07 Of Faith construed with Prepositions

OF FAITH CONSTRUED WITH PREPOSITIONS.

CHAPTER VII. 

GENERAL consent concedes an objective sense to the word "faith" in some of its occurrences; but whether the concession extends so far as the truth demands is open to some question, and may justly form a subject of further enquiry. Alford, inPhp 3:9, has laid it down that when pistis (faith) occurs in the genitive, and is followed by a genitive article, an objective sense is decisive. Whether he has said as much for the nominative, the dative, and the accusative, I have not observed; but if not, why not? Why should not this be the sense when followed by a nominative, as inActs 3:16? Why not when followed by a dative as inGalatians 2:16? And why not when followed by an accusative as inActs 20:21? But as it seems that this enquiry about an objective sense may be facilitated by some observation taken of pistis (faith) when it is construed with a preposition, we will take that course, and begin with ek (out of.) The first occurrence of this construction is inRomans 1:17, where we read, “the righteousness of God, revealed from faith ; " and " The just shall live by faith."

It may be noticed in passing that the apostle is stating the ground of his confidence in the gospel of Christ ; which is that the righteousness of God revealed therein arises out of the same principle as that from which, according to the prophet, the just man lives. He found that the righteousness of God was revealed in the gospel, not according to the law of works, which represents the principle of due and desert, and according to which no sinner can be made righteous; but according to the law of faith, which represents the principle of a good promised, given, and accepted as a pure favour, and according to which through the, mediation of Christ a sinner can be justified. Hence his confidence.

It may not be improper to observe also, that there seems to be a good deal of confusion of thought about living by faith. Imagining that justified by believing is the interpretation of "justified by faith," interpreters suppose also that to live by believing, conveys the sense of the words, "live by faith." Both interpretations are radically faulty. No doubt belief forms a part of what is comprehended in these words, live by faith;" but it is also very certain that here, as in many other places, interpreters have given to the act of believing an importance immensely beyond its due. Have not also some of them been guilty of perversely blindfolding their learning while they have been restricting to the word faith in this, and in some other passages, the meaning of belief’? Have they not felt that they were giving to the Greek preposition construed with the word in question a forced sense?

It is most clear that the true meaning is, that the just man lives from, that is, that his life springs out of the principle of faith, which as we have said represents and comprehends a good promised and given and received, as a pure favour The elements of the just man’s life are what Christ is made of God unto him, according to this principle. These are "Wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,," and they are living energies within him, making him wise and righteous and holy and free. As such he lives. He has in his existence the true elements of life. The Christian lives as Christ in the fullness and power of his Mediatorial character lives in him. "I live;" said Paul,Galatians 2:20, " yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by (in) the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Here "by," though representing a different preposition from that in the quotation we are considering, is a palpable intrusion, and seems to be introduced for the sole purpose of restricting to the word, "faith," the sense of belief. No doubt Paul did believe in the Son of God; but that is not solely, nor mainly, what he meant here. He said that Christ lived in him, and that he lived in the faith of the Son of God; and this is just what he meant. As the former was the wellspring of all that in him was living; so the latter contained him, was the sphere of all his activities, and comprehended all his desires and expectations.

It may be noticed further that we have in this passage,Romans 1:17, three occurrences of the word faith, and therein an example of the difficulty, of which mention has been made, of knowing its meaning, in some instances, with certainty. Alternative meanings are a favorite resort of some interpreters when a difficulty presents itself. It may mean this, that, or the other. Any one of these will suit the context. All are in conformity with what is received as the truth. Take which you please; or, if it likes you, take all. But this is not interpretation. It is a putting on the fair face of Scripture testimony a nose of wax, and giving to whim liberty to use her plastic fingers to shape the form just as her humor may direct. Every word of God means something definite; and this is what is desired to be known and taught.

It is painful to impugn the critical judgment of men who have justly entitled themselves, as expositors of the Gospel, to the highest respect which one man ought to feel towards and to pay to another; but fidelity to the truth of God must override all considerations of deference to our fellow men. Verbiage more puerile than is much of what has been written on the words, " from faith to faith," in the passage now under consideration, has never, perhaps, had accorded to it the dignity of critical interpretation. But, taking it for granted that the mere mention of some of the absurdities advanced will be sufficient for their refutation, we will only say that these words do not mean from the faith of God to the faith of man, whatever significations may be-given to the terms, faith of God and faith of man; nor from the faith of preachers to that of bearers, nor from the faith of the Old to that of the New Testament saints ; nor from the faith of the Jew to that of the Gentile ; nor from a lower to a higher degree of faith in the same person. Mr. Haldane has got very near to, but has not quite hit the sense. He says, "The meaning, then, is the righteousness which is by faith, namely, which is received by faith, is revealed to faith, or, in order to be believed." No doubt the words "to faith" mean in order to be believed; but the words, "the righteousness of God revealed from faith," do not mean the righteousness which is received by faith, that is, by belief. The preposition (ek) "from," clearly points to an originating principle, in the word it governs, out of which arises the righteousness that is revealed. This principle is designated faith. According to this principle, which is that of a good promised, and given, and accepted, wholly as a pure favour, the righteousness of God is revealed to (eis) faith, that is, in order to be believed. Borrowing the thought from the expression of the apostle inEphesians 2:9, "Not of works," we have a key that will open this lock with the greatest facility, and one which any person of the humblest capacity may use with complete satisfaction to himself. By putting the case before the eye in a sense precisely opposite, we shall bring the meaning within the comprehension of a child.

