AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. LOCK's Religion Out of his Own Writings and in his Own Words Together with some OBSERVATIONS upon it and a Twofold Appendix I. A Specimen of Mr. LOCK's Way of Answering Authors out of his ESSAY l. 1. c. 3. where he takes upon him to Examine some of the Lord Herbert's Principles II. A brief Enquiry whether SOCINIANISM be justly Charged upon Mr. LOCK LONDON Printed and Sold by J. Nutt near Stationers-Hall M DCC Mr. Lock 's Treatises out of which the following Account is Collected 1. HIS Thoughts of Education Edit An. 1693. 2. His Essay of Humane Understanding An. 1695. 3. His Reasonableness of Christianity An. 1696. 4. His Vindication of it An. 1695. 5. His Second Vindication of it An. 1697. 6. His First Letter An. 1697. 7. His Second Letter An. 1697. 8. His Third Letter An. 1699. ERRATA PAge 4. Line 9. for Conquently r. Consequently p. 42. l. 12. for Preceeded r. Preceded p. 45. l. 33. after limits r. it p. 50. l. 37. for 384. r. 284. p. 57. l. 7. dele of p. 77. l. 11. for Certainly r. Certainty p. 80. l. 33. for Heb. r. Hab. p. 105. l. 12. for Memorio r. Memoria p. 112. l. 5. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and l. 15. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Premonition to the Reader IN his Preface to his Reasonableness of Christianity Mr. Lock tells us That the little Satisfaction and Consistency that is to be found in most of the Systems of Divinity that he had met with made him betake himself to the sole reading of the Scripture and what he receiv'd from thence he deliver'd to his Reader in that Treatise And as the little Satisfaction and Consistency which he found in some Systems of Divinity was the Occasion of his Writing and Publishing that Discourse so the little Satisfaction and Consistency which I found in his System viz. his Reasonableness of Christianity foremention'd was one Occasion of my drawing up the following Account and the Observations upon it When Mr. Lock says The little Satisfaction and Consistency to be found in most of the Systems of Divinity that he had met with these Words Most of the Systems imply that he had met with some Systems in which more Satisfaction and Consistency may be found and he would have oblig'd the World if he had pleas'd to acquaint us what Systems those are In giving an Account of his Religion that neither He might have Cause to complain nor the Reader to suspect that I have misrepresented him I judg'd it necessary to do it out of his own Writings and in his own Words I thought this would be the most effectual course to satisfie both him and others that I had no Design to represent him to his Disadvantage It was also necessary to set down that which Mr. Lock hath deliver'd agreeably to the Form of found Words and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness as well as that in which he departs from the Truth and from the Words of wholsome Doctrine for otherwise the Account would have been imperfect and withal if I had omitted that which is good and justifiable and presented the Reader only with that which is to be dislik'd and disapprov'd in his Religion I should have incurred the Guilt of disobeying the Charge given 1 Tim. 5. 21. to do nothing by Partiality or inclining to one part more than the other I am so far from envying Mr. Lock the Honour of having said some things well that I heartily wish he had said all so and that there had been nothing reprebensible or deserving Censure in his Religion Besides there may be those who will more willingly learn some Truths from Mr. Lock than from others embracing them more readily upon the account of his Approbation or Recommendation and for the sake of these I thought it not amiss to transcribe that which was consonant to Truth as well as that which I found dissonant from it By this means also the Reader may better perceive the little Consistency that there is in Mr. Lock 's Writings how he destroys that which he had built up asserts the Truth in one place and seeks to obtrude on us the contrary Errour in another The Account is divided into Chapters and in every Chapter I first set down what Mr. Lock says upon those Heads that are mentioned in the Contents of it and then subjoin some brief Observations upon it And that the Reader may more readily find any Passage transcrib'd out of Mr. Lock I have directed him to the Book Chapter and Section of his Essay and to the Page in his other Treatises as I have also signified what Editions of them I have made use of I am very sensible how little Encouragement there is from without for any Man to appear in the Maintenance of those weighty Truths which are treated of in the following Account and the Observations upon it The Consideration of which may perhaps incline the Reader more firmly to believe that it is only a desire to be useful and serviceable while he is in the World and a real Concern for the Truth and for Religion that put the Author upon this Work upon which Account he hopes that his sincere though weak Endeavours will be more favourably accepted The Result of those Endeavours he here presents to publick View humbly commending it to the Blessing of Heaven and if by it he hath done any acceptable Service to God and his Church he hath his Desire and may that Holy and Blessed Trinity the Father Son and Holy Ghost have the Glory AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. LOCK's Religion Out of his Own Writings c. CHAP. I. Of GOD. TO come to the being certain that there is a God I think we need go no farther than our selves and that undoubted Knowledge we have of our own Being I think it is beyond question That Man has a clear Perception of his own Being he knows certainly that he exists and that he is Something In the next place Man knows by an intuitive Certainty that bare Nothing cannot produce any real Being If therefore we know there is some real Being and that Non-entity cannot produce any real Being it is an evident Demonstration that from Eternity there has been Something since what was not from Eternity had a Beginning and what had a Beginning must be produc'd by something else Next it is evident That what had its Being and Beginning from another must also have all that which is in and belongs to its Being from another too All the Powers it has must be owing to and received from the same Source This eternal Source then of all Being must also be the Source and Original of all Power and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful Again a Man finds in himself Perception and Knowledge We have then got one step farther and we are certain now that there is some
clear himself from what was never laid to his Charge 2. That what was laid upon him was what he could not do without owning to know what he was sure he did not know For says he how the Doctrine of the Trinity has been always receiv'd in the Christian Church I confess my self ignorant Thus Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 7 9. To the former of which I say Suppose it was not objected that he did not favour the Doctrine of the Trinity yet if it was only insinuated this was a sufficient Reason why he should clear himself No Man should be silent in the case of such Insinuation Now Mr. Lock was not ignorant that this had been insinuated being so well acquainted with two Discourses one intituled Some Thoughts concerning the several Causes and Occasions of Atheism the other Socinianism Unmask'd both publish'd before that he was put in mind to clear himself The very Title of the latter doth insinuate it and if he would see it plainly objected he may consult p. 82. where are these words My next Charge against this Gentleman i. e. Mr. Lock was this that those Texts of Scripture which respect the Holy Trinity were either disregarded by him or were interpreted by him after the Antitrinitarian Mode And this he is so far from denying that he openly avows it By which he hath made it clear that he espouses that Doctrine of the Socinians Here it is plainly laid to his Charge and yet Mr. Lock did not think fit either in his Reply to this Socinianism Unmask'd nor any where else to clear himself by declaring to the World that he owns the Doctrine of the Trinity As to the latter that he is ignorant how the Doctrine of the Trinity has been always receiv'd in the Christian Church it is not to the purpose for it was not requir'd of him that he should declare his owning the Doctrine of the Trinity as it has been Always receiv'd in the Christian Church the word Always is Mr. Lock 's addition it was only mention'd that he should declare his owning it as it hath been receiv'd in the Christian Church and if he had only declar'd his owning it as it hath been receiv'd in the Church of England it would have been judg'd sufficient Therefore both these are apparently mere Shifts and Evasions 2. Mr. Lock gives the World just reason to suspect that he doth not favour the Doctrine of the Trinity by his disputing so largely and earnestly about the Terms Nature and Person and his ridiculing that which had been said for clearing the Sense or Signification of them This Dispute takes up no small part of his Third Letter see p. 253 c. and again p. 352 c. after that he had enlarg'd so much upon them in his two former Letters see his First Letter p. 148 c. and the Second Letter p. 98 c. Lastly In the Words that I have transcrib'd out of this Third Letter p. 224. he gives the World just cause to doubt that he is no Friend to this Doctrine The words are I do not here question the Truth of these Propositions There are three Persons in one Nature or There are two Natures and one Person nor deny that they may be drawn from the Scripture but I deny that these very Propositions are in express Words in my Bible For that is the only thing I deny here If Mr. Lock had said I do not question the Truth of these Propositions nor deny c. he might have given some Satisfaction But here is a dead Fly that makes his Ointment to send forth no good savour viz. the Word Here added and that twice He doth not Here question their Truth and that is the only thing he denies Here i.e. for this time and upon this occasion he did not think fit to express his questioning the one or denying the other but he doth not absolutely say that he doth not question or deny the one or other He saith For that is the only thing I deny here whereby I perceive that Mr. Lock has his priviledg'd Particles as he says that others have theirs for what the Particle For doth here I know not CHAP. XIII Of the Scriptures particularly of the Epistles also of the Interpretation of them THE Holy Scripture is to me and always will be the constant Guide of my Assent and I shall always hearken to it as containing infallible Truth relating to things of the highest Concernment And I shall presently condemn and quit any Opinion of mine as soon as I am shewn that it is contrary to any Revelation in the Holy Scripture Mr. Lock First Letter p. 226 227. Every true Christian is under an absolute and indispensible necessity by being the Subject of Christ to study the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind according to that measure of Time Opportunity and Helps which he has that in those Sacred Writings be may find what his Lord and Master hath by himself or by the mouths of his Apostles requir'd of him either to be believ'd or done Second Vindicat. of the Reason of Christian. p. 446. I think it every Christian's Duty to read search and study the Holy Scriptures and make this their great Business Ibid. p. 201. All that we find in the Revelation of the New Testament being the declar'd Will and Mind of our Lord and Master the Messiah whom we have taken to be our King we are bound to receive as Right and Truth or else we are not his Subjects But it is still what we find in the Scripture what we sincerely seeking to know the Will of our Lord discover to be his Mind Where it is spoken plainly we cannot miss it where there is Obscurity either in the Expressions themselves or by reason of the seeming contrariety of other Passages there a fair Endeavour as much as our Circumstances will permit secures us from a guilty Disobedience to his Will or a sinsul Errour in Faith If he had requir'd more of us in those Points he would have declar'd his Will plainer to us Ibid. p. 76. The Holy Writers of the Epistles inspired from above writ nothing but Truth and in most places very weighty Truths to us now for the expounding clearing and confirming of the Christian Doctrine and establishing those in it who had embraced it But yet every Sentence of theirs must not be taken up and looked on as a Fundamental Article necessary to Salvation without an explicit Belief whereof no body could be a Member of Christ's Church here nor be admitted into his eternal Kingdom hereafter If all or most of the Truths declared in the Epistles were to be receiv'd and believ'd as Fundamental Articles what then became of those Christians who were fallen asleep as S. Paul witnesses in his first to the Corinthians many were before these things in the Epistles were revealed to them Most of the Epistles not being written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension and some
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
Christian. p. 30. Mr. Lock having alledg'd those word The Messias which is being interpreted the Christ John 1. 42. tells us that Christ is but the Greek name for the Hebrew Messiah and that both signifie the Anointed So p. 216. he says The Faith required was to believe Jesus to be the Messiah the Anointed He was anointed to three great Offices viz. of Priest Prophet and King see him p. 217. Concerning the other Title the Son of God he says p. 303. Who being conceiv'd in the Womb of a Virgin that had not known Man by the immediate Power of God was properly the Son of God for which he cites Luk. 1. 