heir own.(39) So much
opposed, indeed, was Binning to the public resolutions that we find him,
on the 20th of June 1651, protesting against the insertion of a letter,
from the Commission of the Church regarding them, in the presbytery
Minutes. And on the 20th of August, we in like manner perceive him voting
against the registration, in the Minutes of the presbytery, of various
Acts of the Assembly, which had met at St. Andrews and Dundee, in July,
1651 "because yet were sinful in themselves, and came from an unlawful and
null assemblie."(40)

But this is not all Binning wrote. "Some ammadversions upon a paper
entituled, _no separation from the armie_, &c." These, it is believed,
were never printed. The manuscript copy, which I have perused, is in the
hand writing of Mr. David Anderson, the clerk, or amanuensis of Sir
Archibald Johnston of Warriston, who has written on it with his own hand,
"Mr H Binny his reply to M D Dickson." The title itself of the manuscript
indicates the views of the author. But the summary of its style and
reasoning, and those of the Case of Conscience, is very evident. Although
he was thus led under an imperative sense of duty, to enter the lists of
controversy with Mr. David Dickson, who was now Professor of Theology in
the University of Edinburgh, but who at the time of the induction of the
author, being a member of the presbytery, had presided at his ordination,
it is pleasant to observe, that even when expressing himself most
strongly, Binning treats his former colleague in the University of
Glasgow, with uniform courtesy and respect. In one place he says, "If I
knew not the integritie of the writter, I could hardlie spare a hard
censure of him, either for dissembling what he knowes, or not reading what
he condemns. But I will think neither, but rather that he is too confident
of his own assertion." In another place he exclaims, "Alas! should a
divine speak so? If a carnall polititian had said it, I had not thought it
strange, but a godlie tender man to speake in these terms." Should it be
asked how this manuscript has not formed a part of the present collection
of the works of the Author, the reason is simply this: It was not
conceived that the degree of interest felt at this distant period, in the
controversy to which it relates, would warrant its publication, and more
particularly as any one, wishing to obtain a knowledge of the principles
and the policy which it advocates, may be gratified