future State of Bliss or Misery and see there God the righteous Judge ready to render to every one according to his Deeds to them that by patient Continuance in well-doing seek for Glory and Honour and Immortality eternal Life but to every Soul that doth evil Indignation and Wrath Tribulation and Anguish To him I say who hath a Prospect of the different State of perfect Happiness or Misery that attends all Men after this Life depending on their Behaviour here the measures of Good and Evil that govern his Choice are mightily changed Ibid. § 60. Our Saviour requires the Obedience of his Disciples to several of the Commands of the Moral Law he afresh lays upon them with the Enforcement of unspeakable Rewards and Punishments in another World according to their Obedience or Disobedience Reasonab of Christian. p. 234. The Son of God would in vain have come into the World to lay the Foundation of a Kingdom and gather together a select People out of the World if they being found guilty at their Appearance before the Judgment-Seat of the righteous Judge of all Men at the last Day instead of Entrance into eternal Life in the Kingdom he had prepared for them they should receive Death the just Reward of Sin which every one of them was guilty of This second Death would have left him no Subjects Ibid. p. 211. Open Mens Eyes upon the endless unspeakable Joys of another Life and their Hearts will find something solid and powerful to move them to live well here The View of Heaven and Hell will cast a Slight upon the short Pleasures and Pains of this present State and give Attractions and Encouragements to Vertue which Reason and Interest and the Care of our selves cannot but allow Ibid. p. 291 292. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS As to the Article of the Resurrection the first Enquiry must be Whether there are to be found any such express Words in the Scripture as that the Body shall rise or be raised or the Resurrection of the Body where the general Resurrection is spoken of If when Mr. Lock denies that such express Words are found in the Scripture see his Third Letter p. 210. his Meaning be that those very express Words are not found I grant that they are not but if he mean farther that express Words which signifie the very same thing are not to be found the contrary will easily appear In Rom. 8. 23. there are these express Words the Redemption of our Body and Mr. Lock in Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. tells us that thereby is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into the spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection when this Mortal shall have put on Immortality In the same Chapter v. 11. we find these express Words Quicken your mortal Bodies He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall make them to live restore them to Life after Death as he restor'd the crucified Body of Christ to Life so that to quicken our mortal Bodies is the same with raising them And Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 199. saying that in the New Testament it is said Raise the Dead Quicken or make alive the Dead the Resurrection of the Dead clearly makes to Quicken and to Raise to signifie the same And St. Chrysostom not to mention Occumenius and Theophylact who follow him gives a Reason why St. Paul says Quicken or give Life to our mortal Bodies rather than raise them viz. Because he here speaks only of those who should be raised to Life i. e. a blissful or happy Life viz. the Faithful who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them not of the Wicked who shall also be rais'd but says he unto Punishment not unto Life There is a third Text which hath so near a Resemblance to these that it may well be join'd with them viz. Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body that it may be conformed to his glorious Body When shall the Saviour the Lord Christ effect this wonderful Change that our vile Body shall be made conformable to his glorious Body Surely then when he shall quicken or raise it and that will be when he comes from Heaven to judge the World see v. 20. Here is not indeed the Word Raise but it is plainly imply'd The Blessed Jesus when he comes from Heaven will raise our vile Body and make it conform'd to his own glorious Body Will Mr. Lock say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in these Places He cannot say it of the first viz. Rom. 8. 23. without retracting his own express Words in Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. He cannot say it of the third viz. Philip. 3. 21. because the immediately foregoing Verse points us to the Time of Christ's coming from Heaven to judge the World He may perhaps say it of the second viz. Rom. 8. 11. because some before him have said that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in that Text particularly Calvin and Piscator Calvin in loc hath these Words Mortalia corpora vocat quicquid adhuc restat in nob is morti obnoxium ut mos illi usit at us est crassioram nostri partem hoc nomine appellare Unde colligimus non de ultima resurrectione quae momento fiet haberi sermonem sed de continua Spiritus operatione quae reliquias carnis paulatim mortificans caelestem vitam in nobis instaurat He tells us that by mortal Bodies is understood whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death which we may grant him for our Souls are not obnoxious to Death and therefore our mortal Bodies contain all that remains in us liable to Death He tells us also that it is the Apostle's usual manner to call the grosser part of us by that Name i. e. by the Name of Body and we may likewise grant him this for every one grants that the Body is the grosser part of us But now what would he gather from this Whence says he we collect that the last Resurrection is not spoken of His Argument put into Form is this The Apostle by mortal Bodies understands whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death therefore the last Resurrection is not spoken of Mr. Lock may try if he pleases whether he can find out any thing to tie this Antecedent and Consequent together but I can pronounce that it will not be very easie for him to do it Piscater's Words are these Quum certum sit Apostolum hic non lequi de resurrectione corporum sed animarum Tho' our own Eyes tell us that the Apostle uses the word Bodies not Souls yet if we will believe Piscator it is certain that here he speaks not of the Resurrection of Bodies but of Souls And how is it certain Mr. Calvin hath said it that is all the Assurance that I know of He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies these
p. 9. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Expositors are not agreed what Death it is which God threatned to Adam upon his eating the forbidden Fruit. Mr. Lock if I mistake him not can by Death here understand nothing but that which we call the Death of the Body or a natural or temporal Death And I believe few will deny that this Death was threatned in the words Thou shalt surely die Gen. 2. 17. The great Objection against this is that which Mr. Lock intimates viz. that it is said In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die whereas it was above nine hundred years after his eating that Adam died this Death But hereto it may be answer'd 1. That in the day that he did eat taking the words in the strict sense this Death became due to him or he became a Child of Death God might have said to him as Solomon to Abiathar 1 Kings 2. 26. Thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death 2. In that day he became liable to Diseases which were Harbingers of this Death which did by degrees weaken the strength of Nature and at last introduce Death 3. St. Hierom and Theodoret do testifie that Symmachus instead of Thou shalt surely die translates Thou shalt be mortal and the rendring is approv'd and commended by S. Hierom in Tradit Hebr. in gen Now according to it there is no difficulty for Adam did become mortal that day 4. Some say that Adam repented and that upon his Repentance the Execution of the Threatning was respited as others say that it was respited upon the account of the Remedy which God had prepared viz. The Seed of the Woman Lastly There is no necessity that the words In the day be taken so strictly we may understand them more largely viz. At what time thou shalt eat thereof know assuredly that thou shalt die the death As Solomon says to Shimei On the day thou goest out and passest over the Brook Kidron thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die 1 Kings 2. 37. It could not be Solomon's Meaning that Shimei should surely die the very same day that he passed over Kidron for he could not foresee that Shimei would return to Jerusalem the self same day or that word would be brought to him the self same day that he had passed over he only tells Shimei that if he should pass over he would forfeit his Life and be certainly put to Death whensoever he should please to give order for the execution of the Sentence Therefore notwithstanding the foremention'd Objection we may conclude that Adam was to die that Death which we call the Death of the Body or a natural Death and thus far Mr. Lock is in the right The Question is Whether he be in the right when he says that by the Death threatned Gen. 2. 17. he can understand nothing but this Death What thinks he of a Death of Afflictions outward Sufferings and Calamities May not this be comprehended under the word Death Gen. 2. Is not the Word Death taken in this Sense in other places of Scripture When S. Paul says of himself that he was in Deaths oft may we not interpret it in Sufferings oft See 2 Cor. 11. 23. In like manner when he says 1 Cor. 15. 31. I die daily may we not suppose that he had respect to the Afflictions and Sufferings that came daily upon him for the sake of Christ But most plainly the Word is thus to be understood Exod. 10. 17. where Pharaoh says to Moses and Aaron Intreat the Lord your God that he may take away from me this Death only Here by Death is understood nothing but the Plague of Locusts With respect to these Afflictions and Calamities one says Incipimus enim si forte nescis tum mori cum primum incipimus vivere mors cum vita protenditur And thus Adam begun to die i.e. to be liable to the Afflictions and Miseries of Life that very day that he sinn'd But Mr. Lock informs us more particularly what he cannot understand by Death Genesis 2. saying 1. Some will have it to be a state of Guilt wherein not only he but all his Posterity was so involv'd that every one descended of him deserv'd endless torment in Hell-fire 2. They would have it be also a state of necessary sinning and provoking God in every Action that Men do see Reasonab of Christianity p. 4 5. whereas he cannot subscribe to either of these significations of the Word Death But I must acknowledge my self so ignorant as not to know the Authors of these two Interpretations It would have been more satisfaction to his Readers if Mr. Lock had given us the Names of them together with their express Words and directed us to the places where we might have found them But he not having done this it cannot be expected that any notice should be taken of what he says concerning them There are who say that by Death Gen. 2. we are to understand not only that natural Death and that Death of external Afflictions and Sufferings of which we have spoken but also a spiritual Death so they call the loss of so much of the Image of God as consisted in perfect Righteousness and true Holiness and of that Light and Strength which