35. According to Mr. Lock then the Son of God signifies our Saviour's having been conceived in the Womb of a pure Virgin by the immediate Power of God whereas Messiah signifies his being anointed to the Offices of a Priest a Prophet and a King Since then by his own confession these Titles have two so different Significations how he can say and defend that they are one in signification I know not If when he says that they are synonymous Terms Expressions of the same thing one in Signification c. his meaning was only this that the same Person is express'd or signify'd by them that both these Titles agree to the same Person or that the same Person is both the Son of God and the Messiah there would be no Controversie as to it for it is that which was never question'd But Mr. Lock will not be satisfied with this as appears from his Reasonableness of Christianity and the two Vindications of it especially the latter For it was acknowledg'd more than once that the Titles agree or are apply'd to the same Person and yet he is so far from acquiescing that he disputes the Point as earnestly as ever See Second Vindication p. 349 c. CHAP. XII Of two Natures in one Person and of the Trinity I Do not remember that I ever read in my Bible either of these Propositions in these precise terms There are three Persons in one Nature or There are two Natures and one Person I do not here question their Truth nor deny that they may be drawn from the Scripture but I deny that these very Propositions are in express words in my Bible for that is the only thing I deny here Mr. Lock Third Letter p. 224. OBSERVATIONS It is well known how much Mr. Lock complains that he was join'd with the Unitarians See his Second Letter p. 7. The World says he will be apt to think that I am the Person who argue against the Trinity Ibid. p. 24. That I am one of the They and Them that oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 27. I might transcribe much more to this purpose But might not Mr. Lock do well instead of complaining of others to consider whether he himself hath not given the World reason to suspect that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity As by taking no notice of S. Matth. 28. 19. in his Reasonableness of Christianity where our Saviour being about to leave the Apostles and to be taken from them to Heaven and instructing them what they should teach the Unbelieving Nations and how they were to admit them into his Church says Go teach all Nations baptizing them in or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This lay directly in Mr. Lock 's way when he was acquainting us what the Apostles were to preach to Unbelievers so that it may be justly suspected that there was some special reason of his omitting it and particularly that the reason was because these three the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are mention'd here So whereas it is believ'd that this Title the Son of God doth in sundry places include or denote that Christ is God Mr. Lock very studiously and industriously opposeth this and by so doing hath likewise given Persons reason to think that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity Thus he contends that in S. Luk. 4. 41. S. Mar. 3. 11 12. S. Matth. 16. 16. S. Job 11. 27. S. Luk. 22. 70. S. Matth. 27. 54. Act. 8. 37. the term the Son of God doth not denote our Saviour's being God See his Second Vindication p. 361 362 363 364 366 367 368 369 374. I shall not consider all that he saith of these Texts but with reference to S. Luk. 22. 70. I would ask him Whether the Jews understood not this Appellation the Son of God so as that it denoted the Person so call'd to be God And therefore as soon as he had own'd himself to be the Son of God v. 70. they said What need we any farther witness for we have heard from his own mouth ver 71. We have heard viz. his Blasphemy as S. Matthew and S. Mark expound it Then the High Priest rent his cloaths saying that he had spoken Blasphemy what farther need have we of witnesses behold ye have now heard his Blasphemy S. Matth. 26. 65. See also S. Mar. 14. 63 64. If they had not understood that by owning himself to be the Son of God he had made himself God how could they say that he blasphem'd This matter is fully clear'd by S. Job 10. 33 35 36. The Jews said For a good work we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because thou being a man makest thy self God Jesus answer'd If your Law call'd them Gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Here it is plain 1. That the Jews made Christ to be a Blasphemer because being a Man he made himself God 2. That according to them he made himself God by saying that he was the Son of God 3. That our Saviour doth not blame the Jews for making this Inference but contrarywise maintains that he did not blaspheme in saying that he was the Son of God and so God by alledging the Psalmist's words I said Ye are Gods If the Psalmist did not blaspheme in recording these words I said ye are Gods how say ye that he whom the Father hath set apart and sent into the World doth blaspheme because he said that he is the Son of God and so God But Mr. Lock most especially gives the World just reason to suspect that he is not a Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity in his Third Letter As 1. By refusing to follow the friendly Advice that was given him for removing all Jealousies and Suspicions of him as to this particular He was told that the way to clear himself had been by declaring to the World that he own'd the Doctrine of the Trinity as it has been receiv'd in the Christian Church But this he would not be persuaded to do alledging That he needed not to reply to what was never objected and
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
distinct Ideas The History of the Deluge is convey'd to us by Writings which had their Original from Revelation and yet no body I think will say 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 For he has no greater Assurance than that of his Senses that it is writ in the Book suppos'd writ by Moses inspired but he has not so great an Assurance that Moses writ that Book as if he had seen Moses write it so that the assurance of its being a Revelation is less still than the assurance of his Senses Ibid. l. 4. c. 18. § 4. A man ought to hearken to Reason even in immediate and original Revelation where it is suppos'd to be made to himself but to all those who pretend not to immediate Revelation but are requir'd to pay Obedience and to receive the Truths reveal'd to others which by the Tradition of Writings or Word of Mouth are convey'd down to them Reason hath a great deal more to do and is that only which can induce us to receive them Ibid. § 6. Whatsoever is divine Revelation ought to over-rule our Opinions Prejudices and Interests Whatever God hath reveal'd is certainly true no doubt can be made of it But whether it be a divine Revelation or no Reason must judge which can never permit the Mind to reject a greater Evidence for that which is less evident or preser less Certainty to the greater There can be no Evidence that any Traditional Revelation is of divine Original in the words we receive it and in the Sense we understand it so clear and so certain as those of the Principles of Reason Ibid. § 10. No Proposition can be received for divine Revelation or obtain the Assent due to all such if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge Ibid. § 5. No Proposition can be receiv'd for divine Revelation which is contradictory to a self-evident Proposition The Third Letter p. 230. Give me leave to ask your Lordship Whether where there be Propositions of whose Truth you have certain Knowledge you can receive any Proposition for divine Revelation which contradicts that Certainty Ibid. p. 218. There is one sort of Propositions that challenge the highest degree of our Assent upon bare Testimony whether the thing proposed agree with common Experience and the ordinary Course of things or no. The Reason whereof is because the Testimony is of such an one as cannot deceive or be deceived and that is of God himself This carries with it Certainty beyond Doubt Evidence beyond Exception This is call'd by a peculiar Name Revelation and our Assent to it Faith which has as much Certainty as our knowledge it self and we may as well doubt of our own Being as we can whether any Revelation from God be true Only we must be sure that it be a Divine Revelation and that we understand it right Essay l. 4. c. 16. § 14. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God where I know it is the Testimony of God The third Letter p. 133. All Divine Revelation requires the Obedience of Faith and all the parts of it are to be receiv'd with a Docility and disposition prepared to embrace and assent to all Truths coming from God Reasonab of Christan p. 302. Natural Religion in its full extent was no where that I know taken care of by the force of natural Reason It should seem that 't is too hard a thing for unassisted Reason to establish Morality in all its parts upon its true Foundation with a clear and convincing Light Ibid. p. 268. 'T is no diminishing to Revelation that Reason gives it Suffrage too to the Truths Revelation has discovered The Apostles delivered no Precepts but such as tho' Reason of it self had not clearly made out yet it could not but assent to when thus discover'd and think it self indebted for the Discovery Ibid. p. 281 284. I gratefully receive and rejoice in the Light of Revelation which sets me at rest in many things the manner whereof my poor Reason can by no means make out to me I readily believe what ever God has declared tho' my Reason find Difficulties in it which I cannot master The Third Letter p. 443 444. Though the Light of Nature gave some obscure glimmering some uncertain hopes of a Future state yet humane Reason could attain to no Clearness no Certainty about it but it was Jesus Christ alone who brought Life and Immortality to light through the Gospel Ibid. p. 439. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Every one must observe how much Mr. Lock in his Essay speaks on the behalf of Natural Religion telling us that the Precepts of it are plain and very intelligible to all Mankind and seldom come to be controverted whereas says he reveal'd Truths are liable to the common and Natural Obscurities and Difficulties incident to Words and therefore he recommends the Precepts of natural Religion to our careful and diligent observation God says he farther hath spread before all Mankind such legible Characters of his Works and Providence and given them so sufficient a Light of Reason that they to whom this written Word never came could not whenever they set themselves to search doubt of the being of a God Thus Mr. Lock But how doth this last that they could not doubt of the Being of a God agree with that which he says other where viz. Essay l. 1. c. 4. § 8. concerning the Atheists among the Ancients and those at the Bay of Soldamia in Brasil c. who if he might be believed had not as much as any Notion of a Deity Mr. Lock perhaps will say of them of the Bay of Soldamia and Brasil that they did not set themselves to search but surely he will not say this of those reputed Atheists that were anciently among the inquisitive Greeks In like manner how can Mr. Lock say that the points of natural Religion were so seldom controverted Were there no Controversies among the ancient Greeks about things relating to Ethicks or Morality as well as about those that appertain'd to other parts of Philosophy Were not the several Sects of Philosophers divided about these things as well as about others Will he say that there were no Controversies among the inquisitive Heathen about the Nature and Immortality of the Soul and that the sufficient Light of Reason of which he speaks made all clear as to this No for contrariwise he tells us that Cicero enumerates several Opinions of the Philosophers about it and also how uncertain Cicero himself was about it and that Christ alone brought Immortality to light See the Third Letter p. 438 439. So as to Man 's chief Good or Happiness were there no Controversies no diversity of Opinions about that Doth not the same Cicero Tuscul. Quaest. l. 5. vers fin take notice of the various Sentiments about it Yea doth
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
that he suffer'd rose again fulfill'd all things that were written in the Old Testament concerning him that he now reigneth shall judge the World at the last day and that those that repent and believe the Gospel shall receive Remission of Sins Is it not then matter of greatest Admiration that the same Person should tell us that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition that Jesus was the Messiah Ibid. p. 43. that all that was to be believ'd for Justification was no more but this single Proposition p. 47. that this was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd p. 93. that for three score years after our Saviour's Passion S. John knew nothing else requir'd to be believ'd for the attaining of Life but this p. 194. and that this is the sole Doctrine requir'd to be believ'd p. 195. especially when in his Vindication of his Reasonab of Christian. p. 29. he seems to complain of those that blam'd him for contending for one Article Having says he thus plainly mention'd more than one Article I might have taken it amiss c. And so in his Second Vindication p. 26. he hath these words That there is one God and Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord who rose again from the dead ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God shall come to judge the quick and dead are more than one Article and may very properly be call'd These Articles Now in the foregoing Page he refers us to places in his Reasonab of Christian. where he makes the Belief of all these necessary which says he is evidence enough that I contended not for one single Article and no more All that I can say is that it is not easie to reconcile Mr. Lock to himself or to make out that sundry Passages in his Reasonab of Christianity do not clash with each other He says in Reasonab of Christian. p. 31. that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on and yet he will confess that we cannot thence conclude that to be the sole Article that is necessary to be believ'd Why then doth he urge so much that this that Jesus is the Christ is the sole Doctrine the only Article that one Proposition that is requir'd to be believ'd because perhaps it is sometimes solely insisted on Mr. Lock Ibid. p. 43. having said that S. Paul tells the Jews at Antioch Act. 13. 46. It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you but seeing you put it off from you we turn to the Gentiles adds Here 't is plain that S. Paul's charging their Blood upon their own heads is for opposing this single Truth that Jesus was the Messiah that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition Thus Mr. Lock But I would know how all this is plain from the Words which he alledges from Acts 13. 46. for 't is certain that it is not said in express terms either that the charging their Blood on their own Heads is for opposing this single Truth that Jesus is the Messiah or that Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition It is true when the Apostle says Ye put it from you he intimates that it was wholly their own fault that they did not receive Benefit by the Words being spoken to them and that may look something toward the charging their Blood upon their own Heads but as to all the rest there is not the least ground or footstep of it Act. 13. 