The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Conclusion)

by Rev. George Gillespie

Obj. 4. The army which hath served us so faithfully, and regained our liberties, shall by this ordinance lose their own greatest liberty, which is the liberty of their consciences.

Ans. 1. In the ordinance and instructions of parliament, dated the 2d Feb. 1643, it was ordained that the covenant should be speedily sent to my Lord General, and the Lord Admiral, and all other commanders-in-chief, governors of towns, &c., to the end it may be taken by all officers and soldiers under their command. I hope the parliament did not here take from their army the liberty of their consciences.

2. The army must either take laws from the parliament, or give laws to the parliament. If they will, as the parliament's servants, submit themselves to its ordinances (which hath ever been professed they would do), then the objection is taken away; but if they will be the parliament's masters or fellows, and independent of the parliament itself, and at liberty to reject as they list so good or wholesome an ordinance as the taking of the covenant, then God have mercy upon us, if the parliament do not preserve their own rights and privileges, with which the kingdom hath intrusted them.

3. If an ordinance, imposing the taking of the covenant under a considerable penalty, be to the army scandalum acceptum, the not passing of such an ordinance will be scandalum datum to the city of London, and to many thousands of the godly and well-affected of the kingdom, both ministers and people, who have faithfully adhered to and served the parliament, and will still hazard their lives and fortunes in pursuance of the ends of the covenant; yea, a horrible scandal to the reformed churches abroad, whose hearts were once comforted and raised up to expect better things.

4. God forbid there be any such in the houses of parliament as would admit of deformation instead of reformation, and all manner of confusion in place of government. Would not this be the ready way to banish all religion, and open a door for all sorts of schism and heresy? And shall this be the fruits of the labours, blood and expenses, of the three kingdoms, in place of reformation and uniformity, to admit of such a liberty and horrible confusion? Let it not be told in Gath, nor published in Askelon, least the Philistines rejoice, least the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

Please click here to read the text of the Solemn League and Covenant.

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part Six)

by Rev. George Gillespie

Obj. 2. The covenant was occasional and temporary, being made upon the occasion of the prevalency and growing power of the enemy (as is mentioned in the narrative), which foundation being taken away the superstructure cannot stand.

Ans. 1. Ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur leges. Shall we therefore be no longer bound to obey and maintain good laws, because the evils which gave occasion to their making have ceased?

2. The covenant doth, in express words, oblige us constantly, and all the days of our lives, to pursue the ends therein expressed; so that to hold it but a temporary obligation is a breach of covenant.

3. There is not any one of the ends of the covenant which is yet fully attained. The very Directory of Worship is not observed in most places of the kingdom; neither is the abolition of prelacy, and of the book of Common Prayer, yet established by act of parliament.

4. If we had attained the ends of the covenant (which we have not), yet non minor est virtus quam quarere parta tueri, and the recidivation may prove worse than the first disease.

Obj. 3. Some things in the covenant are disputable, for instance, good and learned men differ in their opinions about prelacy.

Ans. 1. The oath of supremacy was much more disputable, and great disputes there were among good and learned men about it, yet it hath been imposed upon all members of parliament.

2. If the very materials of the covenant be stuck at, whether they be good in themselves, there is the greater danger to leave all men to abound in their own sense, concerning things of the highest consequence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part Five)

by Rev. George Gillespie

Obj. 1. The covenant ought not to be compulsory but free. Good things grow evil when men's consciences are thereunto forced.

Ans. 1. An ordinance enjoining the taking of it under a certain penalty were not other compulsion than was used by king Josiah and others, yea by this present parliament upon their own members, and upon ministers to be ordained, as is evident by the passages above expressed. The parliament hath also, by their ordinance dated the 23d of August 1645, imposed the Directory of Worship under certain mulets and penalties to be inflicted upon such as do not observe it, or preach or write against it.

2. It is no tyranny over men's consciences to punish a great and scandalous sin (such as the refusing and opposing of the covenant, or a dividing from it), although the offender in his conscience believe it to be no sin, yea, peradventure, believe it to be a duty, otherwise it had been tyranny over the conscience to punish those who killed the apostles, because they thought they were doing God good service, John xvi. 2.

3. If they who make this objection be so tender of men's consciences why would they keep up an army when there is no enemy, and continue taxes and burdens upon the exhausted counties which are altogether against the consciences of the generality of people in the kingdom. If in these things they will have the conscience of any to be forced, and in the covenant the consciences of some left at liberty, this is not fair and equal, and it will be generally apprehended that such men study their own interest more than that of the public.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part Four)

by Rev. George Gillespie

7. In the first article of the treaty between the kingdoms, signed Nov. 29, 1643, it is agreed and concluded, that the covenant be sworn and subscribed by both kingdoms, not that it shall be taken by as many as will in both kingdoms, but that it shall be taken by both kingdoms. How shall this be performed if it be still left arbitrary?

8. In the propositions of peace it is plainly supposed and intimated, that the taking of the covenant shall be enjoined under some penalty, otherwise we have not dealt faithfully, neither with God nor man, in tendering that second proposition to the king concerning his consent to an act of parliament in both kingdoms respectively for the enjoining the taking of the covenant by all the subjects of the three kingdoms, with such penalties as, by mutual advice of both kingdoms, shall be agreed upon.

9. If other propositions of peace be turned into ordinances, and this of the covenant not so, it will strengthen the calumnies cast upon the parliament by the malignant party, that they have had no intention to settle religion according to the covenant, but that they entered into the covenant for bringing in the Scots to their assistance, and for gaining the good opinion of the reformed churches.

10. It will also be a dangerous precedent to separate between the legislative power and the corrective or punitive power. For if after the ordinance of parliament enjoining and ordaining that the covenant be taken universally throughout the whole kingdom there be no sanction nor penalty upon those who shall refuse it, let wise men judge whether this may not expose the authority of parliament to contempt.

11. I shall conclude with this syllogism, That which is not only sinful in itself, but a great dishonour to God, a great scandal to the church, and withal a disobedience to the lawful ordinance of authority, may and ought to be punished by this Christian and reforming parliament. But their offence which still refuse to take the covenant is not only sinful in itself, but a great dishonour to God, and great scandal to the church, and withal a disobedience to the lawful ordinance of authority.

Therefore the offence of those who still refuse to take the covenant, may and ought to be punished by this Christian and reforming parliament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part Three)

by Rev. George Gillespie

3. When king Josiah made a solemn covenant (the effect whereof was a thorough reformation, the taking away of the ancient and long-continued high places, the destroying of Baal's vessels, altars, priests, &c. 2 Kings xxiii., throughout), he did not leave his covenant arbitrary; but "he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it," 2 Chron. xxxiv. 32. In all which he is set forth as a precedent to Christian reformers, that they may know their duty in like cases.

4. All who did take the solemn league and covenant are thereby obliged in their several places and callings (and so the houses of parliament in their place and calling) to endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, superstition and profaneness. How is this part of the oath of God fulfilled, if the covenant itself, made for the extirpation of all these, be left arbitrary?

5. The vow and protestation was not left arbitrary; for by the vote, July 30, 1641, it was resolved upon the question, that whosoever would not take that protestation are declared to be unfit to bear any office in the church or state, which was accordingly published. But the solemn league and covenant must be at least more effectual than the protestation, for the narrative, or preface of the covenant, holdeth forth the necessity of the same as a more effectual means to be used after other means of supplication, remonstrance, and protestation.

6. This same solemn league and covenant was not in the beginning left arbitrary, for some members were suspended from the house for not taking it. And in the ordinance, Feb. 2, 1643, it is ordained and enjoined, that it be solemnly taken in all places throughout the kingdom of England, and dominion of Wales. And withal, in the instructions and orders of parliament then sent into the committees, it was appointed that the names of such as refuse it should be returned to the parliament, that they may take such further course with them as they might think fit. In the ordinance of parliament for ordination of ministers (both the first and last ordinance), the person to be ordained is appointed and obliged to address himself to the presbytery, "and bring with him a testimony of his taking the covenant of the three kingdoms." Again, by the ordinance for election of elders, dated the 19th of August 1645, no member of any congregation may concur or have voice in the choosing of elders but such as have taken the national covenant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part Two)

by Rev. George Gillespie

Now the grounds and reasons for such an ordinance may be these:-

1. It were a great unthankfulness to God, if, after sacred and solemn vows made in time of our greatest dangers, and when, after our vows, God hath begun to deliver us, and hath dissipated our enemies, we should now grow weary of paying and performing those vows. We may say of the covenant as the prophet said of the laying of the foundation of the second temple, Consider whether from that very day God did not sensibly bless us, and give a testimony from heaven to his own cause and covenant. And now shall the covenant, which was our glory and ornament before God and men, be laid aside as a worn or moth-eaten garment? God forbid.

