Chapter V (15)

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

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

337 [“Stirling, 27 Sept, 1650: The comittee of Estaits considering the
necessarey devine lying upone them in prosecutione of the acte of
parliament and according to the frequent and serious remonstrances
of the commissione of the churche for purging of the kings familey
of all profaine, scandalous, malignant, and disaffected persons, and
that it be constituted of such as are pious, and well affected to
the cause and covenant qwho have not opposed the same by ther
counsells and actions. And lykewayes considering the grate offence
hes beine taken that the persons after nominated have not removed
from courte nor departed out of the kingdome respectively, and
having taken also into consideratione the report of the sub
comittee, appoynted to think on the purging of the kings familey
doth heirby therfor ordaine and command, The French Marques of
Villaneuffe, The Earle of Cleveland, Lord Wentworthe his son,
Viscount Grandeson, Lord Volmett, Lord Withringtone, Robert Long,
Secretarey, Sr Edward Walker, Garter, Mr. Progers, Groome of His
Maties Bed chamber, Master Lane, Master Marche, Colonell Darcey, Mr.
Antoney Jacksone, Major Jacksone, Colonell Loes, Master Oder, Under
Secretary Lord St. Paule, Sr Philipe Musgrave, Sr Faithful Fortskew,
Sr Timothey Featherstons, L Coll Meutis, Collonell Carbraithe, to
depart the courte within 24 houres, and to remove out of the
kingdome within 20 dayes after intunatione, and Doctor Fraser and Sr
George Melveill to withdraw from the court within 24 houres.” (Sir
James Balfour’s Annales of Scotland, vol. iv. pp. 109, 110). Sir
Edward Walker, whose name is included in the above list, says,
“Money being ordered for my transportation, which I never got I was
connived at for about three months, and therein had the opportunity
to collect and write my observations of the Affairs as they then
stood. Yet upon Friday the 4th of October, I was, by Sir James
Balfour, lion king of arms, commanded from court, which I presently
obeyed, and about a month after imbarqued for Holland, where I
resided several years after.” (Historical Discourses. Contents
folio. Lond. 1705.) The circumstances in which this zealous royalist
was placed, together with his national prejudices, may account for
his extreme credulity, in believing that the clergy of Scotland,
after the battle of Dunbar, offered up such impious prayers as he
has ascribed to them. (Id. p. 182) It was not to be expected that
Mr. Hume would neglect the opportunity which was thus afforded him
of covering with ridicule the Scottish covenanters. (See Hume’s
Account of the Battle of Dunbar.) Rapin vindicates the conduct of
the Estates, in inquiring the removal from about the person of the
king, of some of his friends and attendants’ men he says, “whose
principles and maxims were directly opposite to the interests of
Scotland and who were the kingdoms reputed enemies.” Hist. of Eng.
vol. ii. p. 581. Lond. 1833—_Ed._]

338 [“At the nod of a prince.”—_Ed._]

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

Quicquid dicunt, laudo, id rursum si negant, laudo id quoque
Negat quis? Nego. Ait? Aio.—_Eunuchi_ Act ii. Sc. ii.

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

340 [That is, the characteristics.—_Ed._]

341 [For an account of the origin, progress, and unsuccessful issue of
Hamilton’s Engagement or the Unlawful Engagement, as it was also
called, the reader may consult Stevenson’s History of the Church and
State of Scotland, book iv. chapter x., Cook’s History of the Church
of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 149.—_Ed._]

342 [Old MS.—_Ed._]

343 [“Pearth Novemb. 29, 1650—The Comrs. of the Gen. Assemb. considering
the great sin and offence these men are guilty of, who have had
accessione to the late Rebellione in ye north, therefore they doe
appoint that all these persons that were actually in arms at the
late rebellione, and all such as subscribed the Bond and
Declaratione emited by them to be suspended from the communione till
the nixt Gen. Assemb. to which there are hereby refered for further
censure, and for all others that had any accessione by counsel or
otherwise, to that rebellione, or to the King’s withdrawing from his
Counsell, refers to Presbytries to try diligently in their severall
bounds these persons and the degree of their guiltiness and to
report the same, with the evidences and proofs thereof, to the nixt
meeting of this Commissione.” A. Ker.—“The Waters of Sihor.” Wodrow
MSS., vol. xvii. pp. 44-45.—_Ed._]

344 [James, Marquis of Montrose. After his forfeiture by the Scottish
parliament he was usually styled in their Act and proclamations
_James Graham_, and sometimes _James Graham, late Earl of Montrose_.
Bishop Guthry says (Memoirs, p. 175) that it was considered a proof
of malignancy to distinguish him and the Earl of Auly by their
titles. In a letter to Principal Baillie, 19th March 1649, Mr. Spang
mentions that he was admitted to an audience by the Prince of Orange
at the Hague. Something was said by the Prince, which led Mr. Spang
to suspect he alluded to Montrose. “I hoped,” says Mr. Spang, “his
Highness did not mean of that man, whose apostasy, perjuries, and
unheard of cruelty, had made him so odious, in all our country, that
they could not hear of his name.” He presently gave me to understand
he meant not him or any such, for by the comportment of our Scottish
noblemen at court now, he perceives how odious _James Graham_ must
be at home, for they will not salute or speak to him, nay, not look
where they think he is, and this I have observed with my own eyes.
Baillie’s Letters and Journals, vol. ii. p. 323.—_Ed._]

345 [On the 14th of December 1650, an answer was returned to Parliament,
“be the commissioners of the general assemblie to the quære, given
in to thame be the estattis of parliament, anent the persones to be
admitted to ryse in armes, and joyne with the forces of the
kingdome, and in what capacitie, for defence thereoff aganes the
armie of sectaries, &c.” (Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol.
vi. p. 554.) The Answer of the Commission, after a declaration that
it is the duty of parliament to use all necessary and lawful means
for the defence of the land, and a description of the enfeebled
state of the kingdom, contains the following exposition of their
views. “In this case of so great and evident necessity, we cannot be
against the raising of all fencible persons in the land, and
permitting them to fight against this enemy for defence of the
kingdom, excepting such as are excommunicate, forfaulted,
notoriously profane or flagitious, and such as have been from the
beginning, and continue still, or are at this time, obstinate and
professed enemies, and opposers of the Covenant and cause of God;
and for the capacity of acting, that the Estates of Parliament ought
to have, as we hope they will have special care, that in this so
general concurrence of all the people of the kingdom, none be put in
such trust or power as may be prejudicial to the cause of God, and
that such Officers as are of known integrity and affection to the
cause, and particularly such as have suffered in our former armies
may be taken special notice of.”—“A True Representation of the Rise,
&c. of the Present Division in the Church of Scotland,” pp. 10, 11.
London, 1657. “The Answer of the Commission of the General Assemblie
to the Quæree Propounded to them from the Parliament,” pp. 2, 3.
Aberdeen, Printed by James Brown, 1651.—_Ed._]

346 [“_Act of Leavie_: At Perth, the twentie third day of December, one
thousand six hundred and fiftie yeiris, the Kingis Majestie and
Estaits of parliament, being verie sensibill of the dangerous and
distressed conditione of this kingdome, and most desyrious,
according to the law of God and nature, in discharge of there public
trust, to use all lawful and necessarie means for the saiftie and
defence of religione, his Majesties persone and royal authoritie,
laws and liberties of the kingdome, aganis an armie of sectaries,
who most unjustlie and perfidiouslie, contrarie to the solemne
league and covenant and treaties, have invaded, and are by all actis
of hostilitie destroying the same, Thairfore hes statute and
ordained that all fensible men, within the sherrefdomes of Fyiff,
and Kinross, Clakmanan, Stirling, Dumbartane, Argyll, Boott, Perth,
Forfar, Kincardine, Aberdeine, Bamff, Murray, Nairne, Inverness,
Ross, Sutherland, Cromartie, Caitnes, and Orknay, cum to an
randevouze in the severall divisions of ilk schyre respective, to be
set doun and appoyntit be the comitties of war in ilk schyre,
according to the number of the regimentis efter specifit. The haill
hertofore noblemen, gentlemen, and utheris to burt and landwartly
frenteris, woodsetteris, and all other fensible men, betwixt
thriescore and sixteine, with all there horses fitt for service, and
their haill armes for horsemen and footmen (except such as are
excommunicate, forfeited, notoriouslie profane or flagitious, and
such as have beene from the beginning, and continew still, or are at
this tyme, obstinat and professed enemies and opposeris of the
covenant and caus of God). Out of the quhilk haill number of
fensible persones, in ilk division, all such as are vigorous and
able men for war are heirby appoynted to be drawin out, and put in
Regimentis, as is efter specifit, with there best horses and arms,
so many as are serviceable horses, and the rest on foot, with their
best armes, twa part musquettis and third part pickis, and all with
swords. The horsemen to be armed with pistollis, hulsteris or
syidpistollis, and launces,” &c., &c.—“Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland,” vol. vi, pp. 560-562.—_Ed._]

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

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

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

348 [That is, “How much changed from that assembly which was formerly!”
(Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore, qui, &c. _Virg. Æneid_, lib. ii.
ver. 274.)—_Ed._]

349 [“Ult. July, 1648. Post Meridian Sep. xxi. _A Declaration of the
General Assembly concerning the present dangers of Religion and
especially the unlawful engagement in War, against the kingdom of
England_. Together with many necessary exhortations and directions
to all the Members of the Kirk of Scotland.” Records of the Kirk of
Scotland, pp. 498-505. Edited by A. Peterkin.—_Ed._]

