Dr. George M. Ella is the author of definitive biographies on William Cowper, William Huntington, Henry Bullinger, James Hervey and Augustus Topdlady. He has also authored several works on theological subjects: “Justification and the Call of the Gospel”, “Common Grace and the Call of the Gospel”, “Particular Redemption: And the Theology of Andrew Fuller”, “The Free Offer and the Call of the Gospel”.

In recommending Dr. Ella’s biography on John Gill, Pastor Don Fortner writes: “George Ella has been used of God to give the Christian public an opportunity to understand and appreciate one of the giants of church history in this thoroughly researched biography. As I recommend Gill’s writings to anyone who wants to understand the Bible, I heartily recommend George Ella’s biography to anyone who wants to understand Gill.”

The book was published in 1995 by Go Publications and can be purchased from this link: New Focus

As a sample of what Dr. Ella offers in this biography, the Introduction is copied in full:

The church of the Lord Jesus Christ in the present day has been enriched by many recent reprints of the works of leaders of the eighteenth-century revival and many biographies have been written about their authors. The emphasis, however, has been placed almost solely on the work of Anglicans such as Whitefield, Toplady, Newton, Cowper and Venn leaving the unavoidable impression that Dissenting churches, such as the Baptists, played no part in these revivals. Though this is largely true of the General Baptists,[1] who had, to a very large extent, become Unitarian by the 1770s, it is far from true regarding the Particular Baptists.

John Gill, a Particular Baptist through and through, must certainly be listed with the earliest and greatest pioneers of the work of the Holy Spirit in theeighteenth century. Gill’s widespread influence from 1719-1771 was immense by any standards. In general, the Baptist churches of his day were going through a most difficult time owing to a lack of definitive doctrinal standards and when Gill became pastor of the Goat Yard church in Southwark, the Baptist churches were still finding their feet after the Restoration persecutions and the severe anti-Dissenting laws that followed.

Gill was not only a tower of strength to the Baptists but was also greatly appreciated by ‘many in other churches, of different denominations’,[2] and especially by Anglican Evangelicals.[3] James Hervey (1714-1758), who was one of the very first eighteenth-century Evangelical pastors to enter into the revival work, did so some ten years after Gill had started his ministry in London and depended very much on Gill’s works in his own expository preaching. Hervey, who is himself commonly known as ‘the prose poet’ because of the lyrical quality of his language, likened Gill to Milton for the way in which he combined theological teaching with a language marked by beauty and variety. Hervey, the Anglican, whose books went into three editions per year, leaned so heavily on Gill, the Baptist, that he sent him his manuscripts before publication with such pleas as ‘Let me beg of you to run over it with your pen in hand, and to minute down whatsoever is unevangelical in doctrine; inconclusive in argument; obscure, ambiguous, or improper in expression’.[4] Writing to Gill in 1755 concerning a volume of Vitringa the Baptist pastor wished to borrow, Hervey told him that he would prefer Gill to spend his time correcting his Theron and Aspasio first, instead of reading Vitringa, which Hervey would send as soon as his corrected MS came back. In the same letter, Hervey mentions especially Gill’s work on Christ’s ransom, on faith and his funeral sermon on Mr Seward’s death which had all been for him ‘sweet to my taste, and I trust have been a blessing to my soul’.

Augustus Montague Toplady (1740-1778), another Anglican, was, if possible, more attached to Gill than Hervey and allowed Gill’s thoughts to influence his own to a great extent, looking up to him as his personal monitor in the faith. Of his Baptist teacher, he testifies:

‘Perhaps, no man, since the days of St. Austin, has written so largely, in defence 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 strongholds; nor ever encountered an adversary, whom he did not baffle and subdue.’[5]

