Allen Mickle, one of the contributors to this blog, recently presented a paper at the conference on Baptist Spirituality put on by the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. His paper was entitled “A Fountain of Gardens, a Well of Living Waters: A Survey of Christian Spirituality from John Gill’s Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song.” The audio of his presentation is available here.

UPDATE: Sorry I didn’t notice this until today, but one of the plenary sessions also pertained to Gill. Robert Strivens spoke on “Evangelical Spiritualities in Early 18th Century English Dissent: Philip Doddridge and John Gill”, and you can listen to that audio here as well.

Dr. George Ella

Dr. George Ella has been in Alabama and Tennessee this month, and included in his lecture tour are a couple of presentations on Gill. So far I’ve found the audio for one of his lectures on “John Gill (1697-1771): Pastor Scholar.” I’ll try to find audio for the other lecture on Gill, and when I find that it is available I will link to it.  Also of interest is the conference that Ella was speaking at, the 2009 Gadsen Conference on the English Bible.

UPDATE:

Here’s a link to what I believe is the same presentation given at a different church. It was brought to my attention in the comments section below.

“No Salvation Outside the Church.” This quotation from Cyprian usually causes me to think of Roman Catholicism. In this sense, it would be interpreted to mean “no salvation outside of the institutional Roman Catholic Church.” Of course, any Protestant should have a problem with this understanding of the expression. However, there is something quite true about Cyprian’s statement that should be embraced by Baptists. John Gill is one who recognized that ecclesiology and soteriology are interrelated. Timothy George recognized fact about Gill when he stated, “John Gill was a theologian of the church and his theology of grace must be seen in the light of his ecclesiology.” (Timothy George, “The Ecclesiology of John Gill,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation, Michael A. G. Haykin, ed. New York: Brill, 1997, 226.) This became clearer to me when I read the following quotation from his Body of Practical Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Speaking of the “invisible church” Gill sates,

 ”As a general assembly, called, The general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, Heb. Xii. 23. and which include all the elect of God, that have been, are, or shall be in the world; and who will form the pure, holy and undefiled Jerusalem-church-state, in which none will be but those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life; and this consists of the redeemed of the Lamb, and is the church which Christ has purchased with his blood; and who make up his spouse, the church he has loved, and given himself for, to wash, and cleanse, and present to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle; this is the body, the church of which Christ is the head; and in which he is the sole officer, being Prophet, Priest, and King of it; it being, not the seat of human government, as a particular church is: and this church is but one, though particular churches are many: to this may be applied the words of Christ; My dove, my undefiled, is but one, Cant. Vi. 9. And this is what is sometimes called by divines, the invisible church.

It’s quite evident to me that from this quotation Gill’s doctrine of the church is directly related to election as well as particular redemption. The Church is all those who Christ died for and none but the elect.

The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies is hosting the 3rd Annual conference devoted to Baptist History. This year the conference is titled, “Baptist Spirituality: Historical Perspectives.” It is being held August 24-25, 2009 on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The theme of the 2009 conference is, “Baptist Spirituality:  Historical Perspectives” Featured speakers will include: Crawford Gribben, Michael Haykin , Robert Strivens, Greg Thornbury, Kevin Smith, Tom Nettles, Greg Wills, Gerald Priest, Jason Lee, and Malcolm Yarnell. Other established Baptist History scholars, as well as several Ph.D. students will be presenting papers on the conference theme during the parallel sessions.

Make sure you come to hear me present my paper on John Gill,

“A Fountain of Gardens, A Well of Living Waters”: A Survey of Christian Spirituality from John Gill’s (1697-1771) Exposition of the Book of Solomon’s Song.

To Register for this excellent conference, see here.

Over at Between Two Worlds, Justin Taylor paid tribute to Peter Toon who passed away April 25, 2009. I’m making note of this here because Taylor links to a site where most of Toon’s works are available online. The reason this is relevant to John Gill is that Toon’s first book, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity: 1689-1765, is referenced in nearly all recent secondary literature on Gill.

I’m still working my way through George Ella’s biography of Gill and I stumbled across a quote worth mentioning. This was in Ella’s chapter defending Gill against those who have called him a Hyper-Calvinist. Ella is speaking of how it has been claimed that some of Gill’s doctrines may have lead to Hyper-Calvinism in the hands of lesser men, yet they were safe in the hands of Gill. Ella states, “any gospel truth which can be both a savour of death and a savour of life is ‘perilous’ in the wrong hands. This applies equally to all the Five Points.” This is ought to be no surprise though. Even Peter said that there are things which Paul said that were twisted in a way not consistent with the gospel. This is an important thing to remember both for understanding Gill, and for understanding the Bible. If only partially understood, even right things can be dangerous. I would venture to guess that the danger is present for both regenerate as well as the unregenerate.

In the interest of assuring a “genuine free offer” I placed each name entry on a slip of paper and mixed them in a bowl. I then allowed my 4 year old daughter to pick one paper from the bowl. I’m pleased to announce that the winner is Bryan Walker from mark12ministries. Thank you to everyone who entered. It has been a fun chance to do something new and attract a lot of new traffic to the blog. Hopefully we have also stirred up an interest in John Gill.

Gertrude Himmelfarb has shown that there was not some monolithic movement called the Enlightenment, but that different countries had their own Enlightenments. France had quite a different Enlightenment than England for example.[1] England’s Enlightenment was more moderate than France’s. Yet, it had its own particular challenges. While France moved toward atheism, England moved into areas of Arianism. This “Age of Reason” denied much of the supernatural from the Scriptures and believed that their embracing of logic and reason could eliminate that which was based upon “faith” which included much of what was distinctive to orthodox theology like the doctrine of the Trinity. And while Trinitarians were more learned than their anti-trinitarian enemies, the anti-trinitarians were better writers and thus lead to the continued denial of much of what was distinctively orthodox Christianity.[2]

In fact, both Socinianism and Arianism in England in the late 17^th and 18^th century began to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity as an invention of the early church and an unnecessary adoption of Greek logical thinking to theology. In particular, Samuel Clarke was quite influential in the Arian controversy through his writing of Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712) which clearly had Arian tendencies. This particular controversy came to a head during the Salter’s Hall Synod (1719).[3] Here Presbyterians, Independents, Particular and General Baptist met to discuss whether ministers could be asked to subscribe to a Trinitarian creed. The Presbyterians and General Baptists voted no, and moved into areas of Unitarianism and other heretical doctrines. The Independents and Particular Baptists however voted yes and remained faithful to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Yet, these Trinitarian controversies created confusion amongst many individuals. Isaac Watts (1674–1748), the hymn-writer, near the end of his life, re-wrote a number of his works and never did seem to have a clear understanding of orthodox Trinitarianism.[4] Robert Robinson (1735–1790), the Baptist pastor and hymn-writer, seemed to deny Trinitarian theology near the end of his life as well.[5] The issue of the Trinity is incredibly important even today as many continue to deny this core theological doctrine.

While there is continued interest in the doctrine of the Trinity, there has been a failure to really understand the English Enlightenment denial of the Trinity and the continued orthodox affirmation and defence of the Trinity during this time. For instance, in his recent detailed work on the Trinity, Robert Letham argues that conservative Reformed theologians have contributed little to the doctrine of the Trinity since the time of John Calvin (1509–1564) until the twentieth century.[6] Yet, the defence of the Trinity in the seventeenth and eighteenth century is a crucial part of the story of the church’s teaching on this crucial doctrine.

John Gill’s (1697–1771) vigorous defence of the Trinity as it had been held since the early church is important in the discussion of the Trinity in the eighteenth century. Muller writes, “Among the British writers of the late orthodox era, the Particular Baptist John Gill stands out as a defender of the doctrine of the Trinity as ‘a doctrine of pure revelation’ to the setting aside of all but biblical argumentation and patristic usage.”[7] With the rise of interest in Enlightenment studies and Enlightenment thinking on religious issues and doctrine, it is important to look at the orthodox response to English Enlightenment thinking, especially on an issue as important as the Trinity. Gill is such a person that must be studied. Not only did he study the Scriptures and the early church in his defence of the Trinity, he lived out his ministry with a complete commitment to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. His biographer John Rippon (1751–1836) and the pastor who followed him at his Carter Lane Church wrote of him regarding the influence his thinking on the Trinity had on his ministry. He writes,

The Doctor not only watched over his people, “with great affection, fidelity, and love;” but he also watched his pulpit also. He would not, if he knew it, admit any one to preach for him, who was either cold-hearted to the doctrine of the Trinity; or who denied the divine filiation of the Son of God; or who objected to conclude his prayers with the usual doxology to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as three equal Persons in the one Jehovah. Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians, he considered as real enemies of the cross of Christ. They dared not ask him to preach, nor could he in conscience, permit them to officiate for him. He conceived that, by this uniformity of conduct, he adorned the pastoral office.[8]

Further posts will seek to highlight aspects of Gill’s trinitarian theology.

—–

[1] Getrude Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments (Essex, England: Vintage Books, 2005).

[2] See Philip Dixon, ‘Nice and Hot Disputes’: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003), p. 215.

[3] For more on this see Roger Thomas, “The Non-Subscription Controversy amongst Dissenters in 1719: the Salter’s Hall Debate,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 162–186.

[4] See Arthur Paul Davis, Isaac Watts: His Life and Works (Published PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, 1943), pp. 109–126.

[5] See Two Original Letters by the Late Mr. Robert Robinson (London: J. Marsom, 1802). For the whole story of Robinson’s life see Graham W. Hughes, With Freedom Fired: The Story of Robert Robinson, Cambridge Nonconformist (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1955).

[6] Robert Letham, The Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), pp. ix–x.

[7] Richard A. Muller, The Triunity of God in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), IV, 140. Despite the lack of scholarly study in the Baptist stream of historical theology, Gill can rightly be included in the stream of other Post-Reformation Reformed theologians and thus is important to be studied in and of himself (see Richard A. Muller, “John Gill and the Reformed Tradition: A Study in the Reception of Protestant Orthodoxy in the Eighteenth Century,” in Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2007): 51–68. See especially pp. 55–56.

[8] John Rippon, A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings  of the Late Rev. John Gill (Reprint ed., Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1992), 127–128. Emphasis in original.

I have recently acquired a free copy of Gill’s collected Writings on CD Rom (version 2.2) from Baptist Standard Bearer. I already had a copy of my own. So I’ve decided to give this one away here on this blog. I will take entries for the drawing until midnight Sunday April 12. Here is how to enter:

1st. Post a comment in the comments section of this post linking back to your own blog. The post should say something like, “Hi, I’m Jerad File and I blog here. Please enter me into the drawing to receive a free copy of Gill’s collected writings.”

2nd. Create a post on your blog linking back to this post. This post should say something like, “For the Cause of God and Truth is giving away a free copy of John Gill’s Collected Works. Enter the drawing here.”

3rd.When the drawing deadline comes. I will enter each name into a hat and select one. I’ll announce the winner here on the blog and they can contact me by email with their contact information so that I can send them the prize.

So far in the two months that this blog has been in existance we’ve had around 340 hits. I’m sure that several have been repeat readers. We’ve not been around a long time, and don’t have many readers yet, so I would guess your chances of winning are pretty good.

UPDATE: 03-30-09

Please make sure to check your link to make sure that it is correct. If I can’t verify that it is a valid web address I can’t verify that you have properly registered for the giveaway. Also, please place a link in the comment section that will lead directly to your post on the give away. That will help me out as I find the post on your blog. Thanks.

UPDATE: 04-01-09

I’ve been asked a question about whether more than one contributor for the same blog can enter. Since this blog is also a blog with more than one contributor I sympathize, and so I will allow entries from more than one contributor on the same blog.

Also, Thank you to the light hearted Calvinist for pointing our my spelling mistake. I’ve corrected it.

UPDATE: 04-05-09:

OK. I’ve decided what I’m going to do about making sure that the registration is done correctly. I will enter everyone that leaves a comment in the comment section linking to their blog; however, if I select one that has not created a post linking back here, I will throw it out at that time and select a new winner. Most entries have worked fine, but a few seem to have skipped step two.

UPDATE: 4-10-09:

Only a bit more than 2 days till I hold the drawing. I have been amazed at the response. Before starting this thing we had only received 340 hits in the two months since creating this blog. Now we are pushing 900 just 2 weeks later. Thank you to everyone who has participated. I will continue to take new entries until Midnight, this Sunday.

UPDATE: 4-12-09: I’m sorry that it didn’t occur to me until today that though it may not be midnight yet for me, it may be midnight for someone who registers in the UK. Just to be fair, I’ll be following GMT for entries because wordpress keeps track of statistics based on GMT. So if you want to enter, do so by Midnight GMT today, which I believe is about 7 p.m. for me here in Texas.

When one speaks of “worship wars” today, it usually refers to the style of music one prefers for public worship. However, this is no new debate. Worship wars seem to have been a part of Baptist life from the beginning of the English speaking movement. I had known this before, but was reminded while reading part of Ella’s biography of Gill this morning. It seems that the controversy was not about music style. It wasn’t even about whether it is permissible to be accompanied by music (as even some denominations claim today). Rather, the controversy was over whether singing was permissible in public worship at all! Singing was a part of the public worship of the established Anglican church. Baptists, as well as most other dissenters, rejected singing in public worship as being a vestige of Romanism.

Benjamin Keach, Gill’s predecessor at the Goat Yard Church, had been a pioneer in the use of congregational singing in public worship and was harshly criticized even in his own church. The controversy lasted for years and was even still alive when Gill became the pastor of this historic church–though most of the non-singing camp had already left by this time. This controversy is probably why the final article of Gill’s 1729 Declaration of Faith was included as important enough to belong in a confession of the church. It states, “We also believe that singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, vocally, is an ordinance of the Gospel to be preformed by believers; but that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their liberty in using it” (Ella, 84-85).

This is also reflected in Chapter VII of Gill’s Body of Practical Divinity, entitled “Of Singing Psalms, As a Part of Public Worship.”  Here Gill treats singing as “an ordinance of divine and public service” (BOD, 957). Gill was an advocate of vocal singing in public worship. As to the question of what is permissible to sing, he argued that the command to sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” all refer to singing songs that were contained within the pages of Scripture.  Though, Gill was known to quote the lines of hymns by Isaac Watts. According to Ella, Gill never really came down firmly in the debate over public singing, merely opting for prudence (Ella, 90).

Two things I think are of note in this matter: 1) Gill refers to public singing as an ordinance. This deserves some later discussion. Hopefully I will return to this in a later post. 2) The General Baptists were the strictest in thier oposition to public singing in worship. It was the Particular Baptists who were more open to singing.