An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. Robert Barclay

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ The Greek Word [Greek: psychikos: ψυχικος] ought to be translated animal, and not natural; else, say they, it would have been [Greek: physikos: φυσικος]. From which they seek to infer, that it is only the Animal Man, and not the Rational, that is excluded here from discerning the Things of God. Which Shift, without disputing about the Word, is easily refuted; neither is it any wise consistent with the Scope of the Place. For

      

      Answ. 1.The Animal Life is the same with Natural. First, The Animal Life is no other than that which Man hath in common with other living Creatures; for as he is a mere Man, he differs no otherwise from Beasts than by the Rational Property. Now the Apostle deduceth his Argument in the foregoing Verses from this Simile; That as the Things of a Man cannot be known but by the Spirit of a Man, so the Things of God no Man knoweth but by the Spirit of God. But I hope these Men will confess unto me, that the Things of a Man are not known by the Animal Spirit only, i.e. by that which he hath in common with the Beasts, but by the Rational; so that it must be the Rational that is here understood. Again, the Assumption shews clearly that the Apostle had no such Intent as these Men’s Gloss would make him have, viz. So the Things of God knoweth no Man, but the Spirit of God. According to their Judgment he should have said, The Things of God knoweth no Man by his Animal Spirit, but by his Rational Spirit: For to say, The Spirit of God, here spoken of, is no other than the Rational Spirit of Man, would border upon Blasphemy, since they are so often contra-distinguished. Again, going on, he saith not that they are Rationally, but Spiritually discerned.

      Answ. 2.Secondly, The Apostle throughout this Chapter shews how the Wisdom of Man is unfit to judge of the Things of God, and ignorant of them. Now I ask these Men, whether a Man be called a Wise Man from his Animal Property, or from his Rational? The Rational Man in the Natural State excluded from discerning the Things of God.If from his Rational, then it is not only the Animal, but also the Rational, as he is yet in the Natural State, which the Apostle excludes here, and whom he contra-distinguisheth from the Spiritual, Ver. 15. But the Spiritual Man judgeth all Things. This cannot be said of any Man merely because Rational, or as he is a Man, seeing the Men of the greatest Reason, if we may so esteem Men, whom the Scripture calls Wise, as were the Greeks of Old, not only may be, but often are Enemies to the Kingdom of God; while both the Preaching of Christ is said to be Foolishness with the Wise Men of the World, and the Wisdom of the World is said to be Foolishness with God. Now whether it be any ways probable that either these Wise Men that are said to account the Gospel Foolishness, are only so called with respect to their Animal Property, and not their Rational; or that the Wisdom that is Foolishness with God is not meant of the Rational, but only the Animal Property, any Rational Man, laying aside Interest, may easily judge.

      §. IV.

       Table of Contents

      Infants, no Sin imputed to them. I come now to the other Part, to wit, That this evil and corrupt Seed is not imputed to Infants, until they actually join with it. For this there is a Reason given in the End of the Proposition itself, drawn from Ephes. ii. For these are by Nature Children of Wrath, who walk according to the Prince of the Power of the Air, the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience. Here the Apostle gives their evil walking, and not any Thing that is not reduced to act, as a Reason of their being Children of Wrath. And this is suitable to the whole Strain of the Gospel, where no Man is ever threatened or judged for what Iniquity he hath not actually wrought: Such indeed as continue in Iniquity, and so do allow the Sins of their Fathers, God will visit the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children.

      Is it not strange then that Men should entertain an Opinion so absurd in itself, and so cruel and contrary to the Nature as well of God’s Mercy as Justice, concerning which the Scripture is altogether silent? But it is manifest that Man hath invented this Opinion out of Self-love, and from that bitter Root from which all Errors spring; The absolute Decree of Election springs from Self-love.for the most Part of Protestants that hold this, having, as they fancy, the Absolute Decree of Election to secure them and their Children, so as they cannot miss of Salvation, they make no Difficulty to send all others, both Old and Young, to Hell. For whereas Self-love, which is always apt to believe that which it desires, possesseth them with an Hope that their Part is secure, they are not solicitous how they leave their Neighbours, which are the far greater Part of Mankind, in these inextricable Difficulties. The Papists again use this Opinion as an Art to augment the Esteem of their Church, and Reverence of its Sacraments, seeing they pretend it is washed away by Baptism; only in this they appear to be a little more merciful, in that they send not these unbaptized Infants to Hell, but to a certain Limbus, concerning which the Scriptures are as silent as of the other. This then is not only not authorized in the Scriptures, but contrary to the express Tenor of them. The Apostle saith plainly, Rom. iv. 15. Where no Law is, there is no Transgression. And again, v. 13. But Sin is not imputed, where there is no Law. To Infants there is no Law so no Transgression.Than which Testimonies there is nothing more positive; since to Infants there is no Law, seeing as such they are utterly uncapable of it; the Law cannot reach any but such as have in some Measure less or more the Exercise of their Understanding, which Infants have not. So that from thence I thus argue:

      Sin is imputed to none, where there is no Law.

      But to Infants there is no Law:

      Therefore Sin is not imputed to them.

      The Proposition is the Apostle’s own Words; the Assumption is thus proved:

      Those who are under a Physical Impossibility of either hearing, knowing, or understanding any Law, where the Impossibility is not brought upon them by any Act of their own, but is according to the very Order of Nature appointed by God; to such there is no Law.

      But Infants are under this Physical Impossibility:

      Therefore, &c.

      Secondly, What can be more positive than that of Ezek. xviii. 20. The Soul that sinneth, it shall die: The Son shall not bear the Father’s Iniquity? For the Prophet here first sheweth what is the Cause of Man’s Eternal Death, which he saith is his Sinning; and then, as if he purposed expresly to shut out such an Opinion, he assures us, The Son shall not bear the Father’s Iniquity. From which I thus argue:

      Infants bear not Adam’s Transgression.If the Son bear not the Iniquity of his Father, or of his immediate Parents, far less shall he bear the Iniquity of Adam.

      But the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of his Father:

      Therefore, &c.

      §. V.

       Table of Contents

      Having thus far shewn how absurd this Opinion is, I shall briefly examine the Reasons its Authors bring for it.

      

      Obj. 1.First, They say, Adam was a publick Person, and therefore all Men sinned in him, as being in his Loins. And for this they allege that of Rom. v. 12. Wherefore as by one Man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin; and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned, &c. These last Words, say they, may СКАЧАТЬ