teaching of Greek, and, sometime previous
to the year 1637, a fifth Regent was chosen, who was Professor of
Humanity, “humanitarum literarum” (Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol xxi.
Append. pp 24, 25). This professorship however, was not permanently
established till the year 1706 (Rep. of Roy. Com. appointed in 1830,
p. 241). By the foundation-charter the Regents were restricted to
particular professions, or departments of academical instruction,
that they might be found better qualified for the discharge of their
different functions (ut adolescentes qui gradatim ascendunt, dignium
suis studus et ingenuus præceptorem repettre queant). But this
practice, as will be seen from the following minute of a University
Commission, was changed in the year 1642. “The Visitat on after
tryall, taking to consideration that everie Regent within the
Colledge has beine accustomed hithertills to continue for more years
togithere, in and on the same professione so that the schollers of
one and the self-same class are necessitat yearlye to change theire
masters, have found it more profitable and expedient, that the
present course of teaching the schollers be altered, and that everie
master educate his own schollers through all the foure classes,
quhalk is appointed to begin presentlie thus that the classes, which
are taken up with the masters the zeir they go on with them, so that
Mr. David Munro having the Magistrand [or oldest] classe now, he
take the Bejane classe [or the youngest students, the _Bejani_,
derived from the French word _bejaune_, a novice] the next zeir.”
(_Sessio 2__da__, September 17_. Evid. for Univ. Com. ut supra p.
260). This new mode of instruction continued to be followed till the
year 1727, when the old system enjoined in the foundation charter
was revived (Rep. of Roy. Com. ut supra p. 223). It is said that Dr.
Thomas Rand, the celebrated philosopher, was an advocate of the
system of ambulatory professors, which was adhered to in Kings
College, Aberdeen down to the beginning of the present century (Old
Stat Acc. of Scot., vol. xxi. Append., p. 83). The first class that
Binning taught was the class of the _Bejani_ (Wodrow’s Analecta,
vol. i, p. 338. MSS in Bib. Ad.). He and the other Regents were all
styled “Professors of Philosophy.” Appendix to Spottiswood’s Hist.
of Ch. of Scot., p. 22, London, 1777.—_Ed._]

97 [It was the custom of the Regents to _dictate_, to the students
their observations on such parts of the writings of Aristotle,
Porphyry, and others, as were read in their classes. This was done
in Latin which was the only language allowed to be used by the
students even in their common conversation. At a meeting of
commissioners from the different universities of Scotland, which was
held at Edinburgh on the 24th of July, 1648, one of the resolutions
agreed upon, was to this effect—“Because the _diting_ [dictating] of
long notes has in time past proved a hindrance, not only to
necessary studies, but also to a knowledge of the text itself, and
to the examination of such things as are taught, it is therefore
seriously recommended by the commissioners to the dean and faculty
of arts that the regents spend not so much time in _diting_ of their
notes, that no new lesson be taught till the former be examined.”
(Bower’s History of the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 244).
Binning, it is said, “dictated all his notes off hand” (Wodrow’s
Analecta, vol. i. p. 338. MS in Bib. Ad.) Had he lived it was
thought “he had been one of the greatest schoolmen of his time.”—Id.
vol. v. p. 342.—_Ed_.]

98 [Long after the publication of the _Novum Organum_ of Lord Bacon and
even after the successful application of his principles by Sir Isaac
Newton and Locke, the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle continued
to occupy the chief place, in the course of instruction, in the most
celebrated universities of Europe. The first great reform, in the
mode of teaching philosophy, introduced into the college of Glasgow,
was effected through a royal visitation, which took place in 1727.
“The improvements in this university,” says Professor Jardine,
arising from the regulations introduced by the royal visitation,
were greatly promoted by the appointment, which took place shortly
afterwards of more than one professor of singular zeal and ability.
The first of these was Dr. Francis Hutcheson. This celebrated
philosopher, whose mind was stored with the rarest gifts of
learning, illustrated, with a copious and splendid eloquence, the
amiable system of morality which is still associated with his name,
producing thus the happiest effects not only on his own students but
also on his colleagues, and infusing at once a more liberal spirit,
and a greater degree of industry, into all the departments of
teaching. Great obstacles, however, still remained. The professor of
the first philosophy class according to the practice of the times
continued to deliver his lectures in the Latin language, a method of
instruction which, although it must long have proved a great
impediment to the ready communication of knowledge on the part of
the teacher, and to the reception of it on the part of the pupil,
was not discontinued in this college, till upon the following
occasion.