350 [At a meeting of the Committee of Estates, on the 6th of January,
1651,—“Rege Presente. The letter from the Presbytery of Stirling to
the Commission of the Generall Assembly, still disclaiming the kings
intereste, and the unity of all the subjects of the land to assist
their countrey against the comon enimey, redd, with the Commission
of the Generall Assemblies ansuer therto, redd lykwayes approvin and
ordained to be published and printed.” (Balfour’s Annales, vol. iv.
p. 235). The Commission of the Assembly complained, that the letter
of the Ministers of the Presbytery of Stirling, which was printed at
Edinburgh 165l, had prefixed to it “the false and odious title of _A
Remonstrance of the Presbtytery of Stirling against the present
conjunction with the malignant partie_.” (“Answer of the
Commission,” &c. dated Perth, 6 Jan. 1651 p. 19. Printed at
Aberdeen, 1651). What Binning now advances is in vindication of the
Letter of the Presbytery of Stirling and in reply to the Answer of
the Commission. Mr. James Guthrie, and Mr. David Bennet, Ministers
at Stirling, were charged by the committee of Estates with training
this Letter, and summoned to appear before them, at Perth, on the
19th of February, 1651, to answer for their conduct.—“Acts of Parl.,
vol. vi. p. 578.”—_Ed._]

351 [“And first, we shall desyre every one seriously to consider the
case and condition wherein the kingdome is engaged and standeth at
this tyme, that now we are not upon an engagement of invasive warre
but upon necessary defence against a forraign enemy, who hath not
only injustly invaded us, but also (through the holy permissive
providence of God) slaine many of our brethren with the sword,
subdued a great part of the land, is oppressing the people of God
therein, and following his injust designes and intentions against
the rest of the kingdome, that in this case, in the ordinary way of
providence, according to which men must act, unlesse they would be
guilty of tempting God, there is need of, and ought to be employed
against the enemy, such a competency of power as is required in
right and warrantable prudencie, and may be had, not being of itself
sinful. This certainly is mans duety, whatever God, out of his
soveraignity, hath done, or may doe in the case of want, or
disproportion of meanes.”—Answer of the Commission, ut supra, p.
6.—_Ed._]

352 [“In such parts of the kingdome, as are yet free from the oppression
of the enemy, and so out of which any men can be raised, there is
not a possibility to get such a competencie of power, unlesse there
be a more generall calling foorth of the body of the people than
hath been before, this as it is most certain in itselfe, so it is
most apparent, and evident unto all, that doe understand these parts
of the kingdome. And whereas faithfull and honest men in the State,
well acquainted with the severall shares of that part of the
kingdome, have publickly declared that when all shall be brought
together, that can be called foorth of these parts, according to
publick resolution, there will scarce be a competent power against
the power of the enemy, we cannot but much wonder, if any, not so
acquainted therewith, shall hold the contrary, and not give credit
to the declaration of honest and faithfull men, especially in
authority, the matter being such, as in the immediate knowledge
thereof dependeth on sense, and, as to those that have not that
knowledge, pertaineth to humane faith, which giveth credit to the
testimony _testium idoneorum_ of competent witnesses such as these
are whom we have designed.”—Id. pp. 6, 7.—_Ed._]

353 [“We need say no more unlesse there were some show of proofe to the
contrary. Yet we shall say somewhat particularly to one place that
which is said in the case of Amaziah’s associating with and taking
to him the Israelits for help in his just defence, (2 Chron. xxv. 7:
‘O king let not the army of Israel goe with thee for the Lord is not
with Israel even with all the house of Ephraim,’) as being mainly
urged and as it seems most to stick with some in the present
businesse to which sundry things may be answered, which clear the
present businesse from the force thereof. 1. The Israelits were
idolaters, and forreiners not so in our case, in either respect. But
it is alledged that the reason why Amaziah is disswaded from taking
their assistance is because God was not with them, and therefore the
same reason having place in manie of these, whom the present
resolution comprehendeth, the disswasion hath the same force against
them. Therefore 2. God’s not being with them may be either conceived
and understood, in regard of the estate of grace and reconciliation
with God but how-so ever that with many of them God was not in this
regard, yet the reason cannot be alledged in this sense because then
it would follow by the argument, that we might not take the help of
any man out of the estate of grace, for our just and necessary
defence, which none will admit, or it may be understood of God’s
assistance and prospering providence simply. But neither can it be
taken thus, because it is certain and clear that God was often with
them in this sense in their own cause and quarrells. Therefore it
must needs be conceived, in regard of their profession, and
religion, which was corrupt and idolatrous. Now the reason thus
understood hath not place in our businesse. 3. Yet doe we not find
that Amaziah is commanded to exclude any of the subjects of his own
kingdom, from acting in that defence, or reproved for not doing of
it notwithstanding many of them no doubt were naughty and corrupt in
their way, 2 Kings xiv.”—Answer of the Commission, p. 12.—_Ed._]

354 [That is, “chiefly.” The strict signification of _ut plurimum_ is,
_as much as possible_.—_Ed._]

355 [“At the bar of conscience.”—_Ed._]

356 [“Doeth our mentioning onlie the kingdome in that resolution, import
a separation of the kingdome, and the cause in the quarrell against
our enemie? Or what logick can draw out such a consequence out of
it? Wee do think that the kingdome being in danger by this enemie,
the cause also is in danger, and the defending of the kingdome will
be the defending of the cause also. And we trust no instruments
shall bee employed for the defence of the kingdom to the prejudice
of the cause.”—Answer of the Commission, ut supra, p. 19.—_Ed._]

