# Knowledge, Assent, Trust--elements of faith?



## VictorBravo (Apr 2, 2014)

In another thread on hyper-calvinism, a different topic came up discussing the elements of faith.

Historically, reformed theologians considered faith to have three essential parts: notitia, or “knowledge”; assensus, or “assent”; and fiducia, or “trust."

Gordon Clark took issue with this definition, primarily on the grounds that assent included trust. This causes controversy even to this day.

I've read Gordon Clark's defense of this and I am not of the group that thinks he taught Sandemanianism (mere intellectual assent is sufficient for saving faith). I do think, however, that he can be understood that way, and on this issue there was a potential recklessness of teaching.

But I offer something else: anecdotal evidence that trust is different from assent. I take it from my own experience. God did not bring me to saving faith until my 40s. Before that, I had read Scripture, and I had even come to believe it was true. I had no doubt that Christ was a real human, Son of God, who walked on earth, was killed, and was resurrected.

But, that didn't do much of anything in my case, because I was quite confident that I did not need to rely upon Christ for my own sin. I was arrogantly confident that God would either leave me alone, or that I could argue with him about fairness on judgment day.

Not exactly a Christian frame of mind, is it? I had knowledge and assent, but no trust. It was a work God's Spirit to press me against the wall on the issue, and cause me to submit in sackcloth and ashes.

I think on a practical and pastoral level, the three elements need to be embraced, examined, and applied.


----------



## MW (Apr 2, 2014)

Thankyou, Vic, for showing the difference experientially. This is very important.

For those interested in looking at Gordon Clark's view, the following may be of some assistance pro and con:

Gordon Clark and Sandemanianism | Banner of Truth

My own view is that Dr. Clark was in error because he overreacted to the liberal denial of propositional truth by denying personal truth altogether. This created problems for his psychology, Christology, and soteriology. People are not propositions. A man is not the sum total of the propositions he assents to. Christ as a person cannot be reduced to what He propositionally knew. People are not saved by assenting to propositions. Christ is a Person. The apostle Paul taught Timothy the importance of holding fast the form of sound words but also knew WHOM he believed. He gave thanks to God for His unspeakable gift. He prayed for the Ephesians to know that which passeth knowledge. The personal element should not be denied. Our faith includes the propositional, but it goes further. By means of it the Holy Spirit unites us to the person of Christ, so that what is His by covenant becomes ours in Him.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2014)

I hope that this thread stays open "for a while". I would like to contribute to it but I have a my sons arriving home from some very important Dr. appointments and I do not wish to enter into this discussion unless I am fully engaged.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 2, 2014)

Thanks, Vic. I appreciate your generosity with Dr. Clark. He seems from my reading of him to commit the Sandemanian error, but whether he does or is simply unclear and confused, he's clearly wrong on the matter, which is an important matter indeed. I think that Matthew is right that GC was concerned about the liberal evacuation of knowledge from faith (the propositional) and reacted by making the opposite error, denying the personal. 

I, too, grew up believing the truth of the gospel. I was reared in a Calvinistic Baptist milieu. I did not come to a justifying faith in Christ until I was 17, but I certainly knew who Jesus was, what he did, and believed intellectually long before I came to trust Christ alone. In fact, I would argue the five points of Calvinism with challengers. I knew that I needed to be saved and that there was no other Savior. But I did not trust Him as my only Lord and Savior. I knew that I did not trust Him. 

Now one may say that I did not really believe, that if I did, I would have trusted Him. But I did have a historical faith. I believed in the truth of the gospel (propositional) but did not trust the One about whom the gospel spoke (personal). I did not have, in other words, a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the import of _fiducia_: we must give ourselves to Him who gave Himself for us. I am thankful more than I can ever say that He too pressed me to trust Him and Him alone. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 2, 2014)

earl40 said:


> I hope that this thread stays open "for a while". I would like to contribute to it but I have a my sons arriving home from some very important Dr. appointments and I do not wish to enter into this discussion unless I am fully engaged.



Earl, I didn't say it in the intro of the thread, but I started it just for you. 

