<tr I [

S f4.,

■'! J •s.lSi

5c 5

^ as

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/essayongroundorfOOhaly

AN ESSAY

ON

THE GROUND OR FORMAL REASON

OF

SAVING FAITH.

BY THE

REV. THOMAS HALYBURTON,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNITEP.SITY OF VT -ANDREWS.

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,

TWO ESSAYS, BY THE SAME AUTHOR, '

lELUSTRATIVE OF THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1714.

A New Edition, carefully Revised.

LONDON :

JAMES NISBET & CO., BERNERS STREET.

MDCCCLXV.

Printed by John Greig and Son, Edinburgh.

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION.

— - 0 -

In an age when the foundations of our faith are en¬ dangered by vague and inaccurate notions of In¬ spiration, it is of the utmost importance, that the divine autlmrity of the Holy Scriptures should be vindicated, and firmly established on its proper basis. For this purpose, the writings of eminent men who have, in their own experience, successfully contended with temptations to infidelity, are highly valuable. Among these, as is well known, Professor Halyburton holds a distinguished place. His “ Reason of Faith,” has been pronounced by some of the most competent judges,* to be equal, if not superior, to any other treatise on the same subject, in our language : and the two shorter Essays, especially the last, will be read with deep interest, by those who are desirous of attaining a well-grounded assurance of their own interest in the blessed life to come.

That great and good man was early removed from * Dr Chalmers and Principal Cunningham.

IV

F REFACE.

the church on earth, to higher service above. Had he lived to prepare the following Essays for the press, they would have appeared to much greater advantage. For, on comparing them with his inimitable sermons, it is evident that they were first thoughts, chiefly put down as they occurred at the time of writing ; although the subject had been fully matured in his own mind. For this reason, the Editor has judged it necessary to deal with them as with manuscripts : observing, how¬ ever, the strictest fidelity to the works of so illustrious an Author ; and having no other aim but to bring out his meaning as distinctly, and as much in his own words, as possible.

R. B.

Rockhaven, 22,d Ma7'ch 1865.

CONTENTS.

ESSAY I.

ON THE GROUND, OR FORMAL REASON OF

SAVING FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES :

WHEREIN THE OPINION OF THE RATIONALISTS, ESPECI¬ ALLY AS IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED MR LOCKE, IS PROPOSED AND EXAMINED .

ESSAY II.

A MODEST ENQUIRY, WHETHER REGENERATION OR JUSTI¬ FICATION IS FIRST IN ORDER OF NATURE.

ESSAY III.

AN ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THAT ACT, BY WHICH

GOD JUSTIFIES A SINNER.

1

\ ,

'Vlif

•

'•4 •

i1

4^

% f

ON THE GROUND OR REASON OF FAITH.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL REMARKS CONCERNING KNOWLEDGE, FAITH, AND PARTICULARLY DIVINE FAITH.

All knowledge is commonly, and not unfitly, re¬ ferred to the understanding, or intellective power of the mind of man which is conversant about truth. The foundation of our assent to any truth, is either the immediate perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas, which is called intuitive knowledge ; or the comparison of our ideas with intermediate ideas which assist us in discerning their agreement or disagreement, which is rational know¬ ledge; or the information of our senses, which is sensible knowledge ; or the testimony of credible witnesses, which is faith.

Faith again, if it be founded on the testimony of men, may be called human ; if upon the testimony of angels, angelical ; and if upon the testimony of God himself, it is called divine faith. It is of this last that we design to discourse, as that which par¬ ticularly belongs to our present purpose.

4

£SSA V /.

When we speak of divine faith, we mean either the faculty or power whereby we assent unto divine testimony, or the assent given by that power. Both are signified by that name, and the term faith is pro¬ miscuously used for either of them.

Again, faith, as it denotes the faculty, power, or ability of the mind, to perceive the evidence of divine testimony, and assent to it, is either natural or super¬ natural. That naturally we have a faculty capable of assenting, in some sort, to divine testimony, is, so far as I know, denied by none. But that ability whereby we are, at least habitually, fitted, disposed, and enabled, to assent in a due manner to the testi¬ mony of God, and to receive it with just regard, no man hath by nature ; it is a supernatural gift.

Concerning this ability, several questions are moved, into which neither my subject nor my inclination lead me to dip much at present. I shall only make the few following remarks : —

1. It is plain that God revealed himself to man in the state of innocence, and that he made man capable of converse with himself ; wherefore it seems unquestionably clear, that man originally had a power, ability, or faculty, capable of perceiving, discerning, and assenting to divine revelations, upon their proper evidence. For if such a faculty had been wanting, he had neither been capable of those revelations, nor fitted for converse with God.

2. It may be demonstrated, that all our_Jaculties have suffered a dreadful shock, and have been mightily

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

5

impaired, by the entrance of sin, and the consequent corruption of our nature ; and, in particular, that our understandings are so far disabled, especially in things pertaining to God, that unless our natures be super- naturally renewed, we cannot, in a due manner, per¬ ceive, discern, or entertain divine revelations, upon their proper evidence, to the glory of God, and our own advantage. But although the faculty of assent¬ ing to divine testimony is impaired, and rendered unfit for performing its proper work in a due manner, it is by no means quite lost. I know of no one who asserts that any of our faculties was entirely lost by the fall. In regeneration, they are renewed ; but no promise is made of implanting new ones. It is certain that unrenewed men, such as Balaam and others, had revelations made to them, and did assent to those revelations ; and it is not less clear that the devils themselves believe, and tremble.^

3. Whether men in a state of nature, whose minds are not renewed, may not so far discern and be affected by the characters and evidences of God im¬ pressed upon divine revelations, (particularly the Scriptures, where those evidences shine brightly), as to give some sort of assent to the testimony of God, I shall not positively determine, although the affirma-

* “We cannot conceive how reason should be prejudiced by the advancement of the rational faculties of our souls, with respect unto their exercise toward their proper objects ; which is all we assign to the work of the Holy Spirit in this matter.” — Dr Owen on the Spirit, preface, page 9.

6

£SSA V I.

tive seems probable to me. The impress of a Deity is no less evident on the Scriptures than on His other works. He has magnified his word above all his name, Psalm cxxxviii. 2. Besides, I do not see how the faculty itself can remain, if it be not capable of discerning anything of God, where he gives the most full and convincing evidence of himself, as he un¬ questionably doth in the Scriptures. Nor do I doubt, but that multitudes of sober persons, trained up within the Church, and thereby drawn to a more attentive and less prejudiced perusal of the Scriptures, do, upon various occasions, even while they remain strangers to the work of renovation, find their minds affected by the evidence of God in them, and are thereby drawn to assent to them as his word, although not in a due manner. And if it be so, it will certainly leave the rejecters of the Scriptures altogether without excuse.

4. Whether some transient act of the Spirit of God upon the mind, be always necessary to draw forth such an assent as I have described, I shall not deter¬ mine. That it is so in some cases, is not to be doubted. The faith of temporary believers doth undoubtedly require such an act as its cause ; and where any degree of this evidence affects the minds of persons deeply prejudiced, (as they were who were sent to apprehend Christ, and returned under a con¬ viction that never man spake as he did), there such a transient work of the Spirit of God seems necessary, to clear their minds of prejudices, and cause them to discern the evidences of a Deity.

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

7

5. Now, understanding by the term faith, the faculty or power of believing, (which is nothing else but the mind of man considered as a subject capable of assenting to testimony), and granting that faith, as so defined, still remains ; and that, although wofully impaired, weakened, and disabled, it continues in so far able for its proper office and work, that either by a more sedate, sober, and less prejudiced attention, or by the assistance of some transient act of the Spirit of God, breaking, in some measure, the power of its prejudices, and fixing it to the consideration of its proper object, it may, though less perfectly, perceive the impress and evidence of God in the revelation which he has made of himself ; and that thereon it may be so affected, as to give some sort of assent, and reach some conviction that it is God who speaketh : granting all this, it will amount to no great matter; since it is certain that it is not every kind of faith or assent to divihe testimony, that will answer our duty, obtain acceptance with God, and turn to our salvation.

As we are not much concerned to inquire into the faith which fails of answering those ends, I shall dip no further into questions regarding it, or our ability for it ; but shall proceed, in the next chapter, to discourse at more length, of the nature and origin of that faith which God requires us to give to his word, which he will accept, and which therefore will secure our salvation.

CHAPTER 11.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE-OF THAT FAITH WHICH WE ARE OBLIGED TO GIVE TO THE WORD OF GOD ; OUR OBLIGATION THERETO, AND OUR ABILITY FOR ANSWER¬ ING OUR DUTY.

E have already hinted, what, of itself, is suffi¬

ciently evident, that it is not every kind of

faith or assent to divine testimony that will answer our duty, and amount to that regard which we owe to the truth and authority of God, when he speaks or writes his mind to us. We must therefore, in the first place, inquire into the nature of that faith which will do so; and there is no better way of making this inquiry, than by attending to the plain accounts given of it in Scripture.

I. The apostle Paul, commending the Thessa- lonians, and blessing God on their behalf (i Thess. ii. 13), gives a clear description of the faith which is due to the word of God : “ For this cause,” says he. “ thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God ; which effectually worketh

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

9

also in you that believe.” If we attend to this description, we cannot but see these things in it : First, that some special sort of assent is here intended. The Thessalonians did not think it enough to give such credit, or yield such assent, as is due to the word of men, even the best of men. Secondly, that such assent is intended as doth, in some way, answer the unquestionable firmness of the ground whereon it leans, which is the testimony of the God of truth. Thjrdly, that somewhat more is intended than a mere assent, of what sort soever it be. The words plainly import such an assent to the word of God, or such a reception of it, as is attended with the reverence, sj^- mission of soul, resignation of will, and subjection of conscience, which are due to God. Less than this, would scarcely have been a sufficient ground for the apostle’s giving thanks to God, and that without ceasing. The same expression, in other places of Scripture, imports not only an assent to the word of God, but an approbation of it, consenting to its terms, yea, embracing the gospel in practice. See Acts viii. 14, and xi. i.

2. In Hebrews xi. i, we are told that faith is the evidence of things not seen. The word EAErxos, which we render evidence, properly signifies a vindng demonstration, standing firm against objec¬ tions, and repelling their force. Faith, then, is such an assent as this. It is a firm conviction, resting upon the most solid foundation, and able to withstand the strongest objections.

lO

ESS A Y I.

3. In I Cor. ii. 4, 5, the apostle more particularly describes, both negatively and positively, the ground whereon faith rests ; or what the demonstrative evidence is, whereon this conviction is founded. It standeth not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God ; that is, it resteth not upon the eloquence or the reasonings of men, but upon the powerful evidence of the Spirit’s demonstration.

Having given this short and plain account of faith from the Scripture, we are now to prove that we are in duty bound to receive the word of God, with a faith of this sort. Nor will this be difficult ; for,

1. The Scriptures claim to be the oracles of God ; spoken by holy men of God, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and written by divine inspiration. By them the Holy Ghost is said to speak unto us. Now the very light of nature teacheth us, that when God uttereth oracles, when he speaketh and writeth his mind to us, we are in duty bound to give entire credit to the speaker, to rely with the firmest confi¬ dence on his veracity, and to give a ready assent to what he says ; and farther, to attend, with the deepest veneration, reverence, and subjection of soul, to what is spoken, and to yield an unreserved practical com¬ pliance with every intimation of his mind.

2. The Scriptures were written, that we might so believe them as to have life by them, John xx. 31. And the gospel is made known, by the Scriptures of the prophets, to all nations, for the obedience of faith.

ON THE TEA SON OF FAITH. ir

according to the commandment of the everlasting God, Rom. xvi. 25, 26. Certainly then, we are in duty obliged to yield this obedience of faith.

3. They who do not thus receive the words of God from his servants, whether by speech or writing, are threatened with eternal ruin, and that of the most intolerable kind : “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words ; when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city,” Mat. x. 14, 15. Accordingly, the apostles preached the word at Antioch in Pisidia, Acts xiii., demanded acceptance of it both from Jews and Gentiles, and, upon their refusal, testified against them in this way of the Lord’s appointment : “ they shook off the dust of their feet against them,” verse 51. And all this severity they used, without offering miracles, so far as we can learn, or any other proof of their doctrine, besides the authoritative proposal of it in the name of God.

4. In I Thess. ii. 13 (already quoted), the Thessa- lonians are commended by the apostle for receiving the word in this manner ; which is proof enough that it was their duty so to do.

Thus much being clear, it yet remains to be in¬ quired, whence we have the power or ability to yield such an assent ; whether that power is natural or supernatural. Now, if we consult the Scripture on this point, we learn,

12

ESSAY/.

1. That this ability to believe and receive the things of God, to his glory and our own salvation, is ex¬ pressly denied to unrenewed man, or man in his natural estate. 2 Thess. iii. 2, “All men have not faith.” I Cor. ii. 14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolish¬ ness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” John viii. 47, “Ye therefore hear not God’s words, because ye are not of God.”

2. This ability is expressly denied to be of our¬ selves, and asserted to be a supernatural gift of God. Eph. ii. 8, “ By grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift, of God.’’~*"

3. The production of it is expressly ascribed unto God. He it is that fulfils, in his people, “all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power,” 2 Thess. i. 1 1. He it is that giveth them, that is, that enableth them, “ both to believe on him, and to suffer for his sake,” Philip, i. 29. Faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22 ; and the author of it is Christ, Heb. xii. 2. For the further proof and vindication of this truth, I refer to the controversial writers.

Here it may be inquired. How can it be our duty thus to believe the Scriptures, since we are not able, of ourselves, to do so In answer to this, I shall only say, I. We are unable of ourselves to yield perfect obedience to the divine law ; yet the very light of • nature shews that it is our duty. 2. The Scriptures

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

13

plainly require us to serve God acceptably, with re¬ verence and godly fear ; and tell us, in the same breath, that we must have grace to enable us to do so, Heb. xii, 28. 3. By our own sin, we have im¬

paired the powers which God originally gave us, and have brought ourselves under innumerable prejudices, and other evils, whereby the entrance of light is obstructed ; but this cannot be pleaded against God’s undoubted right to demand credit to his word, on which he has impressed sufficient objective evidence of himself. 4. Our duty therefore is, to blame our¬ selves, to justify God, and to wait upon him, in the way which he has prescribed, for the grace that is necessary. If we thus do his will, or at least aim at it, although we cannot yet claim grace as our due, we have no reason to despair ; but may expect to be enabled, in due time, to understand and know whether those truths are of God or of men. See John vii. 17.

From what has been discoursed, it -is evident that the faith whereby we assent to the Scripture, ig^uper- natural; or may be so called upon a twofold account: 1st, Because the power or ability for the exercise of it is supernaturally given ; and 2d, Because the evi¬ dence whereon it rests is supernatural.

In this chapter, it is the first of these that we have directly attempted to prove ; namely, that our ability thus to believe is supernaturally given. That this has been the constant doctrine of the Church of God, might be confirmed by testimonies of all sorts, did

£SSA Y L

our intended brevity allow. It is, however, resolutely opposed by our modern r-ationalists. The author of a late atheistical pamphlet,* which truly subverts all religion, may be allowed to speak for the rest ; for he says no more than what they all do assent to. He tells us, “ That when once the mystery of Christ Jesus was revealed, even human reason was able to behold and confess it ; not that grace had altered the eye¬ sight of reason, but that it had drawn the object nearer to it.” To the same purpose speak the Socinians. Schlichtingius tells us, that “Man, endued with understanding, is no otherwise blind in divine mysteries, than as he who hath eyes but sits in the dark. Remove the darkness, and bring him a light, and he will see. The eyes of a man are his under¬ standing ; the light is Christ’s doctrine.” To the same purpose doth the paradoxical Belgic exercita- tor, who sets up philosophy as the interpreter of Scripture, frequently express himself. Nor is his pretended answerer, Volzogius, differently minded, though he is not so constant to his opinion as the other.

But whatever these gentlemen may say, we are not obliged to believe them in this matter ; while the Scriptures plainly teach us that our minds are blinded, our understandings impaired and obstructed, in dis¬ cerning the evidence of truth, by prejudices arising from the enmity of the will, and the depravity of the affections. Nor were it difficult to demonstrate from * Treatise of Human Reason, page 58.

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

15

Scripture, that no man can believe the word of God aright, or even understand it aright, until the Spirit of God repair this defect of the faculty, or give us an understanding, as i John v. 20 ; break the power of the enmity in our hearts, that rises up against the truths of God, as foolishness ; cure the disorder of our affections, that blinds our minds ; and fix our minds, otherwise vain and unstable, to attend to the voice of God, and the evidence he gives of himself. But this not being our principal design, we shall insist upon it no longer. Our present question is not about our ability or power to believe, but ajjout the ground whereon we do believe- What has been hitherto spoken of the former, is only to prepare the way for the consideration of the latter ; to which we now proceed.

CHAPTER III.

AN INQUIRY INTO THE GROUND, OR FORMAL REASON, WHEREON FAITH ASSENTS TO THE SCRIPTURES ; IN WHICH THE OPINION OF THE RATIONALISTS, PARTICULARLY AS IT IS STATED BY MR LOQKE IN HIS BOOK ON THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, IS PROPOSED AND CONSIDERED.

LTHOUGH, in the preceding chapter, we have

lx. offered our thoughts on what goes under the name of subjective light, yet that is not the question mainly intended in these papers. That which we design more particularly to inquire into, is the ground whereon the mind, thus subjectively enlightened by the Spirit of God, builds its assent, and acquiesces, or rests, with full satisfaction.

The question then before us is this : What is the ground whereon we receive the Scriptures as the word of God ? Or what is the reason that moves and determines us to receive the Scriptures as the word of God ? What is the formal reason whereon our faith rests ? Or what is the proper answer to this question, Wherefore do ye believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, and receive truths therein pro¬ posed, as the word of God ?

ON THE TEA SON OF FAITH.

17

By all who believe the Scriptures to be a divine revelation, it is acknowledged, in general terms, that the ground whereon we receive and assent to prpposi- tipns of truth therein revealed, is the authority and veracity of God ; who, being truth itself, can neither deceive nor be deceived.

But this general answer satisfies not the question. For, though it is naturally and unquestionably evi¬ dent, that God’s testimony is, and cannot but be, true, and, as such, must be received ; yet it is certain that the ground of our assent unto any particular truth cannot be divine testimony abstractly considered, but divine testimony evidencing itself, or as it gives evi¬ dence of itself, to the mind. The knot of the question then lies here : What is that evidence that it is God who speaketh, or giveth testimony to truths super- naturally revealed, whereby the mind is satisfied that he is the revealer ?

Now, whereas there are three different circum¬ stances in which persons may be called to assent to divine revelation, the question proposed may be con¬ sidered with respect to each of them.

1. As to the prophets or others, to whom the Scrip¬ ture revelations were originally made, it may be in¬ quired : When God revealed his mind to them, what was that evidence, what were those TEKMHPIA, or certain signs, whereby they were infallibly assured that the propositions which were impressed upon their minds, were from God ^

2. As to those persons to whom the former did

li

£SSA y /.

i8

communicate these truths immediately, it may be inquired, By what evidence were they moved to assent and give credit to them, as divine revelations ?

3. Whereas we who now live, neither received these truths ourselves by immediate revelation, nor heard them from those persons who did, but have them col¬ lected together in the Bible, and offered to us as a divine revelation ; and whereas we are, on pain of God’s displeasure in case of refusal, required to believe and assent to whatever is therein revealed, as the word of God ; it is inquired. What evidence does that book give, that it is of God ? or on what grounds may we be fully assured that it is so ?

I. So far as the question concerns the first sort of persons, I shall not dip much into it. I shall only say, in the words of the judicious and learned Dr Owen, “ In the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and his actings of the minds of holy men of old, he gave them infallible assurance that it was himself alone by whom they were acted, Jer. xxiii. 28. If any shall ask, by what infallible tokens they might know as¬ suredly the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and be satisfied, with such a persuasion as was not liable to mistake, that they were not imposed upon ; I must say plainly, that I cannot tell : for these are things whereof we have no experience.” *

There is, however, one thing dropped as to this matter, by the ingenious Mr Locke, which deserves

* Owen on the Spirit, book ii. chap. i. sect. x.

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

19

some animadversion. * Though he delivers nothing positively, about the evidences which the prophets had, yet he tells us negatively, that their assurance did not arise, solely at least, from the revelations them¬ selves, or the operation of the Spirit impressing them upon their minds ; which he calls the internal light of assurance : but that besides this, to satisfy them fully that those impressions were from God, external signs were requisite. This he endeavours to prove from their desiring confirmatory signs, as Abraham and others did ; and from God’s giving such signs un¬ desired. To this purpose he notices God’s appearance to Moses in the bush.

As to the opinion itself, I look upon it as highly injurious to the honour of divine revelation ; and the grounds whereon it is founded, I take to be weak and inconclusive. For, i. It is impossible to prove, that these divinely inspired persons always required or obtained such confirmatory signs, extrinsecal to the revelation or inspiration itself ; yea, it is manifest, that for the most part they neither received nor sought them. 2. When they were sought or obtained, it cannot be proved that they were necessary for the full satisfaction of those who received them, to con¬ vince them that he who was dealing with them, and revealing himself to them, was God : as if (to use Mr Locke’s own words) the “ internal light of assurance,” while it abode, were not sufficient for that purpose.

* Locke on the Human Understanding, book iv. chap. xix. sect. XV.

20

ESSA Y /.

It is plain that other reasons may be assigned. When the matters revealed to them related to things at a distance, which could not be effected without extra¬ ordinary outgoings of divine power, they desired, and God condescended to grant, some such extraordinary" signs ; not for the purpose of assuring them that he was the speaker, but to strengthen their convictions of the sufficiency of his power to perform, in defiance of the greatest opposition, what he had promised ; or to enable them to do what he had required of them, how difficult soever it might be. Sometimes divine revelations were promises of things at a distance, which were not to be actually accomplished, till after a long tract of time, and over many intervenient obstacles. In that case, they were obliged to believe those promises, and wait in the faith of them, even when the light which first assured them was gone : and such evidences or signs might strengthen their adherence to the assent formerly given, upon the supernatural evidence which accompanied the revela¬ tion itself These reasons, and others of a like nature, may sufficiently account, both for their desiring such signs, and for God ’s giving them. But, as we have already said, we design not a full determination of this question. We shall therefore consider the question, only with respect to the last two sorts of persons.

2. As to those who received revealed truths im¬ mediately from inspired persons : our rational divines seem to be positive, that the evidence whereon these inspired persons required assent to what they delivered

ON THE REASON OF FAITH

21

as the mind of God, consisted in, or did result from, the miracles which they wrought ; with other external signs or proofs which they gave of their mission from God. Monsieur^ le Clerc, in his “ Emendations and Additions” to Hammond on the New Testament, gives us this gloss on i Cor. ii. 5, “ Paul,” says he, would “ have the Corinthians believe him, not as a philo¬ sopher proposing probabilities to them, but as the messenger of God, who had received commandment from him to deliver to them those truths which he preached ; and that he thus received them, he did shew by the miracles which he wrought.” And a little after, he adds, “ He whose faith leans upon miracles wrought by God’s power, his faith is grounded upon the divine power, the cause of those miracles.” As to this opinion itself, I shall express myself more particularly just now; but as to what M. le Clerc deduces from this text, he had no manner of ground for it. In the preceding verse the apostle tells the Corinthians, that in his preaching he avoided the enticing words of man’s wisdom, and delivered his message in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power ; immediately adding, that his design in so doing was, that their faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God ; that is, in the powerful demonstration of the Spirit of God. How M. le Clerc came to dream of miracles, and fetch them in here, while the whole scope and every circumstance of the text stood in the way of this exposition, I cannot divine ; for nothing can be more

22

£SSA V /.

remote from the sense of the place. If he had fol¬ lowed the old_ approved interpreter of Scripture, I mean the ScriptureHItself, and had looked into the context, he would have given us a more genuine com¬ ment. But philosophy, which has now set up for an interpreter (I had almost said a perverter), did cer¬ tainly lead him into this violent and ridiculous gloss. But to come to the matter itself :

Miracles can be no otherwise the ground of assent, than as the medium of an argument to prove the divine mission of the worker. This then must be the opinion of these gentlemen, that they who heard the apostles or prophets, could not be satisfied that what they heard was divinely revealed, until they were convinced of it by proofs drawn from miracles or signs wrought by the preachers. That this is not merely my own conjecture, is evident from the ac¬ counts which we have of their opinions and hypo¬ theses ;* whereof this is reckoned a principal one, that the mind of man, being rational, cannot be moved but by a rational impression ; that is, by the force of effectual reasons. To the same purpose we shall find Mr Locke expressing himself by and by.

Upon this hypothesis it is evident, i. That a heathen, coming into a Christian assembly, and hear¬ ing Paul preach, or even Jesus Christ himself; if he had never seen him work a miracle, would not be obliged to believe his doctrine. 2. If the apostles preached to those among whom they wrought no

* Spanhemii Elenchus Controversiarum, p. 320. ed. 1694.

ON THE REASON OF FAITH

23

miracles, they could not require them to believe, the evidence being withheld, whereon belief is founded.

3, They who heard the apostles and saw their miracles, could not be obliged to assent to their doctrine, until they had time to satisfy themselves, by reasoning, how far the miracles might be accounted for by natural causes ; and, admitting them to be super¬ natural, how far they would go toward proving the doctrine to be of God. 4. If any of the hearers were so dull as to be incapable of deciding such nice ques¬ tions, I do not see how, upon these principles, they could be obliged to believe.

These, and the like, are no strained consequences ; for it is undeniable, that as our obligation to believe arises from the proposal of due objective evidence, so, where this is wanting, no man can be obliged to believe.

3. To come now to our own case. We who neither conversed with those to whom the revelations were originally given, nor saw the miracles which they wrought, are told by those rationalists that we have historical proofs, that there were such persons as the sacred writers, that they wrote the revelations which we now have, and that they wrought such miracles in confirmation of their divine mission and doctrine. Upon the evidence of these proofs we must rest. They will allow us no other ground for our faith. Hence Monsieur le Clerc tells us, that whatever faith is this day in the world among Christians, depends upon the testimony of men.

Among those who have embraced this opinion, Mr

24

ESS A Y /.

Locke, upon several accounts, desei*ves to be particu¬ larly noticed ; wherefore I shall briefly and faithfully represent his opinion with the grounds of it, and make such animadversions upon them as may be necessary for clearing our way. His opinion you may take in the following propositions: —

I, Speaking of the different grounds and degrees of assent, he says,* “ Besides those we have hitherto mentioned, there is one sort of propositions that chal¬ lenge the highest degree of our assent, upon bare tes¬ timony, whether the thing proposed agree or disagree with common experience, and the ordinary course of things, or no. The reason whereof is, because the testimony is of such an one as cannot deceive or be deceived ; and that is, of God himself. This carries with it assurance beyond doubt, evidence beyond exception. This is called by a peculiar name. Reve¬ lation, and our assent to it. Faith : which as absolutely determines our minds, and as perfectly excludes all wavering, as our knowledge itself.”

2. Notwithstanding this, he tells us in the same paragraph, that “ We must be sure that it is a divine revelation, and that we understand it aright;” and that “ our assent can be rationally no higher than an assurance, or a diffidence, arising from the more or less apparent probability of the proofs.” In other words, if the reasons proving it to be a revelation are only probable, our assurance amounts to no more than probability.

* Human Understanding, book iv. chap. xvi. sect. xiv.

ON THE REASON OF FAITH.

25

3. He distinguishes between original and tradi¬ tional revelation.* * * § “ By the one,” he says, “ I mean that first impression which is made immediately by God on the mind of any man, to which we cannot set any bounds ; and by the other, those impressions de¬ livered over to others in words, and the ordinary ways of conveying our conceptions one to another.” Speak¬ ing of immediate or original revelation, he asserts that “ no evidence of our faculties by which we receive such revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty of our intuitive knowledge.” f And again he affirms, that whatsoever truths we come to the clear discovery of, from the knowledge and contemplation of our own ideas, will always be certainer to us, than those which are conveyed by traditional revelation.” J

4. In the next chapter, he writes as follows: — “ Light, true light, in the mind, is, or can be, nothing else but the evidence of the truth of any proposition ; and if it be not a self-evident proposition, all the light it has, or can have, is from the clearness and validity of those proofs upon which it is received. To talk of any other light in the understanding, is to put our¬ selves in the dark, or in the power of the prince of darkness.” §

5. In the following paragraph, he tells us plainly, that there is no way of knowing any revelation to be

* Human Understanding, book iv. chap, xviii. sect. iii.

t Ibidem, book iv. chap, xviii. sect. v.

f Ibidem, book iv. chap, xviii. sect. iv.

§ Ibidem, book iv. chap. xix. sect. xiii.

26

ESS A V 1.

from God, but by rational proofs ; or by “ some marks in which reason cannot be mistaken.”*

6. In the next