The scholarly attainments and expansive self-education of the eighteenth-century Baptist theologian John Gill (1697–1771) have long garnered praise from those who have read his vast corpus of writings.2 Gill wrote and published more than 10,000 pages of theological and exegetical material in his life, including the first verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible written by a Baptist, the first complete systematic exposition of Christian doctrine written by a Baptist, and one of the most notable apologies for Calvinistic soteriology written in the eighteenth century.3 In recent decades, a strand of scholarship has focused on Gill’s wide-ranging use of sources.4 These scholars agree that John Gill’s knowledge of the church fathers and Reformed orthodox theologians was expansive, and his widespread use of them significant, such that Gill cannot be properly understood except as a student of the traditions from which he drew.5 This paper aims to contribute to this strand of scholarship by examining Gill’s use of sources in his ecclesiological writings. I will argue that Gill intentionally made use of patristic and Reformed paedobaptist sources instead of credobaptist sources in the presentation of his ecclesiology. Thus, his ecclesiological writings exhibit a spirit of Baptist catholicity that takes seriously a broader tradition of Christian theological reflection, even in reference to the Baptists’ most controversial distinctives. Though the present paper is not the first study to ascribe catholicity to Gill’s theological writings,6 it will propose his ecclesiology as a particularly instructive example of this sensibility. Gill steadfastly maintained a positive engagement with the catholic tradition in light of his Baptist distinctives, a methodological approach in which we may discern a certain depth of commitment to catholicity. Gill thus provides a helpful model for contemporary Baptist theologians, charting a path that, I will argue, is worthy of emulation.

1. Tradition and Theological Method in Gill’s Theology

David Mark Rathel has laid the groundwork for subsequent discussion of catholicity in Gill’s theology by examining the introduction of the Body of Doctrinal Divinity, in which Gill briefly articulates his understanding of the nature and task of theology. Programmatic to this introduction is Gill’s acknowledgement, “Systematical Divinity, I am sensible, is now become very unpopular.”7 Making several appearances throughout the introduction are those who advocate for articles and confessions of faith to be expressed only “in the bare words of the sacred Scriptures.”8 While Gill does not maintain too strong a polemic against this group, the introduction nevertheless functions as a defense of the discipline of “Systematical Divinity” in light of such objections.

One of the reasons Gill gives for the necessity of a systematic divinity is that it represents the product of a Christian tradition which has developed in response to a continuing proliferation of errors in the history of the church. Accordingly, the articles of faith of the early church were few and opposed the errors faced by the primitive Christians.9 But in short order, these ancient errors “were increased by new errors that sprung up, which made an increase of articles necessary; otherwise the same articles of faith were believed by the ancients as by later posterity.”10 Gill finds Thomas Aquinas in agreement with him on this point, citing the scholastic as saying, “Articles of faith, have increased by succession of times, not indeed as to the substance, but as to the explanation and express profession of them; for what are explicitly and under a greater number believed by posterity, all the same were believed by the fathers before them, implicitly and under a lesser number.”11

Consistent with this view of theological development, Gill argues that a rule of faith, preserved in the early church, assists Christians in interpreting scriptures according to the analogy of faith. The purpose of this analogy of faith is “so that the interpretation of Scripture we bring is analogous to the articles of faith, that is, agreeing with them and consenting to them, and not repugnant to them.”12 It is in this concept of a “rule of faith” that Rathel sees evidence of a spirit of catholicity in Gill’s thought.13 Gill rightly identifies the rule of faith very early in the church in the writings of Tertullian, whose definition of the rule of faith Gill quotes at length.14 This definition, found in Tertullian’s On the Veiling of Virgins, identifies the rule of faith as “truly one, solely immoveable and irreformable” and has as its content a form of the apostles creed.15 Gill concludes his reflections on the rule and analogy of faith by noting that such a foundational articulation of Christian orthodoxy functions “to shew our agreement with other Christians in the principal parts of them, and to distinguish ourselves from those who oppose the faith once delivered to the saints.”16

