FROM

THE

E V A N G E L I S T ,

BY WALTER SCOTT.

Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept!"

--1 Cor. xv. 20.

PAUL.

NO. 2.]	CARTHAGE, O. FEBRUARY 2, 1835.	[VOL. IV.

      It is generally admitted that the words faith and knowledge represent ideas wholly different. It is agreed that the latter relates to the conviction which we have of the existence and attributes of objects actually presented to the senses, and that the former expresses our confidence in the reality of things unseen. It is true that some speakers and writers use these words indifferently [29] owing to haste and carelessness, or a confused and imperfect knowledge of language, but all the standard writers and authorities, human and divine, literary and scientific, political and religious, poets, philosophers, prophets and apostles, theologians and lexicographers, agree that knowledge regards our actual experience, while faith relates to things unseen whether past or future. This is a very important distinction, and could it be duly impressed upon the religious world, it would tend greatly to promote propriety of language, justness of thought, and unanimity of sentiment in the great matters of Christianity. For although no one has denied the propriety of the distinction, or presumed to assert that we can have actual knowledge of things which we have never seen, touched, tasted or handled; or that we merely believe in the existence and qualities of those objects with which our senses are conversant, yet men generally do not seem to perceive the consequences which unavoidably result from definitions so obviously necessary to a correct understanding of these terms.

      It is probable nevertheless that many persons suppose the definition of the term faith to be yet a matter of dispute, and imagine that the great controversy carried on for centuries respecting faith, has been chiefly or entirely about the meaning of the word. On this account, doubtless, so much pains have been taken to prove that the definition of faith furnished by the apostle in Heb. is the true one, and for the same reason this definition has been, so triumphantly arrayed against the doctrines of the schools concerning faith. But which of the opposers of the original gospel has ever declared that Paul's definition of faith is incorrect, and attempted to controvert it? Who has ever asserted that faith is not the evidence of things unseen? On the contrary, does not every one admit that faith relates exclusively to invisible things?

      If we be asked then, what has been the point at issue? What has the controversy been about? we answer--not the definition, but the origin of faith. All agree that the definition is correct, and it is the origin of faith,--the means by which the principle is implanted in the human mind, that has been and continues to be the great subject of disputation.

      As it is a very common error with men to confound things that are different, this very obvious distinction between the origin and nature of faith has not been sufficiently attended to, and it is certain that, whether from this cause, or from an overweening desire to sustain a darling dogma, or, which is more likely, from both these causes combined, many have supposed themselves engaged in proving what faith is, when they have merely been endeavouring to show how it is produced. These nevertheless are quite different matters, as it is one thing to describe a watch, and quite another to tell us how it is formed. This circumstance however, tends to show that the origin of faith is the real subject of controversy, for when those who profess to believe that faith is wrought in the heart by a special and supernatural influence, reply to the question, What is faith? by declaring its origin--that it is the gift of God &c. instead of giving a definition of the principle, does it not prove that the metaphysical theories concerning the means by [30] which faith is produced, form the burden of their thoughts, and fill their minds to the exclusion even of common sense and common reason, since they seem incapable, from their zeal to assert their disputed tenets, of distinguishing between a gift, and the means through which that gift is obtained? On this account it is that the framers of the catechism do not attempt to answer the question by giving a definition of the principle of faith, but after asking "What is justifying faith?" immediately declare that it is "a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God."

      Paul however was no sectarian, had no favorite dogmas to sustain, and therefore did not need to parade any peculiar views of the origin of faith when professing to give a definition of the simple term. He confines himself to the question, first defining the principle itself, and then detailing its effects when put into action. He declares that it is the confidence¹ of things hoped for--that is, the confidence or assurance which we have of the existence of the things for which we hope, which things are of course future and unseen. As faith, however, looks backward

as well as forward to the ages yet to come, the apostle immediately adds that it is the evidence or assurance which we have of things not seen; which is a more general account of it, and will apply equally to the future and the past.

      Respecting the correctness then of this definition we repeat there is no controversy, for whenever the opposers of ancient Christianity can be confined to the term itself, they agree that it relates to things unseen. We wish the reader to bear this in mind, as we shall make an important use of it presently; and in the mean time, having found what faith is, we will proceed to say a few things concerning the means through which it is obtained.

      Different theories of the origin of faith are held by the religious world. Of these the most prevalent is that the Holy Spirit must first be given, and that faith is produced in the heart by a special and peculiar divine influence, or in other words that it is an inward and spiritual grace wrought in the heart irrespective and independent of any thing external. This doctrine forms the nucleus of corrupt Christianity, and with certain modifications is the distinguishing characteristic of most, if not all, the sects in Christendom. We dissent from it however, and will now endeavour to prove that this dogma is contrary both to the scriptures and to reason.

