A Body of Divinity: Vol. 3 (of 4) by Thomas Ridgley - HTML preview

Footnotes

1.  The first that seems to use this unsavoury mode of speaking, is Gregory Nazianzen; who did not consider how inconsistent some of those rhetorical ways of speaking, he seems fond of, are with that doctrine, which, in other parts of his writings, he maintained. Those words Χριστοποιειν, and θεοποιειν, which he sometimes uses to express the nature, or consequence of this union between Christ and believers, are very disgustful. In one place of his writings, (Vid. ejusd. Orat. 41.) exhorting Christians to be like Christ, he says, That because he became like unto us, γενωμεθα Θεοι δι αυτον, efficiamur Dii propter ipsum; and elsewhere, (in Orat. 35. de Folio.) he says, Hic homo Deus effectus postea quam cum Deo coaluit ἱνα γενωμαι τοσουτον θεος ὁσον εκ εινοc ανθρωπος εγενηθη, ut ipse quoque tantum Deus efficiar quantum ipse homo. And some modern writers have been fond of the same mode of speaking, especially among those who, from their mysterious and unintelligible mode of expressing themselves, have rather exposed than defended the doctrines of the gospel. We find expressions of the like nature in a book put forth by Luther, which is supposed to be written by Taulerus, before the Reformation, called Theologia Germanica, and some others, since that time, such as Parcelsus, Swenckfelt, Weigelius, and those enthusiasts, that have adhered to their unintelligible and blasphemous modes of speaking.

2.  See Vol. II. Quest. 31. page 167.

3.  Quest. 70.

4.  This is the principal, if not the only scripture, from which they pretend to prove marriage to be a sacrament, and they argue thus. The Greek church had no other word to express what was afterwards called a sacrament by the Latin church, but μυστηριον, a mystery: therefore since the apostle calls marriage, as they suppose, a mystery, they conclude that it is a sacrament; which is a very weak foundation for inserting it among those sacraments which they have added to them that Christ had instituted; for the sacraments are no where called mysteries in scripture: and therefore we are not to explain doctrines by words which were not used till some ages after the apostles’ time: and if there were any thing in their argument, viz. that that which is called a mystery in scripture, must needs be a sacrament, it does not appear that the apostle calls marriage a great mystery, but the union that there is between Christ and his church; as he expressly says in the following words; I speak concerning Christ and the church.

5.  That the invitations of the gospel are not restricted to a few amongst a larger number who hear them, is clear, from various considerations.

The term evangel, or gospel, importing good tidings, evinces, that it is designed not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance and salvation.

The blessings, which it announces, lead to the same conclusion; liberty is offered to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; those who labour and are heavily laden, are invited to seek, and obtain rest: those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, are assured that they shall be filled; the riches of grace and of glory are promised to the poor in Spirit; sight is offered to the blind; and howsoever diseased, those who are afflicted are invited to come to the great Physician; and even those who are dead in sin are revived by his life-giving word. Such are the circumstances of the worst of men, who are consequently the objects of the mercies proffered in the gospel.

The unregenerate elect, who stand amongst those who will not be saved, are like them, possessed of prevailing inclinations to sin, and equally impotent to good: they are all equally guilty of an aversation of heart from God, and so possess in themselves nothing which can evidence a right to gospel blessings more than others.

The invitations of the gospel are in universal terms, and although such terms are sometimes restricted by the sense, yet where no such restriction appears, they are to be taken in their own unlimited extent; the ransom is asserted to have been rendered for all; the Lord willeth not the destruction of any, but that all should turn and live; Christ proclaimed to sinners, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; and directed his disciples to go and teach all nations; and it is his will, that the gospel should be preached unto every creature.

If in the day of final account, the abominable crimes of Sodom and Gomorrha shall evince less guilt than the impenitency of Chorazin and Bethsaida; the aggravation of guilt, which the gospel produces, demonstrates that its messages are directed unto the worst of men, as well as others.

Those who are guided by the light of nature, are guilty, because they violate the rule of conscience: such as possessed the law of God were still more guilty, but sinners under the light of the gospel, who trample under foot the blood of Christ, and despise and reject the mercies of the gospel, are guilty in the highest degree. It is just that they should not receive the offered pardon, but remain under the condemnation of the law, the dominion of iniquity, the slavery of Satan, and be left in their beloved darkness until they sink in despair. Yet nothing but their own aversion rejects the invitation, or prevents their salvation: they are straitened in their own bowels, and are the causes of their own destruction. Thus salvation is offered in general, and God is just, though the application of it is plainly special.

6.  Vide Fuller’s “Gospel worthy of all Acceptation.”

7.  See Vol. II. page 333.

8.  This is what is generally called the formalis ratio of liberty.

9.  We generally say, that whatever is essential to a thing, belongs to it as such. And there is a known rule in logic, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; and the then absurd consequences, above mentioned, would necessarily follow from it.

10.  In this respect divines generally consider liberty as opposed to co-action: but here we must distinguish between a natural co-action and a moral one. Liberty is not opposed to a moral co-action, which is very consistent with it. Thus an honest man cannot allow himself in a vile action; he is under a moral constraint to the contrary; and yet he abstains from sin freely. A believer loves Christ freely, as the apostle Paul certainly did; and yet, at the same time, he was under the constraint of the love of Christ; as he himself expresses it, 2 Cor. v. 14.

11.  This divines generally call spontaneity.

12.  This some call lubentia rationalis.

13.  This some divines call voluntas serva.

14.  The question between us and the Pelagians, is not whether the will sometimes follows the dictates of the understanding, but, whether it either always does so? or, if it be otherwise, whether that which hinders it does not arise from a defect in these dictates of the understanding? Accordingly they speak of the dictates of the understanding as practical, and not barely speculative, and with a particular application to ourselves. They also consider the will as having been before in some suspense; but that dictate of the understanding which it follows, is the last, after mature deliberation; and it is supposed to have compared things together; and therefore presents a thing, not only as good, but more eligible than any thing else, which they call a comparate dictate of the understanding; and by this means the will is persuaded to a compliance. But though this may be true in many instances that are natural; yet daily experience proves, that it does not hold good with respect to things divine and supernatural.

15.  The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change, when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those who yield are said to be “born of the word.” Were it not for the information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be real, the efficient cause: “God sanctifies by the truth,” he “opens the heart to attend” to the word, and when any have learned from and been taught or drawn by the Father they come unto Christ; they are therefore also in a higher sense born of the Spirit.

This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy.

The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior to it.

It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by “blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but of God,” and those only “who are of God, hear,” believe, and obey his word.

This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs. The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent; grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.—It does not render the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with his Spirit’s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes the subjects of his grace.

16.  “I have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things. It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; ‘The moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and impertinent.—The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or inanimate matter.’

“But to this philosophical objection, however plausible and unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: ‘Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.’ The Almighty is not limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally. The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we admit the idea of a work properly supernatural—an effect produced not by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone, called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else, in this immediate manner?

“Some sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to guard against the notion of regeneration’s being effected by moral suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical; but supernatural.”

DR. SMALLEY

17.  Ὕπερβαλλον μεγεθος της δυναμεως αυτου—κατα την ενεργειαν του κρατους της ισχυος αυτου.

18.  The change in regeneration has been often called the communication of a principle of spiritual life. It is described as life, in the scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies, because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are figuratively denominated dead. Life being the opposite of death, such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the same manner, be termed living. Such also are called spiritual, because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. “You hath he quickened;” and, because it has for its object the things which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.

These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the word principle is destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are the beginnings of the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit, affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the Spirit. Accordingly it has been called “a fixed impression of some spiritual truth upon the heart.” But there is no truth, or other motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed heart; or to become a principle of action to a soul dead in sin. Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of the man is the subject of influence; and He is said to open the heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do, or to give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. From such scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are the effects of regeneration, and not the thing itself.

This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they “were not of us,” who afterwards have “departed from us.” Then also the advice to those who are in the visible church “to examine,” and “prove themselves,” whether Christ be “in them,” is without meaning, or utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is, their visible profession. And to “be born again,” is but “to see the” visible “kingdom” of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to Nicodemus was merely identical.

19.  See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration.

20.  See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced into act, and not his implanting the principle itself.

21.  See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71.

22.  See Quest. lxxv.

23.  When it is said “no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me, draw him,” the negation must be understood as expressive of moral impotency, and as if it had been said “ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;” but nevertheless as direct proof of the absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to the understanding is evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the carnality of the heart which created the impotency to come unto or believe on him.

The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an important effect in the change of the man’s views, and pursuits, when the Spirit of God has “opened the heart” to receive the necessary impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief, strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.

Because it is charged upon the evil that they “resist” the grace of God, and therefore his Spirit will not always “strive” with men, it by no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until subdued by him: we are “made willing in a day of his power.” Were it otherwise the glory of man’s salvation would belong to himself, at least in part; but the language of the believer is “not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given.” Nor is there any need to suppose man’s salvation thus imputable to himself in order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction; for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin.

It does not result that the man, who is thus “made willing,” is in such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well justify him before men.

If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation.

24.  See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c.

25.  When we speak of effectual calling’s being the work of the Spirit, the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit, this implies his personal glory’s being demonstrated thereby, agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293, &c.

26.  Ενεργεια.

27.  Αθετησαι.

28.  ומצדיק.

29.  The former of these divines call reatus potentialis, the latter, reatus actualis; the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the latter is taken away by justification.

30.  Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men. To be made, (or constituted) righteous, or, to be justified, in the sight of God, in scriptural language cannot mean, to be made inherently righteous. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and cannot be ignorant of every man’s real demerit. This righteousness of the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own conformity to the Divine law; “In the Lord have I righteousness;” “That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness.” If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of God’s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to be treated and accepted as righteous. If God justifies the ungodly, his truth and justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their righteousness is defective; but by the obedience of one, (that is Christ,) many are made righteous. The term obedience excludes the essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of another’s; yet Christ was the Lord of life and possessed what no mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of God before man was created; and was promised us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justice therefore can neither object to the substitution, nor withhold the rewards.

31.  Splendida peccata.

32.  See Vol. II. Page 275.

33.  The distinction often used in the civil law between fide-jussor and expromissor, or a person’s being bound together with the original debtor, and the creditor’s being left to his liberty to exact the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is called fide-jussor; and the surety’s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand by expromissor, has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174, 186.

34.  Volenti non fit injuria.

35.  See Vol. II. Page 281.

36.  See Vol. II. page 288.

37.  See Vol. II. page 280-293.

38.  חשב λογιζω.

39.  I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel, are unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in the proper imputation of sin to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness to us; nor in his being our substitute, or representative.

John. Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest?

Peter. Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines; and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I consider as an avowal of what I have stated.

John. What say you to this, brother James?

James. I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords with brother Peter’s ideas on these subjects: indeed I suspect it does not: but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in question. Were I to relinquish the one or the other, I should be at a loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that his views of imputation and substitution were unscriptural; but had no intention of disowning the doctrines themselves.

Peter. Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over your faith; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to Christ, or that Christ’s righteousness is properly imputed to us, or not?

Ja