Comrie on Faith

Alexander Comrie undoubtedly belongs to the group of theologians whose significance for their own age was multifaceted. His person and his work occupied the attention of many. He still has much to say to us today; now, too, attention must be paid to his work. The timeliness of his work will be clear to those who study it intensively.

His Life

Alexander Comrie was of Scottish descent. The reason for his emigration to the Netherlands has never become clear despite diligent research. The most likely explanation is that, as a result of business difficulties, Comrie’s father was no longer able to meet the expense which would have been incurred by the continuation of his studies. In any case, Comrie found a job in a business office in Rotterdam. Many unanswered questions regarding the reason for his emigration and the early part of his stay in the Netherlands remain. Comrie himself revealed very little about it.

It is has become known, however, that Comrie made the acquaintance of a merchant, Adriaan van der Willigen, in Rotterdam. This merchant was very interested in the knowledge of the doctrine of the truth and was not without experience in this knowledge. It is known that he sincerely served the welfare of the church of the Reformation. This merchant probably sought means and found ways which would lead to the resumption of the young Comrie’s studies. What a richly blessed endeavor this would prove to be in the future!

Although much of Comrie’s youth lies in darkness for posterity, we have extensive information about his spiritual development. Comrie himself enlarged upon it in several of his works. The Erskine brothers, Ralph and Ebenezer, exerted great influence on him. The renowned Thomas Boston also contributed to the spiritual development of the young Comrie.

Comrie never disowned his Scottish upbringing. Indeed, he considered it an honor to call himself a Scotsman. However, his preparation for the ministry of the Word took place at the University of Groningen. Some of the professors at that university were highly regarded by the Reformed people. That undoubtedly was the reason why Groningen was given preference. Thereafter the young Comrie completed his studies in Leiden, where he earned his doctorate in philosophy on October 5, 1734.

Thoroughly prepared, he entered the ministry in the congregation of Woubrugge on May 1, 1735, beginning his fruitful labors as a servant of God’s church. The fruits of his labors were plucked not only by the congregation of Woubrugge, but, through a long series of writings, the church of the Reformation also became indebted to Comrie for his unflagging zeal for the doctrine which was so lucidly defended by the Reformers. The doctrine of the Reformation revolves around the triumph of God’s grace.

Faith is merely the hand with which the gift of God is received.

The triumph of grace in the doctrine of faith

For Comrie, too, the grace of God was the only glory which remained. Therefore he did his utmost to defend that grace against both public and hidden attacks. It was especially in his explanation of faith that he showed himself to be an advocate of the doctrines of the Reformation. In order to give Comrie’s intentions their proper due, a clear insight into the nature of the Reformed conception of faith is necessary. In this conception, the break between Rome and the Reformed comes clearly to light.

For the Reformed, faith is concerned with the personal relationship to God, who has revealed in His Word His gracious mercy in Christ in the forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness does not come about through our faith, but rather is entirely prepared in Christ and is embraced and received through faith. Faith is merely the hand with which the gift of God is received. It has no merit in itself. It brings about nothing; it merely receives. It is a gift of God.

The Reformers usually divided faith into two elements, knowledge and confidence. Luther spoke more of confidence, Calvin more of knowledge. However, the great Reformers’ discussions of faith were so closely interwoven with their personal experiences that we cannot speak here of a contradiction. Luther’s confidence encompassed knowledge, while Calvin’s knowledge revealed its strength precisely in its reliance upon God’s promises.

In later times, numerous detailed and comprehensive explanations of faith were given in which many and diverse activities were taken as distinct acts of faith. One such explanation speaks of nine acts. These were further divided into “preceding,” “accompanying,” and “following” acts. The original, simple Reformed confession that faith is merely “the receiving organ” was very much obscured by these cumbersome explanations. Moreover, the absoluteness of the grace of God was threatened by the fact that the “acts of faith” were accorded such importance in the justification of the ungodly. One must ask whether it was not actually the essence of the doctrine of God’s grace itself which was being attacked.

Habitus and actus

This is a pair of strange words, words which in translation are fairly common — “capacity” and “action.” What did Comrie have in mind when he used these words?

Comrie recognized the real danger that one might accord such value to the “act of faith” that it had a “justifying power.” He wrote emphatically about this in his explanation of the seventh Lord’s Day of the Heidelberg Catechism. Whenever faith as an “act” justifies us, justification is by works. Then it is no longer grace by which we are justified. Therefore Comrie withdrew from the action (actus) to the capacity (habitus) or the ability (potentia).

Precisely what is meant by this can be clarified by an explanation drawn from our senses, for example, our vision. We must distinguish the ability to see from the act of seeing. Anyone who lacks the ability to see will never be able to perform the act of seeing. In order to see, the ability to see is indispensable. It is the same with hearing, with smelling, etc. Comrie called the ability the habitus and the activity performed with it the actus.

The spiritually dead man lacks the ability to believe, the habitus. In conversion, however, this new ability, this habitus, is implanted. Comrie also called this “faith.” By this faith the spiritually dead sinner is incorporated into Christ. He very emphatically distinguished this “faith” from “believing,” the act or the activities.

By this Comrie maintained an absolute dependence on the grace of God. This “ability,” this capacity, has in itself no power to work. It is the Holy Spirit who works upon this “ability” through the Word to bring forth works. Which works are brought forth is dependent on the nature of the Word used. The Holy Spirit might act upon this ability with the law or with the gospel, and the works brought forth will differ accordingly.

Therefore Comrie’s explanation of faith, in which all spiritual activities arise from an indispensable preceding act of God, is so important.

Objections have rather frequently been raised that the distinction employed by Comrie originated in philosophy. Is this really an objection? Throughout the entire history of the expression of biblical truth the church has made use of “philosophical distinctions.” As the ancilla theologiae, the “handmaiden of theology,” philosophy has rendered all kinds of service. There is hardly a church dogma which has been expressed without this valued service. There is nothing objectionable in this. It is a different matter if our philosophical speculation becomes the well from which we draw. Were not similar current philosophical distinctions used in the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the relationship between the natures of Christ, and in many other important and significant statements of the early church?

Comrie was concerned about maintaining the sovereignty of God’s grace, which was seriously threatened. This is completely scriptural! Remonstrant beliefs had again come to life in a newly arisen error. It was the Saumursan error, which expressed itself in neo-nomianism, and, except in England and Scotland, spread widely in the “enlightened thought” which exerted so great an influence on the church of the Reformation in the 18th century.

Comrie spoke of his aversion to the “system of Baxter,” an aversion which had been instilled in him from his youth. This aversion led him to oppose the spirit of his time. He perceived that the doctrine of free grace was being assailed in the Netherlands by the same spirit he had seen earlier in Scotland.

Timely!

Is Comrie’s strife of merely historical significance? Did it have significance only for his own age? The errors against which Augustine strove have repeatedly expressed themselves in all sorts of ways throughout church history. Therefore Augustine’s work remains so timely. The same may be said of the church of the Reformation with regard to the views against which Comrie strove. They reappear time and again under a “Reformed” garb, even in our own time.

We think here of the “legalizing” of the gospel. The demand to believe is preached by many in a manner reminiscent of neo-nomian sentiments. Instead of fulfillment of the law, God now demands faith in Jesus Christ. Is the demand of faith not completely biblical? Must not the gospel be preached with the “command to repent and believe”? Yes, indeed! Let no one neglect this command. It preaches to us the guilt of unbelief. It is also an “uncovering or discovering command” when it occurs within the framework of a right proclamation of the gospel. But one-sided preaching of this command in isolation from the whole of the biblical proclamation of sin, guilt, and inability on the one hand, and satisfaction, reconciliation, and grace on the other, strongly promotes a “self-willed religion” which links an appearance of right with disguised Remonstrant sentiments. Comrie recognized this danger, warned against it, and pointed out the proper means of avoiding it.

Therefore Comrie’s explanation of faith, in which all spiritual activities arise from an indispensable preceding act of God, is so important. It teaches us to expect salvation only from the Lord and to desire in our lives that work of God which alone leads to salvation.

Comrie’s explanation was also significant as a contribution to the resolution of the arguments which arose within Reformed circles regarding the nature and essence of faith. Unfortunately there was a grievous strife within the company of those who wished to cherish God’s truth. Comrie deeply regretted this strife. He would gladly have served to bring an end to these arguments among brothers. Some refused to admit that hungering and thirsting belonged to true faith. One could speak of faith only when there was an assured confidence. However, Comrie denied this.

This question is dealt with extensively both in his sermons and in his catechism. With the English theologians, Comrie sharply distinguished by the “assurance of faith” and the “assurance of sense.” He described the latter as follows: “The assurance of sense consists of a joyful emotion which arises in the heart from a conviction, worked in the heart by the Holy Spirit, that we really have, possess, and enjoy all which has been promised. It is the sensibility of the joy of God’s salvation, the Spirit testifying with our spirit and making us see, to our joy, what has been given us by God. This refreshes the soul, but it is not enjoyed by all, nor is it enjoyed at all times. Rather, it is very often disputed and attacked by Satan and unbelief, so that one is brought nigh to death. And yet the assurance of faith, without the assurance of sense, can be and is very strong, as can be seen in Psalm 88 and elsewhere....”

Comrie shows himself, also with regard to this distinction, to be a son of English-Scottish theology. In this context, the Westminster Confession is also cited extensively. Within the scope of this limited contribution, we cannot go extensively into the matters under discussion, and even less can Comrie be allowed to speak for himself at length, however desirable this might be. We hope that it will be clear to the reader that Comrie’s reflections on faith were extraordinarily significant in his own time, but also that their importance for the present cannot be emphasized sufficiently!

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen