Chapter 60 - Hardshells On Gill III

In this chapter I will look critically at that passage that Elder Daily, Crouse, and other Hardshells, cite from Dr. Gill's "Body of Divinity" and demonstrate how it does not "indicate" that he "changed his mind."

In the next chapter I will address the citations from Dr. Gill's book "Cause of God and Truth" from which Hardshells also attempt to prove that Dr. Gill "changed his mind" on the "means question," and then in the concluding chapter, I will address some of the things that do seem to indicate that Dr. Gill was in fact leaning towards Hyper Calvinism (although to a far lessor degree than the Hardshells affirm), in his doting old age. I will also show how Dr. Gill's views on conviction of sin are unlike those of today's Hardshells.

The Disputed Passages in the "Body of Divinity" Examined

"Fourthly, The instrumental cause of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the word of God, and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be "born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23), and again, "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth" (James 1:18), unless by the Word in these passages should be meant the Eternal Logos, or essential Word of God, Christ Jesus, since logoV is used in both places; though ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; "though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ", says the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), "yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"; so he speaks of his son Onesimus, whom he had "begotten in his bonds" (Philemon 1:10) yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration, and to be understood with respect to that; since that is done by immediate infusion, and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in the new creation: wherefore this is rather to be understood of the exertion of the principle of grace, and the drawing it forth into act and exercise; which is excited and encouraged by the ministry of the word, by which it appears that a man is born again; so the three thousand first converts, and the jailor, were first regenerated, or had the principle of grace wrought in their souls by the Spirit of God, and then were directed and encouraged by the ministry of the apostles to repent and believe in Christ: whereby it became manifest that they were born again..."

This is where most citations from the Hardshells end on this "infamous passage" from Dr. Gill's "Body of Divinity."

Hardshells are infamous for quoting historical written texts wherein they stop just short of citing what would destroy the "twist" they are giving to the citation. It is the proverbial "taking out of context" the words of another.

I believe that the Hardshells were so intent on "finding" something in Gill's writings that they could say proved that he had "changed his mind," that they became dishonest or at least blind to what he really said and what he actually meant. But, it is dishonest to cite men or documents in this fashion.

Now, let me cite the rest of this "infamous citation" and see if there is anything in it that would cause the Hardshells, like Daily and Crouse, to choose to stop where they traditionally do, when they cite this portion from the great Doctor.

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

The first thing I want to say in my rebuttal to the Hardshells (before addressing the particulars of the remaining citation above), respecting their "interpretation" of this passage from Gill's "Body of Divinity," and from his section titled "Of Regeneration," is to say that the above words of Dr. Gill do not contradict what he says, IN THE SAME CHAPTER! In this same chapter, he says clearly that men are "regenerated by the gospel."

I gave, at the outset, "clear cut" statements from this very chapter that expresses it clearly, and in the same language that we find in his Commentaries! So, the Hardshells must either repent of their misinterpetation of the Gill citation above, or else say that Gill contradicted himself even in this very section of his "Body of Divinity"!

Secondly, I want to call attention to the fact that Dr. Gill was careful to speak of the "strict" or "technical" or "theological" definition of the word "regenerate," versus its "broader" and more "scriptural" definition.

In the very first paragraph of this section on "Regeneration," Dr. Gill said:

"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."

This is similar to other statements in his various writings, wherein he said things about these various ways of defining the word "regeneration"; Dr. Gill would often

1) take either definition and reason upon it, and/or

2) end his commentary generally with the caution that these stricter definitions were not the way the New Testament writers defined the experience, acknowledging that they used it in the broader sense, and/or

3) used words like "seem" or "suppose" and speak in a manner where it was clear he was merely "speculating" or speaking hypothetically, even perhaps being guilty himself of theological "hair-splitting."

Do the Hardshells not understand what the word "though" means in the above citation from Dr. Gill? What does he mean when he says - "though after all"? This is the word that starts the infamous "omission," the remainder of the citation that few, if any, Hardshells care to cite.

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation..."

The word "though" means "although" or "however" or "in spite of that." John Gill speculated; he applied "human logic" (as the Hardshells) to the new birth, looking at it metaphysically, but when he was all done doing so, he would say, "though after all I have said, speculating about what seems to be the case with things through human logic, it is clear from the Scriptures that men are regenerated contrary to this logic and contrary to the way of human science, in a supernatural way, the Lord regenerating through the preaching of the gospel by human agents."

From whence did this clearness of truth come? Was it not from the Scriptures? Is it clear to human logic that the "Spirit of God is conveyed" to the heart of the sinner through the "vehicle" of the "word," as Dr. Gill affirmed, or is it clear from the Scriptures?

Any honest Hardshell can see what Dr. Gill was clearly affirming and it is dishonest to think Dr. Gill "contradicted himself" in this passage from his "Body of Divinity."

If we define the word "regeneration" as meaning all the same as the "first initial move of the Spirit of God upon the soul of a man," or as the "first principle of grace infused into the soul," then of course "regeneration" would precede faith and repentance, yea, and every other grace! But, do the Scriptures or Dr. Gill affirm it that way? No!

But, it seems, Dr. Gill did in fact follow other theologians, for argument's sake, in their meanderings, and often took their "technical" definitions and reasoned therefrom.

Dr. Gill believed that the scriptures upheld the broader definition of regeneration as including effectual calling, conversion, and initial sanctification. Dr. Gill did not believe one could go to Heaven without being effectually called and converted and sanctified! One must, according to Dr. Gill, be regenerated in the broader scriptural meaning of the term, in order to go to Heaven.

Notice the words that preceded Dr. Gill's side-tracked speculation that began with the words "seems not so agreeable"

"...hence regenerate persons are said to be "born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23), and again, "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth" (James 1:18), unless by the Word in these passages should be meant the Eternal Logos, or essential Word of God, Christ Jesus, since logoV is used in both places; though ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; "though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ", says the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), "yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"; so he speaks of his son Onesimus, whom he had "begotten in his bonds" (Philemon 1:10) yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable..."

Notice that Dr. Gill did not say that he thought that the "logos" in those two passages referred to Christ! He possibly is reflecting the view of John Brine and some of the younger more extreme Calvinists, who were gathering around his feet, or a view that had been recently "thrown out" there for consideration, and Dr. Gill is being friendly.

It is clear however that he does not believe this view for he, in the same section, as I have already cited, refers to those two passages as proofs that men are regenerated through the gospel! It is equivalent to him saying - "UNLESS the Hardshells are correct and the logos is Jesus himself." One can say that without affirming that they are in fact correct.

Notice the second use of the word "though" in this citation from Dr. Gill. "Though (however) ministers of the gospel ARE represented (in the scriptures) as spiritual fathers..."

So, says Dr. Gill, paraphrasing - "some may think that the 'word' in I Peter 1: 23 and James 1: 18 refers to Christ, yet (though) it is clear that other passages do in fact teach the instrumentality of the word in regeneration, so nothing is really gained in such a discussion."

Now, do you see, my fellow Hardshell friend? Do you not see how Elder John R. Daily, with many others, in your denomination, have twisted and misinterpreted Dr. Gill, in this passage, in their misguided zeal to find someone, prior to the 1800's, who agreed with them?

Elder Throgmorton may not have been as well versed in his reading of Dr. Gill, especially the sections that Daily cites from his "Body of Divinity" and his "Cause of God and Truth," to have responded to Daily's faulty citation methods and his misinterpreting what the good Doctor wrote, but others are not.

Had Throgmorton sent the avalanche of citations down upon Daily, in that debate, as I gave in the preceding chapter, then it probably would not have gotten reported, as it has now for almost 100 years, that Dr. Gill had "changed his mind" in his old age, in his "Body of Divinity" and "Cause of God and Truth."

Obviously, Hardshells did not "check out" Daily on what he was saying, swallowing what he said about Dr. Gill and repeating it to others, in the same manner they have swallowed, "hook, line and sinker," what Elder Hassell and other of their "historians" have put forth.