He will have it, that the faith set forth in this whole chapter, is concerning a faith in the abstract, and not a specific faith in the Messiah. An invention as little grounded in the gospel, as goodness in the abstract, in opposition to specific goodness. Goodness in the abstract, if it hath any meaning, is all goodness, and therefore must have every species of goodness in it; so faith in the abstract, if it hath any meaning, is all faith, and therefore must have every species of faith in it.
His first reason, why this whole chapter is concerning a faith in the abstract, and not a faith in the Messiah, is taken from that definition of faith; “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
And yet this very definition, if it had been intended to give the most distinct idea of the nature of faith in the Messiah, could not have been better expressed, for there is every thing in it that can fully set forth that very faith. For if faith in a Messiah to come, must be a faith in things hoped for, and a reliance upon the certainty of things not seen; if this, and nothing but this, can be a true faith in a Messiah to come, how could it be more directly pointed at, than by making it to be _the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen_?
For in this definition, not only the true object, but the true efficacy of faith in the Messiah is set forth, in that it is made to be such a real foretaste, and participation of things hoped for, and not seen, as is justly called, the very substance and evidence of them.
_Again_, the Doctor appeals to the following words, as proof, that the faith described in this chapter, is not a faith in the Messiah, “He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of all those that diligently seek him.” Which words contain neither more nor less, than if it had been said, “He that cometh to God, must believe that he is a fulfiller of his promises to all those that truly believe in him, and them: for God cannot be considered as a rewarder of mankind, in any other sense, than as he is a fulfiller of his promises made to mankind in the covenant of a Messiah.” For God could not give, nor man receive any rewards or blessings, but in and through the one Mediator. Therefore to believe in God, as a rewarder, and blesser, is the very truth, and reality of a right faith in the Messiah.
The Doctor has another proof, which he says, puts the matter out of all doubt. In this chapter it is said, By faith _Rahab_ the harlot escaped, by faith the _Israelites_ passed through the red sea, by faith the walls of _Jericho_ fell down. “But was any of this, a faith in Jesus the Messiah?”
Now not to rob this argumentation of any of its strength, it must be allowed to proceed thus.
_Joshua_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, or the promises of God made to his forefathers. But why so? Because by his faith the walls of _Jericho_ fell down.
Just as theologically argued, as if it had been said, _Abel_’s faith could not be a faith in the seed of the woman, promised to his parents; because by his faith “he offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than _Cain_.”
_Enoch_’s faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his faith he was taken up to God.
_Abraham_’s faith could not be in the Messiah, because by his faith, “He sojourned in a strange country, chose to dwell in tents, and looked for a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” His faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his _faith he offered up_ Isaac, _his only begotten son_.
Having set the Doctor’s argument in its best light, no more need be said about the worth of it.
At last comes his invincible argument, which if it was as strong, as he gives out, all that went before might have been spared.
“To evince it impossible, says the Doctor, that faith in the Messiah, should be meant by the faith in this chapter, the apostle expressly saith, that all those, to whom he assigns this faith, had not received the promises; therefore they could not have faith in that, which was never proposed to their faith. For how should they believe on him, of whom they had not heard?”
Now if this argument has any good logic in it, it must follow, that no one, whether patriarch or prophet, before, or after the law, ever had, or could have faith in the Messiah, for all who died before the birth of Christ, must have died without receiving the promises, which were then first received, when good old _Simeon_ could sing, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.”
But St. _Paul_, speaking to the _Jews_, saith, “Behold, we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same to us their children.”