36 A Historical Backdrop To Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration Of Faith (1729)

A transcript of the video teaching

I would like to welcome you back to another study in Bible Doctrine. In our previous study, I introduced you to the ministry and writings of an 18^th century Baptist theologian named John Gill. Aside from his pastoral duties in London, he was a prolific writer, the author of more than twenty-five works, many of which were large and exhaustive volumes. Of these works, there are four which I recommended you should have and of which you should make frequent use:

1. “The Cause of God and Truth” (1735-38)

2. “An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments” (1746-48; 1763-66)

3. “Goat Yard Declaration of Faith” (1729)

4. “A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity” (1769-70)

Having already given an overview and samples of the first two works, I now turn your attention to the third of these titles—the “Goat Yard Declaration of Faith” (1729). Now, due to the historical significance of this confessional statement, which has been largely overlooked by the vast majority of historians, I will be speaking about this document for the next two studies. For this study, I would like to provide a historical backdrop, that we might understand why Gill’s Declaration happens to be one of the most influential confessional statements among the Particular Baptists. However, before giving to you my thoughts on the subject, allow me to make reference to George Ella’s superb biography on the life and legacy of John Gill. He dedicates an entire chapter to the Goat Yard Declaration, also providing a historic backdrop. However, his backdrop focuses almost entirely upon the social, political and religious issues that were in circulation during the time Gill wrote his Declaration. It is a fascinating read, and I highly recommend you obtain a copy of his book and study it out. Having said that, he doesn’t provide as much information on the broader context of Hyper-Calvinism, and how it emerged during the 17^th and 18^th centuries; nor, for the purposes of these studies, does he go into much detail on how Gill’s Declaration influenced the Particular Baptist churches of succeeding centuries. I therefore wish to fill in some of these blanks, at least from my perspective on the subject.

To that end, I have prepared a time chart which maps out the various branches of the Particular Baptists, both in England and America. The history of the English Particular Baptists is listed on the right side, while that of the American Particular Baptists is laid out on the left side.

---

---

I wish to begin with THE ORIGIN OF THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, both in England and America, which may be traced to the first half of the 17^th century. The English Particular Baptists organized their first church in 1633, with those in America around the year in 1638. However, we must not think of these groups as a single denomination of Particular Baptists. Although they subscribed to similar teachings, they did not share exact teachings, nor did they experience the same measure of growth simultaneously. They existed in separate continents, encountering their own set of controversies and therefore developed and expanded within their own unique contexts. 

I must mention from the outset that the Particular Baptists in both places started out by subscribing to 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism—a system of teaching revolving around a threefold covenantal framework which makes saving faith a duty imposed upon unregenerate sinners, the preaching of the gospel an offer to unregenerate sinners and the ten commandments a rule of conduct for the believer’s life. These teachings were represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession, a document, of course, which was endorsed in that year by a large number of English Particular Baptist churches. However, it took the American Particular Baptists another fifty years before they formally endorsed the 1689 Confession, represented by the Philadelphia Association in the year 1742. Although both groups, generally speaking, subscribed to the same set of teachings espoused by the 1689 Confession, it was the English who drew it up and first endorsed it, while the Americans adapted and adopted it many years later. 

Let me now turn to the DOCTRINAL REFORMS AND REFINEMENTS. It was at that time, in the year 1742, John Gill, pastor of the Goat Yard Chapel in London, was becoming one of the most respected and well known pastors of his day. He, together with many of his ministerial peers—not only among the Particular Baptists, but also those belonging to the Church of England, the Congregationalists and the Independents—introduced a series of reforms to 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism. These reforms may be called 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. In essence, the threefold covenantal framework of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism was replaced with a twofold covenantal framework. Accordingly, based on this twofold covenantal framework, saving faith was no longer understood to be a duty imposed upon the unregenerate, but rather, a gift and privilege imparted to the regenerate. The free offer of the gospel came to be viewed as a mechanism for proselyting sinners, and therefore it was urged the gospel must be preached (which is true evangelism) rather than offered (which is mere proselyting). The ten commandments as a rule of conduct for the believer’s life came to be understood as a form of legal sanctification, and therefore it was urged the believer is governed by the gospel through spiritual sanctification (law of Christ), rather than the ten commandments (law of Moses). 

