A Sketch of his Life and Times
By Rev. John Colquhoun, Glendale
(Continued from page 76, July)
Gillespie’s Dispute with Coleman.—Some time after preaching before the House of Lords Gillespie was engaged in another controversy. On 13th July, 1645, the Rev. Thomas Coleman preached before the House of Commons a sermon which was remarkable for its highly Erastian views. When Gillespie’s sermon before the House of Lords was printed he added an appendix to it entitled, A Brotherly Examination of some of the Passages of Mr Coleman’s late Printed Sermon. Coleman replied in a pamphlet entitled, A Brotherly Examination Re-examined. Gillespie replied to this in a pamphlet entitled, Nihil Respondes. A bitter reply to this came from the pen of Coleman, bearing the title, Male Dicis Maledicis. Gillespie issued, in reply to this, a pamphlet entitled, Male Audis, in which he surveyed the whole Erastian controversy, not only silencing Coleman, but no one else has endeavoured to reply to it to this day. On the title-page he tells us that in it the repugnancy of Coleman’s “Erastian doctrine to the Word of God, to the Solemn League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament; also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies are made more apparent than formerly.” When such charges are proved, and they are indeed proved in this pamphlet, it is no wonder though Mr Coleman never replied to them.
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.—Though he gave punctual attendance at the various Sessions of the Assembly of Divines, and contributed in a most useful way to the discussion of the various subjects brought before them yet we find that this was, by no means, the limit of his labours there. At the Session held on 30th July, 1646, we read from the published Minutes that “Mr Gillespie gave his books, dedicated unto the Assembly, to the Prolocutor and the rest of the members then present, for which he had thanks returned by the Prolocutor in the name of the Assembly.” In a foot-note the Editors of the printed Minutes state, “This was his great work: Aaron’s Rod Blossoming; or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated. It was dedicated ‘to the Reverend and Learned Assembly of Divines convened at Westminster,’ and was published in London in 1646.” In this book he deals, first, with the government of the Jewish Church, showing that it was distinct from the State; that the Jews had an ecclesiastical sanhedrin as well as a civil one; the nature of ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews, as shown in Scripture, and, by fourteen arguments, shows that offenders against the Moral Law were excluded from the passover. Secondly, he goes on to write of the government of the Christian Church, giving the history of Erastianism, and proves what is the proper place of the civil magistrate with respect to the Church of Christ; that Christ has a general kingdom as He is the eternal Son of God, and a particular kingdom as He is Mediator, reigning over the Church only. In the third part of his book he deals more particularly with excommunication from the church and suspension from the Lord’s Table, proving from Scripture and antiquity that scandalous persons ought not to partake of the Lord’s Supper. That such a work could be produced at the time when he was engaged so fully in other work, requiring great mental concentration, amply proves both the learning and the industry of the man.
Gillespie finally returns to Scotland.—Gillespie took his last leave of the Assembly on 16th July, 1647, and this, incidentally, shows that the pleasing tradition connected with the answer to the question, What is God? in the Shorter Catechism, cannot be rightly associated with his name. On this point Prof. A. F. Mitchell, D.D., of St. Andrews says, in tracing the sources from which the Larger Catechism was taken, “The answer to the question, What is God? had in the former draft been taken from Palmer’s work with the exception that ‘perfection,’ is in the plural, as it had been in another catechism published anonymously in the previous year. Here the former description is exchanged for one abridged apparently from Ussher’s Body of Divinity. The next answer, respecting the properties and attributes of God, was at first distinct from the previous one. Dr. Briggs supposes it may have been got by crushing into one the answers to more than a score of questions in Palmer’s treatise and Dr. Matthews’ by a somewhat similar condensation of various answers in Ball’s larger catechism. But it is simply an abridgment of a paragraph in Chapter II of the Confession of Faith; and the ultimate answer of the Larger Catechism to the question, What is God? was got by joining these two answers into one. The answer to the same question in the Shorter Catechism is composed of the Scriptural definition, ‘God is a Spirit,’ with the incommunicable attributes arranged in the same order as they were by Rogers, but in adjectival form, and the communicable in substantive form almost exactly as they had been given by Egerton.” (The Westminster Assembly, p. 422-423). In a footnote to the same work, p. 429, Dr. Mitchell says, “Even three months after he (Gillespie) left London all that he was able to report to the Scottish Assembly, respecting the Catechisms, was that the Divines ‘have had no time yet to do anything in the latter, but here is the copy of the greater, which is almost complete.’ ” This is further confirmed by the following recommendation from the Commission of Assembly which sat on 29th September, 1647. “The Commission, apprehending that the Assembly of Divines in England will not fall upon the Shorter Catechism at this time, do therefore recommend to the ministers of Edinburgh and Messers David Calderwood and Robert Ker, Messers David Dickson, Robert Ramsay and Robert Baillie, and Messers Robert Blair and Samuel Rutherford, as soon as the Large Catechism shall be perfected and sent down, to draw out of it a short plain Catechism for the capacity of the weaker, in case the Assembly of Divines shall do nothing in it, and desired Mr George Gillespie to write to their brother, Mr Samuel Rutherford, to learn if the Assembly of Divines will take any pains in the Short Catechism.” (Commission of Assembly Records, 1646-47). The General Assembly which met in August, 1647, caused to be printed the One Hundred and Eleven Propositions which Gillespie wrote against Erastianism, Independency, and Liberty of Conscience, falsely so-called. The reason for printing them is, in the Act ordaining their publication, given as “Being tender of so great an engagement by solemn covenant, sincerely, really, and constantly to endeavour in our places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in this kirk of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed kirks, and to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in all these, together with the extirpation of heresy, schism, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine. . . .” These Propositions give a clear view of the heresies refuted and anyone who studies them carefully can make himself master of the arguments used to support them and how they can be combated. The first part of these Propositions was written while Gillespie was in London, and in the midst of other labours, yet they are written with all the thoroughness which is so characteristic of the man, so that, after reading them, one is constrained to pause and adore the great goodness of the Lord in giving such a gift to His Church. At the Commission of Assembly held in Edinburgh on 14th October, 1647, we find Gillespie’s name along with those of others on a Committee appointed “to consider what course is to be taken for making a history of these late times, of the persons fit for that purpose, of the manner of collecting materials, the method of the work and everything conducive thereunto, and to report.” Later on, on 26th November, we find the same matter taken up and a Committee, with the personnel somewhat different but with Gillespie’s name on it, appointed “to collect any papers they have by them; as also appoints the same ministers and elders to be a committee to order the business and to do everything necessary therein; and that the Clerk have the care and charge of printing thereof. And it is also thought fitting and necessary that, beside these collections, there be a perfect story made out of these papers and any other intelligences, and that the persons before named think upon a man fit for that purpose and of all helps conducive thereunto: and to report.” At the Assembly of 1649 Mr John Livingstone, Minister of Ancrum, was appointed to write this history but, by then, the subject of this sketch had entered into that Presence where there is a fulness of eternal joy. In the Records of the Commission of the General Assembly for 25th February, 1648, we read, “The Commission appoints Mr George Gillespie to preach before the Parliament the day of their first meeting.” We have no record of this sermon, nor does it appear among his collected works, and the probability is that it was never printed. The Civil War ended disastrously for King Charles and he threw himself on the mercy of the Scots Army. He, however, proved himself as obstinate as ever and gave every evidence that he was the sworn foe of Presbytery and all that was dear to the best men in Scotland. On 3rd February, 1647, he was delivered to the Parliamentary Army on condition that they would not injure his person. Charles, however, escaped to Carisbrook Castle, Isle of Wight, where he proved that he was as determined as ever to exercise despotic sway, and to gain his ends by any means that would present themselves to him.