In the year 1750 Adam Smith was appointed professor of logic and,
being rather unexpectedly called to discharge the duties of his
office he found it necessary to read to his pupils in the English
language, a course of lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, which
he had formerly delivered in Edinburgh. It was only during one
session however, that he gave these lectures, for at the end of it,
he was elected professor of moral philosophy and it was on the
occasion of this vacancy in the logic chair that Edmund Burke whose
genius led him afterwards to shine in a more exalted sphere was
thought of, by some of the electors, as a proper person to fill it.
He did not, however, actually come forwurd as a candidate, and the
gentleman who was appointed to succeed Dr. Smith, without
introducing any change as to the subjects formerly taught in the
logic class, followed the example of his illustrious predecessor in
giving his prelections in English.—Outlines of Philosophical
Education Illustrated by the Method of Teaching the Logic class in
the University of Glasgow, pp. 20-21, Glasgow 182.—_Ed._]

99 [The office of principal of the University of Glasgow was disjoined
from the cure of the parish of Govan, in 1621, and the immediate
predecessor of Binning was Mr. William Wilkie, who was deposed by
the synod on the 29th of April, 1649. “Mr. William Wilkie, I
thought,” says Principal Baillie “was unjustly put out of Govan,
albeit his very evil carriage since, has declared more of his sins.”
(MS Letters, vol. iii., p. 849, in Bib. Col. Glas.)

There are certain extracts from the letters of Mr. William Wilkie to
Dr. Balcanqubal, dean of Rochester, published in Lord Hailes’s
Memorials and Letters (vol. ii pp. 47, 48). The learned judge,
however, has mistaken the name Wilkie for _Willie_. Not knowing,
therefore, who the writer of the letter was, he says, in a note,
“This _Willie_ appears to have been a sort of ecclesiastical spy
employed by Balcanqubal the great confident of Charles I. in every
thing relating to Scotland” (Ibid.). In his preface, Lord Hailes
acknowledges that the letters he has published were “chiefly
transcribed from the manuscripts, amassed with indefatigable
industry by the late Mr. Robert Wodrow.” But Wodrow himself states,
in his Life of Dr. Strang (Wodrow MSS, vol. xiii, pp. 4, 5, in Bib.
Coll. Glasg.), that he was possessed of six original letters, which
had been written by Mr. William Wilkie, minister of Govan, during
the sitting of the famous Glasgow Assembly in 1638, and addressed to
Dr. Balcanqubal, who had come down to Scotland with the Marquis of
Hamilton, the Lord Commissioner, and was then residing in Hamilton
palace. He also informs us that these and some other letters were
discovered “after Naseby encounter, or some other, where Dr.
Balcanqubal happened to be, in a trunk found among the baggage,
which fell into the hands of the parliament’s army.” Wilkie’s
letters contained an account of the proceedings of the Assembly,
Wodrow says, not very favourable to the majority there. And he then
adds it was “from these and such other informations upon the one
side, Doctor Balcanqubal drew up The Large Declaration, under the
Kings name, in 1642.” At the time of the Glasgow Assembly, Mr.
William Wilkie was one of the regents of the university.

Since this was written, Wilkie’s letters have been printed, without
abridgment in the Appendix to vol. of a new edition of Ballie’s
Letters, published at Edinburgh by the Bannatyne club.

“The originals of all these letters are contained in folio vol. xxv.
of the Wodrow manuscripts, which is now preserved among the Archives
of the Church of Scotland.”—Id. p. 481.—_Ed._]

100 [The estate of Trochrigg which is one of the largest in the parish
of Girvan, in the county of Ayr, is now the property of John
Hutchieson Fergusson Esq. It was sold by the descendants of the
ancient proprietors about the year 1782. It was to his paternal
residence at Brodrigg that Principal Boyd retired with his family in
1621, when he resigned his office as Principal of the University of
Glasgow, and it was in this retreat he wrote the Latin poem
entitled, _Ad Christum Servatorem Hecatombe_. This beautiful poem
has been justly described to be, cannon totius fere Christianæ
Religionis, seu evangeli æ doctrinæ medullam, vel compendium verius,
cultissians dul tissimisque versibus, ex intimoque Latio petitis,
stropbarum Sopphicarum centuria lectori ob oculos proponens, “a song
embracing almost the whole of the Christian religion, or placing
before the eyes of the reader in a hundred Sapphic stanzas, the
marrow, or rather a compend of evangelical doctrine, in the most
polished and mellifluent verses and in language taken from that of
the Augustan age.” (Poet. Scot. Musa. Sacræ, p. 198, præfætio, vol.
vi., Edin., 1739. Life of Boyd, Wodrow MSS., vol. xv. p. 123 in Bib.
Coll. Glas.).

The commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Roberts Bodn, A
frocheregia Scoti, In Epistolam ad Ephesios Prælectiones, fol. pp.
1236. London, 1652) contains the substance of the Lectures, which
Boyd delivered, when he was a professor of theology in the
University of Saumur. This is attested by his cousin Mr. Zachary
Boyd, who was one of the Regents at Saumur, and attended the
delivery of them (harum prelectionum assidutis tuit auditor). Some
time after the death of the learned and pious author, a copy of the
_Prælectiones_ was transmitted to Holland to his friend Andreas
Rivetus, that he might superintend the printing of it. As Chouet, a
well known Genevese printer, happened to be in Holland at the time,
Rivetus parted with the manuscripts to him, that they might be put
to press immediately on his return to Switzerland. But,
unfortunately, the vessel in which the manuscripts were shipped was
taken by another vessel from Dunkirk, and having thus fallen into
the hands of some Jesuits they never could be recovered. Rivetus
consoled himself with the reflection that the original manuscripts,
in the author’s own hand writing, were safe in Scotland in the
keeping of the family. The church and the nation, however, being at
this period in such a distracted state, the work was not given to
the world till the year 1652, when it was published by the London
Stationers Company, (Andrea Riveti Epistoli de vita, scriptis,
moribus, et feliei exitu Roberti Bodn, ante Prelectiones Bodn)
though the General Assembly had passed numerous acts, and entered
into arrangements with different printers for the purpose. See Index
of Unprinted Acts for the years 1645, 1646 and 1647.—_Ed._]

101 [When the Presbytery of Glasgow had met on the 22d August 1649, “The
parochineris of Govane gave in ane supplicatione shewing that
whereas you are destitute of ane minister, and being certanelie
informed of the qualifications of Mr. Hew Binnen, one of ye regents
of ye colledge of Glasgow, for ye work of ye ministrie,” they were
unanimously desirous he should be sent to preach to them, “so soone
as he shall have past his tryels.” The presbytery, in consequence of
this supplication, “ordaines Mr. Patrik Gillespie, moderator of the
presbyterie to wrytt to ye said Mr. Hew, to acquaint him wt the
desyre of the parochineris of Govane, and to repar to the presbytery
to undertake his tryels for ye effect forsaid.” Records of the
Presbytery of Glasgow.

On the 5th September, 1649, “Mr. Robert Ramsay reported Mr. Hew
Binnen had exercised on the text prescribed, and had geven the
brethrene full satisfaction. He is ordained to handle the
contraversie scientia media, and to give in theses thereupon.” Id.

“Sept 19, 1649—The qlk daye Mr. Hew Binnen gave in theses upon the
contraversie prescribed unto him, de scientia media, to be sustenit
by him, he presbyterie appoint him to handle this contraversie this
daye eight dayes at nyne houres.” Id.

