The Life and Times of Dr. John
Gill
by
Dr. Stanford E. Murrell
·
·
1687, November 23. Born at Kettering, in Northamptonshire,
England.
·
·
1716,
November 1. Makes a public confession of
faith in Christ and is baptized.
1716, November 4. On this Lord’s Day he was
received as a member into the church, Mr. Thomas Wallis, pastor, and partook of
the Lord’s Supper.
·
·
1716,
November 11.
During the evening service he preached a sermon on 1 Corinthians 2:2.
·
·
1718, Marries Elizabeth Negus of
London.
·
·
1719,
September 20. Accepts
the call to pastor Hosly-down, Fair-street, Southwark, about a mile from London
Bridge.
·
·
1720, March
22. Ordained
to the ministry in a public ceremony with the laying on of hands. Soon after
his ordination he drew up A Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the
Church of Christ at Horsly-down.
·
·
1723. Dr. Gill is taken ill with
numerous afflictions including a severe fever that threatened his life.
·
·
1724. Begins an exposition of the
Song of Solomon, preaching 122 sermons to his congregation from this
book. In the same year his first printing was a sermon preached from Romans
5:20,21 on the death of Mr. John Smith, a deacon of his church.
·
·
1725. Publishes a work entitled, The
Urim and Thummim found with Christ, from Deuteronomy 33:8.
·
·
1726. Publishes a pamphlet
called, The Manner of baptizing with water, cleared up from the Word of God
and right Reason, etc. and another work, A Defense of the ancient Mode,
etc.
·
·
1728. Publishes his Exposition
of the Song of Solomon. Other publications this year included The
Prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah.
·
·
1730. Publishes a work on The
Resurrection of the Dead and another work on Justification, and The
Necessity of good Works to Salvation.
·
·
1731 Publishes his Treatise on the
Doctrine of the Trinity.
·
·
1735. Publishes The Cause of
God and Truth setting forth the doctrines of grace.
·
·
1736. Publishes Truth Defended,
a response to an anonymous writer who examined the Doctrines in the
Supralapsarian Scheme.
·
·
1737,
December 31. Preaches an important sermon, The Doctrine of Grace cleared from the
Charge of Licentiousness.
·
·
1738. Publishes Remarks on Mr.
Samuel Chandler’s Sermon preached to the Societies for the Reformation of
Manners, relating to the moral Nature and Fitness of Things. The origin of
evil is considered and the vindication of God is upheld (theodicy).
1738, May 30. Death of daughter Elizabeth
Gill, age thirteen. Her father preached her funeral from 1 Thessalonians
4:13,14.
·
·
1746. The first volume of his Exposition
of the whole New Testament is published. The second in 1747 and the
third in 1748.
·
·
1748. Receives a diploma from the
Marischal College and University at Aberdeen creating him Doctrine in Divinity.
·
·
1749. Dr. Gill writes a treatise,
called, The Divine Rite of Infant Baptism examined and disproved.
·
·
1752. Publishes his pamphlet on
the Doctrine of the Saints’ final Perseverance.
·
·
1752, March
15. Escapes
being killed in his study from a violent hurricane.
·
·
1753. Publishes a pamphlet
entitled Anti-Paedobaptism.
·
·
1755. Dr. Gill publishes Dr.
Crisp’s Works having written a brief Memoir of the doctor’s life
and taking the opportunity to exonerate himself from the charge of
Anti-nomianism.
·
·
1756, March
24. Dr. Gill preaches his
farewell sermon at a Wednesday evening lecture from Acts 26:22,23. He desires
to devote his time to finishing An Exposition of the whole Old Testament.
·
·
1757. Dedicates a new church in
Carter-lane, Saint Olave’s-street, near London Bridge, preaching two sermons on
Exodus 20:24, which are published as Attendance in Places of religious
Worship, where the divine Name is recorded, encouraged.
·
·
1757-58. Publishes his Exposition
of the Prophets, and an Exposition of the Revelation.
·
·
1764,
October 10.
Mrs. John Gills dies at age 68 after being married for more than 46 years.
·
·
1767. Publishes his Dissertation
concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowels, Points,
and Accents.
·
·
1769. Publishes A Body
of Doctrinal Divinity.
·
·
1770. Publishes A Body of
Practical Divinity.
·
·
1771,
October 14.
Dr. John
Gill dies about 11:00 AM at his house in Camberwell, Surrey, aged seventy three
years, ten months, and ten days He is buried near Moorfields in the family
tomb.
·
·
1773,
January. Death
of daughter Mary who had married Mr. George Keith, a bookseller in
Gracechurch-street.
·
· 1774-1777. The second edition of the
New Testament Exposition is published.
The Late Rev. John Gill, D. D.
by
John Rippon
Edited by
Dr. Stanford E. Murrell
Thou hast given a standard to them that fear thee;
that it may be displayed because of the truth
~*~
Psalm 60:4
2
A BRIEF MEMOIR OF THE
LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THE LATE
REV. JOHN GILL, D. D.
BY JOHN RIPPON, D. D.
Late Pastor Of The Church Of Christ Assembling
At Carter Lane Meeting House, Tooley Street.
TO WHICH IS ADDED
AN ELEGY ON THE DEATH OF DR. GILL,
BY
BENJAMIN FRANCIS.
The
late Dr. John Gill was, in various respects, so distinguished an individual, whether we have regard to his talents, his
industry in improving them, the eminence to which he attained in oriental and
classical literature, or his Christian character, that one may be justly
surprised so little is generally known of his life and labors. Were we to have
recourse to any of our biographical dictionaries for information on the
subject, we should find the article dismissed in about twenty lines, giving us
a meager outline of
3
the place of his birth, his
family, education, and the various publications
with which he enriched the
literature of his country, while the most
interesting and instructive
parts of his biography are wholly un-noticed.
and learned man, is that which
was compiled by the late Dr. John Rippon,
his successor in the work of
the ministry, and prefixed to Dr. Gill’s
“Exposition of the Bible,” in
nine volumes, quarto — of course accessible
only to those who happen to be
in possession of that laborious
undertaking, the number of
whom must be comparatively few. It is
presumed that a re-publication
of the former, in a detached form, and at a
moderate price, can scarcely
fail of meeting with a favorable acceptance at
the hands of the religious
community, more especially, as tending to bring
this great and learned man
more prominently before the public, and so
doing his character that
justice which hitherto it has not received.
The following has been printed
verbatim from the above-mentioned
memoir, which will account for
an occasional reference to the Commentary
which will be observed in the
perusal.
4, Three Tun Passage, Newgate
Street,
March 1838.
4
A BRIEF MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THE
REVEREND AND LEARNED
JOHN GILL, D.D.
THE Reverend Dr.
JOHN GILL was certainly one of the greatest and best
of men. In
contemplating a summary Memoir of him, it cannot be the
province of wisdom
sedulously to neglect any authentic documents or traits
of his character,
merely from an apprehension that they have been
previously known.
Such there are; but as it is not probable that one of his
warmest admirers
in a thousand can possibly have enjoyed the perusal of
them, this Sketch
of his Life and Writings unceremoniously avails itself, at
once, of every
such assistance-proposing, when the superfluous is rejected,
to retain the
valuable; and then, with the interspersions of what is
illustrative, to
introduce other articles of general interest, all of which,
unquestionably,
are not before the public.
The subject of
this Memoir was born at Kettering, in Northamptonshire,
Nov. 23, 1697, of
amiable and serious parents, Edward Gill, and
Elizabeth his
wife, whose maiden name was Walker.
By the indulgent
providence of God, they were equally delivered from the
snares of poverty
and affluence. ‘Beneath the dome, above the hut,’ by
peaceful industry,
and genuine religion, they spent their days, a blessing to
the pious circle
which Heaven had assigned them. The father, Mr. Edward
Gill, first became
a member of the Dissenting congregation in that place,
consisting then of
Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists. Besides their
pastor, they had a
teaching elder of the Baptist denomination, Mr. William
Wallis, who was
the administrator of baptism, by immersion, to such adult
persons among them
as desired it. But, at length, the Baptists having been
rendered
uncomfortable in their communion, by some particular persons,
they were obliged
to separate, with Mr. William Wallis, their teacher, and
soon formed
themselves into a distinct church of the Particular Baptist
denomination, over
which the Reverend Andrew Fuller is now, and for
many years has been
pastor. Mr. Edward Gill was one of their number,
and, in due time,
was chosen to the office of deacon among them; and, to
the very last,
obtained a good report for his ‘grace, his piety, and holy
conversation.’
5
His young son, with the dawn
of reason, discovered a fine capacity for
instruction; and, being soon
out of the reach of common teachers, he was
very early sent to the
grammar-school in the town, which he attended with
uncommon diligence, and
unwearied application; quickly surpassing those
of his own age, and others who
were considerably his seniors. Here he
continued till he was about
eleven years old. During this time,
notwithstanding the tedious
manner in which grammatical knowledge was
then conveyed, besides going
through the common school-books, he
mastered the principal Latin
classics, and made such a proficiency in the
Greek, as obtained for him
marks of distinction from several of the
neighboring clergy, who
condescended, occasionally, to examine and
encourage his progress, when
they met him at a bookseller’s shop in the
town, which he constantly
attended, on market-days, when only it was
opened. Here he so regularly
attended,
‘for
the sake of consulting different authors, that it became an usual
asseveration
with the people of the neighborhood, when speaking
of
anything which they considered certain, it is as sure, said they, as
that
John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.’
And, as the same studious
disposition attended him through life, so did
nearly the same remarks —
those who knew him usually employing this
mode of affirmation, ‘as
surely as Dr. Gill is in his study.’
His leaving the
grammar-school, so early in life, is attributed to an
impropitious accident — the
master of it insisted that the children of
Dissenters, as well as others,
should go with him to church, on week-days,
at the hours of prayer. The
parents, considering this as an imposition,
removed their children from
under his care, and our young friend was
among the number. Affluent
families placed their children at a distance to
finish their education, but
this, not being as convenient to his parents,
proved a discouraging
circumstance. Various methods, however, were
devised by his friends, but
all proved fruitless. Ministers also, of different
denominations, endeavored to
place him under the patronage of one or
other of the Funds in London
that he might enjoy the additional
advantages, which the most
liberal Dissenters provide for the education of
young men in their seminaries
of learning, who are considered by
competent judges, as persons
of real piety, and of promising talents for the
work of the ministry. With
this view, specimens of his attainments were
sent to the proper persons in
town, who replied, that he was too young, at
6
pre-sent, to be
admitted on their foundations; and that should he continue,
which was a very
supposable thing, to make such rapid advances in his
studies, he would
pass through the common circle of learning, quite in his
juvenile days,
before it was usual to employ young persons in the sacred
service of the
sanctuary.
Yet, with all the
obstructions thrown in the way of his becoming a scholar,
such was his
thirst for learning, he not only retained the knowledge of the
Latin and of the
Greek he had acquired, but incessantly improved himself in
both. At length he
studied logic, rhetoric, as also natural and moral
philosophy. He
likewise learned Hebrew without any living assistance, by
the help of
Buxtorf’s Grammar and Lexicon. With these only he
surmounted the
chief difficulties of that language, and could soon read
Hebrew with great
ease and pleasure. In this language he always took
particular
delight. He was next improving his mind by reading Latin
authors in the
various branches of literature, and particularly some of those
systems of divinity,
by the foreign professors, of which he afterwards made
so liberal an use,
and which give such a distinction to various of his
publications.
Indeed his object was always near his heart; and though, for
several years,
some part of his time was now employed in his father’s
business, which
was the woolen trade, the other part of it was religiously
consecrated to his
studies, till he was about the nineteenth year of his age.
He had slight
convictions of the evil of sin, and occasional thoughts of a
future state, from
his very childhood. Sometimes he was terrified with the
fear of death, and
hell, and then elated with thinking on the joys of heaven;
but his
impressions were superficial and temporary, till he was about
twelve years of
age, when the operations of his mind became more serious,
especially after
hearing Mr. William Wallis preach a sermon on Genesis 3:9,
And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
where art thou?
For a while the
text and subject continually sounded in his ears, and these
interrogatories
were addressed to his heart — Sinner, where art thou?
What a wretched
state and condition art thou in? — How miserable wilt
thou be, living
and dying in an unconverted state? He considered himself as
summoned before
the Judge of all, to answer for his conduct. Such effects
following the
discourse, he considered Mr. Wallis, if any one, his spiritual
father; but that
good man died soon after. Now he began more clearly to
7
see the depravity
of his nature, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, his need of
the Savior, and of
a better righteousness than his own, even the
righteousness of
Christ, to be received by faith. Shortly after he was
favored with a
comfortable persuasion of interest in him, through the
application of
several exceedingly great and precious promises to his heart,
by the blessed
Spirit of God. It was, moreover, his happy lot, in those early
days, to have his
mind irradiated with the light and knowledge of the
evangelical
doctrines, under the ministry of several Gospel preachers, in
those parts of the
country, whom, at times, he had the opportunity of
hearing. And as
these sublime truths came to him, not in word only, but in
power, and also in
the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, he felt himself
free from the
bondage of the law, as a covenant of works, and was filled
with joy and peace
in believing. Yet, though he had arrived at some degree
of satisfaction in
his mind, concerning the safety of his eternal state, he did
not make a public
profession of religion until he was almost nineteen years
of age. This
delay, at first, was occasioned by a consideration of his youth,
and the solemnity
of making a profession; and, afterwards, by finding that
the eyes of the
church were upon him to call him to the ministerial work, as
soon as
convenient, should he become a member of it. To this they were
the more inclined,
as their pastor, at that time, was greatly taken up in his
temporal
occupations, and much needed ministerial assistance.
·
·
1716 — On the
1st of November, Mr. Gill made a public profession of his
faith in Christ,
declaring satisfactorily to the church, the dealings of God
with his soul; and
the same day Mr. Thomas Wallis, their pastor, who
succeeded Mr.
William Wallis in his office, administered the ordinance of
baptism to him by
immersion in a river, according to the command of
Christ and the
practice of his apostles, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Many spectators beheld the solemn sight. The
following Lord’s
Day, November the 4th, he was received a member of the
church, and
partook of the Lord’s Supper. The same evening, at a meeting
of members and of
others for prayer, in a private house, he read the
chapter of Isaiah,
as suitable to the preceding duties of the day, and
expounded some
passages of it. Those who were present estimated the
service as a
favorable specimen of the ministerial talents the Lord of Zion
had conferred upon
him; and he was encouraged to proceed in the exercise
of his gifts.
Accordingly, the next Lord’s Day evening, at the same place,
he delivered a
discourse on 1 Corinthians 2:2.
8
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified.”
It was a charming
season to the godly people. An aged matron, who, in her
youth, was present
and heard him deliver this very first sermon, at
Kettering, has
frequently mentioned to his successor in Carter-lane,
Southwark, the
manner of his rising from his seat, and placing himself
behind the back of
a chair when he was about to speak; as also the
solemnity with
which he discussed his subject, and the seriousness,
affection, and
joy, with which it was heard.
Soon after this,
at the instance of some of his friends in London, who had
seen and conversed
with him at Kettering, he removed to Higham-Ferrets,
a distance of six
or seven computed miles. His own view in this was, that
he might prosecute
his studies under the Reverend Mr. John Davis, of that
place, with whom
he was to board — a gentle-man of learning, who had
just before come
from Wales, and settled as pastor of a new church, lately
planted at Higham.
Of this felicity, however, the young man was
disappointed. But
the design of his London friends, in removing him, was,
chiefly, that he
might assist this new interest, help the young converts of it,
and preach
occasionally in the adjacent villages. Here he continued the year
following, and
contracted an acquaintance with a young lady, whose name
was Elizabeth
Negus, a member of the new-gathered church, whom he
married in 1718.
His marriage with this excellent person he always
considered as the
principal thing for which God, in his providence, sent him
to that place; for
she proved affectionate, discreet, and careful; and, by her
unremitting
prudence, delivered him from all domestic avocations; so that
he could, with
leisure and greater ease of mind, pursue his studies, and
devote himself to
his ministerial work. She was continued to him more than
forty-six years,
and died October 10, 1764, in the sixty, eighth year of her
age. His sermon on
her death has been printed, and is esteemed one of the
best funeral
discourses he published. The text of it is, Hebrews 11:16.
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly:
wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath
prepared for them a city.
At the close of
it, but in the form of a note, is given an honorable account
of her, from early
life to her departing moments; but it seems he was so
very much
overpowered at the end of the sermon, where the account might
have been given,
that he was not able to deliver it. By this amiable woman
9
he had many
children, all of whom died in their infancy, except three.
Elizabeth, ‘a
most lovely and desirable child, for person, sense, and grace,’
died May the 30th,
1738, in the thirteenth year of her age. Her funeral
sermon was
preached by her father, from 1 Thessalonians 4:13,14, and
was printed, with
a pleasing account of parts of her experience. Mary, who
was a member of
her father’s church, was married to Mr. George Keith, a
bookseller in
Gracechurch-street, and died in January, 1773. John was a
goldsmith, who
lived many years in the same street, till he retired from
business to
Walworth, about a mile and a half from London, where he
departed this
life, May 22, 1804, in the 78th year of his age.
Both these
children were a great happiness to their parents, and the family
had always reason
to be thankful to God for their domestic comfort, peace,
and harmony.
During Mr. Gill’s
stay at Higham-Ferrers, he frequently preached to the
church at
Kettering; and, the circumstances of its pastor requiring
assistance, Mr.
Gill, soon after his marriage, wholly removed thither. Here
his ministry, from
the beginning, had been blessed, not only to the comfort
but to the
conversion of many, who long continued the seals of his
ministry. Yet his
stay here was only short; for, in the beginning of the year
1719, the church
at Horsly-down, Fair-street, Southwark, near a mile from
London-bridge, haying
by death lost their pastor, Mr. Benjamin Stinton,
son-in-law to the
famous Mr. Benjamin Keach, and his successor in the
pastoral office;
some of the members, hearing of Mr. Gill, desired a friend
of his to invite
him to come up, and preach to them; which he did, in the
months of April
and May, the same year, and then returned into the
country. About two
months after, the church at Horsly-down requested his
return. He
complied, and preached to them till the beginning of September
following. On
Thursday evening, the 10th of that month, the church having
been duly
convened, it was put to the vote, ‘Whether they should, on the
next Lord’s Day
evening, proceed to the election of Mr. Gill’ to the
pastoral office — ‘the
question was carried in the affirmative by the whole,
except twelve or
thirteen persons.’
On the Lord’s Day
evening the same question ‘passed in the affirmative by
a very great majority.’ On the following
Lord’s Day, September the 20th,
he accepted the
call. But as trouble and opposition now began, and much
time was lost in
obtaining the old meeting-house, a lease of which at length
was secured for
the term of forty years, he was not ordained till March 22,
10
1720, the day
appointed for the solemn transaction. The early part of the
meeting being
intended chiefly for the members and serious hearers, they
spent some time in
prayer among themselves, and, when they had sung an
hymn, paused. This
was a pleasant preparation for the more public work
before them.
Accordingly, as soon as the pastors of the churches, who had
been invited to be
present on the occasion, came in, the Reverend Mr. John
Skepp, author of
that valuable book, entitled Divine Energy, proposed
several questions
to the church; which were answered by Mr. Thomas
Crosby, a deacon,
afterwards author of The History of the Baptists; who
stated, in the
course of what he said, that on the day which had previously
been appointed by
the church to proceed to the election of a pastor, ‘Mr.
Gill was chosen by
a very great majority.’ The Reverend Messrs.
Matthews and
Ridgeway now prayed, when the Reverend Mr. Noble
desired the
members of the church to recognize their choice of Mr. Gill to
the pastoral
office. This done, he requested Mr. Gill to confirm his
acceptance of the
call; which he did with a full and solemn declaration. The
Reverend Mr.
Curtis, and the aged and Reverend Mr. Mark Key, then
pastor of the
church near Devonshire-square, were apppointed to take the
lead in the
distinctive part of ordination — and the excellent man ‘was
ordained by laying on of hands.’ Three brethren also were immediately
‘ordained and set
apart’ to the office of
deacons, ‘Mr. Gill joining with the
other elders in
the imposition of hands.’ Mr. Noble then went into the
pulpit, and
delivered an exhortation to the pastor and deacons from
Acts 20:28.
Take heed therefore
unto yourselves, and to all the flock over
which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he
had purchased with his own blood.
Mr. Skepp now
addressed the church from Hebrews 13:17.
Obey them that have
the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for
they watch for your
souls, as they that must give account, etc.
The church-records
say that the sermons were suitable to the work of the
day, and
excellent. Mr. Gill then went up and called on the Lord; and after
the assembly had
sung the 133d Psalm he dismissed the assembly, with one of the apostolical
benedictions.
The substance of
the preceding pages is taken from the church-book
belonging to Dr.
Gill’s congregation, and from an ancient Manuscript
11
volume in the
possession of the Doctor’s successor. But the Confession of
Faith, as such, is not recorded in either; nor
could it reasonably have been
expected in them.
The substance, however, of his creed, at the time, may
be seen in the Declaration of Faith and Practice, which he drew up soon
after for his
people, or else modified for them, perhaps, from his personal
confession. This
is inserted in his own hand-writing, in the church-book,
instead of the Church Covenant, printed in 1697 by one of his
predecessors, the
Reverend Benjamin Keach; which paper, at that time,
was assented to by
each member introductorily to communion, as the
Declaration, written by Dr.
Gill, was afterwards, and is at this time.
Apprehending that
this explicit document may not be unacceptable in our
Memoir, it is here
given from the church-book, and will serve to show how
this eminent
servant of Christ, from the beginning, united faith and practice
together; in which
also the people, who continued in his communion, were
cordially one with
him.
Horsly-down, under the Pastoral Care of MY. John Gill, ,Sic.
Having been
enabled, through divine grace, to give up ourselves to the
Lord, and likewise
to one another by the will of God; we account it a duty
incumbent upon us
to make a declaration of our faith and practice, to the
honor of Christ,
and the glory of his name; knowing, that as with the heart
man believeth unto
righteousness, so with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation —
our declaration is as follows: —
I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the
word of God, and
the only rule of faith and practice.
II. We believe that there is but one only living and true God; that there are
three Persons in
the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
who are equal in
nature, power, and glory; and that the Son and the Holy
Ghost are as truly
and as properly God as the Father.
III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain
number of men unto
ever-lasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of
his own free grace, and
according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance
of this
gracious design,
he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace
with his Son Jesus
Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Savior
was appointed, and
all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that
12
their persons,
with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of
Christ, and made
his care and charge.
