than a mere Vital Spirit and that it subsisted and acted in a separate State To all which Mr. Lock in his Reply in his Third Letter p. 440 441. says nothing at all nor does he take the least notice of it But Mr. Lock to justifie his using the Word Spirit in such a Signification alledges the Authority of one greater than Cicero or Virgil or the most enlightned Person of the Heathen World viz. Solomon himself Eccles. 3. 19 21. That which befalleth the Sons of Men befalleth Beasts even one thing befalleth them as the one dieth so dieth the other yea they have all one Spirit Who knoweth the Spirit of a Man that goeth upward and the Spirit of a Beast that goeth down to the Earth See Mr. Lock 's First Letter p. 71. To which I answer 1. How appears it that these are Solomon's Words and not the Sayings of others which Solomon only repeats Is it probable that Solomon would affirm absolutely as his own Sense that Man hath no Pre-eminence above a Beast Which Words we have v. 19. tho' they are omitted by Mr. Lock If they be not Solomon's Words then it is clear that he hath not the Authority of Solomon yea then he hath not the Authority of our Translators who this being suppos'd applied not the Word Spirit to Beasts but they whose Words the Preacher repeats apply'd the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them which Word our Translators render Breath v. 19. and Spirit v. 21. 2. But let it be supposed tho' not granted that they are Solomon's Words and Sense I need only borrow once more Mr. Lock 's Words As I take it Solomon never us'd the English Word Spirit and tho' it be true that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred Spirit yet that therefore Spirit in English hath exactly the same Signification that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in Hebrew I think Mr. Lock will not say for then Spirit must signifie the Wind Breath c. since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is apply'd to these In vain therefore doth he pretend that he hath the Authority of Solomon And yet he seeks to justifie his use of the Word also by the Authority of one greater than Solomon When our Saviour says he after his Resurrection stood in the midst of them they were affrighted and suppos'd that they had seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit S. Luke 24. 37. But our Saviour says to them v. 39. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have See Mr. Lock First Letter p. 71 72. who forgot to tell us who the They and Them are but they are the Apostles and from our Saviour's words to them he here argues And if he would argue directly he must do it in this or the like form If our Saviour say that a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones then he useth the word Spirit as signifying something from which Matter is not excluded But Mr. Lock must have invented a new Logick before he could have made good this Consequence He therefore goes another way to work both in his First and in his Third Letter I shall briefly examine what he says in both In his First Letter p. 72. he says that these words of our Saviour's put the same distinction between Body and Spirit that Cicero did in the place above cited viz. That the one was a gross Compages that could be felt and handled and the other such as Virgil describes the Ghost or Soul of Anchises Ter conatus ibi collo dare brachia circum Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago Par levibus vent is volucrique simillima somno Thus Mr. Lock So that in short according to him in those words of our Saviour an Image is call'd a Spirit And can we not conceive an Image that doth not include Matter I may instance in those Ideas or Images which are the immediate Objects of Mr. Lock 's Mind in thinking are they material Likewise in the Images that we see in our Dreams which latter Instance I the rather mention because Virgil in these very Verses compares the Image of which he speaks to Sleep or to an Image appearing in Sleep formam apparentem in somnis as some interpret it In his Third Letter p. 444 he says that from these words of our Saviour a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones it follows that in Apparitions there is something that appears and that that which appears is not wholly immaterial Thus Mr. Lock In Answer to it I shall remind him that in his Second Vindication of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 228. he mentions a Request which Mr. Chillingworth puts up to Mr. Knot and I think it no less necessary to be put up to him Sir I beseech you when you write again do us the favour to write nothing but Syllogisms for I find it an extreme trouble to find out the concealed Propositions which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems As now for example I profess to you that I have done my best endeavour to find some Glue or Sodder or Cement or Thread or any thing to tie the Antecedent and this Consequent together Thus Mr. Chillingworth Here Mr. Lock 's Enthymem is this A Spirit hath not flesh and bones ergo In Apparitions there is something that appears and that which appears is not wholly immaterial If Mr. Lock can find some Glue or Sodder to join the Antecedent and this Consequent together it is well but if he cannot I shall make bold to add that no body else can Neither can he evade by saying that it was not from those words only viz. A Spirit hath not flesh and bones but from the whole Text S. Luke 24. 37 39. that he draws that Consequence that what appears is not wholly immaterial for the case is the same This may suffice as to his Authorities which are found to do him no service at all He subjoins in his First Letter p. 72 73. I would not be thought hereby to say that Spirit never signifies a purely immaterial Substance In that Sense the Scripture I take it speaks when it says God is a Spirit and in that sense I have us'd it and in that sense I have prov'd from my Principles that there is a spiritual Substance and am certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance Thus Mr. Lock But might he not have left out those words I take it and affirm'd positively that when the Scripture says God is a Spirit the word Spirit signifies a purely immaterial Substance He tells that he is certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance and I therefore hope that he is certain that God is such and if it be a certain Truth that God is a spiritual immaterial Substance in what sense can the Scripture be judged to say that he is a Spirit but in this God is a Spirit and
jure aliis Discipulis tribui nequeant Prius concedi posse putamus posterius vero negamus id enim sufficit plusquam satis ad Primatum Petri quae ei si quis fuisset ridicule admodum stolide superstruitur Pontificis Romani Praerogativa evertendum Thus Episcopius And there are Protestant Divines of great Esteem for their Learning and Judgment and who have engaged as zealously as any other against the Papal Interest who have gone farther have not only made the Person of St. Peter to be meant by the Rock but also somewhat peculiar to be granted him and yet shew that this affords not the least Advantage to the Pope's Pretensions that he is Universal Pastor To omit some of our English Divines they that please may consult Cameron either in his Praelections in St. Matth. 16. 18. or in the great Criticks Episcopius says that this That the Church should be built on him as on a Rock was granted to Peter in common with the other Apostles And to the same purpose speaks Origen Tractat. 1. in Matth. If thou thinkest that the whole Church was built upon Peter alone what wilt thou say of John the Son of Thunder and every one of the Apostles Shall we dare to say that the Gates of Hell could not prevail against St. Peter only but could prevail against the rest And a little after If that saying To thee I will give the Keys was common to the other Apostles why was not the rest which was then said as to Peter common to them too So that this may be a fourth Exposition that by the Rock is meant St. Peter not alone but together with the other Apostles As he made that Confession Thou art Christ the Son of the living God not for himself only but also in the Name of the other Apostles so according to this Sense he receiv'd this Grant for the rest of the Apostles as well as for himself I have alledged the foresaid Testimonies to satisfie Mr. Lock That Persons of approved Piety as well as Learning have judged our Saviour's Words On this Rock I will build my Church capable of other Interpretations than that which is mention'd by him viz. That the Faith which was confessed by St. Peter 〈◊〉 those Articles That Jesus is the Christ and That he is the Son of the living God are the Rock on which the Church is built This is the only Interpretation that can do Mr. Lock any Service and therefore he takes no notice of the rest But he should not be himself guilty of that which he condemns so much in others i. e. the imposing his Interpretations of Scripture upon us And therefore he must not be displeas'd if we do not grant that which Mr. Lock here affirms without any Proof that this Proposition That Jesus is the Messiah the Son of the living God was that Rock on which our Lord said that he would build his Church Mr. Lock says that the Evidence that we deceive not our selves in ascribing a Revelation to God can never be so great as the Evidence of our own intuitive Knowledge where if his Meaning be that we can never be so certain that any Revelation suppose the Scripture is from God as we are of the Object of our intuitive Knowledge I must deny it for I firmly believe that there have been and may now be those who are as certain that the Scriptures are the Word of God as they can be of that which they clearly see and distinctly perceive by any other of their Senses And I am confirm'd in this Belief by the Words of Mr. Chillingworth c. 1. § 9. To those says he that believe and live according to their Faith God gives by degrees the Spirit of Obsignation and Confirmation and to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospel of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himself with their Ears which saw it with their Eyes which look'd upon it and whose Hands handled the Word of Life CHAP. XXIX Of Fundamentals and the Apostles Creed GOD alone can appoint what shall be necessarily believ'd by every one whom he will justifie and what he has so appointed and declared is alone necessary No body can add to these Fundamental Articles of Faith nor make any other necessary but what God himself hath made and declared to be so And what these are which God requires of those who will enter into and receive the Benefits of the New Covenant has already been shewn An explicit Belief of these is absolutely requir'd of all those to whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 301. The Primitive Church admitted converted Heathens to Baptism upon the Faith contain'd in the Apostles Creed A bare Profession of that Faith and no more was required of them to be receiv'd into the Church and made Members of Christ's Body How little different the Faith of the ancient Church was from the Faith I have mention'd may be seen in these Words of Tertullian Regula fidei una omnium est sola immobilis irreformabilis credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem mundi conditorem Filium ejus Jesum Christum natum ex Virgine Maria crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis receptum in coelis sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris venturum judicare vivos mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem Hac lege Fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis Tert. de Virg. Velan in princip This was the Faith that in Tertullian's time sufficed to make a Christian. And the Church of England only proposes the Articles of the Apostles Creed to the Convert to be baptiz'd and upon his professing a Belief of them asks whether he will be baptiz'd in this Faith and upon the Profession of this Faith and no other the Church baptizes him into it The Apostles Creed is the Faith I was baptiz'd into no one tittle whereof I have renounced that I know And I heretofore thought that gave me title to be a Christian. Second Vindicat. p. 177 178 182. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock tells us in Reasonab of Christian. p. 301. that it had been already shewn what the Fundamental Articles of Faith are But I ask How had it been shewn He had sometimes affirm'd positively that this that Jesus of Nazareth is the only Gospel-Article of Faith that was requir'd Reasonab of Christian p. 195. that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition that Jesus was the Messiah Ibid. p. 43. that this was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd Ibid. p. 93. At other times he had said that it was also requir'd for the attaining of Life that they should believe that Jesus is the Son of God Ibid. p. 194. He had also spoken of concomitant Articles viz. Christ's Resurrection Rule and coming again to judge the World saying that these
future State of Bliss or Misery and see there God the righteous Judge ready to render to every one according to his Deeds to them that by patient Continuance in well-doing seek for Glory and Honour and Immortality eternal Life but to every Soul that doth evil Indignation and Wrath Tribulation and Anguish To him I say who hath a Prospect of the different State of perfect Happiness or Misery that attends all Men after this Life depending on their Behaviour here the measures of Good and Evil that govern his Choice are mightily changed Ibid. § 60. Our Saviour requires the Obedience of his Disciples to several of the Commands of the Moral Law he afresh lays upon them with the Enforcement of unspeakable Rewards and Punishments in another World according to their Obedience or Disobedience Reasonab of Christian. p. 234. The Son of God would in vain have come into the World to lay the Foundation of a Kingdom and gather together a select People out of the World if they being found guilty at their Appearance before the Judgment-Seat of the righteous Judge of all Men at the last Day instead of Entrance into eternal Life in the Kingdom he had prepared for them they should receive Death the just Reward of Sin which every one of them was guilty of This second Death would have left him no Subjects Ibid. p. 211. Open Mens Eyes upon the endless unspeakable Joys of another Life and their Hearts will find something solid and powerful to move them to live well here The View of Heaven and Hell will cast a Slight upon the short Pleasures and Pains of this present State and give Attractions and Encouragements to Vertue which Reason and Interest and the Care of our selves cannot but allow Ibid. p. 291 292. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS As to the Article of the Resurrection the first Enquiry must be Whether there are to be found any such express Words in the Scripture as that the Body shall rise or be raised or the Resurrection of the Body where the general Resurrection is spoken of If when Mr. Lock denies that such express Words are found in the Scripture see his Third Letter p. 210. his Meaning be that those very express Words are not found I grant that they are not but if he mean farther that express Words which signifie the very same thing are not to be found the contrary will easily appear In Rom. 8. 23. there are these express Words the Redemption of our Body and Mr. Lock in Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. tells us that thereby is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into the spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection when this Mortal shall have put on Immortality In the same Chapter v. 11. we find these express Words Quicken your mortal Bodies He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall make them to live restore them to Life after Death as he restor'd the crucified Body of Christ to Life so that to quicken our mortal Bodies is the same with raising them And Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 199. saying that in the New Testament it is said Raise the Dead Quicken or make alive the Dead the Resurrection of the Dead clearly makes to Quicken and to Raise to signifie the same And St. Chrysostom not to mention Occumenius and Theophylact who follow him gives a Reason why St. Paul says Quicken or give Life to our mortal Bodies rather than raise them viz. Because he here speaks only of those who should be raised to Life i. e. a blissful or happy Life viz. the Faithful who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them not of the Wicked who shall also be rais'd but says he unto Punishment not unto Life There is a third Text which hath so near a Resemblance to these that it may well be join'd with them viz. Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body that it may be conformed to his glorious Body When shall the Saviour the Lord Christ effect this wonderful Change that our vile Body shall be made conformable to his glorious Body Surely then when he shall quicken or raise it and that will be when he comes from Heaven to judge the World see v. 20. Here is not indeed the Word Raise but it is plainly imply'd The Blessed Jesus when he comes from Heaven will raise our vile Body and make it conform'd to his own glorious Body Will Mr. Lock say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in these Places He cannot say it of the first viz. Rom. 8. 23. without retracting his own express Words in Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. He cannot say it of the third viz. Philip. 3. 21. because the immediately foregoing Verse points us to the Time of Christ's coming from Heaven to judge the World He may perhaps say it of the second viz. Rom. 8. 11. because some before him have said that the general Resurrection is not spoken of in that Text particularly Calvin and Piscator Calvin in loc hath these Words Mortalia corpora vocat quicquid adhuc restat in nob is morti obnoxium ut mos illi usit at us est crassioram nostri partem hoc nomine appellare Unde colligimus non de ultima resurrectione quae momento fiet haberi sermonem sed de continua Spiritus operatione quae reliquias carnis paulatim mortificans caelestem vitam in nobis instaurat He tells us that by mortal Bodies is understood whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death which we may grant him for our Souls are not obnoxious to Death and therefore our mortal Bodies contain all that remains in us liable to Death He tells us also that it is the Apostle's usual manner to call the grosser part of us by that Name i. e. by the Name of Body and we may likewise grant him this for every one grants that the Body is the grosser part of us But now what would he gather from this Whence says he we collect that the last Resurrection is not spoken of His Argument put into Form is this The Apostle by mortal Bodies understands whatsoever remains still in us obnoxious to Death therefore the last Resurrection is not spoken of Mr. Lock may try if he pleases whether he can find out any thing to tie this Antecedent and Consequent together but I can pronounce that it will not be very easie for him to do it Piscater's Words are these Quum certum sit Apostolum hic non lequi de resurrectione corporum sed animarum Tho' our own Eyes tell us that the Apostle uses the word Bodies not Souls yet if we will believe Piscator it is certain that here he speaks not of the Resurrection of Bodies but of Souls And how is it certain Mr. Calvin hath said it that is all the Assurance that I know of He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal Bodies these
the Signification of the Word Spirit IF that will not serve his turn I will tell him a Principle of mine that will clear the Soul's Immortality to him and that is the Revelation of Life and Immortality by Jesus Christ through the Gospel Mr. Lock Answer to Remarks p. 5 6. Perhaps my using the Word Spirit for a thinking Substance without excluding Materiality out of it will be thought too great a Liberty but the most enlightned of all the ancient People of God Solomon himself speaks after the same manner Nor did the way of speaking in our Saviour's time vary from this I would not be thought hereby to say That Spirit does never signifie a purely immaterial Substance In that Sense the Scripture I take it speaks when it says God is a Spirit and in that Sense I have proved from my Principles That there is a Spiritual Substance and am certain that there is a Spiritual Immaterial Substance The First Letter p. 68. 71 72 73. OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock in his Answer to Remarks p. 5. hath these Words I suppose this Author i. e. the Author of the Remarks will not question the Soul's Immateriality to be a Proof of its Immortality Doth he not then by taking so much Pains to persuade us that its Immateriality cannot be demonstratively prov'd manifestly weaken one Proof of its Immortality Mr. Lock in Essay l. 4. c. 3. § 6. says That he would not any way lessen the Belief of the Soul's Immateriality But he cannot expect that we should believe Words against the Evidence of Deeds Yet in his Essay l. 2. c. 23. § 18. he hath let fall some Words from which I think the Soul's Immateriality may be prov'd The Ideas we have belonging and peculiar to Spirit are Thinking and Will Thus Mr. Lock Now say I if Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit then the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit And that by Spirit he in that Chapter means an immaterial Substance is evident for he opposeth Spirit to material Substance Besides the complex Ideas we have of material sensible Substances we are able to frame the complex Idea of a Spirit So Mr. Lock § 15. And so what he in the very next Sentence calls immaterial Substances in his Margin he calls spiritual Substances If then Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit or spiritual immaterial Substance I cannot reconcile the Immortality of the Soul with Mens ceasing to be when they die Mr. Lock who useth that Expression of ceasing to be more than once see above Chap. 15. must invent some unknown Sense of it which may reconcile them I shew'd just now That Mr. Lock in Essay l. 2. c. 23. did by Spirit understand an immaterial Substance and indeed he doth own that he doth so in his Third Letter p. 430. I shall transcribe his Words at large From the Ideas of Thought says he and a Power of moving of Matter which we experience in our selves there was no more difficulty to conclude there was an immaterial Substance in us than that we had material Parts These Ideas of Thinking and Power of moving of Matter I in another Place shew'd did demonstratively lead us to the certain Knowledge of the Existence of an immaterial Thinking Being in whom we have the Idea of Spirit in the strictest Sense in which Sense I also apply'd it to the Soul in that 23d Chapter Thus Mr. Lock And yet in his First Letter p. 68. he tells us of his using the Word Spirit not in that which he calls the strictest Sense but for a thinking Substance without excluding Materiality out of it He sets himself also to defend his using it thus This he doth first by the Anthority of Cicero and Virgil Ibid. p. 69 70. who as he says call the Soul Spiritus and yet do not deny it to be a subtile Matter But supposing this which he says to be true we may return Answer in his own Words in his Third Letter p. 126. That Latin Sentence Nil tam certum est quam quod de dubio certum being objected he taking it to be a Saying of the Romans answers thus As I take it they i. e. the Romans never use the English Word Certainty and tho' it be true that the English Word Certainty be taken from the Latin Word Certus yet that therefore Certainty in English is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Certus is in Latin that I think you will not say The very same say I As I take it Cicero and Virgil never us'd the English Word Spirit and tho' our Word Spirit be from the Latin Spiritus yet that therefore Spirit in English is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Spiritus is in Latin Mr. Lock I think will not say If he thought this a sufficient Answer to others why should it not be a sufficient Answer to him But farther Mr. Lock having said in his First Letter p. 69. that both Cicero and Virgil call the Soul Spiritus in answer hereto it was suggested concerning Cicero That in his Tusculan Questions in the Entrance of the Dispute about the Soul he takes Animus for the Soul and neither Anima nor Spiritus and that Spiritus is taken by him for Breath Now if this be true that is not which Mr. Lock says that Cicero calls the Soul Spiritus What says he in his Third Letter to this Not a Word nor doth he take the least notice of it neither doth he in that long Reply in his Third Letter p. 431 c. produce one place out of Cicero wherein he useth Spiritus for the Soul If it be said that he had done that in his First Letter I answer that he there cites only one place where he takes the Words on trust and sets them down thus Vita continetur corpore spiritu see him p. 70. But if he had consulted Cicero himself he would have found in Orat. pro Marcello vers fin the Words to be these Nec haec tua vita dicenda est quae corpore spiritu continetur illa inquam illa vita est tua Caesar quae vigebit memorio Saeculonum omnium quam posteritas alet quam ipsa aeternitas semper intuebitur Let Mr. Lock himself now judge whether Spiritus here must be necessarily understood to signifie the Soul and whether it can be more fitly interpreted than in the Sense in which Cicero most constantly useth it as signifying Breath even the Breath of our Nostrils without which the Body cannot live and which is so necessary to preserve this mortal Life which the Orator tells Caesar was not his Life As to Virgil Mr. Lock only cites these Words out of him Dum Spiritus hos regit artus saying that he speaks of the Soul see his First Letter p. 70 In answer to this he was told that Spiritus is there taken for the Vital Spirit and that Virgil did believe the Soul to be more
grief 1 Pet. 2. 19. For Conscience toward God i. e. because his Conscience judgeth that he ought to obey God Thus we read of Conscience its knowing witnessing and judging but where will Mr. Lock find any thing that favours his Description viz. that it is nothing else but our Opinion c. In his Essay l. 4. c. 15. § 3. he makes Opinion to be the receiving a Proposition for true without certain Knowledge that it is so But Conscience both knows as we have seen and also certainly knows There is one indeed that is greater than our Consciences and knows all things and with such Certainty as that nothing can compare with him But that transcendent Certainty of the Divine Knowledge being excepted there is no Knowledge that can pretend to greater and more absolute Certainty than that of Conscience And therefore even according to Mr. Lock it is impossible that Conscience should be an Opinion But this is not the only Fault in Mr. Lock 's Description of Conscience It is says he our own Opinion of our own Actions as if Mens Consciences had to do only with Actions yea only with our own Actions But Conscience will not have its Authority or Jurisdiction confin'd within so narrow Limits It will sit as Judge not only upon Mens Actions but also upon their Speeches yea upon our Thoughts Affections Aims Purposes or Intentions and the Sincerity of them None of these is or can be hid from the Eye of Conscience which knows them all and is thereby qualified to be both Witness and Judge of them St. Paul Rom. 9. 1 2. appeals to his Conscience as witness of his speaking the Truth and of the great Affection he bare to his Country-men I say the Truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience bearing me witness that I have great Heaviness and continual Sorrow in my Heart c. And in like manner 2 Cor. 1. 12. he tells of his Conscience's bearing Testimony of his Conversation and Sincerity Our Rejoycing is this the Testimony of our Conscience that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity we have had our Conversation in the World I add That tho' Mr. Lock only mentions our own Actions yet it is apparent even from Scripture that Conscience also judgeth of the Actions and Conversations of others We commend our selves to every Man's Conscience says the Apostle 2 Cor. 4. 2. i. e. We endeavour to order our Speech Actions and Conversation so as that every Man's Conscience cannot but judge and think well of them So 2 Cor. 5. 11. We says he are made manifest to God and I trust that we are also made manifest in your Consciences q. d. God knows and is Witness of our sincere Purpose and I hope that your Consciences are also satisfied of it and ready to bear Testimony to it Add to these 1 Cor. 10. 28 29. If any Man say to you This is offer'd in Sacrifice to Idols eat not for his sake that shew'd it and for Conscience sake Conscience I say not thine own but the others for why is my Liberty judg'd of another Man's Conscience In this Case tho' I am satisfied in mine own Conscience that I am at liberty and may lawfully eat yet I must forbear for the sake of the other Man's Conscience For why should my Liberty be judged by another's Conscience i. e. Why should I use my Liberty and eat then when another Man's Conscience will judge that I have sinn'd in eating and entertain Jealousies or hard Thoughts of me This may suffice for Mr. Lock 's Description of Conscience He might have express'd himself more plainly than he has done when he says That Morality establish'd upon its true Foundations cannot but determine the Choice in any one who will but consider He hath not plainly told us what those true Foundations are but if he mean by them that infinite Happiness and Misery those Rewards and Punishments of another Life which he mentions in the Words following I would ask whether it be not rather the Consideration of those Foundations which so effectually determines the Choice than the Consideration of the Morality that is established upon them I the rather ask this Question because Mr. Lock in this very Place Essay l. 2. c. 21. § 70. says expresly That the Rewards and Punishments of another Life which the Almighty hath establish'd as the Enforcements of his Laws are of weight enough to determine the Choice against whatever Pleasure or Pain this Life can shew He speaks also of the Foundations of Morality in Essay l. 4. c. 3. § 18. but there likewise he doth not acquaint us what those Foundations are His Words are these The Idea of a Supreme Being Infinite in Power Goodness and Wisdom whose Workmanship we are and on whom we depend and the Idea of our selves as understanding rational Creatures being such as are clear in us would I suppose if duly considered and persued afford such Foundations of our Duty and Rules of Action as might place Morality amongst the Sciences capable of Demonstration wherein I doubt not but from Principles as incontestable as those of the Mathematicks by necessary Consequences the Measures of Right and Wrong might be made out Mr. Lock says in Essay l. 2. c. 21. § 48. Were we determin'd by any thing but the last Result of our own Minds judging of the good or evil of any Action we were not free Now if this be true that the last Result of our Mind judging of the good or evil of any Action determines us and nothing else how comes it that he affirms Ibid. § 31 33 34. That Uneasiness determines the Will and also takes so much Pains to prove it Ibid. § 36 37 38 39 40 I would know whether Uneasiness doth determine the Wills of those who enjoy complete Happiness as the Spirits of Just Men made perfect do Tho' I do not deny that too many Mens Desires and sensual Appetites causing uneasiness in them do determine them to act contrary to the last Result of their Minds judging the Action to be evil And so to use Mr. Lock 's Words Ibid. § 35. they are from time to time in the State of that unhappy Complainer Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor which Sentence is allow'd for â—rue and made good by constant Experience Therefore in the Heathen Poets we meet with many such Complaints The Words immediately preceding those Video meliora c. are these Sed trahit invitam nova vis aliudque Cupido Mens aliud suadet That unhappy Wretch viz. Medea complains that tho' her Mind saw and approv'd and persuaded her to the better yet the Vehemence of her Desire persuaded yea even hurried her to the worse and made her unwillingly follow it In like manner in Euripides's Medea Act 4. vers fin she complains that her Passion overcame her Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea we find the like Complaints in Holy Writ I delight in the Law of God after the inward Man