Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Hebraic use of credere alicui' and 'in aliquem.' 119

XIII.

§ 15. Except, indeed, you meant that by the phrase (credere STRIC. in Deum sive Christum), 'to believe in God or Christ,' some peculiar trust is denoted in Scripture, which none but they who believe unto justification and salvation have. In this sense, indeed, you speak at the beginning of your longer Stricture above cited; where you say in so many words, that "the Scripture expresses the proper idea of saving faith as well as the peculiar act, by 'believing in or on God, or Christ,” (τὸ πιστεύειν εἰς or ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν οι Χριστὸν,) ‘and on or in the name of the Lord,” (ἐπὶ or εἰς ὄνομα and ἐν ὀνόματι Kupiov"). But this criticism of yours neither has any thing in it, nor is it true, since it is certain that Toreveu eis Xploròv is said in the Scriptures of those who had not yet believed unto justification and salvation. See the plainest passages, John ii. 23, 24, and xii. 42, 43. The phrase Tiotevei eis tiva, occurs no where (that I know) among profane Greek writers, but is an idiom of the Hebrew language, which was imitated by the writers of the New Testament. But it must be observed that there are two phrases in Hebrew, credere alicui and credere in aliquem; where distinction is rather of words than of things. Thus on onnins, non credidit eis, "he believed them not," Gen. xlv. 26. joso oso bpb pro "D", si non crediderint tibi, ut credent voci signi posterioris, "if they will not believe thee, they will believe the voice of the latter sign," Exod. iv. 8.

etiam וגם בך יאמינו

, et non credidistis Ipsi, "ye believed Him not," Deut. ix. 23. 17 ' '', et crediderunt in Dominum et in Mosen Ejus servum, "they believed the Lord and His servant Moses," Exod. xiv. 31. in te credent, "and believe thee," Exod. xix. 9. From these examples it is evident that the phrases credere alicui and credere in aliquem were used promiscuously in Hebrew of God as of His creatures. Nay, so far is the phrase credere in Deum from signifying of itself justifying trust, that at times it does not signify trust at all. Thus of the Ninevites, who believed Jonah denouncing the destruction

,ויאמינו אנשי נינוה באלהים of their city in God's name, it is said

et crediderunt viri Nineve in Deum, "So the people of Nineveh believed God," Jon. iii. 5, where it is plain that by credere in Deum, trust is not signified. For trust

120 St. Augustine's explanation of such phrases.

STRIC. always regards some promise; whereas in this passage the XIII. assent is expressed which the Ninevites gave to God's threat

in Johan.

[vol. iii. p.

ening, preached by Jonah concerning the destruction of their city. It has not escaped me that St. Austin somewhere has nicely (as is his wont) distinguished between these three, credere Deo, credere Deum, and credere in Deum. But to this distinction that great Father applies a Catholic and sound sense; and if you admit this sense, further question with you on the subject will be ended. For with St. Austin credere in Deum is nothing else than amare Deum, ‘to love Tractat. 29. God.' He says, “Non continuo qui credit Deo, credit in Deum; nam et dæmones credebant ei, et non credebant in eum." Again, we can say of His Apostles, credimus Paulo, but not credimus in Paulum; and he subjoins, "What, then, is to believe in God, (credere in Deum?) To love Him by believing, to choose Him by believing, to go to Him by believing, and to be incorporated among His members." Lastly, explaining the faith by which we believe in God, he says, "It is not faith of any sort, but that which worketh by love." There are some like things in St. Austin in Exposit. Psalm lxxvii. and Serm. vi. of the words of our Lord; and Psalm cxxx., "This is to believe in Christ,' viz. to love Him."

515.]

§ 16. Thus, at length, I have refuted your long Stricture in as long an answer. From all which, sensible readers may easily judge how false your conclusion is that "faith taken in this sense, (i. e. as simple trust,) is most plainly taught by Christ and His Apostles to be the condition (viz. the one condition) of justification." From what has been said it will also be abundantly clear what empty boastings are in the words with which you end the discussion, as though you were leading a triumph. "You see, then, it is not so hopeless a task to conceive and explain the idea of a reliance or trust in God, (which, forsooth, of itself and before any obedience justifies us)." I should say with more truth: See how vain is the attempt of those who try to explain to us any trust, properly so called, which necessarily carries with it the saving effect of justification.

§ 17. By way of finish I will put some conclusions before the reader, which (in my judgment) clearly and succinctly comprise the true doctrine of Christian faith and trust. Conclusion first: Christian faith and trust, properly speak

Faith and trust differ as general and particular. 121

XIII.

ing, differ only as general and particular; so that faith is STRIC. assent to the whole Gospel, in its utmost extent, while trust is that assent as it regards the promises made in the Gospel. I have proved this conclusion above, which is also of itself § 9, 10. sufficiently evident. Trust does not refer to every thing which is delivered in the Gospel, (for we are not properly said to trust in threats or in narrations of past events, &c.,) but to those blessings only which are promised by God in the Gospel. But the faith of the Gospel is exercised in threats and other assertions, either as regards the future, present, or past, even such as in no way concern us, no less than in promises.

Theol.

§ 18. Conclusion second: Since Christian trust regards the promises of God in the Gospel, and these promises set before us very great and most desirable blessings, to be obtained by man on certain conditions; and consequently it is not possible for any one to give his assent to the Gospel promises, i. e. trust in them, unless he have some proportionable desire of such promised blessings; hence Christian trust (taken in the wider sense of the word trust) is sometimes defined,-Assent to the Gospel promises, joined with the desire of the promised blessings. This definition of trust' continually occurs in the writings of the divines who are accustomed to treat theological matters more accurately. Among others see the learned Robert Baron, who treating of the question, Philos. "Whether trust is an act of the intellect," &c. says thus: Ancill. "An act of each kind (viz. both the assent of the intellect Exercit. 3. de Fide,&c. and the desire of the will) is required for trust. For no one Artic. 19. can be said to trust or be confident of obtaining any blessing, n. 3. except he have a firm persuasion in the mind, and a desire or love of that blessing in the will." This is excellently explained by Tilenus, saying, that "divine truth is an object of Syntagm. faith, not only as it relates any thing, but especially as it Disp. 37. promises any thing: where it is not sufficient to assent to Thes. 18. the narration as true, but one must also either embrace or reject the thing offered, which especially belongs to the will." Nevertheless the same learned man holds that trust is formally situated in the intellect. For he subjoins immediately, "The former act is the essence, or formal cause of [i. e. R. Baron.]

с

Part i.

122

Trust may exist without earnest desire.

STRIC. trust; the latter is only the act annexed to or accompanying X111 it: and consequently trust is, formally speaking, in the in

tellect, though it have the desire of the will annexed to it. This assertion is proved, in the first place, because the opposite of trust, viz. distrust, is in the intellect; therefore trust itself is in the intellect. The ground of the premiss is, that distrust, by which a man is said to distrust himself and his affairs, does not signify hatred, or an aversion of the will, but either a doubt as to his own powers, or a persuasion of his own weakness, which without doubt belongs to the intellect. In the second place, because if trust were formally an act of the will, it would be nothing else than a desire or love of the object. But this is contrary to daily experience: for many ardently seek for and desire an object, who have no confidence of obtaining it." We have this granted by that learned man, who in other respects is but too favourable to your hypothesis. But with these things allowed on both sides, let us proceed farther.

§ 19. Conclusion third: Each act of trust taken in its wider sense, viz. both assent to the promises of the Gospel, and the desire of the promised blessings, is compatible with the case of a man who has not yet arrived at a state of grace and salvation. This conclusion is proved from the two former. Whoever gives his assent to the whole Gospel, (which I have above shewn, and you yourself allow can be done by a man as yet carnal and unregenerate,) by that act assents or trusts in the promises contained in the Gospel. But from this assent, or trust, necessarily flows a proportionable desire of the promised blessings as I have shewn in the explanation of the second conclusion. But what need is there of our reasonings? Truth itself teaches that there are many who seek to enter Lu. 13.24. the gate of salvation, but will not be able; where the 'seekTo SnTev. ing' comprises two things at least: 1. a trust or persuasion that eternal salvation has been procured by Christ, and that it is really offered to us in Christ: 2. the desire of obtaining happiness; nay, the word denotes some sort of attempt to obtain it. Yet these seekers will fail in attaining the desired happiness, because they 'strive not,' which word implies a great and constant struggle of mind. They seek Mat. 6. 33. the kingdom of God, but not as the first thing; they are

ἀγωνί ζονται.

Does not avail to salvation without it.

123

desirous of immortality, but it is not prized by them enough STRIC. to make them willing to give up this world's advantages.

XIII.

§ 20. Conclusion fourth: Therefore that trust only in the promises of the Gospel or in Christ the Promiser, places a man according to the Gospel covenant, in a state of grace and salvation, which has annexed to and joined with it a desire, not of any kind, but a strong and ardent desire, for the very great blessings promised by Christ in the Gospel; a desire which goes beyond all his other desires, and which, being well thought over, and after every thing has been duly weighed, begets in him a determination to do or suffer any thing, so that he may at length obtain the promised blessings. The truth of this conclusion is clearly proved from the former: and is more fully confirmed by remarkable passages of Scripture, worthy of every consideration, Matt. x. 37, 38, Luke xiv. 25-33, inclusive. But this trust, which has annexed to it this strong and ardent desire, is without doubt 'faith perfected by love,' to which St. Paul attributes justification, and Gal. 5. 6. to which no Christian will deny it. Here, then, you have the true doctrine of Christian trust most clearly explained.

STRICTURE XIV.

ON I. DISS. v. p. 28.

In the beginning of this chapter occurs the fourth argument, by which I endeavour to establish St. James's statement concerning the necessity of good works to justification. The chapter begins thus: "Let us take our fourth argument from the manner in which God will judge mankind at the last day. By whatever rule every one shall be judged in the next world by God, according to the same he is justified by Him in this. But in the next world every one will be judged according to his works, (and not by faith alone). Therefore, in this world every one is justified by God by his works, (and not by faith alone'). If I am not very much mistaken, this argument is unanswerable." You meet this argument by a threefold objection. 1st. "I wonder," you say, "that this argument seems to you to be unanswerable, for this is a weakly support of a bad cause. Nothing is more certain, than that Christians are justified by God in this life by faith,

« AnteriorContinuar »