46. Perhaps Mr. Lock will say that by the Word of God there is meant no more than this one Proposition That Jesus is the Messiah But who will not rather believe that when St. Paul said It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you he thereby meant that Word of God which he had preach'd to them of Antioch in Pisidia as is recorded in that Chapter and which the Jews contradicted He had preached That God had of the Seed of David according to Promise raised up to Israel a Saviour Jesus v. 23. That the Jews at Jerusalem had condemn'd him and desir'd Pilate to put him to Death and in so doing fulfill'd the Voices of the Prophets and the things that were written concerning him v. 27 28 29. that he was also buried and that God rais'd him from the dead no more to see Corruption according to the Prophecies of him and that he was seen for many Days after his Resurrection v. 29 30 31. usque ad 38. and that every one that believes should receive Remission of Sins by him and be justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses v. 38 39 All these are more than one single Truth or one Proposition and are all comprehended under the Word of God mention'd v. 46. And it may be observ'd that in all that Sermon from the beginning of v. 16. to v. 42. there is not express mention as much as once made of Jesus's being the Messiah or King tho' there is of his being a Justifier and Saviour In his Reasonab of Christian. p. 47. Mr. Lock hath these Words So that all that was to be believ'd for Justification was no more but this single Proposition That Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah The Words So that import that he deduceth this from one or more of the Texts of Scripture which he there alleadges and if I mistake not from the last of them viz. Act. 10. 43. where 't is said To him i. e. Jesus of Nazareth give all the Prophets witness that through his Name whosoever believeth in him shall receive Remission of Sins Here indeed is mention of Remission of Sins or Justification but that all that was to be believ'd for Justification was that single Proposition which he so often mentions will never be prov'd from that Text. Yea Mr. Lock speaking of St. Peter's Sermon to Cornelius Act. 10. of which that Text is a part doth not say that there is in it any express mention of our Saviour's being the Messiah but says he he is described to be so by his Miracles Death Resurrection Dominion and coming to judge the quick and the dead See him in his Second Vindication p. 307. In his Reasonab of Christian. p. 93. he alledges the Words of Act. 8. 4. They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word Which Word was nothing says he but this that Jesus was the Messiah But if you ask how he proves this he only says As we have found by examining what they preach'd all through their History Where by their History he means undoubtedly the History of the Apostles and when he says they preach'd that they must be the Apostles whereas they that are said to have preach'd the Word Acts 8. 4. were not the Apostles for we are told v. 1. that the Apostles were not scatter'd abroad as those were that are mention'd
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
seeing the Signification of the Terms of this Proposition is so certain it cannot but be a very certain Rule of Humane Practice and of excellent Use for the Conduct of the Lives of Men and very fit to be assign'd if not as an innate Practical Principle yet as a Practical Principle written in Mens Hearts which is as much as the Lord Herbert affirms Ad § 18. When the Truth of a Proposition is so clear that the Answerer cannot but see and acknowledge it the usual way is to add to it or leave some Words out or substitute others in the Place of them and so to mould it into another Form till he thinks that he can say something to it which may pass for a Confutation with the unwary Reader Mr. Lock thought it necessary to take this Course and so he here leaves out the Words join'd with Piety and represents the Proposition thus Vertue is the best Worship of God i. e. says he is most acceptable to him But this according to the Lord Herbert's Sense of the Word Vertue is most false for Vertue join'd with Piety is more acceptable to God than Vertue alone not having Piety its Associate is Let the Proposition then stand as it ought to do and as it is in the Lord Herbert Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God and let us see what Mr. Lock offers 1. If says he Vertue be taken for those Actions which according to the different Opinions of several Countries are accounted laudable the Proposition will not be true i. e. If Vertue be taken for that which is not Vertue the Proposition will not be true but if it be taken for that which really is Vertue and so the Lord Herbert took it as Mr. Lock knew very well it is most certainly true and confess'd by him a little before to be a clear Truth How vain then is it if not contradictious here to make a Supposition of its being taken in a Sense which would render the Proposition not true He says here that Vertue is most commonly taken for those Actions which according to the different Opinions of Countries are accounted laudable but he only says it he does not alledge as much as one Author who takes it so Withal if it was true that it is most commonly taken so yet it is not to the purpose since Mr. Lock knew that the Lord Herbert did not take it so 2. If says he Vertue be taken for Actions conformable to God's Will or to the Rule prescribed by God then this Proposition will be most true and certain And I do readily grant that it is here taken for Actions conformable to the Will of God and Rule prescrib'd by him but it is to be observ'd that in this Proposition it is distinguished from Piety and therefore as the Actions conformable to God's Will and the Rule prescrib'd by him which relate to God are comprehended under Piety so under Vertue are comprehended all other Actions that are conformable to the Divine Will and the Rule prescrib'd us whether they relate to our Duty towards our Neighbour or that toward our selves And this being manifestly the Sense of the Word which the Lord Herbert intended the Proposition Vertue joined with Piety is the best Worship of God must be acknowledged to be most true and certain But says Mr. Lock however true and certain it may be it is of very little use in Humane Life and therefore I think very few will take it for an innate moral Principle writ on the Hearts of all Men. To which I answer that if it depend upon this I must look upon Mr. Lock 's Cause as desperate for I am so far from granting that this Proposition is of very little use in Humane Life that contrariwise I positively assert that it is impossible that any general Rule should be of greater use than it is I challenge Mr. Lock to name any general Rule which is of greater Force to incite Men to the Study and Practice of true Piety and Vertue than this That Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God But what Reason doth Mr. Lock give of this his strange Assertion that the fore-mention'd Proposition is of very little use in Humane Life His Reason is as strange as his Assertion because it amounts to no more than this that God is pleas'd with the doing of what he commands To which I answer 1. Suppose this was true that it amounts to no more it would not follow that it is of very little use in Humane Life For ought not this that God is pleased with it be an especial Motive to and Enforcement of that great Duty of taking care to do God's Commandments 2. We may admire that Mr. Lock should say that it amounts to no more than this Doth this that it is the best Worship of God amount to no more than this that God is pleased with it Surely it can amount to no less than this that it is the Worship that best pleases him as also that by it we best express our inward Veneration of him our Belief of his Promises and Desire to please him and by it most honour him c. He that offereth Praise honoureth me Psal. 50. ult and so he that performeth any other Action of Piety or any vertuous Action honours or glorifies our Father which is in Heaven as also he provokes others and gives them an Occasion to glorifie him St. Matth. 5. 16. We see then that it amounts to much more than this that God is pleas'd with the doing that which he commands Mr. Lock adds A Man may certainly know this to be true viz. that God is pleas'd with the doing of what he commands without knowing what it is that God doth command and so be as far from any Rule or Principle of his Actions as he was before But whether this be true or no I am not at all concern'd to enquire it is certain that we cannot know this Proposition Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God to be true without knowing something of what it is that God commands for he commands the Practice of the very things express'd in it viz. Vertue and Piety yea these two are the greatest and weightiest things of the Law or if you will the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets St. Matth. 22. 40. And we may observe that the Lord Herbert in his Appendix ad Sacerdotes de Religione Laici sets down this third common Notion or Proposition more largely thus Virtutem Pietatem una cum fide in Deum amoreque ejus intimo conjunctam esse praecipuam partem cultus Divini So that here is added express Mention of Faith in God and an hearty Love of him which are also things commanded by God Here is nothing more in this Section that deserves Consideration As to his Rhetorical Flight concerning Hundreds of Propositions it hath been touch'd upon before Ad
§ 19. Here Mr. Lock passes to the Lord Herbert's fourth common Notion or Proposition That Men must repent of their Sins if they expect or desire to have them forgiven He grants that it is a very true Proposition and fit to be inculcated and otherwhere viz. in Reasonab of Christian. p. 256. he tells us that the Light of Nature reveal'd to the Heathens this way of Reconciliation this Hope of Atonement that God would forgive them if they acknowledged their Faults disapproved the Iniquity of their Transgressions begg'd his Pardon c. So that even according to Mr. Lock 's Doctrine this Proposition Men must repent of their Sins if they would have God atoned and their Sins forgiven bids fair for being a common Notion or Principle writ in the Hearts of Men. But Mr. Lock says that this fourth Proposition is not much more instructive than the third To which I answer That if it be but as instructive as the third it is very fit to be receiv'd as a common Notion writ in the Hearts of Men And then surely it is fit to be receiv'd as such when it is acknowledged by Mr. Lock to be more instructive yea much more instructive when it is set down what those Actions are that are meant by Sins I took notice a little before that Mr. Lock says that this Proposition is fit to be inculcated But on whom is it to be inculcated His Words are these Fit to be inculcated on and received by those who are suppos'd to have been taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins But if it is fit to be inculcated on and receiv'd by none but those who are taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins I fear that it is fit to be inculcated on and received by very few For I doubt there are few that know what Actions in all kinds are Sins Perhaps Mr. Lock himself has not attain'd to know this there are perhaps some Actions that are Sins and yet he doth not think them to be so But he proceeds farther and asserts confidently enough that neither this fourth Proposition nor the former i. e. the third can be imagin'd to be innate Principles nor to be of any use if they were innate unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds and were innate Principles also which I think is very much to be doubted Thus Mr. Lock Now this seems very high that no Man can imagine them or either of them to be innate Principles when according to him the Lord Herbert did imagine them to be such and that they should be of no use when he himself had intimated before that they are of use For when § 18. he says of the third Proposition that it is of very little use in Humane Life and that it teaches little this implies that it is of some use and teacheth something And § 19. when he saith of the fourth Proposition that it is not much more instructive than the third he grants that it is more instructive tho' not much more Mr. Lock says that they cannot be imagin'd to be of any use unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds and were innate Principles also But uppose the particular Measures and Bounds of some Vertues and Vices only were engraven on Mens Hearts and innate Principles would not these Propositions be of excellent use for inciting us to practise those Vertues and eschew those Vices And therefore is not Mr. Lock too severe in pronouncing them to be of no use at all unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were innate Principles But the Truth is he will not allow that any Measures of Vertue and Vice are innate Principles Mr. Lock 's next Words are And therefore I imagine it will scarce seem possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification such as are Vertues and Vices which amongst different Men stand for different things But how the Words And therefore come here I know not for I cannot see how this can be drawn as a Conclusion from that which hath gone before He had said a little before that the word Sins is usually put to signifie in general ill Actions that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers So that here he makes the Signification of the word Sins to be certain and can he inferr thence that it scarce seems possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification as the word Sins is As to the other word Vertue I have shew'd above in answering the 17th and 18th Sections that the Signification of it is not uncertain But does not Mr. Lock give a sufficient Proof that both the Words are of uncertain Signification when he says that among different Men they stand for different things I answer No for tho' some may say This is a Vertue when others may account it a Vice and this is a Sin or Vice when others may say that it is a Vertue yet by the words Vertue and Sin they mean the same thing viz. by Sin an ill Action by Vertue a laudable one