357 [“In point of fact.”—_Ed._]

358 [“On that very account.”—_Ed._]

359 [Bishop Hall quaintly remarks, that “No devil is so dangerous as the
religious devil.” “Suppose the ends of this Engagement to be good,
(which they are not,) yet the meanes and ways of prosecution are
unlawful, because there is not an equall avoiding of rocks on both
hands, but a joyning with malignants to suppresse sectaries, a
joyning hands with a black devill to beat a white devill. They are
bad physicians who would so cure one disease as to breed another as
evil or worse.” (“A Declaration of the Gen. Assembly concerning the
present dangers of Religion.” Rec. of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 501.)
In the year 1649 the Scottish parliament passed an “Act against
Consulters with Devils and Familiar Spirits,” &c. (Acts of the Parl.
of Scot. vol. vi. p. 359.) It was supposed that the power of some of
these was employed in particular instances for the benefit of
mankind. They were therefore distinguished from the others in the
same way that white witches or persons who used charms and
incantations for curing diseases, &c. were distinguished, but not in
the eye of the law, from black witches, or those who practised their
art for the purposes of mischief. (Whitelock’s “Memorials,” p. 550.
See also Sir Walter Scott’s “Tales of a Grandfather,” vol. ii. p.
117.) If we look to the strange confessions of many of the
unfortunate creatures who were condemned to suffer death for
witchcraft in those days, without adverting to the cruel means that
were often resorted to with a view to extort from them such
confessions, the credulity of the age will not appear to have been
so extraordinary as it has been represented. It is impossible not to
admire the singular discretion of Dr. Grey, Rector of Houghton
Conquest when speaking on this subject: “Nothing,” says he, “more
plainly discovers the iniquity of those times than the great numbers
of people executed in England and Scotland for witches, _if they
were guilty_, or the barbarous superstition of the times, _if they
were innocent_, which is the more probable.”—“Impartial Examination
of the Fourth Volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,”
p. 96, Lond. 1739.—_Ed._]

360 [That is, openly persisting. See “The Answer of the Commission to
the Presbytery of Stirling,” p. 11.—_Ed._]

361 [See “The Nullity of the Pretended Assembly at Saint Andrews and
Dundee,” &c., p. 312. Printed in the year 1652. As many had been
under age when the Solemn League and Covenant was first sworn the
Commission of the General Assembly ordained it to be renewed by
their Act, October 6, 1648, joining to it the “Solemn Acknowledgment
of Public sins and Breaches of the Covenant, and a Solemn Engagement
to all the Duties contained therein.”—_Ed._]

362 [“We desire it may be remembered that in the beginning of these
troubles, anno 1638, when as there were then standing laws in this
kingdom, which are not yet repealed to this day, discharging all
subjects from rysing in armes, without the kings expresse warrant
and command, yet the subjects of this kingdome perceiving themselves
in danger to be destroyed by forraign invasion, did fynd these lawes
no wayes to bynd up their hands from taking armes, for their just
defence and selfe preservation,—these lawes, in the intention of the
lawgiver, being made for the preservation of the kingdom and not for
the destruction of it.—” Answer of the Commission, pp. 13,
14.—_Ed._]

363 [See “The Waters of Sihor, or the Lands Defectione,” Wodrow MSS.
vol. xvii. pp. 39-41, in Bib. Ad. Peterkin’s “Rec. of the Kirk of
Scotland,” pp. 619-620.—_Ed._]

364 [See Note, page 96.—_Ed._]

365 [That is, “every where and at all times like himself and the
same.”—_Ed._]

366 [We learn from Principal Baillie, (“Letters and Journals,” vol. ii.
p. 363,) that Binning had identified himself with the Association of
the West, which was required to dissolve itself, by an Act of the
Scottish parliament, passed 28th Decem., 1650.—_Ed._]

367 [Or, general officers.—_Ed._]

368 [The _first_ or _principal proposition_ in the preceding
syllogism.—_Ed._]

369 [(Minor probatur,) that is, _the second proposition_ in the
preceding syllogism. It will be perceived that the arguments of the
author are constructed according to the rules of the Aristotelian
logic. A familiar acquaintance with this mode of reasoning
continued to be cultivated, at this time, by all who wished to excel
in public disputations (Professor Jardine’s “Outlines of
Philosophical Education in the University of Glasgow,” p. 12. Glas.
1825). In the Westminster Assembly, the different speakers often
presented their opinions under the form of syllogisms, which were
impugned and defended by employing the usual terms and technical
formalities of the dialectic art.—See Lightfoot’s “Journal of the
Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines.” Works, vol. xiii. pp. 123,
157, 203-205, &c.—_Ed._]

370 [Aiming at.—_Ed._]

