God but nothing of this is in the Text. Besides the Word that is here translated Right is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as is well known signifies License or Power as well as Right and not only by the Vulgar but also by the Syriack Arabick and AEthiopick it is rendred Power And this Signification agrees exactly with the Text Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have Power or Licence to eat of the tree of Life In this place therefore there is nothing concerning any Claim of Right and consequently it is not at all to the purpose I might have added that Mr. Lock speaks of exact Obedience to the Law and perhaps he would not find it an easie matter to prove that by Doing his Commandments here is meant such exact unsinning Obedience But tho' Rev. 22. 14. will not prove his Claim of Right yet if he use those words in a larger sense as they may denote a Right by Promise I do not deny that his former Text viz. Rom. 4. 4. may prove it To him that worketh the reward which God is suppos'd to have promised in the Covenant of Works is reckon'd as debt he may lay claim to it as his Right by virtue of that Promise But if he take them in the strict sense as if exact Obedience had properly merited the Reward and might have claim'd it of Right tho' no such Promise or Covenant had interven'd he will hardly prove that from Rom. 4. Yea our Saviour seems to have determin'd very plainly against such a Claim S. Luke 17. 10. When ye shall have done all things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do CHAP. XX. Of Faith in general FAith is nothing else but an Assent founded upon the highest Reason Mr. Lock Essay l. 4. c. 16. § 14. The Matter of Faith being only Divine Revelation and nothing else Faith as we use the Word call'd commonly Divine Faith has to do with no Propositions but those which are suppos'd to be divinely revealed So that I do not see how those who make Revelation alone the sole Object of Faith can say that it is a matter of Faith and not of Reason to believe that such or such a Proposition to be found in such or such a Book is of divine Inspiration unless it be reveal'd that that Proposition or all in that Book was communicated by divine Inspiration Without such a Revelation the believing or not believing that Proposition or Book to be of divine Authority can never be matter of Faith but matter of Reason and such as I must come to the Assent to only by the use of my Reason Things beyond the discovery of our natural Faculties and above Reason are when revealed the proper matter of Faith Whatever Proposition is reveal'd of whose truth our Mind by its natural Faculties and Notions cannot judge that is purely matter of Faith Where the Principles of Reason have not evidenced a Proposition to be certainly true or false there clear Revelation as another Principle of Truth and ground of Assent may determine and so it may be matter of Faith Ibid. c. 18. § 6 7 9. Faith has as much Certainty as our Knowledge it self Faith is a settled and sure Principle of Assent and Assurance and leaves no manner of room for Doubt or Hesitation Essay l. 4. c. 16. § 14. To talk of the Certainty of Faith seems all one to me as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing a way of speaking not easie to me to understand Bring Faith to Certainty and it ceases to be Faith When it is brought to Certainty Faith is destroy'd 't is Knowledge then and Faith no longer The Second Letter p. 95 96. My Bible Heb. 10. 22. expresses the highest degree of Faith which the Apostle recommended to Believers in his time by Full Assurance I find my Bible speaks of the Assurance of Faith but no where that I can remember of the Certainty of Faith though in many places it speaks of the Certainty of Knowledge and therefore I speak so too and shall not I think be condemned for keeping close to the Expressions of our Bible The Third Letter p. 122 123. I say with Mr. Chillingworth c. 6. § 3. that I do heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themselves Truths as certain and infallible as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks But that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of them and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science and that for this Reason among others given both by Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Hooker viz. that Faith is not Knowledge no more than three is four but eminently contain'd in it so that he that knows believes and something more but he that believes many times does not know nay if he doth barely and merely believe he doth never know These are Mr. Chillingworth's own Words c. 6. § 2. That this Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind I have so plainly declar'd Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 16. that no body I think can question it There I say of some Propositions wherein Knowledge i. e. in my sense Certainty fails us that their Probability is so clear and strong that Assent as necessarily follows it as Knowledge doth Demonstration Ibid. p. 124. Herein lies the Difference between Probability and Certainty Faith and Knowledge that in all the parts of Knowledge there is Intuition each immediate Idea each Step has its visible and certain Connexion in Belief not so Essay l. 4. c. 15. § 3. To say that Believing and Knowing stand upon the same grounds would be I think to say that Probability and Demonstration are the same thing The Third Letter p. 223. He that says he barely believes acknowledges that he assents to a Proposition as true upon bare Probability Ibid. p. 159. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God where I know that it is the Testimony of God because in such a case that Testimony is capable not only to make me believe but if I consider it right to make me know the thing to be so and so I may be certain For the Veracity of God is as capable of making me know a Proposition to be true as any other way of Proof can be and therefore I do not in such a case barely believe but know such a Proposition to be true and attain Certainty Ibid. p. 133. Faith as contradistinguished to Reason is the Assent to any Proposition not made out by the Deductions of Reason but upon the Credit of the Proposer as coming immediately from God Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 2. Faith is nothing but a firm Assent of the Mind which if it be regulated as is our duty cannot be afforded to any thing but upon good