Well, also because I wanted to say something too.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2014)

Rats, I was planning to arbitrarily close it in 10 minutes for no reason at all.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 2, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> My own view is that Dr. Clark was in error because he overreacted to the liberal denial of propositional truth by denying personal truth altogether. This created problems for his psychology, Christology, and soteriology. People are not propositions.



And thank you for this observation. It gets to the heart of my reservations about Clark's view, or at least how he is presented these days. I think Dr. Clark was unduly nervous about the subjective effects of sin and grace--ignoring clear Scriptural demands to recognize this dynamic.



Alan D. Strange said:


> I appreciate your generosity with Dr. Clark. He seems from my reading of him to commit the Sandemanian error, but whether he does or is simply unclear and confused, he's clearly wrong on the matter, which is an important matter indeed.



Agreed. It's hard for me to malign Dr. Clark, having listened to many recorded lectures that seem to present a more balanced and warm teacher. But I have to agree that the result of this teaching leads to false assurance. I know first-hand how easy it is to play a legal game with justification ("I believe--OK? Now quit talking to me about sin.")

On the other hand, I'm dealing with folks right now who are anxious about their faith because of their lack of "feeling" saved. Certainly mere intellectual argument is not the answer, and neither is flighty emotion. 

I suppose my main point is that it is easy to fall into intellectual exercises and ignore the plain issue: what is faith and do I have it? It seems that a child can understand it without trouble, and yet a well-developed mind can twist itself into knots too difficult for itself to identify. Clark made his argument in the rarefied philosophical realm. Meanwhile, the rest of us may be tempted to run with his observations and lead others astray.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> I suppose my main point is that it is easy to fall into intellectual exercises and ignore the plain issue: what is faith and do I have it? It seems that a child can understand it without trouble, and yet a well-developed mind can twist itself into knots too difficult for itself to identify.


I think this touches on the subject at hand. From your testamony above..."I had no doubt that Christ was a real human, Son of God, who walked on earth, was killed, and was resurrected. But, that didn't do much of anything in my case, because I was quite confident that I did not need to rely upon Christ for my own sin."
Not to dispute your lack of faith before you placed your personal trust in the facts you say you already assented to. May I ask if you did not assent to all of Romans 10:9? "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." In other words, you appeared to say you really did believe that He rose from the dead before you believe you came to real faith. So you assented to half of Romans 10:19 (rose from the dead) but did not assent to Jesus being Lord? Is that correct?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

py3ak said:


> Rats, I was planning to arbitrarily close it in 10 minutes for no reason at all.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Not to dispute your lack of faith before you placed your personal trust in the facts you say you already assented to. May I ask if you did not assent to all of Romans 10:9? "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." In other words, you appeared to say you really did believe that He rose from the dead before you believe you came to real faith. So you assented to half of Romans 10:19 (rose from the dead) but did not assent to Jesus being Lord? Is that correct?



It went deeper than that. I assented to all of the facts, including Romans 10:9. I accepted that they were true.

But I could not allow myself to submit to those facts. I could indeed confess with my mouth the words, but I refused to accept that I needed such salvation. In other words, I could say, in effect, "I know God says such things, and God is true, but they don't apply to me--I am my own standard."


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to dispute your lack of faith before you placed your personal trust in the facts you say you already assented to. May I ask if you did not assent to all of Romans 10:9? "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." In other words, you appeared to say you really did believe that He rose from the dead before you believe you came to real faith. So you assented to half of Romans 10:19 (rose from the dead) but did not assent to Jesus being Lord? Is that correct?
> ...



Now this is the "problem". I used quotation marks because I in no way deny that saving faith does indeed contain all 3 elements. When you say you assented to all of Romans 10:9 before you trusted you seem to contradict this later when you said it did not apply to you. What I see is that you did not assent to the Lordship of Jesus even though you said you assented.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 3, 2014)

That's your job Ruben.
On the puritan understanding of historical faith see this from Durham on Isaiah 53.
Unsaving Faith - Blogs - The PuritanBoard


py3ak said:


> Rats, I was planning to arbitrarily close it in 10 minutes for no reason at all.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That's your job Ruben.
> On the puritan understanding of historical faith see this from Durham on Isaiah 53.
> Unsaving Faith - Blogs - The PuritanBoard
> 
> ...



What are your thoughts on those who saw our Lord risen from he dead? Do you think any of those had mere historical faith?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

Here is what Calvin wrote concerning James 2:19 and how this show me one ought not to use this verse to explain what saving faith is.

19 Thou believest that there is one God. From this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but _of the common knowledge of God_, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven;


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> you seem to contradict this later when you said it did not apply to you. What I see is that you did not assent to the Lordship of Jesus even though you said you assented.



Call it what you want, Earl. I assented to the teaching. I acknowledged the claim, and I even believed that Jesus himself said that "no one comes to the Father but by me." I figured it was true. I knew that Christ Jesus claimed Lordship over all things.

All of that I could fairly say I assented to. But in my rebellion I put more faith in my own autonomy, even coming to the point of realizing that I (in my own self deception) was ready to go one-on-one with God himself. I had the perverse frame of mind that I, of all people, would be a special exception.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > you seem to contradict this later when you said it did not apply to you. What I see is that you did not assent to the Lordship of Jesus even though you said you assented.
> ...



I see where you are coming from though from your "perverse frame of mind" you may have thought you assented to Romans 10:9. There is no way one can really assent to 10:9 and not have some trust. Please take this in all charity.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 3, 2014)

I don't know. 


earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > That's your job Ruben.
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 3, 2014)

I believe I had historical faith until the age of 13 when I believed in Christ as my own Lord and Saviour.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 3, 2014)

Earl, I also grew up assenting to everything I was taught about the truth. I even gave my testimony a number of times. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realised -- not that I doubted any of it, not even my need of a Saviour or my destiny in hell for rejecting the Saviour -- but that I deeply hated God. I did not trust Him with my life. I don't enjoy thinking of it now for various reasons, the biggest one being that I feel like even saying I hated God at one time is to betray my best and truest friend. But there is a very real danger of assenting without trust, perhaps especially where people grow up believing the Bible but not really seeking the Lord. This doesn't mean that all children in Christian homes are so of course. My sister has, I think, always trusted Christ. (In her early life, she grappled with much more doubt than I did: I have struggled with much more doubt since my conversion.)


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > That's your job Ruben.
> ...





> Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep (I Corinthians 5:6)





> Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. (Matthew 28:17, ESV)



If this is the same incident, then some of the five hundred doubted.

*Cf.*


> But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29-31)





> Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation......So from that day on they made plans to put him to death. (John 11:45-48, 53)





> When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. (John 12:9-11)


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> I believe I had historical faith until the age of 13 when I believed in Christ as my own Lord and Saviour.



The nice sweet tasting thing is that all here in this thread and those here at PB that I know posses all three elements now.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> Earl, I also grew up assenting to everything I was taught about the truth. I even gave my testimony a number of times. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realised -- not that I doubted any of it, not even my need of a Saviour or my destiny in hell for rejecting the Saviour -- but that I deeply hated God. I did not trust Him with my life. I don't enjoy thinking of it now for various reasons, the biggest one being that I feel like even saying I hated God at one time is to betray my best and truest friend. But there is a very real danger of assenting without trust, perhaps especially where people grow up believing the Bible but not really seeking the Lord. This doesn't mean that all children in Christian homes are so of course. My sister has, I think, always trusted Christ. (In her early life, she grappled with much more doubt than I did: I have struggled with much more doubt since my conversion.)



All I am saying is that one cannot really "assent" to Romans 10:9 without trust. I think we all here may have a hard time knowing exactly when we were regenerated especially those raised around The Gospel since birth. This may come down to assurance and how a lack there of such may be the reason many think they were not saved at a point in time.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...



Doubted the reports. 

14 Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, _because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen._


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

One can assent that God is one and not be saved, but one cannot assent to Romans 10:9 and not be saved. James did not use the same words Paul did. For what assurance would we have if James wrote "the demons believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead" as describing what saving faith is? Of course it is deeper than that and I realize James is describing what real faith looks like to men. They of course do believe such and know they are damned but we are not demons and if we (humans) believe Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead we will be saved. I assent _and trust_ this and know one cannot really assent to this with having some trust.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2014)

We assent to propositions; we trust persons. The Gospel calls upon us to receive Christ Jesus the Lord. Salvation is by faith in the Person, Work, Offices, and Benefits of Christ, not by giving assent to a Creed.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> We assent to propositions; we trust persons. The Gospel calls upon us to receive Christ Jesus the Lord. Salvation is by faith in the Person, Work, Offices, and Benefits of Christ, not by giving assent to a Creed.



We also assent and trust propositions about persons.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> I see where you are coming from though from your "perverse frame of mind" you may have thought you assented to Romans 10:9. There is no way one can really assent to 10:9 and not have some trust. Please take this in all charity.



So taken. I've always known you to be gentle and charitable, Earl.

My main concern with trying to combine trust and assent is in how one deals with sinners in rebellion. In my former state, if someone asked me, "do you know the Gospel and agree with it?", I'd say, "yes." Then, if my questioner were astute and had a lot of patience, he could explore what I meant by the phrase "agree with." I could spend hours skillfully evading the question.

On the other hand, if my questioner simply asked, "do you know the gospel, agree with it, and trust in Christ alone?", I would be trapped. I could not answer the last phrase positively, and my state would be exposed.

So the elements are indeed very helpful and useful.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 3, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> So the elements are indeed very helpful and useful.



I agree totally.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2014)

earl40 said:


> We also assent and trust propositions about persons.



For truth to correspond to reality there must be persons and things about which every proposition gives descriptive information. The knowledge is one thing and the reality is another. When we trust the knowledge we are really only trusting something of ourselves -- our knowledge. When we trust the person or thing that is known then we truly have faith in that person or thing. Take some time to think about it. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not faith in our knowledge of Him but faith in Him.


----------



## Claudiu (Apr 3, 2014)

Very good! Thanks for sharing brother!


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 3, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> When we trust the knowledge we are really only trusting something of ourselves -- our knowledge. When we trust the person or thing that is known then we truly have faith in that person or thing.



Is this why assent can even thrive (and did in my case) on pride -- whereas trust in someone else cuts across pride rather violently?


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> Is this why assent can even thrive (and did in my case) on pride -- whereas trust in someone else cuts across pride rather violently?



That is likely. Finding worth in the higher object of faith is a necessary accompaniment of faith. Hence we are to glory in the Lord. When we glory in other things our sense of worth becomes misplaced. So when we glory in knowledge, besides missing the purpose for which knowledge is "given," the temporal nature of the object makes it possible for one to set himself up above another's attainments.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 3, 2014)

I was in the precisely same boat as Vic. And Matthew is correct: saving faith is faith in Christ not faith in a body of knowledge about Him. 

The Scriptures make this clear as do the all the Reformers and the Reformed confessions. This is no small matter and not something with which we safely differ. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## kodos (Apr 4, 2014)

A good illustration in my life in mental assent vs. faith that affects my volition is when it comes to the promises of God. For instance, I can give mental assent to this entire passage. I believe that this is the Word of God to me, and I give mental assent to it (Matthew 6)



> 25*“Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26*Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27*Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
> 28*“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29*and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30*Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
> 31*“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32*For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33*But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34*Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.



However, when facing calamity, job loss, etc. and worries start to creep up - I find myself mentally assenting to this but often falling into the chastisement of Jesus (O you of little faith) as I find truly how deep my trust in Him really is. For me, this has always been a good illustration of the difference between mental assent and faith and trust in Jesus.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 4, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > We also assent and trust propositions about persons.
> ...



Our trust is in Jesus (the person). We also trust in His work. In other words, we trust in the propostion that He died for our sin.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 4, 2014)

I have found the 2 major "mistakes" people make is either who Jesus is or what He did. We trust both His person and His work.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 4, 2014)

earl40 said:


> We trust both His person and His work.



And let all God's people say, "Amen!"

Peace, 
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 4, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Finding worth in the higher object of faith is a necessary accompaniment of faith. Hence we are to glory in the Lord. When we glory in other things our sense of worth becomes misplaced. So when we glory in knowledge, besides missing the purpose for which knowledge is "given," the temporal nature of the object makes it possible for one to set himself up above another's attainments.