“Sept 26, 1649—The qlk daye Mr. Hew Binnen made his Latin lesson, de
scientia media, and sustenit the disputt thairupon, and was approven
in both. The following ministers were present, Mr. Patrik Gillespie,
Mr. David Dicksone, Doctor Jhone Strang, Mr. Zach. Boyde, Mr. George
Young, Mr. Hew Blair, Mr. Gab. Conyngham, Mr. David Benett, Mr.
Matthew Mackill. Mr. Wm. Young, Mr. Arch. Dennestoune, Mr. Jhone
Carstaires, Mr. James Hamilton.” The presbytery “ordaines Mr. Hugh
Binnen to make ye exercise this daye fyfteen dayes, and the rest of
his tryels to be ye said day.” Id.

On the 10th October, 1649, after Mr. Hugh had “exercised”—“compeared
the laird of Pollok and the parochineris of Govane, and desyred that
Mr. Hew Binnen might preach to them the next Lordis daye, qlk was
granted, and he ordained to go and preach yr.” Id.

On the 24th Oct., 1649, “Compeared the parochineris of Govane, and
gave in ane call to have Mr. Hew Binnen to be their minister.” Id.

“December 19, 1649—The qlk day Mr. Hew Binnen handled the
contraversie, de satisfactione Christi, and sustenit the disputt
upon the theses given in be him, and was approven.” Id.

On the 2d January, 1650, his admission to the ministerial charge of
the parish of Govan is appointed to take place “next Fryday.” The
minister who presided on that occasion was Mr. David Dickson, who
was one of the professors of Theology in the University of Glasgow.
Id.—_Ed._]

102 [Dr. John Strang, who was the son of Mr. William Strang, minister of
Irvine, was born in the year 1584. He studied at the University of
St. Andrews, where he took the degree of master at sixteen. After
having been a regent in St. Leonard’s college for several years, he
was ordained in 1614, minister of Errol, in the Presbytery of Perth.
When Cameron _le grand_, as he was called, (Vide Bayle’s Dict. Art.
Cameron) resigned his situation as principal of the University of
Glasgow, Dr. Strong succeeded him. He died at Edinburgh, on the 20th
of June, 1654, in the seventieth year of his age and was buried near
his distinguished predecessor, Principal Boyd. At his death, an old
friend and very learned man, _Andreas Rawinæus octogenarius_,
composed some Latin verses, as an affectionate tribute to his
memory. These may be seen in a short Life of Dr. Strang which was
written by Baillie and prefixed to Dr. Strang’s work, _De
Interpretatione et Perfectione Scripturæ, Rotterodami_, 1663. It is
from this Life the preceding particulars respecting the learned
author have been taken.

It appears to have been chiefly through the influence of Archbishop
Law, who was his cousin, that Dr. Strang was made principal of the
University of Glasgow. When the latter understood that
_Trocheregius_ wished to be reinstated in his office, a
correspondence took place betwixt them, which is in the highest
degree honourable to the feelings and character of Dr. Strang. This
correspondence is inserted by Wodrow in his _Life of Robert Boyd of
Trochrig_ (Wodrow MSS. vol. xv. pp. 99-104 in Bib. coll. Glasg.).
Butler represents Dr. Strang to have been an acute philosopher, and
second to none in the kingdom as a disputant (nullique ad hunc usque
diem, in nostra gente, hac in parte secundus. Vita Autoris, ut
supra.) The strongly expressed commendation of such a man was no
mean compliment to Binning’s talents and learning. Wodrow says he
was told by a neighbouring clergyman, Mr. Patrick Simson, minister
of Renfrew, who was ordained the same year that Binning died, and
who lived for some years after the commencement of the following
century, “yt qn they were seeking to get old principal Strang out of
the colledge, ye principal said, ‘Ye are seeking to get me out of my
place, qm have ye to fill my room? I know none, unless it be a young
man newly come out of the school, viz., Mr. Hugh Binning’ ”
(Analecta, vol. iv. p. 171. MSS in Bib. Ad.)—The Presbytery Records
show that the common head which was presented to Binning was not,
_De concursu_, &c, but one closely allied to it: _De scientia
media_.—_Ed._]

103 [See his epitaph, p. 1.—_Ed._]

