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
and propose to them what yet remain'd to make them Christians but they were by the instigation of the Jews fallen upon and Paul stoned before he could come to open to them this other fundamental Article of the Gospel Thus Mr. Lock Second Vindication p. 384 who certainly rely'd very much upon his Reader 's Credulity when he writ this presuming that he would never consult the History of the Acts. For this that the Apostles had not time to proceed to the Article of the Messiah is his mere Fiction there is no ground for it nor the least footstep thereof in that History tho' he hath the Confidence to say that it is apparent yea the quite contrary appears that they had time to finish their Discourse and did finish it For S. Luke Act. 14. having set down their words or the sum of them v. 15 16 17 says v. 18. And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people that they had not done sacrifice to them This shews that they had finished their Discourse as it also shews what effect it had it did restrain the Multitude from sacrificing to them but with difficulty The People were at that time so far from stoning them or giving them any disturbance or interruption that they looked upon them as Gods come down to them in the likeness of Men and would have honour'd them as such Tho' after this and how long after Mr. Lock with all his Skill in Chronology cannot tell us Jews came from Antioch and Iconium who persuaded the People and they stoned Paul See Act. 14. 19. Lastly Is it not strange that he should say that this that Jesus is the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preached by our Saviour and his Apostles and yet maintain that the Apostles did not in plain and direct words preach this Doctrine of his being the Messiah till after his Resurrection and that our Saviour did not in plain and direct words declare himself to the Jews to be the Messiah till near the time of his Death Thus in his Reasonableness of Christianity p. 55 c. having observed that there is a threefold declaration of the Messiah 1. by Miracles 2. by Phrases and Circumlocutions that did signify and intimate his coming tho' not in direct words pointing out his Person he comes p. 59. to the third or last which is by plain and direct words declaring the Doctrine of the Messiah speaking out that Jesus was he as we see the Apostles did when they went about preaching the Gospel after our Saviour's Resurrection This was the open clear way and that which one would think the Messiah himself when he came should have taken especially if it be of that moment that upon Mens believing him to be the Messiah depended the Forgiveness of their Sins And yet we see that our Saviour did not but on the contrary for the most part made no other discovery of himself at least in Judea and at the beginning of his Ministery but in the two former ways which were more obscure Thus Mr. Lock So that according to him as our Saviour did not take the open clear way of discovering himself to be the Messiah so his Disciples did not speak out that he was so till after his Resurrection Yea he insists largely upon our Saviour's concealment of his being the Christ. Now I say Is it not strange that he should dwell so long upon his concealing his being so and yet maintain at the same time that his being the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by him Since Mr. Lock appeals so confidently to the History of the Evangelists and of the Acts and abounds so much in Citations out of them to make good his Pretentions insomuch that some have computed that this takes up about three quarters of his Reasonableness of Christianity it might have been expected that I should have examined the Texts by him alledg'd but that would have swell'd this Tract too much withal I may have an opportunity hereafter of doing this tho' that which hath been said might save that labor for it will be easie to shew that many of the places he produceth make indeed against and not for him As to the Commission given to the Apostles how comes it that he takes notice of that which they had when Christ sent them to preach to the Jews and makes no mention of that which he gave them when taking his solemn Farewel of them he sent them to preach to all Nations He ought certainly to have taken notice of the one as well as the other This Commission we have S. Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things what soever I have commanded you The Apostles were to teach adult Persons before they baptiz'd them and what were they to teach them surely the necessary Doctrine concerning those in or into whose Name they were to be baptiz'd and so concerning the Holy Ghost as well as touching the Father and the Son If Mr. Lock will translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples it comes to to the same for they could not be made Disciples without being taught We see then what their Commission was viz. to teach the Doctrine of the Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so to admit Men into the Church by Baptism And we are sure that they faithfully executed their Commission and did that which their Lord and Master gave them in charge Whence it is clearly manifest what the Apostles were to teach all Nations and consequently what they did teach them CHAP. XV. Of the Fall of Adam WHat Adam fell from was the state of perfect Obedience By this Fall he lost Paradise wherein was Tranquility and the Tree of Life i. e. he lost Bliss and Immortality The Penalty annex'd to the Breach of the Law stands thus Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die How was this executed In the day he did eat he did not actually die but his Life began from thence to shorten and waste and to have an end Death i. e. a state of Death and Mortality enter'd by Sin Mr. Lock Reason of Christ. p. 3 4. By Death here I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be the losing of all Actions of Life and Sense Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience in Paradise under which Death they should have lain for ever had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ Ibid. p. 6. As Adam was turned out of Paradise so all his Posterity was born out of it out of the reach of the Tree of Life all like their Father Adam in a state of Mortality void of the Tranquility and Bliss of Paradise Ibid. p. 7. Though all die in Adam yet none are truly punished but for their own Deeds Ibid.
are the Apostle's Words If when he says he raised up Christ from the dead he speaks of the Resurrection of his Body not of his Soul how can we be certain that when he says Shall quicken your mortal Bodies he speaks of the Resurrection not of their Bodies but of their Souls We see then that if Mr. Lock fly to this to say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of Rom. 8. 11. he will not be much help'd either by Calvin or Piscator I confess that there is one who makes the Words to be capable of a two-fold Sense and that is Crellius According to him they may be interpreted either of the future raising or quickening our mortal Bodies or of the spiritual quickening them which consists in this that they live unto Righteousness and unto God But he makes the former the principal Sense the latter only secundary As Mr. Lock says of the Resurrection of the Body so he says of the Resurrection of the same Body viz. That he does not remember any Place in the New Testament where it is so much as mention'd see his Third Letter p. 166. And my Answer will be the same viz. That these very express Words The Resurrection of the same Body are not to be found but there are Words that signifie so much or from which it may be clearly and necessarily inferr'd I may instance in the three Places above-cited Rom. 8. 11 23. Phil. 3. 21. where St. Paul by our Body our vile Body and our mortal Bodies certainly understood the Bodies which he and the Romans and the Philippians then had and says of these that they should be redeemed quickned changed Who shall change our vile Body that it i. e. that vile Body may be conformed to his glorious Body Philip. 3. And as I have observ'd before Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. says That by the Redemption of our Body Rom. 8. 23. is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection when this mortal shall have put on immortality 1 Cor. 15. 54. Thus he It is observable also that in his Third Letter p. 197. when the Words of that Text 1 Cor. 15. 53 54. were urged to prove the Resurrection of the same Body he returns no Answer to them and did very prudently in returning none For doth not St. Paul expresly affirm that this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality i. e. this corruptible this mortal must be rais'd to a Life of Incorruption and Immortality And doth he not also repeat it When this corruptible c. What can be more plain This corruptible this mortal which are the Apostle's repeated Expressions these frail mortal Bodies which is Mr. Lock 's own Expression shall be rais'd the Light of the brightest Day cannot be more clear Some perhaps will say that Mr. Lock does by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be raised at the last Day they are his own Words in his Third Letter p. 195. To which I answer 1. If he do not deny it why doth he dispute so earnestly against it Why doth he endeavour to the utmost of his Power to baffle the Arguments that are urged for the Proof of it A great many Pages of his Third Letter being taken up in the discussing this one Point 2. He says he does by no means deny it but does he believe it If he do believe it it is not upon the Account of any Argument drawn from Reason for he tells us more than once in his Essay that the Resurrection of the Body is above Reason Reason has directly nothing to do with it but it is purely Matter of Faith see his Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 23. and c. 18. § 7. He must then believe it upon the Account of some Arguments drawn from Scripture or being convinced by some Texts of Scripture which teach this Truth If so he deserves to be sharply reprehended for that he would not acquaint us what Texts of Scripture they are that teach it so clearly Especially having taken so much Pains to shew that the Places of Scripture alledged by others did not prove it he ought to have directed us to those Scriptures which did and by the Cogency of which he was brought to believe it But the Truth is he says plainly that there are no Scriptures that do prove it affirming that the Scriptures propose to us that at the last Day the Dead shall be raised without determining whether it shall be with the very same Bodies or no see his Third Letter p. 168. Tho' therefore he does say that he by no means denies that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day yet it clearly appears that he does not believe that they shall for according to him there are no Arguments either from Scripture or Reason to induce him to believe it Mr. Lock 's Doctrine concerning Adam's Fall and our Redemption by Christ is this God told Adam that in the Day that he did eat of such a Tree he should surely die where by Death Mr. Lock can understand nothing but a ceasing to be the losing all Actions of Life and Sense Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience under which Death they should have lain for ever had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ who will bring them all to Life again at the last Day see for this Reasonab of Christian. p. 3 6 11. But then he tells us p. 15. that this being the case that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die and cease to be the Benefit of Life restor'd by Christ at the Resurrection would have been no great Advantage if God had not found out a way to justifie some The Reason of which he gives in a Parenthesis For as much says he as here again i. e. after the Resurrection Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind all Mankind must have died and ceas'd to be the second time because all had sinned for the Wages of Sin is every where Death which Death is a ceasing to be as well after as before the Resurrection This Death after the Resurrection is that which p. 211. he calls the second Death which says he would have left Christ no Subjects if God had not found out a way to justifie some As to those who at the Resurrection shall be found unjustified that second Death shall seize upon them and sweep them away so that according to Mr. Lock they shall cease to be i. e. be annihilated for I can find out no other Sense that these Words Cease to be are capable of Tho' I confess I do not see that this Sense can be consistent with several other Expressions which he uses viz. that dreadful Estate of Misery the infinite Misery the exquisite Misery of an immortal Soul the perfect Misery the Indignation and Wrath Tribulation and Anguish which shall be
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
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
Divinitatis alicujus opinionem quam sententiam nos falsam esse arbitramur And one Reason why he thought thus was because not only some single Persons but also whole Nations are found which have no sense or suspicion of a Deity He instances in the Province of Brasil or Bresil as he calls it and appeals to Historians for the Truth of it How near Mr. Lock comes to this the Reader may judge who in his Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 1. says expresly that God hath stamp'd no original Characters on our Minds wherein we may read his Being and his first and principal Reason for this l. 1. c. 4. § 8. is because besides the Atheists taken notice of among the Ancients there have been whole Nations amongst whom hath been found no Notion of a God He instances as in other places so in Brasil and appeals to Navigators and Historians for the Truth of it The Socinians say that the Soul separated from the Body hath no Sense cannot perform any Action or enjoy any Pleasure till the Resurrection Smalcius frequently inculcates this Spiritus a corpore separatus nullo sensu praeditus est nulla voluptate fruitur ante adventum Christi And again Spiritus sine corpore nullas actiones exercere potest So Smalcius de extremo judicio § 3. and in Examine Errorum Error 88. Non credimus Spiritum qui ad Deum redit aliquid sentire aut beatitate aliqua frui ante Christi adventum In like manner Socinus himself in his 5th Epistle to Volkelius declares it to be his firm Opinion Post hanc vitam animam hominis non it a per se subsistere ut praemia ulla poenasve sentiat vel ista sentiendi sit capax See also to this purpose Crellius in Heb. 11. 40. And Slichtingius in 1 Cor. 15. 32. As to Mr. Lock they that have leisure may enquire whether his words in his Reasonab of Christian. p. 6. do not look toward this when he says that Death is the losing of all Actions of Life and Sense For it is not easie to conceive how this can be true unless when Men die the Soul lose all Actions of Life and Sense as well as the Body doth Socinus and his Followers deny Original Sin and the Corruption of our Nature because of Adam's Transgression Concludimus nullum peccatum originale esse i. e. ex peccato illo primi parentis nullam labem aut pravitatem universo humano generi necessario ingenitam esse sive inflictam quodammodo fuisse So Socinus in his Praelectiones Theolog. cap. 4. He is follow'd by the Racovian Catechism Cap. 10. Quaest. 2. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est nec e Scriptura id peccatum originis doceri potest Et lapsus Adae cum unus actus fuerit vim eam quae depravare ipsam naturam Adami multominus vero posteriorum ipsius posset habere non potuit To the same purpose are the Words of Volkelius De vera Religione l. 5. c. 18. Mr. Lock is not so positive as they are but he says that the New Testament doth not any where take notice of the Corruption of Humane Nature in Adam's Posterity nor tells us that Corruption seiz'd on all because of Adam's Transgression as well as it tells us so of Death The Socinians say that the same Bodies shall not arise at the general Resurrection Corpora haec quae nunc circumferimus resurrectura non credimus sed alia nobis danda esse ab Apostolo edocti statuimus So Smalcius in Examin Errorum Err. 89. Corpora in quibus reviviscent venient mortui non ea sunt corpora in quibus mortales vixerunt quorum corruptione mortui sunt sed illa sunt longe istis praestantiora Slichtingius Comment in 1 Cor. 15. 37. Illi vim argumentationis Apostolicae convellunt qui in eisdem numero corporibus nos aliquando resurrecturos statuunt Crellius Comment in 1 Cor. 15. 13. They that please may also consult Volkelius De vera Religione l. 3. c. 35. As to Mr. Lock a large Account hath been given above Chap. 31. of what he saith as to this Particular viz. the same Bodies being rais'd Where we may also see that he proceeds farther than perhaps the Socinians do saying that he finds no such express words in the Scripture as that the Body shall rise or be raised See the Third Letter p. 210. To which something hath been said in the forecited Chap. 31. and now by way of farther Answer I desire that 1 Cor. 15. 42 43 44. may be consulted It is sown in Corruption it is rais'd in Incorruption it is sown in Ignominy it is rais'd in Glory it is sown in Weakness it is rais'd in Power it is sown a natural Body it is rais'd a spiritual Body Now I ask What is it that is rais'd in Incorruption in Glory in Power and a Spiritual Body Mr. Lock will surely answer that it is the Body And if the Body be so necessarily understood it is the same as if it was express'd Besides the words v. 44. may be rendred The Body is raised Spiritual and so we have the express words that the Body is raised The Wicked's suffering eternal Torments after this Life is deny'd by the Socinians Impios futuros immortales nempe in aeternum opprobrium nec usquam sacrae Literae comprobant nec quicquam ex illis afferri posse videtur unde sententia illa probari possit So Smalcius in Refut Frantzii p. 415. Ut Deus in omnibus justitiae tenax est ita hic quoque super neminem extendet paenam meritis ejus majorem Nulla autem esse possunt peccata tam gravia quae sempiternis cruciatibus possunt aequari Wolzogenius Comment in Matth. 24. 46. The like hath Ernestus Somnerus in his Demonstration intituled Demonstratio Theologica Philosophica quod aeterna impiorum supplicia non arguant Dei justitiam sed injustitiam As to Socinus himself that he was of the same Opinion appears sufficiently from his Disputation with Puccius and the Letters which past between Volkelius and him about it What Mr. Lock 's Opinion is as to this I shall not determine On the one hand his making the Death which was threatned to Adam and which he says is the Wages of Sin as well after as before the Resurrection not to be an eternal Life in Misery or the being kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments but a Ceasing to be may incline us to think that in this great Point he holds the same that the Socinians do See his Reasonab of Christian. p. 5 6 15. On the other hand How far his mentioning infinite Misery exquisite Misery unspeakable Punishments perfect Misery Tribulation and Anguish Indignation and Wrath which shall be after this Life and his transcribing the words of our Saviour in which he speaks of everlasting Fire and everlasting Punishment may argue that he doth not hold with them I know not FINIS