371 [Mr. Robert Ramsay, Principal of the University, reminded the
Presbytery of Glasgow at their first meeting in June, 1651, “that
Mr. Hew Binnen had expresslie protested that it was not lawfull for
us to pray for ye succeese of the armie, as it was constitute, and
becaus of those who now have power in the same. And farther, the
said Mr. Hew Binnen, when notice was taken of these words repeated
them over and over agane, and avowed, he wold pray for a blessing to
them, yt is, that yet might be converted, but, that he could not
pray for success to them as yet are now constitute.”—“Records of the
Presbytery of Glasgow.”—_Ed._]

372 [Or shudder.—_Ed._]

373 [For the Instructions given by the Scottish parliament to the
Commissioners who went to Breda see “Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland,” vol. vi. pp. 513, 514. A copy of the Treaty itself agreed
upon by his Majesty Charles II and the Scottish Commissioners and
afterwards ratified by parliament, will be found in Thurloe’s State
Papers, vol. i. pp. 147, 148.—_Ed._]

374 [That is, “who, because they are wise, are ignorant of that which
they know.” (Tu pol, si sapis quod scis, nescis. Terent Eun. iv. 4,
54.)—_Ed._]

375 [That is, _lively_ or _distinct_ characters.—_Ed._]

376 [“A fisherman is made wise by a bite.” A Greek proverb, the original
of this (ὁ ἁλσευς πληγες νους φυσες) has been preserved in a
fragment of Sophocles, Erasmi Adagiorum Chil. Quat. p. 41. Coloniæ
1612. Scholiastes Græci In Sophoc. Tom. iii. p. 602. Argentorati
1788.—_Ed._]

377 [“Another consequence of this defeat [at Dunbar] was, that every one
blamed the other, the one side for purging out too many who might
have been of service against the enemy, and these again blamed their
opposites for being too remiss, and not well enough purged.”—Memoirs
of the Life of the Rev. Robert Blair, p. 113. Edin. 1755.—_Ed._]

378 [Answer of the Commission, _ut supra_, p. 8.—_Ed._]

379 [P. 178 Edin. 1649.—_Ed._]

380 [Or as a general principle.—_Ed._]

381 [In opposition to what is here affirmed it is stated in the pamphlet
entitled, “A True Representation of the Present Division in the
Church of Scotland,” (p. 15.) that the Scottish Reformers did not
look upon their conjunction with the Duke of Chatelherault and his
followers, “as a cause of that sad stroak, as some would make the
world believe, from Mr. Knoxes Sermon at Sterlin. For in the heads
of that Sermon, printed in the History of the Church of Scotland, p.
217 _Edit. Edinburgh_, 1644, in 4to, there is no mention of any such
thing but only of their carnal confidence, that possibly they had
not sincerely repented of their former opposition, and that they who
were late come in were made to feel in their own hearts, how bitter
a cup they had made others to drink before them. Nor doth he (as our
Brethren’s tenets now lead them) presse them to purge out such as
were lately admitted, but doth only presse repentance upon all of
them.”—Dr. M’Crie presents his readers with an analysis of this
sermon of the “great Apostle of the Scots,” as he was called by
Beza.—See “Life of Knox,” pp. 192, 193, sixth edit.—_Ed._]

382 [See page 495 of this edition.—_Ed._]

383 [“The safety of the people” is “the highest law.”—_Ed._]

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

“Nothing worse
In whate’er cause than impious fellowship,
Nothing of good is reap’d for when the field
Is sown with wrong the ripened fruit is death
So this seer
Of temper’d wisdom, of unsullied honour,
Just, good, and pious, and a mighty prophet,
In despite to his better judgment join’d
With men of impious daring, bent to tread
The long, irremeable way, with them
Shall, if high Jove assist us, be dragg’d down
To joint perdition.”—_Potter_.

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

385 [“A Hypothetical Proposition is one which asserts not absolutely,
but under an hypothesis indicated by a conjunction. An hypothetical
syllogism is one on which the reasoning depends on such a
proposition.”—Whately’s “Elements of Logic,” p. 388.—_Ed._]

386 [“For he who gives life gives the things which are necessary to
life.”—Cic. De Offic. lib. cap. 4.—_Ed._]

387 [The MS. in my possession which will be afterwards described has no
part of this third answer. In place of it I find the following
passage: “And though there had been disproportion of numbers betwixt
us and the enemy, yet we cannot but still say, it had been a way
much better beseeming the people of God, and in which there should
have been much more peace and consort, to have had to do our duty
with such a disproportion, than to have taken in the malignant party
for making it up.”—_Ed._]

388 [Than with.—_Ed._]

389 [Dirge, or some such word is wanting here.—_Ed._]

390 [That is, put them in mind.—_Ed._]

391 [The remaining part of the Section is not contained in either of the
two preceding editions of the “Case of Conscience,” but is taken
from a MS. in the handwriting of the period with the use of which I
have been favoured by my friend David Laing, Esq., Secretary to the
Bannatyne Club. This MS. terminates with Section IV.—_Ed._]