Adam had before his Fall and likewise of everlasting Death They conceive that all these are comprehended under the Penalty threatned Gen. 2. And if Mr. Lock had disputed against these I should perhaps have consider'd his Arguments It may be said that he doth argue against those who make everlasting Death to be comprehended in that Threatning for that which we call eternal Death he calls eternal Life in Misery His words are these It seems a strange way of understanding a Law which requires the plainest and directest words that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery Could any one be suppos'd by a Law that says for Felony you shall die not that he should lose his Life but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments Thus Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 5. labouring to expose those who make a double Death both of Body and Soul not only temporal but also eternal to be threaten'd to Adam but it cannot be said that he argues against them for here is nothing that looks like an Argument 1. He says It is strange that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery but instead of Eternal Life in Misery he should have said Eternal Death in Misery for a Life in perpetual exquisite Torments and Misery is more truly a Death than a Life The Margin of our Bibles Gen. 2. 17. instead of Thou shalt surely die hath Dying thou shalt die which Words seem very properly to express Mens dying everlastingly 2. I cannot say that he doth say but I believe that he would have said that he who says for Felony thou shalt die cannot be suppos'd to mean not that he
of Christian. p. 248. The infinite omnipotent Creator of all things out of nothing c. The Third Letter p. 152. You will say Is it not impossible to admit of the making any thing out of nothing since we cannot possibly conceive it I answer No because it is not reasonable to deny the Power of an infinite Being because we cannot comprehend its Operation We do not deny other effects upon this ground because we cannot possibly conceive the manner of their Production We cannot conceive how Thought or any thing but Motion in Body can move Body and yet that is not a Reason sufficient to make us deny it possible against the constant experience we have of it in our selves in all voluntary Motions which are produc'd in us only by the free Thoughts of our own Minds 'T is an over-valuing our selves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our Capacity and to conclude all things impossible to be done whose manner of doing exceeds our Comprehension Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 19. When the thing is wholly made new so that no part thereof did ever exist before as when a new Particle of Matter doth begin to exist in rerum natura which had before no Being we call it Creation Essay l. 2. c. 26. § 2. Adam being the Son of God S. Luke 3. 38. had this part also of the Likeness and Image of his Father viz. that he was immortal Jesus Christ being also the Son of God was like his Father immortal The great Evidence that Jesus was the Son of God was his Resurrection Acts 13. 32 33. Then the Image of his Father appear'd in him when he visibly enter'd into the state of Immortality And that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein these who were the immediate Sons of God so as to have no other Father were made like their Father appears probable not only from the places in Genesis concerning Adam above taken notice of but seems to me also to be intimated in some Expressions concerning Jesus the Son of God in the New Testament Reasonab of Christian. p. 202 203 207. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS I agree with Mr. Lock That Immortality is part of that Image of God in which Adam was created but as to Christ he as Man was not made like his Father in that part of his Image till he was raised from the Dead for before that as Man he was was mortal As Man he did partake of our Infirmities and was in all things made like unto us only without Sin and so he was made like us in being mortal He was indeed made Man for the suffering of Death Heb. 2. 9. which he did for it follows in the same Verse that By the grace of God he tasted death for every man wherefore God highly exalted him and crown'd him with Glory Honour and Immortality The first place in the New Testament which according to Mr. Lock intimates that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein Christ as Man was made like his Father is Col. 1. 15. where he is call'd The Image of the invisible God and the first-born of every Creature But how appears it that he is call'd so as Man Certainly as God he is most properly the Image of the invisible God But you will say it follows the first-born of every Creature and so he is spoken of in this place as a Creature i. e. as Man To which I answer 1. Suppose I should grant that the Apostle speaks of him as a Creature in this latter Expression doth it follow that he must speak of him as such in the former Might he not call him the Image of the invisible God as God and the first-born of every Creature as Man 2. I do not grant that the Apostle in these words the first-born of every Creature speaks of him as Man The Meaning may be that he was begotten of the Father before any Creature whatsoever did exist and therefore it immediately follows ver 16 17. By him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him He is before all things and by him all things consist Which agrees with S. John 1. 2 3. The Word was in the beginning with God By him all things were made and without him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as much as any one thing was made that was made And we are told ver 1. that this Word was God These words therefore The first-born of every Creature do not hinder but that the former words Who is the image of the invisible God were spoken of Christ as God and then they make not for Mr. Lock 's purpose who would have him here call'd the Image of the invisible God as he is Man I know that Mr. Lock saith that the words The first-born of every Creature are explain'd ver 18. where he is term'd The first-born from the dead But I conceive that these are distinct things and that we need look no farther for the Explication than ver 17. He is the first-born of every Creature ver 15. i. e. He is before all things v. 17. CHAP. VI. Of Christ. THE Son of God whilst cloath'd in Flesh was subject to all the Frailties and Inconveniences of Humane Nature Sin excepted Mr. Lock Essay l. 3. c. 9. § 23. Christ after a Life illustrious in Miracles and good Works attended with Humility Meekness Patience and Suffering and every way conformable to the Prophecies of him was lead as a Sheep to the slaughter and with all Quiet and Submission brought to the Cross though there were no guilt or fault found in him Reason of Christian. p. 61. Christ's coming into the World was not for such an end as the over-turning the measures of Right and Wrong and thereby introducing and authorizing Irregularity Confusion and Disorder in the World but on the contrary to reform the corrupt State of degenerate Man and out of those who would mend their Lives and bring forth fruit meet for Repentance erect a new Kingdom Ibid. p. 215. The chief end of his Coming was to be a King and as such to be received by those who would be his Subjects in the Kingdom which he came to erect Ibid. p. 217. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS What means Mr. Lock when he says The Son of God was cloath'd with flesh Is it his Meaning that the eternal Son of God the second Person in the Trinity was cloath'd with Flesh If so it was to be wish'd that he would do that Justice to himself plainly to declare it and thereby remove out of mens minds the Jealousies they have of him as to this Point It may be enquir'd also what he means by that Expression Whilst cloathed in Flesh As there was a time before the Son of God was incarnate or cloath'd with Flesh so hath he after his Incarnation ceas'd to be cloath'd with it
Second Vindication p. 309. But every one sees that all he could say is that in effect they make but one and that with the same breath he expresly calls them two Articles There is therefore no necessity of our insisting upon this they that please may see what he himself saith in the same Vindication p. 25 26. 2. He insists much upon it that our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection are mentioned and made use of as Arguments to persuade men of this Fundamental Truth viz. That Jesus was the Messiah they were not propos'd as Fundamental Articles which the Apostles principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince men of Second Vindicat. p. 268 269. So again p. 323. he urges that his Death and Resurrection were Matters of Fact which happen'd to him in their due time to compleat in him the Character and Predictions of the Messiah and demonstrate him to be the Deliverer promised they were no more necessary to be believ'd to make a man a Christian than any other part of Divine Revelation c. Thus Mr. Lock But the Question is not Whether the Crucifixion Death and Resurrection of Christ were propos'd by the Apostles as the Fundamental Truths which they principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince their Hearers of but whether they were not propos'd by them as Fundamental Truths Whether this That Jesus is the Messiah be the principal Article and whether it was the only Article preach'd by the Apostles as necessary to the making Men Christians are different Questions Mr. Lock in his Reasonab of Christian. p. 31. says expresly of the Article of Christ's Resurrection that it was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article Where we may observe the Word Also which denotes that not only the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah but also this of the Resurrection was commonly requir'd as necessary And accordingly the same Mr. Lock says presently after That our Saviour's Resurrection is necessary now to be believ'd by those who would receive him as the Messiah It is true that in a place lately cited viz. his Second Vindication p. 323. he says That the Articles of Christ's Death and Resurrection are no more necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian than any other part of divine Revelation but then it immediately follows But as far as they have an immediate Connexion with his being the Messiah and cannot be denied without denying him to be the Messiah And so he plainly grants That so far as they have such a Connexion with his being the Messiah they are necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian which is as much as we need desire for thence it follows that this that Jesus is the Messiah was not the sole Doctrine that was preach'd as necessary to be believ'd to that end I must not forget that Mr. Lock also saith That our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection were mention'd and made use of to prove that Jesus was the Messiah If so these Articles that Jesus was Crucify'd that he Died and that he Rose from Death were the Premisses and this that he was the Messiah the Conclusion Now it must be acknowledg'd that the Premisses are necessary to be believ'd before we can believe the Conclusion and therefore this makes against Mr. Lock not at all for him If we cannot believe that Jesus was the Messiah unless we believe that he rose from the dead which Mr. Lock confesses then the Article of the Resurrection was necessary to be preach'd and believ'd to make a man a Christian. 3. He says that his Resurrection and some other Articles are put for his being the Messiah and proposed to be believ'd in the place of it but I shall â—â—ve occasion to examine this very shortly To proceed then How can Mr. Lock say that this that Jesus was the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by the Apostles to Unbelievers to bring them to the Faith when he grants that in some of their discourses it was omitted yea and other Articles at the same time insisted on Thus in his Reasonab of Christianity p. 31. he says that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on So in his Second Vindication p. 284. he plainly confesses that in the Story of what Paul and Barnabas said at Lystra the Article of the Messiah is not mention'd tho' at the same time they preached the Article of the one living God See also Ibid. p. 307. where he says that 't is not at all to be wondered that his Resurrection his Ascension his Rule and Dominion and his coming to Judge the quick and the dead should sometimes in Scripture be put alone as sufficient Descriptions of the Messiah Thus Act. 10. our Saviour in Peter's discourse to Cornelius when he brought him the Gospel is described to be the Messiah by his Miracles Death Resurrection Dominion and cocoming to judge the quick and the dead Here he grants in express words that our Lord's Resurrection Ascension Dominion and judging the quick and dead are sometimes put alone and if they be sometimes put alone then the Article of his being the Messiah is sometimes omitted To the same purpose he says Ibid. p. 308. These where they are set alone for the Faith to which Salvation is promised plainly signifie the believing Jesus to be the Messiah Here he grants again That the four Articles just now mention'd are sometimes set alone and that the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah is only signified viz. by those four Articles and not express'd And indeed this is Mr. Lock 's usual Evasion that tho' other Articles are only insisted on in some places yet the Article of our Saviour's being the Messiah is signified by those Articles the believing them is put for believing him to be the Messiah they are proposed to be believ'd in the place of it see his Second Vindication p. 307 327. Where we may be sure that his Meaning is not that the other Articles were to be believ'd and the Article that Jesus is the Messiah was not to be believ'd tho' the words Proposed to be believ'd in place of it are capable of that sense but if I do not mistake his Meaning is that those Articles were propos'd to be believ'd that believing them they might believe also that Jesus was the Messiah because those were convincing Proofs of this But whatever his Meaning is this is manifest that they were proposed by the Apostles to Unbelievers as necessary to be believ'd to make them Christian And this is sufficient for the Confutation of those who say that only one Gospel-Article was preached as necessary to be believ'd to that end Before I leave this I must not omit to take notice that Mr. Lock doth assign a Reason why Paul and Barnabas did not mention the Article of the Messiah which I shall set down in his own words Having says he begun their preaching with that of one living God they had not time to proceed farther
should lose his Life but that he should be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments But the cases are not parallel for they that expound the Words Thou shalt surely die of a double Death say that he should both lose or depart out of this present Life and also after his Departure suffer those perpetual exquisite Torments Besides an earthly Lawgiver who can only kill the body when he says Thou shalt die cannot be supposed to mean that the Person should suffer such Torments but it cannot be inferr'd hence that when the heavenly Lawgiver who after he hath kill'd is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell says Thou shall die he may not fitly be suppos'd to threaten Eternal Death as well as Temporal But that which gives greatest Offence is still behind and that is that he describes that which we call a natural or temporal Death not only by losing all actions of Lise and Sense but also by ceasing to be His words are these By Death here I can understand nothing but ceasing to be the losing of all actions of Life and Sense see Reasonab of Christian. p. 6. And so again p. 15. This being the case that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die and cease to be That when Men die their Bodies lose all actions of Life and Sense we need not be told but ceasing to be is a quite different thing and according to the known sense of the words can signify nothing but the being annihilated It will therefore concern Mr. Lock to find out some other Sense of the Words which we know not of for it seems very strange that he should make Death an Annihilation When Mr. Lock says that none are truly punished but for their own deeds Reasonab of Christian. p. 9. we may gather from that which immediately follows that his Meaning is that there will be no Condemnation to any one at the great Judgment but for his own Deeds but that Persons have suffer'd otherwise for the Sins of others there are sundry Instances in Holy Writ and Mr. Lock here alledges the Words of the Apostle affirming that in Adam all die CHAP. XVI Of the Law of Nature and of Moses's Law THe Law of Nature is a Law knowable by the Light of Nature i. e. without the help of positive Revelation It is something that we may attain to the knowledge of by our natural Faculties from natural Principles Mr. Lock Essay l. 1. c. 3. § 13. The existence of God is so many ways manifest and the Obedience we owe him so congruous to the Light of Reason that a great part of Mankind give Testimony to the Law of Nature Ibid. § 6. Every Christian both as a Deist and as a Christian is obliged to study both the Law of Nature and the revealed Law that in them he may know the Will of God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent Second Vindication p. 77. The Civil and Ritual part of the Law delivered by Moses obliges not Christians tho' to the Jews it were a part of the Law of Works it being a part of the Law of Nature that Man ought to obey every positive Law of God whenever he shall please to make any such Addition to the Law of his Nature But the moral part of Moses's Law or the moral Law which is every where the same the eternal Rule of Right obliges Christians and all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works Reasonab of Christian. p. 21 22. No one Precept or Rule of the eternal Law of Right which is holy just and good is abrogated or repeal'd nor indeed can be whilst God is an holy just and righteous God and Man a rational Creature The duties of that Law arising from the Constitution of his very Nature are of eternal obligation and it cannot be taken away or dispens'd with without changing the nature of things and overturning the Measures of Right and Wrong Ibid. p. 214. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS It is known to be Mr. Lock 's darling Notion That there are no innate Ideas and no innate Law and consequently according to him the Law of Nature is not innate but he tells us that the knowledge of it is attain'd by the light of Nature or by our natural Faculties from natural Principles But I would ask him Whence we have these natural Principles from which by our natural Faculties we attain to the Knowledge of the Law of Nature for he denies all innate Principles Will he say then that we owe them to the Superstition of a Nurse or the Authority of an Old Woman or our Educations for these he mentions Essay l. 1. c. 3. § 22. and 26. where he is giving an account how Men commonly come by their Principles If he say this I would know why he calls those which are taught us by Old Women or our Nurses Parents and School-Masters natural Principles If Mr. Lock please to satisfie us as to these Queries I may possibly farther consider his Description of the Law of Nature Farther I believe that there have been many that have not made use of the Light of Reason and the natural Faculties which God hath given them as they should have done and withal have not had the advantage of any Revelation or of being taught who yet have had some Knowledge of the Duties and Dictates of the Law of Nature and have assented to them as just and good as soon as they were proposed to them CHAP. XVII Of Natural and Revealed Religion or of the Light of Reason and that of Revelation IT is not to be wonder'd that the Will of God when cloath'd in words should be liable to that Doubt and Uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of Conveyance And we ought to magnifie his Goodness that he hath spread before all the World such legible Characters of his Works and Providence and given all Mankind so sufficient a light of Reason that they to whom this written Word never came could not whenever they set themselves to search either doubt of the being of a God or of the Obedience due to him Since then the Precepts of Natural Religion are plain and very intelligible to all Mankind and seldom come to be controverted and other reveal'd Truths which are convey'd to us by Books and Languages are liable to the common and natural Obscurities incident to Words methinks it would become us to be more careful and diligent in observing the former and less magisterial positive and imperious in imposing our own Sense and Interpretations of the latter Mr. Lock Essay l. 3. c. 9. § 23. Whatsoever Truth we come to the discovery of from the Knowledge and Contemplation of our own clear Ideas will always be certainer to us than those which are convey'd to us by Traditional Revelation for the Knowledge we have that this Revelation came from God can never be so sure as the Knowledge that we have from our own clear and
much Certainty as our Knowledge in self because otherwhere Mr. Lock denies all Certainty of Faith CHAP. XVIII Of Mysteries or Things above Reason I Wish I could say there were no Mysteries in the Holy Scripture I acknowledge there are to me and I fear always will be Mr. Lock in his First Letter p. 226 227. Things are distinguish'd into those that are according to above and contrary to Reason 1. According to Reason are such Propositions whose Truth we can discover by examining and tracing those Ideas we have from Sensation and Reflexion and by natural Deduction find to be true or probable 2. Above Reason are such Propositions whose Truth or Probability we cannot by Reason derive from those Principles 3. Contrary to Reason are such Propositions as are inconsistent with or irreconcilable to our clear and distinct Ideas Thus the Existence of one God is according to Reason the Existence of more than one God contrary to Reason the Resurrection of the Body after Death above Reason Above Reason also may be taken in a double Sense viz. above Probability and above Certainty and in that large Sense also contrary to Reason is I suppose sometimes taken Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 23. There being many things wherein we have very imperfect Notions or none at all and other things of whose past present or future Existence by the natural Use of our Faculties we can have no Knowledge at all these are beyond the Discovery of our natural Faculties and above Reason and Reason hath directly nothing to do with them Thus that part of the Angels rebelled against God and therefore lost their first happy Estate and that the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again these and the like are beyond the Discoveries of Reason Ibid. c. 18. § 7. OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock in his Second Letter complains that he is join'd with Unitarians and the Author of Christianity not mysterious p. 7. and that therefore the World would be apt to think that he is the Person who argues against the Trinity and denies Mysteries p. 24. Wherefore that he might clear himself from this latter Imputation of denying Mysteries he says That there are Mysteries in Holy Scripture to him and he fears that there always will be But if hereby he only means that there are some things in Scripture hard to be understood and which he fears he shall never understand I know not but that the Author of Christianity not mysterious may say the same However he distinguisheth very well of things according to above and contrary to Reason but when in his Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 7. he had reckon'd this that the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again among things above Reason in his Third Letter p. 210. he tells us that in the next Edition of his Essay he shall change these words The Bodies of Men shall rise into these The dead shall rise But I shall take farther notice of this when I reflect upon his Doctrine of the Resurrection CHAP. XIX Of the Law of Works and the Law of Faith also of Justification THE Law of Works is that Law which requires perfect Obedience without any Remission or Abatement so that by that Law a Man cannot be just or justified without an exact performance of every tittle The Language of this Law is Do this and live Transgress and die no Dispensation no Atonement Under the Law of Works is comprehended also the Law of Nature as well as the Law given by Moses Nay whatever God requires any where to be done without making any allowance for Faith that is a part of the Law of Works So the forbidding Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge was part of the Law of Works The Civil and Ritual part of the Law delivered by Moses was to the Jews a part of the Law of Works but the moral part of Moses's Law or the Moral Law obliges all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works But Christian Believers have the Privilege to be under the Law of Faith too which is that Law whereby God justifies a Man for believing though by his Works he be not just and righteous i. e. though he come short of perfect Obedience to the Law of Works God alone does or can justifie or make just those who by their Works are not so which he doth by counting their Faith for Righteousness i. e. for a complete Performance of the Law The Difference between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith is only this that the Law of Works makes no allowance for failing on any occasion Those that obey are righteous those that in any part disobey are unrighteous and must not expect Life the reward of Righteousness But by the Law of Faith Faith is allowed to supply the defect of full Obedience and so the Believers are admitted to Life and Immortality as if they were righteous Were there no Law of Works there could be no Law of Faith For there could be no need of Faith which should be counted to Men for Righteousness if there were no Law to be the Rule and Measure of Righteousness which Men fail'd in their obedience to Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 16 18 19 20 21 22. The Rule therefore of the Covenant of Works was never abolished tho' the rigour were abated The Duties enjoyn'd in it were Duties still Their Obligations never ceased Ibid. p. 225. The Law of Faith is for every one to believe what God requires him to believe as a Condition of the Covenant he makes with him and not to doubt of the Performance of his Promise Ibid. p. 24 25. Righteousness or an exact Obedience to the Law seems by the Scripture to have a Claim of Right to Eternal Life Ibid. p. 11. OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock who thinks it our Duty as far as we deliver any thing for Revelation to keep close to the Words of the Scripture see his third Letter p. 210. doth not observe his own Rule when he says that God justifies a Man for believing this not being the Scripture-Language as far as I remember We are often said to be justified by Faith and if he will also just by Faith as Faith is oft said to be impated to Men for Righteousness and God is stil'd the justifier of him that believes but I do not find that the Scripture useth these Words that he is the justifier of any Man for believing Having said that exact Obedience to the Law seems to have a Claim of Right to eternal Life Mr. Lock alledges for it Rom. 4. 4. and Revel 22. 14. see his Reasonab of Christian. p. 11. In Rom. 4. 4. 't is said To him that worketh the reward is not reckon'd of grace but of debt In Rev. 22. 14. the Words in our Translation are Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have right to the tree of Life Mr. Lock adds in the same Character Which is in the Paradise of
Community of Wives by Xenophon de Republ. Lacedaem We are told also by Tertullian Apologet. c. 39. that Socrates among the Greeks and Cato among the Romans lent their Wives to others and Strabo l. 11. with several others testifies the same of Cato and adds that this was the ancient Custom of the Romans Yea Diogenes the Cynick and Plato and the Stoicks Zeno and Chrysippus were all of Opinion that Wives ought to be common as Diogenes Laertius in Zenone informs us and they that desire to see Plato's Judgment may consult him de Republ. l. 5. and other where As these that I have mention'd agreed with Lycurgus as to the Community of Wives so there were too many that were for the Lawfulness of exposing or murthering Children as he was We may justly admire that Seneca de Ira l. 1. c. 15. should give such Advice as he does At corrigi nequeunt nihilque in illis bonae spei capax est Tollantur e coetu mortalium Portentosos foetus extinguimus liberos quoque si debiles monstrosique sint editi mergimus so he Cicero de Natur. Deor. l. 3. vers fin counted it a fault to acknowledge that we owe any Vertue to God that says he is not a Gift from God we have it of our selves His Words are these Virtutem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit nimirum recte Propter virtutem enim jure laudamur de virtute recte gloriamur quod non contingeret si id donum a Deo non a nobis haberemus I shall add only one Instance more out of Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhon Hypotyp l. 3. where he shews that the Stoicks allow'd Paedaresty together with the foulest Incests citing the Words of Zeno and Chrysippus The very same is charg'd upon that Sect by Theophilus Antioch ad Autolyc l. 3. And as to Paedaresty the Words of Tatianus con Graecos p. 164 165. are most apposite to our Purpose especially if the Latin Interpreter hath rendred them right Barbari puerorum amores damnant iidem apud Romanos praerogativa dignantur Much more might have been added but this is more than enough to confute Mr. Lock 's strange Assertion That Esteem and Discredit Vertue and Vice do in a great measure every where correspond with the unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong which the Law of God hath established or as he expresses it in his Epistle to the Reader that Men in denominating Vertue and Vice did not for the most part much vary from the Law of Nature But Mr. Lock will prove this from Scripture Even the Exhortations of inspired Teachers have not fear'd I suppose he means even inspir'd Teachers in their Exhortations have not fear'd to appeal to common Repute Whatsoever is lovely whatsoever is of good Report if there be any Vertue if there be any Praise c. Phil. 4. 8. Thus Mr. Lock Essay l. 2. c. 28. § 11. But in what Words doth the Apostle appeal to common Repute Not in the Word Vertue for by that he undoubtedly means real Vertue not in the Word Praise for by it is understood that which is truly Praise-worthy sua sponte laudabile as Tully says not in the Words whatsoever is lovely for Oecumenius in loc teaches us to understand thereby whatsoever is amiable in the Eyes of God or of the Faithful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is it then in the Words whatsoever is of good Report that he appeals to it It must be in these if in any But 1. As Oecumenius teaches us to understand the former Words whatsoever is lovely not in the Eyes of all Men but of the Faithful so why may we not restrain the latter Words thus What soever is of good Report i. e. with good Men or with those who know how to make a right Estimate of things who have their Senses exercis'd to discern between good and evil 2. Or may not the Words be expounded thus Whatsoever is in it self or of its own Nature such as deserves that we should be well spoken of for it or such as Men cannot but speak well of us for it whosoever they be whether Christians or those that are without St. Paul would have us to do all such things as Men ought to speak well of but not every thing which any one may speak well of for some may speak well of the Covetous whom the Lord abhorreth Psal. 10. 3. and that may be highly esteemed with Men which is an Abomination in the Sight of God It is then a great Mistake to think that the Apostle here appeals to common Esteem and Repute which is so uncertain that if it was the Measure of Vertue and Vice by reason of the different Temper Education Fashion Judgment Maxims and Interest of Men in several Ages and Places it would fall out that what is Vertue in one Age would be Vice in another as Mr. Lock confesses that what is accounted Vertue in one place passes for Vice in another That which is so uncertain and changeable cannot but vary much from the certain and unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong viz. the Law of God let Mr. Lock pretend to the contrary what he will and plead as much as he will for his Law of Opinion and Reputation When Mr. Lock says that Men are so constantly true to their Interest he cannot surely mean their chiefest Interest viz. the Interest of their Souls for he must needs be sensible how regardless Men are of that and how ready to betray it Tho' in his Treatise of Education p. 61. he says That Reputation is not the true Principle and Measure of Vertue yet he adds That it is that which comes nearest to it But it may do well if he please to explain what he means by its coming nearest the true Principle and Measure of Vertue When in his Treatise of Education p. 185. he says the Lord's Prayer the Creeds and Ten Commandments c. doth he by the Creeds understand those Three Creeds which we have in our Liturgy call'd the Apostle's the Nicene and Athanasian Or is Creeds put for Creed by the Mistake of the Press CHAP. XXXI Of the Resurrection of the Body the Day of Judgment and Eternal Rewards and Punishments THE Resurrection of the Body after Death is above Reason That the Bodies of Men shall rise and live again this being beyond the Discovery of Reason is purely a Matter of Faith with which Reason has directly nothing to do Mr. Lock Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 23. and c. 18. § 7. Divine Justice shall bring to Judgment at the last Day the very same Persons to be happy or miserable in the other who did well or ill in this Life He who at first made us begin to subsist here sensible intelligent Beings and for several Years continu'd us in such a State can and will restore us to the like State of Sensibility in another World and make us capable there to receive the Retribution he has design'd to Men according to