Let it be supposed, then, that the righteousness of God, revealed in the Gospel, was made known as arising from the same principle as the righteousness of Adam in Eden, and that of the Jews in Canaan, the passage would then read thus : Therein the righteousness of God is revealed from works to works. That is, it is revealed as originating from the principle of works in order to works. The reverse of this is exactly the apostle’s meaning. The righteousness is revealed according to the law of faith, in order to faith; not according to the law of works, in order to works. This agrees with the prophet’s testimony, "The just shall live from faith." This gives a solid ground of confidence in the Gospel of Christ. On the next occasion the apostle quoted this testimony of the prophetGalatians 3:11, he introduced it to disprove the notion that a man is justified by law. His words are, "But that no man is justified by law (without the article) in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by [from] faith; and law (without the article) is not of faith." Here, then, we have again law and faith as two distinct and opposite principles, or laws of living, presented to us. In the case of these Galatians it would seem that they had been taught to understand and conform to the law of works as the rule of their justification in the Jewish sense. That is, that they must render obedience to the Mosaic as well as to the moral law. Those of them, therefore, that had been converted from heathenism submitted to circumcision, and they, with those that had been converted from Judaism, observed days, and months, and times, and years ; and, indeed, seem to have conformed to the Jewish ritual very generally. The manners showed the men. They had ’ I fallen from grace " in practice, and, therefore, in principle. They had abandoned the law according to which righteousness is a gift to be received, and had adopted that according to which a man is justified by a due that he has deserved, which, "in the sight of God," is impossible to a sinner.

Alas, that there are so many like them now! How many that bear the Christian name have yet to learn that law does not spring from the principle of faith, and that a man is not justified from the principle of works! How many that teach, and that are taught, in this matter are as the blind leading the blind! How many are taught to make their peace with God! How many, if not under the Jewish ritual, are, nevertheless, under some other almost as burdensome and quite as unprofitable, labouring in vain to acquire for themselves an acceptance with God! How many are there that do not yet understand that the discharge of the least duty in the matter of justification, either in its acquisition or in its appropriation, would be the creation of a desert, and, therefore, would be fatal to the law of faith, according to which only a sinner can be justified ! On the third and last occasion the apostle quotes this testimonyHebrews 10:38, his object seems to have been to give the Hebrew saints, in their tribulations for Christ’s sake, a mark to distinguish a true believer from a nominal one, and to encourage their confidence under their afflictions. Against all opposition, and under all oppression and persecution for Christ’s sake, the apostle assured them, and he assures all others, that "The just shall live from faith." Apostates, he suggests, there have been and will be; and he declares that the soul of God will have no pleasure in them. When tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and ’by all that are not supported by the principle of faith will be offended. Having started on the principle of works, and having this only for the mainspring of their action, the source of their consolation, and the assurance of their success, they soon act accordingly; they strike their colours, turn their backs from fear, and decline to destruction.” But we," lie says, " are men of faith." This distinguished and precious principle is the source of our life. This is in us an unfailing energy, ever supplying a vital activity; this is a wellspring of strong consolation under the direst calamities suffered for the truth’s sake. Every person of the Godhead is in this pledged and employed on our behalf, and we have herein a divine security for the salvation of our souls.

We take it, then, that every earnest student of the truth must arrive at the conclusion, however this may be at variance with the commonly received interpretation, that in all the three instances in which the apostle has quoted the words of the prophet, "The just shall live by faith," it is not the power nor the act of believing merely that is to be understood by the word faith; but the whole principle so designated, in opposition to that of works. AboutRomans 1:17;Galatians 3:11, it is inconceivable how any other conclusion could have sustained itself in credit for a moment in a reflecting mind; whileHebrews 10:38, appears to bear this meaning only a little less clearly at first sight. But I am not only persuaded that this is the meaning of the word in these instances, I am equally convinced that the same sense belongs to it inHebrews 11:1-40throughout. If by expressing this judgment I should earn for myself an unenviable distinction, I must bear obloquy with what grace I may, consoling myself with the recollection that public opinion has sometimes mistaken wisdom for foolishness ; and, on matures thoughts has changed its mind. However this may be, it is certain that whatever is the meaning of the word in the last two verses of chap.Hebrews 10:1-39, the same must belong to it from beginning to end of chap.Hebrews 11:1-40.

According to my judgment, then, we have in chap.Hebrews 11:1, not an explanation of the nature of belief, but of the practical effect of the principle of faith on the believer’s mind. Upon this principle the believer has a perfect persuasion of things hoped for, and a demonstration of things not seen, of which he has the testimony in the word of faith. Upon this principle these things come to have an assured existence in his mind, and he possesses them by anticipation. Upon no other principle could there be such results respecting these things, hoped for and not seen. Upon the principle of works, which the apostle had mentioned and still carried in his own and his reader’s thoughts, all would be uncertainty and doubt, and these would lead to their natural consequences in time of trial. Instead of a noble resistance, there would be a faltering and a drawing back.

How the apostle would have explained the practical effect of the principle of works in relation to things hoped for and not seen, it would be presumptuous to say; but we may be allowed to suppose, guided by his exposition of that of faith, that it might be in some such terms as these: Now work is the uncertainty (distasis), the opposite of (hypostasis, substantiation) of things hoped for, the problem (problema), that is, in its figurative sense, namely, in our meaning of problem, the opposite of elenchos, demonstration) of things not seen. By this we should understand him to mean that the principle of works which puts all the good it embraces into a man’s possession by the exertion of his own energies in fulfillment of certain required conditions, must have the practical effect of uncertainty in his mind, and this a leading to a faltering in his life. Whereas, on the other hand, as he teaches us, the principle of faith, which puts all the good it embraces into a man’s possession as a thing of favour by the power of God, may well, and ought to have, the practical effect of certainty of mind, and this a leading to a constancy of life.

Moreover, that the word bears our meaning here is further confirmed by the design of the apostle throughout this connection. What was his design? Evidently it was to encourage these Hebrews, suffering for the truth’s sake, not to cast away their confidence. In prosecuting this purpose he, in chap.Hebrews 10:23, encouraged them to hold fast their profession without wavering, from considerations of the faithfulness of God ; in versesHebrews 10:6-31, by the fearfulness of apostasy from the truth ; and in versesHebrews 10:32-34, by the remembrance of what they had so nobly endured heretofore, and of their taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods on the knowledge they had of having in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Having brought these things under review he, in verseHebrews 10:35, earnestly heartens them not to cast away their confidence on account of its recompense of reward. In versesHebrews 10:36-37, lie admits their need of patience, but assures them of the timely interference of God. Then, in versesHebrews 10:38-39, as we have seen, he draws their attention to that great principle which is the source of the just man’s life, an unfeeling energy within him, and a fountain of comfort to him. In chap.Hebrews 11:1, he is still speaking for their encouragement. There is not the slightest break in his discourse. He did not take an extraordinary jump from a subject so thoroughly practical as that of comforting believers in their reproaches, losses, and afflictions, to one so recondite as a metaphysical disquisition on the nature of belief, or of what is commonly called justifying faith. Nay, but still pursuing his course, he taught these sufferers the practical effect of the principle to which he had drawn their attention immediately before and afterward drew to the end of the chapter, and he confirmed this, his teaching, by bringing a cloud of witnesses to testify to its truth by their example. Nor is this subject discontinued until the end of chap.Hebrews 12:1-29.

Dr. Owen says, "The subject spoken of." that is, in chap.Hebrews 11:1"is faith ; that faith whereby the just doth live ; that is faith divine, supernatural, justifying and saving, the faith of God’s elect, the faith that is not of ourselves, that is of the operation of God, wherewith all true believers are endowed from above." So far as we know, the older interpreters are, substantially, of one mind with the learned doctor, But will the apostle’s examples throughout warrant this notion? If this opinion breaks down in one of these examples, will it not justly prejudice it relative to the whole ? Now while there can be no reasonable doubt that all those that are mentioned by name in this chapter, and many of those that are not, were believers in Christ by a supernatural faculty given to them, is it imaginable that all that are spoken of here, as supposed to do something by believing were such ? Does not this notion, upon any reasonable interpretation of it, utterly break down at versesHebrews 11:29-30? Surely there can be no doubt. But let the word be explained as the principle of faith, and there is no difficulty whatever.

Again, however slight at first sight the force of any argument that may be founded on the word " with out," in verseHebrews 11:6, may appear to be, we are mistaken if, on consideration, there is not therein alone power enough to overturn the commonly accepted interpretation of faith in this connection. Nothing can be clearer than that "without" here is understood in the sense of not haring. Neither, indeed, can it be otherwise understood if "faith" is to be considered as that particular faculty or power, so called, which is the gift of God, and is of the operation of God. But to understand " faith " here in this sense, requires the word (choris) which is rendered " without," to take a meaning which none of the lexicons give to it, and which it does not receive in all New Testament usage. Nowhere else in the New Testament where this word is used can it take the meaning of not having, and we have the utmost confidence that it cannot take this sense here. We do not say that charts does not mean “without;" but we do say that without must not, as its representative, be understood as not having. For not having, we should require (me echonta); just as inEphesians 2:12, for " having no hope," in the subjective sense, we have (elpida me echontes). “Without " here can only be rightly understood as apart from, namely, a principle. Just, indeed, as it must be understood in "without law," (without the article,) inRomans 3:21; “without works of law," (without the article,) in verseRomans 3:28; and " without works," in chap.Romans 4:6. Under the fall, and apart from the principle of faith, though as holy as Enoch, it is impossible for any man to please God. Now, all men being in the condition consequent upon having sinned, to him that cometh to God it is necessary that he should not only believe that God is, but that he has also BECOME (ginetai,) a Rewarder of those that diligently seek him. A consummation this, in a world of sinners, respecting the blessings of justification and salvation, that could only be possible upon the principle of faith.

But, further, there is a fact relative to the use of (choris), (without,) which has a most important, a decisive, bearing on the interpretation of "faith " in this passage: namely, No noun when preceded by (choris) ever takes a subjective sense, but always an objective. At least, this is so in all New Testament use. Everyone who perceives the force of this fact will apprehend that, if what is here stated is so, there is an end to all dispute about the commonly accepted meaning of "faith” inHebrews 11:1-40, however confidently this may have been accepted, or widely, or long. It would be easy, by a reference to the opinion of some great man, or by a brush remark, to brush aside, easier far than to confute, the argument for an objective sense of "faith" here, founded on this, it may be thought, unimportant word ; but the more thoroughly this matter is investigated, if ingenuously, I am confident that the more conclusively will it appear that the opinion generally held about " faith " in the whole of this passage is a mistaken one. In the greater number of the occurrences of the word (choris), my assertion will be undisputed; but there are three or four places where this word is found which may, at first sight, beget a doubt of the soundness of my position. One of these isPhp 2:14; " Do all things without murmurings and disputing." But outward expressions of dissatisfaction or displeasure must be the interpretation of murmurings here, and, indeed, everywhere else, not inward repining. Not sentiment is intended, but action. Paul says, in effect, Do all things to one another and to all men, after the’ example of the meek and lowly One, without muttering any expressions of dissatisfaction or displeasure. We have, indeed, a subjective sense given to the word (goggusmos, murmuring,) in1 Peter 4:9, "Use hospitality without grudging." Alford, however, rejects "grudging," and retains" murmuring." But granting, which, however, I do not, that (goggusmos) may receive a subjective sense here, the argument about (choris) will not be affected ; for Peter does not use this word, but aneu. The explanation given by Trench (Authorized Version of New Testament, p. 21), is, however, no doubt, the true one. " (Grudge)," he tells us, had formerly, but has not now, the sense of murmur; and that, having lost this signification, "It no longer conveys to us with accuracy the meaning of the original " in1 Peter 4:9. Respecting (dialogsmon), (disputing,) Paul must be understood, as Alford decides, to have exhorted the Philippians ’to avoid disputing with men, not doubts in themselves.

Another of these places is1 Timothy 2:8, " I will, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting," But (choris), (without,) retains here its true sense of separate from, requiring the meaning and conveying the idea, as Conybeare puts it, of an actual putting away of wrath and disputation; not the not having of wrath and doubt in the mind.

“Without preferring one before another," in1 Timothy 5:21, must not be understood in the sense of not having the sentiment of prejudice ; but apart from any act or appearance of preference. The only other place which seems to call for notice isHebrews 12:14, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." What calls for remark here is the word “holiness." Little, however, requires to be added to Alford’s observation. ("Agiosmos,") he says," is not equivalent to {agiotes}, but is the putting on of it and becoming (agioi)." That is, that {agiosmos}, (sanctification,) the word used here, is not equivalent to (agiotes), (holiness,) but that sanctification is the putting on of holiness and a becoming practically holy; and that, apart from following peace with all men, and the putting on of holiness, no man shall see the Lord.

Duly considered, it will clearly appear that a local sense belongs to (choris), (without,) when it is construed before nouns and pronouns; and that, in the place under consideration, it answers exactly to the true local meaning of en, (in,) as its opposite. {Choris pisteos}, inHebrews 11:6, (apart from faith,) is the precise local contrast of en tauter, (in this, that is, (pistei), faith, in verseHebrews 11:2. We have a strikingly like example of the words en and (choris) inJohn 15:5. “ He that abideth (en emoi) in me, and I in him, the sane bringeth forth much fruit for (choris emou) without me ye can do nothing." Apart from the true local sense of these two words, it is impossible to understand the mind of the writer in either of these passages. What the apostle means inHebrews 11:2, clearly is, In this, that is, in this faith, locally considered, as the sphere of their life, the elders were testified of, or, had a good report. So, on the other hand, in verseHebrews 11:6, he as clearly means that the man who is apart from faith, objectively considered as a law of living between him and his Maker, and as the sphere of his life, he, being a sinner, cannot please God. The only real difficulty in the way of our interpretation lies in verse 3. But truth has ever prevailed over difficulty, and it will overcome in this instance. Now it must be noticed that it is supposed that“faith” here means belief, and "" worlds " the material universe. On this supposition the general opinion rests. This sense of “ worlds " here is necessary to sustain the meaning usually given to " faith." "Worlds" must mean the material universe, because “faith” must mean belief. So it is thought. I doubt. Let us see.

It affords me a real satisfaction to be able to avail myself in this matter of the learning of one whose authority respecting the meaning of the word rendered " worlds " is beyond dispute ; and the pleasure is even increased by the fact that he falls in with the general opinion of " faith " and “ worlds " in this passage. While, therefore, his general teaching on the word translated “worlds" is received with docility and gratitude, his interpretation ofHebrews 11:8, is disputed with the earnestness of conviction in a matter of great importance.

Archbishop Trench in his most interesting and valuable Synonyms of the New Testament, Sect. lix., discriminating between kosmos and aion, says, "The first of these words our translators have rendered ’world’ in every instance but one1 Peter 3:3; the second often, though by no means invariably so; for (not to speak of (eis aiona) seeEphesians 2:2,7;Colossians 1:26. It may be a question whether we might not have made more use of ‘age’ in our version: we have employed it but rarely-only, indeed, in the two places which I have cited last. “Age” may sound to us inadequate now; but it is quite possible that, so used, it would, little by little, have expanded and adapted itself to the larger meaning of the word for which it stood. One must regret that, by this or some other like device, our translators did not mark the difference between (kosmos), the world contemplated under aspects of space, and (aion), the same contemplated under aspects of time."

Further on, speaking of (aion), he says, " Like (kosmos) it has a primary and physical, and then, super induced on this, a secondary and ethical, sense. In its primary, it signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken duration;but essentially time as the condition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence." Here he cites a passage from Theodoret, which may be rendered, thus: Aion is not anything material, but an imaginary something which ever accompanies things that have a created nature. For it is called (aion), from its being the interval that exists from the constitution until the consummation of the (kosmos) world. Aion, therefore, is the time that is inseparably yoked with nature by the Creator." A little further on, speaking ofEphesians 2:2, the Archbishop says, “The last is a particularly interesting passage, for in it both the words which we are discrimating occur together. Bengel excellently remarking: (we give the translation of Bengel by Bryce,) Aion and kosmos differ ;1 Corinthians 2:6,12; 3:18-19. The former regulates the latter, and in a manner gives it form; kosmos is something more, external; aion something more subtle and internal in its character.’ "

After adding more that is interesting of the ethical meaning of aion, the Archbishop has made a most important admission to which it will be necessary to call attention. He says, “It must be freely admitted that there are two passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews which will not range themselves, according to the distinction here drawn between aion and kosmos, namely,Hebrews 1:2, andHebrews 11:3. In both of these aiones are the worlds contemplated, if not entirely, yet beyond question, mainly, under other aspects than those of time. Some indeed, especially modern Socinian expositors, though not without forerunners who had no such motives as theirs, have attempted to explain atones atHebrews 1:2, as the successive dispensations, the chronoi and kairoi of the divine economy. But however plausible this explanation might have been if this verse had stood alone,Hebrews 11:3is decisive that the aiones in both passages can, only be, as we have rendered it, ’the worlds,’ and not ’ the ages.’ " This is a stupendous admission, and one that ought not to have been made except on sufficient grounds. No grounds but a necessity ought to he considered sufficient. Are we, then, shut up to this admission by a necessity? If so, what forms the necessity? We suspect, and of this there can be no doubt, that it is the commonly accepted divinity of the passage which required the Archbishop’s admission, and necessitated his philology to be thumb screwed into compliance. Just because faith here, from a foregone conclusion, must mean belief, aion must mean the material universe. But, on consideration, it will be evident as demonstration that faith here must be understood in the same sense which it takes in the quotation from the prophet in chap.Hebrews 10:38; and we think we have succeeded to put it past question, that there it does not mean the power and exercise of believing, but the principle of faith in opposition to that of, works. Let faith, then, take this, its true sense here, and the necessity to do violence to the learned prelate’s philology, and of investing aion with a new and before unheard of signification, will at once utterly disappear. Is it not a prejudice against any interpretation of a text when one of its most important words is forced to take a wholly new meaning in order to sustain the correctness of the exposition? Now this is just the case here. Not only is an important word of a text required to take an unusual sense to support an interpretation, but a meaning is forced upon it that is wholly unknown to it elsewhere. According to the Archbishop and a more competent philological authority, we suppose, does not exist the history of this word affords no instance of its taking the meaning of the material universe until it was, as he says, but we deny, employed in this sense by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But neither is this all. Another principal word in the text must be made to take a wholly new meaning in order to support the accepted interpretation of “faith “in this connection. Philology must be yet further humbled and coerced to sustain the received theology of this passage. That must submit, because this is established. Yea, with a confidence so nearly universal and completely unquestioning is the latter received, that not to acquiesce in it one may well fear being put outside the pale of rational beings, and, if mentioned at all, spoken of only in such terms as might be suggested by pity or by scorn. Be this as it may, however, we do doubt, and for this further reason. The word rendered ’" framed " in verseHebrews 11:3never takes the meaning of create, or make, in the creative sense, throughout the New Testament, and ought not to have this signification forced upon it here. In every instance in the New Testament where mention is made of creation, the word ktirein, poieih, and genesthai, with their derivatives are constantly employed ; katartizein, the word used here, never. It is surprising that the received theology of this context, in view of the facts we have brought to notice, seems never to have been questioned. Nothing, however, can be more clear ’to our mind than that the accepted exposition of the word faith in this text and connection, when tested by the philology of its own learned advocates, by logic, by the scope of the writer, and by the application of the doctrine taught throughout the passage, wholly fails. No exposition of any word under such conditions can be sustained. In prosecuting our enquiry into this part of our subject yet another step or two, by a further reference to this passage, we do so under a serious conviction of many years’ standing, that there is scarcely a more important word employed in the Scriptures, and hardly one that is more ill understood, not to say misunderstood, than is faith. Perhaps, indeed, it may well be doubted whether so much extravagant folly is blurted out in our pulpits on any subject as on believing; or whether there is throughout the whole field of religious literature more unlearned and learned nonsense written about anything than there is about faith.

It must be clear to all that read the original text that the preposition en (in,) is to be understood as governing pistis (faith) in every instance in which this word is put in the dative case throughoutHebrews 1:1-13:25: Should any doubt this, (en tautei) (in this,) inverseHebrews 11:2, ought to remove all hesitation. Now all our instructors teach us that the primary sense of this preposition is in, within, contained within. From this primary meaning proceed, in the most natural manner, two distinct significations; one, the speck way or means of performing an action; the other, the particular sphere within which an action takes place. It is in the former of these significations that this preposition is accepted so generally, and attended with so much mistake, throughout this connection. "By faith," therefore, instead of in faith has become the rendering, and the interpretation has followed accordingly. By believing, therefore, it is said, by many, have all these wonderful things been done. Others," more hesitating, have felt it to be necessary that there should be distinctions made between efficient and instrumental causes, and upon this subject they have expended some learning; while some of these have at length told us that, properly speaking, faith, that is, in the sense of belief, is not a cause at all: All this seems to arise from, and proceed upon the’ fundamental mistake about the meaning of faith here, which has been already pointed out. If faith, in chap.Hebrews 11:1-40, takes the sense belonging to it in the quotation from the prophet, in chap.Hebrews 10:38, as it ought to do, and must do, to be rightly understood, it will then be seen that en pistei is not to be taken as the means by which, but as the sphere in w1aich something has been done. Harmony will then reign throughout, and difficulty vanishes. All these things that are here predicated of faith, will then have been done within the sphere of, and in accord with the principle of faith, instead of by believing; a notion that, to be tolerated in the mind at all, needs no end of conciliatory explanation; and after all, at its best, it leaves a strong sense of un-satisfaction, not to say dissatisfaction.

Once more: the generally accepted interpretation of faith in verse.Hebrews 11:3, seems also to be logically faulty. “Through faith, we understand," &c., it is usually said; but is faith, or believing, the ground or the means of our understanding? Do we believe in order to understand? Again we doubt. This notion appears to us to be neither good logic nor good divinity. Rather, as it seems to us, we require to understand, in order to believe. Is not the Word of God, as such, received by the understanding on evidence? Need we to be possessed of justifying faith, as this is called here, in order to receive the testimony of God in his Word? Is this justifying faith requisite for us in order to receive God’s testimony of fact, respecting the creation of the material universe? Are those that reject God’s account of the creation excusable because they have not this so-called justifying faith? Moreover, would any man be able to believe this, who possesses justifying faith, if he did not first understand that it was so from God’s testimony? We will take it that each of these questions will suggest with unfailing certainty its own appropriate answer, and that this will be a sufficient refutation of the accepted reasoning on this subject. Happily for the logical credit of the apostle in this matter, we have, inRomans 10:14, an example directly to the point. He there says, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher ?" But it surely does not require proof that a man cannot believe, nor believe in, that of which he has no knowledge. Good Sibbes says, "Faith is an understanding grace; it knows whom it trusts, and for what, and on what grounds it trusts." By a figure of speech, this is beautifully true. Spoken of a believer, it would be true without a figure. Paul, too, knew whom he believed. Having now conducted our enquiry into the acceptableness of the accepted interpretation of faith in this connection to a point where it conclusively appears that it can only be retained upon such terms as the scope of the writer being ignored, philology being again and again violated, divinity making no end of conciliatory explanations, and logic being humbled, we may very well take our leave of it. From the length to which the foregoing observations have been extended, our remaining remarks on pistes (faith) construed with ek (out of) must be brief. This construction occurs several times in connection with justifying. InRomans 3:30, we have "Justify the circumcision by faith." InRomans 5:1, "Being justified by faith." InGalatians 2:16, "We have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ." InGalatians 3:8, " Justify the heathen through faith." And inGalatians 3:24, " Justified by faith." Neither by nor through at all represents the preposition employed by the apostle, and. both are evidently used to sustain the mistaken sense of belief in “faith" which is so commonly accepted. Sinners believe with the heart in order o to righteousness, but they are never said, and never can be said to be justified ek (out of) believing. In every one of the instances quoted, the self-same idea is found. It is the idea of a principle, ground, or source, that is distinguished. from another and a totally different one, out of which a certain proceeding springs, and is completed. Were any argument needed to confirm this view, nothing more could be required beyond what is found in the quotation fromGalatians 2:16. Knowing from the divine testimony that a man is not justified from works of law, but through the faith of Jesus Christ, “ Even we," says the apostle, " have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified from the faith of Christ." Can any man fail to see that the believing of the apostles and the faith of Christ are two broadly distinguished and plainly distinct things? Just as the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel to be from the principle of faith, (which is of free gift from pure favour), in order to belief, (which is the simple reception of the benefit bestowed), so the apostles renounced the principle of works, and became obedient to that of faith. To sustain the common interpretation, namely, justification by believing, in whichever of the senses this term may be commonly understood, the apostle’s words, inGalatians 2:16, should run thus: Even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be just fed from the belief of Christ. According to this rendering of his words we should, indeed, understand him to mean that the justification of himself and his brethren arose out of and was owing to the act of their believing in Christ. But would this be a right rendering? Would this be what the writer intended to convey? Is there a syllable of such teaching to be found in the Book of God? Is anything like this known in the experience of the godly? Can a sinner’s justification arise out of and be owing to his believing in Christ in the nature of the thing’?

It seems to be thought that believing, under grace, must not only supplant working, under works, but that the former is just a substitute for the latter; that is, that believing is introduced into the place of working to accomplish the same thing by a different method. That as, according to the principle of works, a man was to justify himself by working, so, according to the principle of faith, a man is to justify himself by believing. That as righteousness in the former case arose out of a perfect working, so, in the latter, the same thing is to arise out of and to be owing to a certain distinguished act of believing, which has commonly been designated a justifying faith, in distinction from some others which do not, it is said, possess this peculiar excellence. So that, in either case, or in both, a man’s justification is, in fact, to arise out of and to be owing to his own act, whether of working or believing. But are these things so? Upon the principle of works the working, if perfect, made the man’s righteousness; but does believing, upon the principle of faith, do this even when this act takes its most perfect form? If not, will it not appear, then, that the province and power of believing are altogether different from those of working? When a man works in order to righteousness it is to make or maintain it; but when he believes in order to righteousness there is nothing of the kind in his thoughts or intentions. When a man ceases working and commences believing in order to righteousness, he renounces the principle of works and acquiesces in that of faith, and he looks, not to make a righteousness for himself, but to receive one of the Lord, and so to be made righteous ; that is, to be "justified freely by his grace." In every view of it, the notion of a sinner being justified out of his own act of believing is a pure fallacy. True, there are many who attribute no justifying virtue to believing, although they speak of a justifying faith. But, why then, in the sense of believing, speak of faith as justifying at all, if believing does not justify? Justifying faith is a wholly unscriptural term; in the sense of believing it is susceptible of no true interpretation, it expresses very badly the most harmless of its accepted meanings, it is in a high degree misleading on a most important subject, and it would be every way well if it fell into disuse. Unscriptural and misleading as this term is, there can be little doubt, however, that it has arisen from the scriptural one, "justified by faith;" still it nevertheless owes its existence to the fundamental mistake, in the interpretation of the words whence it arises, of confounding principle and practice. Moreover, there is no just ground to doubt that in every instance, without exception, in which Paul speaks of " works," of " works of law," and of " faith," in connection with justification, principle is intended and not practice ; and there is as little ground to question that he is almost universally interpreted as speaking of practice and not principle. Whoever so mistakes the apostle’s meaning can never understand his teaching on this great subject until the error is corrected. Let the matter be well weighed, and it will most evidently appear that as justified by believing cannot be the meaning of "justified (ek pisteos) from faith," in the quotation fromGalatians 2:16, so neither is it in any one of the others. No doubt the faith of Christ implies a believing in him. Each of these, indeed, will always imply the other; but one is not the other, and they ought never to be confounded.

We have other examples of this construction and meaning in the term Righteousness which is of faith " found inRomans 9:30,6. This term does not at all mean that men are justified from believing, as has been already said, and it means very much more than that men believe in order to righteousness. The righteousness, which is of faith, is just that element of God’s salvation which is essential to the justification of sinners. As it is the righteousness of faith, it is to be understood as springing out of that principle which is so designated, and which is everywhere opposed in the Scriptures-to that which bears the character and name of works.

InRomans 3:26, we have another example. As nothing can more decisively show, so nothing, perhaps, has contributed more strongly to give, the bias of general opinion in favour of belief for faith, than what we find here. "Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus " we read ; "Justifier of him that is of the faith of Jesus " is what Paul said, But where lies the difference ?

Just here. Paul speaks of the faith of Jesus, and men interpret this of the belief of believers. Hence so much mistake and misleading on this subject. No doubt they who are of the faith of Jesus are believers on him ; but these things are very far from being identical, and the terms from being interchangeable, and their difference is important. What the apostle teaches here is, that there are some men who are of the works of law, and others who are of the faith of Jesus. That not one individual who is of the works of law shall be justified before God; verseRomans 3:20. That the righteousness of God, which is brought to pass through that wondrous scheme of faith which has Christ for its Beginner and Perfecter, is manifested as being unto and upon all them that believe. That, according to this scheme, sinners are justified freely by grace, on account of the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. That God set forth his Son, through means of this scheme of faith, as a propitiation by his blood, in order to the manifestation of his righteousness, that he might appear to be just, and made known to be the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus. It is not said here that God is the justifier of the sinner who believes in Jesus, but of him who is already of the faith of Jesus, as opposed to them who are of the works of law.

Another example is found in the term “of faith," without the addition of the distinctive designation “of Jesus," but inclusive of it. This may be found inGalatians 3:7, " They which are of faith;" and again, in verseGalatians 3:9, "They which be of faith." No doubt these are believers; but that is not what is asserted and taught here. What is taught is, that these persons are discriminated as belonging to a certain class that adheres to a particular principle in religion, which is designated by the word “faith," or the term “faith of Jesus."

So, again, when the apostle tells us " The law is not of faith,"Galatians 3:12; he teaches us that the principle of law is not only not identical with that of faith, but that it is the precise opposite.

Another example, about which a good deal of confusion seems to prevail, is found inGalatians 5:5. Belief, as the meaning of faith in this verse, is wholly out of question wrong. The Galatians had gone from grace to law, from the principle of faith to that of works in the matter of justification. Paul gave them a proof of this defection, by showing them the example of himself and brethren. "For we," he says, "by the Spirit," (the teaching and power of the Holy Ghost) "from faith," (the principle, as opposed to works, from which every blessing of salvation arises)” wait for the hope of righteousness." To make these words represent the ilea of waiting for the hope of righteousness by believing is simply a monstrous perversion of meaning.

Another noteworthy example is that inGalatians 3:22" The promise by faith of Jesus Christ." Here we have another instance of a distinction between the faith of Jesus Christ and the believing of believers. The apostle is not speaking here of some promise which comes into possession by means of belief in Christ, and of its being given to them that believe at the time of their believing. Plainly, what he teaches is, that the Scripture has shut up the whole world under sin, and consequently, under condemnation, and, therefore, wholly without the pale of works of law respecting the attainment of righteousness, that the promise which arises out of the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. The faith of Jesus Christ, so designated because he is its Beginner and Perfecter, is the source out of which the promise arises to them that believe. In Christ, the promise was made, and out of the faith of Christ, in direct opposition to works, it strings.

Only one other instance remains, namely, that inJames 2:24." Not of faith only." How a man may be said to be justified from the principle of works, and from that of faith too, will present no difficulty to him that has mastered the instruction of the Word on the provinces of these principles in the different economies which have been established between man and his Maker and Saviour; but to him that has not, this matter will be a Gordian knot which can be no more cut than untied. Faith and works here, are the principles or grounds of a man’s justification; they are not identical with believing and working, and ought not to be so interpreted. The conclusion arrived at is, therefore, that in no one instance of the word pistis (faith) governed by ek (out of) is the sense of believing to be understood.

It will be instructive to observe that out of the twenty instances of this construction brought to notice, in just half of them the preposition is rendered "by," seven times “of," once " from," and once " through." Rendered “by," and " through," there can be no doubt that the noun governed is commonly understood as an instrument, and that instrument, the believing of believers. So interpreted and accepted, no term that affects theological truth so widely has ever, perhaps, been misunderstood with worse effect. Interpreted as the instrument of reception, utterly aside as this is from the meaning of the term, the interpretation is comparatively harmless. When, as is most general, it is spoken of as an instrument of acquirement, and the exercise of it a duty, the mischievousness of the teaching cannot be overrated; but when, as by Dr. Macknight, its exercise is expounded as equal to a complete performance of duty, and will be rewarded accordingly, the interpretation is a little too vicious to be much hurtful. When the preposition is rendered "of," as in the example “righteousness of faith," there is still a pertinacious clinging to believing. It is then the righteousness which, as some, is received by believing; or, as others, which is to be acquired or appropriated by anybody if he will only believe ; or, as others, believing will be reckoned as an equivalent to a complete performance of duty. What but the perverseness of preconception could warp candid minds enough to rest in the crookedness of such twisted meanings? Paul is speaking of the source of righteousness, not of its reception. No doubt righteousness is received upon the same principle that it is bestowed; but when we read of the righteousness which is from faith, in evident distinction from another that is from works, we are not to understand faith to be the instrument of the reception or acquirement of the blessing, but the nature of its source. Even in the one solitary instance of the most correct rendering of the preposition, namely, "from,"Romans 1:17, Mr. Haldane will have it `I by," and faith, that is, believing, the instrument of reception. Alford adopts De Wette’s notion of faith being the subjective ground; and others what not of the same description. But objective ground, or source, or principle, the evident teaching of the apostle, men will not see in this construction. Why is this? Is it an unwillingness that the edifice of salvation, from foundation to top stone, should be wholly of grace? When will men be content that God Almighty should do something completely for them, that shall be wholly of grace?