392 [Mr. George Gillespie, who was the son of Mr. John Gillespie,
Minister of Kirkaldy, was at this time one of the Ministers of
Edinburgh, but he had gone to Kirkaldy for the benefit of his
health. He was one of the Commissioners from the Church of Scotland,
to the Westminster Assembly. In his letters from London, Principal
Baillie, who was also one of the Scottish Commissioners, speaks of
his youthful colleague in terms of high admiration. “Of a truth,” he
says, respecting him, in a letter dated March 26, 1644, “there is no
man whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire. He has studied
so accurately all the points ever yet came to our assembly, he has
gotten so ready, so assured, so solid a way of public debating,
that, however there be in the assembly divers very excellent men,
yet in my poor judgment, there is not one who speaks more rationally
and to the point, than that brave youth has done ever.” (“Letters
and Journals,” vol. l. p. 451. See also, pp. 407, 419, 431.)
Gillespie’s “Treatise of Miscellany Questions,” which was published
after his death, in 1649, contains a chapter entitled, “Another most
useful Case of Conscience discussed and resolved, concerning
associations and confederacies with idolaters, infidels, heretics,
or any other known enemies of truth and godliness” (pp. 169-193.)
This, it will be observed is, with very little variation, the title
of the Tractate of Binning. It is probable, that they who first
undertook the publication of Binning’s MS. were led to adopt this
title from the similarity of the views, as well as the identity of
the subjects of the two authors. When the Commission of the church
met at Perth, in December, 1650, for the purpose of considering the
_query_ of the parliament as to the persons who ought, or ought not,
in present circumstances to be employed, in the defence of the
country,—it was not likely that the published opinions of Gillespie
upon such a subject would be overlooked. But says Baillie, when
giving an account of this meeting, “The question was alleged to be
altered from that which Mr. Gillespie writes of.”—“Letters and
Journals,” vol. ii. p. 365.—_Ed._]

393 [The name of “M. F. Carmichael” is attached to a warrant, which is
dated Sept. 1, 1651, and bears to be subscribed by certain
commissioners of the church, authorizing George Ogilvy of Harras, to
deliver up to Lord Balcarres, the Registers of the Kirk that were in
his house (Reg. of Deeds, 6 March, 1701. Dr. M’Crie’s Mem. of Veitch
and Brysson, Append. p. 525.) There can be little doubt that these
were the original records of the church, which were produced and
identified at the meeting of the General Assembly at Glasgow, in the
year 1638. (Id. p. 497. “Rec. of the Kirk,” vol. l. pp. 22-24,
Edited by A. Peterkin.) It is boldly asserted by Gordon, parson of
Rothiemay, that the old authentic records of the Assemblies were at
that time in the hands of Archbishop Spottiswood, who had carried
them with him, he says, to London, though he more cautiously adds,
in a _nota_, “It is _very uncertaine_ if the registers presented wer
the principalls, or if only copyes.” (“History of Scots Affairs,”
vol. i. pp. 146, 147. Aberdeen. Printed for the Spalding Club,
1841.) Keith tells us in what way these records afterwards came into
the possession of Mr. Archibald Campbell, a Scottish non-juring
clergyman residing in London, by whom they were most unjustifiably
detained from the Church after the Revolution, and subsequently
gifted to Sion College, the governors of which being expressly
restricted from permitting them to pass out of their custody.
(“Hist. of the Aff. of Church and State in Scot.,” p. 497.) After
some delay on the part of the governors, the long concealed records,
bound up in three volumes, and embracing the whole period between
1560 and 1616, were given up by them for inspection, in the year
1834, to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Church
Patronage. (“Minutes of Evidence,” pp. 126, 355, 374.) Dr. Lee, one
of the witnesses before the Committee, declared, after examining
them, he was quite certain that they were “authentic records.” (Id.
p. 450). The loss of such invaluable archives, soon after this,
which now appears to be placed beyond all doubt, in consequence of
the destruction of the House of Commons by fire, is much to be
deplored.—_Ed._]

394 [At the Restoration, Mr. Moncrieff was ejected from his parish, for
the part he had acted in framing or sanctioning the “Remonstrance,”
and the “Causes of the Lord’s wrath,” which was engenuously
confessed by him (“Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland,” vol. vii.
p. 367.) Wodrow has collected various particulars regarding the
life, character, and subsequent sufferings, for conscience’ sake, of
this pious and useful minister. (“Hist. of the Suff. of the Ch. of
Scot.”, vol. i. pp. 197-200.) As he was persecuted, during the
Usurpation, for persisting in praying publicly for the king, he had
thus the singular misfortune of being punished both for his loyalty
and his supposed disloyalty. Mr. Moncrieff has had a niche assigned
to him by Howie among the _Scots Worthies_. (pp. 411-415. Dumfries,
1835.) Mr. James Guthrie, Minister at Stirling, who was imprisoned
at the same time with his friend, Mr. Moncrieff, and afterwards
executed, was accused at his trial of compiling “the Remonstrance.”
This he denied, affirming he could prove, by hundreds of witnesses,
that he was at Stirling at the time, many miles distant.—See his
Defences, “Acts of the Parl. of Scot.,” vol. vii. Append. p.
37.—_Ed._]