Reason and so cannot be opposite to it He that believes without having any Reason for believing may be in love with his own Fancies and seeks not Truth as he ought Ibid. c. 17. § 24. Where I want evidence of things there yet is ground enough for me to believe because God hath said it The First Letter p. 227. S. Paul in his Epistles often puts Faith for the whole Duty of a Christian. Reasonab of Christian. p. 199. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS When Mr. Lock says that the Matter or Object of Faith is only Divine Revelation and nothing else if by Divine Revelation be meant the whole Scripture the Historical part of it together with the rest for all Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God 2 Tim. 3. 16. writ by Men inspired and guided by his infallible Spirit it is very true And as to that which he infers that then it cannot be said that it is matter of Faith and not of Reason to believe that such or such a Proposition to be sound in such or such a Book is of Divine Inspiration unless it be reveal'd that that Proposition or all in that Book was communicated by Divine Inspiration we need not contend much with him about it since in the place just now alledg'd viz. 2 Tim. 3. 16. we have a Divine Testimony or Revelation that all the Books of Scripture which were writ and receiv'd before the writing of the Second Epistle to Timothy which as is concluded by all was writ very late are divinely inspir'd Mr. Lock sometimes saith that Faith hath as much Certainly as our Knowledge it self and that it leaves no manner of Doubt or Hesitation yet other where he declaims against the Certainty of Faith Now I would know how he can reconcile himself to himself in this He says that to talk of the Certainty of Faith seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing that Certainty destroys Faith when it is brought to Certainty Faith is destroyed 't is Knowledge then and Faith no longer For to him to know and be certain is the same thing see his Second Letter p. 93. and Certainty the same thing with Knowledge see his Third Letter p. 122. Now if this be so if Certainty and Knowledge are the same thing then as he says that to talk of the Certainty of Faith seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Believing so he might have said that to talk of the Certainty of Knowledge seems all one as to talk of the Knowledge of Knowing and that to talk of certain Knowledge seems all one as to talk of known Knowing a way of speaking not easy to be understood Yea as often as Mr. Lock useth these Expressions Certainty of Knowledge and Certain Knowledge so oft he confutes this Fancy of his that Knowledge and Certainty are the same thing As when we say a certain Persuasion or a certain Truth these Expressions imply that there may be a Persuasion or a Truth not so certain so when we say Certain Knowledge it seems to imply that there may be a Knowledge not so certain And so when Mr. Lock says We certainly know and We have a more certain Knowledge Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 6. doth he not plainly imply that there is a Knowledge less certain So that it is clear from his own Expreshons that Knowledge and Certainty are not the same thing But that which I chiefly desire to know is How Mr. Lock will reconcile his denying Certainty to Faith with his saying that Faith hath as much Certainty as our Knowledge it self Whereas Mr. Lock says that he finds his Bible speaks of the Assurance of Faith but no where that he can remember of the Certainty of Faith I desire that he would please to let us know the difference between Assurance and Certainty or between Full Assurance and Certainty As to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10. 22. which is translated Full Assurance I suppose the Translators if they had pleased might have rendred it Full Certainty or Full Persuasion or Certain Persuasion as Erasmus and others render it by Certitudo As Mr. Lock craves leave to use the Words of Mr. Chillingworth so he ought to crave his Reader 's Pardon for not transcribing his Words so largely as he ought to have done For though it sufficiently appears from so much as he hath cited from him that Mr. Chillingworth makes against and not for him yet it would have been more apparent if he had alledg'd him more fully Mr. Chillingworth as Mr. Lock cites him says that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of the Articles of Faith and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science In which Words if by an Adherence to them be meant an Assent to or Belief of them Certainty is plainly ascrib'd to Belief or Faith which Mr. Lock will not allow though not a Certainty equal to that of Sense or Science But let us take a view of Mr. Chillingworth's Words at large I do says he heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our Faith to be in themselves Truths as certain and insallible as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks But that there is requir'd of us a Knowledge of them or