Anglican leaders of the Awakening were drawn to Gill because he brought back the teachings of the Reformation which had been widely abandoned in their denomination in favour of the Restoration duty-faith teaching based on the natural religion of Tillotson, Tindal and Toland and the rationalistic, moral philosophy of Hugo Grotius. Faced with such non-theological humanism Gill emphasized the biblical doctrines of the total depravity of man, penal redemption, justification by faith as the gift of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ.[6] Sadly these doctrines were again dropped like hot cakes by the main body of Baptists after Gill’s death, fearing that they encouraged Antinomianism. This led to a massive turning again to the doctrines of Tillotson, Grotius and the Deists with an even greater stress on the universality of fallen man’s knowledge of his ‘duties’ and basic abilities for carrying them out. This emphasis on man’s alleged natural powers has become the mainstay of widespread Arminian methods of modern evangelization with their stress on human decisions for Christ rather than God’s respect for the law man has broken and Christ’s loving death for his church. The doctrines of grace were to be continually taught, however, by those believers of all denominations who associated themselves with such preachers of righteousness as William Romaine, Augustus Montague Toplady, William Huntington, J. C. Philpot, William Gadsby, Robert Hawker and David Alfred Doudney.[7]

This latter writer’s testimony to the value of Gill’s teaching is an inspiration in itself. Doudney, who was editor of the Gospel Magazine from 1840-1893, was an Anglican curate in a tiny, mainly Roman Catholic, village in Ireland. He was so thrilled with the clarity of Gill’s teaching that he determined to set up a printing press so that he might reprint as much of Gill as he could lay his hands on. When his landlady heard of his plan, she forbade him to erect the press on her property as she wanted to be of no assistance whatsoever to the enemies of the pope. Doudney persevered and in rapid time trained the local unemployed ragamuffins to run the press and obtained support from over 1,100 friends who were prepared to finance the undertaking. The copies of Gill that Charles Haddon Spurgeon treasured were from this tiny Popish-Ireland press and it is mainly Doudney’s excellent productions that have provided the basis of modern reprints.

When Doudney the Anglican encountered the Baptist scholar’s works, he confessed they had ‘a savour and power for which we were scarcely prepared’. He goes on to say, ‘We love sound, full, so-called high-doctrine; but where the grace and the dew of the doctrine is there too, under the teaching, power and application of the Holy Ghost, it fixes that doctrine in the heart and conscience; and we defy men or devils thence to uproot it. An unctuous word dropped by the Holy Ghost upon the heart is like “cold water to a thirsty soul”; and whilst it exalts and endears a precious Christ, in his person, work and office, it is the most deadly artillery with which Satan and all the powers of darkness can be attacked. We are of the opinion that many of these savoury sweets, beloved, will drop from this honeycomb into your heart; and thus make


“Sovereign mercy dear to you,
And Jesus all in all.’”

These words were prefaced to Doudney’s edition of Gill’s commentary on the Song of Solomon which is couched throughout in the language of Eden and heaven. In producing Gill’s works, Doudney testifies that he is following God’s call to ‘print, preach, and practise (as God shall give you grace) the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Let press, and pulpit, and parlour, echo and re-echo, with a living testimony for covenant love, covenant blood, and covenant salvation: and this shall be found the most effectual means of counteracting the artifices of Satan, and the cunning devices of pope, Puseyite, and all such sanctimonious but hypocritical pretenders.’

Times have changed and any biographer attempting to write a ‘life’ of Gill, particularly in this modern age of doctrinal confusion and distaste for Reformed theology, is in danger of putting his foot into a hornet’s nest of controversy. Anyone who speaks his mind as clearly and, at times, as sternly as did John Gill must be expected to cause opposition and resentment in those who feel their fur is being brushed the wrong way. The surprising fact, however, is that during the entire period of Gill’s ministry few within his own denomination reacted violently against him and Gill was able to unite many on a sound doctrinal basis who had formerly been at sixes and sevens on doctrinal issues. Ivimey, the Baptist historian, claimed that Gill’s words were universally accepted as ‘almost oracular among the Baptists’.[8] Outside of Baptist circles there was also little marked opposition from evangelicals. Even John Wesley, who campaigned against Gill’s teaching on the need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, election and the perseverance of the saints, kept a good opinion of his strongest contestant. After firing a few broadsides against Gill’s Calvinism which Gill more than adequately debunked, Wesley hoisted the white flag and retired from combat. Talking one day to Toplady, Wesley affirmed of Gill, ‘He is a positive man, and fights for his own opinions through thick and thin.’[9] If Gill’s most ardent enemies spoke of him in this positive way, one can imagine how high an opinion his many friends must have had of him.

One of these friends and admirers was John Collet Ryland, a Baptist minister who asserted a strong influence for good on eighteenth-century Baptist church life. Ryland was convinced that God had specially chosen Gill to lead the Particular Baptists out of oblivion and doctrinal disunity. In 1777, when dealing with the falling away of the Arminian Baptists, Ryland, the Calvinist, wrote: ‘At present blessed be God, we believe there is no apparent apostasy in our ministers and people from the glorious principles we profess.’ He goes on to say, ‘Much of the credit for this unswerving allegiance to the doctrine of Scripture, under God, must be attributed to John Gill, known affectionately as Dr Voluminous.’[10]

Much of the uniting influence Gill exercised during his lifetime was not only because of his doctrines but because of his life which gave those doctrines credibility and authority. Writing a ‘Life’ of Gill, however, is a truly arduous task, fraught with many difficulties. Writing the lives of William Cowper and William Huntington was very easy in comparison. There are almost 1,500 extant letters from the pen of Cowper which provide a detailed, often day by day, view of every corner of his life. Similarly, many hundreds of letters to and from Huntington have been preserved and Huntington did his biographers the good turn of writing several autobiographical volumes. On starting my work on Cowper, I was pleased to find that almost fifty authors had written detailed biographies before me. Huntington had only one major biographer, Thomas Wright, but his was a very sound piece of work, both biographically and in its theological assessment. There are, however, some dozens of short biographies and appraisals of the Immortal Coalheaver and the Huntingtonians. As the latter were highly recommended by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a continuing modern interest for Huntington by Christian writers is guaranteed.”[11]

When turning to Gill, the situation is quite different. There are very few known extant personal letters from the scholar-pastor’s pen. There are hints to be found that there may be private collections in existence, but I have been only meagrely successful in following up these clues, rediscovering three or four letters which were said either to have disappeared or their existence was not known. Nor is there much biographical information to be found in Gill’s works which are mostly of an expository nature. Nor has there ever been a fully detailed biography of Gill’s life printed. A very short account was written in 1772 by an anonymous author and prefaced to Gill’s Sermons and Tracts with an even shorter biography by Toplady. In 1786 Erasmus Middleton, an Anglican Evangelical, placed Gill next to White field in vol. iv of his Bibliographia Evangelica and devoted eighteen pages in praise of Gill’s life and work. John Rippon’s ‘Life’ of Gill written in 1800 is true to its full title, ‘A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Late Rev. John Gill, D.D.’[12] It is only 141 tiny pages long and touches very lightly on many parts of Gill’s life, leaning very heavily on the earlier accounts and quoting Toplady’s brief 1772 biography in full. Rippon’s work is, however, doubly valuable. Rippon was Gill’s successor at Carter Lane after his death. He was thus able to discuss with people who had known Gill for many years and find out at close hand about his true character. Because of Rippon’s close friendship with Andrew Fuller, Gill’s major critic, one would have feared that Rippon may have been biased against Gill especially as a large number of Gill’s followers left the church when Rippon took over. Gill’s successor did not let these facts deter him from being objective to a large degree and he has faithfully painted a picture of Gill which puts to flight most of the criticisms of modern Fullerites. Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote a brief biography of Gill in his History of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, depicting Gill as a grim preacher without a sense of humour, although the anecdotes of Gill which Spurgeon quotes indicate that the humour was certainly there but Spurgeon somehow was unable to grasp the point!

Apart from these brief works, little general research has been done into Gill’s life. A few university essays and theses have been written, but these are, on the whole, most unsympathetic to his cause. One is amazed to find that our universities award Ph.D.s to those prepared to write almost a thousand pages of persiflage on the life and teaching of John Gill. In recent years there has been a short biography written by Mr J. R. Broome of the Gospel Standard Baptists who has the abilities and the doctrines to write further on his subject. Graham Harrison gave the annual Evangelical Library lecture in 1971 on ‘Dr John Gill and his Teaching’ which will be commented on in due course. Several excellent articles have appeared from time to time in the Baptist Quarterly Magazine run by the Baptist Historical Society, supplying much information omitted in the older biographies. Indeed, I have found the research of Dr B. R. White of the Baptist Historical Society invaluable in writing on Gill’s early years as a pastor and Dr Raymond Brown of the same society has done some excellent background work. Alan Sell’s The Great Debate also contains a more balanced evaluation of Gill’s life and work than the usual modern tirades against Gill.

