Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

plants the seed of universal holiness, and provides for the propagation of every virtue. This PERSUASION OF THE DIVINE GOOD WILL Overcomes our natural reluctance, and excites a present desire to please our most merciful Father. This experience of the abundant grace of Christ attracts and assimilates the soul, turning it into an amiable likeness, as the wax is turned to the imprinted seal." In these words, he asserts that the sanctifying influences of God's Spirit do accompany faith, and that this persuasion effectually turns the heart from sin to God, but not that the persuasion or belief itself is a holy act. Neither does he, I think, prove that this faith is never found where the seed of universal holiness is not implanted, and that this persuasion effectually overcomes the native opposition of heart to holiness; and I am not yet convinced that this is in fact the case. I believe that such a persuasion of God's good will often is found with those who have not the seed of true holiness in their hearts; and that, in many instances, it does not excite the least sincere desire to please God, proves the occasion of making persons easy in sin, and strengthening and confirming them in disobedience. For confirmation of this, I again appeal to matter of fact. Mr. Hervey says a great deal to show what influence his faith, or a persuasion of the divine good will, will certainly have effectually to produce a holy life. But, after all, I am not convinced that this persua sion does not, in many instances, harden and embolden men in sin. The faith of Abraham and of St. Paul produced a holy obedience; but perhaps their faith was not the same with that defined by Mr. Hervey.

If I were to prove that the doctrine of justification by faith only was not a licentious doctrine, but that believers always lived a holy life, and that this was implied in this doctrine, I would endeavor to show that justifying faith is itself a holy act or exercise; that it implies and springs from that in the heart which, being confirmed, is the principal spring or seed of universal holiness; that, therefore, a holy temper or bent of mind, or a disposition and love to all branches of holiness and obedience, was always strong and prevalent in proportion to the strength of the exercise of faith. But in order to prove this, I imagine my definition of faith must not be the same with that

I am objecting against.

IV. If this be justifying faith, I see no way to distinguish it from that faith or persuasion of the same thing which is not saving faith. None will deny, I suppose, that a person may believe or be strongly persuaded that his sins are forgiven, etc., when this is not the case. (Though I suspect that they who give that definition of faith that I am objecting against do, by

granting this, contradict themselves.) Mr. Hervey supposes that this persuasion or assurance may be a delusion, (p. 312.) He there says, the love of our brethren "may very justly be admitted as an evidence that our faith is real and our assurance no delusion." Now, I say, I see not how the delusive persuasion shall be distinguished from that which is saving, inasmuch as this definition includes a false, delusive faith, as well as a saving faith. If it be said that there is this difference, viz., a delusive persuasion or assurance is not accompanied with, and does not produce, good works, whereas a saving faith is never without good works, this will not at all remove my difficulty; for upon this supposition, the false, delusive faith is as much included in the definition of saving faith as saving faith itself. Therefore it is not a definition of saving faith, as it is not hereby distinguished from faith that is not saving, and is as much a definition of that as of saving faith.

Further, when it is said that saving faith is accompanied with good works, but that which is not saving is without works, this does not seem to point out any intrinsic difference between these two sorts of faith; but they seem to be supposed to be alike in all other respects but this, viz., that one is without works, being alone; the other is accompanied with good works. If it be said, that the one being accompanied with good works as its genuine attendant and fruit, and the other not, implies and points out an intrinsic difference between these two sorts of faith, I would observe that this is, at most, only to assert that there is an intrinsic difference, which is the occasion or cause of a different production or effect, but does by no means point out this intrinsic difference, and show wherein it consists. I am not yet informed what there is in saving faith which is the proper spring or cause of good works, by which it is in itself essentially different from a false faith. Now, I think no definition of saving faith is just and good, but that which expresses the essential difference between that and every kind of faith that is not saving; inasmuch as it is no more a definition of saving faith than of faith that is not saving.

V. Experience and observation have served to strengthen me in my objections against this definition of saving faith, as it has convinced me of the bad tendency of such a notion of faith, and the sad consequence, in many instances, of persons depending upon such a persuasion or assurance by the direct act of faith, as Mr. Hervey calls it.

You are, no doubt, sensible, sir, that many of those who passed for converted, and thought themselves so, in the time. of the outpouring of the Spirit of God on New England some years ago, have so behaved since as to give good reason to

conclude that their faith is not saving; and, if my observation is right, those persons whose first and direct act of faith was a persuasion or assurance that Christ died for them, loved them, etc., are most generally the persons whose faith proves vain, being alone.

Most of our enthusiasts, and those that have brought reproach on the work of God, are, I think, of this stamp. They are confidently persuaded and assured that Christ died for them, and their first faith was grounded upon some revelation made to them (which I think they never had from God's word) that Christ loved them, and their sins were forgiven, or the like. This persuasion (which they were more probably led into by the devil than the Holy Spirit of God, as it is a persuasion of that which I think cannot be true) is like to be the ruin of thousands; whereas those who show most of a Christian temper, and behave most to the honor of Christ and his religion, being inquired of, will tell you that they had such a view of the all-sufficiency of Christ, and his readiness to save sinners that come to him, and they had such a sense of his excellency and beauty, and the suitableness and glory of the way of salvation by him, that they could not but admire Christ and place an unreserved trust in him; that in this way their hearts were quieted, and they enjoyed inward peace and satisfaction; while they came to no persuasion that Christ and his salvation were theirs, and had not the least thought at the time about this, that they are conscious of, though per haps it was not long before they began to entertain a hope that they had believed on Christ, and so were interested in his salvation. For my part, when I have such an account of a person of his conversion, I have a more comfortable persuasion that he is a true believer in Christ than I have of those who tell me that the first discovery they had of Christ was, that he was their Savior, that it was revealed to them that Christ died for them, that he loved them, and had loved them, etc.; from which they were persuaded and assured that they were in a state of salvation, and have great joy and transports in this way of believing. I say, I like the faith of the former better than the latter, and that not only for the reason given before, (which, I think, shows that the faith of the latter is certainly a delusion,) but because, from my acquaintance with persons and their souls' concerns, I find that those who have the latter generally discover a temper and go into a conduct very unbe coming the gospel, which, I think, is not so common with the former.

