It is a known but sad fact that certain thorough-going Calvinists throughout the history of the church, and also more recently have fallen out of their original position to embrace the Arminian scheme. While as a general rule, nonetheless, is that most Christians who start out semi-Pelagian and become monergists remain so until for the rest of their life, there are a number of exceptions to the rule, some of whom had even read much Puritan and Reformed literature. It is a historic fact that James Arminius, who had been trained as a strong Calvinist under the tutorship of Theodore Beza and originally believed the doctrines of grace, was asked to defend Reformed doctrine against Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert, a liberal scholar of the day, and found himself unable to refute him. Little did people know that those seeds of doubts, sown into Arminius’ mind would grow into the most proeminent system of semi-Pelagianism in the history of the Church.
This is an important lesson for all of us, and I would say more especially so for those who were brought up in a Reformed church, under a steady diet of Heidelberg Cathecism, Belgic Confession or even Westminster Confession of Faith, and learned to trust those historic documents before being well acquainted with the Bible. Perhaps in your reading of Scriptures you have encountered passages that seemed to conflict with the doctrines of grace, or that you were unsure if the concept of an atonement for the elects alone was really scriptural. Personally, I myself had started to find some inconsistencies between the secret, as opposed to the revealed will of God, and had started to believe that the Arminian scheme does present the concept of a God who is truly loving. But even if you are not one of those people, and that no doubts in regard to Calvinism have even come to your mind, it would still be a good idea to read the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, or at least so in my opinion, and ensure that the foundation of your faith remains firm and unshakeable.
While John Wesley is considered by his followers as the greatest Arminian of all times, the best Arminian scholar of the eighteenth century, was probably neither him nor Adam Clark, but Dr. Daniel Whitby, an Anglican bishop and theologian. In 1733, his Discourse on the Five Points was reprinted, and judged a masterpiece on the subject, an unanswerable attack on the Five Points of Calvinism in favour of the Arminian Scheme. Whitby had essentially refined certain arguments from the Remonstrants, and constructed his own, presenting a large number of passages as “prooftexts” for Arminianism, and refuting all the main passages of Scripture that historic Calvinists had appealed to in favor of their system. He had directed much of his arguments both against low Calvinists like John Davenant and high Calvinists such as William Twisse. It would obviously take more than an amateur theologian to answer Dr. Whitby, perhaps more like a genuis, someone of the same calibre as Owen or Calvin. John Gill took the charge at hand and started writing a point-by-point refutation of Discourse on the Five Points which would send the treatise into the grave, where its master was then lying. Along with John Owen’s Death of Death I would judge The Cause of God and Truth as the best scholarly defense of Calvinism ever written, both indeed being unrefutable.
The Cause of God and Truth consists of four parts. In the first part, Gill performs a thorough exegetical analysis of sixty different passages of Scripture that Dr. Whitby and other Arminians had raised in support of their system. Many of these passages are still being appealed to by Arminians today, whether in seminaries or on the Web. Yet, not a single one of them have taken the time to refute Gill on any one passage, and however less would have time to do it point-by-point. Gill’s approach to the Scriptures is both systematic and scientific. In his defense, he first presents the Arminian interpretation or argument drawn from Scriptures and point out the logical flaws in Dr. Whitby’s reasoning. Next, he begins to rule out various false or improbable interpretations by looking at the context, the grammar in the original language, or facts of history. He also frequently appeals to rabinical sources from non-Christian scholars, presenting their views, and he finally begins to converge towards the most probable interpretation that takes into account what the inspired author had in mind in writing what he did. Making continual use of the analogy of Scripture, the reader quickly learns to trust John Gill’s exegesis, for he never attempts to “prove his point,” occasionally adopting an interpretation that is less favourable to the Calvinist. Moreover, Gill is not carried away by every whimp of emotion when he writes. Unlike John Calvin, he does not use any demeaning language against his opponent, instead politely calling him “the learnt writer,” and unlike John Owen, he does not attempt to impress or shock his opponent with the large number of arguments he can raise against a sophist interpretation. Moreover, Gill is careful not to contradict himself, and is very technical in his semantics, ensuring that not a single door remains open for the Arminians to go through. He has always more than one possible solution to provide, but always highlights the most probable one rather than the most Calvinistic one. The reader who is acquainted with the Calvin and Owen will soon realize that Gill frequently converges to the same interpretation as those two, showing the great consitency that exists among high Calvinist scholars.
In the second part of the work, Gill presents a number of passages that carefully, and indeed clearly teach the doctrines of grace, presenting the historic Reformed interpretation, and then refuting the twisted arguments that Dr. Whitby had raised against them. The reader will be amazed to see the exposition of John Gill, as well as the malice of Arminianism in trying to fight the very Holy Spirit of Scriptures. This part has really helped me realize that Arminianism is truly heretical, and that Arminians who attempt to refute the clear and logical meaning of such passages are doing no less than resisting the truth of the Gospel.
