Notes: Sect. 6. — Holiness and good works attained to only by faith.
Notes: Sect. 6. — Holiness and good works attained to only by faith.
350
It is not the scope or design of Neophytus here, to show what the essence of faith consists of, nor to give a definition to it. But suppose it was so, his definition falls considerably short of some given by famous orthodox Protestant divines, yes, and churches too. See the note on the definition of faith. I repeat here Mr. John Davidson’s definition only: “Faith is a hearty assurance that our sins are freely forgiven us in Christ.” From this, one may clearly see that at one time it was not reckoned an absurdity that one’s justification was made the object of one’s belief. For understanding this ancient Protestant doctrine, grown almost quite out of ken with unlearned readers, I will adduce a passage out of Wendeline’s Christ. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 24, p. 542, 543. He presents the Popish objection this way: “Justifying faith must go before justification; but the faith of special mercy does not go before justification; if it did, it would be false. For at that rate, a man would believe that his sins are forgiven, which as yet are not forgiven, since they are not forgiven except by justification. Therefore the faith of special mercy is not justifying faith.” In answer to this, he denies the second of these propositions, with its proofs, and concludes in these words: “Justifying faith, therefore, has for its special object, forgiveness of sins, future, present, and past.” He explains it this way, “By the faith of special mercy, because it goes before justification, a man does not believe that his sins are forgiven already, before the act of believing.” This, by the by, is the Antinomian faith, justifying only declaratively. What follows is the true doctrine of faith: “But he shall have forgiveness of sins: in the very act of justification, he believes that his sins are forgiven him, and so he receives forgiveness; after justification, he believes the past application,” namely: forgiveness; that is, that his sins are now already forgiven him.
But the design of Neophytus is to make a profession of his faith, and by an argument drawn from Christian experience, to refute the Antinomian pretended faith whereby a sinner, at first brush, believes his sins are already forgiven him, before the act of believing; and thereafter he has no regard to holiness of life. This is plain evidence that this persuasion is not of God. And in opposition to it, this profession is made, consisting of three parts:
(1.) He professes that he believes himself to be justified and acquitted from all his sins; and this is the belief of the past application, after justification, which we heard before from Wendeline. For we have already found Neophytus brought to faith in Christ, and the match between Christ and him is declared to be made, though his faith was accompanied with fears, p. 150. And now he finds his faith grown up in some small measure to the height which Antinomista pretended his faith to be at, namely, believing himself to be already justified. But with this he intimates that his faith had not come to this pitch all of a sudden, as Antinomista’s had done, p. 94-97; rather it was some time after he believed, before he thus believed. And now, indeed, his believing thus, only in some small measure, was his sin, and it argued for the weakness of his faith. But such a man’s believing in any measure, great or small, that he was justified and acquitted from all his sins, must be commended and approved unless we would bring back the Popish doctrine of doubting.
(2.) He professes that therefore — since he was justified, and believed himself to be so — he had no need to avoid evil for fear of punishment, nor to do good for hope of reward. Antinomista, pretending to this likewise, had cast off all care of keeping the law or of doing good works, having no other principle of obedience within him. This does not at all look to punishments and rewards, improperly so-called; that is, to fatherly chastisements and favours, which the author treats expressly afterwards. But it is plainly meant of rewards and punishments taken in a proper sense, as flowing from the justice of God, remunerative and vindictive, and proceeding upon our works, good and evil; and particularly it is meant of heaven and hell. This is the sense in which that phrase is commonly used by divines; and that it is to be taken so here is evident from its being inferred from his justification, which indeed leaves no place for fear of punishment and hope of reward in the latter sense: but not so in the former sense. And it appears Nomista understood it thus, as it will afterwards appear, p. 200.
(3.) He professes. That he was so far from being less inclined to duty, that he believed himself to be fully justified, and that the fear of punishment and hope of reward were ceased in his case; that, on the contrary, he found as his faith grew, that his love to and readiness for a holy life grew: he was more willing, and more desirous to do the Lord’s commandments than he had been before his faith was advanced to that pitch. And in this, I conceive, the experience of the saints will not contradict him. Thus he gives a plain testimony against the Antinomian faith.
351
Namely, the faith of special mercy, or a faith of particular application, without which, in greater or lesser measure, it is not saving faith.
352
See page 144, note.
353
His soul resting on Christ, whom he has received for salvation.
354
Thus he conceives of God according to the measure of his faith, or of his soul’s resting on Christ, which allows for various degrees.
355
See page 144, note.
356
A man’s believing God’s love toward him is woven into the very nature of saving faith, as has already been shown. Therefore, whatever humiliation, compunction, sorrow, and grief for sin goes before it, they must be but legal, being before faith, “without which it is impossible to please God,” Heb. 11.6.
357
The belief of which, in some measure, is included in the nature of faith. — See Dote on the definition of faith, and p. 192, note.
358
This is the springing up of the “seeds of repentance put into the heart in sanctification,” Larg. Cat. q. 75; a work of sanctifying grace, acceptable to God; the curse being taken off the sinner, and his person accepted in the Beloved, and like the mourning and repenting of that woman in Luke 7.47, “who, having forgiven her much, loved much.” There is an inseparable connection between this repentance and pardon of sin, so that it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. Westm. Confess., chap. 15. art. 3. — See also p. 146, note.
359
This can have no reference at all to the motives of a believer’s obedience, unless believers, as well as unbelievers, are to be reckoned under the Covenant of Works; for it is manifest that the author speaks here of only those who are under that covenant. But on the contrary, if a man is under the Covenant of Works, called the law, in the style of the Holy Ghost, then he is not a believer, but an unbeliever, Rom. 6.14, “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace.” This reasoning proceeds on this principle: That those who are under the Covenant of Works, and only they, are under the dominion or reigning power of sin. And if men, being under the Covenant of Works, are under the dominion of sin, then it is evident that they are not believers, but bond-servants, evident that the love of God does not dwell in them, but corrupt self-love reigns in them. And therefore, they are constrained to the good they do, by fear of punishment and hope of reward, agreeable to the threatening and promise of the broken Covenant of Works which they are under. That their obedience conform to their state and condition, is but servile; no better than it is here described to be, having only the letter, but not the spirit of true obedience, which, before any man can attain to it, he must be set free from the Covenant of Works, as the apostle teaches; Rom. 7.6, “But now, we are delivered from the law, that being dead to what we were held in, we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter:” and finally, that as is the condition and the obedience of those under the Covenant of Works, so shall their end be, Gal. 4.30, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”
360
That is, till the empty vine is filled with the Spirit from Jesus Christ, it will never bring forth fruit to him. Till a man once eats by faith, he will never work rightly. The conscience must be purged from dead works, otherwise one is not in a fit state “to serve the living God,” Heb. 9.14. The Covenant of Works says to the sinner, who is yet without strength, “Work, and then you shall be filled;” but the Covenant of Grace says to him, “Be filled, and then you must work.” And until the yoke of the Covenant of Works is taken off a man’s jaws, and food is given to him, he will never take on and bear the yoke of Christ acceptably.
361
The words co-action and compulsion signify one and the same thing, namely: forcing; so that to work without the co-action or compulsion of the law, is to work without being forced to it by the law.
One would think it so very plain and obvious, that the way how the law forces men to work, is by the terror of the dreadful punishment which it threatens in case of not working. It only darkens the matter to say that the co-action or compulsion of the law consists in its commanding and binding power or force. This must be meant of the commanding and binding power of the Covenant of Works, or of the law, as it is the Covenant of Works. For it cannot mean (as these words seem to bear) that power which the law of the Ten Commandments, as a rule of life, has over men to bind them to obedience. I think, the impartial reader is by this time convinced that the author does not deny that believers are still under this law; for to call it co-action or compulsion is contrary to the common understanding and usage of these words in society. At this rate, one would have to say that the glorified saints and angels (to ascend no higher), as creatures of God, under the commanding and binding power of the eternal rule of righteousness, are also compelled and forced to their obedience; and that when we pray, “Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven,” we would be praying to be enabled to obey the will of God, as the angels do in heaven, by co-action and compulsion in the height of it. For surely the angels have the sense of the commanding and binding power of the eternal rule of righteousness on them, in a degree far beyond what any believer on earth has. Therefore that exposition of the co-action or compulsion of the law, which puts believers under the law’s coaction or compulsion, amounts to just what we met with before: namely, that believers are under the commanding power (at least) of the Covenant of Works, having obedience bound upon them with the cords of hell, or under the pain of the curse. Accordingly, the compulsion of the law is more plainly described to be its binding power and moral force, which it derives from the awful authority of the sovereign Lawgiver commanding obedience to his law, and threatening disobedience with wrath, or with death, or hell. And so our author is blamed for not subjecting believers to this compulsion of the law.
In the preceding paragraph he had shown that the obedience of unbelievers to the law of the Ten Commandments is produced by the influence on them of the law (or covenant) of works, forcing or constraining them to it by the fear of the punishment which it threatens. Thus, they work by the co-action or compulsion of the law, or Covenant of Works, being destitute of the love of God. Here he affirms that once a man is brought to Christ, having the sanctifying Spirit of Christ dwelling in him, and being endowed with faith that purifies the heart, and with love that is strong as death, he is enabled to work freely, and of his own accord, without that co-action or compulsion.
This is the doctrine of the holy Scripture. Psalm 51.12, “Uphold me with your free spirit.” Compare Gal. 5.18, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” So Psalm 110.3, “Your people shall be willing in the day of your power.” Compare 1Pet. 5.2, “Not by constraint but willingly.” And believers are declared to be “not under the law,” Rom. 6.14. — “To be made free from the law of death. Not to have received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adoption,” Chap. 8.2, 15. How then can they still be under the co-active and compulsive power of the law, frightening and forcing them to obedience by its threatenings of the second death, or eternal wrath?
And it is evident that this is the received doctrine of orthodox divines, which might be attested by a cloud of witnesses if the nature of this work permitted. “Not to be under the law,” says Luther, “is to do good things, and abstain from wicked things, not through compulsion of the law, but by free love, and with pleasure.” Chos. Ser. 20.p. 232.
“The second part (i.e., of Christian liberty) is,” says Calvin, “that consciences obey the law, not as compelled by the necessity of the law, but being free from the yoke of the law itself, they obey the will of God of their own accord.” Instit. book 3.chap. 19, sec. 4.
“We would distinguish between the law considered as a law, and the law considered as a covenant. A law necessarily implies no more than (1.) To direct. (2.) To command, enforcing that obedience by authority. A covenant further necessarily implies promises made upon some condition, or threatenings added if such a condition is not performed. The first two are essential to the law; the last two, as to believers, are made void through Christ. In this sense it is said that by him we are freed from the law as a covenant; so that believers’ lives do not depend on the promises annexed to the law, nor are they in danger by the threatenings adjoined to it.” Durham on the Commands, p. 4.
“What a new creature does, in observance of the law, is from natural freedom, choice, and judgment, and not by the force of any threatenings annexed to it.” Charnock, vol. ii. p. 59.
See Westminster Confession, chap. 20, art. 1, of which afterwards.
And that text in 1Tim. 1.9, “The law is not made for a righteous man,” is generally understood thus by divines, critics, and commentators: the law threatening, compelling, and condemning, is not made for a righteous man, because he is pushed forward to duty of his own accord, and he is no longer led by the spirit of bondage, and fear of punishment.” Turret., loc. 2, q. 24, th. 8. — “By the law is to be understood the Moral Law, as it is armed in stings and terrors, to restrain rebellious sinners. By the righteous man is meant one in whom a principle of divine grace is planted, and who, from the knowledge and love of God, chooses the things that are pleasing to him. As the law has annexed so many severe threatenings to the transgressors of it, it is evident that it is directed to the wicked, who will only be compelled by fear from an outrageous breaking of it.” Continuation of Poole’s Annotations on the Text. “The law is not for him, as a master to command him, to constrain him as a bondman.” Lodovic de Dieu. “The law does not compel, press on, frighten, lie heavy upon, and punish a righteous man.” Strigelius. — “It does not lie on him as a heavy burden, compelling a man against his will, violently pressing him on, and pushing him forwards; it does not draw him to obedience; but leads him, being willing.” Scultetus — “For of his own accord he does right.” Castalio, apud Pol. Synop. in Loc.
362
It is a metonymy from the effect, that is, love makes me do it in that manner, as a man that is compelled; that is the meaning of it. So it has the same effect that compulsion has, though there is nothing more different from compulsion than love.” Dr. Preston, ibid. p. 29.
363
If one considers that the drift and scope of this whole discourse, from p. 192, is to reveal the naughtiness of Antinomista’s faith, observed by Neophytus, one may perceive that by quoting Towne (the Antinomian) on that topic, the author’ gives no more ground to suspect himself of Antinomianism — though he calls him an evangelical man — than a Protestant gives in point of Popery, by quoting Cardinal Bellarmine against a Papist, though with that he calls him a Catholic. And the epithet given to Towne, is so far from being a high commendation that, really, it is none at all; for, though both these epithets, the latter as well as the former, are in themselves honourable, yet in these cases, a man speaking in the language of his adversary, they are not at all so. Evangelista could not help but remember that Antinomista had told him roundly, “That he had not been so evangelical as some others in the city, which caused him to leave hearing him, to hear them,” i.e., those evangelical men. And why might he not give him a sound note from one of those evangelical men, even under that character, so acceptable to him, without ranking himself with them?
364
See p. 197, note, and the following one.