Against the thesis that Gill uses historical sources with a spirit of catholicity, one might object that his aims are primarily polemical. Indeed, Gill’s sourcing was often overtly polemical, but his comments on tradition and the rule of faith make clear that polemics and catholicity are not mutually exclusive in his use of the traditional sources. Rather, Gill advocates for a twofold use of tradition in “systematical divinity.” It simultaneously serves to connect one’s confession to that of other Christians and to repudiate the heterodox beliefs of those opposed to the true faith. Therefore, Rathel is justified in concluding that, in regards to Gill’s use of the rule of faith and analogy of faith, “He conveys with these terms something akin to what such figures as Irenaeus and Tertullian propose with the concept; that is, he refers to the received tradition of the church catholic.”17 The sections below outline how Gill applied his reflections on theological tradition to his doctrine of the church.18

2. The Catholicity of John Gill’s Ecclesiological Writings

Gill interacted widely with the Christian tradition throughout his body of work, dialoguing almost exclusively with sources that were paedobaptist in their theological orientation. This tendency is as true of his ecclesiological writings as it is of his broader work. Despite his well-earned reputation as an apologist for Particular Baptist distinctives, Gill used these sources as more than just foils against which to highlight Baptist theology. Rather, Gill continued to exhibit a positive and constructive use of paedobaptist sources in his ecclesiological writings, strongly indicating a thoroughgoing spirit of catholicity which extended even to Baptist distinctives. In this section, I argue that we may observe this methodological catholicity in Gill’s use of patristic sources, his use of Reformed paedobaptist sources, and his lack of interaction with Baptist authors.

2.1. Gill’s Use of Patristic Sources

Whereas Gill elsewhere in his Body of Divinity interacts principally with sixteenth and seventeenth-century Reformed Orthodox theologians, in his ecclesiological writings he mainly utilizes the writings of the church fathers. As has been commonly observed, Gill’s use of these sources evidences a thorough knowledge of the material.19 In presenting a distinctively Baptist ecclesiology, Gill allows scarcely a single point of doctrine to flow from his pen without noting that it aligns in some way or another with the faith and practice of the primitive church. Below I assess key examples of Gill’s interaction with patristic sources in his ecclesiological writings.20

2.1.1. Patristic Sources and the Nature of the Church

In the Body of Divinity, Gill offers as part of the definition of a church, “Not the place, but the congregation of the elect.”21 This is a direct quotation of Clement of Alexandria from book seven of the Stromata.22 Here Clement compares the Christian notion of a church with the pagan notion of a temple. Clement’s argument flows from the very nature of God. He asks, “What work of builders, and stone-cutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God?”23 Having deconstructed the pagan notion of a temple, Clement offers the Christian alternative: “For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church. This temple is better for the reception of the greatness of the dignity of God.”24 Gill’s use of Clement thus begins his ecclesiological presentation with a strong connection to early Christian theology.

Further defining the nature of a church, Gill introduces the category of the catholicity of the church. He says,

There is another sense in which the church may be said to be catholic, or general, as it may consist of such in any age, and in the several parts of the world, who have true faith in Christ, and hold to him the head, and are baptized by one Spirit into one body; have one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, and are called in one hope of their calling.25

For Gill, even the very concept of catholicity demands support from the writings of the fathers. Gill references letters from Polycarp and Origen as recorded by Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.26 These citations refer to incidental statements which merely establish the antiquity of the term “catholic” and the concept of universality. More significant is an accompanying citation of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies.27 Gill cites the phrase, “The church scattered throughout the whole world to the ends of the earth.”28 This statement occurs within the broader context of an entire chapter in which Irenaeus defends, on the basis of its received apostolic doctrine, the unity of the catholic church against the diverse multitude of Gnostic sects.29 It is unclear whether Gill had this context in mind when he cited Irenaeus, but it is clear that he uses the father appropriately. We should not import contemporary discussions about Baptist Catholicity back into Gill’s definition without any qualification. Nevertheless, we can safely note that Gill explicitly defines catholicity as a category in his dogmatic system, that this catholicity describes the church in every age, and that it includes a oneness of faith.

2.1.2. Patristic Sources and Baptist Distinctives

Gill’s use of the fathers takes on a polemical tone when he defends Reformed Protestant and Baptist distinctives. For example, Gill cites Jerome’s commentary on Titus to support equating the offices of “bishop” and “elder.”30 Commenting on Titus 1:5, Jerome says, “It is therefore the very same priest, who is a bishop…. The churches were governed by a common council of the priests. But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others.”31

Gill enlists a bevy of church fathers in support of congregational polity. He cites Clement of Rome’s first epistle as saying, “the apostles appointed proper persons to the office of the ministry, with the consent or choice of the whole church.”32 He quotes Eusebius’s account of Fabian’s ascension to the office of Bishop of Rome by the unanimous vote of the gathered brethren.33 Gill perhaps stumbles in quoting Theodoret’s ecclesiastical history, which probably has an electing council of clergy in view.34 On the other hand, Gill’s use of Sulpitius Severus’s Life of St. Martin is both accurate and contextually sensitive.35 In his account of the ordination of St. Martin, Severus speaks of “an incredible number of people” who had “assembled to give their votes” on whether Martin was worthy of the episcopate.36 Gill’s support of congregationalism from the church fathers is imperfect. His quotation of Eusebius depends on a particular understanding of the vague term “the brethren,” and his use of Theodoret is likely entirely inaccurate. Nevertheless, in Clement of Rome and Severus, Gill identifies a tradition of democratic polity in the early church with which he can associate his own theory of church government.

One of the most impressive examples of Gill’s use of the fathers comes from his apologetic treatise The Argument from Apostolic Tradition, In Favour of Infant-Baptism Considered.37 In addition to illustrating Gill’s wide reading of the fathers, this treatise furnishes us with a critical example of how Gill understands his use of tradition in relation to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Gill is responding to Micaiah Towgood, who argues for the apostolicity of infant baptism.38 Gill’s response illuminates his general approach to the fathers. He wields Towgood’s own criteria against him, arguing that if he is to place so great a weight upon what Augustine considered to be apostolic, he will be constrained to accept numerous other doctrines “of which there is equally as full, and as early evidence of apostolic tradition, as of this.”39 Gill then quotes Augustine and a host of other fathers to demonstrate their support for infant communion, the sign of the cross in baptism, the form of “renouncing the devil and all his works” in baptism, exorcisms and exsufflations as rites in baptism, threefold immersion, the consecration of the water, anointing with oil at baptism, and feeding the baptized person a mixture of milk and honey after the administration of the rite.40

Gill here demonstrates both an impressive breadth of knowledge of the fathers and an awareness that they do not universally support him on every point. Against Towgood, Gill proclaims, “This Gentleman should know that we, who are called Anabaptists, are Protestants, and the Bible is our religion; and that we reject all pretended apostolic tradition, and every thing that goes under that name, not found in the Bible, as the rule of our faith and practice.”41 And a little later, he says of infant baptism,

If it is founded upon scripture, then not upon tradition; and if upon tradition, then not on scripture; if it is a scriptural business, then not a traditional one; and if a traditional one, then not a scriptural one: if it can be proved by scripture, that is enough, it has then no need of tradition; but if it cannot be proved by that, a cart-load of traditions will not support it.42

Gill’s words here should be read carefully and weighed alongside the evidence already considered. We have seen that Gill eagerly employs tradition in defense of a scriptural dogmatic system, and so he should not be construed as articulating a simplistic biblicism that resists any appeal whatsoever to the history of Christian doctrine. Rather, Gill resists, first, a theological methodology that places too high an authority upon tradition, which is what he perceives Towgood to be doing, and second, he resists pretended apostolic tradition.

Later in this same treatise, along with two other places in the corpus of his writings, Gill advances arguments in support of credobaptism from the tradition of the church fathers. Gill makes the point against Towgood that “Tertullian is the first man that ever made mention of infant-baptism, that we know of; and as he was the first that spoke of it, he at the same time spoke against it, dissuaded from it, and advised to defer it.”43 In The Divine Right of Infant-Baptism, Examined and Disproved, Gill catalogs the Christian writers of the first and second centuries, noting that they make no mention of infant baptism.44 Furthermore, in the Body of Divinity, Gill quotes both Athanasius and Jerome as early supporters of credo-baptism.45 Both authors, drawing on Matthew 28:19, connect baptism heavily with faith. Though he firmly adhered to the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, Gill did not feel that he had to entirely abandon tradition for exegesis when confronted with church fathers who contradicted his views. He instead confronted pretended apostolic traditions with what he considered to be genuine apostolic traditions.

2.1.3. Conclusion

To conclude our survey of Gill’s use of the fathers, Gill defined the catholicity of the church as applying to the church in all ages and including a unity of faith. Accordingly, he read the fathers extensively and used them often in his ecclesiological writings. Though Gill stumbled at times, these citations reflect a relatively high quality of patristic scholarship, especially given the era in which he wrote. He used the fathers in his ecclesiological writings to connect his doctrine with the confession and faith of the early church. Nevertheless, the fathers always took second place in his methodology to the position of highest authority given to the scriptures.

2.2. John Gill’s Use of Reformation and Post-Reformation Paedobaptist Sources

Other than patristic sources, Gill interacts with Reformation and Post-Reformation era Reformed paedobaptist authors in the presentation of his ecclesiology. Here again, Gill displays a spirit of catholicity, and he is eager to demonstrate a level of commonality between his own doctrine and that of Reformed paedobaptist ecclesiological traditions wherever possible.

Gill’s use of the Church of England’s 39 Articles is a creative defense of congregational Baptist distinctives. Gill quotes the articles twice in the ecclesiological chapters of the Body of Divinity. In the first instance, he quotes the Articles in defense of a regenerate, believing church membership. Describing “the persons who are fit materials of a visible gospel-church,” he says, “They are described as the faithful in Christ Jesus, or believers in him: so in the articles of the church of England, a church is defined, ‘A congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.’”46 In the second instance, he creatively quotes the Articles against an episcopal church structure in favor of congregationalism, saying, “But a particular visible gospel-church is congregational; and even the church of England, which is national itself, defines a ‘visible church to be a congregation of faithful men.’”47 It would be an uncharitable reading of Gill to write off these quotations as dubious or deceptive. Writing to a post-Reformation English audience in the heart of London, he could hardly have expected his readers to mistake the Church of England for a congregational Baptist church. And in fact, before the second quotation, Gill acknowledges the Church of England’s disagreement with him on the point he is defending. Instead, the effect of Gill’s citation of the Articles is to connect Baptist distinctives with the confession of the most prominent paedobaptist tradition in his context, while simultaneously proposing the practice of Baptist churches as a more faithful implementation of the sounder principles of the Church of England’s ecclesiology.

Similar is Gill’s use of John Calvin. Gill appeals to him against the argument commonly employed by paedobaptists that the Gospel scene in which Jesus instructs his disciples to allow little children to come to him (Matt 19:13–15) provides warrant for infant baptism. Gill says, “The reason given for suffering little children to come to Christ, for of such is the kingdom of heaven, is to be understood in a figurative and metaphorical sense; of such who are comparable to children for modesty, meekness, and humility, and for freedom from rancour, malice, ambition, and pride.”48 Gill enjoins his readers to see Calvin’s commentary on Matthew, where we read, “taking occasion from the present occurrence, he intended to exhort his disciples to lay aside malice and pride, and put on the nature of children.”49 Gill likewise employs Calvin in support of plunging as the proper mode of Baptism, citing Calvin’s commentary on Acts 8:38.50 We should note that a closer look at either of these citations reveals that Calvin contradicts Gill in the immediate context of the quoted material. The most charitable reading of Gill would suggest that he finds Calvin’s conclusions incongruous with his exegetical observations. Even on this reading, however, Gill lacked transparency. Yet, that flaw does not detract from the fact that Gill takes pains only to cite Calvin positively as he presents a Baptist theology of baptism.

Additionally, Gill cites Girolamo Zanchi, to support the validity of the baptisms administered by the first English credobaptists;51 John Owen, positively, to support the notion that only pastors are to administer the ordinances,52 and negatively, to oppose the office of archdeacon;53 and Thomas Goodwin, on the Lord’s Day being the proper time to administer the Lord’s Supper.54

It is significant that, when defending Baptist distinctives, Gill only interacts positively with, for lack of a better word, the “greats” of the Reformed paedobaptist tradition. With rare exceptions, theologians of the caliber of John Calvin, John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, and Girolamo Zanchi are only ever cited positively in Gill’s ecclesiological writings.55 He takes pains never to attack their ecclesiologies directly. Instead, when he cites a Reformed theologian with exceptional influence in their theological tradition, he only does so to demonstrate continuity and accord between their writings and his own teachings, even concerning the most controversial Baptist distinctives. When he needs to polemicize a Reformed paedobaptist argument or position, he chooses theologians of significantly less prestige and influence as his foils, such as Micaiah Towgood and David Bostwick.56 As such, Gill’s consistently positive use of Reformation and Post-Reformation paedobaptist sources furnishes us with further evidence of the catholic character of his ecclesiological writings.

3. Baptist Sources in John Gill’s Ecclesiology

One of the single most surprising features of John Gill’s ecclesiological writings is that they lack a single citation to a Baptist source. Gill’s citations of Baptists are noticeably sparse throughout his writings. Curt Daniel, whose dissertation contains the most comprehensive catalog of Gill’s sources to date, only comments on the strange absence of references to John Bunyan and the scarcity of references to Benjamin Keach, two of the most prominent seventeenth-century Particular Baptists.57 As such, we can only speculate as to the extent to which these and other Baptists influenced Gill’s ecclesiology. Keach, a previous occupant of Gill’s pulpit, wrote an ecclesiological treatise called The Glory of a True Church, And Its Discipline Display’d.58 While it shares many features in common with Gill’s ecclesiological writings, it is impossible to determine which, if any, of these features indicate direct influence, which are incidental, and which reflect a common reliance on Congregationalists such as Owen and Goodwin.59 In the Body of Divinity, a chapter on the singing of Psalms might reflect a major controversy on the propriety of singing in worship among Particular Baptist churches in the last decade of the seventeenth century.60 Gill’s vociferous opposition to the laying on of hands at the ordination of church officers might similarly be explained by some seventeenth-century Particular Baptists, including Keach, who contended that the laying on of hands was a third ordinance.61

However, it is significant that we have to speculate at all on Gill’s use of Baptists in the development of his ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is the locus of theology that most distinguishes Baptists from other theological traditions. Furthermore, given the fact that Gill’s ecclesiology is thoroughly and undoubtedly Baptist, we cannot help but infer that he relied in no small measure upon the teachings of the seventeenth-century Baptists who preceded him. Yet, despite Gill’s frequent footnoting and use of sources, he does not mention either their theological writings or confessional material. For the purposes of this study, we might conclude from the above that Gill’s avoidance of Baptist sources in his ecclesiological writings provides further evidence of their catholicity. At any given point in his exposition of a distinctively Baptist ecclesiology, Gill could have easily appealed to the seventeenth-century Baptist sources for support. Instead, he nearly always chose to present his Baptist theology as consistent with the faith and practice of the early church, and as a more faithful expression of the theological and exegetical principles underlying Reformed paedobaptist ecclesiologies.

4. Retrieving Gill for a Catholic Baptist Ecclesiology

Recently, Evangelical Baptist and Reformed theologians have shown an increased interest in the prospect of a more catholic doctrine. For our purposes, we might define an Evangelical Baptist catholicity as a commitment to the unique authority and sufficiency of Scripture, Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, and a Reformational doctrine of the Gospel of grace, accompanied by a concern to locate a distinctively Baptist theology within the context of a broad and ancient Christian tradition, both learning from and contributing to the ongoing story of Christian theology.62 Evangelicals advocating for catholicity include Craig Carter, who has written two books on “Interpreting Scripture” and “Contemplating God” with “The Great Tradition of Christian Orthodoxy.” Reformed theologians Michael Allen and Scott Swain have articulated a program for theological retrieval from historical sources in their book Reformed Catholicity.63 Their chapter “Learning Theology in the School of Christ” is among the most rigorous defenses of an Evangelical catholicity to date, predicated upon a theology of the Holy Spirit’s anointing of the church as the “School of Christ” and “Seedbed of Theology.”64 Many more evangelicals could be categorized within this movement. Moreover, behind them stands a movement of moderate and progressive Baptists articulating various strands of Baptist catholicity.65

Among modern proponents of an evangelical Baptist catholicity, Gill finds his closest affinity with the perspective outlined in the valuable collection of essays, Baptists and the Christian Tradition: Towards an Evangelical Catholicity, edited by Matthew Emerson, Christopher Morgan, and R. Lucas Stamps. Significantly, Gill is lauded in this book as an example for Baptists on account of his adherence to both classical Trinitarianism and classical Christology.66 Furthermore, Gill’s use of tradition, as exemplified in his ecclesiological chapters, finds a close though imperfect parallel in the paradigm for Baptist catholicity outlined in the conclusion of Baptists and the Christian Tradition. While many (but not all) of the eleven theses could be used to describe Gill’s theology, points four and five provide a striking parallel to the methodology explored in this paper:

1. We affirm the distinctive contributions of the Baptist tradition as a renewal movement within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. These contributions include an emphasis on the necessity of personal conversion, a regenerate church, believers’ baptism, congregational governance, and religious liberty.
2. We encourage a critical but charitable engagement with the whole church of the Lord Jesus Christ, both past and present. We believe Baptists have much to contribute as well as much to receive in the great collection of traditions that constitute the holy catholic church.67

Although Gill would certainly not have called himself a catholic Baptist, I have endeavored to demonstrate in this paper that Gill’s theology exemplifies the vision for an Evangelical Baptist catholicity cast in the above quote. While we must be careful not to draw a one-to-one comparison between modern approaches and Gill’s method, nevertheless, Gill was already doing in the eighteenth century much of what Baptists, captivated by a vision of catholicity, are contending for today.

Accordingly, this paper proposes that Gill’s ecclesiology can instruct the contemporary Baptist theologian. Evangelical Baptists readily embrace something akin to catholicity when we present the doctrines of God, the Trinity, Christ, and other such topics on which we can easily find friendly voices throughout church history. Often, however, when we present our ecclesiologies, we abandon substantive positive interaction with the primary sources of the Christian tradition. Gill, on the other hand, challenges us not only to retain but double down on a robust Evangelical catholicity in the presentation of a distinctively Baptist ecclesiology. If catholicity is an important consideration in the articulation of a dogmatic system—as many contemporary theologians have become convinced—then we cannot pick and choose where to apply it without sacrificing consistency. Baptist ecclesiology must be catholic if Baptist theology as such is to be catholic in any meaningful sense. Employing his extensive acquaintance with the primary sources, Gill has already charted a course for such a thoroughly catholic expression of the Baptist faith. I propose that to retrieve and emulate the theological methodology in Gill’s ecclesiological writings can only strengthen Baptist theology in the twenty-first century.

5. Conclusion

As noted above, David Mark Rathel has already argued that Gill’s writings exhibit a spirit of catholicity in that they “attempt to employ the resources of the broader Christian tradition in [their] overall theological project.”68 Rathel demonstrated catholicity in Gill by observing that he commended the ancient church’s rule of faith as helpful for the proper interpretation of scripture and relied heavily upon the early church fathers in his defense of the Trinity against Socinian attacks. This paper has attempted to build upon Rathel’s scholarship, proposing Gill’s ecclesiology as particularly illustrative of the catholicity apparent in his theological writings. By maintaining his positive engagement with a largely paedobaptist tradition even in the presentation of a distinctively Baptist ecclesiology, Gill places great importance on understanding his theology as the best possible expression of the Christian apostolic tradition. Gill, therefore, provides an excellent model for contemporary attempts to develop an Evangelical Baptist catholicity. He exhibited an erudite command of the primary sources of the Christian tradition and unwavering commitment to Baptist principles. Always affording the Scriptures their proper place, he nevertheless took seriously the long tradition of Christian ecclesiological reflection and integrated it into his own doctrine. Each of these points make Gill a valuable voice for understanding Baptist theology and its relationship to the catholic Christian tradition.