In the third part of his work, Gill finally responds to many philosophical arguments that Whitby had raised in support of the Arminian scheme and against the Calvinistic one. Dr. Gill also admits how Calvinism share both similarities and differences with Stoicism, but is careful to clear the charge that Augustianism had risen from the influence of Stoicism in the early church. Unlike many low Calvinists who preceeded him, John Gill is not a fan of paradoxes, and consequently does not like to combine universal concepts with Calvinistic ones. Consequently, he does not feel obliged to support the concept of a general will in God to save all mankind, and a specific will to save some and damn others, or to add certain universal aspects to the atonement like other Calvinists such as Charles Hodge and James Ussher have done. In some cases, Gill actually agrees with his opponent, and is never overly dogmatic on a particular issue. In many respects, Gill adopts an agnostic position in regard to theological ideas that the Scriptures do not prove, such as whether dying infants are saved or damned, or the origin of the soul. Overall, the Calvinism of John Gill is the simplest, most logical model that naturally seems to pop out of Scriptures.
In the fourth part, Gill presents quotations from the writings of different church fathers to disprove Dr. Whitby’s claim that synergism was the theological system of the early church. Although certain writers like Origen were inconsitent or careless in some of their remarks, Gill shows that most of them were very much in the same line of thinking as Augustine, and that all Augustine did was to clarify and fine-tune the teachings of the apostles and church fathers, thus making Calvinism or Augustinianism the original truth of the early church. This is truly a masterpiece that must have required a lot of research on the part of Dr. Gill, in identifying all the hundreds of quotations and translating them into English. For example, from Irenaeus he points out: “He plainly hints at the stability and immoveableness of the decree of election, when he calls it, turris electionis, “the tower of election;” for why should he call it a tower, but because it is impregnable and immoveable, because “the purpose of God, according to election, is that foundation which stands sure, not of works, but of him that calleth?”
Unfortunately, some have criticized this work as being “one of hyper-Calvinism’s greater works” according to Dr. Matthew McMahon, and other Reformed theologians of today labelling it “John Gill’s hyper-Calvinistic Cause of God and Truth.” One may indeed appeal to different exerpts from the book that sound somewhat hyper-Calvinistic in their semantics, but it must be noted that the same language can be found in the writings of John Owen, John Calvin, and even a lot more so in Arthur W. Pink. Perhaps it is the fact that John Gill rejects the concept of a universal offer of grace that makes low Calvinists uncomfortable, or that Gill says that “the gospel is not an offer, but the power of God unto Salvation…” However, the careful reader will see that Gill is simply avoiding careless semantic that would make irresistible grace sound resistible. John Calvin and other Reformed theologians would speak of the “Gospel Offer” or the “Universal Offer,” with the original Latin connotation behind the word offero, which means to “present” or “put forth.” However, by 1735 it appears to me that the word had started to change connotation in the English tongue, suggesting that the gospel presentation had turned into today’s gospel offer, although I would need to do more research to prove this. This is at least true for the word passion, also derived from Latin which originally carried the connotation of “suffering” in English, and today means “a mild obsession.” Moreover, John Gill clearly believes in common grace, although he calls it “providencial goodness” or “kindness,” and clearly denies equal ultimacy, suggesting that God is passive towards the reprobates, not taking pleasure in adding unecessary burdens upon them. While Arthur Pink argues that God sovereignly hardens the reprobate, Gill interprets the hardening of the heart as a second cause. John Gill even shows that God is good towards the reprobate, occasionally granting them an outward or ceremonial repentance so that they may receive a milder punishment in hell. In regard to duty-faith, Gill presents various propositions in support of it, but later opts for an agnostic position, pointing out that God calls the reprobates to have at least a historical faith in Christ, but that it cannot be proven from Scriptures by direct exegesis whether God actually expects them to believe to the saving of their soul or not. Moreover, while many infralapsarians nowadays attempt to win Arminians over by portraying the supralapsarian scheme as cruel and extreme so as to make their position appear more moderate and biblical, John Gill actually defends both views against the attacks of Whitby, but overall seems to come down more infralapsarian, as can also be shown from other of his writings, and is also alleged by Toplady and his biographer John Rippon. Consequently, I do not see how the charges of hyper-Calvinism can be raised against Gill anymore than against Owen, Twisse, Calvin or Pink, especially in comparison to the real hyper-Calvinists that arose after him like John Ryland, James Well and more recently Herman Hoeksama.
The Cause of God and Truth is no less than a must-read for every Reformed Christian desiring to know how to defend his faith against the attacks of Arminians and Papists. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth did not bring a final blow to Arminianism, since so long as there are sinners on earth there will be free-willers; rather, it brought a final blow to the scholarship of Arminianism. Today’s Arminians are like chicken without heads, leafing through their Bible in search of prooftexts where there are none. Those theologians who claim to believe in the authority of Scriptures and are outwardly Arminian are willfully ignorant, just like their father Wesley. Interestingly, while much of Wesley’s influence today has degenerated into some liberal church denominations, or Charismatic/Pentecostal movements, John Gill’s influence still stands through all his precious and influencial writings. There were no fewer than four pastors/theologians who wrote to Wesley urging him to stop spreading the lie, including John Gill, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady and Jonathan Edwards. Unfortunately, Wesley hard-headedly continued to drive his movement forward, ignoring the wise and godly advise of his contemporaries. Perhaps if only he had tried to think rationally and read The Cause of God and Truth, things would have been different. Gordon H. Clark, the greatest Reformed philosopher of the twentieth century (along with Van Til) said that John Gill was a genuis for writing this treatise. I agree.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

