The definition of bloodless gospel by Robert Breaker.

A salvation theology that does not believe in solely “trusting with all your heart” in the blood of Christ as the object of faith for your salvation

"There is a modern idea held by some people who aren't worth mentioning that the term 'bloodless gospel' refers to a salvation theology that does not teach that you have to mentally trust in the blood of Christ as your object of faith to be saved. They teach that Jesus Christ died, buried, and rose again, and the blood is the object of faith, which to access you must mentally trust in the blood of Christ to save you. They'll use the term 'you must trust with all your heart.' If you do anything other than {quote, unquote} 'trust', which is actually mentally assent to the blood, you aren't saved.

Let's call this the 'Mental Assent' view because it's used as polemic for mental assent. I'll put at the bottom why I believe it's mental assent. It's really more of a catch-all term for anything they don't like. For example, believing Jesus is God who died, buried, and rose again to save you, and then asking Him to save you, is to them a bloodless gospel. Or asking Jesus to come into your heart in that process of believing the gospel and asking God to save you is also, to them, a bloodless gospel.

I was won to Christ by Gene Kim. He told me Jesus died, was buried, and rose again so His blood could wash away my sins. And to be saved, I had to believe that and ask God to save me. That's a bloodless gospel, even to them. That's a bloodless gospel even with a sinner's prayer that focused on the blood. If you don't believe me, watch my Lester Roloff compilation, the first one that goes over that.

I should clarify also, Dr. Ruckman didn't like the term 'Jesus coming into your heart'; however, he did teach belief plus asking God to save you. Whatever platform you're watching this on, look at the videos I published on Dr. Ruckman preaching the sinner's prayer in every decade of his life. Lester Roloff regularly used heart terminology for salvation. In fact, in the 'Revelations' compilation, the first clip in it is Lester Roloff preaching this, why Christ coming into your heart is a biblical term. That entire sermon is on that if you look in the citations and watch that sermon."

This really isn’t an issue, however.

KDP (the service i’m describing) was started by amazon in 2007.

Any book published on KDP is effectively a drop in the water compared to the long history of books from the 1800s to 2000s that ARE documented.

"Getting back to the bloodless gospel, you'll notice there's not a single book in this series in the 2000s section that uses the term 'bloodless gospel' to support mental assent. The books that would be in the 2000s sections were published on Amazon. Amazon handles the printing and shipping, so it's not documented by Google."

"This documentary will look into every single usage of this, from its origin in 1820 to its last use, and how every author used the term."

Gospel: Christ Jesus's death, burial and resurrection

To be saved: A sinner has to believe the gospel, and then cry out to God ala Romans 10.

"Faith which leads to righteousness does not attain to the goal of righteousness, namely, salvation, unless it culminates in confession." - Martin Luther, Commentary On Romans, page 143

"First, let's preface a few things. My definition for the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). My salvation theology is that a person has to believe in the gospel and then ask God to save them / cry out to God for mercy, like the thief on the cross crying out for salvation. Think Romans 10:9-10 and every 'believe on' verse, watch my 'Believe On' study."

The sinner's prayer is just an easier way to say a person crying out to God for salvation.

A person does not have to say a specific prayer, aside from having to believe the gospel and cry out to God in some way. (Romans 10:9-10, 2 Timothy 2:22 + Matthew 12:34, every Believe on verse)

"I may say the term 'sinner's prayer,' but I really refer to someone having faith in the gospel and then crying out to God to save them. I don't believe a person has to pray a specific formula, other than believing in the gospel and crying out to God for salvation."

1820

Wikipedia page for Charles Phillips (barrister).

"October 1820: We Charles Phillips. He was born in Sligo, Ireland, in 1787 to a Protestant family. Phillips was rather important back in his day, as he was a Protestant lawyer who actively fought and defended the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholics in Britain. He was regularly invited to very large Catholic public assemblies, the historical term for those was 'Aggregate Meetings' if you want to research it. His speeches were written down and compiled into a book. This is how we know he used the term 'bloodless gospel.' Despite being a Protestant in the 1800s, he was very, very ecumenical."

Title page: Speech Delivered at the Fourth Anniversary of the Gloucestershire Missionary Society; followed by Page 254.