an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science that such a Certainty is requir'd of us under pain of Damnation so that no Man can hope to be in the state of Salvation but he that finds in himself such a degree of Faith such a strength of Adherence this I have already demonstrated to be a great Errour and of dangerous and pernicious Consequence Thus Mr. Chillingworth c. 6. § 3. We see now what it is that this great Man saith viz. That a Certainty equal to that of Sense or Science is not requir'd of all Men under pain of Damnation so that no Man can be in a state of Salvation that hath it not But God may grant that degree of Certainty to some which he doth not require under pain of Damnation of all Mr. Lock farther tells us that there is not required of us a Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith and an Adherence to them as certain as that of Sense or Science and that for this reason among others viz. that Faith is not Knowledge no more than Three is Four but eminently contain'd in it so that he that knows believes and something more but he that believes many times does not know nay if he doth barely and merely believe he doth never know These are Mr. Chillingworth's own words Thus Mr. Lock And I grant that the words Faith is not Knowledge c. are Mr. Chillingworth's but these And that for this reason among others are not his but Mr. Lock 's own Mr. Chillingworth would never have offer'd such a Reason to prove that there is not requir'd of us a Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith and an Adherence to them as
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
are the Apostle's Words If when he says he raised up Christ from the dead he speaks of the Resurrection of his Body not of his Soul how can we be certain that when he says Shall quicken your mortal Bodies he speaks of the Resurrection not of their Bodies but of their Souls We see then that if Mr. Lock fly to this to say that the general Resurrection is not spoken of Rom. 8. 11. he will not be much help'd either by Calvin or Piscator I confess that there is one who makes the Words to be capable of a two-fold Sense and that is Crellius According to him they may be interpreted either of the future raising or quickening our mortal Bodies or of the spiritual quickening them which consists in this that they live unto Righteousness and unto God But he makes the former the principal Sense the latter only secundary As Mr. Lock says of the Resurrection of the Body so he says of the Resurrection of the same Body viz. That he does not remember any Place in the New Testament where it is so much as mention'd see his Third Letter p. 166. And my Answer will be the same viz. That these very express Words The Resurrection of the same Body are not to be found but there are Words that signifie so much or from which it may be clearly and necessarily inferr'd I may instance in the three Places above-cited Rom. 8. 11 23. Phil. 3. 21. where St. Paul by our Body our vile Body and our mortal Bodies certainly understood the Bodies which he and the Romans and the Philippians then had and says of these that they should be redeemed quickned changed Who shall change our vile Body that it i. e. that vile Body may be conformed to his glorious Body Philip. 3. And as I have observ'd before Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 206. says That by the Redemption of our Body Rom. 8. 23. is plainly meant the Change of these frail mortal Bodies into spiritual immortal Bodies at the Resurrection when this mortal shall have put on immortality 1 Cor. 15. 54. Thus he It is observable also that in his Third Letter p. 197. when the Words of that Text 1 Cor. 15. 53 54. were urged to prove the Resurrection of the same Body he returns no Answer to them and did very prudently in returning none For doth not St. Paul expresly affirm that this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality i. e. this corruptible this mortal must be rais'd to a Life of Incorruption and Immortality And doth he not also repeat it When this corruptible c. What can be more plain This corruptible this mortal which are the Apostle's repeated Expressions these frail mortal Bodies which is Mr. Lock 's own Expression shall be rais'd the Light of the brightest Day cannot be more clear Some perhaps will say that Mr. Lock does by no means deny that the same Bodies shall be raised at the last Day they are his own Words in his Third Letter p. 195. To which I answer 1. If he do not deny it why doth he dispute so earnestly against it Why doth he endeavour to the utmost of his Power to baffle the Arguments that are urged for the Proof of it A great many Pages of his Third Letter being taken up in the discussing this one Point 2. He says he does by no means deny it but does he believe it If he do believe it it is not upon the Account of any Argument drawn from Reason for he tells us more than once in his Essay that the Resurrection of the Body is above Reason Reason has directly nothing to do with it but it is purely Matter of Faith see his Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 23. and c. 18. § 7. He must then believe it upon the Account of some Arguments drawn from Scripture or being convinced by some Texts of Scripture which teach this Truth If so he deserves to be sharply reprehended for that he would not acquaint us what Texts of Scripture they are that teach it so clearly Especially having taken so much Pains to shew that the Places of Scripture alledged by others did not prove it he ought to have directed us to those Scriptures which did and by the Cogency of which he was brought to believe it But the Truth is he says plainly that there are no Scriptures that do prove it affirming that the Scriptures propose to us that at the last Day the Dead shall be raised without determining whether it shall be with the very same Bodies or no see his Third Letter p. 168. Tho' therefore he does say that he by no means denies that the same Bodies shall be rais'd at the last Day yet it clearly appears that he does not believe that they shall for according to him there are no Arguments either from Scripture or Reason to induce him to believe it Mr. Lock 's Doctrine concerning Adam's Fall and our Redemption by Christ is this God told Adam that in the Day that he did eat of such a Tree he should surely die where by Death Mr. Lock can understand nothing but a ceasing to be the losing all Actions of Life and Sense Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience under which Death they should have lain for ever had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ who will bring them all to Life again at the last Day see for this Reasonab of Christian. p. 3 6 11. But then he tells us p. 15. that this being the case that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die and cease to be the Benefit of Life restor'd by Christ at the Resurrection would have been no great Advantage if God had not found out a way to justifie some The Reason of which he gives in a Parenthesis For as much says he as here again i. e. after the Resurrection Death must have seiz'd upon all Mankind all Mankind must have died and ceas'd to be the second time because all had sinned for the Wages of Sin is every where Death which Death is a ceasing to be as well after as before the Resurrection This Death after the Resurrection is that which p. 211. he calls the second Death which says he would have left Christ no Subjects if God had not found out a way to justifie some As to those who at the Resurrection shall be found unjustified that second Death shall seize upon them and sweep them away so that according to Mr. Lock they shall cease to be i. e. be annihilated for I can find out no other Sense that these Words Cease to be are capable of Tho' I confess I do not see that this Sense can be consistent with several other Expressions which he uses viz. that dreadful Estate of Misery the infinite Misery the exquisite Misery of an immortal Soul the perfect Misery the Indignation and Wrath Tribulation and Anguish which shall be
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
knowing intelligent Being in the World There was a time then when there was no knowing Being and when Knowledge began to be or else there has been also a knowing Being from Eternity If it be said There was a time when no Being had any Knowledge when that eternal Being was void of all Understanding I reply That then it was impossible there should ever have been any Knowledge it being impossible that things wholly void of Knowledge and operating blindly and without any Perception should produce a knowing Being Thus from the Consideration of our selves and what we infallibly find in our own Constitutions our Reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident Truth that There is an eternal most powerful and most knowing Being which whether any one will please to call God it matters not the thing is evident Mr. Lock Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 1 2 3 4 5 6. There is no Truth which a Man may more evidently make out to himself than the Existence of a God Essay l. 1. c. 4. § 22. We have a more certain Knowledge of the Existence of a God than of any thing our Senses have not immediately discover'd to us Nay I presume I may say that we more certainly know that there is a God than that there is any thing else without us The being of a God is so fundamental a Truth and of that consequence that all Religion and genuine Morality depend thereon Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 6 7. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Though the Essay says so much of our certain Knowledge of the Existence of a God yet it also tells us that he hath given us no innate Ideas of himself he has stamp'd no original Characters on our Minds wherein we may read his Being So l. 4. c. 10. § 1. It also informs us that Navigation hath discover'd whole Nations amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God adding that perhaps if we should with attention mind the Lives and Discourses of People not so far off we should have too much reason to fear that many in more civiliz'd Countries have no very strong and clear Impressions of a Deity upon their Minds See l. 1. c. 4. § 8. Now as to the second of these The Discovery of whole Nations amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God some think that Mr. Lock had done better if he had not urg'd it for they judge that it tends to the invalidating the Argument which is made use of not only by Christians but also as they tell us by the wisest and greatest Men among the Heathens to prove the Existence of a Deity The Argument is drawn from the universal Consent of Mankind as to the Being of a God What says Mr. Lock to this He denies that he doth invalidate it and it concern'd him to deny it for he who had said in his first Letter that no Arguments that are made use of to work the Persuasion of a God into Mens minds should be invalidated granting it to be of ill consequence should be very careful that he do not invalidate any such Arguments But I ask Doth not Mr. Lock invalidate the Argument from the universal Consent of Mankind who says expresly that besides the Atheists taken notice of amongst the Ancients and left branded upon the Records of History Navigation hath discover'd whole Nations amongst whom there was to be found no Notion of a God Can there be an universal Consent when besides particular Persons there are whole Nations that do not consent Yea so far they are from consenting that they have not so much as any Notion of a God Yet notwithstanding all this Mr. Lock asserts that he hath not said one word that does in the least invalidate the Argument for a God or does at all tend to the invalidating it For says he I think that the universal Consent of Mankind as to the being of a God amounts to thus much That the vastly greater Majority of Mankind have in all Ages of the World actually believ'd a God that a Majority of the remaining part have not actually disbeliev'd it and conquently those who have actually oppos'd the Belief of a God have truly been very few See his Third Letter p. 447 448. Where some perhaps would ask 1. What Mr. Lock means by the vastly greater Majority of Mankind If he had said A very great Majority of Mankind he might have been understood but The vastly greater Majority of Mankind implies that we may divide Mankind into two Majorities the one of which is vastly greater than the other 2. They may perhaps also ask Whether all that do not actually oppose the Being of a God or not actually disbelieve it do consent to it If they all do not then though they that actually oppose be truly very few yet they that consent not to it may be many and though it should be granted to be true that the majority of those that believe not that there is a God do not yet actually disbelieve it it will not follow that the Majority of them do consent to it for I am prone to think that none do truly and inwardly consent to it who do not believe it And therefore that which Mr. Lock says of not disbelieving and the fewness of those that oppose doth not help the matter at all 2. The Question then is Whether to use his own Words in respect of the incomparably greater Majority of those who have own'd the Belief of a God it may be said to be the universal Consent of Mankind Or Whether that can be said to have the universal Consent of Mankind to which besides particular Persons whole Nations do not consent Now I think there are very few that will not answer it in the Negative I cannot imagine that they who have urg'd the universal Consent of Mankind as an Argument did believe that besides particular Persons whole Nations did not consent And therefore it this which Mr. Lock urgeth be true the Argument from universal Consent seems to be totally invalidated Wherefore it will be necessary to examine how he hath acquitted himself in the proof of it viz. That there have been not only particular Persons Atheists but also whole Nations who had no Notion of a God 1. He mentions the Atheists taken notice of amongst the Ancients and left branded upon the Records of History but this only in general if he had descended to Particulars perhaps it would have been found that at least some of them were branded with Atheism because they did not favour the Heathen Polytheism or because they thought those that were accounted Gods not to be Gods which was the Accusation against Socrates See Diog. Laert. in vit Socrat. And 't is very observable that Cicero De Natura Deorum l. 1. names only two that thought there were no Gods viz. Diagoras Melius and Theodorus Cyrenaicus and Clemens Alcxandrinus defends them saying that they were Men of
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
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
Second Vindication p. 309. But every one sees that all he could say is that in effect they make but one and that with the same breath he expresly calls them two Articles There is therefore no necessity of our insisting upon this they that please may see what he himself saith in the same Vindication p. 25 26. 2. He insists much upon it that our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection are mentioned and made use of as Arguments to persuade men of this Fundamental Truth viz. That Jesus was the Messiah they were not propos'd as Fundamental Articles which the Apostles principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince men of Second Vindicat. p. 268 269. So again p. 323. he urges that his Death and Resurrection were Matters of Fact which happen'd to him in their due time to compleat in him the Character and Predictions of the Messiah and demonstrate him to be the Deliverer promised they were no more necessary to be believ'd to make a man a Christian than any other part of Divine Revelation c. Thus Mr. Lock But the Question is not Whether the Crucifixion Death and Resurrection of Christ were propos'd by the Apostles as the Fundamental Truths which they principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince their Hearers of but whether they were not propos'd by them as Fundamental Truths Whether this That Jesus is the Messiah be the principal Article and whether it was the only Article preach'd by the Apostles as necessary to the making Men Christians are different Questions Mr. Lock in his Reasonab of Christian. p. 31. says expresly of the Article of Christ's Resurrection that it was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article Where we may observe the Word Also which denotes that not only the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah but also this of the Resurrection was commonly requir'd as necessary And accordingly the same Mr. Lock says presently after That our Saviour's Resurrection is necessary now to be believ'd by those who would receive him as the Messiah It is true that in a place lately cited viz. his Second Vindication p. 323. he says That the Articles of Christ's Death and Resurrection are no more necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian than any other part of divine Revelation but then it immediately follows But as far as they have an immediate Connexion with his being the Messiah and cannot be denied without denying him to be the Messiah And so he plainly grants That so far as they have such a Connexion with his being the Messiah they are necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian which is as much as we need desire for thence it follows that this that Jesus is the Messiah was not the sole Doctrine that was preach'd as necessary to be believ'd to that end I must not forget that Mr. Lock also saith That our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection were mention'd and made use of to prove that Jesus was the Messiah If so these Articles that Jesus was Crucify'd that he Died and that he Rose from Death were the Premisses and this that he was the Messiah the Conclusion Now it must be acknowledg'd that the Premisses are necessary to be believ'd before we can believe the Conclusion and therefore this makes against Mr. Lock not at all for him If we cannot believe that Jesus was the Messiah unless we believe that he rose from the dead which Mr. Lock confesses then the Article of the Resurrection was necessary to be preach'd and believ'd to make a man a Christian. 3. He says that his Resurrection and some other Articles are put for his being the Messiah and proposed to be believ'd in the place of it but I shall â—â—ve occasion to examine this very shortly To proceed then How can Mr. Lock say that this that Jesus was the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by the Apostles to Unbelievers to bring them to the Faith when he grants that in some of their discourses it was omitted yea and other Articles at the same time insisted on Thus in his Reasonab of Christianity p. 31. he says that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on So in his Second Vindication p. 284. he plainly confesses that in the Story of what Paul and Barnabas said at Lystra the Article of the Messiah is not mention'd tho' at the same time they preached the Article of the one living God See also Ibid. p. 307. where he says that 't is not at all to be wondered that his Resurrection his Ascension his Rule and Dominion and his coming to Judge the quick and the dead should sometimes in Scripture be put alone as sufficient Descriptions of the Messiah Thus Act. 10. our Saviour in Peter's discourse to Cornelius when he brought him the Gospel is described to be the Messiah by his Miracles Death Resurrection Dominion and cocoming to judge the quick and the dead Here he grants in express words that our Lord's Resurrection Ascension Dominion and judging the quick and dead are sometimes put alone and if they be sometimes put alone then the Article of his being the Messiah is sometimes omitted To the same purpose he says Ibid. p. 308. These where they are set alone for the Faith to which Salvation is promised plainly signifie the believing Jesus to be the Messiah Here he grants again That the four Articles just now mention'd are sometimes set alone and that the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah is only signified viz. by those four Articles and not express'd And indeed this is Mr. Lock 's usual Evasion that tho' other Articles are only insisted on in some places yet the Article of our Saviour's being the Messiah is signified by those Articles the believing them is put for believing him to be the Messiah they are proposed to be believ'd in the place of it see his Second Vindication p. 307 327. Where we may be sure that his Meaning is not that the other Articles were to be believ'd and the Article that Jesus is the Messiah was not to be believ'd tho' the words Proposed to be believ'd in place of it are capable of that sense but if I do not mistake his Meaning is that those Articles were propos'd to be believ'd that believing them they might believe also that Jesus was the Messiah because those were convincing Proofs of this But whatever his Meaning is this is manifest that they were proposed by the Apostles to Unbelievers as necessary to be believ'd to make them Christian And this is sufficient for the Confutation of those who say that only one Gospel-Article was preached as necessary to be believ'd to that end Before I leave this I must not omit to take notice that Mr. Lock doth assign a Reason why Paul and Barnabas did not mention the Article of the Messiah which I shall set down in his own words Having says he begun their preaching with that of one living God they had not time to proceed farther
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
certain as that of Sense and Science He and other worthy Men of our Church who writ in his time were not wont to argue so loosly and withal he gives it as a Reason of something else see him cap. 6. § 2. There every one may also see that when he says Faith is not Knowledge he takes the word Knowledge in a different Sense from that in which he takes it § 3. where he speaks of the Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith When he speaks of Knowledge of the Articles of Faith he by Knowledge understands only an Apprehension or Belief but when he says Faith is not Knowledge he takes the Word properly and exactly in the Sense in which he uses the Word Science By this time Mr. Lock may see what the Task is that he hath set himself viz. He is to prove this Consequence Faith is not Knowledge therefore there is not requir'd of us under pain of Damnation an Apprehension or Belief of the Articles of Faith as certain as that of Sense or Science But since Mr. Lock mentions Mr. Hooker together with Mr. Chillingworth as if they countenanced his Notion of Faith and Certainty I have consider'd that which they say of this Matter and find that he hath no countenance at all from those excellent Persons He makes Knowledge and Certainty to be the same thing and Faith to be only Probability let him shew where either Mr. Hooker or Mr. Chillingworth doth either of these He distinguishes between Assurance and Certainty yea he makes full Assurance of Faith to come short of Certainty I would know where those excellent Persons do this He ridicules the Certainty of Faith but Mr. Hooker and Mr. Chillingworth ascribe a Certainty to Faith They both of them speak of a Certainty of Evidence and a Certainty of Adherence and when Mr. Hooker in his Sermon upon Heb. 1. 4. says that this Certainty of Adherence is greater in us than the other he plainly implies that both the one and the other Certainty is in us but not both in the same degree And as to Mr. Chillingworth when he says of this Hypothesis that all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God we cannot ordinarily have any rational or acquired Certainty more than moral see him c. 1. § 8. he grants that we may have a moral Certainty of that Hypothesis But § 9. he adds Yet this I say not as if I doubted that the Spirit of God being implor'd by devout and humble Prayer and sincere Obedience may and will by degrees advance his Servants higher and give them a Certainty of Adherence beyond their Certainty of Evidence But what God gives as a reward to Believers is one thing and what he requires of all Men as their duty is another and what he will accept of out of Grace and Favour is yet another To those that believe and live according to their Faith he gives by degrees the Spirit of Obsignation and Confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe 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 If Mr. Lock will say thus much with Mr. Chillingworth more will not be requir'd of him I said that Mr. Lock makes Faith to be only Probability and I have in this Chapter transcrib'd sundry Passages from him which make this out Herein lies the Difference between Probability and Certainty Faith and Knowledge says he in Essay l. 4. c. 15. § 3. where as Knowledge is in his Sense Certainty so Faith is Probability So again He says he that says he barely believes acknowledges that he assents to a Proposition as true upon bare Probability And again To say that Believing and Knowing stand upon the same grounds is I think to sâ—y that Probability and Demonstration are the same thing See his Third Letter p. 159 223. Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 124. haâ—h these Words That this Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind I have so plainly declar'd Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 16. that no body I think can question it If you ask in what words he declares it he tells us that speaking of some Propositions wherein Knowledge i. e. in his sense Certainty fails us he says that their Probability is so clear and strong that Assent as necessarily follows it as Knowledge does Demonstration Thus Mr. Lock But how does he so plainly declare that the Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind when neither in the Words which he cites nor in that whole Section out of which he cites them there is any mention either of the Assurance of Faith or of Faith it self He speaks indeed of probable Mediums the probability of some of which may be so clear and strong that Assent necessarily follows it and perhaps he would have us to apply this to the probable Grounds of Faith for he will not allow the Grounds of Faith to be more than probable But as he saith of probable Mediums that they cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Knowledge so probable Grounds of Faith cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Certainty and so according to him our Faith cannot advance it self above Probability as was observ'd before When Mr. Lock says in his Third Letter p. 133. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God where I know that it is the Testimony of God should he not rather have said It is impossible for him who knows that God is true yea Truth it self not to be certain upon the Testimony of God provided he know that it is the Testimony of God And after all what is this to us who live now since according to Mr. Lock it is impossible for us unless we had an immediate Revelation from God himself to know that it is the Testimony of God and so by this Proviso he makes it impossible for us without such an immediate Revelation to be certain upon the Testimony of God though we should be suppos'd to have a certain knowledge of his Veracity CHAP. XXI Of Abraham's Faith and the Faith of those that liv'd before our Saviour's time THE Faith for which God justified Abraham what was it It was the believing God when he engaged his Promise in the Covenant he made with him The Faith which God counted to Abraham for Righteousness was nothing but a firm Belief of what God declar'd to him and a stedfast relying on him for the accomplishment of what he had promised Abraham believ'd that tho' he and Sarah were old and past the time and hopes of Children yet he should have a Son by her and
them Thus Mr. Lock Now 't is impossible to make Sense of these last Words To neither of them and therefore I conclude that it is a false Print but know not what Words to substitute instead of them Perhaps in the Copy it was thus His first second and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of the two first If this was his Meaning that we may judge the better of the Truth thereof we are to know that the six Marks assign'd by the Lord Herbert are to distinguish the common Notions which we have by natural Instinct from those that we have not without the Help of Discourse The former are distinguish'd from the latter by 1. Priority 2. Independency 3. Universality 4. Certainty 5. Necessity 6. The Manner of Conformation Thus the Lord Herbert Now if I do not mistake in correcting the Errour of the Press Mr. Lock says that the three former Marks do not perfectly agree to the two first Propositions viz. 1. That there is a God 2. That he is to be worship'd Whereby he more than seems to intimate that the three latter Marks do agree perfectly to them And if so yea if only the last of all i. e. the manner of Conformation doth agree perfectly to them the three first Marks must agree likewise to them If the Minds of Men assent to them without delay as soon as they hear them and consequently without the Help of any Reasoning or Discourse this Assent must be 1. before Discourse 2. independent upon it 3. there must be an universal Consent to them It follows in this Section that the first second third fourth and sixth Marks agree but ill to his third fourth and fifth Propositions As before he did not say that the first second and third Marks do not agree at all to the first and second Propositions but only that they do not agree perfectly so here he does not say plainly the first second third fourth and sixth Marks do not agree to the three last Propositions but only that they agree but ill with them But I would ask Mr. Lock whether the fourth Mark viz. Certainty doth not perfectly agree to them Did he not § 15. allow them to be clear Truths And can they be clear Truths and yet not certain But Mr. Lock gives a Reason why five of the six Marks agree so ill to the three last Propositions For says he besides that we are assur'd from History of many Men nay whole Nations who doubt or disbelieve some or all of them I cannot see how the third viz. that Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God can be an innate Principle when the Name or Sound Vertue is so hard to be understood liable to so much uncertainty in its Signification and the thing it stands for so much contended about and difficult to be known Thus Mr. Lock Now to the former part of this Reason there needs no other Answer than this that tho' Mr. Lock says that we are assur'd from History yet he doth not acquaint us what or whose History it is that gives us the Assurance If he had given us the Names of the Historians or their Words and the Places where they are to be found we might have examin'd them and so judged whether they were to his Purpose or no as also of what Authority his History-writers were The Lord Herbert in his Treatise de Veritate p. 214. tells of one that had said that in a certain remote Country there was no Form of Religion to be found but adds that he was confuted by another who objected to him his Ignorance of the Language of that Country and certainly if a Man be not skill'd in the Language of a Country it is not an easie thing for him to know the Religion and Manners of it But let us suppose that which Mr. Lock says to be true that History assures us that many Men nay whole Nations doubt or disbelieve some or all of the three last Propositions what will he gain by this For the Question is not whether some Men may doubt of or disbelieve these Truths or some of them but whether there be any that have not some Notion of them Even of those that profess themselves Christians some may possibly doubt of or disbelieve these Truths but it cannot be said that they have no Notion of them Lastly if nothing else could be said against this Part of the Reason it only shews that the third Mark viz. Universality doth not agree to the three last Propositions it doth not at all affect the other Marks I pass to the latter Part of the Reason and that is that Mr. Lock cannot sec how the Third viz. that Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God can be an innate Principle And I do not see how this can be any Reason of that which hath gone before tho' the word For unless it be here one of Mr. Lock 's privileged Particles plainly tells us that it was intended for such Should it be put into Form how strangely would it look The third Proposition viz. That Vertue join'd with Piety is the best Worship of God cannot be an innate Principle therefore the first second third fourth and sixth Marks agree but ill to his third fourth and fifth Propositions What Cement can be found to join this Antecedent and Consequent together I know not But let us hear the Reason why Mr. Lock cannot see how the third Proposition fore-mention'd can be an innate Principle It is because the Name Vertue is so hard to be understood liable to so much Uncertainty in its Signification and the thing it stands for so much contended about and difficult to be known Now tho' it is true that the Word Virtus hath various Significations which may be seen in our Dictionaries yet in the Proposition so often mention'd it is easie to be understood its Signification is certain and the thing it stands for is easie to be known and there can be no Contention about it Yea Mr. Lock himself who here speaks of its being hard to be understood could understand it easily enough when he writ the 15th Section of this Chapter There he allows this Proposition to be a clear Truth but how could he pronounce it to be a clear Truth if he did not understand the Terms of it He saith farther that it is so clear a Truth that if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to it which clearly shews that he knew then the right Explication of it or when it is rightly explain'd How then comes that which he understood so easily then to be difficult to be understood now when he writ the 17th Section Mr. Lock concludes this Section thus And therefore this can be but a very umcertain Rule of Humane Practice and serve but very little to the Conduct of our Lives and is therefore very unfit to be assign'd as an innate Practical Principle But I must conclude contrariwise
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