Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
WF: Defense of GG authorship of WS 
Subject: WF: Defense of GG authorship of WS
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:51:20 -0500

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Discussion: GWS. Authorship.
George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity 
Reconciled with Christian Liberty
The true resolution of a present controversy 
concerning liberty of conscience.
All text for this discussion taken from the 
edition of this work, Copyright (c) Naphtali 
Press 1996.  Full text available at: 
http://www.naphtali.com/naphtalii
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

It was suggested to me that the
topic of GG's WS begin with a discussion of
authorship. While this may be boring
to some, it pretty much reduces the
importance of discussing WS to zip if GG is not
the author.  So it needs to be addressed since
it was published anonymously. So before the 
moderator posts the first section of WS, I'm 
providing this defense of GG authorship for discussion.
However, on any detailed discussion of evidence for
or against GG's authorship based on the content or style 
I would ask that it simply be summarily 
suggested here at the beginning of the 
discussion, and the specific passage debated 
as we get there.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
There is excellent historical evidence for 
GG's authorship of WS. The source of the 
attribution of this work to Gillespie is his 
cousin, the Rev. Patrick Simpson (1628-
1715).  Simpson was 19 or 20 when 
GG died (1648). He evidently grew up with 
his cousin and/or cousin's children (see 
M'Crie's comment in Wodow's 
Correspondence, volume 1, pp. 14). He was 
present when GG was sick and dying.  The 
historian, Robert Wodrow, knew Simpson, 
corresponded with him, and interviewed him 
and stayed with him for three days. From this
interview we have Simpson's recounting of Gillespie's last 
illness and death and the statement that 
Wodrow says he has from Mr. Simpson's 
mouth that GG was the author of WS (see 
also Hetherington's Memoir, the appendix, in 
GG's Works).  His personal assessment of the 
long lived Mr. Simpson, was that "I have now 
had long acquaintance of him, and never 
knew one more pleasant and profitable in 
conversation...He had one of the clearest 
judgments, and yet the most exact and 
tenacious memories that I ever knew. "  So 
we have a usually reliable and accurate 
historian's interview of a man of unusually 
clear tenacious memory (for an octogenarian 
I suppose he means) attesting to this fact. 
And who better than a close friend and 
relative to know what GG may have or may 
not have written, who may well have 
collected and read all the material by his 
famous cousin?  And why would he 
mention these works? Would it not be 
because they were published anonymously 
and he knew his cousin wrote them and 
wanted to attest to that fact?.  Wodrow 
termed Simpson one of the last "antediluvian" 
Presbyterians. He saw him as a prime source 
of data, particularly given his relationship to 
GG, one of the prime movers of the second 
Reformation. GG authorship has been 
accepted by most of the historians 
I've seen who comment or make mention of 
it. See Walker, Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 
Machpherson, Doctrine of the Church in 
Scottish Theology, Campbell, "George 
Gillespie" in the Records of the Scottish 
Historical Society, volume X, Part II. 1949.  

The question could be raised, why did 
Hetherington leave WS and the other 
anonymous pamphlets out of his collection of 
Gillespie's works (partially published by Still 
Waters). He doesn't tell us, so anything said would
be speculation.  He does give the 
Wodrow material without comment in his Memoir of GG,
so it seems unlikely he doubted the 
attribution to GG.

CONTENT AND STYLE 
There is also some style, content, or internal 
evidence that I think supports this historical 
data.  From works produced by GG in the 
same time frame we have: 
1. Familiarity with the same sources.
For example we find the use of the reformed 
theologian, Gualther in WS, Sermon to 
the House of Lords, and Nihil 
Respondes, all from 1645. We see him 
using Grotti Apologeta in WS (citing 
chapter 6) and Brotherly Examination 
(citing cap. 5).  Again both from the 
same time frame, 1645. 
2. We have similar phraseologies that were 
favorites of Gillespie's.  He uses 
Gallio to illustrate 
a favorite idea, the nullifidian, and the 
adiaphorist for one who views all things
as things indifferent):
(1) From English Popish Ceremonies (EPC). 
"The atheistical nullifidian, nothing regards 
the assoiling [absolving] of ecclesiastical 
controversies; he is of Gallio's humor (Acts 
18:17), and cares for none of those things... 
The pragmatical adiaphorist ..." etc.
(2) From Aaron's Rod Blossoming (similar use, 
but not complete in using the term 
nullifidian)
"Let the Gallio's of this time (who care for no 
intrinsical evil in the church)..."

(3) From WS
"The first is when the Magistrate is a 
Nullifidian, Neutralist, and Adiaphorist, 
esteeming as Gallio did 'questions of the 
law' and of the ordinances of Christ, to be of 
'words and names,' or things 'which he 
cared not for' (Acts 18:14-15)."

It is interesting to note in the
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) that EPC
is cited as a usage example of the term nullifidian,
and Wholesome Severity is cited as one for adiaphorist.
FWIW, the OED attributes the work without controversy
to George Gillespie in the list of works cited for usage.

3. Similar themes or ideas.
Presbyterian Government maligned addressed in Aaron's Rod and WS.

Specifically regarding the topic of Liberty 
of Conscience GG touches some of the same 
ideas on that topic in his sermon to the House 
of Lords as the author of WS, speaking of the 
absurdity of punishing those 
dangerous to the State, but not the Church.  
He says the abuse of a thing is not an argument 
against the right use of that thing in Aaron's 
Rod and WS.

See House of Lord's Sermon, p. 12, where he 
addresses the topic of liberty of 
conscience.

The historical evidence is what's key, 
The internal are supportive 
and what one would expect to find if GG
was the author.  One would expect to find
use of similar authors, similar phraseology,
and ideas.


Sincerely,
Chris Coldwell
===
WF moderator is Richard Bacon, pastor@fpcr.org
Address all mail to the forum at westminster@fpcr.org
For technical questions post Chris Coldwell at naphtali@naphtali.com