104 [Her name was _Mary_, or _Maria_ Simpson. The inventory of the
effects of “Mr. Hew Binning, at Govane, deceiasit in ye monith of
Sept. 1658,” is given up “be Marie Sympsone, his relict, and onlie
exerix dative.” (Com. Rec. Glasg.). Towards the close of her life,
Mrs. Binning became connected with the Society people. She seems to
have corresponded with the Rev. James Renwick, one of their
ministers, who, in a letter dated July 9, 1685, speaks of her as
“like to die in prison,” and in another, of her having “gone to
Ireland” (Renwick’s Letters, pp. 104, 179). Howie of Lochgoin, the
author of “Lives of the Scots Worthies,” assures us that it is Mrs.
Binning who is alluded to by Renwick in his Letters pp. 49, 104. He
likewise quotes part of a letter written to her in 1692 by Sir
Robert Hamilton of Preston, who commanded the army of the
Covenanters at the battle of Bothwell bridge (Shields’ Faithful
Contendings, pp. 486, 487). In a catalogue of the manuscripts of the
Rev. Robert Wodrow, minister of Eastwood, which is in the library of
the Faculty of Advocates vol. xxiv. folio is stated to contain “50
letters from Mrs. Binning to Mr. Ham.” It is not known where this
volume is now to be found.—_Ed._]

105 [“The Rev. James Simpson was chaplain to the Lord Sinclair’s
regiment. He appears to have settled in the charge of a congregation
in Ulster, perhaps at Newry, which was the headquarters of his
regiment for several years—He was still in his charge in Ireland in
1650 in which year the Rev. Hugh Binning, minister of Govan, was
married to his daughter.” Dr. Reid’s History of the Presbyterian
Church in Ireland, vol. i. pp. 369, 370.—_Ed._]

106 [What Koelman says is this that the adjoining parish to which he and
his friends went was the one in which after sermon, the marriage
ceremony was to be performed. Mrs. Binning it is probable was
residing there at the time.—_Ed._]

107 [His eloquence procured for him, according to Macward, the name of
the Scots Cicero. Along with a distinct articulation be possessed
great fluency. When he preached in Glasgow, which being the minister
of a neighbouring parish was frequently the case, he was much
admired and followed (Koelman’s “Het Leven en Sterven van Mr. Hugo
Binning” prefixed to his translation of Binning’s Common Principles
of the Christian Religion). With regard to the estimation in which
as a preacher, he was held in his own parish, his mode of preaching
being so completely different from what they had been accustomed to,
it is said “he was more valued by Govan people after his death, than
when alive.” Analecta, vol. i. p. 338, MSS in Bib. Ad.—_Ed_.]

108 [The writer of “A Short Account of the Life and Writings of Mr. Hugh
Binning,” prefixed to the small volume of his sermons, published for
the first time in 1760, remarks “By the _haranguing way_ I suppose
he means those sermons that are not divided or sub-divided into
dominant observations and heads, marked by the numbers 1, 2, 3, &c.
But the reader will see many of these discourses, where there are no
figures, no first, second, third, or any number of heads mentioned,
as regularly divided or sub-divided, as those sermons where we will
see a good number of doctrines and heads.… Some useful sermons have
been often perplexed with a great multitude of minds consisting of
two or three sentences without any proof or illustrations of which
the hearer or reader will remember or retain less than some sermons
that contain five or six heads, or have not their distinct divisions
marked with different figures or faces;” pp. xxii-xxiii.—_Ed_.]

109 [It being “the perfection of art to conceal art.”—_Ed_.]

110 [Mr. James Durham, minister of the Inner High church, Glasgow, was
the son and heir of John Durham of Easter Powrie, now named
Wedderburn, a considerable estate in the parish of Muirhouse, and
county of Forfar (Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol. xiii, pp. 162, 163).
In the time of the civil wars, and before he contemplated being a
clergyman, he was a captain in the army. He held the office of
king’s chaplain, when Charles the Second was in Scotland. The
description which “Old Aitkenhead, who had it from the gentlewoman,”
gave, of Cromwell’s visit, in April 1651, to the High church of
Glasgow, where Mr. Durham was preaching, is this: “The first seat
that offered him was P. Porterfield’s, where Miss Porterfield sat,
and she, seeing him an English officer, was almost not civil.
However he got in and sat next Miss Porterfield. After sermon was
over he asked the minister’s name. She sullenly enough told him, and
desired to know wherefore he asked. He said because he perceived him
to be a very great man, and in his opinion might be chaplain to any
prince in Europe, though he had never seen him nor heard of him
before. She inquired about him, and found it was O. Cromwell”
(Wodrow’s Anal., vol. v. p. 186, MSS in Bib. Ad.).

