Man nor Angel But as to the Difference which Mr. Lock assigns it is manifest that it is not in the Duration it self but in the Knowledge and Power which accompany it God sees all things past present and to come they all lie under the same View and he can make any thing exist each moment that he pleases But this cannot be said of any Finite Being whatsoever So that Mr. Lock shews that there is a great Difference between the Knowledge and Power of God and ours but as to the Eternal Duration of God of which he was here speaking that is a distinct Attribute When he saith That when we apply to God our Idea of Infinity in our weak and narrow Thoughts we do it primarily in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity and I think more figuratively to his Power Wisdom and Goodness and other Attributes which are properly inexhaustible and incomprehensible c. It may be enquir'd what he means by more figuratively Is it his Meaning that we apply it to him less figuratively in respect of his Duration and Ubiquity If so we apply it to him figuratively even in respect of them and consequently we do not apply Infinity to God properly in any respect which Conclusion surely Mr. Lock will not own Besides if it be true which Mr. Lock says that the Power Wisdom Goodness and other Attributes of God are properly Inexhaustible and Incomprehensible why is it not as true that they are properly Boundless or Infinite It may be enquir'd also what Mr. Lock means when he speaks of our multiplying the Acts and Objects of God's Power c. in our Thoughts with all the Infinity of endless Number If our Thoughts can multiply them with all the Infinity of endless Number how are they narrow Thoughts as Mr. Lock often saith they are Besides he says they may be surmounted and exceeded which they cannot be after that we have multiply'd them with all Infinity of endless Number for Infinity cannot be exceeded Lastly I am not satisfied that we can have no other Idea of the Infinity of God's Power Wisdom and Goodness but what carries with it some Reflexion on the Number and Extent of the Acts and Objects of those Attributes for those Perfections of Infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness would have been in God though there had been no Acts or Objects of them CHAP. III. Of the Idea of God THAT of a God is such an Idea as is agreeable to the common Light of Reason and naturally deducible from every Part of our Knowledge For the visible Marks of extraordinary Wisdom and Power appear so plainly in all the Works of the Creation that a rational Creature who will but seriously reflect on them cannot miss the Discovery of a Deity Thus Mr. Lock Essay l. 1. c. 4. § 9. OBSERVATIONS I am far from questioning the Truth of any thing of this I only take occasion here to intimate That I cannot but agree with those that think that Mr. Lock and others had done better if they had not amus'd the World so much with the Term Idea as they have done And Mr. Lock 's using it so much in his Essay seems not to be very consistent with his Promise and Profession in the Preface or Epistle to the Reader p. 4. where his Words are these My appearing in Print being on purpose to be as useful as I may I think it necessary to make what I have to say as easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers as I can Now there are that think that Mr. Lock had made his Essay more easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers if he had made use of other Terms and not fill'd every Page almost with the mention of Ideas Yea not only others are of that Opinion but I might appeal to Mr. Lock himself if he be of the same Mind that he was when he writ his First Letter where p. 127. speaking of his Essay l. 4. c. 10. he hath these Words I thought it most proper to express my self in the most usual and familiar way to let it the easier into Mens Minds by common Words and known Ways of Expression And therefore as I think I have scarce us'd the Word Idea in that whole Chapter but only in one place Here Mr. Lock says plainly that he therefore scarce us'd the Word Idea in that Chapter that he might let things the easier into Mens Minds And then why did he not likewise forbear the use of it in other Chapters especially when he had engag'd to his Reader that he would make things as easie and intelligible to all sorts of Readers as he could and here also confesses that things are let more easily into Mens Minds by common Words and known or familiar Ways of Expression CHAP. IV. Of the Worship of God and of the Heart GOD is to be worship'd in Spirit and in Truth with Application of Mind and Sincerity of Heart In publick Assemblies where some Actions must be open to the View of the World all that can appear and be seen is to be done decently and in Order and to Edification Decency Order and Edification are to regulate all the publick Acts of Worship Praises and Prayer humbly offer'd to God is the Worship he now demands and in these every one is to look after his own Heart Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 286 287. 