I would not be understood to suppose that a persuasion that Christ is their Savior does in no instance attend the first

act of faith, (though I do not think this is generally the case.) No doubt that a person's first hearty acceptance of Christ and reliance upon him for salvation may be attended with a consciousness, a persuasion, yea, an assurance that he does now accept of him and trust in him, and, consequently, he is assured that Christ is his Savior. But then I should not call this persuasion any part of his saving faith. And when this is not the case, this persuasion or belief generally takes place not long after the soul's having closed with Christ, and in many instances, no doubt, answers to what may properly be called an assurance.

I have carefully considered all the texts of Scripture which Mr. Hervey alleges in justification of his definition of faith; and they appear to me either only to show that the blessings of the gospel are offered freely to those that will accept of them, or to prove that a persuasion or assurance of their title to them is attainable by good men; except Heb. xi. 1, p. 285, which I think not at all to his purpose, unless it was first proved that it is revealed in the Bible that the sinner has a title to gospel blessings previous to his faith. If this was the case, Mr. Hervey's faith might realize to the sinner's mind what was in divine revelation a real, substantial truth; but if no such thing is revealed in the Bible, but the contrary, (which I am yet persuaded is the truth,) no true faith can make this real. Things must have a substance, and be realities, in order to their being realized to the mind by faith. This notion of faith was embraced by many of the reformers, I am sensible, and by some eminent godly men since; but as they might err, and no doubt did so in many instances, their authority affords no matter of conviction. I have no evidence that this notion of theirs about faith did in any degree promote their usefulness.

These, reverend sir, are my most material objections against Mr. Hervey's definition of faith. But it may be that I misunderstood Mr. Hervey's definition, and I would be the less confident I do not, because in some passages he seems to set this point in a different light, (p. 239, middle.) He says, "Nothing is required in order to our participation of Christ and his benefits but a conviction of our need, a sense of their worth, and a willingness to receive them in the appointed way." I take this to be saving faith, and I should think Mr. Hervey meant to describe saving faith here, as he speaks of this as the only condition or thing required in order to the sinner's partaking of Christ and his benefits; but I find nothing of a persuasion that Christ is our Savior, or that he shed his blood for us, in this passage, nor any thing that implies this. I suppose a person may be willing to receive Christ and his benefits in the

appointed way, and yet not be persuaded that Christ and his benefits are his; yea, that this persuasion is so far from being implied in this acceptance, that the former cannot take place but in consequence of the latter, as I have before endeavored to show.

Again, p. 247, he says, "His (the sinner's) part is to accept the blessings fully purchased by the Savior and freely offered to the sinner." On page 282, showing it is the sum of the gospel to be preached by Christ's ministers to all nations, be says they are to publish, "that all unhappy sinners. . . . may come to Christ, and rely on Christ; may, in this manner, obtain pardon, righteousness, and all the privileges of children." each of these passages, I suppose Mr. Hervey means to speak of saving faith, and I can find no fault with his description, as I belive it to be perfectly scriptural; but that coming to Christ, and relying on Christ, implies a persuasion that my sins are pardoned, or that such a persuasion implies coming to Christ, or is any thing akin to it, I see not the least evidence.

I like Mr. Hervey's representation of the act by which Christ becomes our security, (pp. 300, 301.) And when I read that passage over, it seems to me to be in some measure inconsist ent with what I have been objecting against. Speaking of Christ's being in Scripture represented by a place of refuge, etc., he says, "If this is a proper emblem of CHRIST, to what shall we liken faith? To a persuasion that the shelter of the summer-house is free for our use? That we are welcome to avail ourselves of the commodious retreat? Would this defend us from the inclemencies of the weather? Would this bare persuasion, unless reduced to practice, be any manner of shelter to our persons? No, surely. We must actually fly to the shelter, and we must actually apply to the SAVIOR; other wise I see not what comfort or benefit can be derived from either.

Here Mr. Hervey professedly points out a saving faith, in distinction from, and opposition to, that which is not so, in which he appears to me as much to oppose what he elsewhere calls saving faith as any other faith whatsoever. May not his definition be put to the question in the same manner, and fall under the same condemnation? His faith is a bare persuasion; and will my being persuaded that Christ is my shelter be any security to me, unless I actually betake myself to him? Will my bare persuasion that Christ died for me render him of any service to me, unless I actually apply to him by a hearty ac ceptance of him, and trust in him?

Page 253. Theron is without any persuasion that he has any title to Christ's righteousness; yet, upon his professing to beg

« ForrigeFortsæt »