GEORGE GILLESPIE.
I.
George Gillespie, one of the most distinguished men of the Covenanting period, was the son of Rev. John Gillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy. John Livingstone who, as a boy, heard him preach at Stirling describes him as “a thundering preacher.” The exact year of George Gillespie’s birth cannot be ascertained; it could not be earlier, however, than 1612, the year in which his father was chosen to the second charge in Kirkcaldy, nor later than January, 1613, as the existing Register of Births and Baptisms commences January, 1614; at the end of that year the birth of a daughter to Rev. John Gillespie is registered, and again in 1616, a son, Patrick, was baptized. It may be assumed,
therefore, that George was born early in 1613, a date which agrees with that engraven on his tombstone. Wodrow gives the date as 21st January, 1613. In 1629 the following entry appears in the kirk-session record of Kirkcaldy: “The session are content that Mr. George Gillespie shall have as much money of our session for his entertainment as Dysart gives, viz., 20 marks, being our Presbytery Bursar.” He is credited with having given evidence during his University course not only of more than ordinary mental power, but of genius.
When he had finished his Arts course, owing to his doubts as to the scripturalness of Prelacy, he would not submit to ordination at the hands of a Bishop. He, however, found congenial employment in the household of Lord Kenmure, where he acted as Chaplain. Here he continued until the death of this nobleman in 1634. Afterwards he discharged a similar duty in the family of the Earl of Cassilis, acting at the same time as tutor to the Earl’s son, Lord Kennedy. During this period Gillespie pursued those studies, the fruits of which were soon to be given to the world. The first work which appeared from his pen—A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland—was issued in the summer of 1637, a year big with destiny for the Church of Scotland. The seething discontent against the prelatic usurpations was reaching its height. This work, remarkable not only as the work of a young man (he was only twenty-five at the time), but also on account of its learning and incisive logic, is a book still worth reading. The Prelatists argued that the ceremonies so distasteful to the Presbyterians were necessary, or expedient, or lawful, or indifferent. Gillespie argued against their necessity, expediency, lawfulness, and their indifference. It was a powerful and smashing blow to prelatic pretensions. No answer could be given to it but to consign it to the flames. Hence the Privy Council ordered all copies to be called in and burned. Baillie’s estimate at this stage of his career may be quoted: “This same youth is now given out also, by those that should know, for the author of the English Popish
Ceremonies, whereof we all do marvel; for, though he had gotten the papers, and help of the chief of that side, yet the very composition would seem to be far above such an age. But, if that book be truly of his making, I admire the man, though I mislike much of his matter; yea, I think he may prove amongst the best wits of this Isle.” The Bishops never attempted to reply to Gillespie. When he thus suddenly came into fame efforts were made to have him settled as a minister. The congregation of Wemyss, to which he was known from his infancy, was vacant at the time and it made application to have him as its minister. The settlement of Gillespie was not agreeable to Archbishop Spottiswood of St. Andrews, but on 26th April, 1638, George Gillespie was ordained minister and inducted to his charge. The celebrated Robert Douglas presided on the occasion. Though Episcopacy was the recognised form of church government at the time George Gillespie was the first minister admitted by a Presbytery without the authority of the Bishops. This action was a blow struck to break the prelatic shackles in which the Church in Scotland was still bound. George Gillespie now came prominently to the front and took his share in the epoch-making decisions of the time. He did not attain to the impressive stature of Alexander Henderson as an ecclesiastical leader and church statesman, but the clarity of his reasoning and the incisiveness of his logic made him one of God’s great gifts to the Church in the hour of her need. The masterly ease with which he dealt with Prelatic and Erastian arguments evokes a feeling of wonder in the reader who cares to follow his masterly presentation of his thesis.
The esteem in which he was held by his brethren is evidenced by the fact that he was one of the ministers, notwithstanding his youth, who was asked to preach before the famous Glasgow Assembly of 1638 from the text: “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”
When negotiations were proceeding between Charles and the Scots for peace the Scottish Commissioners, in proceeding to London, were accompanied by Henderson, Blair, Baillie
and Gillespie. The Scottish ministers took advantage of their stay in London to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation and their ministrations were attended by crowds. Soon after the return of the Scottish Commissioners and ministers, Aberdeen made a determined effort to have George Gillespie as one of its ministers. This call he resolutely refused, but next year the town of Edinburgh applied to the General Assembly to have him appointed as one of the ministers of the town. The application was granted by the Assembly, and so George Gillespie became one of the ministers of Edinburgh in 1642 and remained so to the day of his death.