2. If the taking of the solemn league and covenant be not enjoined by authority of parliaments, under a penalty, but left arbitrary, this were an opening instead of shutting of the door unto as many as are apt and inclinable to refuse and oppose the covenant, yea, to as many as write or speak against it, and maintain opinions or practices contrary to it. The impiety and obstinacy of such persons, if not punished, but connived at, or tacitly permitted by the parliaments, involveth them and the nation as partakers of the sin, and so consequently of the judgment.

Although the oath which Joshua and the princes of Israel made to the Gibeonites was made unadvisedly, and without asking counsel from the mouth of the Lord, yet, some hundred years after, being broken, that breach brought a national judgment, till justice was done upon the offenders. How much more may a national judgment be feared, if even in our days the contempt and violation of a most lawful and sacred oath be winked at? Surely God will not wink at their sin who wink at his dishonour. Better not to have vowed than not to pay and perform.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

The Solemn League and Covenant: Is it Lawful? (Part One)

Whether it be lawful, just and expedient, that there be an ordinance of parliament for the taking of the solemn league and covenant, by all persons in the kingdom, under a considerable penalty; or, an answer returned to a gentleman who had consulted a friend concerning this question.

by Rev. George Gillespie

First of all, that I may rightly deduce and state the matter of fact, it is to be remembered:-

That the solemn league and covenant hath been the strongest band of union in this common cause of religion and liberty, and that which the common enemies have mainly endeavored with all their might to overthrow:

That the chief motive to engage Scotland was professed to be the reformation of religion, and uniformity according to the covenant:

That the league and treaty between the two kingdoms is in pursuance of the ends of the covenants, and that we should never lay down arms till these were obtained:

That, by order of parliament, the covenant was turned in Latin, and sent abroad to the reformed churches, with letters from the Assembly of Divines:

That, upon the former assurances, the church and kingdom of Scotland, the parliaments of both kingdoms, the Assembly of Divines, the city of London, and many thousands in England, have taken the covenant, and have sworn most solemnly that they shall constantly, really and sincerely, during all the days of their lifetime, with their lives and fortunes, stand to the performance of it. And both kingdoms have suffered the loss of their goods, cheerfully laid out their means, and laid down their lives resolutely in pursuance thereof.

At the treaty of Uxbridge, the propositions for religion (of which the confirming of the covenant is the first and chiefest) were acknowledged to be of such excellency and absolute necessity, as they were appointed to be treated of in the first place, and that no peace nor agreement should be till they were first agreed unto. The same propositions for religion are yet set down in the first place among the propositions sent last to the king, as being agreed unto by the parliaments of both kingdoms. And now that the king's answer to the propositions is delayed, the House of Commons have thought fit to turn the propositions into ordinances, to show their constant resolution of adhering thereto; and that they may be of greater force, and receive the better obedience from the subjects, have converted the propositions for civil matters into ordinances; and (that their zeal and constancy may appear for religion, which is of greatest moment, and wherein the glory of God and the good of his church is most concerned) it is desired that the propositions concerning the covenant be likewise turned into an ordinance, with a considerable penalty: that so we may give some real evidence that we do not seek the things of this world in the first place, and the kingdom of heaven, and the righteousness of it, in the last; much less that, Demas-like, we forsake it as lovers of this present world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpted from the Works of George Gillespie.

