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
not Varro apud S. August de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 1. speak of two hundred eighty eight Sects or several Opinions concerning it I might add That the legible Characters of God's Works and Providence spread before all the World of which Mr. Lock speaks have not prevented all Controversies among Heathens about God himself and therefore Cicero in the very beginning of his Books de Natura Deorum takes notice of the different Opinions about that Subject De qua tam variae sunt doctissimorum hominum tamque discrepantes sententiae c. I may conclude therefore that we have little reason to say that the Principles and Precepts of Natural Religion are so plain and very intelligible to all Mankind and so little controverted as Mr. Lock would make them to be And we have as little reason to be satisfied with that which Mr. Lock says of the Obscurity of the Truths of Revealed Religion His only reason here is because they are convey'd to us by Books and Languages and so liable to the common and natural Obscurities and Difficulties incident to Words And so a little before that 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 Essay l. 3. c. 10. § 23. So then according to Mr. Lock Doubt and Uncertainty Obscurities and Difficulties unavoidably attend Words they are not only common but even natural to them And so all the Will of God all Revealed Truths since they are convey'd by Words according to him are obscure difficult and uncertain So that Love God and Love thy Neighbour Fast and Pray Do as you would be done unto would have been according to him dark or obscure Instructions if they had all of them been reveal'd only and none of them also Precepts of the Law of Nature So Love your Enemies Bless them that curse you Do good to them that hate you Pray for them that persecute you and Blessed are ye when men shall reproach and persecute you and speak all evil against you fulsly for my sake for great is your reward in Heaven are all dark and obscure Yea finally all that Mr. Lock hath writ is obscure if this be true that Doubt and Uncertainty Obscurity and Difficulty do unavoidably attend Words and are natural to them for in Writing he makes use of Words Doth not Mr. Lock himself confute this Notion concerning the Obscurity of Words when he faith that Christ brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel see his Third Letter p. 439. for Christ and his Apostles made use of Words in preaching the Gospel as the Evangelists also did in writing it And when Ibid. p. 443. he so gratefully receiv'd and rejoic'd in the Light of Revelation I suppose he did not judge Revealed Truths to be so dark and obscure as he did when he writ his Essay If any would be satisfied about the Law of Nature and that of Scripture and the Plainness or Clearness of them I should advise them to read Mr. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 1. § 12. As to the Question Whether and how far Reason is to judge of Revelation we need not dispute it since now there is no new Revelation expected and it is certain that nothing which is already reveal'd in Holy Writ is contrary to Reason As to Mr. Lock he expresses himself very variously in this matter as 1. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 5. 2. Nothing that is contrary to or inconsistent with the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason has a Right to be urg'd or assented to as a matter of Faith Ibid. § 10. 3. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation which is contradictory to a self-evident Proposition The Third Letter p. 230. Perhaps he will say that Contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge and to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason and to a self-evident Proposition are in effect the same only different Expressions of the same thing To which I answer Suppose it be so yet if descending to Particulars we are uncertain whether such or such Propositions be self-evident or no of what Use is this Rule to us According to some such Propositions are self-evident but others will not allow that they are as for instance this that the essential Properties of a Man are to reason and discourse which others reckon among self evident Propositions yea Maxims is flatly deny'd to be such by Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 263. Mr. Lock in his Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 3. distinguishes between Original and Traditional Revelation The former he also calls Immediate because it is reveal'd immediately by God the latter is that which is deliver'd over to others by Word or Writing He also tells us Ibid. § 6. that a Man ought to hearken to Reason even in Immediate and Original Revelation and in Traditional Reason hath a great deal more to do But I would ask him Whether Abraham ought to have hearken'd to Reason in that Revelation concerning the offering Isaac It was Faith Heb. 11. 