Mr. Lock proceeds and says Nay it cannot be suppos'd to be in Words at all viz. that God engraves Principles in Mens Minds And to the same Purpose he had said before in the Beginning of § 18. It is the Sense and not the Sound that is and must be the Principle or common Notion But against whom doth he say this Not against the Lord Herbert who is for our having little regard to Words and Names as much as he can be Non tam nomina quae si neglexerimus magnum in sapientia progressum faciemus quam res ipsas respicientes consensum illum universalem tanquam veritatem indubiam amplectamini so he de Veritate p. 40. And therefore he much varies the Words of these two Propositions viz. the third and the fourth In the third Proposition instead of Virtutem cum Pietate conjunctam as he expresseth it in his Religio Laici he in his Appendix ad Sacerdot de Relig. Laici hath Virtutem Pietatem una cum Fide in Deum Amoreque ejus intimo conjunctam and in his de Veritate p. 215. Probam facultatum conformitatem and in the same de Veritate p. 220. Vitae sanctitatem So his fourth Proposition in his Religio Laici he expresses thus Resipiscendum esse a peccatis but in his de Veritate p. 217. more largely thus Vitia scelera quaecunque expiari debere ex poenitentia Hence it most plainly appears that the Lord Herbert made not Words but the Sense to be the Notitia communis We are come at last to Mr. Lock 's Conclusion which he begins thus When it shall be made out that Men ignorant of Words or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country but he doth not tell us what is to be made out
concerning them for there is no Verb for this Nominative Case Men ignorant of Words c. But I suppose that it is to be supply'd out of that which follows so that his Meaning is this When it shall be made out that Men ignorant of Words or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country and all Men whatsoever do actually know and allow that it is part of the Worship of God not to kill a Man not to know more Women than one not to procure Abortion not to expose their Children not to take from another what is his tho' we want it our selves but on the contrary relieve and supply his Wants and whenever we have done the contrary we ought to repent be sorry and resolve to do so no more When I say all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules all which come under these two general Words Vertues and Sins there will be more Reason for admitting these and the like for common Notions and practical Principles Thus Mr. Lock who seems to deal very hardly with the Lord Herbert's third and fourth Propositions in that he will not admit them to be common Notions or as much as practical Principles until it be prov'd that all Men in the World even those that are ignorant of Words and untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country do actually know and also allow of all these and a thousand other such Rules Methinks if all Men did actually know these and but half a thousand other such Truths we might see very great Reason for admitting those two Propositions to be of great use for directing our Practice and consequently to have a good Title to be accounted practical Rules or Principles St. Paul Rom. 1. instanceth in many things which the Gentiles actually knew to be ill Actions that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers and consequently according to Mr. Lock Sins for having enumerated them from v. 24. to v. 32. he says v. 32. that they knew that those who do such things are worthy of Death Now must not every one confess that the Lord Herbert's fourth Proposition That Men must repent if they would have those Sins forgiven and escape the Punishment due for them would have been of very great use to them Yea if Men have but Means to know that many things are Vertues or Vices the two fore-mention'd Propositions must not be deny'd to be practical Principles and such as might be very useful in Humane Life because through their own Default many do not actually know that they are Vertues or Vices The Lord Herbert makes that golden Rule St. Matth. 7. 12. Whatsoever things ye would that Men should do unto you do ye so to them to be a common Notion writ in the Hearts of Men and would they but call it frequently to mind and apply it to particular Actions by the Light of this they might know whether they have the Nature of Sin or no. The Application of this Rule to particular Actions would help us to the Knowledge of a great part of our Duty toward our Neighbour and therefore our Saviour says that this is the Law and the Prophets All my Duty toward my Neighbour depends upon it the whole Law concerning that is fulfill'd in it it is the Foundation of all Justice and Charity to Men. Hence it was that the Emperour Severus Alexander having heard this Sentence from the Jews or Christians we may rather think Christians caus'd it to be proclaim'd by the Cryer and to be writ on the Palace and on Publick Works see Jul. Capitolinus in Alexandro Severo To conclude then according to the Lord Herbert as that Proposition They must repent of their Sins if they would have God aton'd to them is writ upon the Hearts of Men so also is this Sentence All things whatsoever ye would that Men should do to you do ye likewise to them By which if they be not wanting to themselves they may know in a great measure what particular Actions are Sins and what they ought to do so that if that Proposition be not useful and instructive to them it is their own Fault Mr. Lock having said that when all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules there will be more Reason for admitting these for common Notions lest this Concession should be too liberal adds Yet after all universal Consent were there any in Moral Principles to Truths the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise would scarce prove them to be innate which is all I contend for Thus Mr. Lock But I do not well understand the meaning of the last words which is all that I contend for Doth which relate to that which is here express'd viz. that universal Consent to Truths the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise will scarce prove them to be innate so that this is all that he contends for Or doth it refer to something not express'd Mr. Lock having a Privilege to use Words otherwise than ordinary Persons are allow'd to do To this latter I incline that it is his meaning that he contends for no more than this that the Lord Herbert's Propositions are not innate tho' this is not express'd But let the one or the other be his meaning unless we were certain that by his Notitiae communes or Catholick Truths written in the Minds of Men the Lord Herbert meant the same that Mr. Lock doth by his innate Principles we cannot say that that honourable Person is at all concern'd or that Mr. Lock 's Conclusion doth contradict any thing that he hath deliver'd Thus I have consider'd all that Mr. Lock hath said in these five Sections wherein he hath to do with the Lord Herbert And now must it not seem strange that he should take upon him to examine what is written by a Person so eminent for his Parts as well as his Quality and after all have so little to say against him He only toucheth very slightly upon three of his Propositions or Notitiae communes viz. the first second and fifth and as to the third and fourth he had done better if he had pass'd them by as slightly unless he had said something more to the purpose Yea he is so far from confuting that he comes very far up toward the confirming all that the honourable Person design'd For he says plainly § 15. that all the five Propositions are such Truths as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to Now of such things as so soon as they are alledged all Men acknowledge them to be true or good they require no Proof or farther Discourse to be assured of the Truth or Goodness of them we need not fear to say that they seem to have a good Title to be receiv'd for common Notions or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts of Men which is all that the Lord Herbert contends
good sense be taken otherwise for if it be not in Act. 3. 6. and 4. 10. us'd as a proper Name we must read those places thus Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth 2. I think it is plain in the other places cited Thus Mr. Lock But to the former I say What if we read those places thus Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth i. e. Jesus the Messiah that was of Nazareth is not this good sense Besides these Texts might have been produc'd rather to prove the contrary for in them his proper Name is express'd viz. Jesus to which is superadded this of Christ given him from his Unction As to the latter it is enough to say that Mr. Lock 's Word will scarce pass for a sufficient Proof But farther the other places are Act. 2. 38. not 28. as it is misquoted in Mr. Lock 3. 20. 24. 24. Now it is so far from being plain that Christ is us'd in them as a proper Name that there is no ground at all to think that it is yea as to Act. 2. 38. and 3. 20. there is ground to think the contrary That which Mr. Lock adds Second Vindicat. p. 375. that long before the Acts were writ the name of Christ did denote the Person of our Saviour as much as Jesus is nothing but what every one knows and therefore in vain doth he trouble either Chronologers or Suetonius and Tacitus about it But how doth he prove that it denoted the Person of our Saviour as a proper Name or if it did doth that prove that it is us'd as a proper Name in those places of the Acts When Mr. Lock says that Christ's Obedience and Suffering was rewarded with a Kingdom it must be understood of that Kingdom or Power which was given him by God the Father at his Resurrection for that he was a King before his suffering Death Mr. Lock does not deny CHAP. XI Of the Son of God and the Messiah BElieving Jesus to be the Son of God and to be the Messiah was the same thing The Jews Luke 22. 70. asking Christ Whether he was the Son of God plainly demand of him Whether he were the Messiah which is evident by comparing that with the three preceding Verses They ask him ver 67. Whether he were the Messiah He answers If I tell you you will not believe but withal tells them that from henceforth he should be in possession of the Kingdom of the Messiah express'd in these words Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit at the right hand of the Power of God Which made them all cry out Art thou then the Son of God i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah To which he replies Ye say that I am This was the common Signification of the Son of God Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 34 35. Confessing Jesus to be the Son of God is the same with confessing him to be the Messiah those two Expressions being understood among the Jews to signifie the same thing Ibid. p. 96. Messiah and Son of God were synonymous Terms at that time among the Jews Ibid. p. 50. The Son of God and the Messiah are one in Signification Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 353. The Answer of our Saviour set down by S. Matthew chap. 26. 64. in these words Thou hast said and by S. Mark chap. 14. 62. in these I am is an Answer only to this Question Art thou then the Son of God and not to that other Art thou the Messiah which preceded and he had answer'd to before though Matthew and Mark contracting the Story set them down together as if making but one Question omitting all the intervening Discourse Whereas 't is plain out of S. Luke that they were two distinct Questions to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers In the first whereof he according to his wonted Caution declin'd saying in plain express words that he was the Messiah though in the latter he own'd himself to be the Son of God Reasonab of Christian. p. 144 145. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Here I conceive it will not be very easie to reconcile that which Mr. Lock says p. 34 35. and otherwhere with that which he hath p. 144 145. He says p. 34 35. That the Jews asking Christ whether he were the Son of God plainly demand of him whether he was the Messiah and again They cry out art thou the Son of God i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah So that here Mr. Lock plainly makes Art thou the Son of God and Art thou the Messiah one and the same Question And yet p. 145. he says expresly that they are two distinct Questions to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers Yea he appeals to one and the same Evangelist S. Luke for the truth of both these It is evident by comparing Luke 22. 70. with the three preceding Verses that the Jews asking whether he were the Son of God demanded of him whether he were the Messiah says Mr. Lock p. 34. It is plain out of S. Luke that they are two distinct Questions says he p. 145. And indeed it is very plain out of S. Luke that they are two distinct Questions not only from our Saviour's giving two distinct Answers to them but also from hence that they ask'd the former Question touching his being the Messiah of their own accord the latter whether he was the Son of God upon occasion of his mentioning his sitting at the right hand of the Power of God S. Luke 22. 69. I might add That I question whether they would have accounted it Blasphemy if he had answer'd affirmatively to the former Question as they did when he own'd himself to be the Son of God This directly overthrows all that Mr. Lock saith about the Son of God and the Messiah as being synonymous terms or one in signification for if they be Expressions of one and the same signification these two Art thou the Messiah and Art thou the Son of God cannot be distinct Questions as according to Mr. Lock 't is plain out of S. Luke that they are No man will say that Art thou the Christ and Art thou the Messiah are two distinct Questions because Messiah and Christ are known to signifie the same thing and if the Son of God and the Messiah did likewise signisie the same thing those other could not be said to be two distinct Questions And therefore Mr. Lock must either retract this that 't is plain out of S. Luke that Art thou the Messiah and Art thou the Son of God are two distinct Questions or else renounce his beloved Notion which takes up a great part of his Reasonableness of Christianity that the Son of God and the Messiah are synonymous terms and one in signification though not in sound The truth is the account which Mr. Lock himself gives of the signification of the Son of God and of the Messiah is sufficient to overthrow that Notion of his In his Reasonah of