39 Bible Doctrine – The Key To Unlocking John Gill’s ‘Body Of Divinity’

A transcript of the video teaching

I would like to welcome you back to another study in Bible Doctrine. In our previous studies, I have introduced the life, legacy and writings of John Gill. Out of the twenty-five works highlighted, there are four which I have recommended every Christian should own and read: 

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 given some background, explanations and samples of the first three works, I now come to the last—A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. 

Another term for ‘body’ is system, and another term for ‘divinity’ is theology. Henceforth, this is John Gill’s System of Doctrinal and Practical Theology. In short, it is Gill’s Systematic Theology. The successor of Gill to the pulpit at Carter-lane was John Rippon, who wrote the earliest, and for many years, the only memoir on the life and writings of his predecessor. I have therefore extracted from that memoir the following information as it relates to the publication of Gill’s “Body of Divinity”:

“In 1769, [Gill] published A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, in two volumes, quarto. This work contains the substance of what he delivered from the pulpit to the people under his care, through the space of more than five years. There are but few, if any, theological publications, in the English language, of more deserved repute than these 1091 pages. Here is the Doctor’s whole creed. Here his very heart appears, while he states, maintains, and defends, the Truth as it is Jesus. His meaning cannot be mistaken. Like the sun, he transmits his own rays with him wherever he goes, and is himself seen in the light which he dispenses. He has his system; and, without a system, he would have considered himself little other than a sceptic; and this form of sound words, according to divine direction, he held fast in the exercise of faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.This distinguished patron of the doctrines of grace, and of practical experimental godliness, having favoured his connexions with his two volumes of Doctrinal Divinity, now gratified them with a third volume, which he properly called a Body of Practical Divinity [in 1770]. This he thought would be the last work he should ever publish. It consists of no less than 514 pages, 4to. This volume also contains the substance of what he delivered to the church and congregation, in Carter-lane, in his usual Lord’s-Day services. The sermons were heard with great attention by the members and the auditory in general; many of whom to the end of their days, mentioned, with great satisfaction, the interest they felt in them.”

And now, I wish to read an extract from Gill’s introduction to his “Body of Divinity”, wherein he sets out the reasons which led him to write on the subject of systematic theology:

“Having completed an Exposition of the whole Bible, the Books both of the Old and of the New Testament, I considered with myself what would be best next to engage in for the further instruction of the people under my care; and my thoughts led me to enter upon a Scheme of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, first the former and then the latter; the one being the foundation of the other, and both having a close connection with each other. Doctrine has an influence upon practice…Doctrine and practice should go together; and in order both to know and do the will of God, instruction in doctrine and practice is necessary; and the one being first taught will lead on to the other.” 

For the better part of two hundred years, between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Strict and Particular Baptists maintained this balance between doctrine and practice, or what they often referred to as doctrine and experience. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, many preachers began to emphasize experience over that of doctrine, which became the dominant approach throughout the churches during the twentieth century. Although the preachers were well grounded in doctrine, and understood quite well their own scheme of theology, yet they didn’t often explain it to the Lord’s people. Rather, they dwelt on the condition of the heart, framing their teachings in practical and experiential terms, rather than displaying their doctrinal and theological systems and schemes. Now, on the one hand, there is much profit to be gained sitting under the gospel ministries of experiential preachers. But on the other hand, if this be all the Lord’s people are exposed to through their pilgrimage, then they will never be doctrinally grounded in the branches of the gospel and related truths. They will, in some measure, be unstable in the ways of the Lord, for they will not have a doctrinal foundation upon which to stand and walk with the Lord. A happy gospel ministry, I’m certain most of us will agree, is to strike a balance between doctrine and experience, which is what Gill sought to do throughout the course of his pastoral labours, and generally speaking, what others did leading up to the twentieth century. “But,” it may be asked, “doesn’t systematic theology suck the life and zest out of the gospel, producing in the believer a mere head knowledge of God’s grace?” Certainly, there may well be those who read and study theology that have never had the root of the matter planted in their hearts. They may be well-versed in a head-knowledge of the gospel, but know nothing of the soul’s union with Christ. But my dear friends, what if a sinner has had the root of the matter planted in his/her heart? What if there is a regenerate sinner who is well-versed in a heart-knowledge of the gospel, and then goes on to nurture and grow also in a head-knowledge of the gospel? Would you not agree that is the type of Christian we should all strive to be—a heart-knowledge grounded in a head-knowledge; or vise versa, a head-knowledge grounded in a heart-knowledge? 

