Written spontaneously on reading the scandalous and libellous criticism placed in the Banner of Truth Magazine in June, 1988 by Iain Murray with a few minor additions based on equal flights of a negative imagination by Mr. Murray and Dr. Robert Oliver in Issues 373, 376 and 378.
We evangelicals often think of a Minister of the Gospel as a man of acute learning, well versed in the original languages of the Bible and able to convey the Gospel in a dignified and well-spoken manner. Our God, however, seemingly delights in exceptions and He often chooses the lesser-endowed of this world to confound the wise and learned. This was the case in the 17th century with John Bunyan who was greatly admired by the learned John Owen. The 18th Century Awakening produced quite a number of self-taught ministers of the Gospel such as the ex slave-trader, John Newton and the ex-cobbler, William Carey. It would be difficult, however, to find another 18th century pastor who had such a humble background as William Huntington (1745-1813) who can only be styled as "ex-odd-jobman" or, as he preferred to call himself "the coal heaver". It must also be added that Huntington was greatly despised by many contemporary Christian ministers who had forgotten Christ's attitude of mercy to the poor.
In spite of Huntington's home-spun learning and rustic manners, the saint was able to serve the Lord in the pulpit for many years and became known in the Capital and far beyond as one of the most able ministers of his day. Not only was Huntington renowned as a faithful preacher of the Gospel but also his written works and letters found high praise and a wide readership1. When one reads these hundred or so books and essays it becomes obvious at times that the writer has not taken courses in Systematic Theology. What Huntington writes, however, is hardly the poorer for that. He always stated his beliefs in either his own peculiar, though expressive, Bible-orientated language, or by quoting appropriate verses of Scripture. His doctrines can best be culled from his letters addressed to particular people at particular times dealing with particular problems. When discussing any formal declaration of his faith these special situations must be taken into account. This must be stated clearly as Huntington has been heavily criticised in recent times for being so weak in systematic theology that his utterances can be considered heresy. If Huntington had, however, read the list of heresies attributed to him in recent articles, he would, very likely, have been put off by their scholastic, pseudo-learned language and their dismal lack of experimental Christianity. Moreover, after grasping their significance, he would have certainly - and rightly - denied that they reflected his beliefs. He would also have been shocked and filled with remorse that a later generation had so wrongly misunderstood him.
What are then these modern criticisms against William Huntington, former Pastor of Providence Chapel, Grays Inn Road? They are of two kinds dealing first with Huntington's theology and second with his person. Modern critics have taken up the complaint raised against Huntington by 18th century Arminians and a few who held to a different Church Order that the preacher was an Antinomian. He has also been recently criticised for having a faulty view of Christ's imputed righteousness and for even believing that Christ's righteousness was actual in him rather than judicial. It is also stressed by some that Huntington could not accept that God was ever angry with believers because of their sins. Lastly and most damaging of all is the criticism that God, according to Huntington, does not require holiness and obedience of the believer.
Looking at Huntington's character rather than his theology, critics say that he was a conceited, stand-offish tyrant; that he felt he was unable to err; that he spiritualised away God's commands concerning personal conduct; that he could not accept Dissenters and especially Arminians as Christians; and that he regarded himself as a prophet2.
All these criticisms raised against Huntington have one main argument as their pivot. Huntington, it is maintained, felt himself above the Law of God. We use the term "Antinomian" to express such an attitude. Augustus Toplady, author of "Rock of Ages" and a contemporary of Huntington's, also knew what it meant to be accused of Antinomianism. He defines the term as the teaching "That believers are released from all obligations to observe the moral law as a rule of external obedience: That in consequence of Christ's having wrought out a justifying righteousness for us, we have nothing to do but to sit down, eat, drink and be merry: that the Messiah's merits supersede the necessity of personal inherent sanctification; and that all our holiness is in him, not in ourselves; that the aboundings of divine grace give sanction to the commission of sin; and in a word that the whole perceptive law of God is not established, but repealed and set aside from the time we believe in Christ.3" Toplady adds that if a man acts according to such principles, he must be a devil incarnate. Such principles are, however, attributed to Huntington.
Before allowing Huntington to speak for himself on the topic of Antinomianism, it must be explained that during the latter half of the 18th century there was a great controversy going on between Arminians and Calvinists. Each side was guilty of calling the other monstrous names. Huntington was branded an Antinomian by the Wesleyans, but so were Romaine, Hervey, Gill and Toplady. Wesley himself wrote accusing letters to many a Calvinist condemning them for being in his eyes Antinomians. Calvinists of note were not too delicate in their criticism to call Wesley and Fletcher "Antinomians", too. In the above quoted work from the pen of Toplady we read " The Arminians have of late made a huge cry about Antinomians! Antinomians! From the abundance of experience the mouth is apt to speak. The modern Arminians see so much real Antinomianism among themselves, and in their own tents, that Antinomianism is become the predominant idea, and the favourite watch-word of the party. Because they have got the plague, they think every body else has4" Huntington gives an example of the tensions between the two parties in his book The Arminian Skeleton. One day the preacher went with two Christian friends to visit the mentally ill in a neighbouring asylum. The friends were challenged at the door by the woman who had the key to the ward with the question, "Do you belong to Mr. Whitefield or Mr. Wesley?" Huntington replied that he belonged to neither of them but shared the same doctrines as Mr. Whitefield. The woman, who happened to be an Arminian, then refused Huntington permission to visit the patients5.
What was Huntington's true attitude to Antinomianism? When quoting John iv: 14., where he is linking the "infinite divinity" of Christ with His power to give 'waters of life', the preacher informs us that: "The Atheist denies the fountain; the Arian, the well; and the Antinomian denies the rivers." It is quite clear from the context that Huntington is speaking against Antinomianism6. He sees Antinomians as denying Christ's work in the believer. This is not a solitary criticism of Antinomianism on Huntington's part. In fact, the frequency which Huntington deals with Antinomianism shows how sensitive he was of being accused of being such and how shocked he was at such an accusation. Writing again in The Arminian Skeleton, Huntington states: "If God of his infinite mercy keep you from Arminianism, Arianism, and Antinomianism, I shall think you are Christians indeed." He then goes on to write: " . . . they are all three agreed against Christ; the Arminian cries down his merit; the Arian cries down his divinity; and the Antinomian cries down the revelation of him to the heart"7.; and then he adds the words, "May God turn their hearts to the truth, and keep your souls from turning to their errors!"
Such quotes hardly indicate that Huntington was an Antinomian. In fact the pastor argues in this work that the Arminians are in reality the Antinomians as with their doctrine of Universal charity they "run away from the Law of God" and give sinful people the vain idea that they can be and indeed are perfect. The Arminian, he says, in his criticism that Calvinists are Antinomians, teaches men "to condemn the just, by saying they are Antinomians; and to justify the wicked, by telling the proud and insensible hypocrite that he is perfect"8. Again in The Arminian Skeleton we find Huntington criticising the Arminians of his day because of their favourable view of Arians and Socinians. Huntington's comment is that: "The Arminian calls upon you to forsake the strong food, or every essential truth in the Bible, the Arian and Socinian want you to give up your God, and to bow your knee to a creature; the Antinomian calls upon you to give up the Spirit's quickening power, your daily cross, and a tender conscience; and the Deist make short work of it; he tells you there is a first cause, who had a hand in the beginning, but has nothing to do with our end, and declares that God hath forsaken the earth"9. Whatever one thinks of Huntington after reading his own words, it would surely be impossible to infer that Huntington was an Antinomian.
It is true that Huntington often wrote seemingly disparagingly of the binding nature of the Law of Moses. He felt that those who trusted in Moses for their salvation had a veil over their faces and a yoke around their necks10. Such a belief was merely the sour leaven of the Pharisees, he argued, quoting Romans vii. 5. Most reformed evangelicals nowadays would agree with him. Huntington, however, is not saying that the Law of Moses has no relevance to a Christian but "doing much business", as he puts it, never saved anyone. He is against the view that works promote salvation. The Law convicts and kills, he teaches, but the gospel brings life. This must be borne in mind when reading Huntington's comments on those who make "a most furious oration for the law, and against the Antinomian"11. The fact that many Methodists of the day accused all Calvinists of being Antinomians because they emphasised Sovereign Grace should make us cautious about condemning Huntington as such. On numerous occasions, the preacher, for instance, urges believers to follow Paul's example and "serve the law of God" and love "the law of God after the inner man". Huntington is also careful to stress that "Gospel obedience" is the mark and duty of a Christian. It is obvious that though Huntington rejects any efficacy in trusting in the Law, he believes that a love for the Law of God does occur after conversion12. This view is quite foreign to the Antinomian but a homely truth for the Bible Christian.
It is not surprising that critics have found difficulty in understanding Huntington's teaching on imputed righteousness. This doctrine was one of the great dividers between orthodox believers and Arminians. Whitefield, for instance, could write "The outward righteousness of Christ imputed to us, I believe, is the sole foundation and cause of all inward communications which we receive from the Spirit of God13". John Wesley, however, objected strongly to the term arguing that it was ambiguous and contained an entirely unbiblical notion. In a very scathing letter to James Hervey, who delighted in using the term, Wesley wrote "I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of furthering men's progress in vital holiness, has made them satisfied without any holiness at all; yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness and greediness"14. Now what does this alleged "unnecessary phrase" i.e. "Christ's imputed righteousness" mean? A contemporary of Huntington's, William Cowper paraphrased the doctrine in the following words: "Faith in the righteousness of the Son of man, as the instrument and means of our justification in the sight of God, is itself considered as righteousness, and for the sake of that faith it is, that creatures, unrighteous in themselves, are yet accepted. In order to back up his definition Cowper refers to I Cor. 1:30 "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification, and redemption"15.
Now the question is, did Huntington use the term in any other way than that expressed by Cowper? The answer must be ,"No!". This term is used very often by Huntington and always to stress that the righteousness which is imputed to Christians is always Christ's and never becomes in this life inherently ours though it is Christ's actual righteousness in the new man. Writing to a friend in January 1804 Huntington takes up the doctrine of being crucified with Christ. Here the preacher is careful to argue that the believer is justified by an imputed righteousness, so that he is not reckoned as a servant of sin, and not until death will we be freed from sins inbeing.
One significant feature of Huntington's works is that he is constantly bemoaning his own present and actual sins and limitations. He makes this quite clear in a letter written to 'a farming friend' dated Nov. 20, 1799, in which he says:
"I have got a bad cold, not only in my head and stomach, though that is bad enough, but I have also a cold heart. O this body of sin and death - what a sore burden! And how closely allied to Satan is the old man! What amazing condescension and humiliation in God, that he should stoop so low as to remember and visit with his great salvation such poor, rebellious mortals, who are so feeble, weak, helpless, and so unmindful and ungrateful."
The writer is obviously talking about his own sinfulness and not about his pre-conversion state! He goes on to argue how this proves that iniquity is still present in the Christian though he trusts in Cod's forgiveness. Furthermore, he points out that we are justified by being bought through an act of God's Grace alone. He then continues by saying:
"Here is the poor sensible (i.e. sensitive, responsive) sinner's firm basis under all his trials, temptations, and discouragements."
Such thoughts show that Huntington was a long way from believing that he possessed actual righteousness. In fact he was very careful to stress that Jesus was our only righteousness. Two things always remain with the Christian, Huntington taught: knowledge of sinful self and divine life16. On one occasion Huntington wrote that he did not know what to wonder at most; his own bad heart, or the unfailing goodness of God`s dear Son. This was written in 1808, many, many years after the pastor`s conversion17.
Far from showing signs of heresy, Huntington's descriptions of Christ's saving work are not only Biblical but often full of exquisite beauty. This can be seen in Letter CCCCLXIV, headed 'Cricklewood'. The preacher outlines the history of redemption and ends with the words:
"God has left in all his children the old crop, to remind us of our base origin, to hide pride from our eyes, to exclude boasting from our lips, and to keep us from putting any confidence in the flesh. It is to exercise our grace, especially patience; to make us watchful, to make us sensible of the depth of man's fall, and, finally, to exalt the grace of God; to make us sick of self, and sick of the world; sick of sin, and to teach us to prize the great Physician, and to make us long for that perfect rest which remaineth to the people of God. Sin is purged by the death of Christ, and dethroned by the grace of the holy Spirit: we are justified from it by faith in Christ's righteousness, and we shall take our final leave of it at death."
An odd criticism which has been made recently is that Huntington believed that faith, repentance and holy obedience were mere covenantal conditions on the part of Christ and not on the part of the believer. What the critic seems to be getting at is that there is no desire for personal holiness in Huntington. The preacher was, however, so fully aware of his own corruption and spoke so often of faith, repentance and a holy life that he was hardly in danger of forgetting them. He did, however, denounce those who confused Christian holiness with adhering to the letter of the Law. Writing about his stubborn, rebellious heart Huntington states," I am truly sick of self and of sin"18, and adds:
"I do not wish to be high, nor highly exalted: to be self-abased, meekened, lowly minded, sorrowfull, broken-hearted, contrite, humble, and less than nothing, is safest and best for us in this land of drought, this barren wilderness, I may say the land of the enemy. But surely they cannot be of this world who hate it, and are hated of it."
Huntington always urged the believer to practise the faith which God had given him. Commenting on a fire that had occurred, the preacher used it as a picture of the trial of faith, saying:- "The new man will revive out of all this smoke, and receive not the least damage by it, for no such unhallowed fire will ever kindle upon him. The dross will consume, but not the gold: "the trial of faith is much more precious than gold, though it be tried with fire; and shall be found unto praise and honour at the appearing of Christ." Both the trial and the victory of faith are precious, because faith appears in triumph. It has fought with the devil, with the flesh, and with the spirit of opposition in this world. It has fought with imposters in the pulpit, with hypocrites in profession, with hereticks, with all the fears of death, and with all the imaginary horrors of hell. Surely then the trial and conquest of such a faith must be more precious than gold; and the more it is tried, the stronger it grows19."
On reading such a testimony it is difficult to imaging that some critics believe that Huntington is only speaking about Christ's duty to exercise faith and not the believer's. It is obviously the penitent believer's exercise of holy faith that Huntington is referring to when he writes movingly:- "When the poor sinner is sensible of his lost state, and feels the plague of his own heart, he is the object whom Christ came to save, and the patient that he came to cure. Such a soul, hungering and thirsting after righteousness; fixing his longing eyes upon Jesus; mourning, sighing, and praying to him, with sincere and honest confessions; pleading the promises; loathing himself in his own sight; acknowledging his guilt before God; pleading the blood and righteousness of Christ; covered with shame and confusion; driven on by a sense of want, and encouraged by the kind invitations in the word of God; such a soul, I say, is as an army with banners." Is that not a heavenly touch of holiness? Let our prayer be that such words from the mouth of the old coalheaver may still be heard today from our pulpits!
Critics tell us that Huntington does not believe that a Christian's standing with God can be affected by indwelling and practised sin. God just cannot be angry with his people. This again is a caricature of the preacher. Time and time again Huntington argues that our God is a jealous God and will not tolerate unfaithfulness amongst believers. Although Huntington stresses the love of God to His elect, he nevertheless depicts God as being also the Harvester with a "threshing instrument having teeth" in His hand dealing out "reproofs and rebukes, judgements and calamities" to purge the believer throughout his life20. Critics often maintain that when Huntington refers to the Lord's rebukes, this only refers to "the lawless" as Huntington terms non-Christians. Huntington, however, argues that the winnowing of the believer's soul is a life-long task and it is not until death and judgement that the wheat will finally be purged and be gathered into God's garner. Scripture quotes such as "I will put my fear in their hearts and they shall not depart from me21" occur in many instances in Huntington's writings to warn the believer of the folly of backsliding. Elsewhere Huntington speaks of God's "yoke, rod, anger, wrath, justice and terrible majesty" only to follow this, of course, with the Good News of "God's pity, compassion, love, favour and mercy22". Again, he is, most definitely not referring to the former as non-Christians and the latter as Christians as critics would have us believe.
The preacher is reported to be an inaccessible, conceited, dogmatic tyrant. He is even accused of thinking himself infallible and above criticism. It is difficult to attach too much importance to the criticism that Huntington was 'dogmatical'. It is rather refreshing at times to read of one who was not afraid to 'stick to his guns' and who was not bowled over by every new theological wind of change. The epithet 'conceited' needs commenting on. Huntington's letters are full of his bemoaning the fact that "enmity, rebellion, hardness of heart, infidelity, revenge, madness, desperation, selfwill, perverseness, obstinacy and inflexibility" are so much part of his life. What modern evangelical would admit all that? Even if Huntington were conceited, he was obviously very troubled about this possible weakness. It is a matter which he is constantly bringing before the Lord. in a letter to a "beloved brother and true yokefellow" Huntington explains how he sometimes feels firm in the faith and "fearless, confident and bold". At other times all he can say is, "What changes do pass upon us potssherds of the earth! I am now dead and cold, inactive, dry, parched, formal, legal, stiff, peevish, consequential and self-conceited; appearing as something, though less than nothing23". The point is, however, if Huntington were the conceited person he is held to be by his critics, he would hardly be the person to confess his sins as he does. In fairness to Huntington his critics should point out that the preacher was well aware of his 'army of inbred corruptions'24.
Many a Reformed, Calvinistic minister will have had the sobering experience of being called a tyrant. One often hears this accusation from the mouths of those who object to being told what to do by their pastors. When Huntington, however, begins his letters to those whom he wishes to instruct pastorally with such expressions as, "May the sweet and soul-cheering presence of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." and when he ends those same letters by signing himself "the worst of all sinners", one hardly gets the impression that he is a tyrant.
The criticism that Huntington called ministers in other denominations "false prophets" and "blind guides" need not mean that Huntington's tongue was always too loose. The preacher was surrounded by Arians, Pelagians, Universalists, Deists and Unitarians. The Methodists were up in arms against the doctrines of imputed righteousness and total reprobation. Huntington's language is extremely moderate in comparison with many of his contemporary ministers. One only needs to think in sorrow of John Wesley's scathing verbal attacks on the dying James Hervey or the words such true men of God as Toplady and Fletcher used in their Arminian-Calvinist controversy. After a detailed study of Huntington's criticisms of Arminians compared with those of Romaine, Hill and Toplady it would appear that Huntington was the more sober of the lot. Although his verbal attacks on his enemies would seem harsh today they had nothing of the wild unfounded verbal explosions of John Wesley who seemed to think that Calvinists were devils and "worse than the Turks". The claim that Dissenters were the object of Huntington's perpetual hatred just cannot stand. Huntington, himself, professed to be a Dissenter and had over thirty Dissenting ministers amongst his closest friends. Nor does one have to look far in Huntington's works to find positive statements regarding Anglicans. Huntington is full of praise for Whitefield and Toplady who were Church of England ministers but he had equal praise for many a Presbyterian. Anglicans such as Stephen Adams and the great Dr. Doudney, of the Gospel Magazine were high in their praise of their Dissenting brother. Indeed, few Dissenters of the day had such an interdenominational following of Reformed men as Huntington. It is a tragedy indeed that the Banner of Truth Trust has taken upon itself the task of utterly denying such historical truths and, opting for the make-believe, declaring of a work in which I stress Huntington's popularity amongst writers of all denominations "The only way Dr. Ella can explain Huntington's isolation from his evangelical contemporaries (of all denominations) is to denigrate them."25 If this were so, it seems very odd that the BOT had formerly published some five essays of mine dealing with highly positive appraisals of Huntington's contemporaries in several denominations and some twenty or more essays on 18th century stalwarts had appeared from my pen in numerous evangelical magazines.
Much is made of the fact that Huntington put 'letters after his name' and was thus an imposter. This again is hardly a fair argument. Everyone who knew the preacher was quickly made aware of what the S.S. (Sinner Saved) after his name meant. He did not sign himself 'Doctor' to make people believe he was a learned man but used the word as a spiritual physician offering guidance to sick souls26. He also signed himself 'Doctor Sack' (i.e. Coalsack), 'A Physician of no value', 'poor Doctor', 'Q in the corner', and, of course, 'S.S.' and 'Coalheaver', the latter two names being his favourites. It seems that Huntington's entire circle practised the use of pseudonyms. Such a practice was, of course, widespread in the 18th century. It was not unusual for ministers to be called "Doctor", thinking, no doubt of Jesus "sitting amongst the doctors" in Luke 4. During the 18th century many ministers were addressed as "Sir John" etc. though they were not knights. William Cowper, the Christian poet, had at least eight different 'titles', pen-names and pseudonyms which he used for various purposes, and, if that was a record, his friend John Newton ran a good second. A brief glance at the newspapers and magazines of the day, both Christian and otherwise, will show how widespread were "nicknames" amongst writers.
The criticism that Huntington merely favoured 'people of standing' need not be dealt with as his letters show how he cared for the souls of the humble. The fact that the preacher at one period had a carriage driven by his farm-hands can hardly be called 'foolish magnificence' as one critic put it. We must also remember that Huntington had worked as a liveried footman himself. Nowadays pastors have cars, washing machines, telephones and computers. In the 18th century pastors usual kept a horse-drawn carriage with driver. John Rippon, Gill's successor at Carter Lane had a 'glass coach' which was described as having 'windows all round.' Such pastors, no matter how poor, had invariably a house-maid to do the washing and a house-boy to run errands and take messages. Such servants then cost a lower percentage of a minister's wages than do mechanised or electronic servants today. Many 18th century ministers who were on stipends of less than £100 a year had several servants. Even in those days £100 was not a lot of money. Cowper kept two servants when he was only earning about £60 a year and he even cooked for them! As most professional people, teachers, pastors, farmers and even tradesmen had servants in the 18th century, it would seem odd to pick out Huntington alone for criticism. Ministers had servants until well into the present century. Huntington was only seen in a private coach in his old age when he was crippled with what he called "gravel in the loins." It is interesting to note that though the half a dozen or so recent articles against Huntington in the Banner of Truth magazine have stressed that Huntington lived above his state and even drove around in a coach, recent comments in that magazine have not
Huntington's critics make much of the fact that the following words are engraved on the pastor's gravestone:
"HERE LIES THE COALHEAVER:- BELOVED OF HIS GOD; BUT ABHORRED OF MEN. THE OMNISCIENT JUDGE AT THE GRAND ASSIZE SHALL RATIFY AND CONFIRM THIS TO THE CONFUSION OF MANY THAUSANDS; FOR ENGLAND AND ITS METROPOLIS SHALL KNOW THAT THERE HATH BEEN A PROPHET AMONG THEM. W.H. S.S.
The story goes that Huntington actually wrote these words himself, thus proving what an arrogant person he was. This theory must be examined in detail. We know from the records of Mr T. Bensley and Lady Sanderson that Huntington's epitaph was written a day or two before his death after a severe illness lasting some three weeks. During this time we learn that "his bodily sufferings were great" and that his illness was of "a violent and alarming manner". During his last days he was quite unable to sleep and suffered from high blood pressure27. We also know that he was too weak to write and asked friends and his wife to take down notes of what he said. Now even if Huntington had penned these words himself in such a low state of health at the very end of his life, it would be uncharitable indeed to judge his whole service for the Lord in their narrow light. Furthermore, it was quite common in Huntington's day for saints to be so very expressive of their own standing and similar statements (especially when taken out of context28) could be taken to point to arrogance in the works of Toplady, Wesley and even Whitefield. The fact is that some people are inclined to except the most negative of interpretations as invariably the true one.
What causes most criticism in this epitaph is the word "prophet". Now this was Lady Sanderson's loving term for Huntington29. Lady Sanderson also tells us in her Introduction that she wrote the epitaph at Huntington's bidding. The wording of it, however, is couched in the vocabulary we know was Lady Sanderson's. In other words the theory that Huntington wrote his own epitaph must be greatly modified, and even if its words were the preacher's own, knowing the circumstances we should not judge his whole life by it. Huntington did, however, sum up his life in his own words and with his own pen in an undated letter which he wrote in good health in later life as an answer to a call to preach:
"Rev. Sir,
If God permit, and you approve, I shall honour your pulpit on Sunday next; honour it, I say, with the preaching of the vilest wretch that ever was born, in possession of a hope that can never die. I am by birth a beggar - by trade a coalheaver - by practice a devil - by profession a sinner saved - by principle a stiff dissenter. If your hearers seek for eloquence, for historical research, or profound knowledge, I am the man who can completely disappoint them all. But, if they will be contented with a few scraps of apostolic ignorance, it shall go hard but they shall have some of those30
S.S."
These words speak for themselves and best describe the character of William Huntington. This short letter also illustrates the methods Huntington's critics have used in the past. If the words, "I shall honour your pulpit" and, "If your hearers seek for eloquence . . . I am the man" are taken out of context, they could be used to prove that the writer was conceited. In their proper context, however, they show how humble the 'coalheaver' was.
Those who are prepared to read Huntington without a plank in their eye will find amongst Huntington's 'scraps' a choice, wholesome meal of Gospel food. The man certainly had his faults but it would be hard to find another representative of his class and background who was so successful in bringing the Gospel to thousands of people from all walks of life from the most humble beggar to the most aristocratic of families.
Courtesy of The Bible League Quarterly
1 After Huntington's death loving friends who, indeed, showed more love than discretion, published a great deal of material that the preacher had not seen fit to make public. Huntington's situation can be compared to that of C.S. Lewis whose legatees thought they must publish every scrap of his work no matter how unsuitable it was. It is such jumbled unfinished and unorganised thoughts that often give rise to criticism of an author. It is like sacking the best cook because in a rare power cut the soup would not come to the boil.
2
3
4
5 The Arminian Skeleton, page 117
6
7 The Arminian Skeleton, pages 11-1
8 The Arminian Skeleton, page 51
9 Ibid, page 119
10
11 Oct. 17, 1805
12
13
14
15
16 Letter, Dec. 13, 1805
17 Posthumous Letters, vol. 8, page 219
18 Letter, Jan. 29, 1806
19
20 Letter dated Feb. 9, 1795
21 See, for instance, letter dated Oct. 10, 1808
22 Letter dated June 4, 1802
23 Letter dated May 12th.
24
25 Issue 378, March, 1995, p. 22.
26 See letter dated 25. August, 1797
27
28
29
30
1. Paradise and Poetry: An In-depth Study of William Cowper's Poetic Mind, 1989, The Cowper and Newon Museum, Olney, Bucks, England (xxvi + 377 pages)
2. William Cowper: Poet of Paradise, 1993, EP, Darlington, England, (688 pages)
3. William Huntington: Pastor of Providence, 1994, EP, Darlington, England. (367 pages)
4. John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth, 1995, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England. (365 pages)
5. Law and Gospel in the Theology of Andrew Fuller, 1996, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England (235 pages)
6. James Hervey: Preacher of Righteousness, 1997, Go-Publications, Eggleston, England. (approx. 380 pages)
7. John Gill and Justification from Eternity, 1997, Go-Publications, Eggleston England. (approx 300 pages)