IV. We believe that God created the first man, Adam, after his own
image, and in His likeness; an upright,
holy, and innocent creature,
capable of serving and glorifying him; but,
he sinning, all his posterity
sinned in him, and came short of the glory
of God: the guilt of whose sin
is imputed, and a corrupt nature derived, to
all his offspring, descending
from him by ordinary and natural generation:
that they are by their first
birth carnal and unclean, averse to all that
is good, uncapable of doing
any, and prone to every sin; and are also by
nature children of wrath, and
under a sentence of condemnation, and so are
subject not only to a
corporal death, and involved in a moral one,
commonly called spiritual,
but are also liable to an eternal death, as
considered in the first Adam,
fallen and sinners; from all which there is
no deliverance but by Christ,
the second Adam.
V. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, being
set up from everlasting as
the Mediator of
the new covenant, and he, having engaged to be the surety
of his people,
did, in the fullness of time, really assume human nature, and
not before, neither in whole nor in part;
his human soul, being a creature,
existed not from eternity, but was created
and formed in his body by him
that forms the spirit of man within him,
when that was conceived in the
womb of the virgin; and so his human nature
consists of a true body and a
reasonable soul; both which, together, and
at once, the Son of God
assumed into union with his divine Person,
when made of a woman, and
not before; in which nature he really suffered and died
as their substitute, in
their room and
stead, whereby he made all that satisfaction for their sins,
which the law and
justice of God could require, as well as made way for all
those blessings,
which are needful for them both for time and eternity.
VI. We believe that that eternal redemption
which Christ has obtained, by
the shedding of
his blood, is special and particular, that is to say, that it was
only intentionally
designed for the elect of God, and sheep of Christ, who
only share the
special and peculiar blessings of it.
VII. We believe that the justification of God’s
elect is only by the
righteousness of
Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any
works of
righteousness done by them; and that the full and free pardon of
13
all their sins and
transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through
the blood of Christ,
according to the riches of his grace.
VIII. We believe that the work of regeneration,
conversion,
sanctification,
and faith, is not an act of man’s free will and power, but of
the mighty,
efficacious, and irresistible grace of God.
IX. We believe that all those who are chosen by
the Father, redeemed by
the Son, and
sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly and finally persevere, so
that not one of
them shall ever perish, but shall have everlasting life.
X. We believe that there will be a resurrection
of the dead, both of the just
and unjust; and
that Christ will come a second time to judge both quick and
dead, when he will
take vengeance on the wicked, and introduce his own
people into his
kingdom and glory, where they shall be for ever with him.
XI. We believe that Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper are ordinances of
Christ, to be
continued until his second coming; and that the former is
absolutely
requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only are to be
admitted into the
communion of the church, and to participate of all
ordinances in it,
who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized by
immersion, in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.
XII. We also believe that singing of psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs,
vocally, is an
ordinance of the Gospel to be performed by believers; but
that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their
liberty in using
it.
Now all, and each
of these doctrines and ordinances, we look upon
ourselves under the
greatest obligations to embrace, maintain, and defend;
believing it to be
our duty to stand fast, in one spirit, with one mind,
striving together
for the faith of the Gospel.
And whereas we are
very sensible, that our conversation, both in the world
and in the church,
ought to be as becometh the Gospel of Christ, we judge
it our incumbent
duty to walk in wisdom towards them that are without, to
exercise a
conscience void of offense towards God and men, by living
soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world.
And as to our
regards to each other, in our church-communion, we esteem
it our duty to
walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love: to
14
watch over each other’s
conversation; to stir up one another to love and
good works; not forsaking the
assembling of ourselves together, as we
have opportunity, to worship
God according to his revealed will; and,
when the case requires, to
warn, rebuke, and admonish one another,
according to the rules of the
Gospel.
Moreover, we think ourselves
obliged to sympathize with each other, in all
conditions, both inward and
outward, which God, in his providence, may
bring us into; as also to bear
with one another’s weaknesses, failings, and
infirmities, and particularly
to pray for one another, and that the Gospel
and the ordinances thereof
might be blessed to the edification and comfort
of each other’s souls, and for
the gathering in of others to Christ, besides
those who are already gathered
— all which duties we desire to be found in
the performance of, through the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit,
whilst we both admire and
adore the grace which has given us a place and
a name in God’s house, better
than that of sons and daughters.
This form of sound words,
containing the sub-stance of his early creed, he
maintained, without deviation,
to the very end of his days; and few are the
formulas which have at any
time been more closely united with duty. The
term and the thing are
remarkable, in this confession — and no man was
more fond of either in their
proper place, and fairly understood.
Mr. Gill’s ‘preaching had
been very acceptable from the beginning,’ and his
‘auditory became so numerous,
that the place of worship, though a large
one, could hardly contain
them.’ And now being settled, ‘his
people were
very zealous in manifesting
their affections towards him, and, to the utmost
of their abilities, raised him
a suitable maintenance.’
·
· 1723 — In the early part of life he was subject to frequent
fevers, and
often to fainting fits, which
have come upon him whilst engaged in his
public work. And, when he was
between twenty-five and twenty-six years
of age, an hectic fever, and
other disorders of body, greatly reduced him,
and threatened his life: but
means for the restoration of his health were
blessed of God, as he had much
work for him to do in his church, and to
promote the general interests
of religion.
·
· 1724 — He was now twenty-six years of age, when he began his
Exposition of the Book
of Solomon’s Song; which was delivered on Lord’s
Day mornings, to the church
under his care, in one hundred and twenty-two
sermons, until the whole was
finished. This year he published a sermon
15
on the death of
Mr. John Smith, a deacon of his church, from Romans
5:20,21, which was
the first thing printed by him. And another Sermon the
following year,
entitled, The Urim and Thummim found with Christ, from
Deuteronomy 33:8.
·
·
1726 — A
pamphlet was published, called, The Manner of
baptizing with
water, cleared up from the Word of God and
right Reason, etc. written
dialogue-wise; the
author of which afterwards appears to have been Mr.
Matthias Maurice,
an Independent minister, at Rowel, in Northampton-shire.
The Baptists in those parts, and especially at Kettering, two
computed miles
from Rowel, thought themselves struck at by this piece;
and therefore Sent
it up to Mr. Gill, that he might answer it. He
accordingly soon
gratified them, by publishing a piece called, The ancient
mode of Baptism by Immersion, etc. to which Mr. Maurice replied, in a
pamphlet published
in 1727, and which was answered, the same year, by
Mr. Gill, in a
tract, called, A Defence of the ancient Mode, etc. One Cogan,
an apothecary, and
a member of Mr. Maurice’s church, wrote some
remarks on Mr.
Gill’s rejoinder, in a most violent and defamatory manner,
which carried its
own confutation with it. Cogan himself, it seems, was
afterwards
ashamed, and repented, of his having written it. Mr. Maurice
sent several of
his pamphlets into North America; and the Baptists there,
hearing of Mr.
Gill’s answer, wrote for some of them; and the remaining
part of the
impression was sent over, at the expense of the Baptist fund. On
account of this
controversy, Mr Gill received from Tilbury-fort, in Essex, a
very spirited
anonymous letter, animating him to continue in it, and not to
be intimidated by
his puny adversary; concluding with these lines: —
Stennett, at first his furious foe did meet,
Cleanly compell’d him to a swift retreat:
Next powerful Gale, by mighty blast made fall
The church’s Dagon, the gigantic Wall:
May you with like success be victor still,
And give your rude antagonist his fill,
To see that Gale is yet alive in Gill.
·
·
1727 — Mr. Gill
finished his Exposition of the Song of Solomon this year;
when the church,
as well as many others of his hearers, to whom he had
delivered it from
the pulpit, most earnestly pressed him to make it public.
To their
solicitations he at length yielded, though reluctantly. But his
principal
inducement to comply was a desire of contributing what he could
to vindicate the
authority and credit of this part of the sacred writings;
16
which has not only been ridiculed
by Deists, but called in question by some
pretended friends of divine
revelation.
The year before he entered
upon this exposition, a pamphlet was published
by Mr. Whiston, called, A
Supplement to Mr. Whiston’s late Essay towards
restoring the true Text of the Old Testament, 8vo. 1723, in which he
endeavors to discredit the
authority of the Book of Solomon’s Song, as
a
spurious book, and not fit to
stand in the canon of Scripture. His objections
against the authority of it
are answered by Mr. Gill, in his Introduction to
this Exposition, or rather in
his exposition of the first verse of the book,
which contains the title of
it. Whether Mr. Whiston ever saw, this work, is
not certain; it seems as if he
had not by a very strange passage in the
Memoirs of his own Life and Writings,
published by himself, part 2, p.
575, which shews his obstinate
and inveterate opposition to this part of
divine inspiration, to the
last: his words are these: —
“About August this year [1748]
I was informed of one Dr. Gill, a
particular or Calvinist
Baptist, of whose skill in the Oriental
languages I had heard a great
character: so I had a mind to hear
him preach: but being informed
that he had written a folio book on
the Canticles, I declined to
go and hear him.”
What a sublime reason is here!
The first edition of Mr.
Gill’s Exposition of the Song of Solomon was
published in folio, in 1728,
with a translation of the Chaldee Paraphrase, or
Targum of that book, and notes
on the same. In 1751 a new edition of it
appeared in quarto, more
correct, and with some additions. His pious,
learned, and ingenious friend,
the Reverend Mr. Hervey, in his Theron and
Aspasio, volume 3. p. 145,
edition 5, was pleased to give this high
encomium of the work: —
“It
has such a copious vein of sanctified invention running through
it,
and is interspersed with such a variety of delicate and brilliant
images,
as cannot but highly entertain a curious mind. It presents us
also
with such rich and charming displays of the glory of Christ’s
person,
the freeness of his grace to sinners, and the tenderness of
his
love to the church, as cannot but administer the most exquisite
delight
to the believing soul. Considered in both these views, I think
the
work resembles the paridisacal garden described by MILTON, in
which
17
“Blossoms and fruits at once of golden hue
“Appeared, with gay enamell’d colors mix’d.”
The publication of
this Exposition served very much to make Mr. Gill
known, and to
recommend him to the esteem of spiritual persons, who love
our Lord Jesus
Christ, in sincerity; and, it is thought that no one effort of
his pen has been more useful to devotional Christians than this volume. Dr.
Owen on the Person of Christ, referring
to the Canticles, says,
“Blessed is he who understands the sayings of that
book, and hath
the experience of them in his heart.”
The third edition
of this Exposition was published in 1767, with many
additions. And,
having lately met with an objection or two respecting the
antiquity and
authority of the book itself, he thought it necessary to
consider and
remove them. He also gave a summary of the contents of
each chapter,
which was wanting in the former editions. And though he
had, in many parts
of the work, attended to the literal sense of the
passages, yet not
so frequently as in his shorter notes on this book,
published in his
Exposition of the whole Bible. He therefore inserted, from
thence, many
things relating to the literal sense, adding numerous others,
which served
greatly to enrich this edition; to shew the propriety of the
allusions,
figures, and metaphors, used throughout the whole; and to
illustrate and
confirm the spiritual meaning of this sublime and mysterious
book. But he left
out at the end of this edition the Targum or Chaldee
paraphrase, with
his notes thereon, which were in the former copies, ‘they
being,’ as he himself expresses it, ‘of little use
and benefit, especially to
common readers.’
The fourth edition of
this work was printed in 1776.
In 1728, he also
published a treatise in octavo, concerning The
Prophecies
of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah, occasioned
by a book pub-lished
in 1724, called A Discourse of the Grounds of the Christian
Religion, etc. well known to be written by Anthony Collins, Esq., a
Deistical writer.
Many answers were given to one part or other of this
production, to
which the author of it replied, in another book, called, The
Scheme of Literal Prophecy, considered, etc.
published in 1727, which was
chiefly pointed at
Dr. Edward Chandler, Bishop of Durham, who had
written against
the former: it was to this latter book, chiefly, Mr. Gill made
answer. He was led
to it by the ill-directed zeal of a certain gentleman, who
asserted in
conversation, that no Calvinist could write in this controversy
to any advantage.
Some of Mr. Gill’s friends being present, thought of him;
18
and took an
opportunity of importuning him to turn his attention to the
subject. Upon
which he preached a course of sermons on the prophecies
relating to the
Messiah, in a regular order, suited to the history of the life
of Jesus; and then
made extracts out of them, which he published, entitled,
The Prophecies of the Old Testament,
respecting the Messiah, considered
and proved to be literally fulfilled in
Jesus. This answer to the above work
met the approbation
of some men of learning and judgment, and even of
the very person
above mentioned, whose assertion was the occasion of it.
And it
sufficiently reprobates the mistaken notion that the character of the
Messiah cannot be
established from the prophecies of the Old Testament,
without a mystical
and allegorical sense of them — maintaining that they
are to be
understood in their first, literal, and obvious sense concerning our
Redeemer.
The ministry of
Mr. Gill being acceptable not only to his own people, but
likewise to many
in other churches of different denominations, several
gentlemen proposed
among themselves to set up a week-day lecture, that
they might have
the opportunity of hearing him. Accordingly they met
together, and,
forming themselves into a society, agreed to have a lecture
on Wednesday
evenings in Great Eastcheap; and set on foot a subscription
to support it.
Upon their invitation, Mr. Gill undertook the lectureship, and
continued in it
with great constancy, applause and usefulness; with very
little
interruption for want of health. He opened it in the year 1729, with a
discourse or two
on Psalm 71:16.
I will go in the strength of the Lord God; I will make mention of
thy righteousness, even of thine only.
He selected those words, partly to shew that he undertook the service of
the lecture, not
in his own strength, but in the strength of Christ, expecting
the assistance of
his Spirit and grace: and partly to shew that his
resolutions were
to preach that great and glorious doctrine of a sinner’s
free justification
before God, by the righteousness of Christ imputed to
him, with all
others connected therewith — a doctrine which Luther rightly
denominated “the
article by which the church stands or falls”; and which has since been
called the
19
center-arch of that bridge by
which we pass out of time into a blissful
eternity. And, through divine
grace, he was enabled to abide by his
resolutions, to the
edification of many. This lecture was productive not
only of many of his single
Annual Sermons, on various subjects, but of
whole Treatises: as on the
Trinity, — Justification, — the first and second
part of the Cause of God and
Truth, — and of several of his Commentaries
on some of the books, both of
the Old and New Testament.
·
· 1730 — About this time the hearts of many were trembling for
the ark of
God. They apprehended that
error never raged with greater violence, and
that lukewarmness never
discovered itself more generally.
‘The
sufficiency of the light of nature was warmly contended for,
by
such as did not profess to reject revelation; and the doctrines of
religion
were given up, one after another, by some who yet
declared
that the Bible was their religion.’
It was therefore thought high
time for the friends of truth to bear their
testimony against the errors
of the day, not by a controversy with proper
deists, but by stating the
great doctrines of scripture, in opposition to
‘erroneous professors of
Christianity.’
With this view a number of
gentlemen, chiefly of the independent
denomination, thought fit to
set up a temporary lecture for one winter and
spring season; and chose nine
ministers to preach on some of the most
important doctrines of the
divine word, each having his subject allotted to
him. The ministers were,
Messrs. Robert Bragge, Thomas Bradbury, John
Hurrion, Thomas Hall, Peter
Goodwill, John Sladen, Abraham Taylor,
Samuel Wilson, and John Gill.
The first seven were In-dependents, the two
last Baptists. Having accepted
the invitation, the lecture was begun
November 12, 1730, at the
meeting-house in Lime-street, where the
Reverend Mr. Bragge then
statedly preached, and was continued weekly,
till April 8th, 1731. The
ministers preached two discourses each, on the
subject respectively assigned
them: and when they had finished the course
the gentlemen unanimously
desired the sermons might be printed; as they
accordingly were, in two
volumes, 8vo. in 1732. Mr. Gill’s subject was The
Resurrection of the Dead. His two sermons upon it have since been printed
separately. An unpleasing
incident happened on the printing the above
volumes. Messrs. Taylor, Gill,
and one or two more of the lecturers,
agreed to read their sermons
in private concert with each other, before they
were printed: with a view to a
mutual friendly assistance, in the correction
20
and improvement of
them as necessity might require. Now as Mr. Gill had
observed some
passages in Mr. Taylor’s sermons, when delivered from the
pulpit, which he
thought injurious to truth, and calculated to offend many
worthy persons; he
determined, when the sermons should be read at this
private and
friendly meeting, to point out in the kindest and most respectful
manner, such
passages as he wished to see softened or expunged,
proposing to give
his reasons; but when the sermons were read those
passages, to the
great pleasure and satisfaction of Mr. Gill, did not appear.
Hence he supposed
that Mr. Taylor had seen reason in his own mind to
strike them out.
But, when the volumes were published Mr. Gill was much
surprised to find
that these passages yet stood, and, as he, thought, with
additional
keenness and severity. This obliged him to send Mr. Taylor a
printed letter on the doctrine of God’s everlasting love to his elect, their
eternal union with Christ, and on other things;
some of which Mr. Taylor
had reproached
with great vehemence. This letter was generally considered
to have been
written with great respect, temper and candor without any
undue heat or
unbecoming reflections. Nevertheless, this, together with a
treatise on Justification, which Mr. Gill had published a little before,
containing the
substance of certain sermons, preached at his evening
lecture, and which
the supporters of it desired might be printed, induced
some persons to
raise an hideous outcry of Antinomianism against him.
The only thing in
it objected to was, what is said concerning the date of
justification: and
which yet was said in agreement with some of the best
and most learned
Divines, whose testimonies were produced by Mr. Gill in
favor of his sentiments.
Mr. Taylor had expressly called the doctrine of eternal union with Christ an
immoral conceit, and those
ministers who had heretofore preached it,
ignorant enthusiastic preachers; and, through them,
struck at others who
were his
contemporaries. Mr. Gill thought his opponent might well have
spared this severe
reflection, for the sake of many eminent characters, who
were as far from
any just charge of ignorance and enthusiasm, as they
were from being
the patrons of immoral conceits. He instances Dr.
Goodwin, who frequently speaks of an election union,
a representative one,
which the elect
have in Christ, before the foundation of the world;
representing union
to Christ as antecedent to the gift of the Spirit, and
before faith, or
any grace is implanted in the heart. He next produces the
great and immortal
Witsius, who says, ‘the elect are united to Christ
—
1. 1.
In the eternal decree of God —
21
2. By the union of the eternal compact, in which Christ was constituted, by
the Father, the
head of all those who are to be saved —
3. By a true and real union, but which on their part is only passive, they
are
united to Christ
when the Spirit of Christ first lays hold on them, and
infuses a
principle of new life —
moreover, since
faith is an act flowing from a principle of spiritual life, it is
plain that it may
be said, in a sound sense, that an elect man may BE
TRULY and REALLY united to Christ, BEFORE actual faith. ‘So far
Witsius, who allows not only an union to Christ in
God’s eternal purpose,
but a federal
union with him from eternity, as the head of the elect. Now
Mr. Gill thought,
for the sake of these men and others, that Mr. Taylor
might have spared
the charge of ignorance and enthusiasm; but if not for
their sake, yet surely for the sake of his own FATHER, Mr.
Richard Taylor,
who asserts an eternal representative union with Christ, and that in a
book of which the
Son himself was the editor. Mr. Abraham Taylor must
surely have felt
this, as a long quotation was given from the father’s
treatise itself,
at the end of which Mr. Gill adds —
‘You see that all wise and thoughtful men do not abhor eternal
union, as an immoral conceit. But if you say
that these men plead
for a real and actual union by faith, you cannot deny
that they also
assert an union before faith, yea, in some sense, an eternal union.’
It deserves to be
mentioned also, that in the printed letter addressed to Mr.
Taylor, Mr. Gill had employed about twelve octavo pages, in stating his
opinion concerning
the disputed subject, Whether good works are
necessary to
salvation. He affirmed, that good works, though they are of
vast importance in their proper place, have no concern, as CAUSES of
salvation; it
being declared in Scripture that God ‘hath saved and called his
people, with an
holy calling, not according to their works, but according to
his purpose and
grace, given them in Christ Jesus before the world began.’
— That they are
not the impulsive causes of salvation, election being of
grace, but if it be of works, then is it no
more of grace, otherwise work is
no more work. That they are not the efficient procuring, or meritorious
causes of
salvation, as they are imperfect in the best of men, and destitute
of the requisites
which constitute merit. — That they are not co-efficient
causes or co-causes of salvation with Christ, who will not admit of any
rivalship in this
matter, his own arm having brought salvation. — That
good works are not
conditions of salvation, without
22
which persons cannot be saved;
which he thought evident from the
instances of the thief upon
the cross, of infants dying in their infancy, and
of such persons whom God calls
upon their death-beds, who live not to
perform good works. And then,
not being necessary as CAUSES of
salvation, he proceeded to
show they were not necessary as MEANS. Not
as the means of
procuring salvation, for that is
procured by Christ alone,
without them; nor the means of
applying it in regeneration;
because,
properly speaking, before
regeneration no good works are done by the
sons of men. He then turns the
medal, and shows, at some length, as he
does in numerous parts of his
works besides, in what sense good works are
necessary. They are necessary,
on the account of God, who
has
commanded them. We are under
his law as creatures, and ought to do his
will; and as new creatures are
under greater obligations still. — On the
account of ourselves, as they evidence the truth of our faith to the world,
and discover to ourselves the
certainty of our election and vocation. — On
the account of our neighbors, whom we are to love as ourselves, and who
are helped and profited by the
good works of righteous men. — On the
account of the enemies of religion, silencing the ignorance of foolish men,
and shaming those who reproach
the Gospel of Christ as a licentious
doctrine. These are the
‘necessary uses,’ for which believers ‘are to
maintain good works,’ and not,
according to the Papists and Socinians, to
merit salvation by them. Now,
Mr. Gill having so explicitly stated his views
of the subject, it was
exceedingly unhappy that, six years after
this, Mr.
Taylor not only resumed the
controversy, which he certainly had a right to
do at any time, but employed
such opprobrious terms as are seldom used,
and never justifiable, between
respectable antagonists, — and such these
are acknowledged to have been.
Mr. Taylor having now been made Doctor
in Divinity, and placed at the
head of an academy, published An Address to
young Students in Divinity; in which he cautioned them against certain
positions as leading to
Antinomianism. This performance Mr. Gill
considered as having several
acrimonious flings at different good men, and
their writings, and
particularly at himself, and at a section of his concerning
good works, in the printed
letter mentioned before. Dr. Taylor, in his
Address, very unhandsomely, and with an illiberal temper, as it
appeared to
Mr. Gill, called the
particular tenet in question, ‘a filthy dream, an
extravagant position, a
dangerous tenet, big with absurdity, a rude ignorant
horrible blasphemy, invented
by one of the vilest and lewdest heretics; and,
to close all, an Antinomian
paradox.’ This induced Mr. Gill, in
addition to
all he had written before, to
publish a small treatise concerning The
23
Necessity of good Works to Salvation; in which, he yet more
fully, if
possible, stated, explained,
and defended his views of the subject. Towards
the close of this pamphlet,
being warmed with a quick sensibility of the
reviling language used by his
adversary, whom he considered as insolent,
and feeling confident in the
goodness of his cause, some lines were forced
from him in self-vindication,
which sufficiently discovered enough of the
same temporary disposition,
which he considered as so very censurable in
Dr. Taylor’s Address. The
truth seems to be, that, towards the termination
of the dispute, both the good
men, forgetting that disputants are to use soft
words and hard arguments,
employed intemperate language; which, it is
very probable, each afterwards lamented. Mr. Gill, it is certain, possessed
magnanimity enough to
acknowledge, in a following piece, that he had
‘said some things in the heat
of controversy, which, though they were
consistent with truth, were
not agreeable to his natural inclination.’
However, he firmly stood his
ground, resolved never to put off his armor
till he was to put on his
shroud. For, to use his own words, he ‘had chosen
to suffer reproach, the loss
of good name and reputation, to forego
popularity, wealth, and friends, yea, to be traduced as an Antinomian,
rather than to drop, or
conceal, any one branch of truth,
respecting Christ
and free grace.’ He was quite
in the spirit of this resolution, at the time to
which the following anecdote
relates, here stated as it was told by the
Reverend John Ryland, senior,
to the Reverend Mr. Toplady. ‘When Dr.
Gill first wrote against Dr.
Abraham Taylor, some of the friends of the
latter called on the former,
and dissuaded him from going on; urging,
among other things, that Gill
would lose the esteem, and, of course, the
subscriptions of some wealthy
persons, who were Taylor’s friends.
‘Don’t
tell me of losing, said Gill; I value nothing, in comparison of
Gospel
truths. I AM NOT AFRAID TO BE POOR.’
And there is no reason to
believe that he feared poverty, either at this time,
or to the end of his days — of
this his family had every pleasing proof —
nor was he ever called to
endure it.
In 1731, he published his Treatise
on the Doctrine of the Trinity, which
was the substance of several
discourses delivered on that subject at his
Wednesday evening lecture, and
published at the request of the society.
This was occasioned by the
progress of Sabellianism among some of the
Baptist churches at that time;
and it is considered a master-piece on the
subject. Nor did our champion
ever vary from his point. Hence, in the
24
decline of life,
he had the honor of leaving the following record concerning
the publication
here announced —
‘My treatise on the Trinity was written near forty years ago, and
when I was a young man. And had I now departed from some
words and phrases, I then used, it need not, after such a distance of
time, be wondered at. But so far from it, that upon a late revival of
the piece, I see no reason to retract any thing I have written, either
as to sense or expressions; save only, in a passage or two of
Scripture, which then did not stand so
clear in my mind, as proofs
of the eternal generation of the Son of God. But upon a more
mature consideration of them, I am inclined to think otherwise, and
have accordingly altered my sense of them; which alteration, as it is
no ways inconsistent with the doctrine as before held by me, so it
serves but the
more strongly to confirm it.’
A society of young
men, who kept up an exercise of prayer, on Lord’s-Day
mornings, at Mr.
Gill’s meeting-house at Horsly-down, desired him to
preach a sermon to
them, December 25, 1732, which he did, on the subject
of Prayer: and, in the year following, on the same day of the month, he
preached another,
to the same society, on singing of Psalms; both sermons
were from 1
Corinthians 14:15. These discourses were successively
printed at their
request, and both were afterwards reprinted together. That
upon singing, some
years after the first publication of it, fell into the hands
of Mr. Solomon
Lowe, a learned and celebrated Grammarian of Hammer-smith;
who wrote Mr. Gill
a letter upon it, dated September, 1747, in which he informs him,
‘he took pleasure, at his vacant hours, to read every thing that is
useful, in order to extract the quintessence of its flowers for the
Supplement to Chambers’ Cyclopaedia;’
to the carrying on
of which work, he was nominated, to the proprietors, as
the properest
person, by Mr. Chambers himself, a little before his death,
and had the offer
of it, which he declined because of his stated business.
However, having a
great regard to that work, Mr. Lowe was willing to
help it forward to
the best of his power: and, meeting with the above
discourse on
singing, he extracted from it for the article on Psalmody; and
was pleased to
give the following commendation of it:
25
‘I find there is no dealing with you, as with the generality of
writers. The aforementioned piece is all quintessence; so that,
instead of extracting, I have been obliged to copy the greatest part
of it, to do justice to the article of Psalmody, and know not where
to find any hints for the improvement of it.’
But, Mr. Lowe
dying quickly after, it does not appear that any extract from
Mr. Gill’s sermon
was introduced into the Supplement.
About the year
1733, or 1784, Dr. Whitby’s Discourse on the Five
Points was reprinting. It
was judged to be a master-piece on the subject
in the English
tongue; and extolled as unanswerable; and almost every
opponent of the
Calvinists asked, Why do you not answer Dr. Whitby?
Induced hereby, Mr. Gill determined to give it another reading, and finding
himself inclined
to answer it, he entered on the work; and in 1735, and the
three following
years, he published, in separate parts, The Cause
of God
and Truth, in four volumes, octavo.
Part the first is an Examination of the principal passages of Scripture made
use of by the
Arminians in favor of their scheme; particularly by Dr.
Whitby, in his Discourse on the Five Points: Here, the arguments founded
on the said
passages of Scripture, are answered; the objections taken from
them removed, and
the genuine sense of them given.
Part the second contains a Vindication of the principal passages of
Scripture, and the
argument founded upon them, in favor of the doctrines
of eternal election,
particular redemption, the efficacy of God’s grace, and
the impotence of
man’s will in conversion; and the final perseverance of the
saints; from the
exceptions of the Arminians; particularly Dr. Whitby.
Part the third is a Confutation of the arguments from reason, used by the
Arminians; and
particularly by Dr. Whitby, against the above
doctrines;
and a vindication
of such as proceed on rational accounts in favor of them.
From whence it
appears that they are no more inharmonious with right
reason than they are with divine revelation, which the
pretended
rationalists of
our day shamefully neglect; pushing forward, as if impatient
to relinquish the
sacred volume, in favor of Deism. But ‘to the law and to
the testimony, if
they speak not according to this word, it is because there
is no light in
them.’ This part also considers, Whether the Calvinistic
doctrines bear any
likeness to the sentiments of Mr. Hobbes, and the stoic
philosophers,
concerning liberty, necessity, and fate. To which is added, a
26
defense of the
objections to the universal scheme, which are taken from the
prescience and
providence of God, and the case of the Heathens.
Part the fourth contains the
Judgment of the ancient Christian church, or
the sense of the Christian writers of the first four centuries after Christ,
and before Austin,
concerning predestination, redemption, original sin, free
will, efficacious
grace, the perseverance of the saints, and the case of the
Heathens. Wherein
also are considered, the testimonies in favor of the
universal scheme,
produced by Gerardus Vossius, Monsieur Daille, and Dr.
Whitby. Our
indefatigable author instituted this inquiry into the opinion of
the early fathers,
not from any apprehension that the faith of Christians
should stand upon
the testimony of men; for, had these writers been
entirely on the
contrary side, truth would not have been a whir less truth;
but he performed
the laborious service ‘to show that the Arminians have
no great reason to
boast of antiquity on their side:’ and, after some time
had elapsed, he
flattered himself that ‘his point was gained.’
This last part of the work was nibbled at by one Heywood, a pert man who
translated Dr.
Whitby’s treatise on Original Sin, in the introduction to
which he brings
several impertinent charges against Mr. Gill respecting his
translation and
sense of some passages in the ancients. The first instance of
the three which he
produces of great ignorance in translating, is that Mr.
Gill renders antiqua serpentis plaga, the old plague of the serpent.
Heywood, in the
plenitude of his wisdom, rendered plaga serpentis, the
disease of the serpent. The other instances are of a similar description, and
could have been
expected only from a mere sciolist, and not from any man
of erudition. Mr.
Gill replied in a Postscript to his Answer to
the Second
Part of the
Birmingham Dialogue Writer, 1739, consisting of about eight
octavo pages.
Heywood, upon this, published a pamphlet, called, A
Defence of the Introduction, etc. full of cavils, calumnies, and defamations,
which was answered
by Mr. Gill, in a tract, entitled, A Vindication of the
Cause of God and Truth, Part the Fourth, relating to the sense of the
ancient Christian writers, from the cavils,
calumnies, and defamations of
Mr. Henry Heywood. In this piece more
pains seem to have been taken
than such an
opponent deserved.
This elaborate
work, The Cause of God, etc. issued from the press at a
time when the
nation was generally alarmed with the growth of Popery;
and several
learned men were employed in preaching against some of its
distinguishing
tenets: but the author of this work was of opinion, that the
27
increase of Popery was greatly
owing to the Pelagianism, Arminianism, and
other supposed rational
schemes, contrary to divine revelation, which were
now propagated. Of a similar
opinion were our fathers, in the last century,
who therefore joined these
errors and Popery together among their
religious grievances.
“And,
indeed, instead of lopping off the branches of Popery, the
axe
should be laid to the root of the tree Arminianism and
Pelagianism,
which are the very life and soul of Popery.”
At the close of the fourth
part of the work is given a very
interesting table
of the ancient
writers cited in the fourth
part, with the editions of their
works which are used in it.
This will be of considerable utility to those
readers who wish to examine
any particular quotations our author has
made from them, in the various
parts of his writings. And had the table
been extended, so as to
include the editions of all the principal
works to
which he has referred, it
could not but have been highly acceptable to the
first scholars, some of whom
consult his labors, chiefly under the
consideration of his being a learned Divine. This table, if not to be found in
every edition of The
Cause of God and Truth, is
given in the third, which
is a quarto one, page the
650th, printed in 1772, and, as we learn from the
title, corrected
and improved, by the Author — which, perhaps,
is
announced in the second
edition also. Here it is proper to note,
that the
corrections in
this work, which the invaluable author of
it made, after his
publication of the first edition, relate chiefly, it is supposed, to the dispute
concerning what has been
commonly called the Modern Question; in other
words, Whether it is the duty
of unconverted men, who are favored with
the sacred Scriptures, to
believe in our Lord Jesus Christ to the saving of
their souls?
Some of the best of men, about
the year 1707, and after 1730, took
different sides on this question;
as men, equal in learning and piety to each
other, have since done. The
controversy has been supposed very much to
turn on the definition which
should be given of believing, or, of believing
in Christ. Some of those
who have maintained the high side
of the
question, as it is termed,
seem to have thought, that special faith is no other
than a sinner’s personal
assurance that Christ died for him in particular, and
is unquestionably his, with
all the blessings of his mediation. This faith, say
they, is not the duty of any
unconverted person. True, reply the people on
the low side of the question, we maintain this as much as you,
and assert
28
that it is not the duty of any one, in a state of unregeneracy, so to believe;
but, they add, you
misapprehend our statement, and also what we conceive
to be the meaning of Scripture
when believing in Christ is mentioned. To
believe in Christ, is not for
the sinner to assure himself that Christ died for
him in particular, which every Arminian who maintains universal
redemption must certainly do,
though multitudes of such give demonstrable
evidence that they have not
the faith connected with salvation; but to
believe in him, is to give such a practical credit to the Scriptural
testimony
concerning Christ as is connected
with our personal application to him that
he may save us. Thus, to
believe in Christ, say they, is the duty of all who
hear the Gospel report
concerning him; and if any, under the influences of
the Holy Spirit, according to
the divine testimony, as sinners helpless and
entirely lost in themselves,
are enabled in this manner to apply to him, they
shall be saved. Here it is observable that neither of the parties, in
any
respect, denied the doctrine
of efficacious grace, as absolutely necessary to
regeneration and faith; nor
has either maintained, or implied, that a fallen
ruined creature is capable,
either more or less, of restoring the divine image
to himself; or of possessing
his own soul with evangelical faith. But both
have unequivocally asserted,
that every man who has descended from
Adam by ordinary generation,
is dead in trespasses and sins, — so
‘involved in a moral death, commonly called spiritual,’ that no POWER but
the almighty energy which
raised the Savior himself from the grave can
effectually quicken one soul;
nor any thing short of the exceeding abundant
GRACE which was displayed in
the conversion of Saul, accompanied with
FAITH and love in Christ Jesus, can ever make an individual sinner a
partaker of that divine
nature, by which he is enabled to believe to the
saving of the soul. But then
capable judges, who were temperate, and by
no means the partisans of
either side, have expressed it as their opinion, in
which, perhaps, they have been
correct, that had some of the gentlemen in
this controversy but carried
to the full length such of their own views which
their opponents admired, and
considered as fundamental to a fair statement
and decision on the subject; both sides agreeing in a cardinal point, and
pursuing it to its legitimate
consequences, might certainly have
approximated considerably
nearer to each other, if they had not entirely
settled and relinquished the
dispute. The one point to which those
refer
who have so temperately
observed both sides, is the essential difference
that subsists
between a natural and a moral inability of doing what is
spiritually and evangelically
good in the sight of God. This distinction our
Author understood as clearly
as ally of his contemporaries; and maintains
29
in his Cause of God and Truth, and elsewhere,
that the inability of man is
of the latter
description, viz. of a moral kind, and relates eminently to the
will — and
therefore is censurable, and sinful. And thus he wrote, in
different places,
on John 5:40.
Ye will not come to me that ye might have life. —
‘A spiritual coming to Christ, or a coming to him by faith, is here meant,’
— but ‘these men,’
the Jews, ‘had no inclination, desire, or will to come to
him, any more than
power, which is an argument against and not for the
free will of man,
unless it be to that which is evil.’ But, ‘though man lies
under such a disability [that
is, a moral one,] and has neither power nor will
of himself to come
to Christ for life; yet his not coming to Christ, when
revealed in the
external ministry of the Gospel, as God’s way of salvation,
is criminal and blameworthy; since the disability and perverseness of his
will are not owing
to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity
of his nature
through sin. And therefore, since this vitiosity of nature is
blameworthy, that
which follows upon it, and is the effect of it [viz. not
coming to Christ],
must be so too. ’ Here Friendship and Fidelity embrace
each other, while
we proceed to observe, that this quotation, if we mistake
not, contains the substance of what the
patrons of the low side of the
modern question
plead for, when they maintain that it is the duty of men to
believe with the
heart the divine testimony concerning our Lord, so as to
apply to him for
life and salvation. And summarily thus they write — If it
be criminal and blameworthy not to come to Christ in a spiritual manner by
faith (the ideas
given above), then it can be no other than right to come to
him, surely say
they it cannot be wrong: and if it be right in any poor sinner
to come to Christ,
it is his duty to do what is right, whether he is inclined
to it or not.
These are free observations. But, in contemplating the life and
writings of the
renowned GILL, second to no one in his day, affection
cannot be absent,
if we protract this section just to add, that, while it will
not be easy to
name any individual writer who was more universally
consistent with
himself than the excellent subject of this Memoir, yet it is
pretty evident,
from his latter writings, that he was more decidedly on the
high side of the question, we have mentioned,
than he had been before it
was agitated by
Mr. Lewis Wayman and others, probably between the
years 1730 and
1740. Though it is certain, from his own declaration, that
he had no hand in
the early part of this controversy, of which, nevertheless,
he had been
suspected.
30
In 1736 was published, by an
anonymous writer, a pamphlet, called, Some
Doctrines in the Supralapsarian Scheme examined, etc.
The author, it is
said, was one Job Burt, of
Warwick; a man very ill qualified for polemical
discussion. But as he pointed
chiefly at some of Mr. Gill’s writings,
respecting the doctrines of
God’s everlasting love, eternal union,
justification, etc. he thought
fit to answer it, the same year, in a tract, called
Truth Defended, etc.
The stupidity which Burr manifested in some parts of
his piece, the insolence in
others, and the ignorance which he displayed
through the whole, — the
consummate ignorance of the scheme he
undertook to expose, induced
Mr. Gill to administer to him a little of the
wholesome discipline which is
so proper in such cases; and which Solomon
probably intends, when he
recommends a rod for the fool’s back. So
entirely ignorant was this
writer of his subject that he represents those as
Supralapsarians, who refuse to
pray for the pardon of sin any
otherwise
than for the manifestation
of it to their consciences. ‘Strange that
this
should be reckoned a
Supralapsarian point, when pardon of sin supposes
sin, and sin supposes
the fall, — it is therefore a Sublapsarian,
and not a
Supralapsarian doctrine.’ But
he is quite certain
that the doctrine of eternal
justification is Supralapsarianism, proceeding upon this false notion, that
whatever is thought or said to
be done in eternity, must be of this
description. Whereas the
Sublapsarians themselves allow election to be
from eternity, before the
foundation of the world, and so before the fall of
Adam, though not without the
consideration of it. ‘For my own part,’ says
our judicious friend,
‘I
must confess I never considered justification from eternity any
other
than a Sublapsarian doctrine, proceeding upon the suretyship-engagements of Christ, and his future satisfaction and righteousness; upon which footing the Old Testament saints were openly
justified, and went to heaven long before the satisfaction was really made, or
the justifying righteousness brought
in. And, indeed, if the objects of justification are the
ungodly, as the Scripture
represents them, they must be considered as fallen creatures.’
This is indubitably fair
statement, with which Mr. Gill’s account must be
accredited.
But if it be asked, whether
this great Divine himself was a Supralapsarian or a Sublapsarian? the following
is the best answer we are prepared to
31
give. It is pretty observable
that when he is speaking of the
Supralapsarians, who
believe that God chose his people in the pure mass
of creatureship, without
considering them either as fallen or unfallen, he is
as clear in his definition of
their scheme, as he is respectful to its patrons.
Nor is it less observable, in the far greatest parts of his works, his
Exposition not excepted, that
he so unites God’s everlasting love to his
people with their being chosen
in Christ, before
the foundation of the
world, that they might in time
be holy, as to make it the grand center
of the
magnificent circle which has
in it all the parts of the salvation of
the
chosen, and all their desire.
Mr. Toplady, who was no incompetent judge,
fixing his eye upon this
last-mentioned fact, and recollecting the many
sermons he had heard Mr. Gill
preach, would commonly say, that in the
writings of Gill the scale
preponderated in favor of Sublapsarianism. But
Mr. Gill knew as well as any
man, that the Contra-Remonstrants, in
Holland, were not all of a mind
concerning the object of predestination, yet
did not think it worth their
while to divide, on that account, Being agreed
in the most material points
concerning it, ‘they agreed to differ, as they
should, and not charge one
another with unsoundness and heterodoxy, for
which there was no reason.’
Nay, ‘some of them were of opinion, that it
was not necessary to be
decided, whether God in choosing men,
considered them as fallen, or
as not yet fallen: provided it was but allowed
that God in choosing, considered
men in an equal state, so that he who is
chosen was not considered by
God, either of himself, or by his own merit,
or by any gracious estimation,
more worthy than
he who is not chosen.’
Calvin held that God chose his
people in the corrupt mass. Beza, who was
co-pastor with him, and his
successor in the church of Geneva, preferred
their being considered in the
pure mass; and yet they lived in great peace
and harmony. ‘Dr. Twiss the
great Supralapsarian,’ confesses that the difference
between the two parties was only, a point in logic. And as to our author,
there is a section which seems
as much as any other, to determine what
was his personal opinion
respecting the Supra and the Sublapsarian
schemes.
“The
difference between them,” says he, “lies in the ordering and
arranging
the decrees of God; and for MY OWN part, I THINK both
[schemes]
may be taken in. That in the decree of the end, the
ultimate
end [according to the Supralapsarians], the glory of God,
for
which he does all things, men might be considered in the divine
32
mind as creable, not yet created and fallen: and that in the decree of
the means [according to the Sub-lapsarian plan], which, among
other things, takes in the mediation of Christ, and the sanctification
of the Spirit; men might be considered as created, fallen, and sinful,
which these things imply. Nor does this suppose separate acts and
decrees in God, or any priority and posteriority in them, for in him
they are but one and together; but our finite minds are obliged to
consider them one after another, not being able to take them in
together and at once.”
A new
meeting-house being erected by the Baptists, at Birmingham, in
Warwickshire; and their interest a little reviving through the preaching of
several ministers
who went thither and assisted them; the jealousy, it
seems, of Mr.
Samuel Bourne, a Presbyterian minister of that town, was
excited. Hereupon
he wrote A Dialogue between a Baptist and a
Churchman, under the name of
a Consistent Christian, Part I. This piece
was intended to
set the Baptist ministers, who preached at Birmingham, in
a most ridiculous
light. He also fell foul on the doctrines of Christ’s
divinity,
election, original sin, irresistible grace in conversion, imputed
righteousness,
perseverance in grace, and adult baptism by immersion. The
Baptists in that
neighborhood thought it proper that this effusion should be
noticed; and,
application being made to Mr. Gill, he published a refutation
of it in 1737. The
author of the Dialogue then wrote a second Part, on the
same subjects;
taking but tittle notice of what Mr. Gill had writ-ten-not so
much as mentioning
his name. To this also he returned an answer in 1739,
but had no reply
to either of his pieces at that time, except some abusive
paragraphs in a
newspaper, the St. James’s Evening Post, of December 31,
1737. In the first
of these paragraphs, Mr. Bourne complains of a false
charge of plagiarism brought
against him, or of stealing what he had
written, on the
article of election, from Dr. Whitby. But of this Mr. Gill
made proof, in a Postscript to a Sermon of his, called The Doctrine of
Grace cleared from the Charge of
Licentiousness, preached December 28,
1737, by placing
Dr. Whitby’s words and this author’s in parallel columns,
which occupy six
or seven pages in the octavo edition. It is no pleasure to
add, that these
pages are entirely omitted in the posthumous edition of A
Collection of the Sermons and Tracts of our author, in three volumes,
quarto, without any single reason assigned for the
omission, or any
mention of it,
either at the end of the Sermon where they originally
appeared, or at
the close of the second part of The Answer to the Dialogue
33
Writer, which might have been thought a proper situation for
them, in the
new edition. But the omission
is certainly to the injury of Mr. Gill, who, in
these pages, justified the
accusations he brought against his opponent, of
having pirated Dr. Whitby’s
sections, which Mr. Bourne at first denied.
But his defense was his
conviction. It ought also to be mentioned, that this
is not the only omission of consequence, which is chargeable on the said
posthumous volumes; acceptable
as they were to the public in general: —
One instance is noticed
before.
·
· 1738 — He published Remarks on Mr. Samuel (afterwards Dr.)
Chandler’s Sermon preached to the Societies for the
Reformation of
Manners, relating to the moral Nature and Fitness of
Things. The author
of this Sermon, not content
with asserting that the difference between
moral good and evil is certain
and immutable, which is readily granted,
further asserts, that
“this
arises from the nature of things; is strictly and properly
eternal;
is prior to the will of God, and independent of it; is the
invariable
and eternal rule of the divine conduct, by which God
regulates
and determines his own will and conduct to his creatures:
the
great reason and measure of all his actions towards them, and is
the
supreme, original, universal, and most perfect rule of action to
all
reasonable beings whatsoever.”
Mr. Gill said,
“if
all this is true, one would be tempted to think that this same
nature and fitness of things is Deity, and rather deserves the name
of
God than he whom we so call — but before we fall down and
prostrate
ourselves before this new Deity, it will be proper first to
examine
the several magnificent things which are predicated of it.”
As
he proceeds in the discussion, he remarks, “either this nature
and
fitness of things is something in God, or something without
him;
if it is something in him, it must be a perfection of his nature, it
must
be himself, and therefore ought not to be considered as
abstracted
from him; if it is something without him, apart from him,
which
exists ‘independent of his will,’ that is necessarily; then there
must
be two necessarily existing beings,
that is, two GODS.
All
moral good takes its rise from him, and the moral perfections of
his
nature;
which, and not the nature of things, are the rule of his will,
determinations,
and actions. As for things morally evil, which lie in
34
a
defect of moral good, are a privation of it, and opposition to it,
though
they are not of God, nor does he put their evil nature into
them,
for he cannot be the author of any thing that is sinful; yet
these
things become so by being contrary to his nature and will.
The
difference between moral good and evil lies in, and the
fitness
and un-fitnesses of these things are no other than, the
agreement
and disagreement of them with the will of God.”
And Mr. Chandler himself in
one place says,
“that
the will of God is not any thing distinct from the everlasting
finesses
of things, but included in them, and a necessary and
essential
branch of them.”
On this it was natural for his
examinator to reply —
“If
the will of God is not distinct from them, but is included in
them,
and is a necessary and essential branch of them, then the
nature
and fitness of things is not without the will of God, is not
prior to it, and independent of it.”
And he afterwards adds,
“if the original and unalterable fitnesses of things be ‘the
most
perfect rule of action to all reasonable beings whatsoever,’ we may
be
led to question whether there be any law binding upon us, — as
arising
from the will of God. Indeed, we are told, that “the will of
God is a real and immutable obligation upon us, to which we
should
always pay the highest deference!” What! says Mr. Gill, the
highest deference? No, that must be paid to the most perfect rule,
that
rule ‘which regulates and determines the will of God.’ — On
this
gentleman’s principles, “Sin was
wrongly defined by our
forefathers,”
who say ‘sin is any want of conformity unto and
transgression
of the law of God;’ and by John, who says, that sin is
the transgression of the law; they should have said sin is any want
of
conformity to or transgression of the nature and fitness of things,
which
is the unerring rule of God himself,
and the most perfect
one
to
all reasonable creatures.”
Towards the close of this
argumentative piece, he says,
35
“For my part I have been traduced as an Antinomian, for
innocently
asserting that the essence of justification [as of eternal
election]
lies in the will of God — I abhor the thoughts of setting
the
law of God aside as the rule of walk and conversation; and
constantly
affirm [according to Scripture] that all who believe in
Christ
for righteousness should be careful to maintain good works,
for
necessary uses. But here is a gentleman who talks of something
prior
to, and independent of the will of God, and antecedent to any
law of his, as the supreme and most perfect rule of action; whereby
all
authority on God’s part, and all obedience on ours, are at once
entirely
destroyed. One should think, for the future, that not John
Gill, but Samuel Chandler, must be reckoned the Antinomian.”
He subjoins, and with these
very remarkable sentences, concludes the
pamphlet;
“I
would be far from suggesting any charge of libertinism against
Mr.
Chandler — but I cannot forbear saying, that for him to
represent
stage-plays, cards, and other fashionable games and
diversions,
by which the nation is so much debauched, as not
strictly criminal in
themselves, is acting out of
character as a moral
preacher;
unsuitable to a reformation sermon; unserviceable to the
design
of the societies to
whom he preached; and if these can be
thought
to be agreeable to the nature and fitness of things, from all
such
fitnesses the Lord deliver us.”
When Mr. Gill, in 1719,
settled in London, he became more intimately
acquainted than before, with
that worthy minister of the Gospel, Mr. John
Skepp, pastor of the Baptist
church at Cripplegate, London, and author of
The Divine Energy: the second edition of which book his friend Gill
revised, and divided the work
into chapters, with contents, for the more
easy reading and better
understanding it; prefixing a recommendatory
preface to it, the memory of
that excellent man being dear to him. This
gentleman, though he had not a
liberal education, yet, after he came into
the ministry, through great diligence
and industry, acquired a large
acquaintance with the
languages in which the Scriptures were originally
written; and especially with
the Hebrew language; in which he took
immense pains, under the
tuition of a Jew, and dipped into the Rabbinical
Hebrew and writings pretty
deeply. As Mr. Gill had previously taken great
delight in the Hebrew, his
conversation with this worthy minister rekindled
36
a flame of fervent desire to
obtain a more extensive knowledge of it; and
especially of Rabbinical learning,
which he then had but little acquaintance
with, and scarcely any notion
of its utility. But he now began to perceive its
importance, and saw it more
fully afterwards. This gentleman dying a year
or two after, Mr. Gill
purchased most of his Hebrew and Rabbinical books;
and now went to work with
great eagerness, reading them, and. many
others, which he afterwards
obtained of a Jewish Rabbi with whom he
became acquainted. He plainly
saw, that as the New Testament was written
by men who had all of them been
Jews, and who, notwithstanding their
being inspired, must needs
retain and use many of the idioms of their
language, and allude to rites,
ceremonies, and customs peculiar to that
people; so the writings of the
Jews, especially the more ancient ones, who
lived nearest the times of the
apostles, could not but be of use for the
better understanding the
phraseology of the New Testament, and the rites
and customs to which it
frequently alludes. With this settled opinion, he set
about reading their Targums,
the Misnah, the Talmuds, the Rabbot, their
ancient Commentaries, the book
of Zohar and whatever else, of this kind,
he could obtain. And in a
course of between twenty and thirty years’
acquaintance with this class
of writings, he collected together a large
number of learned
observations. Having also, in this time, gone through
certain books of the Old
Testament, and almost the whole of the New
Testament, by way of Exposition, in the course of his ministry, in a method
which will be explained
hereafter, he put all the expository, critical, and
illustrative parts together,
and in the year 1745 issued proposals for
publishing his Exposition
of the whole New Testament, in three volumes,
folio. The work meeting due
encouragement, it was put to press the same
year, and was finished, the
first volume in 1746, the second in 1747, and
the third in 1748.
Towards the close of the
publication of this work in 1748, Mr. Gill
received a diploma from the
Marischal College and University at Aberdeen,
creating him Doctor in Divinity,
on account of his knowledge of the
Scriptures, of the Oriental
languages, and of Jewish antiquities, as
expressed in the diploma. On
this he received two letters, one from
Professor Osborn, Principal of
the University, declaring to him, that ‘on
account of the honest and
learned defense of the true sense of the Holy
Scriptures against the profane
attacks of Deists and Infidels, and the
reputation his other works had
procured him in the learned world, as soon
as it was moved in the
University to confer the degree of Doctor in
37
Divinity on him, it was
readily agreed unto;’ and that he, as Primarius
Professor, made a present to
him of what was due to himself on such a
promotion, — a promotion,
which, the Professor observed, had been
conferred entirely without
the knowledge of Mr. Gill. Hence, when his
deacons, in London,
congratulated him on the respect which had been
shown him, he thanked them,
pleasantly adding, I neither thought it, nor
bought it, nor sought it. The other letter was from Professor Pollock,
Professor of Divinity in the
same University, and afterwards Principal of it:
in which he handsomely
congratulated Mr. Gill, and signified that their
Marischal College had, with
great cheerfulness, created him Doctor in
Divinity, on account of that
spirit of learning which appeared in his excellent
Commentary on the New
Testament.
38
In 1749, the Doctor wrote a
treatise, called, The Divine Rite of Infant
Baptism examined and disproved. This was occasioned by a pamphlet,
printed at Boston, in New
England, 1746, written by Mr. Jonathan
Dickinson, of Elizabeth-Town,
in New Jersey, afterwards president of the
College there, entitled, A
brief Illustration and Confirmation of the divine
Rite of Infant Baptism; written, as it was supposed, on account of the
increase of the Baptist
denomination in New England, and the parts
adjacant. This pamphlet being
boasted of, and multitudes of them spread
about, and printed in several
places, the Baptists sent it over to Dr. Gill,
requesting him to write an
answer to it: which he did, in the treatise before
mentioned. To this Peter
Clark, M. A., pastor of a church in Salem,
replied, in a book, called, A
Defense of the divine Rite of Infant Baptism;
consisting of 450 pages, or
more, stuffed with things irrelevant to the
controversy, printed at
Boston, 1752. To this also Dr. Gill returned an
answer, in a letter to a
friend at Boston, which was printed there in 1754,
with a fourth edition of a
Sermon of the Doctor’s, preached at Barbican,
upon Baptism, November 2,
1750.
A pamphlet, boasted of as
unanswerable, appearing under the title of The
Baptism of Infants a reasonable Service, founded upon
Scripture, and
undoubted Appostolic Tradition, he published an answer to it, in 1751,
entitled, The
Argument from Apostolic Tradition in favor of Infant
Baptism, with others advanced, etc.
with which was printed, An Answer to
a Welsh Clergyman’s Twenty Arguments for Infant Baptism; and to the
whole were added, The
Dissenters’ reasons for separating from the
Church of England; written chiefly for the use of the Baptist churches in
39
Wales; and translated into the
Welsh language, as they had been
occasioned by the reflections
the said clergyman had cast upon those of the
principality. On account of
the first tract, The Argument from Apostolic
Tradition, etc. the Doctor received two letters from a Franciscan Friar
at
Seville, in Spain, who signed
himself James Henry, dated in 1754, and in
1755. In the first he
requested to have sent him, by a master of a vessel
whom he named, The
Dissertation the Tradition of the Church concerning
Infant Baptism; induced as it should seem, by the title of the tract,
and
declaring himself a lover of
all the learned men, of whatsoever profession.
The pamphlet was accordingly
sent to him. In his second letter, he owns
the receipt of it: says he had
read it with great pleasure; and purposed to
draw up a few observations
upon it, in a candid and friendly manner;
believing that Dr. Gill would
yield to inspired apostolic
tradition, if clearly
made out or proved to him. He
concludes with wishing for peaceable
times, that he might have the
pleasure of his correspondence. But the
earthquake at Seville, at the
same time with that at Lisbon, obliged him, as
the Doctor understood by a
master of a vessel, to go up further into the
country; and he heard no more
of him.
In 1752, he published his
pamphlet on The Doctrine of the Saints’ final
Perseverance, in answer to one called Serious
Thoughts upon the
Perseverance of the Saints; written, as it afterwards appeared, by Mr. John
Wesley: who, in another
pamphlet, first shifted the controversy, from
Perseverance, to Predestination; entitling his piece, Predestination
calmly
considered, and
then chiefly ‘harangued on reprobation, which he thought
would best serve his purpose.’
To this the Doctor returned an answer the
same year, and to the
exceptions Mr. Wesley had made to part of his
treatise on Perseverance,
respecting certain passages of Scripture
employed in the controversy.
It is very observable in it how ‘he wanders to
free will and irresistible
grace, being sometimes for free will, sometimes for
free grace; sometimes for
resistible and sometimes for irresistible grace.’
Yet ‘owning,’ Dr. Gill says,
‘that he had no understanding of the covenant
of grace.’ But the Doctor
having stated and defended the doctrine of
predestination largely from
Scripture, next refers Mr. Wesley to the articles
of his own church,
particularly the seventh, part of which, when abridged,
runs thus: — ‘Predestination
to life is the everlasting purpose of God,
whereby, before the
foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly
decreed by his counsel, secret
to us, to deliver from curse and
condemnation those whom he
hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to
40
bring them by Christ to
everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor.’
And having made this
reference, he solemnly adds,
‘This
is an article agreeable to the Scripture, an article of his own
church,
an article which he, as a true son of the church, has
treacherously
departed from, and an article which Mr. Wesley must
have
subscribed and sworn to; an article which will therefore stare
him
in the face, as long as subscriptions and oaths stand for any
thing.’
But Mr. Wesley, through the
whole, did not so much as attempt “to refute
any one argument” advanced by the Doctor in vindication of the
certain
perseverance of the saints in
holiness to eternal felicity.
To one of these pieces the
subsequent paragraph by Mr. Toplady refers:
”Between
morning and afternoon service, read through Dr. Gill’s
excellent
and nervous tract on Predestination, against Wesley. How
sweet
is that blessed and glorious doctrine to the soul, when it is
received
through the channel of inward experience! I remember, a
few
years ago, Mr. Wesley said to me, concerning Dr. Gill, ‘he is a
positive
man, and fights for his own opinions through thick and
thin.’
Let the Doctor fight as he will, I’m sure he fights to good
purpose:
and, I believe it may be said of my learned friend, as it was
of
the Duke of Marlborough, that he never fought a battle which he
did
not win.”
This year the Doctor had a
very memorable escape from being killed in his
study. On March the 15th, in
the morning, there was a violent hurricane,
which much damaged many
houses, both in London and Westminster.
Soon after he had left his
study, to go to preach, a stack of chimneys
forced through the roof into
his study, breaking his writing table to pieces,
and must have killed him had
the fall but happened a little sooner. Seriously
noticing this remarkable
preservation to a friend, who had some time
before mentioned a saying of
Dr. Halley, the great astronomer, “That close
study prolonged a man’s life,
by keeping him out of harm’s way;” he said,
“What
becomes of Dr. Halley’s words now, since a man may come
to
danger and harm in his closet, as well as on the highway, if not
protected
by the special care of God’s providence?
The same sentiment is conveyed
in one of Mr. Newton’s letters —
41
“The Divine Providence, which is sufficient to deliver us, in our
greatest extremity, is equally necessary to our preservation, in the
most peaceful situations.”
·
·
1753 — A
pamphlet being published, entitled, Paedobaptism; or, a
Defence of Infant Baptism in point of
Antiquity, etc. by an anonymous
writer; the Doctor
replied to it, in a tract, called, Antipaedobaptism ;
or,
Infant-sprinkling an Innovation: To which the same author made a
rejoinder; but as
he advanced nothing new, nor cleared the antiquity of
Paedobaptism, which was the point in question, the Doctor thought proper
to take no notice
of it.
·
·
1755 —He republished Dr.
CRISP’S Works, in two volumes, octavo, with
explanatory notes, on such passages
in them as had been considered
exceptionable. To
which he prefixed brief Memoirs of the Doctor’s
life. If
ever Dr. Gill took
unnecessary pains, some very respectable persons have
intimated, he did
so in these explanatory notes, many of which are intended
to justify him
from the charge of Antinomianism; for, say they, no man
under heaven could
more fully have expressed himself than Dr. Crisp has
done, in some of
the very sermons to which the notes are subjoined,
concerning the
moral law as a rule of conduct both for sinners and saints.
And if this were
his creed, they add, how can he be chargeable with
Antinomianism,
from which, in this publication, Dr. Gill defends him? It is
pretty well known,
and deserves to be repeated, that Dr. Crisp wanted not,
in his day, the
testimonies of men of the greatest figure in learning and
religion, to his
character and usefulness; particularly the famous Dr.
Twisse, Prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines, who
thus expressed him-serf
concerning him —
that
“he had read Dr. Crisp’s Sermons, and could give no reason why
they were opposed, but because so many were converted by his
preaching; and, said he, so few by ours.” “That excellent Dutch
professor of divinity, Hoornbeck, calls him a
learned Divine, and
observes, that he, with others of the same principles, had no ill
design; but [were desirous] that the glory of Christ might more
appear, casting down all the works, dispositions, and conditions of
men, and confidence in every thing, besides him.” But that he went into
real Antinomianism, either doctrinal or practical, must be peremptorily denied,
in the most unqualified terms. Neale, in his History of the Puritans, says,
that “he was certainly a learned and
42
RELIGIOUS person,
modest and humble in his behavior, fervent and
laborious
in his ministerial work, and EXACT IN HIS MORALS.”
This testimony is sufficient
and honorable respecting his Conduct; and,
as
for his Doctrine, his Sermons speak for themselves. This is the language
of
one of them. Writing of
Christ’s mystical members, he says,
“The
law continues till the whole body of Christ be made complete,
by
an actual subsistence of every member in him. Now this seed
will
not be wholly complete till the consummation of all things.”
But if it be objected that the
apostle saith, Ye are not under the law, but
under grace, he adds,
“I
answer, that in respect of the rules of righteousness, or the
matter
of obedience, we are under the law still, or else we are
lawless,
to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which I
know
no true Christian dares so much as think.”
On another Scripture he thus
writes:
“Men commonly dream of a strange kind of Gospel which never
came
into God’s mind; that, seeing Christ hath died, they may live
as
they list, letting themselves loose to all impiety, and yet go to
heaven.
Certainly, had God opened such a gap to let in such an
inundation
of impiety, he could never have justly complained of the
deluge
of it, that overflows the world. Far he it from the Holy God,
whose
purity abhors it, to allow such licentiousness to men. It is
true,
indeed, that Christ justifies the ungodly, that is, he finds them
ungodly
when he imputes his righteousness to them; but he doth
not leave them ungodly after he hath justified them, but
teacheth
them to deny ungodliness. He that denies not ungodliness, him will
Christ
deny before his Father which is in heaven.”
Also in his Sermon, on The
Revelation of Grace no Encouragement to Sin;
referring to such who are taxed with saying, that their sins are laid upon
Christ, that they are
believers, and therefore may live in sin, he replies —
“If there be any such, let me
deal plainly with them. For my part, I
must account them the greatest
monsters upon the face of the earth,
the greatest enemies to the
church that ever were; and I say of such
disturbers of the consciences
of God’s people, that they are carnal,
43
sensual, devilish. They are the greatest enemies to the free grace of
God,
the greatest hinderers of the course of it, — and I dare be
bold
to say, open drunkards, harlots, and murderers, that profess
not
the Gospel of Christ, come infinitely short of these in
abomination — and if there be any such here, let me tell them, their
faith
is no better than that of devils, for they believe and tremble;
and
that Christ will have heavier reckoning
with such, when they
come
to judgment, than with any other under heaven besides.”
Where, in all the regions of
practical theology, can be found more explicit,
more solemn, and more practical
ideas than these? But he took the
evangelical road
in order to enforce duty, and
his reigning principal in
preaching seems to he this,
which we give in his own words, THAT THE
REVEALING THE GRACE OF GOD IS THE BEST WAY IN THE WORLD TO
TAKE MEN OFF FROM SIN. To those remarks it
may be necessary only to
subjoin; that it will not be
easy to find in the whole English language,
among the best evangelical and practical writers, any sermons, which, for
solidity of matter, precision
of ideas, and “the circumnavigation of the
subject,” equal, not to say
excel, the substance of his four Discourses,
in
one hundred pages, entitled, Free
Grace the Teacher of good Works.
These should be read before Dr. Crisp is called an Antinomian. But if they
are read and understood, and
this opprobrious term is yet applied to their
author, the charge of
Antinomianism may then be fairly brought; — but, in
the day when God shall judge
the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, it will
righteously apply, not to Dr.
Crisp, but to the man who has audacity
enough to sin against
the law of God and man, by bearing FALSE witness
against his neighbor.
If this had not been Dr.
Gill’s full conviction respecting Dr. Crisp, he never
would have written explanatory
notes on some paragraphs of his Sermons,
and commendatory notes on
others, with exceptions against what appeared
objectionable, of which there
are not many instances. But Dr. Gill would
have as soon allowed him to be
an Atheist as an Antinomian, that is, a
person who is against
the law of God, considered, in
its proper sense, as a
rule of conduct for sinners
and saints. Yet after all, many ingenuous
persons, who are acquainted
with his whole works, and whose sentiments
correspond with his, allow,
that he not only expresses himself freely, as he
ought to do, but that he
sometimes does it “with the least guard” of any of
his contemporaries. But they
maintain, that most, if not all the expressions,
in his writings, which have
been considered exceptionable, are capable of
44
being explained in
a favorable manner; and when seen in their connection,
and compared with
other pages of his works, must be so interpreted. But
these very persons
also agree with Dr. Gill, who says, in his letter to Dr.
Taylor in 1732,
“Dr. Crisp, I verily believe, used these expressions in a sound sense,
and with a good design; not to encourage persons in sin, but to
relieve and comfort the minds of believers, distressed with sin. Yet
I must confess I do not like the expressions, but am of opinion they
ought to be DISUSED.”
In 1755, when he
had read and thought twenty-three years more, he had
not altered his
mind, but says, in his notes on Dr. Crisp, immediately on his
having made a quotation
from Dr. Goodwin, in justification of Dr. Crisp’s
sentiments —
“After all, I am of the same mind I was some years ago, that such
expressions should be DISUSED; and heartily join in the same wish
with the excellent WITSIUS, that nothing of this kind might drop
from the mouth of a reformed Divine; for though sin cannot do any
penal hurt to a believer, [cannot bring eternal damnation on him,]
yet it may damp his spiritual joy, break his peace, interrupt
communion between God and him, dishonor Christ, grieve the
Spirit, and cause him to depart for a season.”
Most good men, we
conjecture, will be of the same mind.
Respecting the
subject of, what is called, the Free Address to unconverted
Sinners, certainly
the two Doctors took different sides. Dr. Crisp was in
the practice of
it, Dr. Gill against it — nor did they perfectly agree in every
other point; but
as there was a vast coincidence of opinion, in many
respects, between
them; as the latter published notes on the Sermons of the
former; and as
their writings and sentiments have generally been considered
of the same
tendency, sometimes by persons who have read, and by others
who never read a
page of the works of either of them; more has been
introduced, under
this article, than might otherwise have appeared
requisite.
·
·
1756 — On March
the 24th, the Doctor preached his farewell sermon, at
the Wednesday
evening lecture, in Great Eastcheap, from Acts 26:22,23. Having therefore obtained help of God, continue to this day,
45
etc. His reason
for quitting this service, in which he had been engaged
more than
twenty-six years, is given by himself.
“I take my leave of this lecture,” said he, “not through any dislike
of the work I have been so long engaged in; nor through any
disgust at any thing I have met with; nor through any
discouragement for want of attendance or subscription; I have
nothing to complain of; the lecture was never in better
circumstances than it now is. But I find my natural strength will not
admit me to preach so frequently, and with so much constancy, as I
have done, for many years past; being now on the decline of life, in
the fortieth pear
of my ministry; so that it is time for me to have
done with extra service, I mean, service out of the church of which
I am pastor. But a more principal reason is, that I may have a little
more time and leisure to attend to, and finish, an arduous work
upon my hands, An EXPOSITION of the whole OLD TESTAMENT,
part of which work I shall immediately propose for publication;
and, if I meet with encouragement, the publishing of this will be an
additional weight upon me; and I have no other way of easing
myself, but by dropping the lecture; and these, and these only, are
my reasons for so doing.”
·
·
1757 — This
year the church under his care erected a new meeting-house
for him in
Carter-lane, Saint Olave’s-street, near London-Bridge,
Southwark; which he opened, October 9, preaching two sermons on
Exodus 20:24.
These he afterwards printed, entitling them, Attendance
in Places of
religious Worship, where the divine Name is recorded,
encouraged. In one of these
discourses is this paragraph —
“As we have now opened a new place of worship, we enter upon it,
recording the name
of the Lord, by preaching the doctrines of the
grace of God, and of free and full salvation alone, by Jesus Christ;
and by the administration of Gospel ordinances, as they have been
delivered to us. To do this, from time to time, is our present design,
and what, by divine assistance, we shall endeavor to pursue, in the
course of our worship and ministrations here. What doctrines may
be taught in this place, after I am gone, is not for me to know; but,
as for my own part, I am at a point; I am determined, and have been
long ago, what to make the subject of my ministry. It is now
upwards of forty years since I entered
into the arduous work; and
46
the
first sermon I ever preached was from those words of the
apostle,
For I am determined not to know any thing among you,
save Jesus Christ, and him
crucified; and, through the grace
of
God,
I have been enabled, in some good measure, to abide by the
same
resolution hitherto, as many of you here are my witnesses;
and
I hope, through divine assistance, I ever shall, as long as I am
in
this tabernacle, and engaged in such a work. I am
not afraid of
the reproaches of men; I have been INURED
TO THESE, FROM MY
YOUTH upwards; none
of these things move me.”
·
· 1757,1758 — Ever laborious and fruitful, under these dates, he
published
his EXPOSITION OF THE PROPHETS, both
the larger, and the smaller, in two
volumes, folio, with an
Introduction to them on PROPHECY;
and with a
Dissertation at the close of them, on the APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS.
How
well he was prepared to
discuss the prophetic Scriptures
is generally
known. His piece on the
Fulfillment of the Prophecies respecting the
Messiah, was an early
specimen, but of fair promise, as to what might be
expected from his pen, when
sacred prediction should be his theme. His
single Sermons, on this
subject, have been, of late years, some of the most
popular of his works; and
their deserved value has caused them to pass
through several editions.
These Sermons, with the two folio volumes on
the Prophets, and his Exposition of the Revelation, have gained him
unfading honors, and induced
such who have made those parts of the
divine writings their study,
to say, that if the works of Dr. Gill pre-eminently
embrace almost every branch of
sacred theology, prophecy is his
forte. Indeed some of the interpretations of this part of
Scripture which are
properly his own, he lived to
prove were not merely hypothetical. But had
he survived and seen what has
passed in our days, unless God had
communicated to him new
measures of humility, in addition to all he
possessed before, and beyond
what good men in common are favored with,
he must have thought himself a
peculiar favorite of heaven. But it is
cheerfully recollected, that,
when he waded most into the depths of this
subject, and poured a flood of
brilliancy upon the eras of his discussion; he
fixes not his dates with
positivity, nor appears with any lofty air, but
expresses himself with these
becoming acknowledgments:
“In
all that I have said concerning what will hereafter take place in
the
church, I do not pretend to any extraordinary impulse from
God,
or to any prophetic spirit; but
I ground all upon his word.
And
if what I have said does not appear from thence, and upon the
47
face
of things in Providence, I have no pretensions to any thing else
to
support my opinion with; and as such only I deliver it.”
·
· 1761 — Proposals were now issued for printing the remainder
of his
Exposition of the Old Testament, beginning at Genesis and ending with
Solomon’s Song. It was then
his intention to give the whole in three
volumes, but the work extended
to four, and was printed in numbers, as
the other parts of the
Exposition had been. The first volume was published
in the beginning of the year
1763; the second in 1764; the third in 1765;
and the fourth and last in the
beginning of the year 1766. These four
volumes, with the two on the
Prophets, and the three on the New
Testament, being the five
printed before, completed his Exposition of the
whole Scriptures of the Old
and the New Testament. Who can survey this
wonderful production, and not
exclaim, “Here’s work, here’s labor!” Yet,
Herculean as it is, it was
achieved by one man. But, unless the
writer of
this paragraph is mistaken,
Dr. Gill is the only man, who hath published
both the Old and New Testament
in the English language, so nearly
including an exposition of every
verse. Good Mr. Burkitt’s
Expository
Notes; Dr. Doddridge’s
Paraphrase, with his practical improvement of each
section: and Dr. Guyse’s
Exposition; present their different claims to our
regard; but all these, not to
mention others, commence and terminate with
the New Testament alone, which
is not quite one fourth part of
the sacred
Scriptures. Mr. Henry lived to
see his Exposition of the Old Testament
published, and had committed
the New Testament to the press, “as far as
the Acts
of the Apostles go,” intending to
proceed with the following part,
which, said he, “of all others, requires the most care and pains in
expounding.” But “he finished his course well himself, before he could
finish” this important design.
Nor did he live to see his first volume
on the
New Testament printed. This,
thousands must have deplored. But had he
lived to execute his
invaluable work to the end, with all its innumerable
charms, it would have been an
Exposition of the Sections, rather
than of
every sentence and verse of holy writ. In this way, to convey the general
sense and design o£ Scripture,
has been the object of other excellent
Commentators, among whom with
innocent ambition we mention Mr.
Scott; whose labors admit of
no ordinary commendation, but are, in their
holy tendency,
beyond all praise. And this method certainly has its
advantages, when such comments
are used in families; but then, if at any
time the interpretation of a
particular verse is wanted, considerable
attention may be necessary to
search it out in the paragraph. Or else a
48
greater infelicity
is felt; for not unfrequently it happens, that but little
explanation is
given of the verse in question, or none at all. This is,
sometimes, of
great notoriety respecting the difficult and disputable
passages of
Scripture, which, surely, not less than others, seem to demand
investigation.
When the Doctor comes to any of these, he does not pass
them with a short
maxim, or a pretty saying; nor does he satisfy himself
with shewing how
expert he is in leaving a perplexity behind; but he meets
the difficulty,
examines it on every side; and, if he does not always remove
it, he generally
illuminates the subject for us; we see that he has labored his
point, and are
happy in having, so far, entered into the benefit of his labors.
In short, this
Exposition is of unquestionable celebrity in the Republic of
Letters, as well
for its unparalleled learning, as for
its profound research;
and has obtained
the affluence of fame, among all the evangelical
denominations, at
home and abroad. It yields to no Theological Publication
whatever, in
Decision of Character, and in a manly Avowal of the GRAND
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL, considered in their native
dignity and in
their practical influence. But it is somewhat observable, that
it is the only Exposition of the
Old and New Testament which the Baptists
can, at present,
peculiarly claim as their own, either in Great Britain, or in
America. The second edition of the New
Testament was printed, in five
volumes, quarto,
in the years 1774-1777. And in 1778, and onward, the
second edition of the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis and
proceeding toward
the conclusion of the book of Psalms, was printed in six
volumes of the
same size, the sixth indeed was not quite finished. But the
death of Mr.
George Keith, the publisher, Dr. Gill’s son-in-law, and other
incidents,
prevented the publication of the remaining part of the Old
Testament, which
has never yet appeared in quarto. It will be a
circumstance truly
felicitous, that the third edition, for which this Memoir
is sketched, will
appear with every advantage; the Parts already published
are considered to
be of so fair a promise, and the Publishers of such
respectability,
that the succeeding parts, there can be no doubt, will be
equally excellent.
·
·
1765 — This
year some copies of Mr. Clark’s Defence of the
Divine Rite
of Infant Baptism, being imported
from America, and published here, the
Doctor reprinted
and re-published his reply to it.
Another treatise
being also sent hither, and reprinted in London, nearly
about the same
time, called, A fair and rational
Vindication of the Right of
49
Infants to the Ordinance of Baptism; being the
substance of several
discourses from
Acts 2:39, by David Bostwick, M. A., late minister of
the Presbyterian
church in the city of New York; the Doctor made some
strictures on that
performance, which are published at the end of the reply
to Mr. Clark.
Soon after this,
the Reverend Mr. Carmichael, a minister of the Gospel in
Edinburgh, being
convinced of the truth of believer’s baptism by
immersion, came to
London to enjoy the institution; and was baptized by
the Doctor at
Barbican, who also preached a sermon on the occasion, from
1 John 5:3, which, a few days after, was reflected upon in one of the
public newspapers.
This obliged him, very contrary to his inclination: to
publish his Sermon, which he declares in the Preface
of it
“was not designed for the press, and that the warmest solicitations
of his friends would never have prevailed on him to make it public,
as he was unwilling to renew the controversy about baptism
unnecessarily, and having
determined to write [on this subject] only
in self-defense, when attacked, or when the controversy is renewed
by others.”
Nor do we recollect that any single pamphlet or page of the Doctor’s ever
revived the dispute concerning this sacred
ordinance. Conscious of this, he
asks Mr. Matthias
Maurice, to whose piece on Baptism he was replying,
“Who is the
aggressor? Who gave the first provocation?” And, to the close
of his career, he
might have repeated the hint, with ambition. Nor will his
tract on the Jewish Proselyte Baptism,
hereafter noticed, which appeared in
his Body of
Divinity, where it seems naturally to claim a situation, be
considered as an
exception to the spirit of this observation, or fairly be
interpreted into a
renewal of the
controversy, as the tract has an aspect
only to the
multitude of such pamphlets antecedently published by the
Paedobaptist
brethren, though more than a century before, which
pamphlets imply or
maintain that infant baptism came in the room of
Jewish proselyte baptism, or is sanctioned by it. The fore-mentioned
strictures then,
which appeared in the newspaper, having agitated the
subject afresh,
and introduced it again before the public, the Doctor felt
himself called
upon to publish his Sermon, which he entitled, Baptism a
divine Commandment to be observed. It had also
marginal notes,
vindicating it
from the gross abuses, misrepresentations, and cavils of the
letter-writer in
the newspaper. This affair made a great stir; and many
50
things appeared in the said
paper, on both sides the subject: until the
conductor of the newspaper
himself put a stop to it, by refusing to publish
any more letters from the unyielding
disputants. Some or other, however,
of the Paedo-baptists, were
yet desirous of protracting the debate; and, this
their object, it was not
unnatural for them attentively to look back, and
examine what he had previously
written on the subject. In this research,
a
paragraph was eagerly selected
from the Preface of Dr. Gill’s Reply to Mr.
Clark’s Defense, already mentioned. That the article may be seen in its
true
light, rendering the very
bosom of the author transparent on the subject of
baptism, as it was on every
other, the whole section, which has appeared
so objectionable to one side
of the controversialists, and which has been so
generally admired by the
other, shall here be given at full length, without
any variation.
“The
Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to
maintain,
and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of
infant
baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of Popery: that by
which
Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many
nations;
is the basis of national churches and wordly establishments:
that
which unites the church and world, and keeps them together;
nor
can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a
thorough
reformation in religion, until it is wholly removed; and
though
it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain, I
believe
with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on
when
infant baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when
churches
will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of
the
apostles.; when Gospel doctrine and discipline will be restored
to
their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of Baptism
and
the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first
delivered,
clear of all present corruption and superstition; all which
will
be accomplished, when the Lord shall be King over all the
earth,
and there shall be one Lord and his name one.”
This paragraph, in another newspaper, the Doctor was called upon either
to expunge or explain. He
chose the latter, and, with unabating zeal for the
cause he espoused, published a
tract, entitled, Infant Baptism a Part and
Pillar of POPERY;
with a Postscript, containing an Answer to the Letters of
Candidus, the
other writer mentioned before. This tract, very contrary to
his intention, gave great
offense to some worthy Paedobaptists, with many
51
of whose ministers
he lived in great intimacs; but a reply, so far as we have
heard, was not
given to it at the time, if there has been any since.
·
·
1767 — His Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew
Language, Letters, Vowels, Points, and
Accents; in an octavo, of 282
pages, with a
Preface of 43 pages more, now appeared. This masterly
effort of profound
research, which would have shewn our author to be a
PRODIGY of reading and literature, had he never published a syllable on any
other subject, “was written” by him “at his leisure hours,
for his own
amusement, not
with any design, at first, to publish it to the world; but by
way of essay to
try how far back the antiquity of the things treated of in it
could be carried.”
But the confidence which, about this time, some writers
had expressed, “as if victory was
proclaimed on their side,” prevailed on
him to send it
into the world. Some of the first scholars have expressed
themselves
astonished at the erudition everywhere so conspicuous in this
volume.
When this
elaborate work came before the public it was treated with
candor and
ingenuity by the Critical Reviewers; who, though they
could
not agree with
every thing in it, particularly concerning the authority of the
Points, yet
allowed the work was executed with great industry, sagacity.
52
In the notice
which the Monthly Reviewers took of this Dissertation, the
Doctor perceived
so clearly their ignorance of the subject, and such a vein
of dullness, and
ill nature, running through the whole of what they say, that
he thought their
remarks too low for his attention, and acted according to
the spirit of his
resolution in the Preface to the work —
“Should any truly learned gentleman do me the honor to
animadvert upon what I have written, I am sure of being treated
53
with
candor and decency; but should I be attacked by sciolists, I
expect
nothing but petulance, supercilious airs, and opprobrious
language
— such will be righteously treated with neglect and
contempt.”
The same year, Dr. Gill
collated the various passages of the Old
Testament, quoted in the Misnah, in the Talmuds, both Jerusalem and
Babylonian, and in the Rabboth; and extracted the variations in them from
the modern printed text; which
he sent to Dr. Kennicott, at Oxford, who
was then collating the several
Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament
which were to be met with in
any of the libraries in Europe. Dr. Kennicott
thus acknowledged his receipt
of the extracts, in his state of that collation,
published in the year 1767:
“I
have been highly obliged by the Reverend and Learned Dr.
GILL, who has extracted and sent me the variations from the
modern
Bibles in the passages quoted in the Talmuds, both of
Jerusalem
and Babylon, and also in the Rabboth: which variations,
in
these ancient books of the Jews, affect the Hebrew text of the
Old
Testament, as the variations in the ancient Christian fathers
affect
the Greek text of the New.”
Towards the close of his life,
as it appears, when the Doctor had narrowly
watched the Trinitarian
controversy, and long stood in its defense, he
seems to have put his
finishing hand to a piece which must have cost him
immense pains. It is published
in the posthumous edition of his Sermons
and Tracts, volume 2. p. 534,
and is styled, A Dissertation concerning the
Eternal Sonship of Christ. His filiation he considered as essential
to the
54
defense of the Trinity; and
hence seems resolved, to the very last, to give it
the support which its
importance demands. Now as both these
doctrines,
which he considered as
inseparably united, make so conspicuous a figure in
the Gospel system, and are so
visible throughout the writings of our
orthodox Divine, and in the
works of others, of the greatest name; we will
attempt to collect his ideas
respecting them into as narrow limits as
possible.
The doctrine of A TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE
ESSENCE; or, of three distinct divine Persons in one God, he
considered to
be as truly the fundamental article of revealed religion, as the Unity of God
is the foundation of what is
called natural religion. In stating
and defending
it, he was decidedly against
the many strange representations and
comparisons which have been
introduced into this subject, some of them to
its great disadvantage. But he
certainly had precise ideas of
this sublime
mystery; and as he advanced in
his discussion of the doctrine of three
Persons in the unity of the
Divine Essence he defined his terms.
The Essence of God means
“that God is that he is, — I
am that I am. And if God is, then he
has an essence. An essence is that
by which a person or thing, is
what it is. And seeing God is,
essence, or his being what he is, may
be truly predicated of him.”
By the Unity of the divine essence, he intends that there is but one God; or
that the essence
of God is one, and not divided. But then
he observes, that
the Unity of God is not to be
understood in the Arian sense,
that there is
one supreme God, and two subordinate or inferior ones, which resembles
the notion of the wiser
Pagans, making more Gods than one. Nor is this to
be understood in the Sabellian sense, that God is but one Person, for
though there is but one God,
there are three persons in the Godhead. Nor
is this to be admitted in a Tritheistic sense, as if there were three essences,
or beings numerically
distinct, said to be one because
of the oneness of
their nature. This is to assert three Gods, and not one. The
Trinitarians
maintain that there it but one divine essence, undivided,
and common to
Father, Son, and Spirit; and
in this sense but one God, though there are
different modes of subsisting
in it, which are called Persons.
“All,
professing Christianity, are Unitarians in a sense, but not in
the
same sense. Some are Unitarians in opposition to a Trinity of
55
Persons in one God. Others are Unitarians in perfect consistence
with that doctrine. Those of the former sort stand ranked in very
bad company; for a Deist, who rejects divine revelation in general,
is an Unitarian. A Jew that rejects the writings of the New
Testament, and Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, is an Unitarian. A
Mahometan is an Unitarian who believes in one God, and in his
prophet Mahomet. A Sabellian is an Unitarian, who denies a
distinction of Persons in the Godhead. A Socinian is an Unitarian,
who asserts that Christ did not exist before he was born of the
virgin, and that he was God not by nacre but by office. An Arian
may be said, in a sense, to be an Unitarian, because he holds one
supreme God, though rather he may be reckoned a Tritheist, since
along with the one supreme God, he holds two subordinate ones.
Those only are Unitarians, in a true and sound sense, who hold a
Trinity of distinct Persons in one God who is but one
in his
essence.”
But though God is one in his essence, he
is three in his
personality, that is,
there are three Persons in the
unity of Jehovah’s essence. This is what he
means by the Trinity. The Doctor distinguishes between personality, and
person.
“Personality is the bare mode
of subsisting: a Person, besides that,
designs and implies the nature or substance in, and with which he
subsists.”
A Person “is an individual that subsists and lives of itself, endowed with
will and
understanding, who is neither sustained by nor is part of another
Such is the
Father, therefore a Person; such is the Son, therefore a Person;
such is the Holy
Ghost, therefore a Person.” “The great and
incommunicable
name of JEHOVAH is always in the singular number,
because it is
expressive of his essence, which is but one; but the first name
of God we meet
with in Scripture, and that in the first verse of it, is plural.
In the beginning
God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1
and therefore must
design more than one, and yet not precisely two, or two only; for then the word
would have been in the dual number; but it is plural, and, as the Jews themselves say, cannot design fewer than three.” “The
words may be east into a distributive form, in perfect agreement with the idiom
of the Hebrew language, and be thus read: In the beginning
56
every one of the divine Persons created the
heavens and the earth.”
Another plural
name of God is ADONIM.
If I am (Adonim)
Lords, where is my fear? Malachi 1:6. It is here said of God
by himself. And of Christ Adonai is used in
Psalm 110:1. THE LORD said unto my Lord. And so of the Holy Spirit,
Isaiah 6:8,
compared with Acts 28:25. And, omitting numerous other
plural
modes of
expression, it is very observable they are employed even when
the unity of God seems to be
the leading idea of the passage. Thus, in
Deuteronomy 6:4,
the one God is spoken of plurally, and it seems
evident the
Trinity is intended, and that these three are one. Hear, O
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. “Not that this is
peculiar to the
Father, for Christ
the Son of God is Jehovah, and is often so called, and so
is the Holy Ghost,
and all three are manifestly included in Elohenu, a word
of the plural
number, and may be rendered our Gods, as Dr. Watts renders
it; or rather it
may be read, our divine Persons, and then the text will stand
thus, Hear, O
Israel, Jehovah, our divine Persons, is one Jehovah. This is
not the sense of
Christian writers only, but even of the ancient Jews.” This
is the doctrine of
the Old Testament, of which there are innumerable proofs
also in the New;
namely, that the three divine Persons are one — one God.
If it were said
that these three Persons are one Person, this would be an
absolute
contradiction; but it is no contradiction to assert, that the three
Persons subsisting
in the essence of Jehovah, which is but one essence, are
but one God. But
such persons are fairly chargeable with self.
contradiction,
who, when Christ says, I and my Father are one, interpret it
of one Person,
“which is as absurd as it is to say, I and myself are one: or, that I
who am one, and my father who is another, are but one person.”
This is a flat
contradiction, or profound nonsense. How opposite to such
an idea is John
14:16.
I will pray
the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that
he may abide with
you for ever.”
“Here is God, the
Father of Christ, who is prayed to, who is one Person;
here is the Son
praying to him, a second Person; and then there is another
Comforter prayed for, even the Spirit of
Truth, distinct from the Father and
the Son, and he is
a third Person. If the distinction between them is not
personal, but
merely nominal, the sense of the words must be this; I will
57
pray myself, and I myself will
give you myself that, HE who is not another,
but is myself, may abide with
you for ever.”
But those who maintain, in
opposition to the Old Testament and the New,
“that
Father, Son, and Spirit, are but one Person under these
different
names,” are of the opinion of Sabellius, who lived in the
third
century, “the foundation of whose heresy was laid by Simon
Magus. He first invented
the notion, afterwards imbibed by
Sabellius,
of only one Person in the Godhead. To which he added
this
blasphemy, that he was that person. Before he professed
himself
a Christian, he gave out that he was some great one. He
afterwards
said he was the one God himself under different names,
the
Father in Samaria, the Son in Judea, and the Holy Spirit in the
rest
of the nations of the world.”
But other erroneous persons, in one form or another, are
nearly allied to
these ancient heresiarchs, who denied the divine
personality; and indeed,
Person, as it is applied to the Triune God, is the term
which, as Calvin
says, has generally made heretics bark.
Dr. Gill universally defended
the doctrine of the Trinity, or of a threefold
personality in God; but he
apprehended that its very foundation is the
proper Sonship,
or filiation of Christ — the doctrine to which the last tract
mentioned above entirely
relates; and a doctrine, without the admission of
which, he is confident a
Trinity of Persons in God cannot be defended.
Thus he writes:
“It
is easy to observe, that the distinction of Persons in the Deity
depends
on the generation of the Son. Take away that which would
destroy
the relation between the first and second Persons, and the
distinction
drops. And that this distinction is natural, or by necessity
of
nature, is evident, because had it been only arbitrary, or of
choice
and will, it might not have been at all, or have been
otherwise
than it is — and then he that is called the Father might
have
been called the Son, and he that is called the Son might have
been
called the Father. This has so pressed those who are of a
contrary
mind as to oblige them to own it might have so happened,
had
it been agreeable to the will of God.”
That is, if we understand
them, that the divine Being, who is necessarily
what he is, might never have existed as he does: and that if he had not,
58
God would never
have been known as Father, Son, and Spirit, only as
God. This seems to
be a legitimate conclusion from their sentiments,
whether they
perceive, and admit, it or not.
So when he
proceeds to the question, Whether Christ was the Son of God
before time, or his eternal Son; he has determinate ideas, as on every other
part of the
sublime mystery connected with it. He conceives that the Father and the Son are
of the same nature, and that Christ is the Son of God by nature, not the Son of God by
mediation. He who is the Mediator is God, and is the Son of God, but though his
mediation shows him to be the friend of God, there was
nothing in it which could make him his Son. He was the Son of God antecedent to his
incarnation, and before all worlds; as he is frequently
represented in the Scriptures.
And thus, if God the Father were the eternal Father, as he truly was, then the Son was
the eternal Son. The
one not antecedent to the other, but both co-eternally existing together, and
with the Holy Spirit. In speaking of Christ, as the only-begotten Son of God, or generated Son of God, which means the same, he says,
“the divine nature of the Son is not begotten: the divine essence neither begets nor is
begotten: it is a divine Person in that essence
that is begotten; and though there are more Persons than one, yet there is no
more than one essence.”
Thus also in
another section;
“I cannot see any reason to object to the use of the phrase eternal
generation, as applied to the
Sonship of Christ, since one divine Person is
said to beget, Psalm 2:7, and therefore must be a Father; and another
divine Person is said to be begotten, John 1:14,18, and
elsewhere, and
therefore must be a Son; and if a begotten Son, as he is often said to be,
then he must be a Son by generation. For he is an
illiterate man indeed who does not know that to beget and generate are the same; and therefore generation, if
used of the Father in the divine nature, then of the Son in the divine nature;
and there being nothing in the divine nature but what is eternal, then this
generation must be eternal generation — a phrase which is no
more a contradiction than a Trinity in Unity, or a Trinity of Persons in one
God.” —
The opposition to this doctrine is nothing new. It is only a revival of the
“stale objection of the Arians of old. Arius,” in the fourth century, “was
the first who pretended to
acknowledge the Trinity, that actually, and in
express words, set
himself to oppose the eternal Sonship of Christ, by
59
generation.” And, being a man
or parts, he must have discerned, that if
Christ were truly and properly the Son of the Father, he must be of the
same nature; and, if of the same nature, then equal in power and glory, as
it is expressed by the Assembly of Divines.
But the said
pamphlet, concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, shews
yet further who
have been the opposers of this doctrine, indeed from first
to last; and on
the other hand, by whom, from the earliest times to the
present, it has
been defended. But, towards the close of the piece, the
Doctor states,
what perhaps is not generally known, and may be mentioned
with honest
ambition, by the wisest Trinitarians, and what deserves much
consideration from
one class of their opponents — that
“this article concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the doctrine of
the Trinity, has been maintained by all sound Divines and
evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the present time, as
appears by their writings and harmony of confessions.
So that upon
the whole it is clear the church of God has been in the possession of
this doctrine of the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ,
from
the beginning of Christianity to the present age, almost eighteen
hundred years.” —
Now observe,
“Nor has there been any one man. who
[sincerely] professed to
hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or of three distinct divine Persons
in the unity of the divine essence, that ever opposed it, till the latter
end of the SEVENTEETH century. If any such person, in this course
of time, can be named, let him be named.”
The eternal
Sonship of Christ, or the eternal generation of the Son of God,
appears then to
have been a part of the faith of all Trinitarians for about
seventeen hundred years from the birth of
our Lord. In what a light does
this exhibit the
contrary scheme!
In 1769, he
published A Body of DOCTRINAL DIVINITY, in two volumes,
quarto. This work
contains the substance of what he delivered from the
pulpit to the
people under his care, through the space of more than five
years. There are
but few, if any, theological publications, in the English
language, of more
deserved repute than these 1091 pages. Here is the
Doctor’s whole creed. Here his very
heart appears, while he states,
maintains, and
defends, the Truth as it is Jesus. His meaning cannot be
60
mistaken. Like the sun, he
transmits his own rays with him wherever he
goes, and is himself seen in
the light which he dispenses. He has his
SYSTEM; and, without a system, he would have considered himself
little
other than a skeptic; and this FORM of sound words, according to divine
direction, he held
fast in the exercise of faith
and love which is in Christ
Jesus. He was sensible that systematical divinity had become very
unpopular, and says,
“Formulas
and articles of faith, creeds, confessions, catechisms, and
summaries
of divine truths, are greatly decried in our age; and yet,
what
art or science soever but has been reduced to a system?
physic,
metaphysic, logic, rhetoric, etc. Philosophy in general has
had
its several systems: not to take notice of the various sects and
systems
of philosophy in ancient times; in the last age, tee Cartesian
system
of philosophy greatly obtained, as the Newtonian system
now
does. Astronomy in particular has been considered as a
system;
sometimes called the system of the universe, and sometimes
the
solar, or planetary system. In short, medicine, jurisprudence or
law,
and every art and science, are reduced to a system or body;
which
is no other than an assemblage or composition of the several
doctrines
or parts of a science. And why should Divinity, the most
noble
science, be without a system? Accordingly we find that
Christian
writers, in ancient times, attempted something of this
nature;
as the several formulas of faith, symbols or creeds, made in
the
first three or four centuries of Christianity; the Stromata of
Clemens
of Alexandria; the four books of Principles, by Origen;
with
many others that followed. And even those who now cry out
against
systems, confessions, and creeds, their predecessors had
those
of their own. Arius had his creed; and the Socinians have
their
catechism, the Racovian catechism; and the Remonstrants
have
published their confession of faith; not to mention the several
bodies
of divinity, published by Episcopius, Limborch, Curcellaeus,
and
others.”
That Dr. Gill had his system
also, and maintained it, is evident to all who
are conversant with his
character and writings; but it is a memorial to his
praise, that it was such a system as deserved the most cordial embrace.
Nothing is more conspicuous in
it, than the harmony of all the
ineffable
perfections of Jehovah, and
the Union of each of the three divine
and
equally glorious Persons of the sacred Trinity, in all the parts of the
61
salvation of God’s elect; and
that this sovereign and gracious scheme, from
its decree to its final
consummation, primarily embraces the glory of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
as its ultimate end, securing to its
distinguished objects, not
merely individual safety now, and felicity
hereafter, but the personal HOLINESS of every one of them, in this life, by
which they resemble Christ;
and perfect PURITY beyond the grave, in
the
everlasting beatific vision of
him. This is the evident tendency of the
evangelical system he
espoused, — a tendency which might rationally
create a prejudice in its
favor, among the genuine friends of holiness,
who
are brought into its native
light. But no one clearly understands the subject,
if he does not perceive that personal
election, election to
holiness —
particular redemption, or redemption from all iniquity — efficacious
grace in
regeneration and conversion; or, the implantation of a principle of
holy fear in our hearts, that we may not depart from
God, — and
perseverance in grace, in holy
duties’ and delights, to the
kingdom of
glory: No one is properly
acquainted with these important and essential
parts of the Christian system,
if he does not clearly see, not only their
tendency towards
the promotion of internal holiness first,
and then of
boundless felicity;
but that this devoutly wished for
consummation is as
necessarily and infallibly
following in their train without a single
exception, as the
diffusion of light and heat must be
the never-failing
attendant of the sun, when, according to the beautiful imagery of Scripture,
he goeth forth in his might, spreading his resplendent wings in the eastern
skies.
·
· 1770 — This distinguished patron of the doctrines of grace,
and of
practical experimental
godliness, having favored his connexions with his
two volumes of Doctrinal
Divinity, now gratified them with a third
volume, which he properly
called a Body of Practical Divinity.
This he
thought would be the last work
he should ever publish. It consists of no
less than 514 pages, 4 to.
This volume also contains the substance of what
he delivered to the church and
congregation, in Carter-lane, in his usual
Lord’s Day services. The
sermons were heard with great attention by the
members and the auditory in
general; many of whom, to the end of their
days, mentioned, with great
satisfaction, the interest they felt in them. It is
undeniable that the Doctor,
when his theme was practical, went the full
length of
his subject, as much as when it was doctrinal; but he well
distinguished between the
moral law as a RULE of conduct,
and the same
law as a COVENANT of works. Under the latter consideration, he every
62
where maintains, with our best
Divines, that believers are delivered from it,
totally delivered, having no
just reason either to expect life from its
promises, or to fear death
from its threatenings. But that, as a RULE of
obedience, it is of universal obligation, equally binding on saints
and
sinners, and must remain so
forever, while God is God and man is man. An
extract from one or two of his
paragraphs, on this head, may here suffice,
instead of a multitude.
“Though
the moral law is made void as a covenant of works, it still
continues
as a rule of action and conversation. It
is done away as to
the
form of the administration of it by Moses; but the matter, the
sum
and substance of it, remain firm, unalterable, and unchangeable
in
the hands of Christ. Believers are delivered from the curse and
condemnation
of it, yet they are not exempted from obedience to it.
And
though they are not to seek for justification by it, they are
under
the greatest obligations, by the strongest ties of love, to have
a
regard to all its commands. Obedience
to the law is enforced
upon
them by the best of motives, Gospel motives and principles;
and
they yield obedience to it, under the best of influences.
Believers
in Christ ought not only to be careful to maintain, but
even
to excel, to go before others, in good works, giving evidence
that
they have a proper regard to the unchangeable law, as to the
everlasting
Gospel of Christ Jesus. Let us, therefore, by divine
assistance
shew, in our lives and conversations, the truth of this
doctrine,
‘that the law is not made void, but established by the
Gospel;’
and thus, as it is the will of God we should, with well
doing put to silence the
ignorance of foolish men, and shame them
who FALSELY accuse
our good conversation in Christ.”
In this way, our practical
theologist maintains the authority and perpetuity
of the moral law. This he does
not only in his Sermon, entitled, The Law in
the Hands of Christ, and in another, The Law established by
the Gospel,
and in his chapter on the
Law of God, in his Body of Divinity, but,
probably, in more than an
hundred sections besides, interspersed all
through his writings. Of this
his exposition of the New Testament
particularly will be a
standing witness, But those sections of it, in which he
made the true and just
distinction between the law as a covenant, and the
law as a rule, were the very passages which provoked some persons of
Antinomian principles, who were excluded only a few years since from the
church of which the Doctor had
formerly been pastor, when they were
63
referred to his opinion on the
law, as he had given it in his Exposition, to
say in a spirit which was as
malicious, as the declaration itself was false,
that the Doctor asserts we are under the law, and that we are not under the
law, so going forward and
backward, maintaining and denying; and that
they find him palpably
contradicting himself, in certain places, five or six
times in a chapter. Yea, some
of them insisted on it that believers had
nothing at all to do with the
moral law. But, in his time, the Doctor spared
no individuals who were of
these infernal sentiments; and his preaching was
as pointed on the agenda
as on the credenda of the Christian system. Of
this, the following is no
unfair specimen. While he was pursuing the course
of subjects since published as
his body of Practical Divinity, one of his
most sincere and generous
friends, from whom the writer of this page had
the anecdote, took a gentleman
from the country to hear him. The Doctor
warmed with his subject, and
the congregation was animated. He put the
crown on the Savior’s head, by
exhibiting him in the glory of his kingly
office; and, in several
sentences, particularly leveled his shafts against every
species of Antinomianism, yet
not mentioning the term. Service over, the
good friend of Dr. Gill, who
had himself enjoyed the opportunity, said to
the gentleman, Well, Sir, what
do you think of our Doctor to-day? Why,
said he, you must not be
offended with me, but I assure you, if I had not
been told it was the great
Dr. Gill who preached, I
should have said that I had heard an Arminian.
Probably this incompetent
judge formed his opinion, as many other
mistaken persons still do; who, when they hear any thing practical
recommended, or even the term duty mentioned, violently exclaim in some
opprobrious terms or other;
yet, in the superabundance of their wisdom,
not knowing what they say, nor whereof they affirm. However, the
plenitude of their folly is no more conspicuous, than the mistake or
malevolence of others, who,
running to the contrary extreme, whenever
they hear the doctrines of sovereign
and distinguishing grace, eternal
election even to holiness, and the perseverance of the saints, though it be
in grace to glory, fully and scriptually preached, immediately cry,
Antinomianism! — horrid Antinomianism! — Thus exhibiting the very
spirit of those ancient
heretics, who slanderously affirmed, concerning the
apostolic preachers
themselves, that they said Let us do evil that good may
come. But Paul repelled the charge, demolished the accusation, and
magnified his office;
declaring, of all such perjured plaintiffs, that their guilt
is on their own foreheads, and
of such uncommon atrocity, that their
64
damnation is just. The Doctor had, doubtless, consistency enough not
fairly to incur the charge of
espousing contrary and totally opposite
schemes. He could not be an Arminian, for he maintained the five
distinguishing and Scriptural
points which they deny. Nor could he be an
Antinomian, as he for ever denied what they affirm, viz. the destructive
and damning text, which is the
very soul of their system, that believers are
not under the moral law, as
the rule of their conduct. Yet he was charged
with these glaring
inconsistencies. But the Savior himself was crucified
between two thieves; and,
unwilling as his servants are to be conformed to
him in his sufferings, they
must not think it strange, if they also are hung up
between the robbers, —
Arminiasm, which robs God of his grace; and
Antino-mianism, which robs him
of his glory. It will be well for them, if, on
the one hand, with Christian
humility and patience, they possess
equanimity, which will enable
them to say, It is enough that the disciple be
as his Master; and if, on the other, they, at present, pity those who
would
thus make them spectacles unto
the world, and to angels, and to men; and,
at last, with their dying
breath, can pray for them, saying, Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do.
At the close of the Body of
Divinity is given the Doctor’s Dissertation
concerning the Baptism
of Jewish Proselytes. He frequently observed,
in
his polemical career, that
“several
learned men had asserted, that it was
a custom or rite
among
the Jews, before the times of John the Baptist, Christ, and
his
apostles, to receive proselytes into their church by baptism or
dipping,
as well as by circumcision; and these both adult and
infants;
and that John and Christ took up the rite of baptizing from
thence,
and practiced, and directed to the practice of it, as they
found
it; and which, they think, accounts for the silence about
infant
baptism in the New Testament, it being no new practice.”
This, he saw, was the
principal refuge, the dernier resort of some of the
Paedobaptists, who are of
opinion, with Dr. Hammond, that this is the
BASIS of
Infant Baptism; and with Sir Richard
Ellys, who, in his Fortuita
Sacra, says, that he knows not of any stronger argument in
favor of infant
baptism than this. Now, as the
later writings of the Jews
had been referred
to, in support of this
hypothesis, and no early authorities were produced,
there being none in existence;
and as the Doctor found, upon examination,
that several respectable
writers had derived their intelligence not from the
65
fountain head, but had copied
from one another, and that the great Mr.
Wall himself, according to his
own acknowledgment, not being sufficiently
versed in the Jewish writings,
had done the same; he felt a desire that some
one man or other might be
found, since the birth of Christ, who should
fully investigate the point. And as our laborious friend did
not suppose it
very probable, that any of the
Baptist denomination might soon rise up and
take the pains in studying
Rabbinical literature he had done, which yet was
necessary in order to master
this subject; he thought the business properly
devolved on himself. Hence he
resolved to draw up the whole compass of
the argument, as he has done,
in his Dissertation, that it might survive him,
and be used as occasion should
require. This subject had been upon his
mind many years, and, no
doubt, he made references to it in his Adversaria
from time to time, as he was
accustomed to do, in other instances.
Having, at last, taken the
circumference of the subject, he favors us with
the result of his enquiries,
as they appear in the first part
of his piece; the
heads of which shall be given
mostly in his own words: —
“Now
upon search” after the proof of the baptism of Jewish
proselytes,
says he, “it will be found — that
nothing of this kind
appears
in the writings of the Old Testament, which
chiefly concern
the
Jewish nation — that in the books of the Apocrypha, generally
thought
to be written by Jews, though there is sometimes mention
made
in them of proselytes to the Jewish religion, yet not a syllable
of
any such rite or custom, as of baptism or dipping at the
admission
of them — that in the New Testament, where mention
indeed
is made of proselytes, nothing is said concerning their
admission
and the manner of it — that as there were no traces of
this
custom in the writings before, or about the times of John,
Christ,
and his apostles, so neither are there any in those which
were
written in a short time after; not in Philo the Jew; nor is there
the least trace or hint of this custom in any Rabbinical books, said
by
the Jews to be written a little before or after — that Josephus,
the Jewish
historian, in treating of whole
nations, and of individuals
who
became Jews, and were made so by circumcision, says not a
word of their baptism and dipping, which, had it been
practiced,
could
not well have been omitted by the historian — that in the
most
ancient Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases, at the beginning,
and
‘toward the end of the first century;
nor even in the Jews’
Misnah or Book of Traditions, written in the
middle of the second
66
century,
or beginning of the third, where,
if any where, one might
expect
to meet with this rite or custom, no mention is made of it;
though
Dr. Gale seemed to allow it, upon what Dr. Wall had
translated
from Selden, without examination — and that it is not
spoken
of by any of the Christian
fathers of the first three or four
centuries.”
Having illustrated all these
particulars, which shew, that “the rite of
receiving proselytes by
baptism, or dipping, among the Jews, is no where
mentioned in any writings
before the times of John and Christ, nor in any
after, nearer than the third
and fourth centuries; Dr. Gill
proceeds to shew,
that the first mention of it, for aught as yet appears, is in the
Jewish
Talmuds, the one called Jerusalem, being written for the Jews at
Jerusalem, in 189, and the
other the Babylonian, written
for the Jews in
Babylon. and in those parts,
and finished, as is usually said, about AD
500. And when he had given
“the whole compass of the evidence from these writings, not
omitting
any thing relating to it in them, that
had fallen under his
observation,”
he adds, “Since then this rite, or custom, has no
foundation,
but in the Talmuds,” which were written, especially the
Babylonian, so distant from the apostolic age, “surely it can never
be
thought that Christian baptism
was borrowed from thence;” the
“folly
and falsehood of which,” he says, “would be evinced in his
following
chapter.” This chapter consists of eleven or twelve very
interesting
considerations, to which the Doctor subjoins this, as an
argument
ad hominem — “If this
custom” of Jewish proselyte
baptism,
or dipping, “is to be considered as a
rule of Christian
baptism,
then sprinkling ought not to be used in it.”
Finally, it may be proper to
observe, that Dr. Gill was not alone in his
views of proselyte baptism
among the Jews, but is justified in his principal
statement by certain learned
Paedobaptists themselves. For as the
testimonies produced, by the
several writers, in favor of the point, were not
early enough to answer the
purpose for which they were brought; the late
Dr. Jennings, author of the Jewish Antiquities, has given up the argument
from them in
favor of infant baptism.
“There wants,” respecting Jewish proselyte baptism, says he,
“more
evidence
of its being as ancient as our Savior’s time, than I
67
apprehend can be produced, to ground any argument upon it, in
relation to Christian baptism.”
And again,
“After all, it remains to be proved, not only that
Christian baptism
was instituted in the room of proselyte baptism, but that the Jews
had any such baptism in our Savior’s time. The earliest accounts
we have of it are in the Misnah and Gemara; the former compiled,
as the Jews assert, in the second century, the latter not till the
seventh century.”
Dr. Gill, making
this quotation from Dr. Jennings, says, as to accounts of it
in the Misnah we have none at all. Dr. Jennings, though an acknowledged
Hebrean, perhaps, had not read the Misnah through; but Dr. Gill had, and
therefore says, in
another place,
“It is mentioned in the Gemara, a work of later times.”
But he boldly
adds,
“I am content to risk
that little reputation I have for Jewish learning, if any passage can be
produced in the Misnah, mentioning
such a tradition of the Jews, admitting proselytes by baptism, or
dipping, whether adult, or children.”
To this testimony
our author subjoins Dr. John Owen’s. That learned man,
in his Theologoumena, says,
“The institution of the rite of baptism is no where mentioned in
the
Old Testament, no example is extant; nor, during the. Jewish
church, was it ever used in the admission of proselytes; no mention
of it is to be met with in Philo, Josephus, nor in Jesus the son of
Syrach; nor in the Evangelic History.”
Dr. Gill having
thus investigated his subject in all its ample round, and
supported it by
argument and authorities, concludes his Dissertation in
those very
remarkable words of the same great Dr. Owen, who affirms,
that “the opinion
of some learned men concerning the transfer of the rite of
Jewish baptism by
the Lord Jesus, which indeed did not then exist, for the
use of his
disciples, IS DESTITUTE OF ALL PROBABILITY.” But sufficient
justice cannot be
done to this Dissertation by any mere sketch. It merits the
close attention,
and will liberally reward the critical acumen, which may be
68
employed about it, whatever
side of the question is espoused. And a proper
acquaintance with this
elaborate piece will create astonishment, at the
Herculean labor, the deep
research, the ceaseless patience, the profound
literature, and the fair
argument, which are signally displayed by our author
in it, to the everlasting
credit of his head and of his heart. And, had the
church and the world been
indebted to his labors, for no other effort than is
made in this Dissertation on Jewish Proselyte Baptism; and in his
Dissertation concerning
the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, etc. he
must have ranked high in the
literary world as a distinguished prodigy.
Both these publications
certainly have placed him on lofty ground; and,
being in the full light,
however insensibly to himself, he must not only have
left his predecessors and
cotemporaries far behind in the literary career; but
have thrown into shades his
survivors, some of whom are at so vast a
distance from him, by an
acknowledged inferiority, that even the extreme
skirts of his shadow cannot
reach us.
This is the man who had been
represented as one of two or three, who had
scarcely any learning; this is the man who had been called, by a
person who
was certainly his inferior,
only a botcher in divinity. But how few, in his
days, or since, have been able
to say, as he, “in self-defense,” supposed it
necessary to say of himself,
that he “had read
the Classics,” and indeed
“Virgil, at nine years of age?” That he had “read Logic, Rhetoric,
Ethics,
Physics, and Metaphysics? The Ethnic Philosophers. Platonists, and
Stoics? The Greek and Roman historians,
Herodotus, Pausanias, Livy,
Sallust, etc.? The Greek and Latin Fathers of the Christian Church, and
Church History? And that he
had also read the Jewish Targums, the
Misnah, the two Talmuds,
Babylonian and Jerusalem; the Rabbot,
Midrashim, Zohar, with
other writings of the Jews, ancient and modern?”
This statement was “forced
from him,” in 1739, the 42d year of his age,
when he adds,
“I
am not too old to learn, and, through divine goodness, do not
want
industry, diligence, and application.”
And proof sufficient he gave
of the truth of this assertion. For, after the
year 1739, when he penned the
above distinguished section, and while his
acquisitions were augmenting
with his years, he published his Exposition of
the whole Old and New
Testament; his Body of Divinity; and other
writings. Now if these, with
his earlier publications, had been all uniformly
printed in the size of his Old
and New Testament, they would, it seems,
69
have made the astonishing
sum-total of above TEN THOUSAND folio pages
of Divinity. All this was his
own composition; the result of his own most
laborious studies; and written
with his own hand, without any amanuensis;
and published by his own care,
no one reading the sheets as they came
from the press but himself.
This report of almost unexampled application
and labor, if spread on a
distant shore, where the facts were not easily
ascertainable, might have been
consigned to the chapter of incredibles; but
the results, the astonishing
results, of his learning and piety are before us;
our eyes have seen and our
hands handled the invaluable productions. And
we anticipate the felicity and
gratitude both of the rising generation, and of
future ages, when the Jews,
whom the Doctor had so particularly in his eye
through all his writings, as
well as the Gentiles, shall be brought into an
evangelical acquaintance with
the whole sacred volume.
Hence, contemplating the
Doctor in his Theological, Polemical, and
Literary career, we conclude,
that, when Genius and Candor have
projected his medallion, and
Science with Justice shall have executed it to
his praise, the well-earned
memorial will exhibit, what, at present, is
conjecturable. On the FACE of it will be seen our
Author, the principal
figure; whose features the
golden embossment gives, with perfect
discrimination. In his hand is
a page of letter-press, with the date of 1770
on it, intending the final one he ever revised for publication; at the foot of
which is written,
the LAST of
more than TEN THOUSAND, and which he
stretches out for their
acceptance towards a number of persons,
representing Gentiles, some of whom are leveling a path for the
accomodation of others, who
are in the habit of Jews, towards
whom the
figure is looking, as with the
ardor of desire, and the joy of expectation. On
the REVERSE, a celestial Beauty
appears; behind whom is seen a motley
group of figures, fierce of countenance, and of various features, supposed
to represent Simon Magus, the
precursor of Sabellius, with all the
succeeding Heresiarchs, and
their followers of every age; some of whom,
in a later dress, appear as if
appalled at an enemy, but, in their flight, meet
this terrifying legend — CASTIGATOR HERETICORUM,
intimating that our
immortal Divine was the
scourge and dread of heretics. The foremost
figure, who turns her back
upon all apostates, and appears with celestial
charms, is Religion
the friend of literature. Her eyes are somewhat
elevated towards the heaven;
from whence the rays of an eastern sun,
stretching over a range of
intervening hills, one of which seems to be
Mount Calvary,
mildly irradiate her countenance, which
principally
70
bespeaks gratitude and joy.
With her left hand, gently
inclining, she directs
us to an inscription, which,
skirting the medallion, says, in legible
characters, of her favorite —
FLOS SCHOLASTICORUM —
meaning, by a
liberal translation, that he
was the pride of literature, at the summit of
general learning, and, in his
day, of unparalelled erudition in the department
of Oriental literature. But,
as if all this were of comparative insignificance,
as indeed universal science
itself must be, if not consecrated
to the honor of
God, and the best interests of
men; the celestial Beauty, with her right
hand, points us to the
illuminated mount on which the Savior expired;
while the design
of the medallion, and the whole reason of
the joy in her
countenance, is told out, by a
label issuing from her lips, which says,
concerning the various
literature, the preeminent labors, and gracious
attainments, of her favorite —
He devoted them ALL to his REDEEMER’S
praise.
Here, if we pause, let it be
to recollect, as Dr. Gill has expressed it,
“that
had it not been for learning, or
learned men, we never should
have
enjoyed an English Bible.”
And thousands have blessed God
for his talents and literature. But
when
the fruits of his labors are
surveyed, it will seem a rational inquiry for
ourselves, and which posterity
will certainly be induced to make; How
could any one man perform all
this labor? It is fair to answer — it must
have been naturally impossible
for any person to have done it,
without
method, unremitted exertion, and
cheerful perseverance. These were
perennially the companions of
his labors; and delight must
occasionally
have mingled in their society.
Indeed it may be literally said that he was
never tired of reading and
study. General good health also administered to
the execution of his design,
and a very retentive memory. These things
considered in their general
effect, the remaining arcana will be easily
developed, by knowing his
manner of composing the chief parts of his
Exposition of the Old and New
Testament. Had the indefatigable man
studied and preached two or
three sermons weekly, as he did, and made
these no part of his
Commentary, he never could have prepared half the
work for the public eye; but
the substance, or at least the heads, of almost
every sermon he preached being
inserted in their proper place, the very
week they were delivered, the
mighty mass increased with his months.
There was seldom a weekday
without a line. And, as each evening he left
the weight of his mind on
paper, he was quite prepared with a new
71
morning, to enter on new
sections. In going through any single book of the
Scripture, he would sometimes
take only a single verse for his sermon;
more frequently six or eight —
and seldom above ten or twelve. These he
generally expounded one by
one. But at other times he speedily
paraphrased most of the paragraph under consideration, taking a principal
verse in it, which he divided,
sub-divided, and enlarged upon in the form of
a short sermon. When he did
so, the people frequently made this remark,
— As soon as the Doctor came
to the sweetest part, he left off. He did not,
however, begin a book of the
sacred volume, and pursue it, in every
succeeding sermon, from the first verse of it to the last; but he threw a
pleasing variety into his
discourses, by considering part of one book in the
morning, of another book in
the afternoon; and then of some other on the
Lord’s Supper days. For
example — the writer of these pages has in his
possession the substance of
some scores of sermons which the Doctor
preached in the year 1737,
etc. By these it appears, that on Lord’s Day
mornings he was then
constantly on the epistle to the Hebrews; in the
afternoons on the book of the
Proverbs; but on Lord’s Supper days, which
were monthly, he was regularly
on the Gospel of John in the afternoons.
This method was very
acceptable to his people, and facilitated his daily
employment to himself; and to
this method, principally, we are indebted,
under God, for the numerous
volumes he published.
But it may also be inquired,
how he distributed his time, and whether he
indulged himself in any
relaxations. When the Doctor was
once asked by
the late Mr. Ryland, whose
name is mentioned before in this Memoir, how
it was he had waded through
such vast labors; he answered, it was not
done by very early rising,
nor sitting up late — the latter he was
confident,
must be injurious to any
student, and not helpful. The truth is,
“he rose as soon as it was
light in the winter, and usually before six
in the summer.”
In the last part of his life,
not quite so early. He breakfasted constantly in
his study, and always on
chocolate; but came down with his family at
dinner, and, even to the last
affliction, carved for them. Through the latter
years of his life, he seldom
went into his study after tea, unless about an
hour in summer, but sat below,
reading some book, or correcting his sheets
as they were issuing from the
press: and with some of these he had care
enough, partly occasioned by
his own indistinct autobiography, for, at last, he
wrote very small, and
considerably illegible; and partly by the inattention or
72
incompetency of the
compositors, from whom, we are certain, he has been
under the necessity of getting
six or seven revises of a sheet, especially of
such sheets as contained
learned quotations. These corrections, which
perhaps should not be
mentioned among his amusements, served, in some
degree, to afford relaxation
from his more intense labor, as they gave a
diversified employment to his
mind. Never was he to be seen indolent. He
neither wanted, nor wished
for, relaxation from study; for this was his
element. But if avocations
from laborious application are of the nature of
relaxations, such he
occasionally had. They consisted of a few visits to his
people. He never was
distinguished for the length and frequency of them.
In the midst of his days also,
it was his practice, once a week, to meet his
ministering brethren, at their
accustomed coffee-house; or else to spend a
friendly hour with them under
the hospitable roof of Thomas Watson, Esq.,
an honored member of the
Baptist church, then meeting near Cripplegate.
That gentleman kept an open
table on Tuesdays for the dissenting ministers
of the three denominations.
The Doctor generally met with them, took his
part, cheerfully, in
conversation, with the brethren present; and maintained
it, on their return home,
whether they came back on foot, or by the boat, as
they now and then did. Coming
back one day by water, an excellent
minister of the Independent
denomination, of whom Dr. Gill was
particularly fond, said to
him, when there was a great swell of the tide, and
some of the gentlemen were
uneasy, Ah! Doctor, you don’t
fear, you love
much water: Yes, he replied,
I do love much water in its proper place, and
I love you too; but Brother
Bentley, a little water, in a barber’s
basin, is
enough for some people. You
know what I mean, Brother. Yes, said
Bentley, in a good humor, I
do. All smiled. The repartee was quite in the
spirit of genuine friendship;
and it was natural for one of them, when they
were got on shore, and
parting, quite in the fraternal way, to say, Well,
Doctor, much water, however,
has done no one of us any harm. True, said
he, and we are all sure, that
sprinkling alone would never have brought us
safe to land.
It seems also that, while his
mother was alive, he had the annual pleasure of
visiting her at Kettering, and
of seeing the fruits of his early ministry in that
neighborhood. But the moment
he received the news of her death, he laid
down his pipe, and, from that
time, never smoked again. Though, previous
to this, he never disgraced himself as a great smoker.
Besides this he had the
pleasure, once in the close of every year, to meet
the principal people of his
congregation, at some public dinner, with a view
73
the better to procure
pecuniary aid for them in the inclement season. At
this meeting he would
generally unbend. And, though excessive loquacity
was no trait in his character,
he was as ready to converse, and to answer
questions, which all were at
liberty to propose, as any judicious person
could have desired. Some of
his most active friends enlivened these
meetings, by discreetly
introducing such persons, members of the church or
not, to whom they knew the
Doctor was partial. On such occasions, the
great John Ryland, sen., often
graced and invigorated the company. The
Doctor was fond of him as a
genuine Calvinist, a good Hebrew scholar,
and as having read as much
English divinity as any man in his day. Their
conversation, being on
cheerful and interesting subjects, chained the
attention of the company, and
generally produced a reluctance at parting. If
any thing could detain him
from the study, it was the conversation of such
a friend as this — or of the
eminent Mr. Toplady. There was a mutual and
an endearing friendship
between these two. They agreed in almost every
point of theology. Dr. Gill
had read the Fathers, Toplady was acquainted
with several of them. Persons
of his talents always afforded him relaxation.
Some of his own people also
well knew how to render his visits interesting
to themselves and pleasing to
him. He would seldom converse on trifles;
but, touch the string of
prophecy — the calling of the Jews — the latter-day
glory — or, introduce any
interesting question on Christian experience,
he was engaged at once, and
out of the abundance of the knowledge and
grace, treasured in his heart,
his mouth freely spake.
Indeed he felt himself
sometimes interrupted, by people who, knowing not
the worth of time as he
esteemed it, called upon him, from the country,
principally that they might
have the pleasure of saying they had seen and
conversed with him. It was a
toil to him to be detained when no
information could be either
gained or given. But with people of the right
description he was very free.
The worthy Mr. Geard, pastor of the Baptist
church at Hitchin, is a proof
of this. Among his many cheerful
recollections, it will always
be one, how Dr. Gill received him, as soon as
he found that he had come from
Bristol to London, with the only design of
seeing this great man. They
talked and dined together, and the Doctor was
happy in obtaining every
information concerning the Academy at Bristol, to
which Mr. Geard belonged, the
condition of the churches, and the general
state of religion in the
western parts of England. The Doctor now resided
at Camberwell, a village about
two miles from London-Bridge. Here his
garden also afforded him
amusement. He would walk in it, weed the plots,
74
yea, and sometimes
work in it, with pleasure, almost to the close of life.
But when he was
here alone, yea, and even at his meals, he was not quite
unemployed about
his sacred work; for his family have noticed, how
commonly “the activity of his
mind might be judged of by the motion of his
lips.” Thus, in a
sort, he was always in his studies.
But labor and literature, abstractedly
considered, are not intended to
constitute the highest style of man; and as
they form not his only
excellence, our attention is recalled to the
other walks of life, which
Providence had assigned him, in each of
which he appears to advantage.
He was a genuine DISSENTER from the Established Religion, as appears by
his whole life,
and by his little piece, entitled, The Dissenters’
Reasons for
separating from the Church of England. But as a Dissenter, he considered
himself under
signal obligations always to discover his love to the
Hanoverian
succession — no one was a heartier friend to the PRESENT
FAMILY on the throne than John Gill. The Amor Patriae roused his best
feelings; and in
his prayers you might feel the love of his country. It swelled
his bosom in his
earlier career, and continued with him to the very last of
life. Had pride
been made for man, with towering ambition we should have
introduced part of
one of his sections under this article, which he wrote in
the time of the
great Rebellion; and the page bears his own date at the foot
of it, December 2,
1745. Writing on Psalm 25:3.
Let them be ashamed, which transgress without cause;
or, as he reads
it, act treacherously without cause, as King David’s
subjects did; he
adds, “Such are those who are now risen up against our
rightful Sovereign
King George; a parcel of perfidious, treacherous
wretches; some of them who were in the last rebellion, and obtained his
father’s PARDON; others that partook yearly of his royal bounty, for the
instruction of
their children, and all have enjoyed the blessings of his mild
and gentle
Government; and therefore are without cause his enemies.” This
is the heart of a
genuine Dissenter — here is the true patriotism — and
manifested at a
time when tribes of the national hierarchy had been tacking
from one side to
another, entirely as it suited their interest. This was the
Dissenting minister and pastor of
Carter-lane; and as was the shepherd so
were his flock.
As a MINISTER, in
his early days few persons were more animated than
himself; and he gave himself wholly to divine things. His constant studies
75
prepared him for
his public work, rendering it easy to himself, and
beneficial to his
people. He came into the pulpit, at times, with an heavenly
luster on his
countenance, in the fullness of the blessing of the
Gospel of
Christ; enriched, and generally enriching. In
preaching funeral sermons,
and on other
extraordinary occasions, when he was a young man, and
surrounded with
large congregations, his exertions have been such that the
people have
conveyed to him, as well as they were able, three or four
handkerchiefs to
wipe his face, in one discourse. The sermons, which were
not inserted in
the body of his Exposition, he generally wrote an outline of,
making what might
be read in less than ten minutes. Such we have yet
preserved in his
own hand-writing. The ideas contained in these
manuscripts it is
certain were familiar to him when he entered the pulpit.
Bat he delivered
not his sermons memoriter, as it is phrased;
treasuring up
words, as a
schoolboy does his lesson. Of him it cannot be said
“He toil’d, and
stow’d his lumber in his brain,
He toil’d, and then
he dragg’d it out again.”
He had so mastered
his subject before he
appeared among his people, that
it was totally
unnecessary for him to adopt the servile method execrated in
this couplet. And
when, after a course of years, the fervor of his youth had
much abated, his
public labors commanded attention. But this was
notsecured by a
flood of eloquence, by rhetorical action, by meretricious
ornaments, or by
any of the eccentricities which gain upon weak persons.
But the effect was
produced by his solemn deportment, his expressive
language, his
perspicuous method, his nervous reasoning, his interesting
address; and, by
his substantial matter delivered with accuracy. And, all
being ornamented
with his own personal religion, and crowned with the
superabundant
influences of the Spirit of God, he sometimes preached as
with the Holy
Ghost sent down from heaven, and poured out his PRAYERS,
with divine
freedom and fervency, into the very bosom of God.
As a PASTOR he presided over the flock with dignity and affection. Mingled
were his cares and
comforts — such as other faithful shepherds have
experienced in
their different situations. In the course of his ministry he had
some weak, some
unworthy, and some very wicked persons to deal with.
As to the feeble
of the flock, it may be truly declared he was an
affectionate
friend and father to them. He really “bore with their
weaknesses,
failings, and infirmities,” and particularly when he saw they
were sincerely on
the Lord’s side. A godly woman visited him one day, in
76
great trouble about the
singing; for the clerk, in about three years had
introduced two new tunes. Not
that he was a famous singer, or able to
conduct a variety of song. The
young people were pleased; but the good
woman could hardly bear it.
The Doctor, after patiently listening, asked her
whether she understood
singing? No, she said. What! can’t you sing? No;
she was no singer, nor her
aged father before her. And, though they had
had about an hundred years
between them to learn the old hundred tune,
they could not sing it, nor any
other tune. The Doctor did not hurt
her
feelings, by telling her that
people who did not understand singing were the
last who should complain; but
he meekly said, Sister, what tunes should
you like us to sing? Why, Sir,
she replied, I should very much like David’s
tunes. Well, said he, if you
will get David’s tunes for us, we can then try to
sing them. Such weak good
people may be found among most
denominations of Christians.
But he sometimes was accosted
by rude people, and in his own
congregation. A cynical old
man, who had taken an antipathy against some
of his minister’s tenets,
oftener than once had grinned contempt at him
from the gallery; and then
would meet him at the foot of the pulpit-stairs,
and ask, Is this preaching?
repeating his question. The insolence at first met
no answer from the preacher.
But, it seems, he determined not to be often
treated in this manner. Not
long after, the said churl, planting himself again
in the same position,
expressed his contempt somewhat louder; Is this the
great Doctor Gill? The Doctor,
immediately, with the full strength of his
voice, looking him in the
face, and pointing him to the pulpit, said, Go up,
and do better — Go up, and do better. This was answering a fool
according to his folly. And
the answer afforded gratification to all who
heard it.
But the holy man felt himself
exceedingly distressed when any of his
communion disgraced their
profession, by errors either in doctrine, or in
practice. From both sources he
had his share of sorrows, as the records of
his faithful church-discipline
evince. A single extract shall here be given
respecting some, who seemed
pleased enough, in their own way, with the
work of Christ, but who were
totally inimical to the work of the Spirit.
Understanding, that several of
the members positively denied the doctrine
of an internal principle of
sanctifying grace; or, in other words, of a new
nature infused into the heart
by the Holy Spirit, in regeneration; the Doctor
seriously brought the business
before the church, and, as he, by virtue of
his pastoral office, kept the
church-book, he has made this entry in it of the
77
result of the
transaction, with his own pen: — “Agreed, that to deny the
internal
sanctification of the Spirit, as a principle of grace and holiness
wrought in the
heart; or as consisting of grace communicated to and
implanted in the
soul, which, though but a begun work, and as yet
incomplete, is an
abiding work of grace, and will abide, notwithstanding all
corruptions,
temptations, and snares, and be performed by the author of it
until the day of
Christ, when it will be the saints’ meetness for eternal
glory; is a
grievous error, which highly reflects dishonor on the blessed
Spirit and his
operations of grace on the heart, is subversive of true religion
and powerful
godliness, and renders persons unfit for church-communion.
Wherefore, it is
further agreed, that such persons who appear to have
embraced this
error be not admitted to the communion of this church; and
should any such
who are members of it appear to have received it and
continue in it,
that they be forthwith excluded from it.” Two members then
present declaring
themselves to be of the opinion condemned in the above
resolution, and
also a third person who was absent, but who was well
known to have been
under this awful delusion, were consequently excluded
that evening.
But,
notwithstanding this report, it would be unpardonable were this article
not also to
maintain, that few have been the pastors, in any situation, to
whom greater
respect has generally been shown than to himself; a respect,
which, towards the
last, might have been termed a reverence of the
reverend man. Yea, it seems almost
impossible for any people to have
retained a more
profound respect for their pastor, after his death, than the
people who had
been his care. They always spoke of him in the highest
terms. They gladly
made him the subject of their conversation. They were
happy to hear any
one speak of him with his merited respect. All of them,
without exception,
endeared themselves to his successor, by the
affectionate
remembrance they preserved of his departed worth. It deserves
to be repeated,
that this is a fair description of each of the members who
survived him, as
thirty or forty did for many years. All of them are at this
time gone down to the dust, except one afflicted brother of the church,
who is now in
years, and has been supposed, for several months past, to be
tottering on the
verge of life.
The Doctor not
only watched over his people, “with great
affection,
fidelity, and
love;” but he 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
78
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 in perfect opposition to
the Gospel, and 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.
At Church-meetings he was admired; one while for his gentleness and
fidelity; and
another while for his self-possession and wisdom. And when it
was necessary for
him to magnify his office (and no one knew
better how
to do it), he
discovered himself to be both the servant of Christ, and the
servant of the
church for his sake.
But if in any part
of his pastoral work he excelled himself, it was at the
Lord’s Supper.
Here he was solemn, sententious, and tender; as his people
often have remarked: —
He set before their
eyes their dying Lord;
How soft, how
sweet, how solemn every word
!How were their
hearts affected, and his own!
And how his
sparkling eyes with glory shone!
In Conversation with his people he was very deliberate. He weighed their
cases of
conscience; he considered their trouble. And, not being
unpracticed in the
solution of doubts, he sometimes resolved them by a
single sentence,
or by a few apposite words. It was one of his talents so to
do.
His ministerial
and pastoral labors, “by the blessing of God, were much
owned for the
awakening, conversion, comfort, edification, and
establishment of
many.” Several persons, who had been converted under
his ministry, were
afterwards called to the important work themselves. The
Reverend Messrs.
John Brine, William Anderson, and James Fall. These
three he thought
of with pleasure and gratitude. Mr. Brine is a well-known
writer of the
superior cast, belonging to the old school. And Mr. Anderson,
as well as Mr. Fall, maintained
respectable characters, died before the
Doctor, and for
each of them he printed a funeral sermon; from which they
appear in an
honorable light.
Notwithstanding
his exalted attainments and usefulness, he was meek,
humble, and of a sympathizing spirit. His strong
affections discovered
79
themselves on various
occasions; especially on the hearing of any
remarkable success attending
the Gospel, either in private families, in
particular churches, in the
colonies of America, or elsewhere. And how
must he have been delighted
when he received information, from abroad, of
the acceptableness and utility
of his own works? Such information was not
unfrequent. The opinion of many may be conveyed in the language of one
from America;
probably, the late excellent
and invaluable Dr. Samuel
Stillman, of Boston:
“I
have daily reason to bless God for your valuable Exposition of
the
Old and New Testament, and for which thousands will bless
God
after you have ceased from your labors — a work from which,
I
doubt not, the church will derive the greatest advantage to the end
of
time. You, Sir, have labored, and we enter into your labors; and
by
them, many of Christ’s ministers are far better qualified to
unfold
the mysteries of the Gospel to their hearers.”
Applications were made to him
for advice, from different ministers and
churches beyond the Atlantic;
as well as from ministers and congregations
of his own denomination at
home. And all found him ready to assist, to
sympathize, and to administer
counsel. This, by great numbers, has been
gratefully acknowledged.
During the two last years of
his life, he was seldom capable of preaching
more than once on a Lord’s
Day. This affected the attendance of the
congregation. The juvenile
part of the audience first attended in other
assemblies, and afterwards
joined them. Hence it became matter of
conversation, whether, on the
whole, it might not be desirable to procure
constant assistance for the
Doctor in his ministerial work. The subject
haying been duly considered,
the invaluable pastor made up his mind for
himself, and thus wrote to the
people: —
“That
Christ gives pastors to churches is certain,
but that he gives
co-pastors is not so certain. A co-pastor is an officer the Scripture
is
entirely silent about — and which is much the same thing as if a
woman
should marry another man, whilst she is under the law,
dominion,
and power of her former husband. The instance of
Timothy
serving with the Apostle Paul, as a son with a father, is not
the
case; for they were neither of them pastors of any particular
churches,
much less co-pastors. The one was an apostle, the other
an
evangelist, and both extraordinary ministers. The one
80
accompanied the other in his travels into different countries, and
was sent by him into different parts, but stayed not long in any
place.”
And to his family
and the friends to whom he most freely unbosomed
himself, he said,
“I should not like a co-pastor to hang about my neck, nor an
assistant to be dangling at my heels.”
The Doctor’s
hand-writing, when he came to reside in town, was
sufficiently
legible and bold; but it was gradually smaller to the close of life,
when but few could
easily make it out. He was what is generally termed
short-sighted, but
his sight was strong; and it pleased God wonderfully to
preserve it to
him, much as he must have used his eyes. So that he
corrected the last
work he published without the help of glasses, which
he
never used. Nay, he could read, even by candlelight, the smallest
print, till
within a few weeks
of his death.
When young his
voice was pretty loud, but as he advanced in years it was
much lower. In the
last part of his ministry it became very feeble, but he
was generally
heard by his audience, and his own people perfectly
understood him.
And what had abated in the energy of his manner was
compensated by the
solidity of his matter, and the devotional spirit with
which he delivered
it.
The Doctor’s
person was of the middle stature, neither tall nor short, well
proportioned, a
little inclined to corpulency; his countenance was fresh and
healthful,
expressive of vigor of mind, and of a serene cheerfulness,
which
continued with him
almost to the last.
He now gave his
Body of Divinity to the world, which was the last thing he
ever expected to
publish.
His last labors
among his dear people were the sermons he preached from
the Song of
Zacharias, Luke 1:78.
By the remission of their sins —
through the tender mercy of our God,
was the last text he preached
from. His health had been on the decline
some time; and he
thought his work was done. The decay of nature,
however, was very
gradual, frequently attended with a violent pain in his
81
stomach, and a
loss of appetite; “so that in the last six months he did not
partake of six
ounces of animal food.” But he bore the visitation of his
heavenly Father
with patient composure, and sweet resignation to the
divine will; never
uttering a single complaint.
He sometimes appeared to wish he could have finished the Song of
Zacharias; and also the Song of good old Simeon, in which he thought
there was
something resembling his own case. And especially he longed to
be at his nunc dimittis; Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, with
what follows. And
he thought, should he live to go through it, God might
then grant him his
dismission, and let him also depart in peace. But his
decline increasing
daily, he could not appear in the pulpit, and proceed in
his delightful
work. Notwithstanding, he continued to be employed in his
study, till within
two or three weeks of his decease, and always appeared
calm, serene, and
cheerful. He received the warning of his dissolution,
being seized for
death in his study. BUT HIS FAITH WAS UNSHAKEN, AND
HIS HOPE FIRM TO THE LAST.
To his dear
relative, the Reverend Mr. John Gill of St. Albans, he thus
expressed himself:
“I depend wholly and alone upon the free, sovereign,
eternal,
unchangeable, love of God, the firm and everlasting covenant of
grace, and my
interest in the Persons of the Trinity, for my whole salvation;
and not upon any
righteousness of my own; nor on any thing in me, or
done by me under
the influences of the Holy Spirit ;” and then, as
confirming what he
had said, “not upon any services of mine, which I have
been assisted to
perform for the good of the church,” do I depend, “but
upon my interest
in the Persons of the Trinity; the free grace of God, and
the blessings of
grace streaming to me through the blood and righteousness
of Christ, as the
ground of my hope. These are no new things to me, but
what I have been long acquainted with;
what I can live and die by. I
apprehend I shall
not be long here, but this you may tell to any of my
friends.”
Nearly in the same
words he expressed himself to other friends. To one, he
said, “I have
nothing to make me uneasy.” And then repeated the following
lines from Dr.
Watts, in honor of the adored Redeemer.
He rais’d me from
the depths of sin, —
The gates of gaping hell;
And fix’d my standing more secure
Than ‘twas before I fell.
82
This tranquility
of soul, this internal joy and peace of mind, never left him.
The last words he
was heard to speak were “O my Father, my Father!”
If from good works
could rise our last relief, Who more could boast than
this renowned
chief? But these afforded not the least delight,
They vanish’d, like a vapor, out of sight.
Not on his character, which stood renown’d,
Not on his labors, which Jehovah crown’d,
He placed the
least dependence; from his soul lie did most readily renounce
the whole:
And, from salvation, fix’d on the rich blood
And righteousness of his incarnate God.
There were his hopes, his rest, his joy, his crown,
And at his feet he laid his labors down.
Clear was his prospect of the promis’d land,
Where, in full view, he saw his Savior stand:
He on his everlasting love rely’d
Sunk in his arms, and in FULL GLORY died.
Thus he gloriously
terminated his mortal career, without a sigh or a groan,
on the 14th day of
October 1771, at about eleven o’clock in the forenoon,
at his house in
Camberwell, Surrey, aged seventy-three years, ten months,
and ten days.
His removal was
deeply felt. It spread a solemn gloom over the church in
which he had
honorably presided more than FIFTY-ONE years. They
immediately
assembled to consult on the best method of showing the last
token of respect
to their departed, venerable, pastor. The church
unanimously
desired that they might have the honor, if not of making the
arrangements for
the funeral, yet of defraying the expenses of it. But the
affluent
circumstances and tender affection of the bereaved family induced
them to decline
the proposal which had been respectfully delivered to them
by the deacons.
But, on the day of interment, the members and hearers of
the society, in a
vast train of mourning-coaches, affectionately followed his
remains to the
Dissenting burying-ground near Moorfields, where he was
deposited in the
family tomb, which is situated, according to the
intersections by
which the ground is divided, in the distance of 19 east and
west; 65 and 66
north and south. His respected friend and admirer, the
Reverend Mr.
Toplady, then in the bloom of life, most earnestly desired he
83
might officiate at the grave.
This affectionate respect was suitably
acknowledged, but Dr. Gill was
conscientiously a Dissenter, though he
might in his youth have been
sent to one of the universities, had he and his
parents approved of it. And as
he finished his course, most intimately
united to his own
denomination, without even the semblance of a
dereliction either of
principle or practice, the church were happy in the
appointment of the Reverend
Benjamin Wallin, M. A. to deliver the
address at his grave, and Dr.
Samuel Stennett to preach the funeral
discourse; though Dr. Gill
“had left directions behind him, not to have any
funeral sermon preached on his
account, as he never was fond of these
services.” The address and
sermon were printed; the numbers besides,
which were preached all
through Great Britain, and in various parts of
America, when the providence
was known, exceeded, probably, all that had
ever been known before or
since, respecting an individual, — proclaiming,
as with the voice of unusual
lamentation, A GREAT MAN IS FALLEN in
ISRAEL.
After his decease, most of his
printed Sermons and Tracts were collected
together and published in
three volumes quarto.
We terminate this imperfect
Memoir with the subsequent brilliant
paragraphs; furnishing what we
flatter ourselves will be considered one of
the first pieces of Biography
that has ever appeared in the English
language. We are indebted for
it to the pen of that elegant and forcible
writer, the Reverend AUGUSTUS MONTAGUE TOPLADY, A. B. written July
29, 1772.
Such were the indefatigable
labors, such the exemplary life, and such the
comfortable death of this
great and eminent person. If any one man can be
supposed to have trod the
whole circle of human learning, it was Dr.
GILL. His attainments, both in
abstruse and polite literature, were (what is
very uncommon) equally
extensive and profound. Providence had, to this
end, endued him with a
firmness of constitution, and an unremitting vigor
of mind, which rarely fall to
the lot of the sedentary and learned. It would,
perhaps, try the constitutions
of half the literati in
England, only to read,
with care and attention, the
whole of what he wrote.
The Doctor considered not any
subject superficially, or by halves. As
deeply as human sagacity,
enlightened by grace, could penetrate, he went
to the bottom of every thing
he engaged in. With a solidity of judgment,
and with an acuteness of
discernment, peculiar to few, he exhausted, as it
84
were, the very soul and
substance of most arguments he undertook. His
style, too, resembles himself;
it is manly, nervous, plain: conscious, if I may
so speak, of the unutterable
dignity, value, and importance of the freight it
conveys; it drives, directly
and perspicuously to the point in view,
regardless of affected
cadence, and superior to the little niceties of
professed refinement.
Perhaps, no man, since the
days of St. Austin, has written so largely, in
defense of the system of
Grace; and, certainly, no man has treated that
momentous subject, in all its
branches, more closely; judiciously, and
successfully. What was said of
Edward the Black Prince, “that he never
fought a battle, which he did
not win;” what has been remarked of the
great Duke of Marlborough,
“that he never undertook a siege, which he
did not carry;” may be justly
accommodated to our great Philosopher and
Divine: who, so far as the
distinguishing Doctrines of the Gospel are
concerned, never besieged an
error, which he did not force from its strong
holds; nor ever encountered an
adversary, whom he did not baffle and
subdue.
His learning and labors, if
exceedable, were exceeded only by the invariable
sanctity of his life and
conversation. From his childhood, to his entrance on
the ministry; and, from his
entrance on the ministry to the moment of his
dissolution; not one of his
most inveterate opposers was ever able to
charge him with the least
shadow of immorality. Himself, no
less than his
writings, demonstrated,
that the Doctrine of Grace does
not lead to
Licentiousness.
Those who had the honor and
happiness of being admitted into the number
of his friends can go still
further in their testimony. They know, that his
moral demeanor was more than
blameless: it was, from first to last,
consistently exemplary. And,
indeed, an undeviating consistency, both in
his views of evangelical
truths, and in his obedience, as a servant of God,
was one of those qualities, by
which his cast of character was eminently
marked. He was, in every
respect, a burning and a shining light — Burning
with love to God, to Truth,
and to Souls — Shining, as “an ensample to
believers, in word, in faith,
in purity;” a pattern of good works, and a
model of all holy conversation
and godliness.
The Doctor has been accused of
Bigotry, by some, who were unacquainted
with his real temper and
character. Bigotry may be defined such a blind
and furious attachment to any particular principle, or set of
principles, as
85
disposes us to wish
ill to those persons who differ from
us in judgment.
Simple Bigotry, therefore, is,
the spirit of persecution, without the power:
and persecution is no other
than bigotry, armed with force, and carrying its
malevolence into act. Hence it
appears, that to be clearly convinced of
certain propositions as true:
and to be steadfast in adhering to them, upon
that conviction: nay, to
assert and defend those propositions to the utmost
extent of argument; can no
more be called Bigotry, than the shining of the
Sun can be called Ostentation.
If, in any parts of his controversial writings,
the Doctor has been warmed
into some little neglects of ceremony toward
his assailants; it is to be
ascribed, not to bigotry (for he possessed a very
large share of benevolence and
candor), but to that complexional
sensibility, inseparable,
perhaps, from human nature in its present state; and
from which, it is certain, the
Apostles themselves were not exempt.
His Doctrinal and Practical
Writings will live, and be admired, and be a
standing blessing to
posterity, when their opposers are forgotten, or only
remembered by the reparations
he has given them. While true Religion, and
sound Learning have a single
friend remaining in the British Empire, the
works and name of Gill
will be precious and revered.
May the readers of this
inadequate sketch, together with him, who (though
of a very different
denomination from the Doctor) pays this last and
unexaggerated tribute of
justice to the honored memory of so excellent a
person, participate, on earth,
and everlastingly celebrate in heaven, that
sovereign Grace, which its
departed Champion so largely experienced —
to which he was so
distinguished an ornament — and of which he was so
able a defender.
His Works are, his Exposition
of the Old and New Testament, nine
volumes, folio — Exposition
of the Canticles — The Cause of God and
Truth, each in one volume, quarto — Body of Divinity,
three volumes,
quarto — And Sermons and
Tracts, published after his death, in three
volumes, quarto.
86
AN ELEGY
ON
The Death
OF THE
REV. JOHN GILL, D. D.
ELEGY,
etc. etc.
BY BENJAMIN FRANCIS
To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
~*~
Philippians 1:21.
WHEN the brave hero in the Christian cause,
Fir’d with the love of his redeeming Lord,
Clad with salvation, arm’d with truth
divine,
And just embarking on some grand intent,
Midst yawning billows and surrounding death,
Bade lasting farewell to his much belov’d
Ephesian brethren, on th’ Ionian shore;
Mean while declaring, with prophetic lips,
They should no more his face on earth
behold:
The holy elders, overwhelm’d with grief
At final parting with the man of God,
Embrac’d him ardent in their throbbing breast,
And bath’d with tears his venerable face.
Thus the bright flame of sacred Christian
love,
Glow’d in their bosoms; thus their hearts
dissolv’d
In flowing grief for the departing saint,
Stretching his pinions for his native skies.
87
And thus the grief of weeping Zion flows,
For her belov’d, divinely valiant Son,
Who long had watch’d upon her tow’ring wails,
Timely alarm’d her of approaching foes,
And fought her battles with heroic zeal;
Whose dreaded fall fair Salem feels around,
And Judah mourns through his extensive land.
O kindly aid me, thou celestial muse!
Whose inspiration taught the royal breast
Of Jesse’s son his elevated strains;
Aid me, O muse, in solemn notes to sing,
A prophet’s death, that claims our pious grief.
As from the summit of some trackless hill,
Bewilder’d pilgrims, dreading the black shades,
And sad inclemence of approaching night,
With eager look gaze on the setting sun,
And court his guidance to some peaceful cot;
So heav’n-born pilgrims, taught by thee, great GILL,
The sacred path to Paradise on high,
With throbbing bosoms, and with weeping eyes,
Saw thee descending, the’ with easy steps,
The steep of life, (eternal grace thy stay,)
Down to the gloomy vale, where grisly Death
Spreads ten-fold horror, roaring for his prey.
Not that we dread ought respecting thy
Victorious combat with the king of dread:
The mighty captain of salvation fought,
And, for thee, vanquish’d the alarming foe.
Nor was thy calm and steady soul disturb’d
By his loud terrors, as she safely pass’d
Through his dark borders, to the realms of light.
On truth eternal, and unchanging love,
Firm stood thy feet, ‘midst the cold stream of death,
Smit with the mantle thy Redeemer wrought.
To part with thee, — our ever watchful guide, —
To part with thee prompts our succeeding tears.
Excites our sorrow, and our fear alarms.
No more we see thy venerable face
In sacred Zion, at her solemn feasts,
Exciting pleasure, reverence and love.
No more we hear thy heart-reviving tongue,
88
Touch’d with a coal of bright celestial fire,
Unfold the wonders of redeeming grace!
No more new streams of truth divine we taste,
From thy unwearied and exhaustless quill!
Thy learned pen, incessantly’ employ’d,
For half an age, in thy great Master’s cause,
Thy hand has chang’d for never-fading palms;
And thy vast labors in the gospel field,
For fifty-five revolving suns, receive
The bright reward of an immortal crown.
The radiant orb that brings the welcome day,
With cheering light, and genial warmth replete,
In the fair east, begins, with early dawn,
His rapid journey to the distant west;
Spreads gladness round the gloomy beds of pain,
Bids sorrow smile, and melancholy sing; —
Invites the lab’rer to his various toil,
And guides the trav’ller in the dubious road; —
Succors each tribe of every growth and kind,
To life produc’d by his prolific beams;
The russet plains with cheerful green adorns,
And barren hills clothes with abounding corn; —
Warms the cold regions near the northern pole,
Thaws isles of ice, the frozen sea unbinds;
Soars far above each interposing cloud,
And walks serene beyond the raging storm;—
When gently down the distant hill he slides,
And seems extinguish’d in the western sea,
He rides aloft still in the blaze of day,
Pursues unwearied his diurnal course,
And rises glorious in the crimson east,
So, heav’n-taught GILL! shone thy transparent breast,
With light divine, imbib’d from the sole fount
Of evangelic and celestial truth:
So glow’d thy bosom with the sacred fire
Of love supreme to thy redeeming God,
Divinely kindl’d in thy tender mind,
Nor ought abated with advancing age:
Hence thy loud praises for abounding grace,
Thy deep concern for never-dying souls,
And tender feelings for each brother’s woe:
89
Hence, for thy Savior, thy unwearied zeal,
Thy various labors, and incessant toil:
And hence, thy relish and supreme esteem
For ev’ry stream of sacred truth, that flows
From revelation’s hallow’d spring, unmix’d
With muddy error, and insipid forms.
Soon in the morning of thy days, began
Thy willing feet, with pleasing haste, to tread
The sacred paths of wisdom, peace, and joy:
Soon did thy tongue, in evangelic strains,
Begin to sound the great Redeemer’s name,
That brought salvation to a dying world:
And soon thy quill, dipt in atoning blood,
Began to paint the beauties of thy Lord,
His glorious features, and surprising love.
As the nice labors of the pencil grow
More fare and precious, with improving time;
So the productions of thy able pen,
Where attributes and truths divine are seen
In beauteous order, and engaging light,
Shall unborn ages lastingly admire.
Thy various volumes shall instruction yield,
To sons of learning, and to sons of grace;
Shall teach the pastor how the flock to feed,
And guide the footsteps of his willing charge.
When the late day of glorious grace shall dawn,
The impious Gentile and blaspheming Jew
Shall read, believing, thy prophetic page,
With deep repentance, and exalted joy.
Celestial truth display’d her beauteous charms
And radiant crown, to thy admiring eyes,
Engag’d thee early in her sacred cause,
And flr’d thy soul with ardor from above.
Pleas’d and resolv’d the heavenly fair to serve,
And combat error with undaunted zeal,
Thy stripling hand began to wield the sword
Divinely temper’d, with amazing skill.
Sword of the Spirit! piercing through the soul!
With this brave weapon thy heroic arm
Nobly defended evangelic truth,
And pierc’d the heart of heresy and sin:
90
On either side gigantic errors fell,
And Satan trembled for his dark domain.
Through the wide field of science intricate,
Where oft proud error his tall standard rears,
The vet’ran foe thou closely didst pursue,
And drive him headlong from his boasted ground.
With ceaseless ardor and progressive steps,
‘Thy nimble feet trod the extensive field
Of human knowledge, and her paths explor’d:
There thrives improvement; there religion reaps
Abundant fruit, though of terrestrial growth,
Sweet to the taste, and wholesome to the mind;
And there thou gather’dst a surprsing fund
Of solid learning, sown, from age to age,
In foreign lands, Chaldea, Palestine,
Arabia, Egypt, Italy, and Greece.
Thy application, how intensely great!
Early and constant as the morning star:
Strong smells the lamp in all thy learned page.
How warm thy zeal for every truth divine!
How vast the toil of thy laborious pen!
Kind Heav’n be praised for such extensive grace,
And splendid gifts, bestow’d on mortal man.
Thus fraught thy mind, and thus enflam’d thy breast,
With heavenly wisdom, and seraphic love;
Bright didst thou shine in thy extensive sphere,
And light celestial round the nation spread;
Fair light divine, that penetrates the deep
Benighted caverns of the human mind;
The ransom’d tribes in paths of pleasure guides,
Through vales of sorrow to the realms of joy;
Gilds the black horror of indignant death;
Sheds a bright luster on the gloomy grave;
And paints upon the ravish’d eye of faith,
The glorious image of eternal things.
Nor light alone springs from thy splendent page
A genial warmth glows in each sacred line,
And thaws the center of the frozen soul,
From living faith’s deep penetrating root,
Extracts obedience, purity, and joy;
Cheers the fair shoots of growing hope; and dyes
91
The golden produce of unfading love.
Sad and alarming, that pernicious weeds
Of vice and error should, in Zion, thrive
Beneath the rays of evangelic truth;
While not the rays of evangelic truth
Contain the poison, but the noxious weeds.
So, wanton minds, in former ages, turn’d
Heav’n’s purest mercy into foulest crimes.
Deep didst thou dig in revelation’s mine,
For soul-adorning truths, which far excel
The glowing rubies of the Persian court,
And shine transparent through thy golden page.
Close was thy converse, intimate and sweet,
For half a cent’ry, with the men of God,
Apostles, prophets, patriarchs, priests, and kings,
Who, from the mouth of inspiration, wrote
The sacred volume, thy industrious pen,
With arduous toil, and skill profound, explain’d.
The peerless glories of thy bleeding Lord,
Seen through creation, Providence and grace;
The bright displays of everlasting love,
To all the heirs of never-fading bliss;
The awful wonders of the mystic cross;
And the vast joys of the celestial world, —
Were thy exalted and thy darling theme.
Thy nervous pen describ’d th’ eternal hills,
Where the clear stream of full salvation springs,
The spreading tree of life immortal grows,
And golden mines of saving grace are found;
And how that stream of full salvation flows,
In vast meanders, down to earth and time,
At Calvary the guilt of Salem drowns,
Removes her stains, her fainting mind revives,
And fills her sons with never-ending joy.
Nor error’s cloud, nor envy’s baleful mist,
Can veil the splendor of thy radiant page.
Thy
radiant page harmonious truth displays,
Deep penetration, and seraphic love.
Nor will it cease to shine from age to age,
Till the bright dawn of everlasting day.
92
Naught dead of thee, but thy dissolving clay,
Thy mental sorrows, and corporeal pains:
Here live thy labors to the end of time,
The monument of thy renowned name,
While thy bless’d soul in realms celestial dwells.
Sweet realms celestial! far beyond the reach
Of Satan, sin, temptation, grief, and death:
Where fair perfection round each angel shines;
Where glory blazes on seraphic eyes;
Where crystal joy in streams eternal glides;
And endless life smiles in unfading bloom.
Oft to those realms, while yet to earth confin’d,
On faith’s swift pinions, soar’d thy heav’n-born-soul:
With transport viewed the everlasting hills,
Bright with the sunshine of Jehovah’s love;
And wished to tread the goodly mount of God.
But now, thy spirit, O immortal GILL,
Is thither wafted on angelic wings.
And placed among thy kindred saints on high.
Now thou beholdest with extatic joy,
And tearless eyes, that glorious face divine
We love unseen, whose beatific smiles
Shed endless bliss on heaven’s triumphant host.
Now thou unitest with the countless throng,
In ceaseless praises to the Lamb that died
His foes to conquer, and his friends to save.
Now thou communest, on exalted themes,
With saints and angels of superior size;
With Gabriel, Enoch, Abr’am, Moses, Paul.
Brine, Stennett, Wilson and each bosom friend.
Now thou perusest with supreme delight,
The numerous volumes of surprising range,
Wherein are found the everlasting plan
Of new creation, infinitely fair, —
The matchless wonders of redeeming love,
The fresh achievements of victorious truth, —
And growing list of spirits glorified;
Expecting, joyful, when thy slumbering dust,
Shall hear the trump of the arch-angel sound,
In thy redeemer’s glorious image rise
To life immortal, and thy soul rejoin.
93
Thus, while our tears bedew thy sleeping clay,
And trembling Zion thy departure mourns,
Thy deathless mind incessant joys imbibes,
In the bless’d presence of the God of love;
While flaming seraphs and triumphant saints,
Joy to behold thee in the realms of bliss.
Nor long our feet this howling desert tread,
Amidst the footsteps of voracious Death,
Ere we ascend the everlasting mount,
Where all the ransomed of the Lamb shall meet,
Behold his glory with immortal eyes,
And sing his love in high seraphic strains.
There would we join thee in harmonious praise,
To HIM that reigns on heav’n’s eternal throne,
Dispensing bliss. And while we wishful gaze
On the bright hills beyond the vale of woe,
And view thee sitting, with perfection clad,
On shining Tabor at thy Savior’s side
We cease to weep around thy peaceful tomb,
And bless thy exit to the world of joy.
O kind Redeemer, fain would we exchange
These parched deserts, these annoying thorns,
For the sweet streams and never-fading flow’rs,
That glide and blossom in Emmanuel’s land!
Fain would we see thy long expected reign
On the new earth, and for a thousand years:
When the blessed subjects of thy peerless crown,
Shall round thee sit on their resplendent thrones;
When death shall die; when grief shall ever cease,
And bliss and glory in perfection bloom.