their Doings in this Life Ibid. l. 1. c. 4. § 5. and l. 4. c. 3. § 6. We groan within our selves waiting for the Adoption to wit the Redemption of our Body Rom. 8. 23. whereby 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 1 Cor. 15. 54. Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. 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 for as much as here again Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind because all had sinned for the Wages of Sin is every where Death as well after as before the Resurrection if God had not found out a way to justifie some Ibid. p. 15. The Scripture is express that the same Persons shall be rais'd and appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ that every one may receive according to what he has done in his Body The Third Letter p. 196. In the New Testament I find our Saviour and the Apostles to preach the Resurrection of the Dead and the Resurrection from the Dead in many Places and the Resurrection of the Dead I acknowledge to be an Article of the Christian Faith But I do not remember any Place where the Resurrection of the same Body is so much as mention'd Nay I do not remember in any Place of the New Testament where the general Resurrection of the last Day is spoken of any such Expression as the Resurrection of the Body much less of the same Body Ibid. p. 166. When I writ my Essay I took it for granted as I doubt not but many others have done that the Scripture had mention'd in express Terms the Resurrection of the Body but looking more narrowly into what Revelation has declar'd concerning the Resurrection I find no such express Words in the Scripture as that the Body shall rise or be raised or the Resurrection of the Body I shall therefore in the next Edition of it change these Words of my Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 7. The dead Bodies of Men shall rise into these of the Scripture The Dead shall rise Not that I question that the Dead shall be rais'd with Bodies Ibid. p. 210. Tho' I do by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day yet I see nothing said to prove it to be an Article of Faith Ibid. p. 195. The Apostle tells us at the great Day when every one shall receive according to his Doings the Secrets of all Hearts shall be laid open The Sentence shall be justified by the Consciousness all Persons shall have that they themselves are the same that committed those Actions and deserve that Punishment for them Essay l. 2. c. 27. § 26. Christ himself who knew for what he should condemn Men at the last Day assures us in the two Places where he describes his Proceeding at the great Judgment that the Sentence of Condemnation passes only on the Workers of Iniquity such as neglected to fulfil the Law in Acts of Charity Matth. 7. 23. Luke 13. 27. Matth. 25. 42. That Men may not be deceived by mistaking the Doctrine of Faith Grace Free Grace and the Pardon and Forgiveness of Sin and Salvation by Christ which was the great End of his Coming he more than once declares to them for what Omissions and Miscarriages he shall judge and condemn to death even those who have own'd him and done Miracles in his Name when he comes at last to render to every one according to what he hath done in the Flesh sitting upon his great and glorious Tribunal at the end of the World see John 5. 28 29. Matth. 13. 14. 16. 24 c. Reasonab of Christian. p. 9. 241 242 243 244 245. I am going to a Tribunal that hath a Right to judge of Thoughts The Third Letter p. 98. The eternal Condition of a future State infinitely outweighs the Expectation of Riches or Honour or any other Worldly Pleasure we can propose to our selves The Happiness of another Life shall certainly be agreeable to every one's Wish or Desire The Rewards and Punishments of another Life which the Almighty has establish'd as the Enforcements of his Law are of Weight enough to determine the Choice against whatever Pleasure or Pain this Life can shew when the eternal State is consider'd in its bare Possibility which no body can make any doubt of He that will allow exquisite and endless Happiness to be but the possible Consequence of a good Life here or the contrary State the possible Reward of a bad one must own himself to judge very much amiss if he does not conclude that a Vertuous Life with the certain Expectation of everlasting Bliss which may come is to be preferr'd to a vicious one with the Fear of that dreadful State of Misery which 't is very possible may overtake the Guilty or at best the terrible uncertain Hope of Annibilation This is evidently so tho' the vertuous Life here had nothing but Pain and the vicious continual Pleasure which yet is for the most part quite otherwise and wicked Men have not much the odds to brag of even in their present Possession nay all things considered rightly have I think the worst part here But when infinite Happiness is put in one Scale against infinite Misery in the other if the worst that comes to the pious Man if he mistake be the best that the wicked Man can attain to if he be in the right who can without madness run the Venture Who in his Wits would chuse to come within a Possibility of infinite Misery which if he miss there is yet nothing to be got by that Hazard Whereas on the other hand the sober Man ventures nothing against Happiness to be got if his Expectation comes to pass If the good Man be in the right he is eternally happy is he mistake he is not miserable he feels nothing On the other side if the wicked be in the right he is not happy if he mistake he is infinitely miserable Must it not be a most manifest wrong Judgment that does not presently see to which side in this Case the Preference is to be given I have forborn to mention any thing of the Certainty or Probability of a future State designing here to shew the wrong Judgment that any one must allow he makes upon his own Principles laid how he pleases who prefers the short Pleasures of a vicious Life upon any Consideration whilst he knows and cannot but be certain that a future Life is at least possible Essay l. 2. c. 21. § 38 65 70. Nothing of Pleasure or Pain in this Life can bear any Proportion to endless Happiness or exquisite Misery of an immortal Soul hereafter Let a Man see that Vertue and Religion are necessary to his Happiness let him look into the
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
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.
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
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
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
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