An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. Robert Barclay

I hope the Law of God is among the Things of God, especially as it is written in the Heart. The Apostle, in the viith Chap. of the same Epistle, saith, Ver. 12. that the Law is, Holy, Just, and Good; and Ver. 14. the Law is Spiritual, but he is Carnal. Now in what Respect is he Carnal, but as he stands in the Fall unregenerate? Now what Inconsistency would here be, to say, That he is Carnal, and yet not so of his own Nature, seeing it is from his Nature that he is so denominated? We see the Apostle contra-distinguisheth the Law as Spiritual, from Man’s Nature as Carnal and Sinful. Wherefore, as Christ saith, [52]There can no Grapes be expected from Thorns, nor Figs of Thistles; so neither can the fulfilling of the Law, which is Spiritual, Holy, and Just, be expected from that Nature which is Corrupt, Fallen, and Unregenerate. Whence we conclude, with good Reason, that the Nature here spoken of, by which the Gentiles are said to have done the Things contained in the Law, is not the common Nature of Men; The Gentiles Spiritual Nature in doing the Law.but that Spiritual Nature that ariseth from the Works of the righteous and Spiritual Law that is written in the Heart. I confess they of the other Extreme, when they are pressed with this Testimony by the Socinians and Pelagians, as well as by us when we use this Scripture, to shew them how some of the Heathens, by the Light of Christ in their Heart, came to be saved, are very far to seek; giving this Answer, That there were some Reliques of the heavenly Image left in Adam, by which the Heathens could do some good Things. Which, as it is in itself without Proof, so it contradicts their own Assertions elsewhere, and gives away their Cause. For if these Reliques were of Force to enable them to fulfil the righteous Law of God, it takes away the Necessity of Christ’s coming; or at least leaves them a Way to be saved without him; unless they will say (which is worst of all) That though they really fulfilled the righteous Law of God, yet God damned them, because of the Want of that particular Knowledge, while he himself with-held all Means of their coming to him from them; but of this hereafter.

[52] Mat. 7. 16.

      §. III.

       Table of Contents

I might also here use another Argument from these Words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. ii. where he so positively excludes the natural Man from an Understanding in the Things of God; but because I have spoken of that Scripture in the Beginning of the second Proposition, I will here avoid to repeat what is there mentioned, referring thereunto: Socinians exalting the Light of the natural Man.Yet because the Socinians and others, who exalt the Light of the natural Man, or a natural Light in Man, do object against this Scripture, I shall remove it before I proceed.[53]

[53] Antequam progrediar.

      Object.They say, 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.