the discomfiture of the hitherto triumphant
Presbyterians. His intention had been made known extensively, and even
before the debate began, the house was crowded by all who could claim or
obtain admission. Gillespie, who had been probably engaged in some
Committee business as usual, was rather late in coming, and upon his
arrival, not being recognised as a member by those who were standing about
the door and in the passages, was told that it was impossible for him to
get in, the throng was so dense. "Can ye not admit a _pinning_?" said he,
using a word employed by masons, to indicate the thin slips of stone with
which they pin, or fill up the chinks and inequalities that occur in the
building of a plain wall. He did, however, work his way to the seat
allotted to the Scottish Commissioners, and took his place beside his
brethren. The subject under discussion was the text, Matt. xviii. 15-17,
as bearing upon the question respecting excommunication. Selden arose, and
in a long and elaborate speech, and with a great display of minute
rabbinical lore, strove to demonstrate that the passage contained no
warrant for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that it related to the
ordinary practice of the Jews in their common civil courts, by whom, as he
asserted, one sentence was excommunication, pronounced by their own
authority. Somewhat confused, if not appalled, by the vast erudition
displayed, even the most learned and able of the divines seemed in no
haste to encounter their formidable opponent. At length both Herle and
Marshall, two very distinguished men, attempted answers, but failed to
counteract the effect of Selden's speech. Gillespie had been observed by
his Scottish brethren writing occasionally in his note-book, as if marking
the heads of Selden's argument; and one of them, some accounts say
Rutherford, turning to him in this emergency, 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." Thus urged,
Gillespie arose, gave first a summary of Selden's argument, divesting it
of all the confusion of that cumbrous learning in which it had been
wrapped, and reducing it to its simple elements; then in a speech of
singular acuteness and power, completely refuted it, proving that the
passage could not be interpreted or explained away to mean a mere
reference to a civil court. By seven distinct arguments he proved, that
the w