In 1643 the Westminster Assembly was called and at the request of Commissioners from the English Parliament and the Westminster Assembly, who appeared at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, requesting the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland to assist the Divines in their great task, Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas, Robert Baillie, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie, ministers, were appointed with the following elders: Earl of Cassillis, Lord Maitland (afterwards Earl of Lauderdale), Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston. Robert Douglas and the Earl of Cassillis never took their seats in the Assembly. Henderson, Gillespie and Maitland set off with the English Commissioners immediately on the rising of the General Assembly. Rutherford, Baillie and Wariston followed a month afterwards. When the Assembly of Divines met it soon became apparent that there was a sharp division on Church discipline and government. There were three parties—Independents, Presbyterians and Erastians. Of these the Presbyterians were the most numerous, comprising nine-tenths of the whole body. The Independents had men of great ability advocating their cause but were comparatively few in number. The Erastians were more numerous but only two ministers advocated these views. They had as their ornament the learned Selden, the Goliath with whom George Gillespie was to wage successful war. The debates on the points on which these parties
were divided were long and tedious, but no one came through them with more credit than the youngest of the Scottish Commissioners—George Gillespie. Blessed with a retentive memory and having assiduously gathered within its ambit gleanings from the literature on the subject, he was in a particularly advantageous position to meet his opponents on the spur of the moment. Baillie was mesmerised by the brilliancy and skill in dialectics which Gillespie displayed. “None in all the company,” he says, “did reason more, and more pertinently than Mr. Gillespie, That is an excellent youth; my heart blesses God in his behalf.” Again, he says: “Very learned and acute Mr. Gillespie, a singular ornament of our Church, than whom not one in the whole Assembly speaks to better purpose, and with better acceptance by all the hearers.” And, as if this was not sufficient, he further adds: “Mr. George Gillespie, however I had a good opinion of his gifts, yet I profess he has much deceived me. Of a truth there is no man whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire. He has studied so accurately all the points that ever yet came to our Assembly, he has got 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.”
There are certain interesting traditional stories told of George Gillespie, all of which, even if not resting on sure historical foundations, indicate the high place given to him. There is, first of all, the story, told by Hetherington in his Memoirs attached to the writings of Gillespie, of the latter’s encounter with the great Selden. The debate turned on Matt. xviii. 15-17. The building was packed and Gillespie, who was late in coming, had the greatest difficulty in getting admittance. “Can ye not admit a pinning*?” he asked of those barring the way. At length he gained admission and took his place beside the Scottish Com-
*Pinnings, small stones with which masons pin or fill up the spaces between the larger stones in the building.
missioners. Selden, in a speech bristling with talmudical lore, argued that the text contained no warrant for ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The rest of the story will be told in Hetherington’s own words: “At length both Herle and Marshall, two very distinguished men, attempted answers, but failed to counteract the effect of Selden’s speech. Gillespie had been observed by his Scottish brethren writing occasionally in his note-book, as if marking the heads of Selden’s argument; one of them, some accounts say Rutherford, turning to him in this emergency, said: ‘Rise, George, rise up, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by His own laws, the Church which He purchased with His own blood.’ Thus urged, Gillespie rose, gave first a summary of Selden’s argument, divesting it of all that cumbrous learning in which it had been wrapped, and reducing it to its simple elements; then, in a speech of singular acuteness and power, completely refuted it, proving that the passage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere reference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved, that the whole subject was of a spiritual nature; not within the cognisance of civil courts; and he proved also, that the Church of the Jews both possessed and exercised the power of spiritual censures. The effect of Gillespie’s speech was so great, as not only to convince the Assembly, but also to astonish and confound Selden himself, who is reported to have exclaimed in a tone of disappointment, ‘That young man has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my life.'”
This is a pretty story and gives a picturesque colouring to a famous debate in the Assembly, but over against it must be set the opinion of Prof. Mitchell, an authority on the history of the Westminster Assembly. In a footnote he makes the following reference to what he terms “that far-famed single combat between Selden and Gillespie—around which later Scottish tradition has thrown such a halo”: “The manuscript minutes coincide with Lightfoot’s Journal in assigning Gillespie’s speech, not to the session of the 20th, but to that of the 21st February. In Gillespie’s own Notes it is introduced at the close of the account of the former session with the words, ‘I reply,’ not I replied, and
may simply embody a brief outline of the reply he was to make on the following day. The reply made to Selden on the spur of the moment was that of Herle, who in 1646 succeeded Dr. Twisse as Prolocutor, and judging even from the fragmentary jottings, preserved by Byfield, one cannot doubt that it was a very able reply. Gillespie and Young appear to have taken the evening to arrange their thoughts, and at next session made very telling replies, the former to the general line of argument, the latter to the citations from rabbinical and patristic authorities.” (The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards, p. 288).
(To be continued).