by Rev. John Colquhoun
1. EARLY DAYS
The Church of God in Scotland had many bright ornaments among her ministers, who, though young in years when they were transplanted to the church triumphant, were burning and shining lights in their day and generation. Among such men were George Gillespie, Andrew Gray, Hugh Binning, James Durham, James Renwick and in later times, Robert Murray McCheyne. Each had his own peculiar gift, but in that way each one was fitted to fill a particular niche by himself in the church. In writing a sketch of the life and times of George Gillespie we see that he lived at a time when Zion had many troubles, and that he seemed to have been raised up on purpose, by Him who gave diverse gifts to His Church, in order to be a polished shaft in His hand for discomfiting the enemies of the Church, not only at that time but also through subsequent generations.
Very little seems to be known of his early days beyond the fact that he was born in Kirkcaldy, early in 1613. He was the son of the Rev. John Gillespie, minister of the parish there. Of his father we know very little beyond a short note which Rev. John Livingstone supplies of him in his Memorable Characteristics, and in which he describes him as “a thundering preacher.” His mother appears to have been a daughter of Patrick Simson, minister of Stirling, for in Row’s History of the Kirk of Scotland, p.432, Mr John Gillespie is referred to as Simson’s son-in-law. This seems to be further proved by the fact that Patrick Simson, minister of Renfrew, and a grandson of Simson of Stirling, who was on very intimate terms with Robert Woodrow, the Historian, always referred to George Gillespie as “my cousin.” It is on his authority that Woodrow gives the date of Gillespie’s birth as 27th January 1613. Woodrow, in his Analecta, says of the subject of this sketch that “when he was a child, he seemed to be somewhat dull and soft like, so that his mother would have stricken and abused him, and she would have made much of Patrick, his younger brother. His father, Mr John Gillespie, minister of Kirkcaldy, was angry to see his wife carry so to his son George; and he would have said, ‘my heart, let alone; though Patrick may have some respect given him in the Church, yet my son George will be the great man in the Church of Scotland’.” This prediction proved true as we shall have occasion to notice afterwards.
That John Gillespie was not only a “thundering preacher” but also one who had the courage of his convictions with regard to the government and worship of the Church of Scotland is proved by the fact that his name is among those of several others who were summoned before the High Commission which met in Edinburgh on 26th January 1620 for refusing to conform to the Acts of the Perth Assembly of 1618. They were dismissed with the warning that if they did not conform before the 1st of March they would be deposed, and the Bishop of St. Andrews, who presided, caused the Clerk to make an Act bearing their consent to be deposed on that day if they conformed not. They unanimously protested that willingly they would never renounce their ministry. His name also appears among the subscribers to a Protestation offered to the Parliament at Perth on 1st July 1606 against “the erection, confirmation, and ratification” of bishoprics and bishops by the said Parliament. This Protest, which is as clear a piece of reasoning as is to be found in all the annals of the Church of Scotland, was the work of Patrick Simson, minister of Stirling, and the maternal grandfather of George Gillespie. This Patrick Simson was one who had a large measure of the boldness of the Scottish Reformers as the following anecdote clearly shows:—
For some time after King James VI and his Queen came home from Denmark after their marriage, the Roman Catholics in this country became very bold and many outstanding Protestants were abused and some cruelly murdered. Shortly after the murder of the Earl of Moray by a professed papist Mr Simson was preaching before the King, who did not in any way exert himself to bring the murderer to justice. The text was, “The Lord said to Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?” Gen. 4: 9. The preacher, turning to the King before the congregation, said, “Sir, I assure you, in God’s name, the Lord will ask at you where is the Earl of Moray your brother?” The King replied before all the congregation. “Mr Patrick, my chalmer doore was never steeked upon you; ye might have told me anything ye thought in secret.” He replied, “Sir, the scandal is public.” After sermon he was sent for to the castle where he went up with the Bible under his arm, affirming that would plead for him. Row’s Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, p.144. Thus we see that the subject of this sketch was not only the seed of the righteous but of men who attained to an uncommon boldness in defending the Cause of Christ and rebuking evil.
2. FROM ENTERING THE UNIVERSITY TILL HIS ORDINATION.
We have no means of ascertaining how his earlier studies were prosecuted. It may have been under his father’s roof, as in the case of many of the families of the ministers of Scotland at this time, or in the parish school, for some parishes had schools where education was of a very high order as can be proved from the fact that many of the youth of Scotland found their way to the Universities. One thing we are sure of, and that is, that young Gillespie made good use of his opportunities, for he entered St. Andrews’ University in 1629 when he was in his sixteenth year. That he prosecuted his studies there with zeal and industry is evident from the fact that when he left the University he was noted for his extensive learning.
The Condition of the Church at this Time.
That Gillespie was born when the Church of Scotland was under a very dark cloud is proved when we compare the date of his birth with the dates of certain matters in her checkered history. A little over two years before Gillespie’s birth King James I of England and VI of Scotland, ordered three Presbyterian pastors, whom he himself had created bishops, to proceed to London in order to receive Episcopal consecration at the hands of Bishops of the Church of England so that they would be able to transmit the so-called Apostolic Succession to their brother-bishops at home. They were consecrated on 21st October 1610. Thus we see that the carved work of the Reformers was, for the time being, cast down and broken. Two years later Parliament legalised the Acts of the Glasgow Assembly of 1610, popularly known as the “Angelic Assembly” from the large number of gold angel-pieces which were given to its members, as bribes, by the supporters of the King.
Under more favourable circumstances a pious young man of George Gillespie’s abilities and acquirements would very soon find a sphere of usefulness in the Church of Scotland, but it was otherwise at the period of which we write. King James I, having got Andrew Melville out of the way, first by confining him in the Tower of London and then by banishment to France, and having forbidden his nephew, James Melville to return to Scotland, he in 1610 at the Glasgow Assembly succeeded in intruding Episcopacy, and although there were still presbyteries and synods, and also a General Assembly, if the King condescended to call one, the bishops were lords over these courts so that, in effect, the Church was governed by Prelates. In 1618 an Assembly met at Perth by order of the King, and, through its members being overawed and bribed by him, the infamous Five Articles of Perth were passed. These were, kneeling at the communion, the observance of holy days, episcopal confirmation, private baptisms, and the private dispensation of the Lord’s Supper. This attempt at abolishing the Presbyterianism of the Church of Scotland was only partially successful, for the Most High, in various places, blessed the land by the refreshing showers of a spiritual revival, so that, though the people were sore oppressed, their spirits were kept from being broken by their hard lot.
Among the ministry of the Church of Scotland at this time were many who truly feared the Lord and declared His whole counsel to perishing sinners. Where such faithful preaching was to be found the Holy Spirit began to work mightily so that many were brought from the darkness of sin to God’s marvellous light, and others who had been in Christ before these declensions began, were now finding their drooping spirits revived. King James and his servile minions and court parasites might do all in their power to crush evangelical religion and a Scriptural form of Church government out of Scotland, but they all forgot, or ignored, the lesson that Andrew Melville taught the King some years before this: “Sir, when you were in your swaddling-clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land in spite of all His enemies; His officers and ministers convened and assembled and convened for the ruling and welfare of His Church, which was ever for your welfare, defence and preservation, when these same enemies were seeking your destruction and cutting off.” The Lord Jesus, however, did neither forget nor ignore His Church and people for in many places they could say, “Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary. Thy congregation hath dwelt therein: thou O God, hast prepared of thy goodness for the poor.” Ps. 68: 9, 10. Such refreshing showers kept God’s witnesses looking continually to Himself and inspired them with courage to face fearful odds in contending faithfully for the faith once delivered to the saints.
In 1625 King James went the way of all the earth and his son, more bigoted and cruel, if possible, than the father, reigned in his stead as Charles I. He was bent on doing in the Church of Scotland what his father had only partially accomplished. In this he had a henchman in Archbishop Laud who was willing to go to any length in order to please his royal master. He seemed to have been Charles’s favourite and confidential friend from the beginning of his reign. In 1633 he became Archbishop of Canterbury, and to him may be attributed a very large share of the trials which befel the Cause of Christ in Scotland and England. According to Andrew Stevenson, in his History of the Church and State in Scotland, it could be said of him as was said of old of Pope Boniface; “He came in like a fox, he reigned like a lion, and he died like a dog.” As for his religion it was reckoned that if, it had been divided into four parts, two were Arminianism, the third part popery, and scarce a fourth part Protestantism. He would never brook any deviation from what he conceived to be proper to religious worship; his whole conduct in that respect showed him to be “cunning, narrow-minded, bigoted and malevolent,” and to his charge may be laid the introduction of the most fearful punishment meted out to Christ’s witnesses in this country at that time, such as putting in the pillory, slitting of noses, burning on the cheek, cutting off ears, scourging, and other forms of punishments, which for their horrible nature, vie with those practised among savages. From his elevation to the See of Canterbury till his execution on Tower Hill on 10th January 1641 he continued his tyrannical abuse of power along with these atrocities, showing him to have been a monster of iniquity who covered himself with the cloak of a high religious profession.
With the view of eliminating the last vestiges of Presbyterianism in the Church of Scotland, it was resolved that a Book of Canons and a Liturgy should be prepared by the Scottish bishops. The Book of Canons appeared in 1635 and the Liturgy in 1637. Previous to the appearance of the Liturgy it had been sent to England for revision and Laud himself superintended the revision, adding to it much that gave the whole a decided Popish trend. These revisions were submitted to the King for his approval and an order from him appeared requiring the Liturgy to be used in all the Scottish Churches, and an Act of the Privy Council was passed enforcing the Order.
Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies.
When George Gillespie had finished his College course and was ready for the work of the ministry, what appeared to be an insurmountable obstacle stood in the way. He would not receive ordination at the hands of a prelate and no Presbytery could be found who would ordain him. This led him into a more retired way of living as domestic chaplain, first to Lord Kenmure until 1634, and afterwards in the same capacity, with the additional duty of a tutor in the family of the Earl of Cassilis. While acting in this capacity he was not idle. He had leisure to study the questions of the day, and he studied them to some purpose for in 1637, when he was only 24 years of age, there appeared from his pen a production, entitled, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland. He divides his treatise into four parts; i. Against the necessity of the ceremonies; ii. Against the expediency of the ceremonies; iii. Against the lawfulness of the ceremonies; iv. Against the indifference of the ceremonies. In the Prologue he states what are the duties of every one who would contend for the truth against all corruptions. (1) “To walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing.” (2) To make diligent search for the truth, and (3) “When we have attained to the acknowledging of the truth, then to give a testimony unto the same, according to our vocation, contending for the truth of God against the errors of men, for the purity of Christ against the corruptions of Antichrist; For to understand the truth, and yet not content for it, argueth cowardliness, not courage; fainting, not fervour; lukewarmness, not love; weakness, not valour; Wherefore, since we cannot impetrate from the troublers of our Israel that true peace which derogateth not from the truth, we may not, we dare not, leave off to debate with them. . . . These considerations have induced me to bestow some time, and to take some pains in the study of the controversies which are agitated in this church about the ceremonies, and (after due examination and discussion of the writings of such as have played the proctors for them) to compile this ensuing dispute against them, both for exonering myself, and for provoking of others to contend yet more for the truth, and for Zion’s sake not to hold their peace, nor be at rest, until the amiable light of long-wished-for peace break forth out of all these confusions, which, O Prince of Peace! hasten who ‘wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also has wrought all our works in us,’ Isa. 26: 12.” In concluding his Preface, which is addressed “To all and every one in the Reformed Churches of Scotland, England and Ireland, who love the Lord Jesus and mean to adhere unto the Reformation of Religion,” the author says, with reference to what he brought before them:—
“If you disregard these things whereof, in the name of God, I have admonished you, and draw back your helping hands from the reproached and afflicted cause of Christ, for which we plead, then do not put evil far from you, for wrath is determined against you. And as for you, my dear brethren and countrymen of Scotland, as it is long since first Christianity was preached and professed in this land, as also it was blessed with a most glorious and much renowned Reformation: and, further, as the gospel hath been longer continued in purity and peace with us than with any church in Europe: moreover, as the Church of Scotland hath treacherously broken her bonds of oath and subscription wherewith other churches about us were not so tied; and, finally, as Almighty God, though He hath most consumed other churches by His dreadful judgments, yet hath showed far greater long-suffering kindness towards us, to reclaim us to repentance, though, notwithstanding all this, we go on in a most doleful security, induration, blindness, and backsliding: so now, in the most ordinary course of God’s justice, we are certainly to expect, that after so many mercies, so great long-suffering, and such a long day of grace, all despised, He is to send upon us such judgments as should not be believed though they were told. O Scotland! understand and turn again, or else, as God lives, most terrible judgments are abiding thee.
“But if you lay these things to heart, — if you be humbled before God for the provocation of your defection and turn back from the same, — if with all your hearts and according to all your power, you bestow your best endeavours for making help to the wounded church of Christ, and vindicating the cause of pure religion, yea, though it were with the loss of all that you have in the world, (augetur enim religio Die, quo magis premitur — God’s true religion is enlarged the more it is pressed down), then shall you not only escape the evils which shall come upon this generation, but likewise be recompensed a hundred fold with the sweet consolations of God’s Spirit here, and with the immortal crown of never-fading glory hence.”
Gillespie’s treaties could not have been better timed for it appeared when the Church was groaning under the galling yoke of the oppressor, and the new Service Book was about to be publicly used for the first time. On 23rd July 1637, the Dean of Edinburgh, attired in his surplice, ascended the reading desk of St. Giles, and began to read the hated Service Book. The story is that an old woman, named Jenny Geddes, flung the stool on which she had been sitting at the Dean’s head, saying, “Villian, dost though say Mass at my lug.” Immediately everything was in confusion, and it was impossible to continue the service. Primate Spottiswood tried in vain to quieten the tumult, and the Magistrates, with their halberdiers, who were present, had to eject those who created the tumult and the service was finished without any further disturbance from within the church, but it was not so from outside. Windows were broken, doors were battered, and everything told the innovators what reception they would meet with outside. Owing to precautions by the authorities the afternoon service was performed in quietness to a select audience, but those who performed it narrowly escaped with their lives when they ventured on to the street. King Charles issued orders to continue the use of the Liturgy but no readers could be found, for love or money, who would carry out his instructions. For the time being Prelacy lost its high place and even the royal authority could not give it any material support. Gillespie’s book proved a powerful means for educating the people so that they could say with the Apostles of old, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” It therefore contributed very much towards the confirming of men in their resolutions to resist prelatical innovations, and thus it naturally paved the way for entering into the National Covenant of 1638.
It may be stated that as far as any authentic records are concerned there is no mention of Jenny Geddes and the part which tradition assigns to her in opposing the reading of the Liturgy. In fact there does not seem to be any documentary proof that such a person, as is named by tradition, ever existed, yet such a tradition could hardly be based on the actions assigned to a person who never existed. The prelates were in too much confusion to give a correct narrative of what took place, and the opposers of the Liturgy would not wish to give away any person, who acted such a noble part in striking the first blow in the battle for religious freedom, therefore, we may be quite sure that she had every opportunity of retiring into the obscurity from which she had momentarily been drawn by her religious fervour. It may have been a fictitious name given to her at the time by those who knew her real name, in order to lead off the scent such as were only too ready to visit with severe punishment any who showed a love to Christ’s Cause and to Scotland’s ancient institutions. Her real name, as was sometimes the case in similar affairs, may be hid in the fictitious one, if only one had enough ingenuity to decipher it. On a pillar in St. Giles there is a brass plate with the following inscription:— “Constant oral tradition affirms that near this spot a brave Scotch woman, Janet Geddes, on the 23rd July 1637, struck the first blow in the great struggle for freedom of conscience, which after a conflict of half a century, ended in the establishment of civil and religious liberty.”
The tumult in Edinburgh and the opposition towards the Service Book manifested in various places, strengthened the hearts and hand of the friends of the Cause of Christ. The bishops, having realised the damaging nature of Gillespie’s book, a Proclamation was procured from the Privy Council ordering every copy of the book that could be obtained to be gathered in and burned by the common hangman. It was much easier to burn many copies of the work than to answer it, and so it remains unanswered to this day, while no exertion of arbitrary power by the sovereign, aided by the bishops and the Privy Council, could daunt the hearts or stay the hands of those who read the work. Its author became known and very soon the congregation of Wemyss set their hearts on obtaining him as their minister.
(To be continued)