 These views took root among the English Particular Baptists during the first part of the 18^th century (1700-1750), and among the American Particular Baptists during the second part of the 18^th century (1750’s-1800). Of course, 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism invalidated the usefulness of the 1689 confession. It therefore became an obsolete document, largely abandoned by the 18^th century Particular Baptists. In its place, the English Particular Baptists turned to Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration of Faith which better articulated and more clearly reflected their views.

Now comes DIVISION AND SEPARATION. During the first fifteen years after Gill’s death, beginning in the year 1771, Gill’s Body of Divinity enjoyed a wide circulation both in England and America. However, in the year 1785, a man named Andrew Fuller published a book, denouncing 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. He wrote against the teachings of Gill with great distain, condemning also the mainstream Particular Baptist churches of his day. He subscribed to the teachings of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism, promoting the threefold covenantal framework of the 1689 Confession. In essence, he was attempting to ‘unform’ the reforms of the Particular Baptists. But this was not all. He came to embrace some modified views of Richard Baxter, adding his own twist to the teachings, and therefore created a system of teachings that has come to be known as Fullerism. Of course, pure 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism rejected the teachings of Baxter, and certainly would not have commended the views of Fuller, but the two sets of teachings were merged together at the tail end of the 18^th century, and it is that which is called Fullerism. This new divinity divided the Particular Baptist churches in England. The congregations which clung to the teachings represented by John Gill became known as Gillites, or simply as Hyper-Calvinists, subscribing to the 1729 Goat Yard Declaration; whereas the churches which adopted the teachings of Andrew Fuller became known as Fullerites, or Moderate-Calvinists, subscribing to the 1689 Confession. 

It wasn’t long before the shockwaves of the Fullerite earthquake were felt on the other side of the Atlantic. Around fifty years after the English Particular Baptists divided, during the 1830’s, the same separation occurred among the Particular Baptists in America. Those who remained true to the teachings represented by John Gill were called Old School Baptists, on account that they represented the mainstream view leading up to the separation. Those who adopted the modifications of Andrew Fuller were called New School Baptists, on account that their teachings were clear innovations to that which had gone before. Eventually, the Old School Baptists came to be known as the Primitive Baptists, whereas the New School Baptists came to be known as the Missionary Baptists, subscribing to the 1689 Confession. Thus, we find this pattern emerging—that which unfolded among the English Particular Baptists was experienced in some measure around fifty years later by their American counterparts, whether it be that of endorsing the 1689 Confession, or adopting the views of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism or encountering the divisions caused by the newfangled teachings of Andrew Fuller. The English Particular Baptists were always a step ahead of their American cousins. 

I now turn to the DECLINE AND DOWNFALL OF THE ENGLISH FULLERITE CHURCHES. They came under the umbrella of the Baptist Union, organized by John Rippon in the year 1812. The Union chose for its doctrinal standard the 1689 Confession, but twenty years later (1832), with a desire to attract more churches to the Union, the doctrinal standard of the 1689 was replaced with a basic statement that read—“Baptist ministers and churches who agree in the sentiments usually denominated evangelical.” Forthwith, the doors of the Union were opened for Arminian churches to join with the Fullerites. Just over forty years later, in the year 1873, the Union dropped the word ‘evangelical’, opening the doors wider to include theological liberalism. Thus began what has come to be known as the Downgrade Controversy, raging for fifteen years, with Charles Spurgeon spearheading the fight, but in the end, he and only a few other Fullerite churches resigned from the Union in protest. Thus, these Fullerite churches which were quite numerous at the beginning of the 19^th century were almost entirely wiped out by the end of the century. And let it be said here, a move from high views of sovereign grace will always take a steady downward decline. You see, the high Calvinism of John Gill was brought down to the lower views of Andrew Fuller; the lower views of Andrew Fuller were brought down further by the debased views of Arminianism; and the debased views of Arminianism were brought down further by the apostate views of theological liberalism, all of which led to the Downgrade Controversy. May this serve as a warning, my dear friends, to be steadfast in the faith, giving no quarter, not an inch, to the perversions and debasement of gospel truth! 