There is a lot to think about in this response. Thank you.


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Our trust is in Jesus (the person). We also trust in His work.



This is the place where we can all rest for time and eternity. It is probably a good place to rest our discussion also.

If it is understood that "trust" is a necessary and distinct element of saving faith, and that we trust the person and not simply propositions about the person, then we have secured what is essential to the Reformed witness on this subject.


----------



## HaMetumtam (Apr 6, 2014)

This topic is so important thanks for all the answers. I have seen answers that differentiate on assent and trust in a person..very interesting. I found Luther to be beneficial when i find myself in doubts. Which seems to combine assent and personal trust, but not assent in our own thoughts about God but assent in the propositions of God...i.e His promises.

Little extract of "freedom of a Christian"

" Thus the soul, in firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to be true and righteous; and it can attribute to God no higher glory than the credit of being so. The highest worship of God is to ascribe to Him truth, righteousness, and whatever qualities we must ascribe to one in whom we believe. In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in all things? What commandment does there remain which has not been amply fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfilment can be more full than universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by works, but by faith alone."


I think this shows that we are not merely believing propositions about God only as the demons do ....but believing God Himself by trusting Him and what He has done in His Son. So believing propositions that come from God rather than propositions about him may be a difference ?


Sorry just noticed the topic is closed.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 6, 2014)

HaMetumtam said:


> I think this shows that we are not merely believing propositions about God only as the demons do ....but believing God Himself by trusting Him and what He has done in His Son. So believing propositions that come from God rather than propositions about him may be a difference ?
> 
> 
> Sorry just noticed the topic is closed.



It was not officially closed though I am "tempted" and will say there is a difference between James 2:19 and Romans 10:9. If any man believes Romans 10:9 they will be saved. Also many men believe James 2:19 and will be lost.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 6, 2014)

Let's make it official, and let Thomas Manton have the last word:

_Works_, v.4, pp.240,241:


> Bare assent to the articles of religion doth not infer true faith. True faith uniteth to Christ, it is conversant about his person; it is not only assensus axiomati, an assent to a gospel-maxim or proposition; you are not justified by that, but by being one with Christ. It was the mistake of the former age to make the promise rather than the person of Christ to be the formal object of faith; the promise is the warrant, Christ the object: therefore the work of faith is terminated on him in the expressions of scripture. We read of coming to him, receiving him, &c.; we cannot close with Christ without a promise, and we must not close with a promise without Christ: in short, there is not only assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ; there must be an act that is directly and formally conversant about the person of Christ. Well, then, do not mistake a naked illumination, or some general acknowledgment of the articles of religion for faith. A man may be right in opinion and judgment, but of vile affections; and a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan, or idolater, or heretic; for though his judgment be sound, yet his manners are heterodox and heretical. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of `all the heart, Acts 8:37. I confess some expressions of scripture seem to lay much upon assent, as 1 John 4:2, and 5:1; 1 Cor. 12:3; Mat. 16:17; but these places do either show that assents, where they are serious, and upon full conviction, come from some special revelation; or else, if they propound them as evidences of grace, we must distinguish times: the greatest difficulty lay then upon assent, rather than affiance. The truths of God suffering under so many prejudices, the gospel was a novel doctrine, contrary to the ordinary and received principles of reason, persecuted in the world, no friend to natural and carnal affections, and therefore apt to be suspected. The wind that bloweth on our backs, blew in their faces; and that which draweth on many to assent to the gospel was their discouragement. Consent and long prescription of time, the countenance and favour of the world, do beget a veneration and reverence to religion; and therefore assent now is nothing so much as it was then, especially when it is trivial and arreptitious, rather than deliberate; for this is only the fruit of human testimony, and needeth not supernatural grace. Therefore do not please yourselves in naked assents; these cost nothing, and are worth nothing. There is ‘a form of knowledge,’ Rom. 2:20, as well as `a form of godliness, 2 Tim. 3:5. ‘A form of knowledge’ is nothing but an idea or module of truth in the brains, when there is no power or virtue to change and transform the heart.


----------