With reference to the importance of systematic theology, listen to what John Gill writes on the matter:

“Systematic Divinity, I am sensible, is now become very unpopular. Formulas and articles of faith, creeds, confessions, catechisms, and summaries of divine truths, are greatly decried in our age; and yet, what art or science soever but has been reduced to a system?…in short, medicine, law and every art and science, are reduced to a system or body; which is no other than an assemblage or composition of the several doctrines or parts of a science; and why should Divinity, the most noble science, be without a system? Evangelical truths are spread and scattered about in the sacred Scriptures; and to gather them together, and dispose of them in a regular orderly method, surely cannot be disagreeable; but must be useful, for the more clear and perspicuous understanding them, for the better retaining them in memory, and to show the connection, harmony, and agreement of them.”

Gill was certainly not opposed to systematic theology and schemes of doctrine. In fact, he was a strong advocate for them. In a previous study, you may remember I presented to you the systematic theologies of two men—William Perkins and John Bunyan. Both men actually took their scheme of teachings a step further. They diagramed their framework of doctrine. 

To put you in remembrance of what their diagrams looked like, here is that of William Perkins. He distinguishes between the elect and the non-elect, showing how the one is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of grace, whereas the other is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of works. You notice, he places the electing love of the Father prior to that of creation and the fall of man, therefore embracing the supralapsarian view on the logical order of God’s decree.  

And now, take a look at John Bunyan’s diagram. He also distinguishes between the elect and the non-elect, showing how the one is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of grace, whereas the other is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of works. However, he places the electing love of the Father after that of creation and the fall of man, therefore embracing the sublapsarian view on the logical order of God’s decree. 

And then, of course, I have also diagramed my scheme of doctrine. I too distinguish between the elect and the non-elect, showing how the one is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of grace, whereas the other is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of works. As for the subject of lapsarianism, you see quite clearly I take a view similar to that of William Perkins, believing that the electing love of the Father is prior to that of creation and the fall of man, therefore embracing the supralapsarain view on the logical order of God’s decree. 

“But,” you say, “Isn’t all of this talk about the logical order of God’s decree purely speculative and therefore quite meaningless? You might as well talk about how many angels can sit on the point of a needle.” You know what, I find it interesting that those who dismiss the logical order of God’s decree as meaningless, always have strong convictions on the subject, invariably arguing for the sublapsarian view. If it’s all a matter of speculation, then why are they taking sides, and that so adamantly? Furthermore, who says the order of God’s decree is purely speculative? If God has revealed these things in His Word, then far from being speculative, it is revealed truth, and is therefore very much part and parcel with the gospel. And I have certainly demonstrated in previous studies that the supralapsarian order of God’s decree is revealed to us in the writings of the Apostle Paul. 

Now, what about John Gill? Did he diagram his scheme of teachings? No, he did not. And what about his views on the points I’ve highlighted from these diagrams? Did he distinguish between the elect and the non-elect, showing how the one is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of grace, whereas the other is subject to God under the authority of the covenant of works? Yes he did. What about the subject of lapsarianism? Did Gill take the view of Perkins, subscribing to Supralapsarianism, or that of Bunyan, subscribing to Sublapsarianism? 

Well, according to many Arminians and Moderate-Calvinists, they say that Gill was a Supralapsarian. And therefore they conclude that all Hyper-Calvinists must be Supralapsarians. Of course, I am using the label Hyper-Calvinist in its historic context, the denial of duty-faith and the free-offer. But is it true what the Arminians and the Moderate-Calvinists say? Was Gill a Supralapsarian and does supralapsarianism define all Hyper-Calvinists?

Well, I can tell you on good authority that not all Hyper-Calvinists are Supralapsarians. In fact, the vast majority of historic Hyper-Calvinists have embraced the sublapsarian view. So it is certain, this subject of lapsarianism doesn’t factor into the definition of Hyper-Calvinism. On the same token, many of the Hyper-Calvinists who reject the supralapsarian view on the order of God’s decree go to great lengths in an attempt to prove that Gill also rejected this view. So as a whole, whether you are speaking with an Arminian, Moderate-Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist, you will invariably get different answers to the question—was John Gill a Supralapsarian?

As I am here to give you my view on such matters, I believe it is safe to say Gill favored by both views. I have not found in his writings where he identifies with either term, but he certainly understood their meanings and at various times presented both views in a positive light. However, if I were pressed on the question, I would say he leaned more towards the Supralapsarian scheme of God’s decree. Allow me to support this position by sharing with you three quotes. 

The first quote is taken from a book published by Gill in 1736 entitled “Truth Defended: Being An Answer To An Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, Some Doctrines In The Supralapsarian Scheme Impartially Examined By The Word Of God”. This anonymous pamphlet was written by Job Burt, a man who understood very little about the issues at hand. On pages 8-13, Gill wrote in response:

“[Job Burt] proposes to show, that this doctrine is destitute of support from the scripture, and tells us, he has often wondered what part of sacred writ can be produced to support it; and that he has been searching, and trying to know the language of the divine word concerning election; and shall therefore mention, and, in a few words, comment upon those scriptures, which, says he, I judge, are only necessary to be considered in this dispute, and these are, 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3,4; Rom. 8:29. If the man is really ignorant, as I am inclined to think he is, and does not know what parts of sacred writ the supralapsarians have produced to support their doctrine, he has acted a weak part in meddling with the controversy; if he does know, he has acted a worse in concealing of them: he promises to mention, and comment on those scriptures, which he judges are only necessary to be considered in this dispute; but he ought to have mentioned the Scriptures, which the men he opposes, judge necessary to be considered in this dispute, and to have shown the misapplication of them, and that they are not pertinent to their purpose: is this impartially to try and examine, by the word of God, the supralapsarian scheme, as his title promises? Everyone knows, that knows anything of this controversy, that the Scriptural part of it is about the sense of the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans; and the question is, whether the sublapsarian, or the supralapsarian scheme, concerning the objects of election and reprobation, is most agreeable to the sense of the apostle in that chapter; particularly, whether the supralapsarian scheme, of God’s choosing some, and leaving others, considered as unfallen, as having done neither good nor evil, does not best agree with the account of the apostle given in verses 11, 12, 13, of the election of Jacob, and rejection of Esau; and more especially, whether it does not best agree with the same apostle’s account, in Verse 21, of the potter’s making of the same lump one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? This author should have mentioned these scriptures, and commented upon them, and answered the arguments of the supralapsarians from them; in particular, Theodore Beza, in his notes upon the last of these texts, which I shall transcribe for this man’s sake; and he may try whether he is capable of answering of them. “Those who, by the mass, or lump, says this great man, understand mankind corrupted, don’t satisfy me in the explanation of this place: for first, it seems to me, that the phrase of informed matter, neither sufficiently agrees with mankind, either made or corrupted. Moreover, if the Apostle had considered mankind as corrupted, he would not have said, That some vessels were made to honor, and some to dishonor; but rather, that seeing all the vessels would be fit for dishonor, some were left in that dishonor, and others translated from that dishonor to honor. Lastly, if Paul had not rose to the highest degree, he had not satisfied the question objected; for it would always have been queried, whether that corruption came by change, or whether indeed, according to the purpose of God, and therefore the same difficulty would recur. I say, therefore, Paul using this most elegant simile, alludes to the creation of Adam, and rises up to the eternal purpose of God, who, before he created mankind, decreed, of his own mere will and pleasure, to manifest his glory, both in saving of some whom he knew, in a way of mercy, and in righteous judgment. And verily, unless we judge this to be the case, God will be greatly injured; because he will not be sufficiently wise, who first creates men, and looks upon them corrupt, and then appoints to what purpose he has created them; nor sufficiently powerful, if, when he has taken up a purpose concerning them, he is hindered by another, so that he obtains not what he willed; nor sufficiently constant, willingly and freely he takes up a new purpose, after his workmanship is corrupted.” As for the scriptures mentioned by our author, as opposing the Supralapsairan scheme, I shall not trouble the reader, by observing the mangled work he makes with them, and the low and mean comments he makes upon them…”. 

Gill goes on from here to highlight several other reasons why the supralapsarian scheme of God’s decree is both biblical and logical. You see, my dear friends, far from Gill taking the position that this whole matter on the order of God’s decree is speculative and meaningless, he very much argues the point that the Scriptures reveal these matters in much detail. And if it be a clear matter revealed in the Word of God, then it is a subject that should not only be legitimately considered, but a position to be biblically maintained and defended. 

The second quote is taken from Gill’s “Commentary on the New Testament Scriptures”, published between the years 1746-48. I will read for you his comments on Romans 9—that chapter Gill pointed out in his response to Job Burt which reveals the supralapsarian scheme of God’s decree. Now, I am reducing some of his comments to fit within our timeframe for this study, so I encourage you to read them for yourself in full at a later time:

Verse 11: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;” Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition: whether they are considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen, they are all equally such, so that there could not be any reason in them, why some should be chosen and others left; or whether in the pure mass, antecedent to the fall, and without any consideration of it, which is clearly signified in this passage, there could be nothing in the one, which was not in the other, that could be the cause of such a difference made…

Verse 13: ”As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” …Everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God’s will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others; so the word “hate” is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Luke 14:26.

Verse 21: ”Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” By the power the potter has over the clay, to shape it in what form he pleases, and out of it to make what vessels he pleases, and for what purposes he thinks fit, which will be most to his own advantage, the apostle expresses the sovereign and unlimited power which God has over his creatures; the passages referred to, are Isaiah 64:8 and Jeremiah 18:1-6, in which God is represented as the potter, and men as clay in his hands; now if the potter has such power over the clay which he did not make, only has made a purchase of, or has it in his possession, much more has God a power, who has created the clay, to appoint out of it persons to different uses and purposes, for his own glory, as he sees fit; even of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. The apostle seems to design hereby, to point out to us the object of predestination to be man, as yet not made, but as lying in the mere mass of creatureship, signified by the unformed clay, before put into any shape; and is an allusion to the first creation of man, out of the clay, or dust of the earth, Genesis 2:7; for such a consideration of man best agrees with the clay, lump, or mass, not yet formed, than as already made, and much less as fallen and corrupted: for if men, in predestination, were considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen creatures, they could not be so well said to be made out of it, both to honour and dishonour; but rather since they were all dishonourable, that some were left in that dishonour, and others removed from it unto honour: besides, if this is not the case, God must create man without an end, which is contrary to the principle of reason and wisdom; the end is the cause, for which a thing is what it is; and it is a known rule, that what is first in intention, is last in execution, and “vice versa”: the end is first fixed, and then the means; for God to create man, and then to fix the end of his creation, is to do what no wise potter would do, first make his pots, and then think of the end of making them, and the use they are to be put unto. To make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour, is for God to appoint creatures, which are to be made out of the same mass and lump, for his own glory; which end, his own glory, he determines to bring about by different means, as these following: with respect to the vessels of honour, whom he appoints for his glory, he determines to create them; to suffer them to fall into sin, whereby they become polluted and guilty; to raise and recover them, by the obedience, sufferings, and death of his Son; to regenerate, renew, and sanctify them, by his Spirit and grace, and to bring them to eternal happiness; and hereby compass the aforesaid end, his own glory, the glorifying of his grace and mercy, in a way consistent with justice and holiness: with respect to the vessels of dishonour, whom he also appoints for the glorifying of himself, he determines to create them out of the same lump; to suffer them to fall into sin; to leave them in their sins, in the pollution and guilt of them, and to condemn them for them; and hereby gain his ultimate end, his own glory, glorifying the perfections of his power, justice, and holiness, without the least blemish to his goodness and mercy: now if a potter has power, for his own advantage and secular interest, to make out of the same clay what vessels he pleases; much more has God a power, out of the same mass and lump of creatureship, to appoint creatures he determines to make to his own glory; which he brings about by different methods, consistent with the perfections of his nature.

Verse 22: “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:” The apostle proceeds to clear God from any charge of cruelty and unmercifulness, by observing his conduct in time, both towards those he passes by, and towards those he chooses; for in this and the following verse, nothing is said relating to any act of God before time, everything of that kind being considered already. In this verse, the apostle considers the conduct of God towards the vessels of dishonour; and let it be observed, that these are called vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; they are said to be vessels, and so no longer considered in the clay, in the mass and heap of creatureship, but as creatures formed and made, and brought into being; and so to be used as instruments in God’s hands, to subserve his ends and purposes, and therefore called “vessels”; and not only so, but “vessels of wrath”, fallen sinful creatures, and so deserving of the wrath of God, and objects of his vindictive justice, in whom he may righteously display his wrath and vengeance… so these are said to be “fitted for destruction”, that is, eternal damnation; not by God, for this does not respect God’s act of ordination to punishment; but by Satan, the god of this world, that blinds them, who works effectually in them, and leads them captive at his will; and by themselves, by their own wickedness, hardness of heart, and impenitence, do they treasure up to themselves wrath, against the day of wrath, so that their destruction is of themselves…Now what is the method of the divine conduct towards such persons? He endures [them] with much longsuffering; as he did the old world, before he destroyed it; and as he did Pharaoh, before he cut him off: God not only supports such persons in their beings, amidst all their impieties and iniquities, but follows and fills them with his providential goodness, insomuch that many of them have more than heart can wish; nay, to many he affords the outward means of grace, which they slight and despise; externally calls them, but they refuse, loving darkness rather than light, and therefore are inexcusable: now if after all this patience, indulgence, and forbearance, when he could in justice have sent them to hell long ago, he is “willing to show his wrath” and to make his power known; what it is he can do, by the utter destruction and damnation of such persons; what man in his senses can ever find fault with such a procedure, or charge it with tyranny, cruelty, and unmercifulness?

Verse 23: ”And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,” That is, his glorious riches, the perfections of his nature, his love, grace, and mercy, his wisdom, power, faithfulness, justice, and holiness; all which are most evidently displayed in the salvation of his people, here called vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory. They are said to be vessels, and so considered as creatures, made and brought into being; “vessels of mercy”, and so fallen creatures, and by sin become miserable, for only such are objects of mercy: they are not called so, because deserving of mercy more than others, they are in no wise better than others, and are by nature children of wrath, even as others; but because God of his infinite goodness fills them with his mercy, displays it in them, in the redemption of them by his Son, in the regeneration of them by his Spirit, and in their eternal salvation: and these are by him “afore prepared unto glory”; to everlasting happiness, which he has chosen them to before time, and calls them to in time; to this glory he does not take them, until he has prepared them for it; which act of preparation does not regard the eternal predestination of them to eternal life, but an act of his grace towards them in time; and which lies in putting upon them the righteousness of his Son, and in putting his grace in them; or in other words, in justifying them by the imputation and application of the righteousness of his Son unto them, and by the regeneration, renovation, and sanctification of their hearts, by his Spirit. Now what if God willing to make known his glorious perfections, by displaying his mercy to such sinners, and by preparing them for heaven in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, what can any man that has the exercise of his reason object to this? The whole of his conduct is free from blame and censure; the vessels of wrath he shows his wrath upon, are such as fit themselves for destruction, and whom he endures with much longsuffering and patience, and therefore he cannot be chargeable with cruelty; the vessels of mercy he brings to glory, none of them are taken thither, until they are prepared for it, in a way of righteousness and holiness, and therefore he cannot be charged with acting contrary to the perfections of his nature.

Gill makes it quite clear—the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, is unfolding the supralapsarian scheme on the order of God’s decree. He doesn’t interpret these verses in another other way, than that of God the Father electing a people prior to viewing them in sin. 

The third quote is taken from Gill’s “Doctrinal Body of Divinity”, published in the year 1769. This, of course, was thirty-three years after he wrote his reply to Job Burt, and just over twenty years after he wrote his commentary on the book of Romans. Now, Gill goes into much detail on the logical order of God’s decree, taking up several pages of explanation. I have time to only highlight a few of his comments. I quote from his chapter, “Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election.”

“And here is the proper place to discuss that question, Whether men were considered, in the mind of God, in the decree of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass, through the fall; or in the pure mass of creatureship, previous to it; and as to be created? There are some that think that the latter, so considered, were the objects of election in the divine mind; who are called supralapsarians;…as declared in the ninth of the Romans; where he is said to will such and such things, for no other reason but because he wills them; and hence the objector to the sovereign decrees of God is brought in saying, “Why does he yet find fault? who hath resisted his will?” and the answer to it is taken from the sovereign power of the potter over his clay; to which is added, “What if God willing”, &c. to do this or that, who has anything to say against it? he is accountable to none (Rom. 9:15, 19, 20, 22). And this way of reasoning is thought to suit better with the instance of Jacob and Esau, the children being not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, (Rom. 9:11) than with supposing persons considered in predestination, as already created, and in the corrupt mass; and particularly it best suits with the unformed clay of the potter, out of which he makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour;…They further observe, that elect angels could not be considered in the corrupt mass, when chosen; since they never fell, and therefore it is most reasonable, that as they, so those angels that were not chosen, were considered in the same pure mass of creatureship; and so in like manner men; to which they add the human nature of Christ, which is the object of election to a greater dignity than that of angels and men, could not be considered in the corrupt mass, since it fell not in Adam, nor never came into any corrupt state; and yet it was chosen out of the people, (Ps. 89:19) and consequently the people out of whom it was chosen, must be considered as yet not fallen and corrupt; and who also were chosen in him, and therefore not so considered. These are hints of some of the arguments used on this side of the question.”

Gill then goes on to outline the position of those who embrace the sublapsarian view on the order of God’s decree, after which he makes the following points:

“These are some of the principal arguments used on both sides; the difference is not so great as may be thought at first sight; for both agree in the main and material things in the doctrine of election; as, (1) That it is personal and particular, is of persons by name, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life; (2) That it is absolute and unconditional, not depending on the will of men, nor on anything to be done by the creature; (3) That it is wholly owing to the will and pleasure of God; and not to the faith, holiness, obedience, and good works of men; nor to a foresight of all or any of these; (4) That both elect, and non-elect, are considered alike, and are upon an equal footing in the decree of predestination; as those that are for the corrupt mass they suppose that they were both considered in it equally alike, so that there was nothing in the one that was not in the other, which was a reason why the one should be chosen and the other left; so those that are for the pure mass, suppose both to be considered in the same, and as not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil; (5) That it is an eternal act in God, and not temporal; or which commenced not in time, but from all eternity; for it is not the opinion of the sublapsarians, that God passed the decree of election after men were actually created and fallen; only that they were considered in the divine mind, from all eternity, in the decree of election, as if they were created and fallen…Calvin was for the corrupt mass; Beza, who was co-pastor with him in the church at Geneva, and his successor, was for the pure mass; and yet they lived in great peace, love, and harmony. The Contra-remonstrants in Holland, when Arminianism first appeared among them, were not agreed in this point; some took one side of the question, and some the other; but they both united against the common adversary, the Arminians. Dr. Twiss, who was as great a supralapsarian as perhaps ever was, and carried things as high as any man ever did, and as closely studied the point, and as well understood it, and perhaps better than anyone did, and yet he confesses that it was only “apex logicus”, a point in logic; and that the difference only lay in the ordering and ranging the decrees of God: and, for my own part, l think both may be taken in.”

While Gill accepted the legitimacy of both views—that of supra and sub lapsarianism—yet I believe his writings make clear he understood sublapsarianism within the context of supralapsarianism. That is, he fully embraced the view of supralapsarianism—that God has chosen from the pure mass of the human race some as objects of His special love, and others as objects of less love—fitting within that framework view of sublapsarianism. For indeed, it is certainly true God the Father did choose His people in Christ, out of a corrupt mass of the human race. 

Now, I have taken the time to lay this out for you, because it is my purpose to continue this series of studies on Bible Doctrine by using Gill’s Body of Divinity as a supplemental guide. It is my firm belief that the Framework of Sovereign Grace diagrams, not only the teachings of Paul in Romans 9 and 2 Timothy 2, but also that of Gill. In fact, in a couple of weeks time, I hope to show you how the 150 chapters of Gill’s Body of Divinity fit within the Framework of Sovereign Grace, thereby providing for you a key to Gill’s Systematic Theology. It is to that end I have taken the time to show you, the Supralapsarian view set forth in the diagram of the Framework of Sovereign Grace is in agreement with the view maintained by John Gill.