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieSolemnLeague.htm

George Gillespie Biographical Sketch (Conclusion)

By Alexander Whyte

'Challenges' is another of Rutherford's technical terms that he constantly uses to his expert correspondents. 'I was under great challenges,' he says, in this same letter; and in a letter written the same month of March to William Rigg, of Athernie, he says, 'Old challenges revive, and cast all down.' Dr. Andrew Bonar, Rutherford's expert editor, gives this glossary upon these passages: 'Charges, self-upbraidings, self-accusations.' Challenges of conscience came to Rutherford like these: Why art thou writing letters of counsel to other men? Counsel thyself first. Why art thou appealed to and trusted and loved by God's best people in Scotland, when thou knowest that thou art a Cain in malice and a Judas in treachery, all but the outbreaks? Why art thou taking thy cross so easily, when thou knowest the unsettled controversy the Lord still has with thee? 'Hall binks are slippery,' wrote stern old Knockbrex, challenging his old minister for his too great joy. 'Old challenges now and then revive and cast all down again.' That reminds me of a fine passage in that great book of Rutherford's, Christ Dying, where he shows us how to take out a new charter for all our possessions, and for the salvation of our souls themselves when our salvation, or our possessions and our right to them, is challenged. It is better, he says, to hold your souls and your lands by prayer than by obedience, or conquest, or industry. Have you wisdom, honour, learning, parts, eloquence, godliness, grace, a good name, wife, children, a house, peace, case, pleasure? Challenge yourself how you got them, and see that you hold them by an unchallengeable charter, even by prayer, and then by grace. And if you hold these things by any other charter, hasten to get a new conveyance made and a new title drawn out. And thus old, and angry, and threatening challenges will work out a charter that cannot be challenged.

And, then, when George Gillespie was lying on his deathbed in Edinburgh, with his pillow filled with stinging apprehensions, as is often the case with God's best servants and ripest saints, hear how his old friend, now professor of divinity in St. Andrews, writes to him:

'My reverend and dear brother, look to the east. Die well. Your life of faith is just finishing. Finish it well. Let your last act of faith be your best act. Stand not upon sanctification, but upon justification. Hand all your accounts over to free grace. And if you have any bands of apprehension in your death, recollect that your apprehensions are not canonical.' And the dying man answered: 'There is nothing that I have done that can stand the touchstone of God's justice. Christ is my all, and I am nothing.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm

George Gillespie Biographical Sketch (Part Four)

By Alexander Whyte

Thomas Goodwin, that perfect prince of pulpit exegetes, lays down this canon, and continually himself acts upon it, that 'the context of a scripture is half its interpretation;... if a man would open a place of scripture, he should do it rationally; he should go and consider the words before and the words after.' Now, let us apply this rule to the interpretation of this text out of Rutherford, and look at the context, before and after, out of which it is taken.

Remembering his covenant with young Gillespie in the woods of Kenmure, Rutherford wrote of himself to his friend, and said:—'At my first entry on my banishment here my apprehensions worked despairingly upon my cross.' By that he means, and Gillespie would quite well understand his meaning, that his banishment from his work threw him in upon his conscience, and that his conscience whispered to him that he had been banished from his work because of his sins. God is angry with you, his conscience said; He does not love you, He has not forgiven you. But his sanctified good sense, his deep knowledge of God's word, and of God's ways with His people, came to his rescue, and he went on to say to Gillespie that our apprehensions are not canonical. No, he says, our apprehensions tell lies of God and of His grace. So they do in our case also. When any trouble falls upon us, for any reason,—and there are many reasons other than His anger why God sends trouble upon us,—conscience is up immediately with her interpretation and explanation of our troubles. This is your wages now, conscience says. God has been slow to wrath, but His patience is exhausted now. As Rutherford says in another letter, our tearful eyes look asquint at Christ and He appears to be angry, when all the time He pities and loves us. Is there any man here to-night whose apprehensions are working upon his cross? Is there any man of God here who has lost hold of God in the thick darkness, and who fears that his cross has come to him because God is angry with him? Let him hear and imitate what Rutherford says when in the same distress: 'I will lay inhibitions on my apprehensions,' he says; 'I will not let my unbelieving thoughts slander Christ. Let them say to me "there is no hope," yet I will die saying, It is not so; I shall yet see the salvation of God. I will die if it must be so, under water, but I will die gripping at Christ. Let me go to hell, I will go to hell believing in and loving Christ.' Rutherford's worst apprehensions, his best-grounded apprehensions, could not survive an assault of faith like that. Imitate him, and improve upon him, and say, that with a thousand times worse apprehensions than ever Rutherford could have, yet, like him, you will make your bed in hell, loving, and adoring, and justifying Jesus Christ. And, if you do that, hell will have none of you; all hell will cast you out, and all heaven will rise up and carry you in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm

George Gillespie Biographical Sketch (Part Three)

By Alexander Whyte

Every line of life has its own language, its own peculiar vocabulary, that none but its experts, and those who have been brought up to it, know. Go up to the Parliament House and you will hear the advocates and judges talking to one another in a professional speech that the learned layman no more than the ignorant can understand. Our doctors, again, have a shorthand symbolism that only themselves and the chemists understand. And so it is with every business and profession; each several trade strikes out a language for itself. And so does divinity, and, especially, experimental divinity, of which Rutherford's letters are full. We not only need a glossary for the obsolete Scotch, but we need the most simple and everyday expressions of the things of the soul explained to us till once we begin to speak and to write those expressions ourselves. There are judges and advocates and doctors and specialists of all kinds among us who will only be able to make a far-off guess at the meaning of my text, just as I could only make a far-off guess at some of their trade texts. This technical term, 'apprehension,' does not once occur in the Bible, and only once or twice in Shakespeare. 'Our death is most in apprehension,' says that master of expression; and, again, he says that 'we cannot outfly our apprehensions.' And Milton has it once in Samson, who says:

'Thoughts, my tormentors, armed with deadly stings,
Mangle my apprehensive tenderest parts.'

But, indeed, we all have the thing in us, though we may never have put its proper name upon it. We all know what a forecast of evil is—a secret fear that evil is coming upon us. It lays hold of our heart, or of our conscience, as the case may be, and will not let go its hold. And then the heart and the conscience run out continually and lay hold of the future evil and carry it home to our terrified bosoms. We apprehend the coming evil, and feel it long before it comes. We die, like the coward, many times before our death.

Now, Rutherford just takes that well-known word and applies it to his fears and his sinkings of heart about his past sins, and about the unsettled wages of his sins. His conscience makes him a coward, till he thinks every bush an officer. But then he reasons and remonstrates with himself in his deep and intimate letter to Gillespie and says that these his doubts, and terrors, and apprehensions are not canonical. He is writing to a divine and a scholar, as well as to an experienced Christian man, and he uses words that such scholars and such Christian men quite well understand and like to make use of. The canon that he here refers to is the Holy Scriptures; they are the rule of our faith, and they are also the rule of God's faithfulness. What God has said to us in His word, that we must believe and hold by; that, and not our deserts or our apprehensions, must rule and govern our faith and our trust, just as God's word will be the rule and standard of His dealings with us. His word rules us in our faith and life; and again it rules Him also in His dealings with our faith and with our life. God does not deal with us as we deserve; He does not deal with us as we, in our guilty apprehensions, fear He will. He deals with the apprehensive, penitent, believing sinner according to the grace and the truth of His word. His promises are canonical to Him, not our apprehensions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm

George Gillespie Biographical Sketch (Part Two)

By Alexander Whyte

Many stories were told in Scotland of the debating powers of young Gillespie as seen on the floor of the Westminster Assembly. Selden was one of the greatest lawyers in England, and he had made a speech one day that both friend and foe felt was unanswerable. One after another of the Constitutional and Evangelical party tried to reply to Selden's speech, but failed. 'Rise, George, man,' said Rutherford to Gillespie, who was sitting with his pencil and note-book beside him. 'Rise, George, man, and defend the Church which Christ hath purchased with His own blood.' George rose, and when he had sat down, Selden is reported to have said to some one who was sitting beside him, 'That young man has swept away the learning and labour of ten years of my life.' Gillespie's Scottish brethren seized upon his note-book to preserve and send home at least the heads of his magnificent speech, but all they found in his little book were these three words: Da lucem, Domine; Give light, O Lord. Rutherford had foreseen all this from the days when Gillespie and he talked over Aquinas and Calvin and Hooker and Amesius and Zanchius as they took their evening walks together on the sands of the Solway Firth. It is told also that when the Committee of Assembly was engaged on the composition of the Shorter Catechism, and had come to the question, What is God? like the able men they were, they all shrank from attempting an answer to such an unfathomable question. In their perplexity they asked Gillespie to offer prayer for help, when he began his prayer with these words: 'O God, Thou art a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in Thy being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.' As soon as he said Amen, his opening sentences were remembered, and taken down, and they stand to this day the most scriptural and the most complete answer to that unanswerable question that we have in any creed or catechism of the Christian Church.