I'm a big Gill fan as well, thanks for posting.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Thanks for the You Tube Bible study, I guess it was taken from Gill's exposition of the Bible, right? One of my goals in life is to read all the works of John Gill before I die. I think I can do away with ignoring many puritan authors, but I just can't ignore John Gill. It's like pure goal, quality before quantity. I think my favourite theologians after all are John Gill, John Calvin, John Owen and Thomas Goodwin; all these guys are good to read, and in fact very consistent among themselves.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

Hi:

I thought the best defense of Calvinism was Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Wasn't Gill a hyper-Calvinist?

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

John Gill was probably more of a high-Calvinist than a hyper-Calvinist.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

John Gill certainly did not believe that the reprobate were duty bound to have saving faith in Christ. I started writing a book on Gill's view of preaching but this has been put on hold.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I throughly enjoy Dabney's defense found here.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church
Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

"Nothing is sweet to me without the enjoyment of Christ in it." -- Thomas Brooks

Is this a criterion for hyper-Calvinism?

BTW, Owen's "A Display of Arminianism" is very good.

__________________

I think rejecting 'duty faith' as well as the well meant offer places you in the Hyper camp, historically, Pastor Ken. In that case Gill would be most definitely a hyper.

__________________
Andrew Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI)

"Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness

I can't recall the specifics of his argument off-hand, but Tom Nettles agrees that the denial of duty faith is a characteristic of Hyper-calvinism and also denies that Gill was a Hyper. Cf. By His Grace and for His Glory (Baker Books, 1986).

I also like Gill and think his Cause of God and Truth is not appreciated enough.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

I am not too sure what hyper-Calvinism is, but Gill went far further than the Puritans and IMO went into error on this issue.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

So Nettles believed that Gill taugh duty-faith?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I would be interested in reading such a book. My experience of Gill is mostly thorough his commentary on the whole Bible (the best ever written). But I have heard that he goes further in The Cause of God and Truth (which I own but have not read).

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

One example is:

...it is the duty of all men to love the Lord, as they are the creatures of his make, the care of his providence, and supplied by him with the blessings of life; and, so long as they are, the obligation to love him continues, and would have continued, had there been no redemption at all by Christ. It is true, redemption by Christ lays a fresh obligation on those who are interested in it, to love the Lord; and, indeed, those who have no interest in that special blessing of grace, have reason to love the Lord upon the account of it; since it is owing to Christ’s engagement to redeem his own people, that the rest are continued in their being, and supplied with the blessings of providence, which were forfeited by sin. Besides, though such cannot be obliged to love the Lord for that redemption which never was intended for them, nor for that grace which will not be vouchsafed to them; yet, all to whom the gospel revelation comes, are obliged to love the Lord on the account of redemption by Christ; since all who see their need of it, and are desirous of interest in it, have no reason to conclude otherwise, than that Christ died for them, and has redeemed them by his blood. (The Cause of God and Truth, Part 3, Chapter 3, pp. 170)

Another:

...no man is bound to believe more than what is revealed. If evidence is given of Christ’s being the Son of God, the Messiah and Savior of the world, as was to the Jews, credit should be given thereunto; which the Jews should and could have given, though they could not believe unto salvation, without superior power and grace: if Christ is represented, to any persons as a proper object of faith, trust, and confidence; it becomes such persons to believe in him, and rely upon him; and such are, by the grace of God, enabled so to do. If the Spirit of God reveals to a man his particular interest in the death of Christ, or that Christ died for him in particular, he ought to believe it. (The Cause of God and Truth, Part 3, Chapter 8, pp. 210)

Note in his commentary on verses such as Acts 3:19, he argues that the repentance urged upon is external not saving, hence he writes "no other repentance and conversion may be here meant than an external one" (see here as well). Whilst in places he is a little unclear, I am convinced that he went too far.