'T is his peculiar Care of Mankind most eminently discover'd in his Promises to them that shews his Bounty and Goodness and consequently engages their Hearts in Love and Affection to him This Oblation of an Heart fixed with Dependence and Affection on him is the most acceptable Tribute we can pay him the Foundation of true Devotion and Life of all Religion Ibid. p. 248. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock says very well That in Publick Assemblies all things are to be done decently but it is also true that in Private or Secret Prayer a Decent or Reverent Gesture is to be used St. Peter kneeled down and cried or pray'd Acts 9. 40. I bow my Knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ says St. Paul Ephes. 3. 14. Yea our Lord himself St. Luke 22. 41. did the same In like manner when Mr. Lock says that Praises and Prayer are the Worship which God now demands it is true that they are Parts of it but there are other Parts of it as sitting at his Feet and hearing his Word and so devout receiving the Sacrament swearing by his Name when we are lawfully call'd to it c. In all which we must chiefly look after the Heart it being that which God principally regards Indeed he regards nothing where it is wanting The Heart must bear the greatest Part in every Service though as I said a Reverent outward Gesture is to be used also CHAP. V. Of the Works of God of the Creation particularly also of the Image of God THE Works of Nature shew the Wisdom and Power of God Mr. Lock Reasonab
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
Epistles are taken to imply Satisfaction He doth not say that he himself takes the Words in the Epistles to imply Satisfaction but only They are taken to imply it and those that do so take them to imply it may collect Satisfaction from them But Mr. Lock doth not declare plainly that the Words do imply Satisfaction or that Satisfaction may be rightly and firmly concluded from them In Defence of himself he saith farther that none can blame his Prudence if he mention'd only those Advantages which all Christians are agreed in The Reason then of his not mentioning Satisfaction is because all Christians are not agreed as to it But 1. Are all that call themselves Christians agreed as to all the other Advantages which he mentions 2. If this was the true Reason Why did it not restrain him from mentioning other things wherein he and some that are called Christians do not agree Mr. Lock will not deny that more Points than one are mention'd in his Reasonableness of Christianity in which the ordinary Systems and he disagree And I hope he will allow the Authors of those Systems the Name of Christians CHAP. IX Of Redemption by Christ also of his Precepts and perfect Sanctity THey that think there was no Redemption necessary and consequently that there was none make Jesus Christ nothing but the Restorer and Preacher of pure Natural Religion thereby doing Violence to the whole Tenour of the New Testament Mr. Lock Reason of Christian. p. 2. The Doctrine of Redemption and consequently of the Gospel is founded upon the Supposition of Adam's Fall Ibid. p. 1. Admirable is the Contrivance of the Divine Wisdom in the whole work of our Redemption Ibid. p. 160. Our Saviour was the Just One Act. 7. 57. and 12. 14. who knew no Sin 2 Cor. 5. 21. who did no Sin neither was guile found in his mouth Ibid. p. 208. In the Precepts of Christ there is nothing too much nothing wanting but they are such a compleat Rule of Life as the wisest men must acknowledge tends entirely to the good of Mankind and that all would be happy if all would practise it Ibid. p. 285. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Both the places out of the Acts in which our Saviour is stil'd the Just One are misquoted whether through the Author's Fault or the Printer's I know not Instead of Act. 7. 57. read Act. 7. 52. and Act. 3. 14. instead of Act. 12. 14. Mr. Lock speaking of the Advantages that we have by Christ largely sets forth the Excellency of the Precepts or Rule of Morality which he hath left us in the New Testament Such a Body of Ethicks I think no body will say the World had before our Saviour's time So Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 273. Again Where was there any such Code that Mankind might have recourse to as their unerring Rule before our Saviour's time Ibid. p. 275. And certainly this is a Subject which Christian Writers both Ancient and Modern have insisted much upon I mean the Excellency of the Precepts of Christ but I conceive that we are to understand them so as that they had no design to disparage the Precepts or Rules for holy living which are left us in the Old Testament The Jews were not without their Code of excellent Laws to which they might have Recourse as to an unerring Rule None will have the Confidence to deny that the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and other inspired Persons do contain many excellent Instructions for the regulating Mens Lives and Manners Yea doth not our Saviour himself and likewise the Apostles urge several Duties in the Words of the Old Testament and making use of its Authority I shall instance only in the two great Precepts of Doing as we would have others do to us and Loving Enemies All things whatever ye would have Men do to you do ye also to them for says our Saviour this is the Law and the Prophets S. Matt. 7. 