GEORGE GILLESPIE.
II.
(Continued from p. 126.)
ANOTHER story in which Gillespie figures very prominently is that in which the Shorter Catechism answer to the question What is God? is attributed to him. Hetherington’s version of the story is as follows: “In one of the earliest meetings of the Committee [appointed to frame the Catechisms], the subject of deliberation was to frame an answer to the question ‘What is God?’ Each man felt the unapproachable sublimity of the divine idea suggested by these words; but who could venture to give it expression in human language! All shrunk from the too sacred task in awe-struck, reverential fear. At length it was resolved, as an expression of the Committee’s deep humility, that the youngest member should first make the attempt. He consented; but begged that the brethren would first unite with him in prayer for divine enlightenment. Then in slow and solemn accents he thus began his prayer: ‘O God, thou art a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in Thy being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.’ When he ceased, the first sentence of his prayer was immediately written down and adopted, as the most perfect answer that could be conceived; as, indeed, in a very sacred sense, God’s own answer descriptive of Himself.” (Memoir of the Rev. George Gillespie, p. xxviii.) Over against this beautiful, if somewhat fanciful, story is to be set the fact that George Gillespie received permission to leave London in May, 1647, when the proofs of the Confession had been completed, but while the debates on the Larger Catechism were still proceeding and the answer to the question What is God? had not as yet been fixed for the Larger Catechism much less for the Shorter, which was not composed until the Larger had virtually been completed. Three months after his return to Scotland, Gillespie reported to the General Assembly that the Divines “have had no time yet to do anything in the latter [Shorter Catechism], but here is a copy of the greater, which is almost complete” (Mitchell’s The Westminster Assembly, p. 429). Mr. Carruthers, who also gave considerable study to the history of the Shorter Catechism, says: “Everyone who has looked with care into the answer to ‘What is God?‘ has been surprised at the marvellous compactness and comprehensiveness of that wonderful statement. Several touching stories are told of its authorship and the conditions under which it was prepared, but, we fear, they are all apocryphal. To Tuckney, Marshall, Ward, and Rutherford, we are indebted for this as for the other answers in the Catechism. There is, however, no statement in the [Shorter] Catechism that is not to be found in the two earlier documents [i.e., Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism].”*
*The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines*, p. 34.
We have, on the other hand, almost indisputable evidence that in one section of the Confession he has left his mark. When section 5, chap. i. is compared with Gillespie’s statement in his Miscellany Questions as was first pointed out by Prof. Candlish in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review it will be seen how close the resemblance is. Gillespie’s words are as follows: “The Scripture is known to be indeed the Word of God by the beams of divine authority which it hath in itself . . . such as the heavenliness of the matter, the majesty of the style, the irresistible power over the conscience, the general scope to abase man, and to exalt God; nothing driven at but God’s glory and man’s salvation . . . the supernatural mysteries revealed therein, which could never have entered into the reason of man, the marvellous consent of all the parts and passages (though written by divers and several penmen), even where there is some appearance of difference . . . these and the like are characters and marks which evidence the Scriptures to be the Word of God.”
Gillespie not only tackled the Erastians in the Assembly debates but he entered into the lists against Rev. Thomas Coleman and Rev. John Lightfoot. His replies to these divines, while showing his keenness as a controversialist in discovering the weak points in the armour of his opponents are not of the same massive build as some of his other works. While engrossed with the exacting labours of the Westminster Assembly, Gillespie was busily preparing what may be reckoned as the greatest of his works—Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated. In this work, Erastianism received as severe a handling, it may be said, as ever it did. He reviews the arguments of its ablest advocates, such as Selden, Coleman, Hussey and Prynne, who had both his ears cut off by the sentence of Laud. These were formidable opponents, and any one who wishes to have an idea of Gillespie’s dialectic skill should read this great work, controversial though it be. Among his other works may be mentioned his “CXI. Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church” (1644); “A Treatise of Miscellany Questions”; “Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, February, 1644, to January, 1645.”* Valuable though his controversial works were, it would be unfair to his memory to leave the impression on the minds of our readers that he was an ecclesiastical gladiator and nothing more. Gillespie, with Henderson, Baillie and Rutherford were associated with the Committee that was appointed to prepare and arrange the main propositions which were to be shaped into a system by the Assembly. In the index to the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly Gillespie’s name occurs no less than twenty times. He took part in the debate on the solemnization of marriage, holy places, excommunication, catechising, in framing the Directory for Public Worship and on the decrees, civil magistrate, Christ as King and Head of the Church in framing the Confession.
*Gillespie’s complete works in 2 vols. were issued in 1846, under the general title of the Presbyterian’s Armoury (3 vols.), edited with a Memoir of his Life and Writings by W. M. Hetherington, LL.D. It is a remarkable thing that George Gillespie has never been honoured with a biography worthy of his fame.
The incessant toils in which Gillespie had been engaged shattered his constitution. He was chosen Moderator of the Assembly which met on 12th July, 1648, which sat until 12th August. Though in the grip of the disease (consumption) which was to end his days, Gillespie stuck manfully to his post, taking an active part in the Assembly’s deliberations and drew up the last public paper which it directed to be framed, in answer to a document, issued by the State, respecting the engagement that had been formed for the support of the king. When the labours of the Assembly were over, Gillespie retired to Kirkealdy for rest. He was a dying man and unable to attend the church courts but sent a letter to the Commission of Assembly, in which he stated clearly his opinion concerning the dangers of the time. He left as his dying witness his “Testimony against Association with Malignant Enemies of the Truth and Godliness.” On the 17th day of December, 1648, he passed from this world of strife to his Lord whom he diligently served. He had but reached the mid-time of life but what a fine record of work, right nobly and honourably performed for his Master. His death was greatly lamented. As a tribute to his work, the Committee of Estates by an Act dated 20th December, 1648, which was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament, 9th June, 1650, paid him the following tribute: “As an acknowledgment for his faithfulness in all the public employments entrusted to him by this Church, both at home and abroad, his faithful labours, and indefatigable diligence, in all the exercises of his ministerial calling, for his Master’s service, and his learned writings, published to the world, in which rare and profitable employments, both for Church and State, he truly spent himself and closed his days, Ordain, that the sum of one thousand pounds sterling be given to his widow and children.” Unfortunately, through the Cromwellian troubles, this sum never reached those for whom it was intended.
When Prelacy was in the ascendancy after the Restoration in 1660, the Committee of Estates, according to the Mercurius Caledonius, “Ordered the tomb-stone of Mr. George Gillespie, whereon was engraven a scandalous inscription, should be fetched from the burial place, and upon a market day at the cross of Kirkcaldy, where he had formerly been minister, and there solemnly broken by the hands of the hangman, which was accordingly done—a just indignity upon the memory of so dangerous a person.” The sympathies of the narrator are glaringly evident.
“Then certainly they had devour’d us all,
And swallow’d quick, for ought that we could deem,
Such was their rage as we might well esteem.”
—Metrical Psalms exiv. 3 (Second Version).
Malice careth not how true the charge is, but how cutting.—
John Trapp.