This discussion has been going on in the Reformed section, but it seems that Gill will only be published if a wider audience moves to get him over the top. Here are his writing on CP:
https://www.logos.com/product/8514/the-works-of-john-gill
http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/category/john-gill/ writes:
Richard Muller writes of Gill that he “stands as perhaps the most erudite [or learned] of the eighteenth-century Dissenting theologies in the tradition of the older orthodoxy” (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 3:150). “Erudite” being the same word used by Spurgeon.
and again
But the bottom-line, Spurgeon writes, is that “the world and the church take leave to question his dogmatism, but they both bow before his erudition [learning] … For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill?”
More to come when I can find the time to dig up quotes. However, for a massive collection of learned writings that should be considered irrespective of one's theological perspective, please consider this.
Though I do not always agree with Gill, he is very good.
We've been in. Hopefully others will put it over the top. $40 is great ....
Yours In Christ
John Gill
By J. C. Philpot
For a sound, consistent, scriptural exposition of the word of God, no commentary, we believe, in any language can be compared with Dr. Gill's. There may be commentaries on individual books of Scripture, which may surpass Dr. Gill's in depth of research and fullness of exposition: and the great work from which Poole compiled his Synopsis may be more suitable to scholars and divines, as bringing together into one focus all the learning of those eminent men who in the 16th century devoted days and nights to the study and interpretation of the word of God. But for English readers there is no commentary equal to Dr. Gill's. His alone of all we have seen is based upon consistent, harmonious views of divine truth, without turning aside to the right hand or the left. It is said of the late Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge, that his plan of preaching was, if he had what is called an Arminian text, to preach from it Arminianism, and if he took a Calvinistic text, to preach from it Calvinism. Not so Dr. Gill. He knew nothing about Arminian texts, or Arminian interpretations. He believed that the Scripture, as an inspired revelation from God, must be harmonious and consistent with itself, and that no two passages could so contradict each other as the doctrines of free will contradict the doctrines of grace. The exhortation of the apostle is, "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith." (Rom. 12:6.) This apostolic rule was closely followed by Dr. Gill. "The proportion," or as the word literally means, "analogy of faith," was his rule and guide in interpreting the Scripture; and, therefore, as all his explanations were modeled according to the beautiful proportions of divine truth as received by faith, so every view disproportionate to the same harmonious plan was rejected by him as God-dishonoring, inconsistent, and contradictory. It is this sound, consistent, harmonious interpretation of divine truth which has stamped a peculiar weight and value on Dr. Gill's Commentary, such as no other exposition of the whole Scripture possesses.
But besides this indispensable qualification, it has other excellent qualities.
1. An interpreter of the word of God should have a deep and well-grounded knowledge of the languages in which the Scriptures were originally written. This Dr. Gill undoubtedly possessed. His knowledge of Hebrew, in particular, was deep and accurate, and his acquaintance with the Rabbinical writers, that is, the Jewish expositors of the Old Testament, was nearly unparalleled. Indeed, he has almost overlaid his Commentary too much with his vast and almost cumbrous Rabbinical learning, and seems to have given it more place and attached to it more value than it really deserves.
2. Another striking and admirable feature of this Commentary is, the condensation of thought and expression throughout. Dr. Gill possessed a rare and valuable gift,—that of packing. He will sometimes give four or five explanations of a difficult passage; but his words are so few and well chosen, and the meaning so condensed, that he will pack in three or four lines what most writers would swell to half a page, and then not be half so full, clear, or determinate. His Commentary has thus become full of ideas and germs of thought, which, by-the-bye, has made it such a storehouse for parsonic thieves; for the Doctor has in half a dozen lines furnished many a sermon with all the ideas it ever had worth a straw, and has given the two or three grains of gold which, under the pulpit hammer, have been beaten out to last an hour.
3. Another striking feature, in our judgment, of this admirable Commentary is the sound sense and great fairness of interpretation which pervade it. Dr. Gill possessed that priceless gift, a sound, sober mind. His judgment in divine things was not only clear and decisive, but eminently characterized by solidity and sobriety. This preserved him from all wild enthusiastic flights of imagination, as well as from that strong temptation of experimental writers and preachers,—fanciful interpretation. He never runs a figure out of breath, nor hunts a type to death; nor does he find deep mysteries in "nine and twenty knives," or Satan bestriding the old man of sin in Balaam and his donkey.