Which then brings me to say a word about the STEADFASTNESS AND GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH GILLITE CHURCHES. Indeed, they did remain steadfast in the faith, entirely separate from the Baptist Union and its doctrinal decline. In fact, the vast majority of the churches were suspicious of Unions and Associations, choosing to retain their independence and preserve their autonomy. That is not to say, however, that there were no Associations formed by the Gillite congregations. There were, in fact, a great many of them, some of which lasted only a short time, while others continued for many years. And you see, it is here Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration fits within a historic context. These Gillite churches and their Associations did not choose for their doctrinal standard the 1689 Confession. Oh no, that confessional statement had long been abandoned by this group of churches. In its place, they drew up their own confessional statements, each church and Association fine tuning the articles as it suited them. By and large, the churches and Associations used Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration as a template, adapting and adopting it for their doctrinal standard. And I am talking here about hundreds of congregations and dozens of Associations, representing tens of thousands of baptized believers. I therefore hope you now understand the reason I say, Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration is of incalculable value and has had a wide reaching influence over the centuries among Particular Baptist churches and believers. 

We now turn to the DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN FULLERITE CHURCHES. Otherwise known as the Missionary Baptists, they did not suffer decline at the same rate as their English counterparts, but many of them did shift towards Arminianism and Liberalism. The largest grouping of these churches came under the umbrella of the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention was organized in 1845. It has become today the world’s largest Baptist organization and the second-largest “Christian body” in the United States. And as I have said, it was under the auspices of this Convention that many of the Fullerite churches sought fellowship and cooperative endeavors during the 19^th century. In my view, the Southern Baptist Convention of today looks quite similar to the Baptist Union of the 1870’s—it is a melting pot of Fullerism, Arminianism and theological liberalism. Of course, there is a conservative branch of the Convention, espousing the teachings of Andrew Fuller, most of whom now identify as Reformed Baptists, and all of whom subscribe to the 1689 Confession. But my dear friends, if history is any gauge to go by, these Fullerite churches will eventually succumb to the same fate as those which belonged to the Baptist Union. 

On the other hand, the AMERICAN GILLITE CHURCHES REMAINED STEADFAST IN THE GOSPEL. Otherwise called the Primitive Baptists, they remained separate from the Fullerite churches and their organizations. In fact, they shared a similar story with their English counterparts. However, having read many of their works, it occurs to me that they did not seem to understand or fully appreciate the significance of Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration, nor the inherent problems with the 1689 Confession. While they do not speak frequently about confessional statements, when the subject is raised, they refer to the 1689 Confession with high esteem. Nevertheless, despite this lack of discernment, they did nurture clear views on the gospel, fully aligned with that of the English Gillites. We might therefore say, while Gill’s Goat Yard Declaration had a direct influence upon the churches in England, it had only an indirect influence upon the churches in America. Either way, the Goat Yard Declaration is a remarkably significant doctrinal statement which deserves proper recognition for its place in history. 

While on the subject of the Primitive Baptists, I must point out that the AMERICAN GILLITE CHURCHES DIVIDED in the year 1900. On the one side were the Absoluters and on the other side were the Conditionalists. The Absoluters represented the mainstream and historic view of the Gillite churches. The Conditionalists represented a new set of teachings which began to emerge sometime after the America Civil War, from 1865 onwards. The points of departure were on the subjects of absolute predestination and unified salvation. The Conditionalists took the view of limited predestination—that God’s foreknowledge is based upon His foreordination only with reference to the eternal salvation of the elect, whereas for all other things in time, His foreordination is based upon His foreknowledge of the choices made by angels and humans—this latter view, of course, is aligned with that of Arminianism. The Conditionalists also took the view that salvation is not one unified system, but a dichotomy between eternal and time salvation. Their view of eternal salvation is aligned with that of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism, insomuch that they deny the doctrines of duty faith and the free offer, believing that regeneration is based wholly on God’s power. However, their view of time salvation is based squarely on that of Arminianism, for they believe the regenerate’s conversion to Christ is dependent on his/her choice to decide for Jesus. I have therefore come to identify their position as Hyper-Calvinists living in an Arminian world. By far, the largest of these two groups today are the Conditionalists, but don’t let the small number of the Absoluters lead you to think their views are wrong. The Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists are aligned with the Gillite Baptist churches in England. 

Now, I must add one more piece to this overview—the ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH REFORMED BAPTISTS. Where do the Reformed Baptists fit within this context? According to them, they are one and the same with the English Particular Baptists. We might then ask, to which branch do they belong, the Gillites or the Fullerites? To which country do they belong, England or America? If they belong to the English Fullerites, there were only few churches remaining within and outside of the Baptist Union which nurtured Calvinistic teachings—are they one and the same with those churches? If so, then why is their ecclesiology so different from that of this historic group of churches? On the other hand, if they link themselves with the American Fullerites, then are not their roots found in the Southern Baptist Convention, or at least, not far from it? And likewise, their ecclesiology is quite different from that of these historic churches, so how then could they have come out from that group? You see, it is so easy for Reformed Baptists in England and America to casually say they are one with the English Particular Baptists—in fact, that’s the all-sweeping claim you will find on Wikipedia, when looking up this subject online—but the issue is far bigger than they realize, or, would have you think. I do not believe they came out from either of these historic groups, but rather, they emerged as an entirely new group during the 1950’s, after which they infiltrated and took over these historic groups. In other words, the Particular Baptists did not evolve into the Reformed Baptists, but rather, the Reformed Baptists commandeered and amalgamated with the Particular Baptists. 

Baptist historian, and Reformed Baptist preacher, Dr. Kenneth Dix, traced the origin of the Reformed Baptist movement to September 1955, with the first publication of the Banner of Truth Magazine. This magazine was started by Sidney Norton, the minister of St John’s Church, Oxford, and his ministerial assistant, Iain Murray. In 1956, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones invited Murray to serve as his assistant at Westminster Chapel, London. He held this post for three years, during which time the Banner of Truth Trust was organized.

On July 22, 1957, The Banner of Truth Trust was registered as a non-profit charity, the trust deed stating: “The object of the Charity is to promote in such parts of the world as the Trustees may decide the better knowledge and understanding of the doctrines of the Christian faith as taught by the Protestant Reformers and English Puritans.” As Lloyd-Jones and Murray were not Baptists, their interests rested squarely on the “Reformed” tradition of church history. This ministry grew quickly, with book sales reaching forty countries. In addition to the publications, the Trust began hosting Minister and Youth conferences, attended by large numbers of Calvinistic Baptists, drawn together by the resurgence of sovereign grace literature. 

Simultaneous with the Banner of Truth publications and conferences was the start of another magazine called Reformation Today. It was founded in 1970 by Erroll Hulse, a friend of Iain Murray and the first manager of the Banner of Truth Trust between 1957 and 1967. Although a Calvinistic Baptist, Hulse subscribed to a moderate view of sovereign grace and leaned towards a Presbyterian form of church order, becoming one of the pioneering pastors of the Reformed Baptist Movement.

With reference to these influential publications, Alister McGrath, in his biography of J. I. Packer, speaks of the “revival in Puritan spirituality that had been borne aloft on the wings of Banner of Truth’s inexpensive paperbacks.” Curt Daniel, in his History and Theology of Calvinism, describes the Reformation Today magazine as “the unofficial organ of the Reformed Baptists.” My dear friends, the Reformed Baptist movement grew out from these publications, making the group less than a hundred years old. 

I must say something about the EXPANSION OF THE ENGLISH REFORMED BAPTISTS. In essence, they resurrected the dead orthodoxy of 17^th century Hyper-Calvinism, claiming the 1689 Confession as their doctrinal standard. Most, if not all, came to embrace the modified Calvinism of Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller. One would think, therefore, that they would find fellowship with the existing Fullerite churches scattered around England. No, because the vast majority of those churches had either been dissolved or wiped out by the free will Arminianism and theological Liberalism of the Baptist Union. So, what did they do? Did they go into the highways and the byways preaching their gospel in order to make converts and organize new churches? No! Did they raise funds and purchase their own chapels? No! Did they organize their own Associations? No! Did they start their own evangelistic mission societies? No! None of these things they did. Rather, they eyed out the Gillite churches and their Associations; they coveted after the Gillite chapels and their evangelistic mission societies. They searched for openings and vulnerabilities, that they may swoop in and take over these historic places of worship and gospel ministries. 

In London, for instance, they infiltrated the Metropolitan Association of Strict Baptist Churches. This was a Gillite Association, spearheaded by a David Crumpton, the first pastor of the church that I pastored for twenty years. The Association was organized in 1871 and its doctrinal basis was 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. During the 1960’s and 70’s, the Reformed Baptists successfully gained access to the pulpits of the churches belonging to this Association, and eventually were able to gain control of the Association itself. They replaced its 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism with Fullerism and changed the name to Grace—Grace Baptist Churches. Likewise, the Gillites organized an evangelistic mission society in 1861, called the Strict Baptist Mission. Its teachings were based squarely on 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. But at the same time the Reformed Baptists took control of the Association, they commandeered the Society, replacing the doctrinal statement with Fullerism and changing its name to Grace Baptist Mission. Ironically, one of the constituting rules of the Association was that if a church subscribed to the doctrine of duty faith, it would be expelled from its membership. Well, the only churches which now belong to the Association are those which subscribe to the doctrine of duty faith. Tell me, my dear friends, how can the Reformed Baptists be the heirs of an Association and her churches which precludes them from membership? 

In Philippians 3:2, the Apostle Paul warned the brethren to “beware of the concision”. The concision were the Judaizing proselyters who were on a mission to convert the Lord’s people to their law religion. Well might I say in our day and time—beware of the Reformed Baptists! They are the modern day proselyters, and no less legalistic in their pharisaic idolatry, seeking to steal away the Lord’s people to their cause.  

What about the ORIGIN AND EXPANSION OF THE AMERICAN REFORMED BAPTISTS? Well, during the 1960’s, a Banner of Truth office was opened in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA. Thus, just as the English Particular Baptists migrated to America during the early 17^th century, so the English Reformed Baptists migrated to America during the mid 20^th century. They are two different groups, obviously, but how interesting both began in England and expanded to America. Eventually, the Reformed Baptists infiltrated the Southern Baptist Convention, turning the existing Fullerite churches, along with some Arminian churches, to their newfangled ideology.

Let me now TIE EVERYTHING TOGETHER. While the English Fullerite churches faded into obscurity during the first half of the 20^th century, the English Reformed Baptists emerged as a separate group during the 1950’s. They were able to advance their cause by taking over the existing churches, associations and mission societies of the Gillite churches. They extended their cause to America during the 1960’s, at which time they merged with the Fullerite churches belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The Primitive Baptists continued as a single group for the first 50-70 years after their split from the Missionary Baptists. But then, in the year 1900, the churches divided between the Conditionalists and the Absoluters. In the beginning, the Absoluters outnumbered the Conditionalists, but over the course of the last hundred years, the tables have been turned. The vast majority of churches belong to the Conditional side, with relatively few remaining of the Absoluters. Nevertheless, both groups continue to this day. 

The English Gillite churches also continue to this day, but they have suffered a serious decline in numbers and influence. The largest grouping of these churches belongs to the Gospel Standard, with around 75 chapels remaining, most of which have an attendance that averages in the single digits. There are probably around 20 chapels independent of the Gospel Standard, but their numbers are not much better. Of course, some of these churches have much larger congregations, but this is an exception to the rule. These figures are all the more alarming when we consider that at the turn of the 20^th century, in the year 1900, there were over 500 chapels scattered around the country. Now there’s only around 100. Well, it must be asked, what is the cause for this decline? 

If you look to the Arminians and the Fullerites for an answer, they will have you believe it is their 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. The decline of these churches, you see, plays into their narrative that 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism kills churches. That, however, is not the cause of the decline. After all, these churches came into existence and thrived for many years under the teachings of 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. What then is the cause? I believe there are a number of contributing factors:

First, many of the churches organized themselves into Associations. By doing so, they inevitably sacrificed their independence and autonomy. While the repercussions were not immediately felt, the succeeding generations have certainly paid the price. History confirms that Associations always lead to the watering down of doctrine and the abdication of church autonomy. This, of course, has been the case for all the Gillite Associations.

Second, the gospel ministers focused almost entirely upon experimental preaching, having very little to say with regards to systematic theology and expositional teaching. Their concern was on the heart and the Spirit’s work of grace in the soul. They would therefore speak at great length about the type of experiences the Lord’s people encounter as they walk with Him, most of which is quite subjective. The congregations, therefore, from generation to generation, were left empty handed when it came to the weighty doctrines of the gospel and how they fit together systematically. We might say, the churches knew what they believed, they just didn’t have a good understanding why they believed it. In my view, the lack of systematic doctrinal teaching is one of the leading causes for the decline. 

Third, the multiplication and growth of the churches ensnared many in a spirit of pride. This is the snare that awaits any people who are enjoying a good amount of growth and success. But as the Scriptures warn, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Prov 16:18) I cannot say for sure this was a leading cause for their decline, but I suspect it certainly played a role. 

Fourth, the two world wars emptied the churches of men. This is a point that is often overlooked. Two generations of men were largely wiped out during the early and mid parts of the 20^th century. And of course, what was true nation wide was reflected in the churches. With such a drastic decrease of men, who would take the place of the older pastors and deacons? There were very few men remaining, and even fewer who would step up as new leaders in the churches. This problem, more than any other, left the Gillite congregations vulnerable to wolves in sheep’s clothing. 

Fifth, without pastoral oversight, the churches lacked the necessary discernment to protect their flocks from wolves in sheep’s clothing. With dwindling numbers, the pressures to maintain expensive chapels, the need to fill the pulpits with gospel preachers—desperation outweighed discernment. “Any preacher is better than no preacher,” became the attitude, “especially if the preacher professes to believe in sovereign grace…it’s good enough…it’s close enough to our teachings.” Without any further investigation, Fullerite preachers were invited to the pulpits and eventually appointed as the pastors. Thus, the Gillite churches became Fullerite churches. 

Sixth, the cultural revolution of the 1960’s changed the social, political and religious landscape of the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Basic biblical and traditional values which had never been questioned prior to the Second World War had now been turned on their heads. As a result, all Christian denominations in England suffered a serious and steady decline. This was not unique to the Gillite churches. However, many of the Gillite churches failed to meet the need of their day, for rather than confronting the new issues head on, explaining how gospel truth is relevant to modern times, they ignored the issues, continuing to present the gospel against the backdrop of a bygone era. 

Seventh, the churches became introspective, creating a subculture, no longer connecting with the world around them. They were well intentioned, for not having pastors and deacons to lead them, they sought to hunker down and conserve who they were and what they believed. But in doing so, they ended up freezing in time, continuing throughout the decades as if they were still living during the 1950’s. Consequently, the churches, having created this 1950’s subculture, failed to connect with modern times, unable to preach the gospel against the backdrop of today’s world. 

Of course, these things were not true of all the churches, but generally speaking, they were certainly true of many. And these things, my dear friends, are the contributing factors which has led to the decline of the Gillite churches. It wasn’t their 18^th century Hyper-Calvinism. It was their failure to properly equip the Lord’s people and their inability to keep up with the times. It’s a very sad story, and I tell it not as one sitting in judgment of the churches, but one with true sorrow in his heart, and with great admiration for those who sought to remain faithful to the gospel. Yes, I believe they went about it in the wrong way, but it does not detract from their well meaning intentions to stand fast in the gospel and retain what they knew to be true. That is admirable, my friends, very admirable!

And that is where I would like to end this teaching—on the example set by our forefathers and foremothers, who did in their time what they thought was best to preserve their gospel witness in their various churches and communities. And so I ask, how is it with you, my dear friend? Do you belong to a Gillite church? If so, you enjoy membership in that church because of these forefathers and foremothers who sought to preserve this gospel witness. In light of this, how are you seeking to preserve that same gospel witness within your church and local community? Preserve? No, rather, how are you seeking to promote and preach that same gospel witness in your church and local community? Oh, may God grant to us the same spirit as those who went before us, but with a larger vision to make known the glories of the gospel in a modern context that sets forth Christ and His saving work as relevant today as that of yesterday and forever.