The Engagement.—Early in 1648 the whole kingdom was agitated over what is known in history as the Engagement. The Royalist party in Scotland entered into a secret treaty with King Charles I to raise an army in Scotland for the purpose of assisting him to regain possession of the English Throne, he being at the time in Carisbrook Castle. The King promised to confirm Presbyterian Church government for three years till an Assembly of Divines, aided by twenty commissioners of his nomination, should frame a form of church government agreeable to the Word of God. On 1st March, 1648, a Declaration was emitted by the Commission of Assembly pointing out the sinfulness of the Engagement, for it went contrary to the solemn vows taken in swearing to the Solemn League and Covenant, bringing God’s displeasure on Church and State, Scotland, which for a number of years was most united, was now divided into three bands. There were the Covenanter’s in the Parliament and in the Church, who remained faithful to their solemn vows; there were those who were responsible for the Engagement, and who were joined by a large number of the ministers; and those who were out and out Royalists who had no real regard for Church or State as long as they got their own way.
The Assembly of 1648.—When the General Assembly met on 12th July, 1648, it was, indeed, under very difficult circumstances. The Cause of Christ had been very much weakened, division was to be found on every hand, the attainments of the Second Reformation had been well-nigh lost, and the Church had been deserted by many who had sworn to be faithful unto death. Instead of that uniformity of religion between the three kingdoms, which the Church of Scotland was so anxious to obtain, and the progress made in that direction to contemplate, there were the distant rumblings of the thunders of war. Under such conditions it was necessary for the Assembly to look for one who could be trusted to fill the Moderator’s Chair with dignity, wisdom, and courage. The choice fell on George Gillespie, and no better choice could have been made. That the members of this Assembly knew their business and had the courage of their convictions is demonstrated by the work which they carried through. As the Rev. W. M. Hetherington, LL.D., states, “They not only approved of the Declaration and other similar writings of the Commission but passed an Act condemnatory of that Act and Declaration of the Parliament which enjoined all subjects to subscribe a bond, equivalent to an oath, in support of the Engagement. They further published a declaration and exhortation to all members of the Church of Scotland, pointing out the unlawfulness of the Engagement, and warning against the dangers in which it would certainly involve the Church and nation. An able answer was also written to the Committee of Estates, proving by Scriptural arguments that the Engagement was inconsistent with the safety and security of religion. And, as the Hamiltonian faction was well aware of the power which the Church had recently put forth, when it raised the kingdom like one man for the defence of religious liberty, they employed every artifice to bring as many ministers as possible to their side, by that means either to procure support or to neutralise opposition. To meet this dangerous divisive policy, the Assembly passed an Act, censuring those ministers who either favoured the Engagement openly, or abstained from pointing out its sinfulness, and warning their people against entering into its bond. A respectful but firm supplication was also written to His Majesty, showing the insufficiency of the concessions promised by him in the Engagement, and its positive sinfulness, as tending to involve the kingdom in perjury; and imploring him to comply with the Covenant, and thereby to enable them, with a safe conscience, to give him that support which their sincere loyalty and affection which prompted them to bestow, so far as their duty to God would permit.” (History of the Church of Scotland, 6th ed. p. 114-115). At this Assembly the Larger and Shorter Catechisms were ratified. The Act of Assembly approving the Larger Catechism was passed on 2nd July, 1648, and contains the following declaration:—”That the said Catechism is agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk; a necessary part of the intended uniformity of religion, and a rich treasure for increasing knowledge among the people of God; and therefore the Assembly, as they bless the Lord that so excellent a Catechism is prepared, so they approve the same, as a part of uniformity; agreeing, for their part, that it be a common Catechism for the three kingdoms, and a directory for catechising such as have made some proficiency in the knowledge of the grounds of religion.” The Shorter Catechism was approved on 28th July, 1648, and is stated “to be a Directory for catechising such as are of weaker capacity.”
(To be continued)