For Gill, why he can say that it is the duty of all men to believe on Christ, even to renew their hearts, he made careful distinctions; distinctions which Nettles either is unaware of or glosses over. For Gill, when God commanded the Jews to make a new heart, Gill believed that God was only demanding that they reform their outward lives in order to avoid temporal calamity. Gill overused the artificial distinction between historical/natural faith and evangelical/saving faith. Thus, the one who hears the external gospel is only required to have the former faith. The one who “hears” the internal witness of the gospel is required to have the latter faith. This shallow distinction is what created the whole mess about warrants to believe etc. Most of this stuff was not sorted out until Fuller. Boston does attack some of it, but it really took Fuller to demonstrate the falsity of Gillite Hypercalvinism.
I won’t discuss recent trajectories in the Reformed meteorite.