|
Saving Faith Differs From common Faith
by Dr. Jonathan Edwards
Dated July 1750
This
sermon is actually considered part of Edward's Miscellanies.
1 John 5:1-5, “Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and every one that
loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this
we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his
commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments; and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is
born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith.”
It is a doctrine taught in
this text, that saving faith differs from all common faith in its
nature, kind, and essence. This doctrine is inferred from the text, thus
it is said, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of
God;” by which is manifest that there was some great virtue that the
apostles and Christians in those days used to call by the name of faith
or believing, believing that Jesus is the Christ and the like, which was
a thing very peculiar and distinguishing, and belonging only to those
that were born of God. Thereby cannot be meant, therefore, only a mere
assent to the doctrines of the gospel, because that is common to saints
and sinners, as is very evident. The apostle James plainly teaches in
chapter 2 that this faith may be in those that are not in a state of
salvation. And we read in the Evangelists of many that in this sense
believed, to whom Christ did not commit himself, because he knew what
was in them: John 2 at the latter end and many other places. When it is
said, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;”
thereby cannot be meant, whosoever has such an assent as is perfect, so
as to exclude all remaining unbelief. For it is evident that the faith
of good men does not do this. Thus a true believer said, Mark 9:24,
“Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief;” and Christ is often
reproving his true disciples, that they have so little faith. He often
says to them “O ye of little faith;” and speaks sometimes as if their
faith were less than a grain of mustard seed. Nor can the apostle, when
he says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,”
mean that whosoever has a predominant assent, or an assent that prevails
above his dissent, or whose judgment preponderates that way, and has
more weight in that scale than the other, because it is plain that it is
not true that everyone that believes in this sense is born of God. Many
natural, unregenerate men, have such a preponderating judgment of the
truth of the doctrines of the gospel, without it there is not believe of
it at all. For believing, in the lowest sense, implies a preponderating
judgment, but it is evident, as just now was observed, that many natural
men do believe. They do judge that the doctrine is true, as the devils
do.
And again, when the apostle says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ, is born of God;” all that he intends cannot be only that
whosoever is come to a certain particular intermediate degree of assent
between the lowest degree of preponderating assent and a perfect assent,
excluding all remains of unbelief. He cannot mean any certain particular
intermediate degree of assent, still meaning nothing but mere assent by
believing. For he does not say, he that believes or assents that Jesus
is the Christ, to such a certain degree is born of God, but whosoever
believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, by which must be
understood that whosoever at all performs that act which the apostle
calls by that name, or whosoever has anything at all of that kind of
virtue which the apostle calls believing, is born of God, and that he
that is not born of God has not that virtue that he meant, but is wholly
without it. And besides, it would be unreasonable to suppose that by
this believing, which the apostle there and elsewhere lays down as such
a grand note of distinction between those that are born of God, and
those that are not, is meant only a certain degree of assent, which such
have that differs less from what those may have that are not born of
God, than nine hundred and ninety-nine from a thousand: yea, that
differs from it an infinitely little. For this is the case, if the
difference be only gradual, and it be only a certain degree of faith
that is the mark of being born of God. If this was the apostle’s
meaning, he would use words in a manner not consistent with the use of
language, as he would call things infinitely nearly alike by such
distant and contrary names. And he would represent the subjects in whom
they are, as of such different and contrary characters, calling one
believer, and the other unbeliever, one the children of God, and those
that are born of God, and the other the children of the devil, as this
apostle calls all that are not born of God, in this epistle (see 1 John
3:9-10) and would represent one as setting to his seal that God is true,
and the other as making him a liar, as in the 10th verse of the context.
And besides, if this were the case, if believers in this sense only,
with such an infinitely small gradual difference, was all that he meant,
it would be no such notable distinction between those that are born of
God and those that are not, as the apostle represents, and as this
apostle and other apostles do everywhere signify. Nay, it would not be
fit to be used as a sign or characteristic for men to distinguish
themselves by. For such minute gradual differences, which in this case
would be alone certainly distinguishing, are altogether indiscernible,
or at least with great difficulty determined. Therefore, they are not
fit to be given as distinguishing notes of the Christian character. If
words are everywhere used after this manner in the Bible, and by “faith
in Christ,” as the word is generally used there, is meant only the
assent of the understanding, and that not merely a predominant assent,
nor yet a perfect assent (excluding all remaining unbelief), but only a
certain degree of assent between these two, rising up just to such a
precise height so that he that has this shall everywhere be called a
believer, and he whose assent, though it predominates also, and rises up
as high as the other within an infinitely little, shall be called an
unbeliever, one that wickedly makes God a liar, etc. this is in effect
to use words without any determinate meaning at all, or which is the
same thing, any meaning proportioned to our understandings. Therefore,
there is undoubtedly some great and notable difference between the faith
of those who are in a state of salvation and that of those who are not,
insomuch that without that very faith, according to the common use of
language in these days, those who were not in a state of salvation, may
be said not to believe at all. And besides, that virtue that the apostle
here speaks of as such a great and distinguishing note of a child of
God, he plainly speaks of as a supernatural thing, as something not in
natural men and given only in regeneration or being born of God, which
is the great change of men from that which is natural to that which is
supernatural. Men may have what is natural, by their being born, born in
a natural way, but they have what is supernatural by being born again
and born of God. But says the apostle, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ, is born of God.” The same faith is plainly spoken of as a
supernatural thing in the foregoing chapter, verse 15. “Whosoever shall
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in
God.”
But common faith is not a supernatural thing, any more than a
belief of any history. It is obtained by the same means. If one be
natural and the other supernatural, then undoubtedly the difference is
not only such a gradual difference, differing but an infinitely little.
If all lies in the degree of assent, let us suppose that a thousand
degrees of assent be required to salvation, and that there is no
difference in kind in the faith of others, how unreasonable is it to say
that when a man can naturally raise his assent to nine hundred and
ninety-nine degrees, yet he cannot reach the other degree by any
improvement, but there must be a new birth in order to the other degree!
And as it is thus evident that the faith or believing that Jesus is the
Christ, which the apostle speaks of in the text, is some virtue intended
by the apostle, differing not only in degree, but in nature and kind,
from any faith that unregenerate men have, so I would observe that it is
evident that this special faith, of which the apostle speaks, that so
differs from common faith, is not only a faith that some Christians only
have obtained, but that all have it that are in a state of salvation.
Because the same faith is often spoken of as that which first brings men
into a state of salvation, and not merely as that which Christians
attain to afterwards, after they have performed the condition of
salvation.
How often are we taught that it is by faith in Christ we are
justified, and that he that believes not, is in a state of condemnation,
and that it is by this men pass from a state of condemnation to a state
of salvation. Compare John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed
from death unto life;” with John 3:18. “He that believeth on him, is not
condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” And this
faith that thus brings into a state of life, is expressed in the same
words as it is in the text, in John 20:31. “But these things are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing, ye might have life through his name.” Thus it is
manifest that the faith spoken of in the text, is the faith that all men
have that are in a state of salvation, and the faith by which they first
come into salvation, and that it is a faith especially differing in
nature and kind from all common faith.
In the further prosecution of
this discourse, I shall, 1. Bring some further arguments to prove that
saving faith differs from common faith in nature and essence. 2. Show
wherein the essential difference lies, confirming the same from the
Scriptures, which will further prove the truth of the doctrine.
FIRST. I am to bring some
further arguments to prove the doctrine, and here I would observe that
there is some kind of difference or other, is most apparent from the
vast distinction made in Scripture, insomuch, that those who have faith
are all from time to time spoken of as justified, and in a state of
salvation, having a title to eternal life, etc. Rom. 1:16-17, “The
gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth.”
And Rom. 3:22, “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of
Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe.” Rom. 10:4, “Christ is
the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Acts
13:39, “And by him all that believe are justified.” In these and other
places, a state of salvation is produced of everyone that believeth or
has faith. It is not said of everyone that believeth and walks
answerably, or of everyone that believeth and takes up an answerable
resolution to obey, which would be to limit the proposition, and make an
exception, and be as much as to say, not everyone that is a believer,
but to such believers only as not only believe, but obey. But this does
not consist with these universal expressions: “The gospel is the power
of God to salvation to every one that believeth.” “The righteousness of
God is unto all and upon all them that believe.” “Christ is the end of
the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” And by the
supposition, they that have not saving faith are in a state of
damnation, as it is also expressly said in Scripture, “He that believeth
not, shall be damned,” and the like. So that it is evident that there is
a great difference between the virtue that the Scripture calls by the
name faith, and speaks of as saving faith, let it be what it will, and
all that is or can be in others. But here I would observe particularly:
the difference must either be only in the degree of faith and in the
effects of it, or it is in the nature of the faith itself. And I
would,
I. Show that it is not merely a difference in degree.
1. There are other
scriptures, besides the text, that speak of saving faith as a
supernatural thing. Mat. 16:15-17, “He saith unto them, But whom say ye
that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” This must evidently be
understood of a supernatural way of coming by this belief or faith: such
a way as is greatly distinguished from instruction or judgment in other
matters, such as the wise and prudent in temporal things had. So Luke
10:21-22, “In that hour, Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:
even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight. No man knoweth who
the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he
to whom the Son will reveal him.” So to the same purpose is John
6:44-45, “No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me,
draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the
prophets, And they all shall be taught of God: every man therefore that
hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” And what is
meant, is not merely that God gives it in his providence, for so he
gives the knowledge of those wise and prudent men mentioned in the
fore-cited passage. It is said that he gives it by the teachings of his
Spirit, as appears by 1 Cor. 12:3. “No man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And the common influences of the Spirit,
such as natural men or men that are unregenerated may have, are not
meant, as appears by what the same apostle says in the same epistle, 1
Cor. 2:14. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.” The things of the Spirit of
God, to which the apostle has a special respect, are the doctrine of
Christ crucified, as appears by the beginning of the chapter and by the
foregoing chapter, which he says is to the Jews a stumbling block and to
the Greeks foolishness. And that the influence of the Spirit, in which
this saving faith is given, is not any common influence or anything like
it, but is that influence by which men are God’s workmanship made over
again, or made new creatures, is evident by Eph. 2:8-10. “For by grace
are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift
of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them.” And so it is manifest by
the text that this influence, by which this faith is given, is no common
influence, but a regenerating influence, 1 John 5:1-5. “Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; and every one that
loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this
we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his
commandments,” etc. It is spoken of as a great work, so wrought by God,
as remarkably to show his power, 2 Thes. 1:11. “Wherefore also we pray
always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and
fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with
power.” And that which makes the argument yet more clear and
demonstrative is that it is mentioned as one of the distinguishing
characters of saving faith, that it is the faith of the operation of
God. Col. 2:12, “You are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Now would this
faith be any distinguishing character of the true Christian, if it were
not a faith of a different kind from that which others may have? And
besides, it is evidently suggested in the words, that it is by a like
wonderful operation as the raising of Christ from the dead, especially
taken with the following verse. The words taken together are thus, Col.
2:12-13. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with
him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the
dead. And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses.” Let this be compared with Eph. 1:18-19, “The eyes of your
understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of
his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who
believe, according to the working of his mighty power.” Now is it
reasonable to suppose that such distinctions as these would be taught,
as taking place between saving faith and common faith, if there were no
essential difference, but only a gradual difference, and they approached
infinitely near to each other?
2. The distinguishing
epithets and characters ascribed to saving faith in Scripture, are such
as denote the difference to be in nature and kind, and not in degree
only. One distinguishing epithet is precious, 2 Pet. 1:1, “Like precious
faith with us.” Now preciousness is what signifies more properly
something of the quality, than of the degree. As preciousness in gold is
more properly a designation of the quality of that kind of substance,
than the quantity. And therefore, when gold is tried in the fire to see
whether it be true gold or not, it is not the quantity of the substance
that is tried by the fire, but the precious nature of the substance. So
it is when faith is tried to see whether it be a saving faith or not. 1
Pet. 1:7, “That the trial of your faith being much more precious than of
gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto
praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” If the
trial was not of the nature and kind, but only of the quantity of faith,
how exceedingly improper would be the comparison between the trial of
faith and the trial of gold! Another distinguishing scripture not of
saving faith is that it is the faith of Abraham. Rom. 4:16, “Therefore
it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might
be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to
that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us
all.” Now the faith of Abraham cannot be the faith of that degree of
which Abraham’s was, for undoubtedly multitudes are in a state of
salvation, that have not that eminency of faith. Therefore, nothing can
be meant by the faith of Abraham, but faith of the same nature and kind.
Again, another distinguishing scripture note of saving faith is that it
is faith unfeigned. 1 Tim. 1:5, “Now the end of the commandment is
charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned.” 2 Tim. 1:5, “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith
that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy
mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.” Now this is an
epithet that denotes the nature of a thing, and not the degree of it. A
thing may be unfeigned, and yet be but to a small degree. To be
unfeigned is to be really a thing of that nature and kind which it
pretends to be, and not a false appearance or mere resemblance of it.
Again, another note of distinction between saving faith and common
faith, plainly implied in Scripture, is that it differs from the faith
of devils. It is implied in Jam. 2:18-19, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast
faith, and I have works: show me they faith without thy works, and I
will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one
God; thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.” Here it is
first implied that there is a difference between saving faith and
common, that may be shown by works: a difference in the cause that may
be shown by the effects, and then it is implied this difference lies in
something wherein it differs from the faith of devils. Otherwise there
is no force in the apostle’s reasoning. But this difference cannot lie
in the degree of the assent of the understanding, for the devils have as
high a degree of assent as the real Christian. The difference then must
lie in the peculiar nature of the faith.
3. That the difference
between common faith and saving faith does not lie in the degree only,
but in the nature and essence of it, appears by this: that those who are
in a state of damnation are spoken of as being wholly destitute of it,
as wholly without that sort of faith that the saints have. They are
spoken of as those that believe not, and having the gospel hid from
them, being blind with regard to this light; as 2 Cor. 4:3-4, “But if
our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the God of
this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the
light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should
shine unto them.” Now can these things be said with any propriety, of
such as are lost in general, if many of them, as well as the saved, have
the same sort of faith of the same gospel, but only in a less degree,
and some of them falling short in degree, but very little, perhaps one
degree in a million? How can it be proper to speak of the others, so
little excelling them in the degree of the same light, as having the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God shining unto them, and
beholding as with open face the glory of the Lord, as is said of all
true believers in the context? While those are spoken of as having the
gospel hid from them, their minds blinded lest the light of the glorious
gospel should shine unto them, and so as being lost or in a state of
damnation? Such interpretations of Scripture are unreasonable.
4. That the difference
between saving faith and common faith is not in degree, but in the
nature and mind, appears from this: that in the Scripture, saving faith,
when weakest, and attended with very great doubts, yet is said never to
fail. Luke 22:31-32, “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan
hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren.” The faith of Peter was attended with very
great doubts concerning Christ and his cause. Now if the distinction
between saving faith and other faith be only in the degree of assent,
whereby a man was brought fully to assent to the truth, and to cease
greatly to question it, then Peter’s faith would have failed. He would
have been without any saving faith. For he greatly questioned the truth
concerning Christ and his kingdom, especially when he denied him. Other
disciples did so to, for they all forsook him and fled. Therefore it
follows that there is something peculiar in the very nature of saving
faith, that remains in times even of greatest doubt, and even at those
times distinguishes it from all common faith.
I now proceed, II. To show
that it does not consist only in the difference of effects. The
supposition that I would disprove is this: That there is no difference
between saving faith and common faith as to their nature, and that all
the difference lies in this, that in him that is in a state of
salvation, faith produces another effect; it works another way; it
produces a settled determination of mind, to walk in a way of universal
and persevering obedience. In the unregenerate, although his faith be
the same with that of the regenerate, and he has the same assent of his
understanding to the truths of the gospel, yet it does not prove
effectual to bring him to such a resolution and answerable practice. In
opposition to this notion, I would observe,
1. That it is contrary to
the reason of mankind, to suppose different effects, without any
difference in the cause. It has ever been counted to be good reasoning
from the effect to the cause, and it is a way of reasoning that common
sense leads mankind to. But if, from a different effect, there is no
arguing any difference in the cause, this way of reasoning must be given
up. If there be a difference in the effect, that does not arise from
some difference in the cause, then there is something in the effect that
proceeds not from its cause, viz., that diversity, because there is no
diversity in the cause to answer it. Therefore, that diversity must
arise from nothing, and consequently is no effect of anything, which is
contrary to the supposition. So this hypothesis is at once reduced to a
contradiction. If there be a difference in the effect, that difference
must arise from something, and that which it arises from, let it be what
it will, must be the cause of it. And if faith be the cause of this
diversity in the effect, as is supposed, then I would ask, what is there
in faith that can be the cause of this diversity, seeing there is no
diversity in the faith to answer it? To say that the diversity of the
effect arises from likeness or sameness in the cause, is a gross and
palpable absurdity, and is as much as to say that difference is produced
by no difference: which is the same thing as to say that nothing
produces something.
2. If there were a
difference in the effects of faith, but no difference in the faith
itself, then no difference of faith could be showed by the effects. But
that is contrary to Scripture, and particularly to Jam. 2:18. “Yea, a
man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith
without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” The
apostle can mean nothing else by this, than that I will show thee by my
works that I have a right sort of faith. I will show thee that my faith
is a better faith than that of those who have no works. I will show thee
the difference of the causes, by the difference of the effect. This the
apostle thought good arguing. Christ thought it was good arguing to
argue the difference of the trees from the difference of the fruits.
Mat. 12:33, “A tree is known by its fruit.” How can this be, when there
is no difference in the tree? When the nature of the tree is the same,
and when indeed, though there be a difference of the effects, there is
no difference at all in the faith that is the cause? And if there is no
difference in the faith that is the cause, then certainly no difference
can be shown by the effects. When we see two human bodies, and see
actions performed and works produced by the one, and not by the other,
we determine that there is an internal difference in the bodies
themselves. We conclude that one is alive and the other dead, that one
has an operative nature (an active spirit in it), and that the other has
none, which is a very essential difference in the causes themselves.
Just so we argue an essential difference between a saving and common
faith, by the words or effects produced, as the apostle in that context
observes in the last verse of the chapter, “For as the body without the
spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
I come now, in the SECOND
place, to show wherein saving faith differs essentially from common
faith, and shall endeavor to prove what I lay down from the Scripture,
which will give farther evidence to the truth of the doctrine.
There is,
in the nature and essence of saving faith, a receiving of the object of
faith, not only in the assent of the judgment, but with the heart, or
with the inclination and will of the soul. There is in saving faith, a
receiving of the truth, not only with the assent of the mind, but with
the consent of the heart, as is evident by 2 Thes. 2:10, “Received not
the love of the truth that they might be saved.” And the apostle,
describing the nature of saving faith, from the example of the ancient
patriarchs, Heb. 11, describes their faith thus, verse 13, “These all
died in faith, not having received the promises; but, having seen them
afar off, were persuaded of them, and embraced them.” And so the
evangelist John calls faith a receiving of Christ. John 1:12, “But as
many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name.” Here the apostle expressly
declares that he whom he means by a receiver, was the same with the
believer on Christ, or one that has saving faith. And what else can be
meant by receiving Christ, or accepting him, than an accepting him in
heart? It is not a taking him with the hand, or any external taking or
accepting him, but the acceptance of the mind. The acceptance of the
mind is the act of the mind towards an object as acceptable, but that in
a special manner, as the act of the inclination or will. And it is
further evident that saving faith has its seat not only in the
speculative understanding or judgment, but in the heart or will,
because, otherwise it is not properly of the nature of a virtue, or any
part of the moral goodness of the mind. For virtue has its special and
immediate seat in the will, and that qualification that is not at all
seated there, though it be a cause of virtue or an effect of it, yet is
not properly any virtue of the mind, nor can properly be in itself a
moral qualification, or any fulfillment of a moral rule. But it is
evident that saving faith is one of the chief virtues of a saint, one of
the greatest virtues prescribed in the moral law of God. Mat. 23:23,
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye pay tithe of
mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and
not to leave the other undone.” It is a principal duty that God
required, John 6:28-29, “Then said they unto him, What shall we do that
we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is
the work of God, that ye believe on him whom God hath sent.” 1 John
3:23, “And this is his commandment, that ye believe on the name of his
Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” And
therefore it is called most holy faith, Jude 20. But if it be not seated
in the will, it is no more a holy faith, than the faith of devils. That
it is most holy, implies that it is one thing wherein Christian holiness
does principally consist.
An objection may be raised
against this last particular, viz., that the words “faith” and
“believing,” in common language, signify no more than the assent of the
understanding.
Answer 1. It is not at all
strange that in matters of divinity and of the gospel of Christ, which
are so exceedingly diverse from the common concerns of life, and so much
above them, some words should be used in somewhat of a peculiar sense.
The languages used among the nations of the world, were not first framed
to express the spiritual and supernatural things of the gospel of
Christ, but the common concernments of human life. Hence it comes to
pass that language, in its common use, is not exactly adapted to express
things of this nature, so that there is a necessity that when the
phrases of common speech are adopted into the gospel of Christ, they
should some of them be used in a sense somewhat diverse from the most
ordinary use of them in temporal concerns. Words were first devised to
signify the more ordinary concerns of life. Hence men find a necessity,
even in order to express many things in human arts and sciences, to use
words in something of a peculiar sense: the sense being somewhat varied
from their more ordinary use, and the very same words, as terms of art,
do not signify exactly the same thing that they do in common speech.
This is well known to be the case in innumerable instances, because the
concerns of the arts and sciences are so diverse from the common
concerns of life, that unless some phrases were adopted out of common
language, and their signification something varied, there would be no
words at all to be found to signify such and such things pertaining to
those arts. But the things of the gospel of Christ are vastly more
diverse from the common concerns of life, than the things of human arts
and sciences: those things being heavenly things, and of the most
spiritual and sublime nature possible, and most diverse from earthly
things. Hence the use of words in common language, must not be looked
upon as a universal rule to determine the signification of words in the
gospel: but the rule is the use of words in Scripture language. What is
found in fact to be the use of words in the Bible, by comparing one
place with another, that must determine the sense in which we must
understand them.
Answer 2. The words in the
original, translated faith, and believing, such as πιστις στευωειθω, ανδ
and πεποιθησις as often used in common language, implied more than the
mere assent of the understanding: they were often used to signify
affiance or trusting, which implies an act of the will, as well as of
the understanding. It implies that the thing believed is received as
good and agreeable, as well as true. For trusting always relates to some
good sought and aimed at in our trust, and therefore ever more implies
the acceptance of the heart, and the embracing of the inclination and
desire of the soul. And therefore, trusting in Christ for salvation
implies that he and his redemption, and those things wherein his
salvation consists, are agreeable and acceptable to us.
Answer 3.
Supposing saving faith to be what Calvinistical divines have ordinarily
supposed it to be, there seems to be no one word in common language, so
fit to express it, as faith, πιστις, as it most commonly is in the
original. Orthodox divines, in the definitions of faith, do not all use
exactly the same terms, but they generally come to the same thing. Their
distinctions generally signify as much as a person’s receiving Christ
and his salvation as revealed in the gospel, with his whole soul;
acquiescing in what is exhibited as true, excellent, and sufficient for
him. And to express this complex act of the mind, I apprehend no word
can be found more significant than faith, which signifies both assenting
and consenting, because the object of the act is wholly supernatural,
and above the reach of mere reason, and therefore exhibited only by
revelation and divine testimony. And the person to be believed in, is
exhibited and offered in that revelation, especially under the character
of a Savior, and so as an object of trust: and the benefits are all
spiritual, invisible, wonderful, and future. If this be the true account
of faith, beware how you entertain any such doctrine, as that there is
no essential difference between common and saving faith, and that both
consist in a mere assent of the understanding to the doctrines of
religion. That this doctrine is false, appears by what has been said,
and if it be false, it must needs be exceedingly dangerous. Saving
faith, as you well know, is abundantly insisted on in the Bible, as in a
peculiar manner the condition of salvation, being the thing by which we
are justified. How much is that doctrine insisted on in the New
Testament! We are said to be “justified by faith, and by faith alone: By
faith we are saved; and this is the work of God, that we believe in him
whom he hath sent: The just shall live by faith: We are all the children
of God by faith in Jesus Christ: He that believeth shall be saved, and
he that believeth not shall be damned.” Therefore, doubtless, saving
faith, whatsoever that be, is the grand condition of an interest in
Christ, and his great salvation. And if it be so, of what vast
importance is it, that we should have right notions of what it is! For
certainly no one thing whatever, nothing in religion, is of greater
importance than that which teaches us how we may be saved. If salvation
itself be of infinite importance, then it is of equal importance that we
do not mistake the terms of it. And if this be of infinite importance,
then that doctrine that teaches that to be the term, that is not so, but
very diverse, is infinitely dangerous. What we want a revelation from
God for chiefly, is to teach us the terms of his favor and the way of
salvation. And that which the revelation God has given us in the Bible
teaches to be the way, is faith in Christ. Therefore, that doctrine that
teaches something else to be saving faith, that is essentially another
thing, teaches entirely another way of salvation. And therefore such
doctrine does in effect make void the revelation we have in the Bible,
as it makes void the special end of it, which is to teach us the true
way of salvation. The gospel is the revelation of the way of life by
faith in Christ. Therefore, he who teaches something else to be that
faith, which is essentially diverse from what the gospel of Christ
teaches, he teaches another gospel, and he does in effect teach another
religion than the religion of Christ. For what is religion, but that way
of exercising our respect to God, which is the term of his favor and
acceptance to a title to eternal rewards? The Scripture teaches this, in
a special manner, to be saving faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, he that
teaches another faith instead of this, teaches another religion. Such
doctrine as I have opposed, must be destructive and damning, i.e.
directly tending to man’s damnation, leading such as embrace it to rest
in something essentially different from the grand condition of
salvation. And therefore I would advise you, as you would have any
regard to your own soul’s salvation, and to the salvation of your
posterity, to beware of such doctrine as this.
|