It should be observed, that repentance is either evangelical or legal, and this either personal or national. Evangelical repentance is not in the power of a natural man, but is the gift of God’s free grace. Legal repentance may be performed by particular persons, who are destitute of the grace of God, and by all the inhabitants of a place, as the Ninevites, who repented externally at the preaching of Jonah, though it does not appear that they had received the grace of God, since destruction afterwards came upon that city for its iniquities; and such a repentance these Jews are here exhorted to, on the account of a national sin, the crucifixion of Christ, with which they are charged (vv. 14-18), and in the guilt and punishment, of which they had involved themselves and all their posterity, when they said, His blood be upon us, and upon our children (Matthew 27:25). Likewise the conversion here pressed unto us, is not an internal conversion of the soul to God, which is the work of almighty power, but an outward reformation of life, or a bringing forth fruit in conversation meet for the repentance insisted on. Besides, exhortations to any thing, be it what it will, do not necessarily imply that man has a power to comply with them. Men are required to believe in Christ, to love the Lord with all their heart, to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit, yea, to keep the whole law of God; but it does not follow that they are able of themselves to do all these things. If, therefore, evangelical repentance and internal conversion were here intended, it would only prove that the persons spoken to were without them, stood in need of them, could not be saved unless they were partakers of them, and, therefore, ought to apply to God for them.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

A few places to look:

Tom Nettles says of Gill, "He has doubtless been judged more harshly and even maliciously than any man of comparable repute in Baptist history." Many have called John Gill a hyper-Calvinist who denied the need to preach the gospel to the lost. I will not seek to answer that question in this forum. Read Tom Nettles By His Grace and For His Glory, pages 73-107, for a thorough and balanced discussion of this issue

. John Gill - The Baptist Page - Portraits

It's not a settled issue:

Gill's relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate.

John Gill (theologian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A little more:

Nettles finds one place where Gill “appears to hold the hyper-Calvinist view,” in that “Theoretically Gill held that the non-elect were not obligated to evangelical obedience, because the necessity of such obedience did not exist in unfallen humanity as deposited in Adam” (226). Nettles demonstrates, however, that this view did not work its way into Gill’s own practice (227). Gill disputed with Wesley, but he “did not differ in any essential theological category from the Grand Itinerant, George Whitefield” (241).

Some took hold of Gill’s “theoretical” answer, and as a result they did not call sinners to repentance. They reasoned like Grantham: sinners are not obligated to do what they are unable to do (247–48). Helped by Jonathan Edwards’ distinction between Natural Inability—what one is physically unable to do, and Moral Inability—what one is unable to do because one is unwilling to do it (the Gospel does not call people to do what they are physically incapable of doing but to what they volitionally refuse to do)—Andrew Fuller wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, which argued for “the congruity between divine sovereignty and human responsibility” (250). Like their Baptist forefathers, Fuller joined with John Ryland Jr. and William Carey in the opinion that “the affirmative side of the Modern Question [the Gospel should be indiscriminately proclaimed and all called to believe it] was fully consistent with the strictest Calvinism” (290). These three men who held to “the strictest Calvinism” initiated the modern missions movement. Clearly “strict Calvinism” is not to be equated with “hyper-Calvinism,” which Fuller rejects as “false Calvinism” (245). There is an important point here. Hyper-Calvinism is a specific theological position. It seems today that some non-Calvinists are ready to label anyone who appears to be less evangelistic than they think themselves to be as hyper-Calvinistic. The rejection of manipulative methods and coercive techniques in favor of boldly proclaiming the pure Gospel and trusting the Spirit to quicken hearts is not less evangelistic but more so (compare Paul’s practice in 1 Cor 2:1–5).

The Baptists, vol. 1 of 3, by Tom Nettles « For His Renown

Last one:

A Hyper-Calvinist, Gill`s major critics say, does not believe that God calls indiscriminately all who hear about Christ to believe in Him. They say this, holding that man is obliged as a matter of duty to trust in Christ as a condition of salvation. It is odd that this opinion is often closely associated with Gill for several reasons. First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published. The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand . John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question .

In The Cause of God Gill clearly stresses the Christian duty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to call and command sinners to repent . All men are naturally bound to repent, argues Gill, because they have naturally broken the law. Commanding them to repent is putting them under the curse of the law which they have broken in their natural state. To Gill, this is a law-ordained need for repentance in the legal sense. What man has broken, he has a duty to mend. This does not mean, however, that man can mend what he has broken and obtain legal righteousness, but he is still a debtor to the law for having broken it. The law forces its demands on every one because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. What Gill calls evangelical repentance, is for him another matter. He sees this as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ. This kind of turning from sin to Christ can only come about by a sovereign act of God`s goodness which leads to true repentance and Gospel righteousness.

Calvin taught likewise that there was an ´antithesis between Legal and Gospel (i.e. evangelical) righteousness`. Quoting Romans 10:5-9, he argues that there is a righteousness which is according to the Law described by Moses, "that the man who doeth those things shall live by them". This is quite different to the righteousness of faith which says, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

John Gill and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism

Some have attributed to Gill to be the first systematizer of a Baptist Hyper-Calvinist theology. Others have argued that Gill was in fact not a Hyper-Calvinist. Regardless, it was during Gill’s time period when the Particular Baptist Churches began their decline into Hyper-Calvinism. Gill did believe in eternal justification (that the elect were justified in eternity past) and did not seem to appeal to all in the same way that further generations of Evangelical Calvinists did, but it seems difficult to say that Gill was undeniably in fact a Hyper-Calvinist. Instead, most likely, Hyper-Calvinists used Gill’s theology and went past him to solidify their own theology.

Brief Biography of John Gill (1697-1771) « Working out Salvation with Fear and Trembling

Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told.

Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistable internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.

The Sane Asylum: Another John Gill Post

John Gill and his Successors

New Focus | That the purpose of God according to election might stand

New Focus Interview on Hyper-Calvinism

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Jason,

I do not doubt your genuiness but perhaps you could quote Gill himself to show that he did not deny duty-faith? I have read pretty much all that he wrote and have concluded that he did deny duty-faith.

I adore the work of Gill, but on this issue he is dead wrong. For the record, the fact that Gill preached to convert does not mean he did not deny duty-faith. I find the following, taken from The Doctrine of the Cherubim Opened and Explained, one of the best explanations of the work of a minister:

And this is the business that you, my Brother, should be constantly employed in, in instructing men that they are not to be saved by their own works, duties and services; that God saves and calls men, not according to their works, but according to his purpose and grace; that men are to expect the pardon of sin, not on the account of their repentance and humiliation, but through the blood of Christ, and according to the riches of God’s grace; that by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in the sight of God but that a man is justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ, without the deeds of the law; that men are not saved by the best works of righteousness done by them, but by the abundant mercy and free grace of God, through Christ. You are to acquaint all that you are concerned with, that salvation is by Christ alone; that God has chosen and appointed him to be his salvation to the ends of the earth; and that he has appointed men to salvation alone by him; that he has sent him into the world to be the Saviour of them; this is the faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, you are to publish and proclaim, that Christ came into the world to save the chief of sinners; and that by his obedience, sufferings, and death, he is become the author of eternal salvation to them; and that there is salvation in him, and in no other; and that there is no other name given under heaven among men whereby they can be saved. Souls sensible of sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree of life unto them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin; and in his name you are to preach the forgiveness of it to them; you are to direct believers, under your care, to go by faith daily to Christ the mediator, and deal with the blood of sprinkling for the remission of their sins, and the cleansing of their souls; which sprinkled on them speaks peace and pardon, purges the conscience from dead works, and cleanses from all sin. You are to point out the righteousness of Christ, as the only justifying righteousness of men, by whose obedience only men are made righteous; the ministration of the gospel is a ministration of righteousness, even of the righteousness of Christ, which is revealed in it from faith to faith; and such should he your ministration. You are to acquaint men, that this righteousness is unto all, and upon all that believe; and that, such are justified from all things by it, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses; and that the acceptance of men with God, is only in Christ the beloved. You are to observe to men the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God and to direct them, as one of the cherubs did, pointing to him, and saying, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! John 1:29, to bid them view the sin-bearing and sin-atoning Saviour, and look to the Lamb in the midst of the throne as though he had been slain; by whose slain sacrifice sin is put away, and they perfected for ever that are sanctified.

I also find Murray's explanation of Gill's theology to be very poor indeed.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK