Missing, Presumed Misclassified: Hugh Binning (1627–1653), The Lost Federal Theologian

By Donald John MacLean

[Donald John MacLean is research supervisor at Wales Evangelical School of Theology and head of U.K. Actuarial for a multinational financial services group.]

Introduction

Hugh Binning (1627–1653) has long been portrayed in the secondary literature on Scottish Reformed theology as simply one of a group of mid-seventeenth-century federal theologians. For example, classic writers on Scottish church history and theology such as John MacLeod, James Walker, and G. D. Henderson discuss him among the many leading seventeenth-century divines who held to a common theology embodied in the Westminster Standards.[1] However, more recent readings of Scottish theology have challenged this understanding of Binning. Two significant examples are Charles Bell and Thomas F. Torrance. For Bell, Binning stood apart from the federal theologians of his day in a number of key areas, particularly in his lack of emphasis on limited atonement and election, in his expression of federal theology, and in his understanding of faith and assurance.[2] Bell believes that in doing so Binning more closely reflected the theology of Calvin than did his contemporaries.[3] Torrance takes a similar line, arguing that, in contrast to the federal theologians of his day, Binning held to a “biblically-grounded Christocentric theology in which grace was given priority over law.”[4] For both Bell and Torrance, their reading of Binning forms part of a larger argument that the theological system of the Westminster Standards was a distortion of the earlier Reformation theology, espoused by Calvin and enshrined in Scotland by the Scots Confession.[5] This, again, is in contrast to the works of MacLeod, Walker, and Henderson, who highlight no such theological rift between the Scots Confession and later Scottish theology.

There are, then, two differing understandings of Binning operating within the broader framework of two divergent readings of historical Scottish theology. One reading has Binning standing apart from the federal theology of his day, as if he were the last rose of an earlier theological summer left blooming alone in the barren theological wasteland created by the theology of the Westminster Assembly.[6] The other reading sees Binning embracing the same theological outlook as his contemporary federalists and as being in broad continuity with earlier Reformed thought.[7] Both understandings cannot be correct, so further examination of Binning’s theology is called for to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to replace the older understanding of Binning as a federal theologian with the revisionist proposal of the Bell/Torrance school.

This article will evaluate the Bell/Torrance thesis, first, by placing Binning’s life in the context of the times in which he lived, and in particular examining whether contemporary sources reveal any indications that Binning’s theology differed from the federal system of the Westminster Standards. Second, attention will be given to the areas of his theology where it is argued that he stood apart from the federal theologians of his day. In particular, Binning’s covenant theology and his soteriology (with special attention to election, atonement, and faith) will be examined in turn. This study of his thought will be conducted with reference to the views of three of his best-known contemporaries: Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), David Dickson (1583–1663), and James Durham (1622–1658). These three have been selected as they are the theologians whom Bell and Torrance most frequently take as representatives of Scottish federal theology.[8] Finally, conclusions will be drawn concerning which school of interpretation is more in accordance with the available evidence regarding Binning’s theological position.[9]

II. Binning’s Life And Significance And The Views Of His Contemporaries

Hugh Binning’s life spanned some of the most eventful years in the life of the Scottish church.[10] In 1636, when Binning was nine, Charles I introduced a Book of Canons which was followed by a new liturgy in 1637. The latter provoked an outbreak of violence and set in motion events that would lead to the signing of the National Covenant in 1638 and to the sitting of the Glasgow Assembly that same year.[11] This Assembly overturned the episcopal reforms of James VI and Charles and (re)established a presbyterian form of church government.[12]

Against this background, in 1640 at the age of 13, Binning entered Glasgow University. He graduated with an M.A. six years later.[13] At this stage he began to study theology, but in November 1646 he was appointed Professor of Philosophy.[14] Whilst professor he continued theological studies and was ordained in January 1650.[15] Given that it was in 1647 that the Scottish Kirk approved the Westminster Confession of Faith, Binning was one of the first generation of ministers to emerge in the (initial) era of the Westminster Confession. His ministry, however, was brief, as he died in September 1653.[16] All his works were published posthumously.

Despite his early death, Binning is a significant figure in Scottish theology. John MacLeod noted particularly Binning’s elegant style of expression, stating, “A thinker like Binning had thoughts that it was worth a man’s while to clothe in worthy words.”[17] James Walker wrote that Binning “won a distinguished place for himself in the theological literature of his country.”[18] Henderson similarly held that “[Binning] deserves to be remembered as one of the first rank of Scotland’s preachers. He had scholarly instincts, good intellectual ability, a strong memory, a vivid imagination, and more than a touch of originality.”[19]

The “originality” highlighted by Henderson might be taken as a hint in the direction that Binning’s theological views differed from his contemporaries. In context, however, Henderson was referring to the form of Binning’s preaching, rather than the content of his theology. The typical mid-seventeenth-century sermon had a structure comprising of division into doctrine, reasons, and uses or application.[20] Binning rejected this structure, stating, “Paul speaks of a right dividing of the word of truth (2 Tim. II. 15); not that ordinary way of cutting it all in parcels, and dismembering it by manifold divisions. . . . I do not see that this was the apostolic way, that either they preached it themselves, or recommended it to others.”[21] Binning’s contemporaries also recognized this different approach to preaching and some reacted strongly to his “original” style. Robert Baillie stated that Binning preached in “a high romancing, unscriptural style, tickling the ear for the present and moving the affections in some, but leaving . . . little or nought to the memorie and understanding.”[22] Subsequent assessments have praised Binning’s revision of the standard style of sermons, with Henderson calling him “a preacher ahead of his time in Scotland.”[23] However, even in his own day his preaching was appreciated by some, with James Durham reportedly declaring, “There is no speaking after Mr Binning. . . . Truly he had the tongue of the learned and knew how to speak a word in season.”[24]

