'From the death of sin to the life of righteousness': Jeremy Taylor's sermon 'The Invalidity of a Late, or Deathbed Repentance'
repentance is not onely an abolition, and extinction of the body of sin, a bringing it to the altar, and slaying it before God and all the people; but that we must also mingle gold and rich presents, the oblation of good works, and holy habits with the sacrifice, I have already proved: but now if we will see repentance in its stature and integrity of constitution described, we shall finde it to be the one half of all that which God requires of Christians. Faith and Repentance are the whole duty of a Christian. Faith is a sacrifice of the understanding to God: Repentance sacrifices the whole will: That, gives the knowing; this, gives up all the desiring faculties: That, makes us Disciples; this, makes us servants of the Holy Jesus.
Taylor confidently roots this in the evangelical proclamation, particularly the Apostle's address to the Ephesian presbyters in Acts 20:21 and (also regarded by Taylor as Pauline) the teaching of Hebrews 6:1:
Nothing else was preached by the Apostles, nothing was enjoyned as the duty of man, nothing else did build up the body of Christian religion. So that, as faith contains all that knowledge which is necessary to salvation: So repentance comprehends in it, all the whole practise and working duty of a returning Christian: And this was the sum totall of all that Saint Paul preached to the Gentiles, when in his farewell Sermon to the Bishops and Priests of Ephesus, he professed that he kept back nothing that was profitable to them; and yet it was all nothing but this; Repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ so that whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, and repents towards God must make his accounts according to this standard, that is, to believe all that Christ taught him; and to do all that Christ commanded: and this is remarked in Saint Pauls Catechisme where he gives a more particular Catalogue of fundamentals: he reckons nothing but Sacraments and faith; of which he enumerates two principal articles - resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement - whatsoever is practical, all the whole duty of man, the practise of all obedience is called repentance from dead works which, if we observe the singularity of the phrase, does not mean sorrow For sorrow from dead works, is not sense; but it must mean mutationem status, a conversion from dead works, which (as in all motions) supposes two terms; from dead works, to living works, from the death of sin to the life of righteousnesse.
'And to do all that Christ commanded ... From dead works to living works': thus did Taylor declare that "repentance is not only abolition", for it must necessarily include conversion to holy living.
Throughout these readings from Taylor's sermon, I have been placing extracts from the sermon alongside extracts from Calvin. The has been intended to show how - despite the contrasts between Taylor the Arminian and Calvin - their understanding of repentance broadly coheres, indeed, at times shows considerable overlap. Something of this is seen in how Calvin also turns to these two passages - Acts 20:21 and Hebrews 6:1 - to expound the meaning of repentance.
Addressing those who confused repentance with faith, Calvin pointed to Acts 20:21:
For in comprehending faith under repentance, they are at variance with what Paul says in the Acts, as to his “testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,”. Here he mentions faith and repentance as two different things. What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means. But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished ... Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit ... And John Baptist and Paul, under the expression, bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, described a course of life exhibiting and bearing testimony, in all its actions, to such a repentance.
As with Taylor, Calvin regards the Apostle's words in Acts 20:21 as placing repentance necessarily alongside faith, different but inherently related. In Taylor's words, "to believe all that Christ taught him ... and to do all that Christ commanded".
When it comes to Hebrews 6:1, we might note that Calvin and Taylor present it as opening a passage which they both describe as a "catechism". Likewise, it is striking how Taylor echoes Calvin's view that faith and repentance is the dual substance of this "catechism":
Faith and Repentance are the whole duty of a Christian ... the sum total of all that Saint Paul preached to the Gentiles (Taylor);
He mentions repentance and faith, which include the fullness of the Gospel; for what else does Christ command his Apostles to preach, but repentance and faith? (Calvin).
There is, admittedly, a difference in how Taylor and Calvin understand the "dead works" of Hebrews 6:1. Whereas Taylor associates these with the reality of sin in the life of the Christian, Calvin regards them as indicating our "first repentance" (emphasis added):
when he adds, from dead works, he intimates that he speaks of first repentance; for though every sin is a dead work, either as it leads to death, or as it proceeds from the spiritual death of the soul; yet the faithful, already born again of the Spirit of God, cannot be said properly to repent from dead works. Regeneration is not indeed made perfect in them; but because of the seed of new life which is in them, however small it may be, this at least may be said of them that they cannot be deemed dead before God. The Apostle then does not include in general the whole of repentance, the practice of which ought to continue to the end; but he refers only to the beginning of repentance.
Here is a difference reflecting the contrasting theological commitments of Taylor the Arminian and Calvin the Calvinist. Indeed, devotees of Taylor might even suggest that - contrary to Calvinist accusations that Taylor's non-Augustinian view of Original Sin results in a failure to recognise the seriousness of sin - it is actually Taylor who here demonstrates a much clearer way the nature of sin and its consequences in the Christian life.
While Calvin's admission that "every sin is a dead work" provides something of a bridge to Taylor's understanding, the significant difference on this point remains. That said, the Arminian/Calvinist divide between Taylor and Calvin on this particular point only emphasises a wider agreement on the nature of repentance. That both turn to the same key texts, as demonstrated in today's extracts, is itself noteworthy. That both then use these texts to similarly point to the relationship between faith and repentance, and the necessity of repentance including holy living, only further highlights how the thinking of both significantly coheres.
Comments
Post a Comment