Failure at a crucial moment may mar the entire outcome of a life. A man who has enjoyed special light is made bold to follow in the way of the Lord, and is anointed to guide others therein. He rises into a place of love and esteem among the godly, and this promotes his advancement among men. What then? The temptation comes to be careful of the position he has gained, and to do nothing to endanger it. The man, so lately a faithful man of God, compromises with worldlings, and to quiet his own conscience invents a theory by which such compromises are justified, and even commended. He receives the praises of “the judicious”; he has, in truth, gone over to the enemy. The whole force of his former life now tells upon the wrong side. If the Lord loves him well enough, he will be scourged back to his place; but if not, he will grow more and more perverse, till he becomes a ringleader among the opposers of the gospel. To avoid such an end it becomes us ever to stand fast.
The Lord’s Guidance
by Rev. John Newton
But how then may the Lord’s guidance be expected? After what has been premised negatively, the question may be answered in a few words. In general, he guides and directs his people, by affording them, in answer to prayer, the light of his Holy Spirit, which enables them to understand and to love the Scriptures. The word of God is not to be used as a lottery; nor is it designed to instruct us by shreds and scraps, which, detached from their proper places, have no determinate import; but it is to furnish us with just principles, right apprehensions to regulate our judgments and affections, and thereby to influence and direct our conduct. They who study the Scriptures, in a humble dependence upon Divine teaching, are convinced of their own weakness, are taught to make a true estimate of every thing around them, are gradually formed into a spirit of submission to the will of God, discover the nature and duties of their several situations and relations in life, and the snares and temptations to which they are exposed. The word of God dwells richly in them, is a preservative from error, a light to their feet, and a spring of strength and con-
solation. By treasuring up the doctrines, precepts, promises, examples, and exhortations of Scripture, in their minds, and daily comparing themselves with the rule by which they walk, they grow into an habitual frame of spiritual wisdom, and acquire a gracious taste, which enables them to judge of right and wrong with a degree of readiness and certainty, as a musical ear judges of sounds. And they are seldom mistaken, because they are influenced by the love of Christ, which rules in their hearts, and a regard to the glory of God, which is the great object they have in view.
In particular cases, the Lord opens and shuts for them, breaks down walls of difficulty which obstruct their path, or hedges up their way with thorns, when they are in danger of going wrong, by the dispensations of his providence. They know that their concernments are in his hands; they are willing to follow whither and when he leads; but are afraid of going before him. Therefore they are not impatient: because they believe, they will not make haste, but wait daily upon him in prayer; especially when they find their hearts most engaged in any purpose or pursuit, they are most jealous of being deceived by appearances, and dare not move farther or faster than they can perceive his light shining upon their paths. I express at least their desire, if not their attainment: thus they would be. And though there are seasons when faith languishes, and self too much prevails, this is their general disposition; and the Lord, whom they serve, does not disappoint their expectations. He leads them by a right way, preserves them from a thousand snares, and satisfies them that he is and will be their guide even unto death.
Sketch of Life and Times of George Gillespie
by Rev. John Colquhoun
(Continued from page 321)
4. GILLESPIE AT WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY 1643-1647.
The General Assembly of 1642 appointed a Commission to prosecute the work of bringing about uniformity of religion in all His Majesty’s dominions and renewed that Commission on subsequent occasions. A later Assembly also gave the following commission to certain persons to prosecute the Treaty of Uniformity in England with the Houses of Parliament and the Assembly of Divines:-
“The General Assembly, taking to their consideration that the Treaty
of Uniformity in religion in His Majesty’s dominions is not yet perfected, Therefore renews the power and commission granted by preceding Assemblies for prosecuting that Treaty, unto these persons afternamed, viz. M. Alexander Henderson, M. Robert Douglas, M. Samuel Rutherford, M. Robert Baillie, M. Geo. Gillespie, Ministers; and John, Earl of Lauderdale, John, Lord Balmerino, and Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Elders: Authorising them with full power to prosecute the said Treaty of Uniformity with the honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, and the Reverend Assembly of Divines there, or any Committees appointed by them; And to do all and everything which may advance, perfect, and bring that Treaty to a happy conclusion, conform to the former commissions given thereanent.” Peterkins Records of the Kirk, P. 450.
On 15th September, 1643 Gillespie and those of the other Scottish Commissioners who at the time went to London were received by the Westminster Assembly and welcomed by the Prolocutor, Dr. Twisse and two other English members. The first business thereafter was the reading over of the Solemn League and Covenant, clause by clause, and explanations given where necessary, till the whole of it was accepted by the Assembly. Afterwards the House of Commons and the Assembly subscribed the Covenant, and the House of Lords subscribed it later on, on the 15th October. At the Westminster Assembly, Gillespie, though the youngest member by many years, took more than his fair share of the work of that learned Convocation, both in its debates and in the work of its Committees. As is well known the members were drawn from among the foremost for learning and talents in the country, and when one views the various shades of opinions among its members, especially concerning the civil magistrate and church government, one is indeed surprised to find that, after debating these matters point by point, their considered opinion should be so favourable to what we in Scotland hold to be the only church government sanctioned in Scripture, that is, Presbyterianism, and that they should so clearly give the Scripture view of the province of the civil ruler in connection with the Church of God. It may truly be said that to a large extent we owe these matters to George Gillespie, as the humble instrument under God.
Though the Independents and the Erastians were not numerous in the Assembly yet, among them were to be found men of great talent and learning, and these did their utmost to force their new opinions on the rest of the Assembly, only to find that they had more than their match in the Scottish Commissioners. Robert Baillie, in reference to the debates on
the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, gives an idea of what had to be contended with when he says. “The unhappy Independents would mangle that sacrament. No catechising nor preparation before; no thanksgiving after; no sacramental doctrine or chapters in the day of celebration; no coming up to any table, but a carrying of the elements to all in their seats about the church; yet all this, with God’s help, we have carried over them to our practice. We must dispute every inch of ground. Great need have we of the prayers of all God’s People.”
The story is often told how Gillespie defeated John Selden, Esq., known as “the learned Selden”. Arriving rather late, so the story goes, when he came to the door he was told that the place was so crowded that it was impossible to get an entrance. “Can you not admit a pinning?” he said, comparing himself to the small stones which masons use for packing a wall. He worked his way to the seat allocated to the Scottish Commissioners, and took his place beside them. The subject under discussion was Matthew 18: 15-17. Selden in a learned speech, conspicuous for the amount of Rabbinical lore which he packed into it, maintained that the passage had no reference to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that it altogether related to civil jurisdiction. Herle and Marshall, both very learned men, endeavoured to reply to it but utterly failed to demolish his arguments. Some accounts say that at this juncture it was Samuel Rutherford who turned to Gillespie and 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 hath purchased with His blood.” Gillespie arose and, first of all, gave a masterly analysis of Selden’s speech and then proved clearly that the passage had reference only to a spiritual jurisdiction, because, (1) the nature of the offence and cause treated of is spiritual; (2) The end is spiritual, for it is not restitution or satisfaction, but to gain the soul; (3) The persons are spiritual, for Christ speaks to His Apostles; (4) The manner of proceeding is spiritual — all is done in the name of Christ; (5) The censure is spiritual, for it is binding the soul; (6) Christ would not have sent His disciples for private spiritual injuries to civil courts; (7) The Church of the Jews had spiritual censures, and the expression, “Let him be as a heathen,” imported prohibition from sacred things, for the heathen might not come into the temple; and the ceremonially unclean might not enter, much more the morally unclean. Such was the effect of his arguments that the Assembly was convinced, and it is reported that Selden himself said, “That young man, by this single speech, has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my life.” His friends, expecting to find a summary of the analysis
which he had given of Selden’s speech in a note-book in which he had been jotting down something now and then, were surprised to find nothing but Da lucem, Domine (Lord, give light), and similar petitions. This shows that though he had acquired a vast amount of learning, he greatly felt his need of being wholly dependent upon the Lord for help and guidance.
The details of this combat between two intellectual giants are given so clearly that one is loath to believe that it has no foundation. As far as any authentic proof is concerned some of these details cannot be associated with the particular discussion with which tradition has associated them, but they may, however, have a connection with one of the many other passages-at-arms between these two champions. Dr. Mitchell proves from the most reliable sources that the details, as given by tradition, in connection with this particular debate are not according to fact. He says, “The manuscript Minutes coincide with Lightfoot’s Journal in assigning Gillespie’s speech not to the session of 20th but to that of 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, p. 288.
On the occasion of a Solemn Fast on 27th March, 1644, Gillespie preached before the House of Commons from the words, “And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.” Ezek. 43: 11. At the beginning of his sermon he refers to another discourse he preached on a like occasion in which he laid open England’s disease, that is, corruption in religion and the iniquity of their holy things. He then tells them, that the symptoms of that disease are “your high places not yet taken away, many of your old superstitious ceremonies to this day remaining, which, though not so evil as the high places of idolatry in which idols are worshipped, yet are
parallel to the high places of will-worship, of which we read that the people, thinking it to be too hard to be tied to go up to Jerusalem with every sacrifice, ‘did sacrifice still in the high places, yet unto the Lord their God only’, pleading for their doing so, antiquity, custom, and other defences of that kind, which have been alleged for your ceremonies.” The sermon was published by order of the House of Commons, and, in a preface to the Reader, he observes, “Reformation has many unfriends, some upon the right hand, and some upon the left; while others cry up that detestable indifference or neutrality abjured by our solemn covenant, insomuch that Gamaliel and Gallio, men who regarded alike the Jewish and the Christian religion, are highly commended, as examples for all Christians, and as men walking by the rules, not only of policy, but of reason and religion.”
Directory for Public Worship
Early in January 1645 Gillespie, along with Baillie, returned to Scotland for a brief season and before leaving the Assembly he acknowledged, in his parting speech, that it was one of the greatest mercies which he received in this world to have been associated with the Assembly, returned humble thanks for their forbearance towards him, and gave expression to his great respect for the Dissenting brethren among them. The Prolocutor, in his reply said: “All of us have had great experience of your learned pains: for myself, I have taken great comfort in your learned discourses.” Their purpose in going to Scotland was to submit the Directory for Public Worship to the General Assembly which sat on 22nd January, 1645. At that Assembly the Directory, after certain alterations had been recommended which were afterwards agreed by both Houses of the English Parliament, was adopted and an Act made on 3rd February, 1645 “for the establishing and putting in execution of the Directory.” According to Baillie this Act was written by Gillespie. Three days later the Scottish Parliament passed an Act “approving and establishing the Directory for Public Worship”.
On 9th April, 1645, we find Gillespie and Baillie appearing again in the Westminster Assembly and Gillespie, in his report of the acceptance by the Church of Scotland of the Directory for Public Worship, assures the Divines that the hearts of those in Scotland are much with those at Westminster, that they are “so much comforted by those first-fruits, that it makes them long for the full harvest.” He also tells that they themselves would have been there a month previously but were carried away to Holland.
In a little over a month after this we find the Assembly discussing the
Report from the Committee on the Catechism in which Mr Gillespie takes his share, and in the course of the discussions, imparted the information that when lately in Scotland he showed his brethren an example of the plan upon which they intended to go and that it was liked very much. In this he refers to the original form in which the Westminster Assembly’s plan for catechising was cast. When they had gone as far as the exposition of the Fourth Commandment we find from the printed Minutes of the Assembly, for 14th January, 1646, that it was ordered “That the Committee for the Catechism do prepare a draft of two Catechisms, one more large and another more brief, in which they are to have an eye to the Confession of Faith, and to the matter of the Catechism already begun.” In this we see the origins of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as they are known to us today.
Sermon Before the House of Lords.
On 27th August, 1645, being the day appointed for solemn and public humiliation, Gillespie preached before the House of Lords in the Abbey Church at Westminster. His sermon was based on the words, “But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap.” Mal. 3: 2. The general doctrine which he drew from these words was; “The way of Christ, and fellowship with Him is very difficult and displeasing to our sinful nature, and is not so easy a matter as most men imagine.” He brings many things from Scripture to prove this, and then propounds the question, “How does all this agree with Matthew 11: 30, ‘For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light;’ and I John 5: 3, ‘His commandments are not grievous?.'” He shows from the same source that there is perfect agreement, and then insists on the need of all classes of people to be cleansed. In his application he addresses his audience, saying, “My second and chief application shall be unto you, my noble lords. If you be willing to admit such a reformation as is according to the mind of Christ, as is like the ‘refiner’s fire’, and ‘fuller’s soap’, then, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (who will say, ere long, to every one of you, Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward, Luke 16: 2), I recommend these three things unto you, — I mean, that you should make use of the ‘refiner’s fire’ in reference to three sorts of dross: 1. The dross of malignancy; 2. The dross of heresy and corruption in religion; 3 The dross of profaneness.” Never was exhortation more faithfully given and never was it more needed. When the sermon was printed he added a “Preface to the Reader”, in which he says:-
“I have in this sermon applied my thoughts toward these three things:
1. The soul-ensnaring error of the greatest part of men who choose to themselves such a way to the kingdom of heaven as is broad, and smooth, and easy, and but little or nothing at all displeasing to flesh and blood, like him that tumbled down upon the grass and said, Utinum hoc esset laborare. 2. The grumbling and unwillingness which appeareth in very many, when they should submit to that reformation of the church which is according to the mind of Jesus Christ, like them that said to the seers, ‘See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things.’ Isa. 30: 10, and again, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us,’ Ps. 2: 3. 3. The sad and desolate condition of the kingdom of Scotland, then calling for our prayers and tears, and saying, ‘Call me not Naomi (pleasant), call me Mara (bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me,’ Ruth 1: 20. We are ‘Pressed out of measure, above strength,’ and ‘had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead; who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us,’.” II Cor. 1: 8-10.
About this time 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 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 from 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, silencing not only 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.
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 it 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 sanhedrim 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 a 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 abridgement 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 foot-note 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 Short Catechism at this time, do therefore recommend to the Ministers of Edinburgh and Messrs David Calderwood and Robert Ker, Messrs David Dickson, Robert Ramsay and Robert Baillie, and Messrs Robert Blair and Samuel Rutherford, so 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 desires 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, p. 306.
The General Assembly which met in August 1647 caused to be printed the 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 very clear view of the heresies refuted and
anyone who studies them carefully can make himself master of the arguments used to support them and of how they can be combated. The early part of these Propositions were 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.
(To be continued)