12. And then for Loving Enemies If thine Enemy hunger feed him if he thrist give him drink for doing this thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head says S. Paul Rom. 12. 20. transcribing the words of Prov. 25. 21 22. as they are faithfully translated by the Septuagint Here then S. Paul in the very words of Prov. 25. presseth upon his Romans this great Command to love Enemies to love them not in Word and in Tongue but in Deed and in Truth to testifie it by relieving them in their Necessity and then to encourage them to do this he sets before them the Benefits of it 1. They would perform an act of Charity to their Enemy melt him and reduce him to a better Mind 2. They would gain a Friend instead of an Enemy instead of Hatred Returns of Love 3. Solomon adds That God also would reward them Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head and the Lord shall reward thee says Solomon And this excellent Lecture he here reads us may I think be call'd in the Words of an ancient Writer the top of Philosophy I only add That there are the like Commands to love Enemies and testifie that Love by doing them good in Exod. 23. 4 5. CHAP. X. Of the Name Christ also of his Offices and Kingdom CHrist is us'd by the Evangelists and Apostles in several places for a proper Name particularly by S. Luke as Act. 2. 28. 3. 6 20. 4. 10. 24. 24 c. In two of these places it cannot with good sense be taken otherwise for if it be not in Act. 3. 6. and 4. 10. us'd as a proper Name we must read those places thus Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth And I think it is plain in those others cited as well as several other places of the New Testament Mr. Lock Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 374. The three Offices of Priest Prophet and King are in Holy Writ attributed to our Saviour Reasonab of Christian. p. 217. Christ publish'd the Kingdom of the Messiah that is his own Royalty under the Name of the Kingdom of God and of Heaven Reasonab of Christian. p. 73. He spake of the Kingdom of Heaven sometimes in reference to his appearing in the World and being believ'd on by particular Persons sometimes in reference to the Power should be given him by the Father at his Resurrection sometimes in reference to his coming to judge the World at the last day in the full Glory and Completion of his Kingdom Ibid. Christ's Obedience and Suffering was rewarded with a Kingdom Ibid. p. 208. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Whether Christ be us'd in Scripture as a proper Name or no is not material but because Mr. Lock insists upon it it may not be amiss to examine briefly how he proves it He says that Christ is us'd as a proper Name Act. 2. 28. 3. 6 20. 4. 10. 24. 24. c. But I ask How does that appear 1. In two of these places says he it cannot with any
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
should lose his Life but that he should be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments But the cases are not parallel for they that expound the Words Thou shalt surely die of a double Death say that he should both lose or depart out of this present Life and also after his Departure suffer those perpetual exquisite Torments Besides an earthly Lawgiver who can only kill the body when he says Thou shalt die cannot be supposed to mean that the Person should suffer such Torments but it cannot be inferr'd hence that when the heavenly Lawgiver who after he hath kill'd is able to destroy both Soul and Body in Hell says Thou shall die he may not fitly be suppos'd to threaten Eternal Death as well as Temporal But that which gives greatest Offence is still behind and that is that he describes that which we call a natural or temporal Death not only by losing all actions of Lise and Sense but also by ceasing to be His words are these By Death here I can understand nothing but ceasing to be the losing of all actions of Life and Sense see Reasonab of Christian. p. 6. And so again p. 15. This being the case that whoever is guilty of any Sin should certainly die and cease to be That when Men die their Bodies lose all actions of Life and Sense we need not be told but ceasing to be is a quite different thing and according to the known sense of the words can signify nothing but the being annihilated It will therefore concern Mr. Lock to find out some other Sense of the Words which we know not of for it seems very strange that he should make Death an Annihilation When Mr. Lock says that none are truly punished but for their own deeds Reasonab of Christian. p. 9. we may gather from that which immediately follows that his Meaning is that there will be no Condemnation to any one at the great Judgment but for his own Deeds but that Persons have suffer'd otherwise for the Sins of others there are sundry Instances in Holy Writ and Mr. Lock here alledges the Words of the Apostle affirming that in Adam all die CHAP. XVI Of the Law of Nature and of Moses's Law THe Law of Nature is a Law knowable by the Light of Nature i. e. without the help of positive Revelation It is something that we may attain to the knowledge of by our natural Faculties from natural Principles Mr. Lock Essay l. 1. c. 3. § 13. The existence of God is so many ways manifest and the Obedience we owe him so congruous to the Light of Reason that a great part of Mankind give Testimony to the Law of Nature Ibid. § 6. Every Christian both as a Deist and as a Christian is obliged to study both the Law of Nature and the revealed Law that in them he may know the Will of God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent Second Vindication p. 77. The Civil and Ritual part of the Law delivered by Moses obliges not Christians tho' to the Jews it were a part of the Law of Works it being a part of the Law of Nature that Man ought to obey every positive Law of God whenever he shall please to make any such Addition to the Law of his Nature But the moral part of Moses's Law or the moral Law which is every where the same the eternal Rule of Right obliges Christians and all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works Reasonab of Christian. p. 21 22. No one Precept or Rule of the eternal Law of Right which is holy just and good is abrogated or repeal'd nor indeed can be whilst God is an holy just and righteous God and Man a rational Creature The duties of that Law arising from the Constitution of his very Nature are of eternal obligation and it cannot be taken away or dispens'd with without changing the nature of things and overturning the Measures of Right and Wrong Ibid. p. 214. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS It is known to be Mr. Lock 's darling Notion That there are no innate Ideas and no innate Law and consequently according to him the Law of Nature is not innate but he tells us that the knowledge of it is attain'd by the light of Nature or by our natural Faculties from natural Principles But I would ask him Whence we have these natural Principles from which by our natural Faculties we attain to the Knowledge of the Law of Nature for he denies all innate Principles Will he say then that we owe them to the Superstition of a Nurse or the Authority of an Old Woman or our Educations for these he mentions Essay l. 1. c. 3. § 22. and 26. where he is giving an account how Men commonly come by their Principles If he say this I would know why he calls those which are taught us by Old Women or our Nurses Parents and School-Masters natural Principles If Mr. Lock please to satisfie us as to these Queries I may possibly farther consider his Description of the Law of Nature Farther I believe that there have been many that have not made use of the Light of Reason and the natural Faculties which God hath given them as they should have done and withal have not had the advantage of any Revelation or of being taught who yet have had some Knowledge of the Duties and Dictates of the Law of Nature and have assented to them as just and good as soon as they were proposed to them CHAP. XVII Of Natural and Revealed Religion or of the Light of Reason and that of Revelation IT is not to be wonder'd that the Will of God when cloath'd in words should be liable to that Doubt and Uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of Conveyance And we ought to magnifie his Goodness that he hath spread before all the World such legible Characters of his Works and Providence and given all Mankind so sufficient a light of Reason that they to whom this written Word never came could not whenever they set themselves to search either doubt of the being of a God or of the Obedience due to him Since then the Precepts of Natural Religion are plain and very intelligible to all Mankind and seldom come to be controverted and other reveal'd Truths which are convey'd to us by Books and Languages are liable to the common and natural Obscurities incident to Words methinks it would become us to be more careful and diligent in observing the former and less magisterial positive and imperious in imposing our own Sense and Interpretations of the latter Mr. Lock Essay l. 3. c. 9. § 23. Whatsoever Truth we come to the discovery of from the Knowledge and Contemplation of our own clear Ideas will always be certainer to us than those which are convey'd to us by Traditional Revelation for the Knowledge we have that this Revelation came from God can never be so sure as the Knowledge that we have from our own clear and