395 [The parliament of Scotland passed the _Act of Classes_ on the 23d
of January, 1649. It was entitled an Act “for purging the
Judicatories, and other places of Public trust.” Those whom it
declared to be incapable of sitting in parliament, or of holding any
civil or military appointment, were divided into four classes. The
disqualification of such as, on account of their supposed greater
criminality, were placed in the first class, was to continue for
life, that of the second class for ten years; that of the third
class for five years; and that of the fourth class for one year
only, provided they gave previously sufficient evidence of their
penitence.—“Acts of the Parl. of Scots,” vol. vi. p. 352.—_Ed._]

396 [“After the woful rout at Dunbar, in the first meeting at Stirling,
it was openly and vehemently pressed to have David Lesly laid aside,
as long before was designed, but covertly by the chief purgers of
the times. The man himself did as much press as any to have liberty
to demit his charge, being covered with shame and discouragement for
his late unhappiness, and irritated with Mr. James Guthrie’s publick
invectives against him from the pulpit. The most of the committee of
estates, and commission of the kirk, would have been content to let
him go; but finding no man tolerably able to supply his place, and
the greatest part of the remaining officers of horse and foot
peremptory to lay down, if he continued not; and after all trials
finding no maladministration on him to count of, but the removal of
the army from the hill the night before the rout, which yet was a
consequence of the committee’s order, contrary to his mind, to stop
the enemy’s retreat, and for that end to storm Broxmouth house as
soon as possible. On these considerations the state, unanimously did
with all earnestness entreat him to keep still his charge against
this order, my Lord Wariston, and, as I suppose Sir John Cheesly,
did enter their dissent. I am sure Mr. James Guthrie did his, at
which, as a great impertinency, many were offended. Col. Strachan
offered to lay down his charge, being unwilling more to be commanded
by D. Lesly. Some more inclined to do so, but all were quieted by
this expedient.”—Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 350.—_Ed._]

397 [The religious zeal of Binning, his patriotism, and his dread of
arbitrary power were, it is clear, stronger than his loyalty. Sir
Edward Walker, however, vouches for the loyalty, at this period, of
the Scottish nation in general. “For the disposition of the people,”
he says, (Hist. Disc. p. 194) “they are generally for the king and
his government, being most under the notion of Malignants and
Engagers, about 100 of 120 noblemen being in that condition. Most of
the Gentry are very loyal, and in a manner all the common people.”
Binning’s language respecting Charles II. at the time of passing the
Public Resolutions, appears to have startled his co-presbyter,
Principal Baillie, who writes thus in a letter which was first
designed for his friend Mr. Dickson, but afterwards sent to Mr.
Spang at Campvere.—“Mr. Patrick [Gillespie] and Mr. James Guthrie,
wherever they came, uttered their passion. I heard one who had
married Mr. Patrick’s sister’s daughter report to Mr. Douglas, that
Mr. Hugh Binning, with Mr. Patrick, in Kirkaldy, had spoke like a
distracted man, saying to Mr. Douglas’s own wife, and the young man
himself, and his mother-in-law, Mr. Patrick’s sister, ‘that the
commission of the kirk would approve nothing that was right; that a
hypocrite ought not to reign over us; that we ought to treat with
Cromwell and give him security not to trouble England with a king;
and whoever marred this treaty, the blood of the slain in this
quarrel should be on their heads.’ Strange words if true.”—Letters,
vol. ii. p. 363. The ungrateful, impolitic, and barbarous treatment
which his Scottish subjects received from Charles II. after the
Restoration, must be held to be a proof of the sagacity at least of
Binning, and a justification of the suspicion with which he and some
of the other Protesters regarded him. It is not unlikely that, in
their case, the strong appeal to the fears of the English and
Scottish presbyterians, as the supposed friends of monarchy,
contained in Milton’s “Tenure of Kings and Magistrates,” which was
published but two years before this, had not failed altogether of
its effect.—_Ed._]

398 [I have not been able to discover to what “old translation” the
author alludes. But Wilcox puts the same interpretation, that he
does, upon the ninth verse of this chapter. “_Sinne_, (viz. which
the wicked and ungodly men commit, and they know one of them by
another,) _maketh fools to agree_, (viz. one of them with another:
q.d. their partaking in wickednesse joineth the wicked’s minds, one
of them towards another;) _but among the righteous_, (i.e. good and
holy people,) _that which is acceptable_ (viz. before God and good
men) _maketh agreement_ (viz. among themselves: q.d. good things
onlie tie good men’s minds together).” _A Short yet Sound
Commentarie Written on that Worthie Work called the Proverbs of
Salomon._ London, 1624.—_Ed._]

399 [The Estates, or parliament.—_Ed._]

400 [That is, notorious or manifest.—_Ed._]

401 [In the margin of the authorized version the verse is translated
thus “A great man grieveth all and he hireth the fool, he hireth
also transgressors.”—_Ed._]

402 [That is, violent blowing. _Cairding_ however, is not unlikely the
proper word, a _caird_ being in Scotland the name of a
tinker.—_Ed._]