Beyond the question of homiletic style, there is nothing observable in the letters and journals of Robert Baillie, the diary of Johnston of Warriston, or other contemporary records to suggest any difficulties with Binning or his theology.[25] (His name does appear with reference to the skirmishes over the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy, but this dispute was largely unrelated to pure theology.[26]) On the contrary, there exists a testimony of great respect from Patrick Gillespie, author of perhaps the most elaborate works on covenant theology produced in seventeenth-century Scotland. In his preface to Binning’s book The Common Principles of the Christian Religion, Gillespie states that Binning was a “scholar, philosopher, and theologian” (“Philologus, Philosophus, Theologus”) and that he was “deservedly esteemed and beloved.”[27] His particular gifts were to “vindicate school-divinity and practical theology from the superfluity of vain and fruitless perplexing questions wherewith latter times have corrupted both.”[28] In this, Binning was being praised by the great federal theologian, and not criticized. Further, Wodrow, the eighteenth-century historian of the Scottish church, while himself no approver of Binning’s homiletical innovations, spoke of “great Mr. Binning”[29] and held him to be “a man of very great piety and eminent learning.”[30]

Thus, from contemporary sources there appears little evidence of support for the Bell/Torrance thesis. While Binning was not to be bound by the conventions of his day regarding style, there is no record of any complaints over the substance of his teaching from any of the federal theologians, and indeed high praise was heaped upon him by Patrick Gillespie.

III. Binning’s Theology

With the relative absence of historical evidence to favor the Bell/Torrance thesis, a careful reading of Binning’s theology is necessary to determine whether there are indeed differences between him and the seventeenth-century federal theologians. Charles Bell highlights several areas where Binning is alleged to have departed from the federal theology of his day, and his discussion provides a convenient framework in which to set Binning’s theology and compare it with that of his contemporaries.[31]

1. Election, Atonement, And The Gospel Offer

The first area where Bell asserts that Binning differed from the federal theology of his day is an alleged reduction of emphasis on election and limited atonement. Bell states, “Binning . . . does not stress either election or limited atonement. On the contrary, he continually emphasises the great scope of God’s saving grace and fatherly love for sinners.”[32] Matters of emphasis are, of course, difficult to dispute and are often in the eye of the beholder. However, it may be questioned whether it is a fair representation of the federal theologians to say that they “stress[ed] election or limited atonement.” At least in their general preaching, as opposed to their polemic theological works, election and particular redemption could often fade into the background. In James Durham’s extensive exposition of the Ten Commandments, the references to election could be counted on one hand.[33] Further, in their more directly “conversionist” or “evangelistic,” rather than ethical, preaching the same pattern is evident. To consider James Durham again, his lengthy sermon on Matt 22:4, “Gospel Presentations Are the Strongest Invitations,” touches on election only to explain why the objection “I do not know if I am in the covenant and contract of redemption. I do not know if I am one of God’s elect” is an inappropriate reason for any to reject the universal gospel offer.[34]

Further, beyond these specific instances of a lack of emphasis on election among the federalists, it is important to consider the question of genre. There is an inherent difficulty in comparing “stress” or “balance” on a given doctrine across sermonic material, such as Binning’s, with academic theological discourse, such as Rutherford’s Examen arminianismi or Disputatio scholastica de divina providentia.[35] Moreover, given that Binning’s entire theological corpus represents the posthumously published fragments of a three-year preaching ministry, it is highly likely that the balance of materials in his work would be significantly different from that found in the corpus of one who had enjoyed a long and distinguished academic career, such as Rutherford. More specifically, Binning’s emphases would have been largely determined by the portions of Scripture from which he preached, and therefore were unlikely to furnish an accurate view of his “balanced” theological system. This is particularly so as, under the homiletic practice of the time, preaching was not simply to be “the truth of God” but rather had to be “a truth contained in or grounded on that text [being preached], that the hearers may discern how God teacheth it from thence.”[36]

A review of Binning’s extant writings can be used to gauge the likely potential preponderance of teaching on election. His surviving works are essentially: (1) a series of sermons following the form of the Shorter Catechism as far as Q&A 21, but strictly comprising biblical exegesis;[37] (2) a series of sermons on Rom 8:1–15, “The Sinner’s Sanctuary”;[38] (3) a series of sermons on 1 John 1:1–2:3, “Fellowship with God”;[39] (4) a series of practical sermons on various texts of Scripture entitled “Heart Humiliation”;[40] (5) a discussion of the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy in the Scottish church and a subsequent appeal to unity;[41] (6) a treatise on Christian love;[42] and (7) several, largely “conversionist,” sermons on “Practical Religion.”[43]

In considering these works, apart from a small number of early questions in the Shorter Catechism and his sermon on 1 John 2:2, there is little natural opportunity for Binning to address the issues of election and extent of the atonement. As such, it is unsurprising that election and limited atonement are not dominant themes in his preaching. However, when natural occasions arose to expound these doctrines, Binning’s manner of handling these issues gives full support to Henderson’s assertion that “[Binning] was a particularly strict Calvinist, with plenty to say about Arminians and Antinomians. . . . He discusses the Covenants, and does not shrink from such problems as those of eternal punishment, or foreordination to destruction.”[44]

For instance, when Binning came to discuss Question 7 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “What are the decrees of God?,” he devoted one sermon to the decrees in general and two to the decree of predestination. It is particularly important to consider these sermons as they contain his clearest statements on the subject of election. In the first of these three sermons, where he outlined his teaching on the decree in general, his exegetical point of departure was Eph 1:11 and Job 23:13.[45] In expounding these verses he defined God’s decree as “the first rise of all things that are, or have been, or are to come.”[46] Therefore, every act that occurred in time, whether good or evil, flowed from this decree, or his “good will and pleasure . . . his determinate counsel.”[47] This free and absolute decree, for Binning, was unchangeable. God came to a “fixed resolution” from all eternity and, as he had ordained all things, nothing could come to pass that would necessitate a change in his counsel.[48] As the decree was immutable, so was it also irresistible. God’s decree would be executed with “the highest and most superlative degree of certainty and infallibility.”[49] No creature could thwart the will of the Almighty.[50]

Having outlined a decree that was unchangeable, free, all-encompassing, and wise, Binning turned directly to consider predestination, basing his teaching on Eph 1:11 and Rom 9:22–23.[51] He began his two sermons on election by highlighting the importance of the doctrine, stating that “the right understanding of his everlasting counsel touching the eternal state of man, is of singular virtue to conform us to the praise of his name, and establish us in faith and confidence.”[52] This was not to deny, however, that there was a danger of “curiously” and “boldly” going beyond the limits of revelation. Indeed this was to be guarded against.[53] Nevertheless, as the truth of predestination was revealed in Scripture, it was the duty of faith to embrace this teaching and not simply to ignore it merely because it could be abused. The majority of this first sermon on predestination focused on the ordo decretorum Dei. At the outset, Binning noted that any conception of order within the divine decree is necessarily an accommodation to human weakness. The decree is one; there is no order within the divine counsel. Nevertheless, in so far as “we cannot well conceive of God but in likeness to ourselves” some discussion of the ordo decretorum Dei was appropriate.[54] Binning first outlined his disagreement with the “Armininian” ordering of the decrees, or as he styled it, after the manner of “what was first, as it were in his mind, is first done.”[55] In this case, the order of the decrees was (1) to create man “without any particular determination as yet of his end”; (2) God, foreseeing the occurrence of fall, purposed to permit it; (3) Christ is sent for the salvation of all equally as “he is as yet undetermined about the particular end of particular men”; (4) based on God observing from “the tower of foreknowledge” whether individuals will believe in the offered salvation in Christ and then persevere in faith, there is the decree of election.[56] To Binning, this manner of understanding the order of the decrees utterly overthrew the wisdom and sovereignty of God. To behave in a manner demonstrating such a lack of planning would be unthinkable even in a mere man. However, more importantly, this ordering of the decrees, for Binning, simply contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture that all things occur according to the eternal purpose of God. He cited Eph 1:5–6 in addition to the texts his sermon was drawn from.[57] Thus, the Arminian doctrine was simply “repugnant to the Lord’s absolute power and sovereignty.”[58]

Nevertheless, Binning argued, it was not appropriate to go to the opposite extreme from the Arminians and argue that the decree was patterned after the logic that “what is last in execution, was first in purpose.”[59] This placing of the decree to elect and reprobate prior to the decree to create was to make the decree of God “ridiculous” and “foolish” in that the object of the decree was a nonentity.[60] The true solution, for Binning, was to acknowledge that it was not the end of any particular person that was first in the divine intention but rather “God’s glory to be manifested upon men.”[61] As such, returning to the opening point of his sermon, there was no order as such in the decree but “one of them is not before another in his mind, but altogether.”[62] Therefore, while it was possible to conceive of the decree to create, the decree to permit the fall, the decree to save some of those who had fallen, the decree to send Christ as their redeemer, and the decree to foreordain the rest to destruction, this is done “without any such order as we imagine.”[63] In preaching on the ordo decretorum Dei in such detail, Binning proved himself willing to expound clearly the most difficult and disputed points relating to the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Binning’s second sermon on predestination considered, and was an extended refutation of, three objections to his belief in the sovereign and unalterable decree of election and reprobation.[64] The first objection he considered was that it was unrighteous of God to “predestinate men to eternal death” and to “punish them for that sin and corruption, unto which by his eternal counsel they were fore-ordained.”[65] Binning believed that Paul had “anticipated” this objection in Rom 9:14 by raising the question of whether there was unrighteousness in God in the loving of Jacob and hating of Esau before they were born.[66] Binning noted that Paul ultimately refused to answer his own question in detail, simply exclaiming that God is not unrighteous and pointing back to the sovereign will of God and his freedom to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. This sovereign will, by definition, is righteous. Indeed, Binning stated that it was “the very self-rule of righteousness.”[67] Before this sovereign will, all objections have to cease. Man is in no state to reply to God. Particularly relevant, Binning felt, was that Paul did not respond to the objection of unrighteousness in God by explaining that election was based on foreknowledge. Instead, Paul left his readers prostrate before the sovereign majesty of God, and that too was where Binning was content to leave any of his hearers who raised this objection. The second objection raised was that because God did not deal in the same manner with all people that he was again “unrighteous.”[68] To this Binning simply responded that God was not bound to show mercy to any—all deserved eternal judgment. God’s freedom in showing mercy to some did not make him unrighteous, but simply demonstrated his sovereign prerogative to have mercy on whom he would. The third objection Binning considered was that “this fatal chain of predestination overturns all exhortations and persuasions to godliness, all care and diligence in well doing.”[69] The response to this was to note that God has ordained together the end and the means, and they cannot be separated.[70] Finally, Binning closed his sermon by reminding his hearers that the sovereignty of God could not be used as an excuse for sin, rather “the evident cause of our destruction is our sin.”[71]

In summary, these three sermons show Binning to be clear and frank in his teaching on predestination and election, as he preached that:

Whatever secret thoughts do rise up in thy heart when thou hearest of God’s foreordaining men to eternal life, without previous foresight or consideration of their doings, and preparing men to eternal wrath, for the praise of his justice, without previous consideration of their deservings, and passing a definitive sentence upon the end of all men, before they do either good or evil; whenever any secret surmises rise in thy heart against this, learn to answer thus; enter not the lists of disputation with corrupt reason, but put in this bridle of the fear of God’s greatness . . .[72]

Thus, Binning’s sermons on predestination have the undoubted aim of demonstrating that what “the learned call Arminianism is nothing else but the carnal reason of men’s hearts, which is enmity to God.”[73]Therefore, even if Bell tries to justify his assertion that Binning “does not stress . . . election” quantitatively because of his limited focus on election, qualitatively these sermons demonstrate that he was a mainstream exponent of classic Reformed teaching on the divine decree.

Notwithstanding this conclusion, possible evidence for Bell’s assertion that Binning “continually emphasizes the great scope of God’s saving grace and fatherly love for sinners”[74] may be found in his sermon on 1 John 2:2, “And he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (NKJV). In this sermon, Binning made no comment on “also for the whole world.”[75] Whatever the reasons for his silence here, elsewhere he made clear that God “lays the iniquity of his elect upon Christ.”[76] Christ’s purpose for coming into the world was “to redeem his elect ones.”[77] In a sermon on Rom 8:8, he even paraphrases 1 John 2:2 as “Jesus Christ, the propitiation for the sins of the elect world.”[78] Thus Torrance is incorrect to state that Binning held to an atonement that was “for the sins of the whole world” if “world” is understood as every individual who ever lived.[79] As Christ’s death in its saving intention was particular to the elect, so Binning held that Christ’s intercession was also limited to the elect.[80]

Thus, while it is true that Binning’s writings are not replete with references to election and limited atonement, he nonetheless clearly taught a high doctrine of both election and particular redemption.[81] Indeed, what may appear to be a lack of emphasis can instead be interpreted as demonstrating that election and particular redemption were not architectonic principles from which all other truths were drawn, but simply important scriptural truths which were mentioned as and when the scriptural text under consideration warranted. In this, Binning is at one with the sermons of Durham and Rutherford, especially Durham’s collection of sermons The Unsearchable Riches of Christ. Thus, Bell is correct to note a lack of emphasis on these doctrines in Binning, but goes beyond the available evidence in suggesting that Binning is somehow unique in this practice, or that he failed to proclaim a high doctrine of election when occasion arose.

Related to the issues of election and limited atonement is the question of the free offer of the gospel. Torrance avers that in making the “full invitation of the gospel,” Binning “did not add, as some of his hyper-Calvinist colleagues would have done, a rider to the effect that this applies only to the few people eternally elected to be saved.”[82] It is again correct to note that Binning did not limit the gospel offer to the “elect,” but it should be added that neither did the leading federalist theologians. On the contrary, they were clear that the gospel offer was to all without exception. For instance, James Durham preached, “The person called [in the gospel] . . . is expressed thus, if any man, etc. which putteth it so to every hearer, as if it went round to every particular person, if thou, and thou, or thou etc . . . because where the Lord saith any man, without exception, who is he that can limit the same?”[83] In this, he was no different from Rutherford, who also held that “it cannot be denyed, but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the Visible Church whether they believe or not, for Christ is preached and promises of the Covenant are preached to Simon Magus, to Judas and all the hypocrites who stumble at the Word.”[84] David Dickson held the same position; indeed, it was his often repeated conviction that “there is indeed an offer to be made to all the hearers of the Gospel.”[85]

In the light of this survey of the alleged points of divergence between Binning and his contemporaries over election, the extent of the atonement, and the gospel offer, there appears no basis for concluding with Bell and Torrance that there is a radical difference in opinion between Binning and the federalists. Rather, their views, giving allowance for differences in the genre of some of their writings, are in broad harmony. Indeed, once genre is accounted for there is no need to impute a divergence in theological understanding as the factor underlying any difference in emphasis.

2. The Federal Theology

The second area where Bell claims that Binning made “significant modifications” to the theology of the Westminster Standards is in relation to the “standard twofold covenant scheme” of federal theology.[86] Torrance agrees, believing that “Binning adopted a mild form of the federal theology.”[87]

Bell propounds the view that, for Binning, the idea of “covenant” was simply God condescending to “stoop so low unto men’s capacities” to enable some measure of understanding of divine truth, rather than providing an all-encompassing picture of everything that God was to his people.[88] And yet this acknowledgment of the finite nature of the covenant analogy is typical of other federalists. For instance, James Durham stated, “ . . . this way of Covenanting, is borrowed from the practice of man with man, to set forth somewhat of a spiritual nature betwixt God and man.”[89] Durham therefore, like Binning, recognizes that his covenant theology represents only something of the relationship between God and man, and is as incomplete an image as those of “Marrying, Treating, Accusing, Justifying” which are also “borrowed” images accommodated to human capacity.[90] Further, this criticism, in general, does not account for the distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa in seventeenth-century Reformed thought, or for the general acceptance in Reformed theology of the accommodated nature of divine revelation. This distinction between two “kinds” of theology, namely, theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa, that is, between theology as God knows it and theology as man knows it, generally prevented Reformed theologians from thinking their theology ever progressed beyond God’s revelation which itself “stoop[ed] so low unto men’s capacities.”[91]

Moving specifically to Binning’s understanding of the foedus operum, or covenant of works, Torrance highlights Binning’s recognition of the presence of grace in the covenant of works as a distinguishing feature of his theology.[92] However, again this is a staple of federal theology.[93] It is, of course, right to point out, as Torrance does, that Binning maintained, “In which covenant [of works], indeed, there were some out-breakings of the glorious grace and free condescendency of God; for it was no less free grace and undeserved favour, to promise life to his [Adam’s] obedience, than now to promise life to our faith. So that if the Lord had continued that covenant with us, we ought to have called it grace, and would have been saved by grace as well as now.”[94] However, to give one example, Rutherford also held that God showed grace to Adam in establishing this covenant with him.[95] He believed that Adam could have served God perfectly forever and never earned a right to confirmation of eternal life.[96] Therefore, God’s promise was to reward obedience above what it merited and, for Rutherford, this demonstrated that even the covenant of works contained grace: “But that Adam should have such an eminent life [promised], for the reward of his obedience as a communion with God, which is farre above his obedience, is the free donation of God. . . . God then never loved to make a Covenant, yea even that of Works, without some acts and outgoings of grace.”[97] This acknowledgment of grace in the covenant of works did not prevent Rutherford from sharply distinguishing that grace from the grace shown in the foedus gratiae, stating that there was “no Gospel-Grace” in the covenant of works.[98] There is no reason to doubt that Binning would have joined him in this sentiment.[99]

With regard to the covenant of grace established after the fall, Bell notes Binning’s denial that repentance and obedience, or even faith, are conditions of the covenant of grace.[100] Whether or not Binning ever explicitly called faith a condition of the covenant of grace, he certainly regarded it as a condicio sine qua non for justification.[101] However, in his denial that repentance and obedience were conditions of the covenant of grace, Binning was again echoing what other federalist theologians said. James Durham stated, “Faith is alone the condition of the covenant of grace.”[102] In maintaining this stance, theologians like Durham were reacting against the views of Richard Baxter who “esteem[ed] of all Graces equally, and gracious acts indifferently to be the condition of the Covenant.”[103] Durham himself discussed in exhaustive detail whether anything other than faith, with specific focus on good works or repentance, could be considered a condition of the covenant of grace. He concluded that strictly speaking they could not be.[104] In the course of this discussion, despite the ubiquity of references to the language of “conditions” in his works, Durham went so far as to state that instead of speaking of faith as the “condition upon which Christ’s righteousness” became that of the believer, he would rather have spoken of faith as “the mean[s] by which it is apprehended.”[105]

In summary, there is nothing in Binning’s covenant theology that distinguishes him from the Westminster theology of his day. In recognizing the limited nature of the covenant motif, in affirming the graciousness of the covenant of works, and in his caution in speaking of conditions attaching to the covenant of grace, he was simply affirming what the other federal theologians of his day also taught.

3. Saving Faith And Union With Christ

Binning’s teaching on faith and union with Christ is also contrasted with his federalist contemporaries by Bell and Torrance. Bell notes that Binning’s thought was “permeated with the idea of union with Christ,”[106] which meant that although his definition of faith was “voluntaristic,” and although he denied assurance to be of the essence of faith, his teaching on faith and assurance was nonetheless Christocentric in contrast to his federalist contemporaries and marked a “return to that same vibrant, evangelical doctrine which is found in Calvin, Knox, and Craig.”[107]

One significant case study presented here by Bell is sanctification. He states that “for Binning it is only in union with Christ that we receive . . . sanctification. . . . [U]nlike many federalists . . . [Binning] argues that justification and sanctification are a part of our saving union with Christ.”[108] However, again this was the standard teaching of the federal theologians; for example, David Dickson wrote, “Christ is made of God unto us, not only our Righteousness but also our Sanctification, as the Apostle teacheth us, 1 . . . . What wonder is it . . . that Sanctification must be drawn out of no other fountain than Christ, out of Whose Fulness we must receive Grace for Grace, and who by Faith applieth to His redeemed Ones His imputed Righteousness, and by Faith applieth and worketh in them Sanctification, purchased unto them in the Covenant of Redemption?”[109] For the federalists, as well as for Binning, sanctification flowed from union with Christ. This one example illustrates a wider point, namely, that there is no evidence that Binning emphasized union with Christ more than his contemporaries.[110]

4. The Issue Of Assurance

As with Binning’s teaching on faith and union with Christ, Bell finds his doctrine of assurance more palatable than that of the federal theologians. He argues that Binning “does not seek to frighten sinners to Christ with the spectre of an angry, wrathful God, but rather woos them with the biblical message of God’s forgiving love.”[111] However, this reading is contrary to Binning’s own practice. He certainly preached the wrath of God, including the broken “covenant of works, all the curses and threatenings of the bible, all the rigid exactions of obedience” with the great aim that “we conclude ourselves under sin and wrath . . . and [acknowledge] an impossibility to save ourselves.”[112] This “wrathful God” was preached in order that sinners would go to Jesus Christ for salvation, and find in him the one who “is both able to save us, and ready to welcome us.”[113] Whether this is to be regarded as “unbiblical” or not, it is undeniably the message that Binning preached. However, it should not be thought that Binning’s God was only a God of wrath. In common with the other federalists, he held that God was both angry with the wicked every day, and yet called them lovingly to come to himself for salvation. To give one example of this from the federal theologians, Samuel Rutherford, while explicitly restricting saving love to the elect, declared that “Christ’s offer is really an offer, and in so far, it is real love.”[114] To reject the gospel was to “spurn against the warm bowels of love, to spit on grace, on tenderness of infinite love.”[115] Indeed, all who received the gospel offer did so “not because elect, but because freely loved of such a God and without merit called . . . they are in a state of grace: but so are all within the Visible Church.”[116] Rutherford could affirm, “Here indeed is love itself, the Lord inviting us to embrace the gospel!”[117] In short, Binning’s mode of presenting the gospel was no more or less conducive to producing assurance in his hearers than that of his contemporaries.

IV. Conclusion

The thesis of Bell and Torrance is that “the teaching of Binning is an example of Federal theology more closely akin to the theologies of Calvin, Knox, and Craig, than of Rutherford, Dickson and Durham. He [Binning] refuses to allow the Federalist view of predestination to supplant the biblical teaching concerning the universal scope of God’s love as expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.”[118] Leaving to one side the broader “Knox against the Knoxians” element of this statement, what remains does not stand up to scrutiny. Nowhere does Binning dissent from the theology of the Westminster Confession. His teachings are present in, and representative of, the federal theologians of his day. He was certainly innovative with respect to the form of his preaching, but in his emphasis on election, limited atonement, and the gospel offer, in his federal theology, in the priority accorded to union with Christ, and in his understanding of assurance Binning was faithful to the content of the Westminster theology. Therefore, in highlighting Binning as someone whose theology is at odds in significant respects with the Westminster Confession, the Torrance/Bell school is mistaken.[119] Instead, we come to realize that Hugh Binning was, as the older scholarship recognized, one of the leading popularizers of the theology of Westminster in mid-seventeenth-century Scotland.[120]

Notes

1. John MacLeod, Scottish Theology (1946; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 89-90; James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 1560-1750 (1888; repr., Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), 20; G. D. Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland (1937; repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), passim.
2. M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance (Edinburgh: Handsel, 1985), 133-36.
3. Ibid., 136.
4. Thomas F. Torrance, “From John Knox to John MacLeod Campbell: A Reading of Scottish Theology,” in Disruption to Diversity: Edinburgh Divinity, 1846-1996 (ed. David F. Wright and Gary D. Badcock; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 6. See also Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology from John Knox to John MacLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 74-79. For a detailed and critical review of Torrance’s reading of Scottish theology, see Donald MacLeod, “Dr T. F. Torrance and Scottish Theology: A Review Article,” EvQ 72 (2000): 57-72.
5. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, passim; Torrance, Scottish Theology, passim. The mid-seventeenth-century Scottish divines, perhaps unsurprisingly, asserted their continuity with earlier Scottish Reformed theology, adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith as “in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk” (General Assembly Session 23, August 27, 1647, in Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638-1842 [ed. Church Law Society; Edinburgh: Edinburgh Printing & Publishing Company, 1843], 158).
6. With apologies to Thomas Moore.
7. This is not to suggest that the older writers were unaware of theological development within Reformed theology. See, e.g., the comments of John MacLeod on the doctrines of faith and assurance in MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 27-31.
8. E.g., Torrance, “From John Knox to John MacLeod Campbell,” 5.
9. Wider questions relating to the development of the Reformed tradition are beyond the scope of this article.
10. For Binning’s life, see Matthew Leishman,“The Life of the Author,” in The Works of The Rev. Hugh Binning, by Hugh Binning (ed. Matthew Leishman; Edinburgh: A. Fullarton, 1851), xxxiii-lvi; John Howie, The Scots Worthies (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853), 374-80; John Gillies and Horatius Bonar, Historical Collections Relating to Remarkable Periods of the Success of the Gospel (London: James Nisbet, 1845), 186; David Lachman, “Hugh Binning (1627-53),” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (ed. Nigel M. Cameron et al.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 77; Paul Tomassi, “Binning, Hugh (1627-1653),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/2422 (accessed August 24, 2012).
11. For a study of the national covenant, see John Morrill, ed., The Scottish National Covenant in Its British Context (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990).
12. For details of this assembly, see David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637-44 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2003), 88-126.
13. Tomassi, “Binning, Hugh”; Robert Wodrow, Analecta, or Materials for a History of Remarkable Providences; mostly relating to Scotch Ministers and Christians (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1842-1843), 1:167.
14. Binning’s innovations in teaching philosophy have been noted. See, e.g., Leishman, “The Life of the Author,” in Binning, Works, xl.
15. The professors of Divinity at Glasgow over the period of Binning’s studies were therefore David Dickson and Robert Baillie (see “The University of Glasgow Story: Academic Posts, Divinity,” http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/chair-and-lectureship/?id=712 [accessed January 7, 2013]).
16. Tomassi, “Binning, Hugh”; Wodrow, Analecta, 1:167. Wodrow gives the date of Binning’s ordination as 1649.
17. MacLeod, Scottish Theology, 91.
18. Walker, Theology and Theologians, 20.
19. Henderson, Religious Life, 216.
20. Thus Horton Davies comments that Puritan preaching “takes the form of the exposition of a passage of scripture secundum ordinem textus, by collecting lessons (or ‘doctrines’) from each verse, and adding the moral applications (or ‘uses’) of these” (Horton Davies, “Elizabethan Puritan Preaching I,” Worship 44 [1970]:104). For studies of Puritan preaching, see e.g., ibid., 93-108; Horton Davies, “Elizabethan Puritan Preaching II,” Worship 44 (1970):154-70; Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Vol. 4: The Age of Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 215-329; Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), passim; Lisa M. Gordis, Opening Scripture: Bible Reading and Interpretive Authority in Puritan New England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), passim. For Scottish preaching in particular, see Crawford Gribben, “Preaching the Scottish Reformation,1560-1707,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (ed. Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 271-86.
21. Binning, Works, 213. See also Wodrow, Analecta, 1:167; 3:40. According to Wodrow, Binning expressed regret over his style of preaching on his deathbed (Wodrow, Analecta, 3:40).
22. Robert Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M., Principal of the University of Glasgow, 1637-1662 (ed. David Laing; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1841-1842), 3:285-86. For further brief comment, see Crawford Gribben and David George Mullan, eds., Literature and the Scottish Reformation (St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History; Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 11; Gribben, “Preaching the Scottish Reformation,” 280-81.
23. Henderson, Religious Life, 216.
24. As cited in ibid.
25. Baillie, Letters and Journals; Archibald Johnston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Vol. 2: 1650-1654 (ed. David Hay Fleming; Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1919); Archibald Johnston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Vol. 3: 1655-1660 (ed. James D. Ogilvie; Edinburgh: T. & A. Constable for the Scottish History Society, 1940).
26. Baillie referred to Binning on five occasions in addition to the disparaging comment on his preaching style cited above. In 1650 he spoke somewhat sneeringly of Binning as one of “the two youngest we had” in the presbytery and recounted an anecdote which had Binning speaking “like a distracted man” (Baillie, Letters and Journals, 3:121, 124). In 1652 he noted Binning’s absence from a key presbytery vote and grouped him with those who were “of the other mind” regarding the Protestor/Resolutioner controversy (3:195, 200). The only other mention of Binning was a fleeting reference to his early death (3:434). Johnston made reference to Binning only once, noting James Durham’s “influence on him” (Johnston, Diary 1650-1654, 180).
27. Binning, Works, 2.
28. Ibid.
29. Wodrow, Analecta, 3:75.
30. Ibid., 3:40.
31. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 132-36. Torrance covers similar ground but in a less formally structured manner (Scottish Theology, 74-79).
32. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133.
33. James Durham, Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (1735; repr., Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2002), 148, 150, 180-81.
34. James Durham, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ (1764; repr., Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 2002), 43-79; esp. 76-78. This is not to suggest that Durham, and others like him, were in any way hesitant in preaching the doctrine of election or limited atonement. However, neither were these doctrines omnipresent in their sermons.
35. Samuel Rutherford, Examen arminianismi (Utrecht: Anthony Smijtegelt, 1668); Samuel Rutherford, Disputatio scholastica de divina providentia (Edinburgh: Printed by the Heirs of George Anderson, for Robert Browne, 1649).
36. “The Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in Westminster Confession of Faith &c. (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 379.
37. Binning, Works, 1-116.
38. Ibid., 117-266.
39. Ibid., 267-358.
40. Ibid., 359-470.
41. Ibid., 471-520.
42. Ibid., 521-49.
43. Ibid., 551-659.
44. Henderson, Religious Life, 216. Torrance himself states, “Binning was very critical of Arminian . . . ideas” (Torrance, Scottish Theology, 76).
45. “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will”; “But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does” (NKJV).
46. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 72-73.
47. Ibid., 73. Binning here noted that although sin was encompassed within the decree, nevertheless it was in a “holy, righteous, and permissive way” and that “for holy and just ends.”
48. Ibid., 74. The immutability of God’s decree was not an excuse for fatalism as God had “linked the end and means together as a chain; and therefore, if thou expectest to be saved, according to election, thou must, according to the same counsel, make thy calling home from sin to God sure” (75).
49. Ibid., 76.
50. Ibid. Binning closed this sermon with practical pastoral application to the people of God, namely, that the decree should engender submission, trust, and confidence (77-78).
51. “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will”; “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory?” (NKJV).
52. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 79.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 80. This, of course, is a recognition of the classic Reformed orthodox distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa.
55. Ibid., 81.
56. Ibid.
57. “Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved” (NKJV).
58. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 82.
59. Ibid. This is “the common axiom which supralapsarians like to use” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [ed. James T. Dennison, Jr.; trans. George Musgrave Giger; 3 vols.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992]: 1:348 [4.9.23]).
60. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 82.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Binning was merciless in his excoriation of these objections. They were the “objections of carnal and fleshly reason,” they were the “suggestions of the wicked hearts of men,” they were the conceptions of “profane souls” (ibid., 85-87).
65. Ibid., 85.
66. “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” (NKJV).
67. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 86.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid., 87.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 88.
72. Ibid., 84-85.
73. Ibid., 81.
74. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133.
75. Binning, Works, 350-53.
76. Ibid., 108.
77. Ibid., 158.
78. Ibid., 211.
79. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 77.
80. Binning, Works, 349.
81. It is also true, as discussed above and as Bell notes, that Binning rejected a specific ordering of the decrees of God (Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 132). (This is contrary to the editor of Binning’s Works, who states that Binning was a supralapsarian [Leishman, preface to Binning, Works, xxiii]). However, in this Binning was not unique. James Durham repeatedly expressed his lack of interest in the question of whether infra- or surpalapsarianism was the correct presentation of the divine decrees. See, e.g., James Durham, Christ Crucified or the Marrow of the Gospel in Seventy-Two Sermons on the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah (1683; repr., ed. Chris Coldwell; Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2001), 335. Samuel Rutherford’s supralapsarianism, especially in its mode of expression, has been shown to be less “severe” than commonly assumed (see Guy M. Richard, “Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Revealed: A Key to the Lapsarian Position of the Westminster Confession of Faith?” SJT 59 [2006]: 27-44).
82. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 75-76. See also MacLeod, “Review of Scottish Theology,” 63.
83. James Durham, A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation (1658; repr., Willow Street, Pa.: Old Paths Publications, 2000), 274. See also Durham, Christ Crucified, 154, 421, 476; Durham, Revelation, 273; Durham, Unsearchable Riches, 58, 60; James Durham and David Dickson, The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, in The Sum of Saving Knowledge, in Westminster Confession of Faith &c, 329.
84. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh: Andrew Anderson, 1655), 88. He wrote, “It were nonsense to say to men under the externally proposed Covenant . . . there is no promise made to you, nor to your seed and children, until first you believe” (89). To say that no conditional promise was made to all would have been to “ignorantly confound the promise, and the thing promised; the Covenant, and the benefits Covenanted” (90). Rutherford did hold that the “special and principall Covenanted blessing” was promised only to the elect, and therefore on occasion he felt it was appropriate to say, “The promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the Reprobate” (92).