4. The fullness of the Commentary is another noticeable feature in Dr. Gill's Exposition. Most commentators skip over all the difficult passages. They bring you very nicely and comfortably over all the smooth ground; but just as you come to the marsh and the bog, where a few stepping stones and a friendly hand to help you over them would be acceptable, where is your companion? Gone. Lost himself, perhaps, in the bog; at any rate, not at hand to render any help. And where are the stepping stones he promised to put down? There is hardly one to be seen; or, if there be an attempt at any, they are too small, few, or wide apart to be of the least service. To one who has any insight into the word of truth, how empty, meager, and unsatisfactory are nearly all commentaries. The really difficult passages are skipped over, or by confused attempts at explanation made more difficult than before. Their views of doctrine are confused or contradictory. The sweet vein of experience in the word is never touched upon or brought to light; and even the letter of truth is garbled and mangled, or watered and diluted, until it is made to mean just nothing at all, or the very opposite of the sacred writer's meaning. As dry as a chip, and as hard, stale, and tasteless as a forgotten crust in a corner, these miserable and abortive attempts at opening up the sacred word of God, instead of feeding you with honey out of the rock, will drain away every drop of life and feeling out of your soul, and leave you as barren and empty as if you had been attending a banter's camp meeting, or hearing a trial sermon of a Cheshunt student as fresh from his theological tutor's hand as his new gown. With all their learning, and with all their labor, they are as destitute of dew as the mountains of Gilboa; of life, as the Dead Sea; of unction and savor, as the shoes of the Gibeonites; and of power and profit as the rocks of Sinai.
5. There is at times a savor and sweetness in the Commentary of Dr. Gill which forms a striking contrast to these heaps of dead leaves. And this gives the crowning value to his exposition of the Scriptures.
I don't think that anyone agrees with anyone 100% of the time, but for reformed and especially reformed and baptistic thought Gill is one of the best. If we could push Gill and the Princeton theological review into publication then I would be thrilled.
Agreed, looking at some of the stuff I wrote 2o years ago, I do not always agree with it
As previously said, Gill is good. I enjoy quoting. As Spurgeon once wrote "In some respects, he has no superior. For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting who can excel Gill?"
Mark Ziebold: I don't think that anyone agrees with anyone 100% of the time, but for reformed and especially reformed and baptistic thought Gill is one of the best. If we could push Gill and the Princeton theological review into publication then I would be thrilled.
This cite has a quote from Tom Nettles:
http://www.tlogical.net/biojohngill.htm
To say that Dr. Gill influenced evangelical Christians in general and Baptists in particular is like saying the sun influences the daytime. He was the first Baptist to write a complete systematic theology and the first to write a verse-by-verse commentary of the entire Bible. Gill wrote so much that he was known as Dr. Voluminous. Tom Nettles writes. "His loss was felt keenly by the whole denomination of Baptists, a group still small and despised ... His outstanding scholarship, zeal for truth and pious polemics had greatly encouraged Baptists ..."
A few verses as an example of his commentary:
Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born,.... Several things are here related respecting the birth of Christ, as the place where he was born,
in Bethlehem of Judea; so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, Jos 19:15. Here Christ was to be born according to a prophecy hereafter mentioned, and accordingly the Jews expected he would be born here, Mat 2:4 and so Jesus was born here, Luk 2:4 and this the Jews themselves acknowledge;
"Such a year, says a noted (l) chronologer of theirs, Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem Juda, which is a "parsa" and a half, i.e. six miles, from Jerusalem.''
Benjamin (m) Tudelensis says it is two parsas, i.e. eight miles, from it; and according to Justin Martyr (n) it was thirty five furlongs distant from it. Yea even they own this, that Jesus was born there, in that vile and blasphemous book (o) of theirs, written on purpose to defame him; nay, even the ancient Jews have owned that the Messiah is already born, and that he was born at Bethlehem; as appears from their Talmud (p), where we meet with such a passage.
"It happened to a certain Jew, that as he was ploughing, one of his oxen bellowed; a certain Arabian passed by and heard it, who said, O Jew, Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose thy ploughshare, for lo, the house of the sanctuary is destroyed: it bellowed a second time; he said unto him, O Jew, Jew, bind thy oxen, and bind thy ploughshare, for lo "the king Messiah is born". He said to him, what is his name? Menachem (the comforter); he asked again, what is his father's name? Hezekiah; once more he says, from whence is he? He replies "from the palace of the king of Bethlehem Judah"; he went and sold his oxen and his ploughshares, and became a seller of swaddling clothes for infants; and he went from city to city till he came to that city, (Bethlehem,) and all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menachem bought nothing.''
Afterwards they tell you, he was snatched away by winds and tempests. This story is told in much the same manner in another (q) of their writings. Bethlehem signifies "the house of bread", and in it was born, as an ancient writer (r) observes, the bread which comes down from heaven: and it may also signify "the house of flesh", and to it the allusion may be in Ti1 3:16 "God manifest in the flesh". The time of Christ's birth is here expressed,
in the days of Herod the king. This was Herod the great, the first of that name: the Jewish chronologer (s) gives an account of him in the following manner.
"Herod the first, called Herod the Ascalonite, was the son of Antipater, a friend of king Hyrcanus and his deputy; him the senate of Rome made king in the room of Hyrcanus his master. This Herod whilst he was a servant of king Hyrcanus (so in the (t) Talmud Herod is said to be a servant of the family of the Asmonaeans) king Hyrcanus saved from death, to which he was sentenced by the sanhedrim of Shammai; that they might not slay him for the murder of one Hezekiah, as is related by Josephus, l. 6. c. 44. and Herod took to him for wife Miriam, the daughter of Alexander the son of Aristobulus, who was the daughter's daughter of king Hyrcanus.''
This writer tacitly owns afterwards (u) that Jesus was born in the days of this king; for he says, that in the days of Hillell and Shammai (who lived in those times) there was one of their disciples, who was called R. Joshua ben Perachiah, and he was, adds he, "the master of the Nazarene", or of Jesus of Nazareth. Herod reigned, as this same author observes, thirty seven years; and according to Dr. Lightfoot's calculation, Christ was born in the thirty fifth year of his reign, and in the thirty first of Augustus Caesar, and in the year of the world three thousand nine hundred and twenty eight, and the month Tisri, which answers to part of our September, about the feast of tabernacles; which indeed was typical of Christ's incarnation, and then it may reasonably be thought that "the word was made flesh", and "tabernacled among us", Joh 1:14. Another circumstance relating to the birth of Christ is, that
when Jesus was born--behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem; these wise men in the Greek text are called "Magi", a word which is always used in a bad sense in the sacred writings; hence they are thought by some to be magicians, sorcerers, wizards, such as Simon Magus, Act 8:9 and Elymas,Act 13:8 and so the Jewish writers (w) interpret the word a wizard, an enchanter, a blasphemer of God, and one that entices others to idolatry; and in the Hebrew Gospel of Munster these men are called "wizards". Some have thought this to be their national name. Epiphanius (x) supposes that these men were of the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, who inhabited a country in some part of Arabia, called Magodia: but could this be thought to be the name of their country, one might rather be induced to suppose that they were of the "Magi", a nation of the Medes mentioned by Herodotus (y); since both the name and country better agree with these persons; but the word seems to be rather a name of character and office, and to design the wise men, and priests of the Persians. An Eastern (z) writer says the word is of Persic original, and is compounded of two words, "Mije Gush", which signifies "a man with short ears"; for such was the first founder of the sect, and from whom they were so called. But in the Arabic Persic Nomenclator (a) it is rendered "a worshipper of fire", and such the Persian priests were; and to this agrees what Apuleius (b) says, that "Magus", in the Persian language, is the same as "priest" with us: and Xenophon (c) says, that the Magi were first appointed by Cyrus, to sing hymns to the gods, as soon as it was day, and to sacrifice to them. The account given of them by Porphyry (d) is, that
"among the Persians they that were wise concerning God, and worshipped him, were called "Magi", for so "Magus" signifies in their country dialect; and so august and venerable were this sort of men accounted with the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspis, ordered this, among other things, to be inscribed on his monument, that he was the master of the Magi.''
From whence we may learn in some measure who these men were, and why the word is by our translators rendered "wise men"; since the Magi, as Cicero (e) says, were reckoned a sort of wise men, and doctors among the Persians: who further observes, that no man could be a king of the Persians before he understood the discipline and knowledge of the Magi: and the wisdom of the Persian Magi, as Aelianus (f) writes, among other things, lay in foretelling things to come. These came
from the east, not from Chaldea, as some have thought, led hereunto by the multitude of astrologers, magicians, and soothsayers, which were among that people; see Dan 2:2 for Chaldea was not east, but north of Judea, as appears from Jer 1:14 Jer 6:22. Others have thought they came from Arabia, and particularly Sheba, induced hereunto by Psa 72:10. But though some part of Arabia lay east, yet Sheba was south of the land of Israel, as is evident from the queen of that place being called the "queen of the south", Mat 12:42. The more generally received opinion seems to be most right, that they came from Persia, which as it lies east of Judea, so was famous for this sort of men, and besides the name, as has been seen, is of Persic original. The place whither they came was Jerusalem, the "metropolis" of Judea, where they might suppose the king of the Jews was born, or where, at least, they might persuade themselves they should hear of him; since here Herod the king lived, to whom it seems they applied themselves in the first place. The time of their coming was, "when Jesus was born"; not as soon as he was born, or on the "thirteenth" day after his birth, the sixth of January, as it stands in our Calendar; or within the forty days before Mary's Purification; since this space of time does not seem to be sufficient for so long a journey, and which must require a considerable preparation for it; nor is it probable if they came so soon as this, that after such a stir at Jerusalem, after Herod's diligent search and inquiry concerning this matter, and his wrath and anger at being disappointed and deluded by the wise men, that Joseph and Mary should so soon bring the child into the temple, where, it was declared to be the Messiah by Simeon and Anna. Besides, immediately after the departure of the wise men, Joseph with his wife and child were ordered into Egypt, which could not be done before Mary's Purification. But rather this their coming was near upon two years after the birth of Christ; since it is afterwards observed, that "Herod sent and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men", Mat 2:16. This was the opinion of Epiphanius (g) formerly, and is embraced by Dr. Lightfoot (h), to whom I refer the reader for further proof of this matter.
(l) R. David Ganz. Zemach David, pars 2. fol. 14. 2. (m) Itinerarium, p. 48. (n) Apolog. 2. p. 75. (o) Toldos, p. 7. (p) Hieros. Beracot. fol. 5. 1. (q) Echa Rabbati, fol. 50. 1. (r) Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae. fol. 59. E. Tom. 1. (s) R. David Ganz. Zemach David, pars 1. fol. 24. 1. (t) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 3. 2. Juchasin. fol. 17. 1. & 18. 1. & Seder Olam Zuta, p. 111. (u) Ib. col. 2. (w) T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 75. 1. Gloss. in ib. & Sota, fol. 22. 1. & Sanhedrim, fol. 39. 1. (x) Contr. Haeres. l. 3. Haeres. 30. (y) Clio sive l. 1. c. 101. (z) Alfiranzabadius in Pocock. Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 146. (a) In Ibid. (b) Apolog. p. 204. (c) Cyropaedia, l. 8. sect. 6. (d) De Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 16. (e) De Divinatione, l. i. (f) Hist. Var. l. 2. c. 17. (g) Contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 30. and l. 2. Haeres. 51. (h) Harmony, Vol. I. p. 205, 432, &c.
Matthew 2:2
mat 2:2
Saying, where is he that is born king of the Jews?.... These words were spoken to the Jews, or rather to Herod the king, or his ministers and courtiers, or to each of them, as the wise men had the opportunity of speaking to them; who make no scruple of his being born, of this they were fully assured; nor did they in the least hesitate about his being king of the Jews, who was born; but only inquire where he was, in what city, town, village, house, or family. The reason of their asking this question is,
for we have seen his star in the east. By the star they saw, some understand an angel, which is not likely. The learned Lightfoot (i) is of opinion that it was the light or glory of the Lord, which shone about the shepherds, when the angel brought them the news of Christ's birth, and which at so great a distance appeared as a star to these wise men; others, that it was a comet, such as has been thought to portend the birth or death of some illustrious person: but it seems to be properly a star, a new and an unusual one, such as had never been seen, nor observed before; and is called his star, the star of the king born, because it appeared on his account, and was the sign of his birth, who is "the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star", Rev 22:16. This they saw "in the east"; not in the eastern part of the heavens, but they saw it when they were in the east, that is, in their own country; and according to the best observations they were able to make, it was in that part of the heavens right over the land of Judea; from whence they concluded that the king of the Jews was born; but the question is how they should hereby know and be assured that such a person was born? To this it maybe replied, that there is a prophecy of Balaam's which is thus expressed, "there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel", Num 24:17 which is owned by some Jewish writers (k) to be a prophecy of the Messiah; though the star there mentioned is considered by them as one of the Messiah's titles; hence one who set up himself, and for a while was by some received as the Messiah, was called by them "the son of a star"; but when he was discovered to be an impostor, they called him "the son of a lie": but I rather take it to be a sign of the Messiah's coming, and the meaning is, when a star shall "walk" or steer its course from Jacob, or above, or over the land of Israel, then a sceptre, or sceptre bearer, that is, a king, shall rise out of Israel. Now this prophecy of Balaam, who lived in the east, might be traditionally handed down to this time, and be well known by these men; and who, observing such a star appear over the land of Judea, might conclude that now the sceptre bearer or king was born (l). Besides, Zerdusht or Zoroastres, the author of the sect of the Magi or wise men, and who appears to be a Jew by birth, and to be acquainted with the writings of the Old Testament, and with this prophecy, spoke of the birth of Christ to his followers; and told them when he should be born, a star would appear, and shine in the day, and ordered them to go where that directed, and offer gifts, and worship him. An Eastern writer, who affirms (m) what I have now mentioned, relates (n) the following speech as spoke by the wise men to Herod, when in conversation with him, about this matter:
"A certain person, say they, of great note with us, in a book which he composed, warned us in it, mentioning these things; a child that shall descend from heaven, will be born in Palestine, whom the greatest part of the world shall serve, and the sign of his appearance shall be this; ye shall see a strange star, which shall direct you where he is; when ye shall see this, take gold, myrrh and frankincense, and go and offer them to him, and worship him, and then return, lest a great calamity befall you. Now the star has appeared unto us, and we are come to perform what was commanded us.''
If this be true, we are not at a loss how they come by their knowledge, nor for a reason of their conduct. That the Jews have expected that a star should appear at the time of the Messiah's coming, is certain, from some passages in a book of theirs of great value and esteem among them, in which are the following things: in one place it is said (o).
"The king Messiah shall be revealed in the land of Galilee, and lo a star in the east shall swallow up seven stars in the north, and a flame of red fire shall be in the firmament six days;''
and in another place, (p).
"When the Messiah shall be revealed, there shall rise up in the east a certain Star, flaming with all sorts of colours--and all men shall see it:''
once more it is affirmed as a tradition (q) that
"The holy blessed God hath determined to build Jerusalem, and to make a certain (fixed) star appear sparkling with seven blazing tails shining from it in the midst of the firmament--and then shall the king Messiah be revealed in all the world.''
Now this expectation of the appearing of such a star at the coming of the Messiah takes its rise from and is founded upon the above mentioned prophecy. It is said (r) that Seth the son of Adam gave out a prophecy, that a star should appear at the birth of the Messiah; and that a star did appear at the birth of Christ is certain from the testimony of the Evangelist, and seems to have some confirmation from the writings of the Heathens themselves. Some have thought that the star which Virgil speaks of, and calls (s) "Caesaris Astrum", "Caesar's star", is this very star, which he in complaisance to that monarch ascribes to him. Pliny (t) makes mention
"of a bright comet with a silver beard, which was so refulgent that it could scarce be looked upon, showing in itself the effigies of God in human form.''
If the testimony of Chalcidius, a Platonic philosopher, taken notice of by many learned men, is genuine, and he not a Christian, (u) it is much to the purpose, and is as follows:
"There is also a more venerable and sacred history, which speaks of the rising of a certain unusual star; not foretelling diseases and deaths, but the descent of a venerable God, born for the sake of human conversation, and the affairs of mortals; which star truly, when the wise men of the Chaldeans saw in their journey by night, and being very expert in the consideration of celestial things, are said to inquire after the birth of the new Deity, and having found the infant majesty, to worship him, and pay their vows worthy of such a God.''
The end proposed by them in taking such a journey is expressed,
and are come to worship him; that is, either to pay adoration to him as God, of which they might be convinced by the extraordinary appearance of the star, or be assured of by divine revelation or rather to give him civil homage and respect, as an illustrious person, as being king of the Jews.
(i) Harmony, p. 205, 437, 438, Vol. I. Hor. Heb. p. 109. Vol. II. (k) Targum Onk. Jon. & Aben Ezra in loc. Zohar. in Exod. fol. 4. 1. Abarbinel Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 4. 3. Tzeror Hamor, fol. 126. 3. (l) See my book of the "Prophecies of the Messiah", c. 7. p. 119, &c. (m) Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. p. 54. (n) lb. p. 70. (o) Zohar. in Gen. fol. 74. 3. (p) Zohar. in Exod. fol. 3. 3, 4. (q) lb. in Numb. fol 85. 4. and 86. 1. (r) Vid. Wolf. Bibl. Heb. p. 1156. (s) Eclog. 9. v. 47. (t) Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 25. (u) Vid. Fabricii Bibliothec. Latin. p. 142-146.
Matthew 2:3
mat 2:3
When Herod the king had heard these things,.... That is, the report made by the wise men of the appearance of an unusual star, and of the birth of the king of the Jews, which they affirmed with all certainty, without any hesitation,
he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Herod was troubled, his mind was disturbed and made uneasy, fearing he should be deposed, and lose his kingdom, to which he knew he had no just right and claim, being a foreigner; and "all Jerusalem", i.e. all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who heard of this, were also troubled, and showed a concern at it with him; either feignedly, as knowing his jealousy, suspicion and cruelty; or in reality, because of tumults, commotions and wars, they might fear would arise upon this, having lost the true notion of the Messiah, as a spiritual king, saviour and redeemer. And hereby was fulfilled, in part, the famous prophecy in Gen 49:10 according to the sense of one (w) of the Targumists on it, who paraphrases it after this manner;
"Kings and governors shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scribes, who teach the law, from his seed, until the time that the king Messiah, the least of his sons, comes, "and because of him", , "the people shall melt."''
that is, they shall be distressed and troubled, their hearts shall melt like wax within them; which was their present case, though perhaps the paraphrast may design the Gentiles.
(w) Jonathan ben Uzziel in loc.
I've suggested this but have never received a response. Is there any way to make an extra contribution to the cp costs to get it into production? Others have suggested the same so I think we could do an additional collection to get this done.
I've been waiting for this for years! I appreciate your "bumping"!
Thanks, going to keep it up until this goes into production!
Here is more from the Confessing Baptist website. See the very end for a quote from this website by Toplady on Gill:
http://confessingbaptist.com/five-reasons-to-read-john-gill/
Perhaps fewer men have been more neglected than John Gill (1697-1771). In fact, few Reformed Baptist read Gill, often associating him with Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism. Yet, it has been my experience that few people have read Gill for themselves, often merely taking for granted what they’ve heard. What Spurgeon said of Gill’s Song of Solomon could be said of his works as a whole: “Those who despise it, have never read it, or are incapable of elevated spiritual feelings.” Now, on the front end, I confess Gill was not without faults. He was a good man, not perfect. Yet, as I shall attempt to show, John Gill deserves a far greater respect and esteem than he often receives.
In short, while Gill was not without his faults, it is my opinion, his writings deserve a larger reading than they presently have. In the words of Augustus Toplady: “While true religion, and sound learning, have a single friend in the British empire, the works and name of Gill will be precious and revered.”
Everyone see the note In the general forum on community pricing. Bob notes that we need to bump up the bids to the 80 range or get a whole lot more bidders. Let's make this happen!
Here is the thread:
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/79393/555775.aspx#555775
Pay special attention to Gill and Princeton (although I have bid on most of those works as I want to see them all published here).