403 [“Although you expel nature by violence, she will still
return.”—_Per. Epist._ lib. i. ep. 10. ver. 24.—_Ed._]

404 [Having burst, as it were, its floodgates.—_Ed._]

405 [That is, more.—_Ed._]

406 [That is, a deficiency.—_Ed._]

407 [Gen. xxx. 11.—_Ed._]

408 [Vide Cic. de Offic. lib. iii. cap. 33.—_Ed._]

409 [Or mines.—_Ed._]

410 [Or, unsuitable.—_Ed._]

411 [“Charity does not inflict punishment because an offence has been
committed, but lest an offence should be committed.”—_Ed._]

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

Qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit

Ovid, Remed. Amor. ver. 94.—_Ed._]

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

Sed non videmus manticæ quod in tergo est.

Catul. Carm. xxii. ver. 21.

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

414 [These are terms (locus inventionis _the place or topic of
invention_, and medium, _the argument or middle term of a
syllogism_) which, belonging to the dialectic art, were employed by
the school-men. All the arts and sciences have certain general
subjects connected with them which presuppose particular facts,
axioms, and rules. These general subjects, being used in the
_invention_ of arguments, were called topics or common places. “They
were so called by Aristotle, as if they were the seats from which
arguments were to be brought forth.” (Sic appellatæ ab Aristotele
sunt hæ quasi sedes e quibus argumenta promuntur). Cic. Top. cap.
ii.—_Ed._]

415 [We grant and solicit in our turn this indulgence. Hor. De Art.
poet. ver. 11.—_Ed._]

416 [Or, condescendence.—_Ed._]

417 [Or, without its begetting love.—_Ed._]

418 [Overlook it.—_Ed._]

419 [Most.—_Ed._]

420 [The word _homo_ (man) has been supposed to be derived from _humus_
(the ground) because man sprang from the earth. Quintillian’s
objection to this derivation of the word is that all other animals
have the same origin. (quasi vero non omnibus animal bus eadem
origo. Instit. Orator lib. i, cap. 6) Such an objection however has
but little force. For though, according to the account which Moses
gives of the creation, the earth at the command of God, not only
brought forth man, but other creatures, (Gen. i. 24) man alone was
called _Adam_ מדא because he was formed of the dust of the _ground_,
(המדא) Gen. ii. 7.—Joseph, Antiq. lib. i, cap. 1.—_Ed._]

421 [That is, “humble beings.”—_Ed._]

422 [See note page 168.—_Ed._]

423 [Humility is “the seasoning of the virtues,” as well as “the garb.”
Cicero represents suavity of speech and manners to be the seasoning
of friendship (condimentum amicitiæ). De Amicitia, cap. 18.—_Ed._]

424 [That is, “an ornament and covering.”—_Ed._]

425 [Crede mihi, bene qui latuit, bene vixit; et intra
Fortunam debet quisque manere suam.

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

426 [“He who falls on a smooth surface, (yet this rarely happens,) falls
in such a way that he can rise again from the ground he has
touched.” Ovid, ut supra, ver. 17.—_Ed._]

427 [A relation of the principal circumstances in Binning’s life
follows.—_Ed._]

428 [That is, he will not refuse.—_Ed._]

429 [Parcel.—_Ed._]

430 [Such a disburdening of former offences.—_Ed._]

431 [Inclination.—_Ed._]

432 [De Agricola filios suos docente. Æsop. Fab. p. 98. Oxon.
1653.—_Ed._]

433 [Subdue.—_Ed._]

434 [Such a wonder.—_Ed._]

435 [Violent inclination.—_Ed._]

436 [That is, truths of little value.—_Ed._]

437 [In the Scottish universities, they were said to have _laureated_,
who had a decree conferred upon them, as they were “crowned with
laurel leaves.” Ev. Un. Com. vol. i. p. 153. Lond. 1837.—_Ed._]

438 [These are the generous sentiments of an enlightened Christian. They
would lead us to infer that the author’s views, as a Protester, had
been modified somewhat before he died or that he had never taken
such high ground, as some others on this score.—_Ed._]

439 [Or, _while we, on the other hand_.—_Ed._]

440 [See note, page 168.—_Ed._]

441 [Perhaps it should be _at least, less_.—_Ed._]

442 [The word _mystery_ seems to be used here in the sense of _energy_.
It is sometimes spelt by Scottish writers _mister_ and _myster_, and
signifies an art or calling, being derived from the old French word
_mestier_, a trade. When employed to denote something above human
intelligence, it has a different origin (being formed from
μυστηριον, a secret).—_Ed._]

443 [Exonerate, or unburthen.—_Ed._]

444 [Or harness.—_Ed._]

445 [Senec. Ep. 107. See note, page 76.—_Ed._]

446 [We are not, “of our own authority.”—_Ed._]

447 [That is, weight or force.—_Ed._]

448 [That is, _the honour_ not _a load_ or _a load of honour_.—_Ed._]

449 [Confined.—_Ed._]

450 [See note, page 115.—_Ed._]