Mr. Durham sided neither with the Resolutionists nor Protestors. For
this he was strongly blamed at the time by Principal Baillie, who
took a keen part in the controversy, (Let. and Jour., vol. ii. p.
376) though after his death, he recorded, in the following terms,
his opinion of Mr. Durham’s character and talents. “From the day I
was employed by the presbytery to preach, and to pray, and to
impose, with others, hands upon him, for the ministry at Glasgow, I
did live to the very last with him in great and uninterrupted love,
and in high estimation of his egregious endowments, which made him
to me precious among the most excellent divines I have been
acquainted with in the whole isle. O, if it were the good pleasure
of the Master of the vineyard to plant many such noble vines in this
land!” (Durham’s Commentary upon the book of Revelation, Address to
the Reader, p. vi). The work written by Durham, entitled, “The Law
Unsealed, or a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” has
commendatory prefaces prefixed to it, by two distinguished English
puritans, Dr. John Owen, and Mr. William Jenkyn. Dr. Owen wrote
likewise a preface to the Clavis Cantici, or an Exposition of the
Song of Solomon, by James Durham, minister at Glasgow, 4to, 1669.
Doubts have been expressed, however, whether Wood, in his Athenæ
Oxomenses, (vol. ii, p. 747, Lond. 1721) was warranted to attribute
this preface to Owen, “as the preface is anonymous” (Orme’s Life of
Owen, Append., p. 505). But the only copy of the work, which is in
my possession, (Glas. 1723) has attached to it the name of “John
Owen, May 20, 1669.”

The widow of Mr. Durham, who was the daughter of Mr. William Muir of
Glanderston, a branch of the family of the Muirs of Caldwell, was,
in 1679, twice committed to prison, for having in her house
religious meetings, or conventicles, as they were called in those
days of relentless tyranny and oppression. On one of the occasions,
she was taken to Edinburgh, and imprisoned there, along with her
sister, the mother of Principal Carstairs. Wodrow’s Hist. of the
Suff. of the Church of Scot., vol. iii, pp. 10, 54.—_Ed_.]

111 [See page 368.—_Ed._]

112 [See page 406.—_Ed._]

113 [The following account of the origin of the differences between the
Resolutioners and Protesters, is that given by Kirkton. “After the
defeat of Dumbar, the king required a new army to be levyed, wishing
earnestly it might be of another mettale than that which hade been
lossed. So he desired that sort of people who were called
Malignants, his darlings, might be brought into places of trust,
both in council and army, though they hade been secluded from both
by their own consent. And this request was granted both by committee
of estates and commission of the church sitting at Perth. But there
was a party in both these councils which alledged confidently, that
though the malignants were content to profess repentance for their
former practices, yet they should be found to be men neither sincere
in their profusions, nor successful in their undertakings. This was
the beginning of the fatal schism in the Scottish church. For though
the king, to secure Scotland, was content once more to take the
covenant at his coronation in Scoon (which instrument he caused burn
at London) yet the dissatisfied party continued still in their
jealousies, and even of the king himself whom they doubted most of
all. This party was called Protesters and Remonstrators as the other
was called Resolutioners, which names occasioned lamentable
distraction” (History of the Church of Scotland p. 53). A more
particular account of this unhappy controversy, so fatal in its
results to both parties, may be seen in the introduction to Wodrow’s
history.

Though Baillie was a Resolutioner, he seems to have had some
misgivings as to the course he adopted. “We carried unanimously at
last,” says he in a letter to Mr. Spang, dated Perth, January 2,
1651, “the answer herewith sent to you. My joy for this was soon
tempered when I saw the consequence, the loathing of sundry good
people to see numbers of grievous bloodshedders ready to come in,
and so many malignant noblemen as were not like to lay down arms
till they were put into some places of trust, and restored to their
vote in parliament.” (Letters and Journals, vol. ii, p. 366). In the
Life of Professor Wodrow written by his son, (pp. 29, 30, Edin.
1828) it is said, “There were great endeavours used in the year
1659, and 1660, entirely to remove that unhappy rent ’twixt the
public Resolutioners and Protesters in this church, and had not Mr.
Sharp struck in by his letters from London in order to serve his own
designs, and ruin both, and made Mr. Douglas and other ministers at
Edinburgh cold in this matter of the union, it had no doubt
succeeded. These put Mr. Wodrow upon an inquiry into that debate,
and when leaving the lessons during the vacation in the summer he
desired Mr. Baillie’s directions what to read for understanding that
subject. The professor said to him, ‘Jacobe, I am too much engaged
personally in that debate to give you either my judgement on the
whole, or to direct you to particular authors on the one side and
the other,’ but taking him into his closet he gave him the whole
pamphlets that had passed on both sides in print and manuscript,
laid ranked in their proper order, and said, there is the whole that
I know in that affair; take them home to the country with you, and
read them carefully and look to the Lord for his guiding you to
determine yourself aright upon the whole.”—_Ed._]

114 [This treatise was afterwards printed and is included in the present
edition of the works of the author.—_Ed._]

115 [See page 226.—_Ed._]

116 [Mr. Patrick Gillespie, who was brother to George Gillespie one of
the ministers of Edinburgh, was for some time minister of Kirkcaldy.
On the 4th December, 1641, “Mr. Pa. Gillespie produceit,” to the
magistrates and council of Glasgow, “a presentation grantit to him,
be his Majestie, of the place of the Highe Kirke, instead of the
bischope” (Glasgow Burgh Records). He was one of the three ministers
who, in 1651, were summarily deposed by the Assembly, for their
opposition to the Public Resolutions, and protesting against the
lawfulness of that Assembly (Lamont’s Diary, p. 33). His sentence
was reversed by the Synod of Glasgow (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii.,
pp. 414, 415). Gillespie was evidently desirous to effect a
reconciliation between the Resolutioners and Protesters, by means of
mutual concessions (Id. pp. 388, 401, 411). In the year 1553, he was
elected principal of the University of Glasgow, by the English
sequestrators (Id. p. 371, Lamont’s Diary, p. 53).

No one in Scotland had more influence with Cromwell than Principal
Gillespie, who is said to have been the first minister in the Church
of Scotland, who prayed publicly for him (Nicol’s Diary, p. 162). In
April 1654, the Protector called him up to London, along with Mr.
John Livingston of Ancrum, and Mr. John Menzies of Aberdeen, to
consult with them on Scottish affairs (Life of Livingston, p. 55).
He preached before the Protector in his chapel, and obtained from
him, for the University of Glasgow, the confirmation of “all former
foundations, mortifications, and donations made in its favour,
particularly that of the bishopric of Galloway, to which he added
the vacant stipends of the parishes, which had been in the patronage
of the bishop of Galloway, for seven years to come; and also in
perpetuity the revenues of the deanery and sub-deanery of Glasgow”
(Old Stat. Acc. of Scot., vol. xxi., Append. pp. 25, 26). Through
his influence with the Protector, he likewise procured a grant to
the town of Glasgow, “for the use of the poor who had been injured
by the fire in 1653,” [1652] (Brown’s Hist. of Glasg., p. 120) and
“assisted and pleasured sundry in the matter of their fines”
(Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 390). As to what is said by the
editor of Kirkton’s History, that after the Restoration, “Gillespie
had made great efforts for a pardon, and offered to promote
episcopacy in Scotland” (p. 111), the reader is referred to a Review
of that work, in the Christian Instructor (Vol. xvii. pp. 339, 340).
He died not long after this at Leith (Law’s Memorials, p. 11).