"This is a speech delivered at the fourth anniversary of the Gloucestershire Missionary Society, pages 254 to 255:

'I have seen too much, sir, of sectarian bigotry—as a man, I abhor it; as a Christian, I blush at it. It is not only degrading to religion that employs even the shadow of intolerance, but it is an impious despotism in the government that countenances it. These are my opinions, and I will not suppress them. Our religion has its various denominations, but they are all struggling to the same mansion, though by different avenues. And when I meet them by the way, I care not whether they be Protestant or Presbyterian, Dissenter or Catholic; I know them as Christians, and I will embrace them as my brethren.'"

Page 255 of the speech.

"'I hail, then, the foundation of such a society as this—I hail it, in many respects, as a happy omen—I hail it as an augury of that coming day, when the bright bow of Christianity, commencing in the heavens, and encompassing the earth, shall include the children of every clime and colour beneath the arch of its promise and the glory of its protection. Sir, I thank this meeting for the more than courtesy with which it has received me, and I feel great pleasure in proposing this resolution for their adoption.'"

Page 27 from At Cork.

"Page 27 to 28:

'I would say to the Protestant, concede; I would say to the Catholic, forgive; I would say to both, though you bend not at the same shrine, you have a common God and a common country... The hostility of her sects has been the disgrace, the peculiar disgrace, of Christianity. The Gentoo loves his caste, and so does the Mahometan, so does the Hindoo, where England, out of the abundance of her charity, is about to teach her creed. I hope she may not teach her practice. For Christianity—Christianity alone exhibits her thousand sects, each denouncing his neighbour here, in the name of God, and damning him hereafter out of pure devotion! "You're a heretic," says the Catholic; "you're a Papist," says the Protestant. "I appeal to Saint Peter," explains the Catholic.'"

Page 28 of Speech.

"'"I appeal to Saint Athanasius," cries the Protestant; "and if it goes to damning, he’s as good at it as any saint in the calendar." "You'll all be damned eternally," moans out the Methodist; "I’m the elect." Thus it is, you see, each hurls his anathema, his accusation, and his retort; and in the end, religion is the victim. The victory of each is the overthrow of all; and infidelity, laughing at the contest, writes the refutation of their creeds in the blood of the combatants.'

This man was very ecumenical, very ecumenical."

"The first written usage of 'bloodless gospel' is in a speech Charles Phillips gave at an annual London Hibernian Society meeting in Sligo, Ireland, October 1820. The society existed to establish religious schools by the Church of England and some other Protestants to evangelize to the Irish. Now, Charles Phillips is a politician, and like any politician, he'll change his tune to anyone he's talking to. The man talked about everyone setting apart their differences and that {quote, unquote} 'all Christian creeds are equal.'

Then, in his speech, we hear him call the Pope 'thrown, impious potentate,' and our {quote} 'raised from the mire of ignorance and superstition, redeemed from, I say, almost brute, and led through the temple of knowledge even to the very altar of God, is a spectacle which I envy not the man who cannot behold it with enthusiasm.' Despite him saying that {quote, unquote} 'Christian infighting leads to Hindus and other religions not wanting to convert to Christianity'..."

Pages 288–289 from Town-Hall, Sligo.

"...I want to clarify this because I have this gut instinct that Charles Phillips will become this figure who {quote, unquote} 'preached against the bloodless gospel,' and he was a true Christian, who was a Davidic figure who had bows descending against God of ecumenism. However, I fear they'll say he was a great man who preached against the bloodless gospel and defined it, and made the first usage of it.

We find the first written usage on page 289. The background is they were being criticized for evangelizing:

'They will bless you with their lips, in their lives, in their deaths; the God to whom you have turned them will bless you; the country to which you have restored them will bless you; and should your little ones ever mourn a parent, the Great Spirit will recollect the deed and surely save them from the perils of their orphanage. In the discharge of the sacred duty which you have thus voluntarily undertaken, listen not to the imputation of any unworthy motive; remember that calumny is the shadow of merit, and that though it ever follows, it never overtakes...

Were the solitary charge which hostility has flung on you even true, it is, in my mind, under your circumstances, not a crime, but a virtue. You use no weapon but the bloodless gospel; you assume no armour but the nakedness of truth; and in a good cause, and with an honest conviction, I would ever avow this accusation of proselytism.'

Phillips' usage of 'bloodless gospel' is evangelism without killing, think the Northern Crusades. If you have ever evangelized without the shedding of blood, you are a man who preaches a bloodless gospel, according to Phillips."

1836

"The second usage of 'bloodless gospel' we find, aside from our very ecumenical friend, is in 1832: A History of Wesleyan Methodism in Halifax and its Vicinity: From Its Commencement to the Present Period by J. U. Walker. This is a history book. We find the same usage of 'bloodless gospel' as our friend {quote} used it, logically, as Phillips' speech coining it was in 1820, and this is from 1836. Walker probably took it from Phillips."

Page 24 of Methodism in Halifax, highlighting the line mentioning "bloodless gospel".

"Page 24:

'The writer will doubtless be excused in giving this lengthy sketch of Nelson; and it must be remembered he was the first Methodist preacher in Yorkshire, and the chief instrument in founding Methodism in Halifax. Plain, honest, simple, and straightforward, he bore down opposition, trampling under the foot of calumny of the rude, who as looked and laughed, the ungodly herd and sneered. The wicked rose up in mighty rebellion, but onwards he pushed his course, wielding no weapon save a bloodless gospel, arrayed in no armour except the nakedness of truth; and with this he conquered, with a boldness peculiar to himself. He charged and battered legions, and now look abroad: did he labour in vain?'"

1871

Pages 404–405 of printed sermons/commentary.

"A third written usage of from 1871. Brown directly defines what this bloodless gospel is: a term against the 1800s spiritualizers who taught that the blood atonement wasn't Jesus taking our sin. He says this on page 404 to 405 in the same sermon:

'And now, and would that we could speak even as we feel, I entreat you be very careful whom you hear, and what you preach. No matter how cleverly the trumpet may be blown, no matter how attractive its notes, listen to hear whether there is anything about the blood of the atonement; for, if that be lacking, all is wanting. If there is nothing about a sacrifice having been made...'

I'm going to cut off, interrupt him..."

"...He's talking right now about spiritualizers, and about these people who, you call them 'liberal Christianity,' is another term, who spiritualized this, and they remove that Jesus Christ died for sinners, and that Jesus died while we were yet sinners. And if all invites to sinners are not based upon that sacrifice, then the invite is all a lie, false, and the so-called gospel but a hideous shame:

'Beware of the specious lie that we are forgiven on the ground of universal fatherhood, and that we are brought nigh because God has a—so great heart of love yearning after everybody that he cannot condemn any.'"

Pages 408–409.

"'Now, if it be true that the gospel age was ushered in by atonement, it is equally true that the atonement of Christ must usher in all our gospel proclamations. There is no gospel without the atonement, any more than there was any trump of jubilee without first the Atonement Day. A bloodless gospel is no gospel, but hell’s choicest weapon; a gospel that ignores the Lamb slain is worse than no gospel at all; for it not merely leaves men in their original ignorance, it stupefies and chloroforms them with a fresh lie.'"

"'I know that we have in our minds to-night many who are one with us in the sweet work of preaching Christ; my brethren, permit me to say this word to you, and to my own heart: let us see to it that our trump of jubilee is ever ushered in with atonement, and that when we preach liberty to the captives, and the binding up of broken-hearted ones, and when we proclaim salvation for the vilest, we base it on the blood and atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, souls, you must be careful, lest you ever blow a jubilee trumpet, so called, that has not in it the grand truth that is the blood which maketh an atonement for the soul; for bear in mind that all promises and all invitations, and all the blessings of the gospel, are based on the blood.'"

1874

He uses it the same way against liberal christianity, who deny the physical blood atonement being a punishment for sin.

"The next use is by Charles Haddon Spurgeon. He continues usage of it talking about those who hold metaphorical views, i.e., spiritualize."

Sermon print: Freedom Through Christ's Blood, August 2nd, 1874; page 405.

"Freedom Through Christ's Blood, August 2nd, 1874. He's not teaching the mental assent view when he says this:

'A ministry that has not the blood in it is lifeless, for the blood is the life thereof; and a dead ministry is no good to anybody. Leave out the atoning sacrifice, and it would be better for the people that the places in which a Christless, bloodless gospel is preached should all be burnt to the ground, for the atoning sacrifice is the soul and marrow of Christianity. Rest you in that, and you are saved; but get away from that, and you have wandered where peace and life and safety can never come. God Almighty bless you, for Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.'"

Page 482 from Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit (The Sacred Blood-Token, August 22nd, 1875).

"The Sacred Blood-Token, August 22nd, 1875. I'll read this first as a preface to the bloodless gospel use:

'The sprinkled blood preserved the houses of the Israelites, and it is the blood of Jesus accepted by us, relied upon, and applied to our consciences, which delivers us from death. The sprinkling, moreover, was done in a very public manner; they stained the lintel and the two side posts, so that every passer-by might see it, yea, and must see it. So salvation is promised not alone to believing, but to confession with the mouth: "He that with his heart believeth, and with his mouth maketh confession of him, shall be saved." And so the grand commission at the end of the Gospel by Mark puts it, "Not he that believeth shall be saved," but "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"; for if we believe in Christ, we must not be ashamed of him. Shame about faith would argue insincerity of faith. True faith in the Saviour is so potent a principle of our lives that it must be seen whether we publish it or no; and we must be willing that it should be seen, yea, this should be the most visible point in our lives, our glory and our delight, that we do indeed believe in the Saviour Jesus Christ. Oh, that every one of you, my dear hearers, used the cross for its proper purpose! I grieve that any among you should have need to have it asked of you.'

I do not believe that public confession has to be done for salvation; you can confess in private. I don't agree on Calvinism or baptism either."

Page 483.

"A bloodless gospel is a lifeless gospel:

'A bloodless gospel is a lifeless gospel. If the atonement be denied, or frittered away, or put into a secondary place, or obscured, in that proportion the life has gone out of the religion which is professed; but we, brethren, bear as distinguishing token the mark of the blood.'"

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Page 565 (Love and Its Nemesis, July 2nd, 1882).

"Love and Its Nemesis, July 2nd, 1882:

'They do anything they can to get away from atonement: love without righteousness is their idol; substitution is a word that is hard for the world to spell. They cannot abide that Christ should suffer instead of the guilty, and bear that we might never bear the Father's righteous wrath. This they cannot get away with. Many pretend to keep the atonement, and yet they tear the bowels out of it. They profess to believe in the gospel, but it is a gospel without the blood of the atonement; and a bloodless gospel is a lifeless gospel, a dead gospel, and a damning gospel.'"

Page 89 (A Witness and a Partaker, November 4th, 1883).

"A Witness and a Partaker, November 4th, 1883:

'I judge that the principal business of any minister of Christ, or of the church of Christ, is to bear testimony to the sufferings of Christ. If the atoning sufferings of Christ are left out of a ministry, that ministry is worthless. "The blood is the life thereof." It is as true about sermons as it is about animals and sacrifices. A bloodless gospel, a gospel without the atonement, is a gospel of devils, and not the gospel of God.'"

Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Page 110–111 (The Word a Sword, May 17th, 1888).

"The Sword, May 17th, 1888:

'I have told you that we will not have Christ without the word, so neither will we have the word without Christ. If you leave Christ out of Scripture, you have left out the essential truth which is written to declare. Ay, if you leave out of it Christ as a substitute, Christ in His death, Christ in His garments dyed in blood, you have left out of it all that is living and powerful.

How often have we reminded you that, as concerning the gospel, even as concerning every man, "the blood is the life thereof"! A bloodless gospel is a lifeless gospel.'"

Page 310 (Where Is the Lord?, May 29th, 1892).

"Where Is the Lord?, May 29th, 1892:

'For your comfort, the next verse to my text tells you where He is. He is in heaven. They cannot expel Him from His throne: "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." Every possible contrivance in these modern days has been tried to drive Christ out of His own church; a Christless, bloodless gospel defiles many; but He is in heaven still; at the right hand of God He sits, and let this be our continual prayer to Him: "Look down from heaven, O Lord, cast an eye upon Thy fallen and suffering church; look down from heaven.""'

Page 132 from The Offence of the Cross (1887) by Joseph Samuel Exell.

"Next you will find is 1887 by Joseph Samuel Exell. Truth, it's actually taking Spurgeon's notes on Galatians, page 123 of from Romans to Revelation. Exell quoted in his book, Joseph Samuel Exell's Homiletics. Spurgeon here talks about Galatians 5:11:

'And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offence of the cross ceased.

II. How is this offence shown?

1. Frequently by the actual persecution of believers...

3. Often by omitting to preach the cross. Many nowadays preach a Christless, bloodless gospel, or by importing new meanings into orthodox terms, or by preaching the truth of Christ with errors, or by openly denying the deity of Him who died on the cross, and the substitutionary character of His sufferings.'

Again, against a spiritual, bloodless atonement."

Page 81 from Christ in the Old Testament Age (1896) by Alexander Patterson.

"1896: This is a unique usage of 'bloodless gospel' that is not about peaceful evangelism or denying a physical blood atonement. The Greater Life and Work of Christ: As Revealed in Scripture, Man, and Nature by Alexander Paterson, 1896, page 81:

'The tree of life was Adam's gospel. By eating of it, he could attain to the same condition as one who is in Christ now. The tree of life contained, symbolically, the gospel of Christ as we have it to-day; save that it was a bloodless gospel. It was for a sinless race, and therefore no shedding of blood was needed. Adam's salvation was to be had as ours is. The believer was saved by faith in Christ, and faith implies repentance.'

He defined the usage of his 'bloodless gospel,' so no need for me to."

Page 241 from Record of Christian Work, Vol. 16 (1897), containing Biblical Notes and Queries by Rev. C. I. Scofield.

"1897: This is from Record of Christian Work, Volume 16, front cover: Alexander McConnell, William Revell Moody, Arthur Percy Fitt; Record of Christian Work Company, 1897 theology, a Christian newspaper. Page 241, it's by Cyrus Scofield, whom I've defended in the past. Scofield is a complicated man, look at my videos. Nevertheless, he wasn't funded by the Rothschilds.

Biblical Notes and Queries by Rev. C. I. Scofield:

'Can you give a brief rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures? I so constantly hear them spiritualized that I am puzzled to know what meaning I should give them.'

Scofield says at one point in the article:

'What is Christian character? Is it biblical to say "character is salvation"?

Christian character is described in passages like Matthew 5:3-9, Galatians 5:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13, 2 Peter 1:5-7.

No, a thousand times no. The saying is unbiblical and misleading. Christian character is a result, not by means of salvation. We are saved by Christ, not by character, though the ultimate fruit of salvation will be holiness, which is a better word than character. The latter word is not once found in Scripture, and though a noble word in itself, has been degraded into a cant word of the emasculated and bloodless gospel of the day.'

This is against a spiritual, actual term for 1800s spiritual Baptists who tried to turn the Word of God into metaphors, like Origen, not a person who believes in grace."

Bloodless gospel definitions in the 1800s

1. Evangelism without killing

2. Denying a physical blood atonement for sin, and spiritualizing it

3. Weird Adamic theology

*allegorical/spiritualizing

Let's recap what we learned today. As of the 1800s, there were three different definitions for 'bloodless gospel':

1. The first means evangelizing without shedding blood, coined by a cunning lawyer.

2. The second is saying that the blood of Christ, the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, was an allegorical event, coined by Brown.

3. And finally, we have a weird Adamic theology.

[Why I believe it's mental assent]

"And it's not just, as this guy said (he's talking about me!), a mental assent. Oh, I just believe it with my head. It's trusting in it with all of your heart. There's some people out there that believe it with their head, but they've never accepted it with their heart. That's somebody who's not saved." - Faith in the Blood is Faith in the Atoning Work of Jesus! #faithintheblood #atonement #bloodofjesus!, starting at 53:40

I have heard this argument that it is not mental assent, as you trust it with all your heart.

The “heart trust” distinction is reliant on believing something versus accepting it or trusting it with all your heart, but the problem is, how do you know the difference?

Jeremiah 17:9

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

If I see a chair and I wonder if it will collapse, and I trust it will not, I physically act upon my trust by sitting.

Trust is always physically manifested through actions.

And you can't even say that's comparable to heart trust, because you don't (pray) sit in the chair when you trust (believe in Jesus Christ) that it won't collapse; you sit in the chair when you sit (pray) on it. You're standing near it even if you trust the chair, till you sit down!

Any and all analogies explaining heart trust cannot be made.

If you trust [physical action] with your heart, is that [physical action] achieved by you trusting it with your heart? Or by physically doing it? The answer is always the physical action, unless you can do telekinesis.

There are no comparable actions that still don't lead to some form of a prayer to God for salvation being a condition for salvation. And you know what Robert Breaker teaches.

November 6, 2025 | 01:05:17)

Joseph Gonzalez: Who is to confess with their mouth that the Lord is Jesus, or Jesus is

Lord? Wouldn't that be Israel?

Robert Breaker: Right.

Joseph Gonzalez: So when I read Romans 10, I see Jews asking Paul, "Hey, what about

Israel?" And he says, "Well, if a guy is is a Jew and he has confessed that

Jesus is his Lord, that Jesus is his Messiah..."

Robert Breaker: Right.

Joseph Gonzalez: "...and if he believes that God hath raised him from the dead, well,

then he can be saved."

Robert Breaker: Correct.

Joseph Gonzalez: So if he believes in who and what, then he'll be saved.

Robert Breaker: Right. I don't think he's telling you you have to do both, and

that you have to say it with the mouth or you're not saved. If he's saying you

have to believe from your heart in something and say it with your mouth at the

same time, then that would be a faith plus works gospel. Right. And that would

nullify what Jesus did, because it's not just what he did, it's what you say.

Joseph Gonzalez: Mhm.

Robert Breaker: Which would be a work.
(Clip has since been taken down).

The heart trust is unfalsifiable.

You do not physically manifest that you trust something with all your heart; you just do it in your heart.

What is the difference between believing something to be true and accepting or trusting it with all your heart?

I know the argument would be to reiterate, “You trust it all with your heart.”

I have had genuine experiences where I learnt a new fact and I felt very strongly that it was true. I trusted it to be true.

It just sounds like (royal) you are redefining levels of excitement to learning something to be true and how excited you are to accept something as true.

Because any and all examples you can give of trusting something with your heart would be related to a physical action.

Trusting something in your heart is unfalsifiable, and no one can verifiably check what another person feels.

And the heart is Jeremiah 17:9:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

To quote Proverbs 28:26:

“He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”

If the heart is so wicked, how do you know the difference?

And even then, how do you know that trusting with all of your heart isn't just mental assent, where you just feel more excited, as we can't verifiably check what people feel in their heart?

1 Corinthians 2:11

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”

What you are left with is an unfalsifiable concept:

1. Which we cannot understand or analyze externally; again, how can we know it isn't mental assent except you're more excited assenting.

2. Which is dependent on THE MOST DECEITFUL HUMAN ORGAN;

3. Which has no physical or daily equivalents to it, which would not then add a physical action to it. This means there is no way of even verifying that there is an equivalent.

The Bible does not even use the terminology “trusting with all of your heart” specifically for New Testament salvation.

They have never made this argument, but I looked at the Bible verses with heart + trust.

There is a psalm where David specifically says he trusted in his own heart. That cannot apply, as it is from the Old Testament and not about New Testament salvation, let alone mental assent, but I will still go through it.

Psalm 28:6

“Blessed be the LORD, because he hath heard the voice of my supplications.”

“The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him.”

David says his heart trusted in him, and I am helped.

How is he helped? God answered his supplications.

As a result of this trust, he prayed to God and asked to be saved. Do you see the New Testament application? He was not saved till he prayed. Verse 7, trust led to the supplication.

That cannot support it.

Sources:

The Speeches of Charles Phillips, Esq., Delivered at the Bar, and on Various Public Occasions in Ireland and England

By Charles Phillips · 1822

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Speeches_of_Charles_Phillips_Esq_Del/VP5JAAAAMAAJ

A History of Wesleyan Methodism in Halifax, and Its Vicinity, from Its Commencement to the Present Period

By J. U. Walker · 1836

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Wesleyan_Methodism_in_Halif/oWxjAAAAcAAJ

East London tabernacle pulpit, sermons preached by Archibald Brown

By Archibald Geikie Brown · 1873

https://www.google.com/books/edition/East_London_tabernacle_pulpit_sermons_pr/NJIEAAAAQAAJ

Charles Haddeon Spurgeon

https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/freedom-through-christs-blood August 2nd, 1874

https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/the-sacred-love-token August 22, 1875

https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/love-and-i-a-mystery July 2, 1882

https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/a-witness-and-a-partaker November 4, 1883

https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/the-word-a-sword May 17, 1888

https://www.spurgeon.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/26_Where_is_the_Lord.pdf May 29th, 1892

Galatians

By Joseph Samuel Exell · 1887

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Galatians/A3NJAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22bloodless+gospel%22&dq=%22bloodless+gospel%22&printsec=frontcover 1887

From Romans to Revelation - CXCVI to CCLXIV

By Charles Haddon Spurgeon · 1891

https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Romans_to_Revelation_CXCVI_to_CCLXI/jdFAAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless+gospel%22&pg=PA123&printsec=frontcover 1891

The Greater Life and Work of Christ

As Revealed in Scripture, Man, and Nature

By Alexander Patterson

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Greater_Life_and_Work_of_Christ/BrI_AAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless+gospel%22&pg=PA81&printsec=frontcover 1896

Record of Christian Work, Volume 16

Alexander McConnell, William Revell Moody, Arthur Percy Fitt

Record of Christian Work Company, 1897 - Theology

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Record_of_Christian_Work/zLahJLTf2wgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bloodless+gospel%22&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover