206

CHAPTER IV.

THE VIEW OF DR. RIDGLEY REFUTED BY AN ANONYMOUS WRITER.

The author regrets his inability to give the name of the writer, who has so ably and satisfactorily refuted Dr. Ridgley's opinion, that the word cannot be the instrument of regeneration. The article first appeared in the third volume of the RELIGIOUS MONITOR, in 1827. It is believed the cause of truth will be a gainer by the insertion of his main arguments in the present volume:

"Observing lately, upon reading Dr. Ridgley's Body of Divinity, on the subject of regeneration, a sentiment advanced by the Dr. upon that subject, which, in my opinion, is very exceptionable; and a sentiment, which, as far as is known to the writer of this paper, was never maintained before by any who passed for orthodox on the general and leading doctrines of the gospel,-as the Dr. will be considered as an authority by many on subjects of this kind, and as the work is, by a late extensive edition.

of it, published in this country, put into the hands of great numbers, and something like the sentiment advanced by the Dr. begins to make its appearance in some of the publications of modern times, whose character for orthodoxy is not disputed, I concluded it might perhaps be of service to some of your readers to send my thoughts upon the sentiment advanced by him, to your useful miscellany for insertion, if you deem them worthy of a place there.

What we dislike in the account the Dr. gives of this saving work of God upon the soul, is that he makes regeneration to take place without the instrumentality of the word, or any of the ordinary means of grace; and his arguments to prove that this is indeed the case, we consider to be very inconclusive, and involved in great obscurity, if not founded upon mistaken views of the nature of a work of grace in the soul, both in regeneration, and in progressive sanctification. They are

1st. "That it is necessary, from the nature of the thing, to our receiving, improving, or reaping any advantage by the word, that the Spirit should produce the principle of faith; and to say that this is done by the word, is, in

effect, to assert that the word produces the principle, and the principle gives efficacy to the word; which seems to me (he says) little less than reasoning in a circle." When he says that the Spirit produces the principle of faith, we understand him and agree with him; but when he asserts that this is produced without the instrumentality of the word, we cannot agree with him, for reasons which may appear afterwards. What claims our notice now, is the manner in which he attempts to prove it. "To say that this is done by the word is, in effect, to assert that the word produces the principle, and the principle gives efficacy to the word." A clear statement of the view taken by those who assert that the word is the instrument in this work will, to any unprejudiced mind, at once do away the difficulty." For though the word, according to them, produces the principle, yet it does not this of itself, but by the Spirit giving an efficacy unto it for that express purpose: or in other words, the Spirit giving an efficacy to the word, both produces the principle in regeneration, and carries the principle implanted, into operation afterwards; so that there is no arguing in a

circle here. But the expression, "the principle gives efficacy to the word," which seems to be designed to represent his own view of the way in which the word becomes at all useful, either in regeneration, or in the progress of the work of sanctification in believers, represents something which appears utterly unintelligible upon the principles of sound theology; because sound theology teaches us, that it is the Spirit that gives all the efficacy to the word. The word is said to be "mighty through God" for pulling down strong holds, &c., and not through any inward principle or any thing in man. We only take notice of this expression to show, that there is some reason to believe, that the Dr. had got into that sentiment by means of some incorrect views he had concerning the Spirit's work in general, or felt it not a little difficult to support it in any degree of consistency with what correct views he had of the truth.

The 2d argument is, "the word cannot profit unless it be mixed with faith, and faith cannot be put forth unless it proceed from a principle of grace implanted, therefore this principle of grace is not produced by it: we may as

well suppose (he says) that the presenting a beautiful picture before a man that is blind, can enable him to see; or, the violent motion of a withered hand produce strength for action, as we can suppose that the presenting the word, in an objective way, is the instrument whereby God produces that internal principle by which we are enabled to embrace it." Admitting that the principle of faith in regeneration goes before the act of faith which is produced by it, we see no reason why the instrumentality of the word may not be considered as used in the implanting of that principle, as well as in promoting the believer's sanctification afterwards: for that principle of grace, is just the understanding enlightened, the will renewed, &c.; and how can this be in any adult person, capable of exercising these faculties, without the word, by which the Holy Spirit operates to the enlightening of the one, and directing and influencing the other? The argument from the necessity of the word being mixed with faith in order to our attaining any real and certain benefit from it, if of force in the use he makes of it, would prove too much for the Dr. himself, because he grants that the word is the in