      Every one knows that man is a creature possessed of five senses; seeing, hearing, feeling, taste and smell, which constitute the only avenues through which he can receive ideas. Of these the three latter, smell, taste and touch, relate chiefly to the body, while the two former, seeing and hearing have a more special reference to the mind, and it is through these that the intellectual principle is chiefly addressed. Of all the senses, if we may be permitted to compare qualities each so admirable and excellent, that of seeing is the most perfect and delightful. Possessed of a more extended range, rejoicing in light that [31] pure effluence of eternal glory, embracing at once the distant landscape, the deep extensive forest, and the lofty mountain towering to the heavens, and the heavens themselves; and at the same time able to contemplate the minute insect which feeds upon the tender filaments of the plant that springs at our feet, the pleasurable sensations we experience in its exercise, are more enduring and more exquisite than those enjoyed through the medium of any of the other sense. The information also which we receive through this faculty we are accustomed to regard as in the highest degree certain: and although we sometimes experience singular optical illusions, yet so true are its decisions in the general, that ocular demonstration is commonly and with the greatest propriety regarded as conclusive evidence. Thus Job says, comparing as it were the relative merits of the two great avenues to reason, 'I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye, seeth thee.' Job, xlii. 5.

      As it regards certainty, however, this sense is equalled if not surpassed by that of touch, which is usually called in to aid the eyes and correct or corroborate the impressions received through them. By the concurrent action of these two senses with any of the others, the highest possible degree of certainty may be attained. It is on this account that one of the apostles in order to denote the infallibility of their testimony, informs us that they 'declared what their ears had heard, what they had seen with their eyes, and what their hands had handled.'

      Each of the senses has certain peculiar objects or attributes upon which alone it can be exercised. Taste detects sapidity; the sense of smell discovers odours, and the ear perceives sounds. The eye and the touch take a wider range, and distinguish not one property of matter merely but several,--the former marking the form, attitude, colour, relative situation &c. of objects, and the latter informing us of their hardness, figure, smoothness, size &c. But each sense must be exercised within its appropriate boundaries, since the eye cannot detect sounds, nor the ear odours, nor can the idea of colour be received through the taste, nor that of smell through the touch: nevertheless ideas of certain objects may be presented to the mind through more than one sense, as through the eye by the object itself, or through the ear by a description, if the object be out of sight.

      We wish the reader then to attend to these established truths,--1st, that the five senses are the only avenues to the mind of which we know any thing; 2nd, that each sense has its own peculiar sphere of action; and, 3d, that the assurance which we have of the existence or attributes of things actually presented to the senses is called knowledge. Faith then is distinguished from knowledge by this that it is the confidence we have in the existence of things unseen:--things past, at a distance out of view, or in the future, none of which of course can be really presented to, or brought into actual contact with any of the senses.

      We will now offer one argument against the popular views of the origin of faith, and lest this article should extend to an unreasonable length, we will at present merely state the argument.

      The popular doctrine is that faith (that is the faith of the gospel of Christ, for to this our present inquiry is confined) is produced either by having the objects of faith brought within the range of the action of the senses, as seeing [32] the Saviour &c.--or by a strong and overpowering feeling excited within the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit--in other words, that faith comes by seeing or feeling, by actual experience, or to carry it out to its legitimate issue, that faith is neither more nor less than knowledge.

      But we have shown that faith and knowledge are two different matters; and have proved that faith is the assurance which we have of things unseen, 1st, from the fact of its being thus defined by all standard human authorities. 2nd, from its being thus defined by the Apostle Paul, and 3dly, from its not having been disproved or even denied by our opponents, but on the contrary fully admitted by them, since the only controversy has been about how it comes.

      We argue therefore, that since faith relates exclusively to things unseen which of course are not subjected to the direct action of any of our senses it follows as a necessary consequence that the only testimony which we can have respecting these unseen things must be presented to the EAR through the medium of words spoken² or in the language of Paul (whose account of the origin of faith comports precisely with his definition of the principle) that 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, from the necessity of the case since it is impossible for the faith of the gospel to come in any other way.

      ^a From Edward Young's "The Complaint, or Night Thoughts on Life, Death, and Immortality" (1742).--E.S.

[The Evangelist 4 (February 1835): 29-33.]

      Robert Richardson's "Faith Cometh by Hearing" was first published in The Evangelist, Vol. 4, No. 2, February 1835. The electronic version of this essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1980) of The Evangelist, ed. Walter Scott (Cincinnati, OH: Walter Scott, 1835), pp. 29-33. The text has been scanned by Colvil Smith and formatted by Ernie Stefanik.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. In the printed text, footnotes are indicated by asterisks; in the electronic text, they are treated as sequentially numbered endnotes. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

 Page       Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 32:     occular [ ocular
 p. 33:     2nd [ 2nd,
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Created 8 September 2000.