As her best tribute to the talents and services of her youngest Commissioner, the Edinburgh Assembly of 1648 appointed Gillespie her Moderator; but his health was fast failing, and he died in the December of that year, in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The inscription on his tombstone at Kirkcaldy ends with these sober and true words: 'A man profound in genius, mild in disposition, acute in argument, flowing in eloquence, unconquered in mind. He drew to himself the love of the good, the envy of the bad, and the admiration of all.' Such was the life and work of George Gillespie one of the most intimate and confidential correspondents of Samuel Rutherford;—for it was to him that Rutherford wrote the words now before us, 'Our apprehensions are not canonical.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm

George Gillespie Biographical Sketch (Part One)

Rev. George Gillespie (1613-1648)

He was one of the greatest and most influential Scottish Presbyterians to ever live - though his life was exceedingly short.

Biographical Sketch (written by Alexander Whyte):

Rev. George Gillespie was one of that remarkable band of statesmanlike ministers that God gave to Scotland in the seventeenth century. Gillespie died while yet a young man, but before he died, as Rutherford wrote to him on his deathbed, he had done more work for his Master than many a hundred grey-headed and godly ministers. Gillespie and Rutherford got acquainted with one another when Rutherford was beginning his work at Anwoth. In the good providence of God, Gillespie was led to Kenmure Castle to be tutor in the family of Lord and Lady Kenmure, and that threw Rutherford and Gillespie continually together. Gillespie was still a probationer. He was ready for ordination, and many congregations were eager to have him, but the patriotic and pure-minded youth could not submit to receive ordination at the hands of the bishops of that day, and this kept him out of a church of his own long after he was ready to begin his ministry. But the time was not lost to Gillespie himself, or to the Church of Christ in Scotland,—the time that threw Rutherford and Gillespie into the same near neighbourhood, and into intimate and affectionate friendship. The mere scholarship of the two men would at once draw them together. They read the same deep books; they reasoned out the same constitutional, ecclesiastical, doctrinal, and experimental problems; till one day, rising off their knees in the woods of Kenmure Castle, the two men took one another by the hand and swore a covenant that all their days, and amid all the trials they saw were coming to Scotland and her Church, they would remain fast friends, would often think of one another, would often name one another before God in prayer, and would regularly write to one another, and that not on church questions only and on the books they were reading, but more especially on the life of God in their own souls. Of the correspondence of those two remarkable men we have only three letters preserved to us, but they are enough to let us see the kind of letters that must have frequently passed between Kenmure Castle and Aberdeen, and between St. Andrews and Edinburgh during the next ten years.

Gillespie was born in the parish manse of Kirkcaldy in 1613; he was ordained to the charge of the neighbouring congregation of Wemyss in 1638, was translated thence to Edinburgh in 1642, and then became one of the four famous deputies who were sent up from the Church of Scotland to sit and represent her in the Westminster Assembly in 1643. Gillespie's great ability was well known, his wide learning and his remarkable controversial powers had been already well proved, else such a young man would never have been sent on such a mission; but his appearance in the debates at Westminster astonished those who knew him best, and won for him a name second to none of the oldest and ablest statesmen and scholars who sat in that famous house. 'That noble youth,' Baillie is continually exclaiming, after each new display of Gillespie's learning and power of argument; 'That singular ornament of our Church'; 'He is one of the best wits of this isle,' and so on. And good John Livingstone, in his wise and sober Characteristics, says that, being sent as a Commissioner from the Church of Scotland to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, Gillespie 'promoted much the work of reformation, and attained to a gift of clear, strong, pressing, and calm debating above any man of his time.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm