43 Bible Doctrine – The ‘Introduction’ To Gill’s Body Of Divinity

A transcript of the video teaching

---

The Chapter Headings Of John Gill’s “Body Of Divinity” Aligned With The Framework Of Sovereign Grace:

Click here for a high resolution PDF version

---

I would like to welcome you back to another study in Bible Doctrine. In our previous study, I aligned the chapters of John Gill’s ‘Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity’ with the Framework of Sovereign Grace. I will be using this diagram as the key, or map, to navigate us through the teachings of Gill. For this study, I wish to look at Gill’s Introduction to systematic theology. 

He begins his Introduction by stating the reason for publishing a ‘Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity’. It was after completing his commentary on the Old and New Testament Scriptures, he chose to enter upon an exposition of systematic theology, which he delivered week by week, in the course of his pastoral ministry at Carter Lane Chapel. He writes:

“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…And now having finished my Scheme of Doctrinal Divinity, at the importunity of my friends I have been prevailed upon to publish it.”

Gill is quick to make an inseparable link between the doctrinal and practical aspects of theology. He considered doctrine to be the skeleton and practice the flesh of systematic theology. The foundational truths of doctrine must give rise to the superstructure of practical and experiential religion. What one believes is as important as how one lives. This he makes quite clear in the following statement:

“Doctrine has an influence upon practice, especially evangelical doctrine, spiritually understood, affectionately embraced, and powerfully and feelingly experienced…where there is not the doctrine of faith, the obedience of faith cannot be expected…And on the other hand, doctrine without practice, or a mere theory and speculative knowledge of things, unless reduced to practice, is of no avail; such are only “vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, profess to know God in word, but in works deny him, have a form of godliness without the power of it, a name to live but are dead.” 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.”

Now, it will be evident to all who sit under the gospel ministry of different preachers, that each man has his gifting and calling, excelling in different areas and proficient in different measures. You will find, generally speaking, some preachers to be more doctrinal in their approach, whereas others are more practical and experiential. Of course, those preachers who are able to combine both in equal measure tend to be few and far between. I say this to encourage you. Do not despise the gifts and calling of an individual preacher, if he for instance, leans more towards the doctrinal side, or more towards the experiential side, but rejoice insomuch that the Lord has prepared that man to serve a purpose peculiar to himself and it is for you to learn how to profit under his gospel ministry. But then I turn this whole matter onto yourselves—you too, as an individual believer, will tend to be drawn either to the doctrinal side of theology, or its experiential and practical side. While there are some Christians who enjoy a healthy balance between the two, these again are often few and far between. The Lord has given to each of us unique temperaments and peculiar bestowments of grace, and therefore this should be a reason to rejoice in the Lord, that He has made us different from one another. However, if it is in your temperament to focus on doctrine, you should recognize the importance and make improvements on the more practical and experiential aspects of the truth. And likewise, if it is in your temperament to focus on practice and experience, sometimes called devotion, then you should recognize the importance and make improvements on increasing your knowledge and understanding of the truth. And that is precisely what John Gill designed to do in writing his systematic theology—this is a tool to help us all nurture our doctrinal and experiential knowledge of God and His gospel. 

Now, Gill arranges his Introduction under three main heads:

I. The Importance Of Systematic Theology.

II. The Definition Of Systematic Theology. 

III. The History Of Systematic Theology. 

Let’s begin with the first head:

I. The Importance Of Systematic Theology.

Under this heading, Gill discusses two main issues—first, every field of science has been reduced to a ‘system’, and therefore it is proper for Christians to arrange the Bible into a systematic theology; second, whether systematic theologies should be framed in the exact language of the Bible. 

With reference to the first of these issues, Gill demonstrates that every field of science had been reduced to some type of “system”, and therefore it is proper the Christian faith should also have its system of teachings. Gill writes:

“Systematical 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? physic, metaphysic, logic, rhetoric, &c. “

Gill proceeds to show the various ‘formulas’ and ‘systems’ belonging to the fields of Philosophy, Astronomy, Medicine and Law, leading to this conclusion:

“In short…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?”

Having shown how every field of science has its own system, he goes on to demonstrate how the Christian faith has always been reduced to some sort of “system”. He writes:

“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.”

Surely, every Christian with an ounce of common sense and spiritual discernment will see the necessity and wisdom of gathering together the various teachings of the Bible into an orderly system of doctrine. How else will the believer be able to rightly understand the teachings of the Bible, unless the connection, harmony and agreement of the various parts fit together as a whole? Indeed, is this not what I have been attempting to press upon you throughout the previous forty studies in this series on Bible Doctrine? And is this not what the Framework of Sovereign Grace is designed to accomplish? To not have before us an orderly arrangement of the truths of Scripture would be like trying to fit together the pieces of a puzzle without seeing or referring to the picture on the cover of the box—if all the Christian ever has in front of him/her are the separated pieces of doctrine, having never seen the image they make when pieced together, how can they make sense of the Scriptures at all? They will remain in virtual darkness wandering about in confusion. And sadly, this is how many Christians, including preachers, come at the Scriptures. They know a lot about the parts of the Bible, but they know very little about how those parts fit together. Systematic Theology solves that problem. 

Now, Gill goes on to show how the Christian writers in ancient times, those living during the first four centuries, developed their formulas of faith, symbols and creeds. He then shows how the Christian writers during the Reformation, those living in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, developed their systems of theology and confessional statements, all of which were an improvement upon the earlier productions. 

Now, there have been those throughout the centuries, including some of our day, who are staunchly apposed to systems and formulas of theology. However, Gill points out that the predecessors of these detractors each had their own system of teachings, insomuch that while they cry out against systems of theology, yet they themselves hold to some sort of system, even if it be a mental image of certain truths linked together. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Jews of old have done likewise reducing their teachings under three headings—(1) the existence of God; (2) the law of Moses; (3) the doctrine of rewards and punishments. 

Having established these points of argument, all of which support the general ethos of formulating systems of doctrine, Gill goes on to provide several Scriptural examples of truth that has been arranged into a system. He mentions, for instance, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the creed of Hebrews 6:1,2, the form of doctrine referenced in Romans 6:17, the form of sound words referenced in 2 Timothy 1:13, Paul’s confession recorded in Acts 20:21, the chain of gospel truths outlined in Romans 8:30 and the proportion or analogy of faith mentioned in Romans 12:6. 

If, therefore, it be asked whether it is legitimate for a Christian to arrange the Scriptures into a systematic theology, Gill answers with a resounding yes. I would only add that the believer must not confine himself/herself to only one system of teachings, insomuch that he/she refuses to read, study and examine other systems. Ideally, each Christian should be developing his/her own system of theology, learning from and drawing upon the teachings of others as he/she grows in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can state unequivocally that none of us will agree entirely with the teachings of Gill. Nor will any of us agree entirely with each other on every point. And this is a good thing. No one has a monopoly on the truth. No one has the authority to lord over your soul or your faith. We are not followers of Calvin or Gill, or subject to the absolute rule of a pastor, church or creed. We are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and He alone rules over our faith, and it is to Him alone we are accountable. Having said that, I have selected the Systematic Theology of Gill for this series on Bible Doctrine, and I do so because I believe it is among the best of all Systematic Theologies available, ancient and modern. I would certainly recommend you read and study Gill’s teachings, before adding to your reading list other Systematic Theologies. 

Well, having argued his case for the legitimacy of systematic theologies, Gill goes on to discuss whether confessions of faith and systematic theologies should be articulated in the exact language of the Bible. There are some, I would say a very small minority, who insist that if confessions of faith and systematic theologies are to be formulated, then the bare words of the holy Scriptures must be used if it is to be considered a fundamental article of faith. I need not detain you on this point. Suffice it to say, Gill believes confessions of faith and systematic theologies cannot be formulated with the bare words of Scripture, but must be expressed in one’s own language which explains those Scriptures and exposes the errors that are common to them. This he argues in the following way: If systematic theologies can only be written with the bare language of the Bible, then—(1) it would destroy all exposition and interpretation of Scripture; (2) it would make the ministry and preaching of the Word in a great measure useless; (3) it would cramp all religious conversation about divine things, if not destroy it; (4) it would be unlawful to speak or write otherwise than in the words of Scripture; (5) it would render the different views of others indistinguishable; (6) it does not guarantee those who use biblical language in confessions, nurture a greater value for the Scriptures than others. From these points, Gill draws his case to a close by arguing that many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are given labels and expressions not found in the Bible—such as the word ‘Trinity’, or the expression ‘the eternal Sonship of Christ’—but they are labels and expressions in congruity with the teachings of the Bible, and therefore it is proper that we should frame systematic theology in our own words. 

Now, this brings us to the second main heading of Gill’s Introduction—the definition of Systematic Theology. 

II. The Definition Of Systematic Theology. 

Gill provides a definition for the terms ‘Divinity’ and ‘Theology’:

1. The Meaning Of Divinity. 

“The subject of the following Work being Theology, or what we call Divinity, it may be proper to consider the signification and use of the word, and from whence it has its rise. I say, what we call Divinity; for it seems to be a word, as to the use of it in this subject, peculiar to us; foreign writers never entitle their works of this kind…The word Divinitas, from whence our word Divinity comes, is only used by Latin writers for Deity or Godhead; but since custom and use have long fixed the sense of the word among us, to signify, when used on this subject, a Treatise on the science of divine things, sacred truths, and christian doctrines, taken out of the scriptures; we need not scruple the use of it. The Jews seem to come nearest to us in the phrase which they use concerning it, calling it, a Science of Divinity, or a divine Science; that is, a Science or doctrine concerning divine things; concerning God; concerning his divinity and things belonging to him; and which, in the main, is the same as to sense with the word Theology, as will be seen hereafter.”

2. The Meaning Of Theology. 

“Theology is a Greek word, and signifies a discourse concerning God and things belonging to him…Upon the whole, it appears that Theology, or Divinity, as we call it, is no other than a science or doctrine concerning God, or a discoursing and treating of things relating to him; and that a Theologue, or a Divine, is one that understands, discourses, and treats of divine things.”

Now, you will want to read these sections in their entirety, for Gill provides some detailed information about the origin of both terms. I wish only to add to the quotes thus given, that I believe every Christian should be a Theologue, or a Divine, or a Theologian. This is not a title that should be reserved for the college graduates or those who have been appointed to ecclesiastical offices. Every Christian should be growing in a knowledge and undressing of that science or doctrine concerning God, wishing to discourse with one another on divine things. Is that not what we do when gathering together for fellowship and edification as a church? When Christians come together and discourse on divine things, are they not dealing with the science and doctrine of God and related matters? Well then, they are Theologians. And you see, if every Christian should be a Theologian, then how much more should every preacher of the gospel be one? But how very sad—we live in a day when many preachers of the gospel put a premium on issues such as pastoral counseling, or leadership principles, or music programs, or strategies for increasing the church’s membership. There are relatively few men who take their calling seriously enough, to devote their time and energies in growing as a Theologian. I recently met with a young man training for the ministry. He showed me part of the curriculum he is learning from a local Bible school. I told him, the two subjects that should be of greatest importance to him as a preacher of the gospel are theology and history. Oh that God would put into the hearts of His gospel preachers the importance of theology and history. And May He do the same in your heart, my dear friend. It is now time for you to take seriously your faith in Christ—assume the role of a Theologian and commit yourself to the study and knowledge of God.

Alright, well that brings us to the the third section of Gill’s Introduction:

III. The History Of Systematic Theology. 

This last section of Gill’s Introduction is practical and of great benefit to the Lord’s people. Herein he traces the origin of Theology to the garden of Eden, showing its development throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures, leading up to his present day, which was of course the mid-18^th century. 

Now, Gill divides Theology into that which may be called “Natural”, and the other “Supernatural”. 

Natural theology is that which God has made known to the human race through a general revelation, which Gill calls ‘the light of nature’. This would include such things as (1) the creation of the world, which declares the eternal power and Godhead; (2) the providential orderings, which declare the governance of God over the events of history and one’s life; (3) the individual’s conscience, which declares the law of God inscribed upon the heart, and with it, the covenant of works God established with Adam and is renewed with every member of the human race.

Natural theology must be considered either in Adam before he sinned, or in Adam and his posterity after he sinned. 

Before Adam sinned, Gill writes:

“Adam, before the fall, had great knowledge of things, divine as well as natural, moral and civil; he was created in the image of God, which image lay in knowledge, as well as in righteousness and holiness; before he came short of this glory, and lost this image, or at least was greatly impaired and obliterated in him by sin…” 

I pause here for a moment to say something about the image and likeness of God. You notice Gill teaches Adam was created in righteousness and holiness. I mention this point because there are a growing number of people today claiming God only created Adam in a neutral condition—that is, God made Adam innocent, without righteousness and without unrighteousness. They say Adam would only become righteous or unrighteous based on his choice to obey or disobey God. This, however, is not the view of Gill, neither is it my view. The reason Adam had life in his soul when he was created is because his soul was in union with his Maker; and the reason he had righteousness in his soul was because his soul was in union with his Maker. When he disobeyed God, that union with God was severed, thereby cutting him off from the life and righteousness of God, rendering him spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. Now, this life and righteousness of God which was imparted to Adam before he sinned, was of a different kind than the life and righteousness of Christ that is imputed and imparted to sinners. So we mustn’t think that the New Birth, which is the soul’s union with Christ, puts the sinner back into this original state in which God created Adam. It doesn’t. Our union with Christ puts us into an entirely new state, wherein the redeeming work of Christ, rather than the mere creative power of God, reconciles us to our Maker. Nevertheless, Adam did enjoy a union with God his Maker in the beginning, and that was the source of his spiritual life and righteousness.

Aside from this point, there is another I want to mention—I do not agree with Gill’s use of the word image. When we are told in Genesis 1 that God created Adam in his image and in his likeness, I believe the word image is a reference to the nature and being of God—God is a spirit being; whereas the word likeness is a reference to character of God’s nature or being—God as a spirit being is righteous and holy. Henceforth, when God made Adam in His image, this means God made humans spirit beings—they are soul beings. And when God made Adam in His likeness, it means God made the soul of Adam righteous and holy. Henceforth, when Adam sinned, he didn’t lose the image of God, for he remained a spirit being. But he did loose the likeness of God, for he was no longer righteous and holy. Now, although Gill teaches the same thing I’ve just explained in essence, yet he doesn’t explain it by distinguishing between the terms image and likeness, and I believe a failure to do so opens the door to a number of false teachings, which I have sadly encountered in the course of my ministry. 

Now, I continue to read Gill’s statement of the knowledge Adam possessed before he sinned:

“He knew much of God, of his nature and attributes, of his mind and will, and the worship of him; he had knowledge of the persons in God, of a Trinity of persons who were concerned in the creation of all things, and in his own; and without which he could have had no true knowledge of God, nor have yielded the worship due to each divine person: not that all the knowledge he had was innate, or sprung from the light of nature within himself; but in it he was assisted, and it was capable of being increased by things without, as by symbols, the tree of life in the midst of the garden, &c. by positive precepts relating to the worship of God, and obedience to his will, as the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the institution of marriage, &c. and through a constant and diligent contemplation of the works of creation: nor can we suppose him to be altogether without the benefit and advantage of divine Revelation; since he had such a near and immediate intercourse and converse with God himself; and some things he could not have known without it: as the creation, of the world, the order and manner of it; his own formation out of the dust of the earth; and the formation of Eve from him, that she was flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and was designed of God to be his wife, and an help-meet to him, and who should be the mother of all living; with other things respecting the worship of God, and the manner of it, and the covenant made with him as a federal head to all his posterity that should spring from him. These, with many other things, no doubt, Adam had immediate knowledge of from God himself.”

Now, no one in the world today, or for that matter throughout history, has had this type of knowledge—it was unique to Adam and Eve prior to their sin. You see, since Adam was appointed the covenant head of the human race, we who come into this world with an earthly father are conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity, and therefore our knowledge of God is deficient and corrupted. The only other person to enjoy the type of knowledge enjoyed by Adam and Eve was the Lord Jesus Christ, for having been born of a virgin, He was not conceived in sin or shaped in iniquity and having never committed sin throughout His life, He was put into the same condition as Adam and Eve prior to their sins. 

But this then brings us to consider the knowledge of theology, natural theology, after Adam sinned. Gill writes:

“But this kind of Theology appeared with a different aspect in Adam after his fall, and in his posterity; by sin his mind was greatly beclouded, and his understanding darkened; he lost much of his knowledge of God, and of his perfections, or he could never have imagined that going among the trees of the garden would hide him from the presence of God, and secure him from his justice. What a notion must he have of the omnipresence of God? and what also of his omniscience, when he attempted to palliate and cover his sin by the excuse he made? And he immediately lost his familiar intercourse with God, and communion with him, being drove out of the garden: and as for his posterity, descending from him by ordinary generation, they appear to be in the same case and circumstances, without God in the world, without any true knowledge of him, and fellowship with him; they appear to be in the image [or likeness, Jared Smith] of the earthly and sinful Adam, and not to have the image [or likeness, Jared Smith] of God upon them; they are alienated from the life of God, and their understandings darkened as to the knowledge of divine and spiritual things; and though there are some remains of the light of nature in them, by which something of God may be known by them, even his eternal power and Godhead, by considering the works of creation, or else be inexcusable; yet whatever they know of him in theory, which does not amount to a true knowledge of God, they are without a practical knowledge of him; they glorify him not as God, and serve the creature more than the Creator; yea, what knowledge they have of God is very dim and obscure; they are like persons in the dark, who grope about, if happily they may feel after him, and find him; and what ridiculous notions have they entertained of Deity? and what gods have they feigned for themselves? and have fallen into impiety and idolatry, polytheism and atheism: being without a divine Revelation, they are without the true knowledge of the worship of God; and therefore have introduced strange and absurd modes of worship; as well as are at a loss what methods to take to reconcile God, offended with them for their sins, when at any time sensible thereof; and what means and ways to make use of to recommend themselves to him; and therefore have gone into practices the most shocking and detestable. Being destitute of a divine Revelation, they can have no assurance that God will pardon sin and sinners; nor have they any knowledge of his way of justifying sinners by the righteousness of his Son; which are doctrines of pure Revelation: they can have no knowledge of Christ as Mediator, and of the way of peace and reconciliation, of life and salvation by him, and so can have no true knowledge of God in Christ; for this is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. There is no saving knowledge of God without Christ; wherefore the light of nature is insufficient to salvation; for though by it men may arrive to the knowledge of a God as the Creator of all things, yet not to the knowledge of Christ as the Saviour of men; and without faith in him there can be no salvation: and though men may by means of it know in some instances what is displeasing to God, and what agreeable to him, what to be avoided, and what to be performed; in which knowledge they are yet deficient; reckoning such things to be no sins which are grievous ones, as fornication, polygamy, suicide, &c. yet even in the things they do know, they do not in their practice answer to their knowledge of them; and did they, they could not be saved by them; for if by obedience to the law of Moses none are justified and saved, then certainly not by obedience to the law and light of nature; none can be saved without faith in Christ, and his righteousness; there is no pardon but by his blood; no acceptance with God but through him: things that the light of nature leaves men strangers to. But of the weakness and insufficiency of natural Theology to instruct men in the knowledge of divine things, destitute of a divine revelation, perhaps more may be said hereafter, when the Theology of the Pagans may be observed.”

And so, my dear friends, this is the condition into which every man and woman is brought into the world. By default, the soul is cut off from God; the life of God does not flow into the soul; the soul is dead in trespasses and sins; the soul is in darkness, having not the light of God shining upon it. There is nothing in natural theology that is able to save a sinner from sin, or deliver a sinner from darkness or rescue the sinner from God’s judgment. Without a supernatural theology, there is no help or hope for the sinner. 

But that then brings us to supernatural theology. Supernatural theology is that which God has made known to the human race through a special revelation. This would include (1) the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; (2) Regeneration, which unites the sinner’s soul with Christ, the Spirit of God imparting to the soul life and light, which includes a knowledge of the covenant of grace; (3) Illumination, which sheds light upon the truth, enabling the regenerate sinner to understand the things of God. 

And so, what Gill does to the end of the Introduction is trace out the origin and progress of supernatural theology among those who have been born again throughout the ages. Now, before highlighting some of the salient names and periods of history, I wish to insert here a comment regarding the covenant of grace and its origin. I put you in remembrance that the TriUne Jehovah drew up a covenant from eternity, before bringing the world into existence. This covenant was made between the three Persons of the Godhead. All of the conditions of this covenant were assumed and carried out by each Person of the Godhead. The Father assumed the work of electing love, the Son assumed the work of redeeming grace, and the Spirit assumed the work of sanctifying power. This was agreed upon from eternity by each of the three Persons, and therefore is sometimes called the everlasting covenant. This covenant sets forth the only terms provided by God for the salvation of sinners, and therefore it is often called the covenant of grace. There are some who like to refer to it as the covenant of redemption, and while there is certainly nothing wrong with that label, yet we mustn’t think that there is then a difference between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace. This is a popular error maintained by many Christians today, especially those belonging to Reformed circles, such as the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists. They believe the covenant of redemption is that covenant agreed upon from eternity between the Persons of the Godhead, whereas, they say, the covenant of grace is a covenant God made with sinners in time, after Adam sinned in the garden of Eden, requiring of them saving faith in Christ. Now you see, they are introducing an entirely new covenant, a covenant of grace, distinct from the covenant of redemption, and they therefore believe supernatural theology is summed up in this covenant of grace conditioned upon the saving faith of sinners. But that isn’t what Gill teaches and it isn’t what I believe the Scriptures teach. Rather, the covenant of redemption is the covenant of grace, and this everlasting covenant is the only provision God has made for the salvation of sinners. The covenant did not begin in time. It was agreed upon from eternity. And therefore, properly speaking, the covenant of grace is revealed in time, not established in time. And you see, that is what Gill is driving at to the end of the Introduction. He is showing how the covenant of grace was revealed in the beginning with Adam and Eve, tracing it all the way to his present day, during the mid-18^th century. 

With that said, Gill arranges his thoughts under eight headings:

First, the covenant of grace is traced from the fall of Adam to the flood during the times of Noah. Herein Gill highlights the salvation testimonies of Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Enos and Jared. All of these persons were chosen by the electing love of God the Father, redeemed by the atoning work of God the Son, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerated by the sanctifying power of God the Spirit. 

Second, the covenant of grace is traced from the flood during the times of Noah to the giving of the Law of Israel during the times of Moses. Herein Gill highlights the salvation testimonies of Lamech, Noah, Shem, Eber, Japhet, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Job and his three friends. All of these persons were chosen by the electing love of God the Father, redeemed by the atoning work of God the Son, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerated by the sanctifying power of God the Spirit. 

Third, the covenant of grace is traced from the Law of Israel during the times of Moses to the times of David and the Prophets. Herein Gill highlights the institution of Israel’s laws, many of which point to the redeeming work of Christ and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Now, these Laws were given to the children of Israel as a nation, not to save them from their sins, but serve as signposts, or as a gospel witness, on how sinners are saved from their sins. The vast majority of Jews belonging to the nation of Israel were unregenerate sinners and reprobate. They are only called God’s elect people within a racial and national context. They are not called God’s elect people in a spiritual and saving context. However, there was a remnant of Jews belonging to the nation of Israel who did belong to God’s spiritually elect people, and it was they who were redeemed by Christ and regenerated by the Spirit of God. I must also mention, while speaking of God’s elect people at this point in history, that the same was true also among the Gentile nations of the world. While the vast majority of Gentiles were unregenerate and reprobate, there was nevertheless a remnant set apart by God as special objects of His love. Henceforth, all of these persons, whether Jews or Gentiles, if they be chosen by the electing love of God the Father, redeemed by the atoning work of God the Son, and regenerated by the sanctifying power of God the Spirit, then they were sinners saved by the gracious covenant of God. 

Fourth, the covenant of grace is traced from the times of David and the prophets to the Babylonian captivity. Herein Gill emphasizes the Psalms of David and the prophetical writings of the Old Testament, all of which speak of the gospel of Christ. And just as in the other periods of time, sinners living at this point in history, if they were saved from their sins, were set apart by the electing love of the Father, the redeeming grace of the Son and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. 

Fifth, the covenant of grace is traced from the Babylonian captivity to the times of Christ. Herein Gill highlights the salvation testimonies of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. Thus ends the revelation of supranational theology as it is connected with the Old Testament Scriptures. Now, although God would continue to reveal Himself to sinners leading up the New Testament era, a period of around 400 years, yet there would be no further written or oral revelation. During this time, many false professors rose up among the Jewish people, claiming to know God, yet having never been born again. One such group was the Sadducees, a sect of free-thinkers, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection and didn’t believe in angels or spirits. Another group was the Pharisees, a sect of free-willers, who set up traditions as the means of worship and salvation. And of course, both groups were dominant during the days of Christ and the Apostles, becoming some of the most bitter and ferocious enemies to supranational theology. 

Sixth, the covenant of grace is traced from the times of Christ to the end of the first century. Herein Gill sets forth a summary of the gospel, preached by Christ and His Apostles, recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. While this same gospel, or supernatural theology, is revealed in both Testaments, yet that which was manifested during the Old Testament era appeared to God’s people under the shadow of the moonlight during the night watch, while that which was manifested during the New Testament era appeared to God’s people under the full blaze of sunlight in the daytime. Christ was come, and all things that once were obscure, were made clear and plain. 

Seventh, the covenant of grace is traced from the end of the first century to the end of the eleventh century. Herein Gill highlights several heresies which rose up during the first few centuries after Christ, but were opposed by several eminent saints of God, among them being Athanasius against the heresy of the Arians and Austin against the heresy of the Pelagians. Mention is also made of Constantine, an unregenerate and reprobate sinner, but Emperor of the Roman Empire, and the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, which has been throughout the centuries the oppressor and persecutor of God’s people and the suppressor and perverter of God’s gospel. 

Eight, the covenant of grace is traced from the end of the eleventh century to the middle of the eighteenth century. Herein Gill highlights the salvation testimonies of Wickliff, Huss, Zuinglius and Luther together with the great names connected with the Protestant Reformation. 

Having then exalted the great doctrines of the Reformation, Gill ends his introduction with an application on the current state of religion in his day:

“But Satan, who envied the increasing light of the Gospel, soon began to bestir himself, and to play his old game which he had done with so much success in the first ages of Christianity…[he] revives the Sabellian and Photinian errors, by the Socinians in Poland; and the Pelagian errors, by the Arminians and Remonstrants in Holland; the pernicious influence of which has been spread in other countries; and, indeed, has drawn a veil over the glory of the Reformation, and the doctrines of it. And the doctrines of pure revelation are almost exploded; and some are endeavouring to bring us, as fast as they can, into a state of paganism, only somewhat refined: it is a day of darkness and gloominess; a day of clouds and of thick darkness; the darkness is growing upon us, and night may be expected…Almost all the old heresies are revived, under a fond and foolish notion of new light; when they are no other than what have been confuted over and over; and men please themselves that they are their own inventions, when they are the devices of Satan, with which he has deceived men once and again; and when men leave the sure word, the only rule of faith and practice, and follow their own fancies, and the dictates of their carnal minds, they must needs go wrong, and fall into labyrinths, out of which they cannot find their way: “to the law, and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Let us therefore search the Scriptures, to see whether doctrines advanced are according to them or not, which I fear are little attended to. Upon the whole, as I suggested at the beginning of this Introduction, I have but little reason to think the following Work will meet with a favourable reception in general; yet if it may be a means of preserving sacred truths, of enlightening the minds of any into them, or of establishing them in them, I shall not be concerned at what evil treatment I may meet with from the adversaries of them; and be it as it may, I shall have the satisfaction of having done the best I can for the promoting truth: and of bearing a testimony to it.”

And that, my dear friends, is also my desire and aim. I wish to set forth, while taking this journey with you through the teachings of Gill, my own understanding and convictions on gospel truth, caring not what ill-treatment I may receive from friend or foe, but looking only to be a blessing to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. 

I now give to you the assignment of reading Gill’s Introduction. It is approximately 15,000 words in length, so you will want to give yourself plenty of time to read it and study it. If you wish to use my outline of the Introduction, then you can access it via The Baptist Particular. And now, until we meet again next week, I want to wish upon you the blessings of the Lord.