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
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
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
after thirty Reasonah of Christian. p. 300. The Epistles resolving Doubts and reforming Mistakes are of great Advantage to our Knowledge and Practice I do not deny but the great Doctrines of the Christian Faith are drop'd here and there and scatter'd up and down in most of them But 't is not in the Epistles we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of Faith where they are promiscuously and without distinction mixed with other Truths We shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles to those who were yet Strangers and ignorant of the Faith to bring them in and convert them to it Ibid. p. 298. Many Doctrines proving and explaining and giving a farther light into the Gospel are published in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians These are all of Divine Authority and none of them may be disbeliev'd by any one who is a Christian. Second Vindicat of Reason of Christian. p. 319. Generally and in necessary Points the Scriptures are to be understood in the plain direct meaning of the Words and Phrases such as they may be suppos'd to have had in the mouths of the Speakers Reasonab -of Christian. p. 2. He that will read the Epistles as he ought must observe what 't is in them is principally aim'd at find what is the Argument in hand and how managed he must look into the drift of the Discourse observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts and see how it is consistent with it self and other parts of Scripture The observing of this will best help us to the true meaning and mind of the Writer Ibid. p. 294. The Scripture gives light to its own meaning by one place compar'd with another Vindicat. of Reasonab of Christian. p. 22. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS How happy would it be if Mr. Lock and I and all of us could presently condemn and quit any Opinion of ours so soon as it is shew'd that it is contrary to any part of Scripture I do not know any one that affirms that all or most of the Truths contain'd in the Epistles are Fundamental Articles so necessary that without an explicit Belief of them none can be a Member of Christ's Church here or admitted into his eternal Kingdom hereafter Mr. Lock without any necessity takes upon him to determine a Chronological Question and is very positive in his Determination Most of the Epistles says he were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension and some after thirty But there are who refer our Lord's Ascension to his thirty third Year and the Date of the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians to An. Dom. 53 that of the First to the Thessalonians to An. Dom. 49 making the Second to the Thessalonians to have been writ shortly after it the Date of S. Peter's First Epistle to An. Dom. 44 as there are who refer that of the First Epistle to the Corinthians and of both the Epistles to the Thessalonians to An. Dom. 50 so that according to them here are five Epistles of which it cannot be said that they were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension If Mr. Lock say Suppose it were so that these five were not written above twenty years after the Ascension it is true still that most of the Epistles were not written till above twenty years after it I reply That a Person that is so positive should not barely say it but also prove it How knows he that there are not some other Epistles which were not written after twenty years after Christ's Ascension As to that which he adds That some were written after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension it may be observ'd that he is so prudent as not to let us know what Epistles they are And farther the Martyrdom of S. Peter S. Paul and S. James is supposed by some not to have been after thirty years from our Lord's Ascension and their Epistles were certainly all writ before their Martyrdom and therefore it is impossible that their Epistles should be writ later then the thirtieth year after Christ's Ascension it being suppos'd that that their Martyrdom was not later then that year According to Jos. Scaliger the Martyrdom of the two great Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul was exactly thirty years after the Lord's Assension according to Syncellus nine and twenty according to Lydiat eight and twenty and S. James's Martyrdom according to all of them preceeded theirs so that if we follow the account of these three great Masters in Chronology the Epistle of S. James the two Epistles of S. Peter and those of S. Paul could not be writ after the thirtieth year from Christ's Ascension There remain the Epistles of S. John and S. Jude and how will Mr. Lock prove that those were writ after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension One that spent much time and pains in the Study of the Chronology of the Old and New Testament says That among all the Apostolick Epistles there is none about whose time of writing we are so far to seek as about those of S. John If Mr. Lock say That there are who give other Accounts of the time of the writing the First Epistle of S. Peter and of those to the Corinthians and Thessalonians as also of the time of S. Peter's suffering and S. Paul's different from those that are given here of them I grant it but what can be inferr'd from this Disagreement of Expositors or Chronographers but the Uncertainty of the time of the Date of the Epistles which should caution Men not to be so positive in such things as too many are Many of the things which Mr. Lock saith of the Epistles may be apply'd also to the Gospels For instance All or most of the Truths contained in the Gospels are not to be look'd on as Fundamental Articles so necessary that without an explicit belief of them none can be admitted into Christ's Church here or his eternal Kingdom hereafter Also Fundamental Articles are promiscuously and without distinction mixed with other Truths in the Gospels So he that will read the Gospels as he ought must observe what 't is in them that is principally aim'd at find what is the Argument in hand and how managed must look into the drift of the Discourse observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts and see how it is consistent with it self and other parts of Scripture Finally There are some Fundamental Articles that are distinguish'd from other Truths in the Epistles As in Rom. 10. 9. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe with thy heart that God rais'd him from the dead thou shalt be saved So 1 Tim. 1. 15. It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the World to save Sinners And so Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them
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