There are two outstanding recent American works on Gill. Thomas J. Nettles’ chapter entitled ‘Bridge Over Troubled Waters’ in his book ‘By His Grace and for His Glory’ is one of them. Nettles seeks to present ‘a correction to modern caricatures and misrepresentations’ concerning Gill and puts to flight all accusations of Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism levelled at him. Even more notable is Timothy George’s evaluation of ‘Gillism’ in his joint production with David Dockery under the title Baptist Theologians. This work indeed reinstates Gill as the great, orthodox, Baptist leader he was. Important, too, is the fact that George and Dockery are obviously not writing from a High-Calvinistic point of view, nor have they an obvious theological axe to grind. On the whole, however, the way the churches have treated Gill’s memory, or rather neglected to treat it, is highly blameworthy. Recent British works have, with few exceptions, merely underlined the maxim that a prophet is not honoured in his own country.

When one turns, however, to the theological works of Gill rather than purely biographical matter, no present-day writer could complain of a lack of material. Indeed, one encounters a veritable embarrassment of riches. Toplady wrote of Gill’s immense energies as a reader and writer: ‘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 vigour of mind, which rarely fall to the lot of the sedentary and learned. It would, perhaps, try the constitution of half the literati in England, only to read, with care and attention, the whole of what he wrote.’[13]

It is this immense mind-stretching aspect of Gill’s works which perhaps poses the major problem for a present-day appraiser. Anyone approaching Cowper with an eye for good prose and an ear for good poetry can immediately get down to the task of writing about him. Anyone with a working knowledge of the Bible is immediately at home in Huntington’s works. One can also read their works in a comparatively short length of time. Gill’s works, however, are far more extensive and time-consuming. Coupled with their vast breadth is their awe-inspiring, deep profundity. Though Gill is a master of prose and attains to poetical heights, especially in his commentary of the Song of Songs, he also wrote many extremely scholarly theses which require of the reader a detailed understanding of theological problems, a working knowledge of at least Greek, Hebrew and Latin and also a compendious familiarity with Classical writers and the Christian writers of the 1700 years up to his day. Any discrepancies in the learning of a would-be recorder of Gill’s life and works, as I have learnt to my dismay, has to be supplemented by a prodigious use of dictionaries, encyclopaedias, history books, theological works and linguistic tomes. The reward for such toil, however, is enormous. The more such a student-writer digs in the mines of past saints’ thoughts, the more he discovers true gems which are a veritable blessing to his soul. Cowper taught me a better language with which to praise my God. Huntington taught me how the sinner needs and can obtain a true holiness without which no one can see the Lord. My time spent at Gill’s feet has shown me most profitably how a servant of God must ‘study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth’.

C. S. Lewis has much to say about reviewers’ reconstructions of the genesis of an author’s work and invariably an author trembles every time a new review of one of his works is put into his hands. So often, it is not the book itself which aids or hinders sales but the personal, subjective comments of the reviewers. Though reviews in general of my Cowper and Huntington biographies were highly positive, from one particular corner came the comment that I was highly biased in my work. This, of course, was no great feat of insight on the part of the reviewers as I had freely confessed this in my books. I can hardly imagine an author writing a life of a Father in Israel with whom he was in full disagreement! Furthermore, it is quite obvious that an author, biased in one direction, can hit upon facts that those biased in the opposite direction have ignored. In the case of Gill, as in the cases of Cowper and Huntington, it is impossible to give an assurance of no bias and would be a claim no writer could uphold.

Opinions concerning Gill differ widely and those on each side of an argument tend to believe that the other side argues inconclusively or even in an exaggerated way. If we take modern positive appraisals of Gill, leaving aside those who are obviously against him for the moment, it is plain to see how glaringly they still contradict one another. This leaves the impression that someone must be exaggerating somewhere as the conflicting arguments from within the pro-Gill camp cannot possibly be reconcilable. This is illustrated by the positive appraisals of Broome and Nettles referred to above. Broome sees Gill as a pioneer of the movement which came to be known as the Gospel Standard Churches.[14] This group of Particular Baptist churches, unlike many other so-called Reformed churches, still holds to the Five Points of Calvinism and looks upon the doctrinal U-turn amongst Baptists initiated by Andrew Fuller after the death of Gill as a leap back into rationalism and humanism and a forewarning of the liberalism that followed in its trail. This is a position with which I, though not a Strict Baptist, can sympathise and find entirely comprehensible, though I also believe that Gill’s doctrines appeal to a far wider field of believers. Nettles, in his ardent praise for Gill, sweeps aside almost all that distinguishes him from Andrew Fuller, concluding that there was only ‘slight’ or ‘little substantial difference’ between the doctrines of the two men.[15] This view I find incomprehensible for obvious reasons. If this were true, one is left with the unanswerable question as to why Fullerites react so violently against Gill’s teachings and why modern Fullerites are so enthusiastic in their denunciation of all that Gill stands for. Such a view would indicate that Fuller has been as badly misunderstood by modern Fullerites as Fuller misunderstood Gill.[16]

Another embarrassing aspect of a biographer’s work, particularly in the realms of theology, is the degree of agreement he is thought to show or not to show with his subject, is the biographer objectively presenting his subject or is he using his subject to put over his own views? In my case, I feel it will be best to come clean and state my own agreements and disagreements. I feel that in general Gill’s works were a very marked improvement on Baptist theology up to date, with the possible exception of those of John Bunyan. Gill, however, covered far more ground than did Bunyan. Amongst Dissenting theologians in general, I rank Gill with John Owen. Gill, however, is far more analytical in his exposition of doctrine than Owen and often far more moving in his language. He combined the scientist and theologian with the poet. I feel that Gill’s doctrine of the eternal love of God for his people has never been put so well since biblical times. His doctrine of justification is as convincing as it is scriptural and puts to flight modern pseudo-evangelical teaching that justification only comes to those who first practise the Neonomian course of believing, faith, and sincere righteousness. His teaching on law and gospel shows a harmony which I believe reflects true Christianity. His doctrines of the atonement and redemption show clearly a suffering Husband dying vicariously for the Bride he loved, loves and always will love. Few have depicted this truth better than Gill. His doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is perhaps not put over with the depth of detail that Hervey and Huntington used but Hervey and Huntington built solidly on Gill.

I would have wished Gill had given more theological attention to such points as the law, baptism, the universal church and sanctification, though he was far clearer on these matters than the bulk of his Baptist brethren and I find his views far sounder and better documented. I do, however, find that Gill never managed to apply his own theological, linguistic and historical findings critically enough to his doctrines of ordinances or sacraments and, at times, adopted foibles contrary to true Dissent and very similar to those in the Establishment he rightly criticized. But perhaps no man can cover the whole field of doctrine in a lifetime. Gill left room for others to take up his mantle and continue his work. It must not be forgotten that he was a pioneer Reformer after the spiritual and theological doldrums of the Restoration period. Though he left several things to be done, what he did was enormous by any standards and has an almost unequal grandeur about it. I have thus restricted my comments on Gill’s numerous works on baptism to matters which will be of general interest and edification to both the dipped and sprinkled and help the church in general to put Christ before churchmanship. A detailed examination of Gill’s views on the sacraments would completely burst the limits of such a biography as this and would be a work which I amquite incapable of carrying out. I trust that especially my Baptist friends will show patience with me here as I have truly endeavoured to show what an enormous contribution to the development of sound theology and true gospel preaching in general Gill and his denomination, the Particular Baptists, have made. Readers will look in vain in this biography for comments on Gill’s very few articles on eschatology which I have left alone as being completely beyond my ken and powers of analysis.

It may disturb some readers to note that I name Gill’s traducers and seek to refute their works. This is a sad duty indeed. This biography, however, is, first and foremost, a vindication of a very maligned man of God. Gill’s solid Christian testimony vouchsafed through his works and contemporary reputation has been so overshadowed in recent years by absurd reports concerning his life, witness and moral integrity that I feel it my duty as a Christian to play the part of a lawyer and examine the quality of the evidence brought against him. I wish to stand by the Baptist pastor’s side in defending the cause of God and truth. What Gill—and truth—has suffered through recent attacks on his reputation cannot be put down to the efforts of a few religious cranks with a personal mission to criticize the ‘big names’. It is the work of a large group of highly qualified people, mostly from within Gill’s own denomination, with the highest aims, though of questionable theology, who are unwittingly undermining the faith once committed to the saints. They are substituting it for a humanistic system of duties which they mistakenly term the ‘gospel of salvation’ and which they believe every man is naturally capable of receiving. The sanctifying work of the Spirit is being substituted by psychological appeals to man’s ‘better part’. Christian fundamentals are in jeopardy and must be defended. The witnesses against Gill must be prepared to be as open to the case against them as they are open and verbal in their long list of indictments against Gill. This biography of Gill will provide the Counsel for the Defence with a dossier against the plaintiff cries of the false witnesses against him.

I thus unreservedly concur fully with Toplady’s words written soon after Gill’s death, ‘This age has not produced a more learned, pious and profound divine, than the late Dr Gill. He was, I believe, the greatest man the Baptists ever enjoyed.’[I7] It is this shared conviction which makes me feel sure of my calling to attempt a new and fuller biography of Gill’s life and works. I feel it as a very strong compulsion backed up by many signs of the Lord’s guidance in the undertaking. More than mindful of my failings in attempting the task, I feel like my mentor Cowper when he suddenly became aware that God had called him to be a monitor poet to the nation. Of this calling, which cut him across the grain as none had a less praiseworthy view of himself, Cowper said:


But when a poet, or one like me,
Happy to rove among poetic flow’rs,
Though poor in skill to rear them, lights at last
On some fair theme, some theme divinely fair,
Such is the impulse and the spur he feels
To give it praise proportioned to its worth,
That not t’attempt it, arduous as he deems
The labor, were a task more arduous still.[18]

In this confidence, realizing that my ‘fair theme’ The Cause of God and Truth given me by God commands me to write, I am no longer troubling myself to be silent but must speak and spell out what I believe the Lord has laid on my soul concerning the life and teaching of Christ’s faithful follower, John Gill. My next chapter provides an overview of the international political, literary and spiritual state of the world into which Gill was born. Readers who wish to delve into the facts of Gill’s life and work immediately are advised to reserve this chapter for later reading and start with chapter 3 ‘The birth of an infant prodigy’.

——————————-
[1] Otherwise called the Arminian Baptists.
[2] See Rippon’s The Life and Writings of John Gill, D. D., p. 27.
[3] It is customary to refer to the eighteenth-century Anglican Bible-believing ministers as ‘Evangelicals’ and Bible-believers in general as ‘evangelicals’.
[4] Written 18 January 1755.
[5] Taken from Rippon’s Life and Writings of the Rev. John Gill, D.D. and passim.
[6] See Glossary.
[7] Hervey died in 1758.
[8] History of the English Baptists, vol. 3, London. 1830, p. 272.
[9] Diary entry for Sunday 13 December 1767, Works, p. 4.
[10] John Collet Ryland, The Beauty of Social Religion, circular letter, Northamptonshire Baptist Association, 1777, p. 7.
[11] See Lloyd-Jones’ Preface to J. H. Alexander’s moving book. More than Notion, containing biographies of several generations of Huntingtonians.
[l2] This was included in subsequent editions of Gill’s commentaries.
[13] From Toplady’s contribution to the 1772 biography, Sermons and Tracts, vol. I.
[14] See John R. Broome, Dr John Gill, p. 10.
[15] Nettles, By His Grace andfor His Glory, p. 131.
[16] I do concede that modern Fullerites misunderstand Fuller and Ryland. Fuller, for instance, admitted that Gill did not take part in the ‘Modem Question’ debate and Ryland exonerates Gill from the more extreme charges of Hyper-Calvinism. See Fuller’s Works, vol. iii.p. 422, also Ryland’s Memoir of Mr Fuller, Button & Son, 1818, p. 6. n..
[17] Biographia Evangelicala, vol. iv, p.458.
[18] TMTask, Book VI, lines 751-758.

©1995 Go Publications. All Rights Reserved.



Comments

Comments are closed.

Copyright © 2011, The Association of Historic Baptists