« PreviousContinue »
well as the author of the Apology hath done ; and I still so do, co far as it makes the Spirit's internal inspiration and influence or motion to be only effective and subjective, but not objective, by way of object, as being perceptible to the mind. But they are but some particular writers that have so distinguished ; which we are the less to regard, seeing it is not to be fonnd in any Confession of Faith of the Protestant Churches; and the Church of England is so far from denying the Spirit's inward operation or working to be sensible or perceptible to the soul's inward feeling, that she plainly asserts it in her Seventeenth Article ; and if it is felt, then certainly it is present to the minds of the faithful in some sort objectively, and by way of object.”—p. 43.
§ III. On the Term « Immediate.”—George Keith gives two senses of this word; the first denoting the absence of all mediums; the second signifying in medio, in the mean. “ Immediate Revelation not ceased,” pp. 34, 35. He distinguishes means as being either transmitting or intermitting, and says, the former “hinders not the immediateness of the communication ; but only the intermitting : as, when light, sounds, and shapes of visible things come to our eye, through and by the means of the air, &c., this hinders not our vision to be immediate.” Immediate Revelation not ceased, p. 42. 232, “ In them who have the Scriptures, the Spirit and light of Christ doth concur immediately together with the Scriptures, to work or beget the true knowledge and faith of these historical truths declared in them-nor doth the serviceableness of the Scripture in this case hinder the immediateness of the Spirit's communication, teaching, and influence, more than the drinking of water in a vessel hindereth that I receive the water immediately."
There is more to this purpose in his “ Truth's Defence,” pp. 100105; also, in “ Immediate Revelation not ceased,” pp. 33—42, 51. In his Answer to the Apology, the following passage occurs on this subject.
"In this sense [as excluding all necessary outward means) the word immediate is only applicable to the Prophets and Apostles.- (But] there is another sense of the word immediate, videlicet not excluding, but including the outward means, and most nearly and intimately co-operating with them. And in this sense it may be safely said, the Spirit teacheth all the faithful immediately ; in opposition to Pelagians, Socinians, and all others of that kind, who affirm that God only teacheth us Gospel truths by the Scripture alone, without any internal operation of the Spirit,” p. 35.
§. IV. On the Terms “ formal and “ formally."-To understand the sense in which these words are used by R. Barclay, in the phrases “ formal object,” “formal cause," “ formally justified,"' it is necessary to advert to the notion of the Ancients respecting Matter and Form ; for which see the explanations given by Harris in his Hermes, p. 308, (5th Edit.) et seq., and in the passage quoted from him 4 in Encyclop. Britan. 6th Edit. vol. xiii. pp. 610–612; also, Reid's Essays, vol. i. pp. 197–199.
4 It is in his “ Philosophical Arrangements,” at pp. 63—92 of the Ed. of 1775.
“Formal object” is, indeed, explained by Barclay himself, Works, pp. 742. 895, 896.; but some previous knowledge of the subject will render his illustration more clear. Keith, in two or more places, calls it the foundation or ground [of faith. Immediate Revelation not ceased, pp. 132. 218. 231. « Formal cause
seems synonymous with “ Form.“. See Sanderson'e Logicæ Artis Compendium, lib. iii. cap. 15, compared with Burgersdick's Synopsis, p, 25.--Harris's Hermes, p. 248.—See also Reid's Essays, vol. iii. p. 55. It occurs in the Apology, in Prop. vii. §. 3. | 7. §. 8. ( I., and perhaps elsewhere.
“ I question much,” says Keith in his Answer to the Apology, “ if the Author himself understood the import of the [term) formally justified,-seeing he holds this birth of Christ in [man] to be not any quality or modification of the soul of man sanctified or renewed, but, a real substance. It is,' he saith, (qu. where, ipsis verbis] the Light or Seed that becomes this birth in them, that is just. Now, how one substance, such as the soul of man, is or can be formally just or holy by another substance, is as unintelligible as to say, a wall is white formally by another wall.” p- 290.
This objection of Keith's lies chiefly or wholly against the term formal or formally ; which R. Barclay used with reluctance and out of “ condescension." Keith asserts, that man is, no doubt, sanctified formally by inherent holiness, as a quality in the soul ; and, that those who speak of the birth of Christ in men, should consider it as their sanctification not formally but efficiently; and (if they make sanctification the same with justification, consequently) as their justification not formally but efficiently.— Ibid. p. 294. I think this is the sense of §. V. On the “ Seed and Birth of God!” in which a view, comprised
in a small number of subdivisions, or articles, is attempted to be taken of the system of George Keith on this subject :-a system that, to a certain extent at least, appears to have been adopted by
Robert Barclay. With some remarks by way of conclusion. Seed-synonyinous expressions: Light-Grace-a measure of Light,
of Grace, or of the Spirit—the Word of God—the Gospel preached in every creaturem&c. Barclay, Apol. Prop. v. and vi. $, 11. 2. and §. 14.—Sometimes called Christ. Ibid. §. 15. sub finem.
“ Semen ipsius. Sic vocatur Spiritus Sanctus ab effectu quòd ejus virtute, tanquam ex semine quodam, novi homines efficiamur,"
Beza in 1 Joann. iii. 9.
Christ formed in us-Christ within, the hope of glory. Apol.
By Birth seems to be meant, at least frequently, that which is
I. OF THE NATURE THIS SEED, AND
DIVINE BIRTA IN Man. “ It [this seed] is not a particle or portion of the Godhead, as the outward body of flesh and blood is a particle of the great outward world; for the Godhead is not divisible nor discerptible into particles, being a most simple, pure Being, void of all composition or division, containing in himself all creaturely perfections, in the greatest simplicity and eminencybut it is of the heavenly, spiritual, and invisible Substance and Being, that is, the most glorious Being and Principle, in which God, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, doth dwell.” Keith, Imm. Rev. not ceased, 2d Edit. 1675, p. 11.
“By this Seed we understand a spiritual, heavenly, and invisible principle; in which God, as Father, Son, and Spirit, dwells; a measure of which divine and glorious life is in all men as a Seed. And this [Light or Seed] wes call Vehiculum Dei." 6 Barclay, Apol. Prop. v. and vi. §. 13, and §. 15. ( 2.
“ The body or flesh and blood of Christ, of which believers partake, is the same 'heavenly Seed,' or “Vehiculum Dei. " Barclay, Apol. Prop. xiii. 3.2.
Divines and others “ only conceive regeneration to be but an accidental, though supernatural, change on the mind; and that in
5 So, in his Works; and in the original Latin Apology, Vocamus. In modern Editions we is altered to some. 6 “To think that either God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, is the
ht within any man, as the immediate object of their [his] knowledge, thoughts, spiritual sense, or perception, without any intermediate illumination, divine ray, beams, or influence —is a most absurd notion, which the Author [of the Apology] thought fit to guard against, (as well as I while among them, by my calling this divine beam, ray, or influence, some intermediate thing or being, in one of my former books) by his calling it Vehiculum Dei, i. e. a Vehicle of God, as the clouds are called sometimes in Scripture, and the winds his chariot; and as angels are so called; for so the word vehicle signifies. And as he had the term, so he had the notion of it from me; which notion was, that this divine influence, ray, or beam, was a substance, as the rays or beams of the sun are reputed by divers philosophers to be a substance. But whether it be a substance, as the Author contends, I do not think it proper, in this place, to debate ; it leading into philosophical disputes.-And it is not the making it to be a substance that doth add any advantage to the Author's undertaking in defence of his hypothesis ; for still it must be acknowledged that there mnst be some intermediate action or operation of God, in his enlightening the minds of men.” Keith's Answer to the Apology, pr. 1702, p. 212.- He then controverts an assertion that this “ Seed or Vehicle” is uncreated ; observing that if so, it must be God himself, and yet that it is said to suffer in men, and to be slain in wicked men. He
says that Barclay, avoiding this error, denies the Seed or Vehicle to be God. Yea,” continues Keith, he has confessed that Christ dwells not in us immediately, but mediately, as he is in that Seed that is in us. What, therefore, he means by Christ being the Seed in men, can be nothing else but an influence from him, as a ray or beam that bears his name by a metonymy; as the sun is said to be in such a place of the house, when it is but its rays or beams that shine there, that by the like metonymy [of the cause for the effect, see p. 248] bear his [its] name. Keith's Answer to the Apology, ubi suprà.
its regeneration it putteth on no substantial principle, but only some supernatural accidents ;? so that according to them, the Seed and Birth of God is but an accident; but we know it to be a substance, and feel it to be so, as manifestly as we feel and know this outward birth of flesh and blood to be a substance.” Keith, Imm. Rer. not ceased, p. 10.
“ For the confirmation of the truth, that the Seed of God is a substance, and the life of holiness and grace is substantial, I shallproduce a few plain arguments :
“1. Even as we do infer, from the variety and nobility of the operations of the rational life and soul, that it is a substance, and no accident; so both from the great variety and also the great nobility
-of its operations, we conclude that- -the Seed of God is a substance. 8
7 The following is an Extract from Beza's Annotations on the New Testament, but in a form somewhat abridged. "6 Quod genitum est ex Spiritu, spiritus est,' Joann. cap. iii. vers. 6. Id est, ut sibi constet antithesis, quod ex principio spirituali effectivo ac proindè puro gignitur, spirituale quoque et purum est, originem videlicet suam referens, sicut carnale et impurum est quod ex carnali et impuro oritur: quâ in re statuitur hæc inter duas istas genituras convenientia, quòd utrinque id quod gignitur dicatur ei simile unde gignitur. Sed dextré interpretanda est hæc convenientia, ne in magnos errores incidamus. Nam in priore illâ generatione carnali et impurâ, sic homo hominem gignit, ut quòd ad corpus attinet, non sit tantùm effectivum, sed etiam materiale ejus quem gignit, principium. At in posteriore generatione spirituali, principium ejus effectivum est ipse Spiritus Sanctus: minimè aliquâ suæ essentiæ traductione (sic enim omnes regenerati essent ipse Spiritus Sanctus); sed eâdem illâ suâ virtute divinâ qualitatem illam impuram abolens, et novam illam puram creans in iis quos refingit.Per quod opus, etsi Spiritus Sanctus novam substantiam veteris loco non creat, tamen tale et tantum est quod agit, ut sic qualitatibus transformati homines, meritò quasi sursus quodammodò geniti, imò etiam quasi sursum creati exstare novo quodam existendi modo videantur: Hinc autem alterum quoque quorundam delirium redarguitur, qui (præter absurdam imò etiam impiam ipsius Spiritûs Sancti essentiæ intrà regeneratos realem insinuationem, de quâ diximus) nomine Spiritus intrà regeneratos creati, non qualitates aliquas, sic metonymicè propter Spiritum Sanctnm illarum autorem idem nomen cum ipso Spiritu Sancto sortitas, sed tertiam quandam realem substantiam imaginantur per regenerationis donum creari et transfundi : ità ut regenerati non tantûm ex anima et corpore, sed prætereà ex tertia quadam essentiali parte componantur; quò etiam locum illum Apostoli ex 1 Thess. v. 23. detorqueant.”
8 In the dispute with the students at Aberdeen, George Keith alleged that the proof of this proposition that the Divine Seed is a substance, would lead into the greatest niceties and obscurities of philosophy and school divinity. Barclay's Works, p. 578. a R. Barclay himself, in his Vindication of the Apology against Brown, seems to refer this question to future discussion.—Works, p. 795. Keith, in his Reply to the Apology, waves debating it. Vide note in p. 16., antè.
The old logical definition of Substance is, “ Ens per se subsistens et substans accidentibus." Vid. Burgersdicii Logicam. For modern disquisitions concerning Substance, see Locke's Essay; Reid's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 357–359; Encyclop. Britann., article Metaphysics, No. 149, Note I. (vol. xiii. p. 613, 6th Edition.)
a On this subject Penn's Works, vol. ii. p. 803, folio Edition, may be referred to.
[This is followed by seven other arguments, which I omit transcribing, and he then proceeds thus :
“ But some may say—it would appear, that we judge the Seed and Divine Birth-not only a substance, but that it is a composed substance of Body and Spirit. To which I answer, yea, it is so, for its Body is the vehicle or vessel of its Spirit—which Spirit is a measure of the Spirit or Soul of Christ the Heavenly Man." Keith, Way to the City of God, pp. 62–65.
“ This Spirit (of which the Seed has in it a measure) is the Spirit of Christ, as he is the second Adam, or Heavenly Man. Keith, Imm. Rev. not ceased, p. 250.
“ A measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Jesus, which dwelt in him in its fulness, and had its centre in him which then came in the flesh-is coinmunicated unto us, and doth extend itself into our very hearts and souls.” Ibid. 243, 244.
“ Nor is this to make many Christs, as some foolishly and ignorantly charge us : for as the natural life of man that hath the centre in the heart, and floweth into all the members of the body, is yet but one life or soul; even so the Life or Spirit or Soul of Christ is but one, although it flows forth into all his members, and, in some sort, into all mankind." Ibid. 246.
“ When I say, the Soul or Spirit of Christ as Man is extended into us,9 I do not understand the Nephesch of his Soul, but the Neschamah or Nischmah, even that Divine Spirit of Life which God breathed into Adam.-By the Nephesch I understand that of the Soul of Christ common to him with the souls of other men.-By the Neschamah or Nischmah I understand that substantial dignity and excellency of the Soul of Christ that it hath in its nature-above and beyond the souls of all other men and spirits-of angels." Keith, Way cast up, &c.
“ The Seed and spiritual Body of Christ, both in him and in us, belonging to Christ as he is the second Adam, is as really and immediately united unto the Word, as his outward Body was.” Barclay's Works, p. 628.
“ God-giveth it (the Sced from himself out of heaven, and soweth it in the heart of man, and formeth it by his own immediate arm and power, according to his infinite wisdom, and watereth it daily and hourly with influences from heaven-whereby this seed groweth up into a perfect substantial Birth of a heavenly and incorruptible nature, (though till it come to its perfect formation, it can suffer hurt, so far as to be slain, through man his joining unto the contrary Seed and Birth,) which is Christ formed within." Keith, Imm. Rev. not ceased, pp. 11, 12
9 This opinion is referred to by R. Barclay,-Works. p. 795.
10 I apprehend more may be seen on this head in Keith's True Christ owned, &c.
11 Keith afterwards, in his Answer to the Apology, is for understanding the phrase of the Birth of Christ in men, or Christ formed in men, metaphorically or by way of allegory; and ascribes the origin of the contrary opinion to Weigelius