17. not Reason that induced him to receive it as a Divine Revelation Had he consulted Reason that would have told him positively that it could not come from God since it commanded that which was so clearly forbidden not only by the Laws which God himself had given to Noah and before him to Adam but also by the Law of Nature There could not be any thing more contradictory to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason than this Injunction which Abraham so readily obey'd was In his Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 4. he hath these Words No body I think will say that he has as certain and clear a Knowledge of the Flood as Noah that saw it or that he himself would have had had he then been alive and seen it And I readily grant that no Man who understands what he says will affirm that he has as clear a Knowledge of the Flood and of the Circumstances of it in every Particular as Noah had that saw it but this I shall be bold to say that I know not but that there may be some who as firmly and certainly believe that there was such a Flood as is describ'd in the Book of Genesis as if they had been then alive and seen it as I hope that there may now be some of those blessed ones who though they have not with the Apostle Thomas seen the Print of the Nails yet do as certainly and firmly believe our Lord's Resurrection as if they had seen it In the same Essay l. 4. c. 16. § 14. he writes thus The Testimony of God is call'd by a peculiar Name Revelation and our Assent to it Faith which has as much Certainly as our Knowledge it self Where I would have these last Words observ'd Faith has as
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
together with Jesus of Nazareth's being the Messiah are all the Faith requir'd as necessary to Justification Ibid. p. 293 294. Otherwhere he mentions his Suffering and having fulfill'd all things that were written in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah adding that those that believ'd this and repented should receive Remission of their Sins through this Faith in him Ibid. p. 190. Thus Mr. Lock had shewn what the Fundamental Articles of the Faith are or rather had shew'd how wavering and uncertain he himself is concerning them assigning sometimes only one sometimes two sometimes more He brings the Words of Tertullian de Virg. Velan to shew how little different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith he hath mention'd but 1. It would have been more for his Reputation if the Faith which he mentions had not been at all different from that of the ancient Church 2. Tertullian's Words there do not shew that the Faith of the ancient Church differ'd little from his For by comparing the Rule of Faith which he lays down here with that which he gives us in Lib. de Praescript adv Haeret. and in Lib. adv Praxeam it fully appears that he did not design this for a complete Account of the Faith of the ancient Church for some things that are in this are omitted in the other as Omnipotentem a Word certainly very material is left out in both of them and more things are added as Universa de nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum Id Verbum Filium ejus appellatum c. Carnem factum c. Misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti is all added in Lib. de Praescript and so Sermo ejus per quem omnia facta sunt sine quo factum est nihil Ex ea i. e. Virgine natum hominem Deum mortuum sepultum Qui miserit Spiritum Sanctum is all superadded in Lib. adv Praxeam Tertullian therefore will not be found to be a Friend to Mr. Lock who might rather have said that it may be seen in Tertullian how far different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith he hath mention'd He tells us that the Apostles Creed is the Faith he was baptiz'd into and that he hath not renounced one tittle thereof that he knows But hath he not renounced the Article of the Resurrection of the Body when he tells us that in his next Edition of his Essay of Humane Understanding he will have the Word Body blotted out and change these Words of his Book The dead Bodies of Men shall rise into these The dead shall rise See his Third Letter pag. 210. CHAP. XXX Of Vertue and Vice Self-denial and Education GOD hath by an inseparable Connexion join'd Vertue and publick Happiness together and made the Practice thereof necessary to the Preservation of Society and visibly beneficial to all with whom the vertuous Man has to do Mr. Lock Essay l. 1. c. 3. § 6. The Laws that Men generally refer their Actions to to judge of their Rectitude and Obliquity seem to me to be these three 1. The Divine Law 2. The Civil Law 3. The Law of Opinion or Reputation if I may so call it By the relation they bear to the first of these Men judge whether their Actions are Sins or Duties by the second whether they be criminal or innocent and by the third whether they be Vertues or Vices By Divine Law I mean that Law which God has set to the Actions of Men whether promulgated to them by the Light of Nature or the Voice of Revelation Vertue and Vice are Names pretended and suppos'd every where to stand for Actions in their own nature right or wrong and as far as they really are so apply'd they so far are coincident with the Divine Law above-mention'd But yet whatever is pretended this is visible that these Names of Vertue and Vice in the particular Instances of their Application through the several Nations and Societies of Men in the World are constantly attributed only to such Actions as in each Country or Society are in Reputation or Diseredit Thus the measure of what is every where call'd and esteem'd Vertue and Vice is this Approbation or Dislike Praise or Blame which by a secret or tacit Consent establishes it self in the several Societies Tribes and Clubs of Men in the World whereby several Actions come to find Credit or Disgrace among them according to the Judgment Maxims and Fashions of that place By this Approbation and Dislike they establish among themselves what they will call Vertue and Vice Esteem and Discredit Vertue and Vice do yet in a great measure every where correspond with the unchangeable Rule of Right and Wrong which the Law of God hath established there being nothing that so directly and visibly secures and advances the general Good of Mankind in this World as Obedience to the Laws he hath set them and nothing that breeds such Mischiefs and Confusion as the Neglect of them And therefore Men without renouncing all Sense and Reason and their own Interest which they are so constantly true to could not generally mistake in placing their Commendation and Blame on that side that really deserv'd it not Nay even those Men whose Practice was otherwise fail'd not to give their Approbation right few being deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn at least in others the Faults they themselves were guilty of whereby even in the Corruption of Manners the true Boundaries of the Law of Nature which ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice were pretty well preserv'd So that even the Exhortations of inspir'd Teachers 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. Ibid. l. 2. c. 28. § 7 8 10 11. The Foundation of Vice lies in wrong measures of Good Ibid. l. 4. c. 19. § 16. Reputation is not the true principle and measure of Vertue for that is the knowledge of a Man's Duty and the satisfaction it is to obey his Maker in following the Dictates of that Light God has given him with the hopes of Acceptation and Reward I place Vertue as the first and most necessary of those Endowments that belong to a Man or a Gentleman as absolutely requisite to make him valued and belov'd by others acceptable or tolerable to himself without that I think he will neither be happy in this nor the other World Of Education p. 61 157. It seems plain to me that the Principle of all Vertue and Excellency lies in a Power of denying our selves the Satisfaction of our own Desires where Reason doth not authorize them This Power is to be got and improved by Custom made easie and familiar by an early Practice He that has not a Mastery over his Inclinations he that knows not how to resist the Importunity of present Pleasure and Pain for the sake of what Reason tells him is fit
to be done wants the true Principle of Vertue and Industry This Temper therefore so contrary to unguided Nature is to be got betimes and this Habit as the true foundation of future Ability and Happiness is to be wrought into the Mind as early as may be and so to be confirm'd by all the Care and Ways imaginable Ibid. p. 37 38 46. Christ commands Self-denial and the exposing our selves to Suffering and Danger rather than to deny or disown him Reasonab of Christian. p. 224. As the foundation of Vertue there ought very early to be imprinted in the Minds of Children a true Notion of God as of the independent supreme Being Author and Maker of all things from whom we receive all our Good that loves us and gives us all things hears and sees every thing and does all manner of Good to those that love and obey him and consequent to it a Love and Reverence of him They must be taught also to pray to him The Lord's Prayer the Creeds and ten Commandments 't is necessary they should learn perfectly by heart The Knowledge of Vertue all along from the beginning in all the Instances they are capable of being taught them more by Practice than Rules I know not whether they should read any other Discourses of Morality but what they find in the Bible Of Education p. 157 158 185 220. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS When Mr. Lock in Essay l. 2. c. 28. § 7. having nam'd three distinct Laws the Divine Law the Civil Law and the Law of Opinion or Reputation as he calls it says that by the first Men judge whether their Actions are Sins or Duties by the second whether they be criminal or innocent by the third whether they be Vertues or Vices doth he not plainly distinguish Sins and Duties from Vices and Vertues For 1. He makes Men to judge of Vices and Vertues by one Law of Sins and Duties by another 2. They judge by an infallible Rule of the one by a very fallible one of the other 3. Criminal and Innocent are plainly distinct from Sins and Duties and so we cannot but judge that according to Mr. Lock Vices and Vertues are distinct from both Now if so it might not be amiss if he would inform us where the Distinction between them lies for I have always thought that there is a very near Affinity as between Vice and Sin on the one hand so between Vertue and Duty on the other hand But tho' according to Mr. Lock Men do judge of Vertue and Vice by his Law of Opinion and Reputation yet he will not say that they ought to do so He tells us here § 11. that the Law of Nature ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice and expresses it more largely in his Epistle to the Reader The Law of Nature says he is that standing and unalterable Rule by which Men ought to judge of the moral Rectitude and Pravity of their Actions and accordingly denominate them Vertues or Vices But I had rather say that the Law which ought to be the Rule whereby Men judge of Sins and Duties ought also to be the Rule by which they are to judge of Vices and Vertues and that is the Divine Law which Mr. Lock himself being Judge comprehends more than the Law of Nature By the Divine Law says he here § 8. I mean that Law which God has set to the Actions of Men whether promulgated to them by the Light of Nature or the Voice of Revelation So say I the Law of God comprehending both the Law of Nature and his revealed Law is the Rule whereby Men ought to judge of Vertues and Vices But Mr. Lock will prove that his Law of Opinion or Reputation or as he also expresses it Approbation or Dislike Praise or Blame is the common measure of Vertue and Vice This says he will appear to any one who considers that every where Vertue and Praise Vice and Blame go together Vertue is every where that which is thought praise-worthy and nothing else but that which has the Allowance of publick Esteem is call'd Vertue Thus Mr. Lock here viz. l. 2. c. 28. § 11. But I would know whether he speaks of true and real or of reputed Vertue if of reputed it is not to the purpose since every one will grant without Proof that his Law of Reputation is the Rule of reputed Vertue and it signifies no more than this that that is reputed Vertue which is reputed such Besides how can it be worth the while to enquire after the Rule of reputed Vertue If on the other side he speak of true real Vertue I believe that no Man before him ever said that true Vertue and Praise every where went together Constant Experience may teach every Man the contrary It is very rarely that true Vertue hath met with such Entertainment in the World but on the other hand it would fill large Volumes if we could set down all the Instances of reproach'd and despis'd Vertue which the several Ages of the World have afforded Mr. Lock goes on and tells us that Vertue and Praise are so united that they are call'd often by the same name His Meaning is that Vertue is call'd often by the name of Praise but he gives us only two Instances of it The one is out of Virgil. AEneid l. 1. Sunt sua praemia laudi where laudi is by some interpreted virtuti by others factis laudabilibus or gestis bellicis but the whole Verse is this En Priamus sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi and why may not laudi have here the usual Signification Certainly though I shall not be confident that it is the right Interpretation of the Verse yet if referring sua to Priamus I should construe it thus Lo Priamus here also are his rewards to his Praise I believe Mr. Lock would not find it very easie to confute it The other Instance is out of Cicero Tusc. Qu. l. 2. whose Words Mr. Lock hath transcrib'd but I shall do it more fully Nihil habet praestantius nihil quod magis expetat quam honestatem quam laudem quam dignitatem quam decus Hisce ego pluribus nominibus unam rem declarari volo sed utor ut quammaxime significem pluribus Volo autem dicere illud homini longe optimum esse quod ipsum sit optandum per se a virtute profectum vel in ipsa virtute situm sua sponte laudabile quod quidem citius dixerim solum quam summum bonum Thus Cicero who himself declares what that one thing is which he would signifie by all those Names viz. the chief or rather only Good which is praise-worthy and desirable for it self proceeds from Vertue or is placed in Vertue We need then no other Commentary but Tully's own That which he signifies by Honestatem Laudem Dignitatem Decus is the chief Good concerning which he would not determine whether it proceed from Vertue or consists in it It doth
not appear then by these Citations out of Virgil and Tully that they call'd Vertue and Praise by the same Name But I shall be so liberal to Mr. Lock as to suppose that those two great Persons and other good Writers have call'd Vertue by the Name of Praise it will do him no Service after all unless they did this for the Reason which he assigns viz. because Vertue and Praise are united and every where go together and therefore it is incumbent upon him to prove that they did it for this Reason which is a very difficult Task I on the other side can easily assign more probable Reasons why they might do it If any call Vertue by the Name of Praise they had good ground for doing it because true Vertue is always praise-worthy and Men ought evermore to praise and celebrate it tho' it too often meets with a contrary Reward from the World is reproached and despis'd as Vice on the other hand is too frequently magnified and extolled But Mr. Lock endeavours to persuade us that reputed and true Vertue are in a great measure the same For so he says here 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 And again Men without renouncing all Sense and Reason and their own Interest could not generally mistake in placing their commendation and blame on that side that really deserved it not Again In the corruption of manners the true Boundaries of the Law of Nature which ought to be the Rule of Vertue and Vice were pretty well preserved for which he alledges Phil. 4. 8. He had said in the words immediately preceeding that even those Men whose practice was otherwise fail'd not to give their Approbation right few being deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn at least in others the faults they themselves were guilty of Thus Mr. Lock in Essay l. 2. c. 28. § 11. And in his Epistle to the Reader he says that Men in that way of denominating their Actions did not for the most part much vary from the Law of Nature For answer to this 1. How doth that which Mr. Lock says viz. that few were deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn at least in others the faults they themselves were guilty of agree with Rom. 1. 32. and other places of Scripture In Rom. 1. 32. it is said that they i. e. the Gentiles not only did the same viz. the things that are mentioned in the foregoing Verses but took pleasure in them that did them They were not ignorant that they who commit such things are worthy of Death and yet practis'd them themselves and not only so but they also approv'd of others that practis'd them For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered Comprobant St. Chrysostome in loc expounds it by Praising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is follow'd by Oâ—â—umenius Theophylact interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they patronize or defend others that do them appear as Advocates for them so far they are from condemning them So they that forsake the Law will praise the wicked Man Prov. 28. 4. Those that keep the Law as it follows there will contend with wicked Men but those that forsake it will be so far from contending with them or condemning them that contrarywise they will praise them The Apostle also tells of some whose Glory is in their Shame Phil. 3. 19. How then can Mr. Lock say that there are few deprav'd to that degree as not to condemn in others the faults they themselves are guilty of When the Scripture speaks of those that make their Shame matter of glorying and of so many that instead of condemning did praise approve and take pleasure in those that live in the practice of most heinous Sins Also how can he say as he doth that Vice and Blame every where go together when we are so plainly told in Holy Writ that Vice and Praise so often go together that Vice in this World meets with the Reward due to Vertue is approved applauded commended 2. How can he say that reputed Vertue and Vice in a great measure every where corresponds to that which the Law of God hath establish'd to be Vertue and Vice when he tells us that what is counted a Vertue in one Country passes for Vice in another For the Opinions of these Countries being directly contrary the one to the other it is impossible that both of them should in any measure correspond with the Law of God If the Divine Law have determin'd on the part of that Country which esteems such a thing to be a Vertue then the Opinion of the other Country in which it is reputed to be a Vice cannot be agreeable to that Law and if it hath not determin'd either way either that it is a Vertue or that it is a Vice then neither of the two Opinions can pretend to agree with it I know what Mr. Lock saith Though what was thought praise-worthy in one place escaped not censure in another and so in different Societies Vertues and Vices were changed yet as to the main they for the most part kept the same every where But 1. We may observe how cautiously and timorously he expresseth it As to the main and for the most part it seems the one Expression would not secure him without superadding the other 2. It will be no difficulty to shew that as to the main and for the most part they were not the same for all that is necessary to this is to make it appear that the Opinions of the Philosophers among the Heathens concerning Vertue and Vice were not the same as to the main and for the most part with the Opinions of those who judged of them by the Rule of the Law of God Aristotle Politic. l. 7. c. 16. teaches it to be lawful to procure an Abortion before that which is conceived hath Life and Sense Diogenes Laertius in the Life of Zeno tells of some that taught not only the Lawfulness of Self-murther but also the Reasonableness of it Cicero de Invent. l. 2. vers fin joins Revenge with Religion Piety Veracity c. and refers them all to that which he calls Natura jus and it is a known Speech of his ad Attic. l. 9. c. 14. Odi hominem odero utinam ulcisci poscem And Aristotle Ethic. l. 4. c. 11. will scarce excuse him from being faulty that doth not revenge himself They that please may see how much Cicero in Orat. pro M. Coelio says in defence of Meretricii amores Si quis est qui etiam Meretriciis amoribus interdictum juventuti putet est ille quidem valde severus c. The Community of Wives and murthering such Infants as were weak and sickly or deformed was taught by the Laws of Lycurgus see Plutarch in Lycurgo and
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
says he the Gentiles not having the Law do by Nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts their Conscience bearing witness and their Thoughts accusing or excusing one another By the Work of the Law here may be understood either 1. That Work which the Law prescribes or the Duties that are required by it or 2. The Effect of the Law or that which it effecteth i. e. the Knowledge of our Duty or of that which we ought to do as also of the contrary i. e. of that which we ought not to do as the Apostle says expresly Rom. 3. 20. By the Law is the Knowledge of Sin or 3. By the Work of the Law we may understand as Origen Theodoret and several others seem to do the Law it self i. e. not the Letters and Syllables of the Law but the Sentence Summ and Substance of it Which soever of these Expositions we follow the Sense is in effect the same so that when St. Paul says that the Gentiles had the Work of the Law written in their Hearts his Meaning is that they had the Sentence and Substance of the Law or many of the Duties prescribed by it and the Knowledge of them ingraven or imprinted in their Hearts And is it not as clear from hence as any thing possibly can be that they had some Principles or Communes notitiae written in their Hearts And therefore if the Lord Herber only say that there are some common Principles or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts or Minds of Men he says no more than the Apostle doth and Mr. Lock from the Apostle's saying that the Work of the Law was written in the Hearts of the Gentiles may infer that he held innate Principles with as good Reason as he doth from the Lord Herbert's affirming some Truths to be written in the Hearts or Minds of Men that he held such Principles And the Truth is there have not wanted some Prudent and Learned Persons who have expounded these Words of the Apostle of innate Notices or Principles Quod inquit Paulus Opus scriptum in cordibus significat has notitias naturales dona esse attributa naturae nobiscum nascentia they are the Words of Melancthon in loc Mr. Lock having transcrib'd five of the Lord Herbert's Notitiae Communes adds These tho' I allow them to be clear Truths and such as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving Assent to yet I think he is far from proving them innate Impressions in foro interiori descriptae Where I shall not stand to ask Mr. Lock what answers to the Word These but I must desire the Reader to bear in Mind that he allows all the five Notitiae Communes to be clear Truths and such as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to For this intimates that there is something of them written in the Heart which is the Reason why we can hardly avoid assenting to them so soon as they are propos'd to us and we understand the Terms of them To that which he says farther that he thinks that the Lord Herbert is far from proving them innate Impressions I briefly answer that as Mr. Lock hath not shewn so I have not found that the Lord Herbert any where uses the Phrase Innate Impressions It is true that he says that his Catholick Verities are in foro interiori descriptae and if it be said that Mr. Lock thinks that he is far from proving them to be so I reply that it will best appear whether he be far from proving it or no by examining the Reasons of Mr. Lock 's thinking so which we may expect to find if any where in the following Sections Ad § 16. Here Mr. Lock observes that the Five Propositions set down by the Lord Herbert are either not all or more than all the common Notions writ on our Minds by the Finger of God if it were reasonable to believe any at all to be so written To which I answer If Mr. Lock could prove that the five Propositions mention'd by the Lord Herbert are more than all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God it would follow that some of them are not such Notions and that would make directly against the Lord Herbert But Mr. Lock hath not proved this and if he had it would not be for his Advantage unless he could prove farther that none of them are such Notions for his known Tenet is that there are no Notions or Principles at all that are so written in Mens Hearts On the other hand if Mr. Lock can prove that these Five are not all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God this makes not at all against the Lord Herbert who never said or thought that they were all as Mr. Lock might have seen if he had given himself leisure seriously and deliberately to peruse his Treatise de Veritate He would have found that he very frequently names other common Notions and particularly he takes notice that there are many Notitiae Communes in Mathematicks which they call Postulata p. 181. Edit 1633. and speaks of tota notitiarum communium series p. 206. He would also have found that where the Lord Herbert sets down those five Propositions he is not speaking of common Notions in general but of those only which concern Religion Notitiae communes circa Religionem is the Title Yea in setting down those five he did not design to give us all the common Notions that concern Religion He himself plainly tells us this Notitias communes solenniores circa Religionem praemittendas curavi says he p. 207. he did not take care to premise all the common Notions that concern Religion but only the Solenniores Yea p. 227. he makes all the Ten Commandments to be Notitiae communes Mr. Lock says that this Do as thou wouldest be done unto and perhaps some hundreds of others may as justly pretend to be Notitiae communes as at least some of those five To which I answer 1. The Lord Herbert never design'd to exclude Do as thou wouldest be done unto from being Notitia communis for he more than once mentions it as such viz. p. 54 and 57 and 106. 2. When Mr. Lock says Perhaps some hundreds of others tho' possibly he intended it only as a Rhetorical Flight yet I question whether the Lord Herbert would have deny'd that there are hundreds of Notitiae communes However I think it is plain that there is nothing in this Section that makes against that honourable Person and if Mr. Lock had carefully read his Treatise de Veritate I believe he would have wholly omitted it Ad § 17. This Section begins thus All his i. e. the Lord Herbert's Marks are not to be found in each of his five Propositions viz. his first second and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of