The Author I have to do with, seems, as will appear in our progress, very much disposed to extenuate the errors and corruptions of this church, which the Associate Presbytery give testimony against. But, if among other things, the supreme Godhead and proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as God equal with the Father and the Holy Ghost, when it was openly attacked, was not duly witnessed for in the judicature, there may be reason to fear, that the dishonors done to the Mediator in his Deity, as well as in his other royal prerogatives as King in Zion, may have provoked God to leave many of this generation to follow divers and strange doctrines, and to give them up to strong delusions and vain imaginations. Of which one of the most gross and dangerous is this imaginary idea of Christ as man; which is a conception including, at the utmost extent of it, no other view of him but merely in his humanity. God hath given us the glass of his word, where, if he also give us the eye of faith, we may see Christ, our incarnate God. Mr. Robe has told us of another glass, namely, that of an imaginary idea, wherein we can only see him as man. And, whether this is helpful to the other, is part of the inquiry I am to make in the following treatise. Mr. Robe, in the title, and in the second page of his letter, undertakes to discover the fraud and falsehood of the Appendix of my letter, entitled, “Fraud and Falsehood discovered.” How he hath managed this undertaking, the sequel may evidence. Only, if he had found out in that Appendix something of yet greater consequence than fraud and falsehood, and had he been very sure and confident that there was heresy and blasphemy vented therein, then I think these would have deserved a room in capital letters on the title page, that all readers might be alarmed and stirred up to search into, and avoid the heresy and blasphemy which he is pleased to distinguish with capital letters elsewhere in this performance of his, namely, That the human nature of Christ is no part of the object of faith; and that it profiteth nothing, page 73: and again, page 47, That the human nature of the glorious Redeemer is no part of the object of faith. The charge seems very high, if, as he alleges, I have in terms asserted the above positions. But I hope to show, that he hath failed in his proof; and that, instead of finding out heresy and blasphemy, he hath fallen into the mire of gross idolatry, making some other thing than the living and true God, the proper object of faith and worship. It is my province at present, not only to defend myself against his false charge, but especially to clear and vindicate the truth which he has darkened and perverted: I declare my resolution, when I wrote and published that letter, entitled, Fraud and Falsehood discovered, never to contend for the last word, but only for the truth: and therefore it was, that though after the publication thereof, I saw a letter of Mr. Webster’s, directed to me, written with so much haste and dispatch, as seemed to import a vain ambition to have it bear the name of a ready answer; yet I gave no reply thereto, not only because that letter was no answer to mine, almost in any part, except the title page of it, which happened to be advertised by the printer, for certain reasons of his, five or six weeks before the book itself was published; which gave Mr. Webster sufficient time for most of his animadversions; so that there was little occasion for such boasting as appeared therein of the quick production thereof: but also I have no return to it, because, while the whole substance of my pamphlet stood unanswered thereby, I had nothing to give a return to, but partly some gross misrepresentations of facts, which it was little matter whether any believed to be true or not; and partly some sights of idle banter, which deserved no moment of any man’s precious time to write upon, nor would well become the gravity of a minister to employ his time and pen about; while also any thing there objected that seemingly deserved consideration, was obviated evidently in my pamphlet, so as any one that pleased to read it again, might see his letter answered; and especially, while no article of divine truth, nor, consequently, the glory of God, was immediately concerned therein. But, now that I find Mr. Robe hath not only made himself a false witness against me, which I think I should easily bear with, when I know I have truth on my side, and, consequently, am reproached for the name of Christ; but when his bold and arrogant attack upon me imports in it what ought to be of far greater concern, even a bearing false witness against God, and his truth as it is in Jesus; therefore I judge the glory of God, and the credit of truth require, that I see this matter in a clearer light. And, since providence hath put this work in my hand, I undertake it, not so much for the sake of divines, or the learned that are well seen in divinity, among whose hands I could freely let Mr. Robe’s letter pass without any answer, because my very words, as they stand cited by him, will answer for themselves, to any intelligent person that understands divinity; but rather for the sake of the more inadvertent and inconsiderate, that may be ready to have their minds corrupted by such strange doctrine, as that of an imaginary idea of Christ as man, as if that belonged any way to the faith of this great mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh; which lies not within the sphere of imagination. The subject therefore I am to treat, however intricate, yet may be very profitable, and of the greatest consequence for time and eternity, as it relates to saving faith, in opposition to delusive fancy and imaginary notions.
As to that part of the title of this book, viz. A treatise of mental images, I hope the learned reader will not mistake the meaning, by supposing me to think, that images were subjectively in the mind or understanding, which I own is not properly the seat thereof; but I call them mental objectively, as they are presented by the imagination to the mind: and so by mental understand no more but internal images, as distinguished from external, and consequently much of the same import with fancies, in the former part of the title, viz. Faith no Fancy, both which are internal. Yet I chose to call them mental, rather than internal images, because as the mind is the proper seat of faith, so these images are especially hurtful and opposite to faith, as they are mental, or as they operate upon, disturb, distract, and darken the mind, diverting it, with these imaginary pictures, from viewing and fixing upon the proper objects of faith.
I hope those who have been the ordinary readers of some other writings that have come from my hand, will not be offended, but will excuse me, that in this work I have been obliged to go much out of my ordinary road of writing only upon divinity, now to treat it with a greater mixture of philosophy, than I have formerly accustomed myself unto. And, since I do not expect that all my readers will be philosophers, (though yet I would by this treatise desire to fence them against vain philosophy), I am sufficiently aware, that, though I have studied as plain, comely, and intelligible language as I could, yet the nature of the subject is such, that I fear much of it will be above the capacity of the vulgar; and that it is only those that are knowing and judicious that will be most edified by some parts of this performance, if the Lord bless it to them. The reason is, because not only is the matter in hand a very high and mysterious point in divinity, but Mr. Robe’s positions about it lead to consider it with relation to the concern he thinks our natural senses, ideas and imaginations have therein: which necessarily obliges me to use some scholastic terms, philosophical arguments, and metaphysical distinctions. These I own are much out of vogue and fashion, among many in our present time. But, though the abuse of them hath led men to much vanity, error and wickedness, yet the right use of them is sometimes exceeding necessary even in divinity, especially controversial. Many that have professed no great liking to metaphysical and philosophical reasonings, have yet found themselves obliged to make use of them, in order to expose the subtil and sophistical arguments of heretics. I find Mr. Locke himself sometimes forming syllogisms in his treatise of human understanding. Even though he decries the syllogistic way of reasoning in that same book, yet he calls it the art of fencing with the little knowledge we have. The learned professor of philosophy, Heeriboord, disp. page 222, shews, in several particulars, the usefulness of that part of philosophy called metaphysics, particularly in theology; and shuts up his discourse upon that head by observing, that even those who disapprove and condemn metaphysics among whom he mentions the learned Amesius, do yet very skillfully make use of them, when the pressing objections of adversaries require it, and also on other occasions: which, says he, is a clear document and evidence, that metaphysics are exceeding necessary for a divine. To this purpose the learned Davenant, in Col. ii. 8 in many cases illustrates the great advantages and usefulness of philosophy, and the art of right reasoning, in the matters of faith and religion. Though we believe above reason, yet we do so neither rashly nor unreasonably. Macovii reg. theol. & philos. Page 21, 25 ‘Virum cum vero non pngnat, &c Ratio fana non pugnat cum theologia; fana dicimus, nam corrupta pugnat, dre. Ratio requiritur ad theologium, non ut argumentum, fed ut inframentum, &c. The truth of divinity and the truth of philosophy are not opposite, though they be distinct. For example: philosophy teaches that a virgin cannot bring forth a child, and indeed in a natural way this is true. Divinity teaches that a virgin can bring forth a child supernaturally, and this also is true. These truths are not the same, but distinct, yet they are not opposite. Thus, sound reason is not opposite to religion, though corrupt reason is. Reason is necessary in divinity, not as an argument, but as an instrument; that is, not for proving any divine mystery by reason, but for understanding divine things, it is requisite we have reason; for neither infants nor idiots can learn divinity. The Rev. Mr. Alexander Webster, who, in the foresaid letter, was pleased, by way of taunt, to call my work in the foresaid pamphlet, a complete System of Metaphysics, may find more reason, if he please, to design this treatise by that name. But, if he intent, by such a gibe, to ridicule that part of philosophy, which yet men of the greatest learning and renown, both in this, and former ages, have entitled, scientia catholiea, an universal science, (treating though both of corporeal and spiritual things, yet in a way transcending the nature of all corporeal things as such; which none I think will deliberately deride, that are not sunk into earth and flesh): then I may say all such taunts, as Ovid said in another case, Derident stolidi verba Latina Geta.
The work, reader, you are here presented with, being (opus otii) composed at spare hours, that it might not interfere with, nor hinder my other necessary business, has therefore not only been the longer upon my hand, but must, on that account, be supposed to contain several repetitions of the same subject. Yet I have taken what care time allowed me to purge it of needless repetitions. And where the many repetitions in my opponent’s tract, led me also to repeat his arguments anew; yet I endeavor to answer the same thing, not still the same way, but under different considerations and enlargements, or by different examples and illustrations.
If the titles of vain philosophy, and vile divinity I have given to the pamphlet animadverted upon, seem harsh to some, two things, I think, may be said for it. One is this, That as philosophy abused to introduce false and fallacious reasonings in religion, is in scripture called vain, Col. ii. 8. so divinity (considered as a science distinct from that, but) corrupted, and taught so as to give admittance to inward or outward imagery and idolatry in religious worship, or to dead images and idols, which in scripture are called detestable and abominable things, Jer. xvi. 18. may not unfitly be called vile. Another thing I would say, if these titles seem to be a hard reflection upon the author, this is what I cannot well help; but I have not ascribed them directly to the author himself, but his work; because I would fain hope better things of him, and that he hath acted therein, not like himself, or a divine, but through present temptations being hurried into a strain of language, and way of expression, which, when he comes to himself, he will not justify, but condemn. If he proudly disdain to be corrected by one whom he has already represented in such an odious manner, as chargeable with heresy and blasphemy, he will perhaps but add, to his former errors, the guilt of despising the means of conviction. However, though this should be the case, yet my design in this work will not be lost, if it serve so a caution to others against the dangerous tendency of so many gross and erroneous positions, as are advanced in the pamphlet I here offer remarks upon. I intend no to remark upon the whole, but especially what relates to myself, and the attack made upon my doctrine respecting faith, in opposition to fancy. A great part of the pamphlet concerns my brother Mr. Fisher; who, if he had leisure, and thought it worth his while, is able enough to answer the violent and virulent attacks Mr. Robe makes upon, even though boasted of, as he does likewise of some of Mr. Currie’s performances, as if there were no answering of them. But, if he think some writings, because unanswered, to be unanswerable, he but pleases himself with his own imaginary ideas. But so will none whose thoughts are solid, and under the government of reason and judgment.
If what I wrote formerly and in the Appendix here reprinted, had not met with a prejudiced mind, I cannot see how any could have found such gross error therein, as Mr. Robe pretends to do. But, as he is the first that hath charged me with heterodoxy, so none will judge it, I suppose, out of my way to examine, whether he hath truly found it or not; and whether he hath therein bewrayed his own ignorance and error. When I insinuated in my letter, that, according to my information, they were not all sound divines that were the instruments and promoters of the work at Cambuslang, I had no such clear view that Mr. Robe was of that number. But now indeed I cannot see how to exclude him: for, if I mistake not, unless I could suppose that many things he hath here advanced, are merely disputandi gratia, or only the rash eruptions of resentment, and not his stated judgment, I cannot vindicate him from heterodoxy and idolatry both, relating to the human nature of our glorious Redeemer. And, though I am willing to suppose in charity that the former is the case, yet I do not see any such charitable suppositions he expresses towards me in his whole book: which may shew how much he is under the conduct of his own spirit, or a worse, at present, when he adventures to spread among the common people, that I have vented heresy and blasphemy on this subject, and that in terms, without supposing that I may have any sound meaning in my words, and without being so fair and candid as either to notify that the charge is in his own words or terms, and not mine; or to signify, that my words might admit of the consequence he thus deduces from them. But, when he inferred from them such a dreadful charge as it is impossible to invent words more bloody and bitter than those that denominate one an heretic and blasphemer, I can hardly think it possible, that he was so void of understanding, as truly to believe what he wrote; and so void of common sense and philosophy, as to deduce such conclusions where there were no premises to found them upon, as I am to make appear. It is certainly a great fault for any to put his own forced comment upon his adversary’s words, and, when he hath made it as gross as he can, then to argue against it as his adversary’s opinion. This is what Mr. Robe complains is done against him, p. 3. of his letter. But, if ever a man did practice what he condemns, Mr. Robe hath done so, by racking his invention to support his delusive dreams, fancies, and imaginations relating to the human nature of Christ, and asserting, that I deny Christ’s human nature to belong to the object of faith, because I refuse that Mr. Robe’s imaginary notion of it belongs to that object: that is, because I will not allow the ideal fancy of it in the brain to belong to the real faith of it in the heart, therefore his absurd and monstrous inference is, That I deny it to the object of faith. And, because I assert, that fancy or imaginary idea of Christ’s humanity is but an unprofitable and vain imagination, hence he infers, that I assert in terms, That Christ’s human nature is unprofitable. In this manner I am to shew how much needless pains he hath put himself unto, to find out heresy and blasphemy, where he would never have dreamed there was any such thing, if he had not conceived me to be his antagonist, and if he had not been so much drowned in the depth of delusion, as to confound faith with fancy, and real supernatural and profitable knowledge with ideal, natural and vain imaginary notions. I doubt not but I have indeed inferred many things from Mr. Robe’s strange doctrine, which he may suppose he never thought of: but, if they are necessary consequences of, and natively deducible from his new doctrine, I cannot help charging it therewith. Yea, the doctor cannot be quite innocent, whose doctrine is justly chargeable with supporting even the errors he professes to disclaim, because he ought to see such consequences, and guard against them. Which they cannot be thought to do, who bring in new words into divinity, which frequently have new opinions lurking under them, according to the known maxim, Qui singit nova verba, simul nova dogmata singit. Such a new term in divinity is that of an imaginary idea of Christ as man. What new and odd doctrines are plainly implied in it, and deducible from it, may appear in the following treatise.
As the doctrine of imaginary ideas, in my judgment, belongs not at all to theology; so, if I have advanced any thing new, or unthought of by others before me, upon it, I know not. But I think every man has a liberty to give his mind and opinion, when called to it, upon any point of philosophy, that does not contradict some point of divinity. Which if it do, he ought to take no liberty to admit it into religion, but rather ought to oppose the introduction thereof; which is part of my present work: wherein as oft as I give my judgment, I do it not without giving a reason for it; and, if it be in any matter wherein philosophers differ among themselves, my differing from some of them is therefore inevitable. However, my opponent, by declaring pointedly, that his imaginary idea can have no other object but what is merely corporeal, has made my work the more easy in determining that it cannot belong properly to the act or object of faith, which is the evidence of things not yet seen: yet this subject is so new and strange, (I knowing no divine that hath directly treated it), and the expressions Mr. Robe hath upon it, are so many and various, that I am obliged to enlarge and extend my discourse upon it to a more than ordinary length, that so I may endeavor to shut all the doors he hath opened for his doctrine of natural senses and imaginary ideas, by which he would bring it forth, and make it set up its head among spiritual subjects, as if it were agreeable or had any conformity to the doctrine of revealed religion: while to me this doctrine of his appears disagreeable, yea and disgraceful to human reason and judgment, and much more opposite to divine faith, and the glorious gospel of Christ.
Mr. Robe’s pamphlet was published about the end of August, anno 1743. This book in answer to it, though it took some time and leisure, as I have said, was written and might have been published anno 1744. Which I mention, that the reader may not impute it to me, that the work has been kept so long from his view: which is owing to such as were entrusted with it, and thought fit to publish the title page with proposals for the printing of it; which yet was afterward managed without that ceremony.
Mr. Robe refers so frequently to my words in the Appendix of the foresaid pamphlet, that it seems necessary the reader have it in his eye; and therefore I have thought fit it be here inserted.
APPENDIX to the Pamphlet, entitled, Fraud and Falsehood discovered, published anno 1743.
Reverend Dear Brother,
HAD you not earnestly desired my thoughts and remarks upon Mr. Webster’s postscript, I was disposed to neglect and undervalue it, among the rest of the public trashes, calumnies and reproaches cast upon me and my brethren; believing the Lord will in due time wipe them away, when the wrath of man, and even the rabies cleri, shall praise him: he sits upon the floods, and is mightier than the noise of many waters; he rules the raging of the sea, when the waves thereof arise, he filleth them. However, knowing that no man but myself was capable to clear the facts which I have opened up, relating to the foresaid correspondence, I thought the glory of God, and the credit of truth, obliged me to answer your desire; and the rather that I see also, what a mighty advantage the promoters of this work think they have gained, even by that fraudulent copy of my letter published by Mr. Webster. Mr. Robe calls it my memorable letter to Mr. Wesley, a minister of the church of England; and since I began to write this letter to you, I see the copy taken out of Mr. Webster’s postscript, and reprinted at Glasgow by itself, with his notes. In the title [?] page of that copy, it is called a letter of mine, shewing, that strugglings and outcryrings, so as to drwon the minister’s voice, &c. are very consistent with the work of the Spirit of God. Alas! what is this they are boasting of? And what have they found in my letter for themselves or against me? What is called struggling in the agonies of death in Mr. Wesley’s letter to me, is plainly ascribed to the devil in my letter to him. What they call outcryings, so as to drown the minister’s voice, is in my letter to him judged to be the noisy part that is acted especially by those that are neither solid nor judicious; and hence I seldom ever heard any such clamorous noise in time of public worship, without giving a public check to it. Mean time, for as unbiased as my deliberate sentiments are supposed to have been when I wrote that letter, if I had been writing it yesterday, I could hardly have told my sentiments mere plainly, in opposition to these very things wherein they judge they had me upon their side.
I see myself designed in the title page of that foresaid copy, Minister of the Associate Congregation of Dunfermline; and I am ready to apprehend that an enemy hath done it: for it is easy to see, that as this way of designing me, imports a denying of my standing pastoral relation to the whole of this parish, and thus a justifying the violent measures that have brought about this Associate situation; so, how rank it smells of a sinful compliance with the defections of the day, and how much it tends to harden some in their neglect and contempt of the only lawful and settled ministry they have in this place, is easy to demonstrate. But, alas! Many that would be thought friends to a reformation work, are lifting up hammers and axes against it, when they do not know or consider they are doing so. ’Tis true, they pretend they are only set against the way and manner wherein we manage our appearance for reformation: but, till once they put hand to the same work in another or a better way and manner, they give evidence, that it is the cause itself, and not our manner of witnessing for it they oppose. ’Tis easy to see how Mr. Webster and others write on Christ’s kingly office and government, in such a general strain, as would agree as much with the principles of loose Sectarians, as of true Presbyterians. What shall we think of the present established church of Scotland, when these among them that sometime professed to be contending within doors for the same reformation principles that we were appearing for without doors, are now betraying the cause of Presbytery; and, under a pretence of religion, and a being as zealous as others for the kingly government of Christ, are busy pulling the royal pearls out of his crown?
The present work so much magnified, I cannot but fear is also promoted by some that seem to be favoring of a deistical spirit. I see Mr. Robe, in his second letter to Mr. Fisher, (which seems to be more bulky than the rest of his continuations, and to [? p. x] of a different strain in some places from his ordinary), citing with approbations some words of Mr. Edward’s sermon; and therein I see very great seeming regard paid to the scripture, as the great and standing rule, and infallible and sufficient rule. It would seem any notable epithet may be given it, provided it be not called the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God. This good old way of speaking, with respect to the ancient Protestant doctrine of the perfection of the scripture as the only rule of faith and practice, seems to be going out of fashion. I confess I am not perfectly pleased with their testimony to the present extraordinary work of the Spirit of God, whose principles tend any way to the disparagement of the word of God; nor yet their testimony, who take advantage from that work, to despise and disparage a public testimony for the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of his house, appointed in that word. While our opposes in the establishment make this providence a rebuke from heaven to us, and an appeasance of God for them, against us and our secession and testimony, it deserves consideration, whether they be borrowing God’s weapons to fight against his cause among our hands, and whether it bears not some resemblance to Rabshakeh’s blasphemy, Isa. xxxvi. 10. Am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. Our Lord hath warned us sufficiently, that they who persecute his people and slay his witnesses, shall think they do God’s service, and say, Let the Lord be magnified; is not the Lord among us? John xvi. 2. Isa. lxvi. 5. Micah iii. 10. 11. 12.
The unbiased regard of the Associate Presbytery to the cause of reformation among their bands, appears even in a special circumstance, wherein yet they are reproached, as if they were now appearing against Mr. Whitefield and his extraordinary work, because the success and spreading influence of it tends, say they, to make our interest among the people to sink [?], and to draw them away from us: whereas Mr. Whitefield was cast off by the unanimous consent of the brethren of the Presbytery, whenever they found his direct opposition to that cause. And this was done at his first coming to Scotland; and so before even they knew what sort of success his ministrations could have here, and when at the same time they knew what splendid reports there were of his wonderful success abroad; yet they durst lay none of these things in balance with the public cause among their hands, which they were sure was the cause of God, or with the ancient work of reformation they were appearing for, which they were sure was the work of God; and that therefore no new work, that men were attempting to raise upon the ruins of it, could be the work of God. Mean time, none of the promoters of the present applauded work have much ground to boast of any victory gained, or advantage obtained against us. It has pleased the Lord to keep these hitherto in the hour of temptation, who were desirous and concerned to keep the word of his patience, and to increase our congregations from time to time, notwithstanding these extraordinary efforts of the enemy against us.
I see in the foresaid second letter of Mr. Robe’s I am more honorably yoked and quoted with the good Mr. Shepherd than I expected, upon the subject of imaginary ideas, or the images of spiritual things represented to the fancy. I am content to be reckoned of the very same mind with that worthy author on this head. Only I don’t think his mind or mine either can so evidently be known from these instances Mr. Robe gives, as from another which I shall cite from the same author on the parable, p. 80. where, speaking of four sorts of men that spin out the finest thread of deceit or delusion to themselves, and that think they believe when yet they have not the Son, he says, “The third sort is those that close not with promises only, but with Christ himself; but it is only with the image and fancy of him which they think is himself. In true faith the Father reveals the Son as he is, or the Son reveals himself as he is; and faith hence closes with him as he is, John vi. 40. But some there are that hear of him, hence think what he is. Hence a carnal mind imagines of him, as it imagines of a king in a far country, and falls down to his image, and trusts to it, and depends on it, and joys in it, until a man come to be converted, or to die, and then he sees the deceit” With this doctrine of Mr. Shepherd’s I cordially agree: and as I am ready to suppose, if it had been faithfully preached in the west of Scotland, we would not perhaps have heard of so many conversions there; so I think Mr. Fisher has too great advantage against his antagonist on this head, while he think s to fasten an absurdity upon him for saying, “If we have an imaginary idea of Christ, we that moment think upon a false Christ.” Hereupon Mr. Robe poses him with questions to this purpose, p. 11. “Is not Christ rue and real man? Had he not a true body on earth? Has he not a true body in heaven? Can you or any man else think upon him really as he is, God man, without an imaginary idea of it? Can you think of him scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, without an imaginary idea of him? And can you justly think of him and receive him as offered, without an imaginary idea of him as man?” And then attacks Mr. Fisher’s philosophy, for supposing, that to have an imaginary idea of an absent man, was to see a sensible object. I confess I see little either of the philosopher or divine in these mighty sallies. This way of speaking appears indeed new and strange divinity to me; and makes the object of faith truly a sensible object; not the object of faith, but of sense. I think the imaginary idea of a crucified Christ, a man upon the cross, is no better than a Popish crucifix, and mere mental idolatry. Though saving faith eats the flesh of the Son of God, by believing his incarnation; and drinks his blood by believing the satisfaction given by him to justice for us: yet to have any carnal notion or imaginary idea of his flesh and blood, or human body, belongs not in the least to saving faith, but rather to unbelief; and is a vain unprofitable imagination. Is it saving faith to see or know Christ after the flesh, either by the eye as a present man, or in the imagination as an absent man? May God deliver all his people from such gross and abominable idolatry. If such views do necessarily and natively attend our faith while we ourselves are in the flesh, and have flesh as well as spirit about us; yet are not these carnal views the greatest legs [?] and contradictions, instead of being helps and advantages to faith, or any part of it? Does not Christ forbid such carnal notions of eating his flesh? John vi. Such fancies and gross imaginations made his hearers there to stumble at the true Christ? therefore he says to them, verse 65 It is the Spirit that quickened, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Is it not the glory of the gospel, that it is the ministration of the Spirit? And is it not the great privilege of believers, that the Lord manifests himself to them as he does not the world? The world have these carnal notions and ideas of him. But are these any ways sib unto God’s shinging into the heart, to give the light of the knowledge of his glory in the face (or person) of Jesus Christ? What is the preaching of Christ crucified, 1 Cor. i. 23 to them that believe? Is it a giving them the notion of a man upon the cross? Or, is it not the wisdom of God, and the power of God, providing for himself a sacrifice, or setting forth to us a propitiation for our sins? So he was upon the cross, so he is now upon the throne, 1 John ii. 2. Does faith’s view of an incarnate God, or of the eternal Son of God become man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, or the believing view of God in our nature, and clothed with our flesh; does it include, or rather does it not exclude any carnal fleshly view of him? If the flesh profit nothing, what a vain imagination is the view of an absent man, or a fanciful thinking, that because Christ was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, that he is altogether such a one as ourselves? Does an imaginary view of the man help, or rather does it not hurt and hinder the saving sight of the God man, and the believing view of the glorious person of our Immanuel, God with us? The word was made flesh; but imaginary ideas of that flesh are unprofitable fancies: we do not believe till we behold his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, John i. 14. To see Christ savingly, and without a delusion, is not to see flesh, but God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Faith cannot fix upon Immanuel as man with us, but as God with us. It cannot see nor rest upon our nature in God, but upon God in our nature.
Can that be any part of the object of faith which is perceptible by the fancy of every man, and is obvious to natural discerning? While the Spirit of God says, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; because they are foolishness unto him: neither can they know them; for they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. ii. 14. The things of man are known by the spirit of man; but the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Nay, the things of God that are taught by the word and Spirit of God, are indeed the objects of faith; but the things of man, which a natural man can receive, and carnal man can discern, are the objects of sense, and of vain unprofitable imagination. As faith looks through the history of the gospel to the mystery of it, so does it through the material flesh of Christ to the mystery of God incarnate. Though we are to believe that Christ is flesh of our flesh, yet the flesh or humanity of Christ is only the glass or veil through which we behold the glory of God. The fancy that terminates on the flesh, is not only vain and unprofitable, but pernicious and prejudicial to the faith that is of God’s operation; which, coming from God, leads to God, and cannot terminate upon Christ himself, but upon God in Christ. Hence the object of saving faith is no image of Christ, seen by fancy, or imaginary idea; but Christ, who is, and as he is the image of the invisible God: and faith’s acting upon this object, is a seeing of him that is invisible, and no sight of him visibly by the bodily eye, or perceptible by natural fancy and imagination. To make faith then include any carnal conception of Christ’s humanity, is a deep deceit and delusion, and as remote from saving faith, as the image one in this part of the earth may frame in his head of the emperor of China. That part of Christ that is visible, was the object of sense on earth, and is the object of vision in heaven, and may be the object of any man’s fancy or imagination; but never was, nor ever will be the object of faith, but as the invisible God is seen therein and thereby. Nothing sensible, nothing corporeal, nothing visible can properly be the object of that faith which is the evidence of things not seen, Heb. xi. 1. and looks not to the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen, 2 Cor. iv. 18. Hence our believing on Christ, a visible Christ present or absent, is not faith, but fancy, if we believe not on the invisible God that sent him, John xii. 44. Jesus cried and said, he that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And verse 45. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me. And chap. xiv. 9. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. Matth. x. 40. He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. Mark ix. 37. Whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
In the act of receiving Christ as God-man, to have (what Mr. Robe calls) an imaginary idea of him as man, is to believe and not believe. It is to receive the person of Christ, and yet to divide the person. To receive the God-man is faith; but to have an imaginary idea of him as man, is not faith, but unbelief; for, as man simply, he is not the object of faith, but of sense or fancy. It is a doing what Christ forbids; as he did to Mary, Touch me not; for it is a mere mental handling of his body; otherwise why does Mr. Robe speak of his being revealed and offered as God-man, and of receiving him as offered; and yet thereupon say, “Can you then justly think upon him without an imaginary idea of him as man,” since he cannot extend that idea to the person of the God-man?
Hence one might ask Mr. Robe, Can he, or any man else, have an imaginary idea of Christ as man, and yet that same moment think upon him really as he is, God-man? Unless Mr. Robe’s meaning were, that he cannot believe without unbelief; or that he cannot think right without thinking wrong, as long as he has the flesh lusting against the spirit within him. In this sense some would grant it is a truth: but this is the reverse of Mr. Robe’s meaning; for he will have the imaginary idea of Christ wrapt in with faith, and with the view, not of a false Christ, but of the true Christ, though yet he owns the idea respects only Christ as man.
That imaginary idea that cannot think of him justly, but only of the flesh that profited nothing, must be a very ill neighbor, yea neck-break to faith; which will have nothing to do with a half Christ, but conceives of, receives and matches with the whole person of our Immanuel. We read of the mystery of faith, but to conceive of Christ as man is indeed no mystery at all: yea, to conceive of him as man, and yet at the same time to conceive of him and receive him as God-man, are flat contradictions; and, till faith get itself shaken loose of that unprofitable mate, the imaginary idea of him as man, it will never believe to any profit or advantage, nor believe either to the saving of the soul, Heb. x. 39. Or to the giving glory to God, Rev. iv. 20. What can be thought then of this doctrine of imaginary ideas? I fear it belongs to that sort of philosophy which the Spirit of God warns us against Col. ii. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. God says, How long shall vain thoughts lodge within you? And such is the abstract notion and vain imagination of Christ’s humanity, or of Christ as man. It is true, the two natures of Christ are distinct, and so may be supposed to be the object of distinct ideas: but neither the one nor the other, separately, are the object of saving faith, but only the person of God-man. If we cannot have an imaginary idea of him as God-man, nor can conceive of, or receive him as such, but only by faith; then how can the imaginary idea of him as man belong to faith, while it cannot but separate the man from the God? And so, the object of that idea being man, and not God, according to Mr. Robe’s concession, p. 12. one cannot but, the he hath that idea, think upon a false Christ, according to Mr. Fisher’s assertion; because he thinks only upon a man: and indeed his imaginary ideas can lead him no higher. Therefore, when these are brought into the nature of faith, as a sine qua non, so as faith cannot be acted without them, it must land either in a false faith, or a false Christ, or both: from which may the Lord in mercy deliver us; for our senses and imaginations will give us little help.
And this lead me to notice another word Mr. Robe has to Mr. Fisher, in that same twelfth page: “Your assertion, that our senses and imagination cannot assist us at all in thinking upon the divine nature and perfections, is in flat contradiction to what the apostle saith, Rom. i. 20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal Godhead—Our senses (says he) and imagination are greatly helpful to bring us to the knowledge of the divine nature and perfections.” I cannot but wonder at this strange divinity. No doubt, the heavens declare the glory of God, and shew that a powerful God was a maker of them; and the apostle there says the same upon the matter, that the true visible frame declares it hath an invisible framer; and so the light of nature, and works of creation, teach the quod sit, or that God is, and that he must be clothed with such perfections of wisdom and power as these works declare; but, if Mr. Robe think, that these visible things that strike our senses can lead us to the quid sit, or what God is, and let us into the knowledge or right notion of the invisible divine nature and perfections, then there would be little need of any other bible than the visible heavens. To say, that our senses and imaginations are greatly helpful thus to the knowledge of the divine nature and perfections, or to think upon the invisible things of God, that are the objects of faith, and not of sense, is, I suppose, in flat contradiction to what the same apostle says, 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12, 13. The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now, we have received, not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual; not natural and sensible things with spiritual, by a faith of God’s operation. Hence, it is the great end of Christ’s promising to send the Spirit, to glorify him, by shewing the things of God that are his, John xvi. 14, 15. We know nothing that is spiritual, in a spiritual way, without the teaching of the Spirit; therefore Christ promises, he (the Spirit) shall teach you all things, John xiv. 20. And hence he is called the Anointing, that teaches us all things, and makes us know all things, 1 John ii. 20, 27. If there be any thing besides these all things necessary, that he only teaches, I know not what else they can be but unprofitable nothings, and imaginary ideas, indeed. Without this spiritual and divine teaching, to make us know the things and perfections of God, our senses and imaginations are so far from being helpful to the knowledge of the divine nature and perfections, that they are only helpful for furthering men’s ignorance of God, and for making them abuse all the knowledge they have of God’s being and attributes that way, unto more and more idolatry, imagery, and gross darkness.
The design and scope of the apostle, in that verse cited by Mr. Robe, is not so much to show what knowledge of God’s nature and perfections men may attain by the visible works of creation, as rather, what knowledge of him, attainable this way, they smother and imprison, by holding the truth in unrighteousness, verse 18. and how all the knowledge of God they had by the creature, made them err concerning the Creator, unto vain imaginations about him, verse 21. and how this light and knowledge, which rendered them inexcusable for not making a better use of it, did, through the corruption of their nature, make them still more culpable; their knowledge, being fuel to their pride and vain glory, instead of being greatly helpful, was greatly hurtful to them, and declarative of their ignorance and folly, verse 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beats, and to creeping things, verse 23. Hence the more knowledge, wisdom, and learning, that any of the heathens had, the farther were they from the true knowledge of God, and the more superstitious and idolatrous; as appeared in the Athenians, Acts xvii. 16. who were wholly given to idolatry, or full of idols, as in the margin: their knowledge and learning made them greater enemies to a crucified Christ, who was to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks (especially their most learned philosophers, nothing but) foolishness, 1 Cor. i. 23. Here was all the knowledge of God their senses and imagination in the contemplation of the creature helped them unto; and such is all the help and assistance our senses and imagination can give us in thinking upon the divine nature and perfections, notwithstanding of all that may be known, or is knowable of God by the light of nature, and by the consideration of the creatures, Rom. i. 19, 20. This abuse of nature’s light is so natural to all the lapsed race of mankind, that it is charged upon all the heathen world, They became vai in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image, &c. Corrupt nature abused all the notions they had of God from the visible creation, to more and more vile and abominable thoughts of God: and no wonder, since it may be said of them, as it was of the whole world of old before the flood, that every imagination of the thoughts of their heart was only evil continually, Gen. vi. 5. In the margin it is the whole imagination. And, if the whole and every imagination be thus corrupt, how greatly helpful our imagination can be to the knowledge of God, may easily be guessed. But was this the case of the heathen nations only? No, no; the scope of the apostle, in these first three chapters of that epistle to the Romans, is to prove both Jews and Heathens to be alike sinful and corrupt, Rom. iii. 9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. And the design of God therein is, verse 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. And why this? but that, since all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, verse 23. and so are exposed to the wrath of God revealed from heaven in the law, sinners may flee to the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, chap. i. 17, 18. and apprehending themselves by nature children of wrath, may apprehend God justifying freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the redemption of sins, that he might be just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus. This is the knowledge of God and his perfections which the Spirit of God by the gospel leads us to, and from which our senses and imagination do greatly alienate us, instead of being greatly helpful to us.
Thus far I have indeed encroached upon what is the proper province of another and a fitter hand; which I was led to by Mr. Robe’s citing Mr. Shepherd and me upon the subject of imaginary ideas, or the images of spiritual things, Christ, heaven or hell, represented to the fancy.
May this generation be delivered from an imaginary faith, religion and conversion, which will neither unite them to the true Christ, nor bring them to the true heaven, nor keep them out of the true hell. And may the Lord deliver all His people from the influence of gross delusion, instead of gospel-doctrine; from carnal trash, instead of spiritual truth; and from the truth as it is in men’s fancy and imagination, instead of the truth as it is in Jesus and in His blessed Word, the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God.
No comments:
Post a Comment