85. David Dickson, Therapeutica sacra (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 124; see also 115.
86. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133.
87. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 76.
88. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133. Torrance also comments that Binning “had problems about the use of the concept of ‘covenant’” (Torrance, Scottish Theology, 76). For the standard criticisms of federal theology, see James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland,” SJT 23 (1970): 51-76.
89. Durham, Revelation, 299. This is in addition to the one instance Bell refers to, namely Durham, Christ Crucified, 254. Further examples of Durham making this same point are Christ Crucified, 290, 337, 625, and Unsearchable Riches, 253.
90. Durham, Revelation, 299.
91. See Willem van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” WTJ 64 (2002): 319-35; Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725 (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:225-38; Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (trans. Albert Gootjes; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 123-26.
92. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 76. See also Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133. For Binning’s affirmation of the covenant of works, see particularly the sermon “Of the First Covenant,” in Works, 104-8. See also pp. 27-28, 127, 139, 144, 161-63, 248, 324, 349, 421-22, 447-48, 603-11.
93. See, e.g., Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 229-32; Richard Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 183; Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law (London: Kingsgate, 1964; repr., Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2011), 112. Specifically on the Westminster Standards, see Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 231-32.
94. Binning, Works, 28.
95. See Guy M. Richard, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 148-49; S. D. Kim, “Time and Eternity: A Study in Samuel Rutherford’s Theology, with Reference to His Use of Scholastic Method” (Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 2002), 267-71.
96. E.g., “It had been nothing against justice, if the Lord had followed Adams obedience, with no reward at all” (Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, 23).
97. Ibid., 22.
98. Ibid., 35. Thus the language of Kim is, at best, infelicitous when he speaks of “the priority of grace over the law before the fall” in Rutherford (Kim, “Time and Eternity,” 267) and states that “the covenant of works in Adam is not a covenant of works based on human obedience, but a covenant of grace grounded on divine promise and grace” (301-2). This language obscures Rutherford’s clear distinction between the covenants of works and grace.
99. Indeed, Binning stated that “it was Paul’s great business in preaching, to ride marches between the covenant of grace, and the covenant of works” (Works, 106).
100. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 133. For Binning’s own teaching on this, see Works, 436-37. (But see also his statements regarding those who call themselves Christians while living dissolute lives, in Works, 445.) For an excellent overview of Reformed teaching on the conditionality of the covenant of grace, see Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 305-18. For Binning’s teaching on the covenant of grace, see, e.g., Works, 148, 166, 207, 248, 349, 597, 603-11. Binning seems to refer to the pactum salutis (covenant of redemption) in Works, 422.
101. “Faith . . . justifies us not as an act or work, but as an instrument, whereby we apprehend Christ and his righteousness” (Binning, Works, 601; emphasis added).
102. Durham, Revelation, 322.
103. Ibid., 178-79.
104. Ibid., 300-313, 320-28.
105. Ibid., 311.
106. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 134. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider Torrance’s understanding of Binning’s teaching on Christ’s union with “sinful” human nature. See the comments of MacLeod in “Review of Scottish Theology,” 68-69.
107. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 134-35. Bell notes that Binning defined faith as more than simple assent to the truth. This is far from unique and is consistent with the traditional Reformed understanding of faith as nota, assentia, and fiducia. See, e.g., Durham, Christ Crucified, 544. Defining faith simply as assent to truth was, for Durham, the error of Rome (see Durham, Revelation, 753-54).
108. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 134.
109. Dickson, Therapeutica sacra, 436-37.
110. For a general survey of the importance placed on union with Christ by federal theologians, see Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology, 481-89.
111. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 136.
112. Binning, Works, 22. See also Binning’s statement, “The law is a messenger sent to pursue a man out of his own house of self-confidence and security . . . till it put him in Christ’s hand” (609).
113. Ibid., 22.
114. Samuel Rutherford, The Trial and Triumph of Faith (1845; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2001), 303. Rutherford is not always consistent, stating that all that God communicated directly to the reprobate flowed from the hatred of God (see Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 71). Cf. Kim (“Time and Eternity,” 236) who argues, “To call reprobates is not unreasonable, because God is absolutely free to do so, for He feels pity, and is able, as it pleases Him, even to call many reprobates.”
115. Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (Edinburgh: T. Lumisden and J. Robertson, 1727), 20; see also 268. His statement, “The scripture nowhere speaks of any love of God in Christ to man, but such as is efficacious in saving” (475) must be understood as speaking of electing love, or else it is not consistent with his other statements.
116. Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, 107.
117. Samuel Rutherford, Fourteen Communion Sermons (1630-1637; repr., Edinburgh: James A Dickson, 1986), 64.
118. Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology, 136.
119. This should not be taken as a blanket criticism of the theological work of Bell, or in particular Torrance. Indeed, Torrance is to be commended for interacting with the tradition of Reformed theology in Scotland in a thoughtful and critical manner.
120. This article is an expanded version of a paper I delivered at the 2012 research conference of the Wales Evangelical School of Theology. I am grateful to the participants in that conference for their thoughtful comments on, and interaction with, the original paper. I am also indebted to my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Gwyn Davies, and my father, George MacLean, for their comments on drafts of the article.