not Varro apud S. August de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 1. speak of two hundred eighty eight Sects or several Opinions concerning it I might add That the legible Characters of God's Works and Providence spread before all the World of which Mr. Lock speaks have not prevented all Controversies among Heathens about God himself and therefore Cicero in the very beginning of his Books de Natura Deorum takes notice of the different Opinions about that Subject De qua tam variae sunt doctissimorum hominum tamque discrepantes sententiae c. I may conclude therefore that we have little reason to say that the Principles and Precepts of Natural Religion are so plain and very intelligible to all Mankind and so little controverted as Mr. Lock would make them to be And we have as little reason to be satisfied with that which Mr. Lock says of the Obscurity of the Truths of Revealed Religion His only reason here is because they are convey'd to us by Books and Languages and so liable to the common and natural Obscurities and Difficulties incident to Words And so a little before that it is not to be wonder'd that the Will of God when cloath'd in Words should be liable to that Doubt and Uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of Conveyance Essay l. 3. c. 10. § 23. So then according to Mr. Lock Doubt and Uncertainty Obscurities and Difficulties unavoidably attend Words they are not only common but even natural to them And so all the Will of God all Revealed Truths since they are convey'd by Words according to him are obscure difficult and uncertain So that Love God and Love thy Neighbour Fast and Pray Do as you would be done unto would have been according to him dark or obscure Instructions if they had all of them been reveal'd only and none of them also Precepts of the Law of Nature So Love your Enemies Bless them that curse you Do good to them that hate you Pray for them that persecute you and Blessed are ye when men shall reproach and persecute you and speak all evil against you fulsly for my sake for great is your reward in Heaven are all dark and obscure Yea finally all that Mr. Lock hath writ is obscure if this be true that Doubt and Uncertainty Obscurity and Difficulty do unavoidably attend Words and are natural to them for in Writing he makes use of Words Doth not Mr. Lock himself confute this Notion concerning the Obscurity of Words when he faith that Christ brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel see his Third Letter p. 439. for Christ and his Apostles made use of Words in preaching the Gospel as the Evangelists also did in writing it And when Ibid. p. 443. he so gratefully receiv'd and rejoic'd in the Light of Revelation I suppose he did not judge Revealed Truths to be so dark and obscure as he did when he writ his Essay If any would be satisfied about the Law of Nature and that of Scripture and the Plainness or Clearness of them I should advise them to read Mr. Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 1. § 12. As to the Question Whether and how far Reason is to judge of Revelation we need not dispute it since now there is no new Revelation expected and it is certain that nothing which is already reveal'd in Holy Writ is contrary to Reason As to Mr. Lock he expresses himself very variously in this matter as 1. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 5. 2. Nothing that is contrary to or inconsistent with the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason has a Right to be urg'd or assented to as a matter of Faith Ibid. § 10. 3. No Proposition can be receiv'd for Divine Revelation which is contradictory to a self-evident Proposition The Third Letter p. 230. Perhaps he will say that Contradictory to our clear intuitive Knowledge and to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason and to a self-evident Proposition are in effect the same only different Expressions of the same thing To which I answer Suppose it be so yet if descending to Particulars we are uncertain whether such or such Propositions be self-evident or no of what Use is this Rule to us According to some such Propositions are self-evident but others will not allow that they are as for instance this that the essential Properties of a Man are to reason and discourse which others reckon among self evident Propositions yea Maxims is flatly deny'd to be such by Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 263. Mr. Lock in his Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 3. distinguishes between Original and Traditional Revelation The former he also calls Immediate because it is reveal'd immediately by God the latter is that which is deliver'd over to others by Word or Writing He also tells us Ibid. § 6. that a Man ought to hearken to Reason even in Immediate and Original Revelation and in Traditional Reason hath a great deal more to do But I would ask him Whether Abraham ought to have hearken'd to Reason in that Revelation concerning the offering Isaac It was Faith Heb. 11. 17. not Reason that induced him to receive it as a Divine Revelation Had he consulted Reason that would have told him positively that it could not come from God since it commanded that which was so clearly forbidden not only by the Laws which God himself had given to Noah and before him to Adam but also by the Law of Nature There could not be any thing more contradictory to the clear and self-evident Dictates of Reason than this Injunction which Abraham so readily obey'd was In his Essay l. 4. c. 18. § 4. he hath these Words No body I think will say that he has as certain and clear a Knowledge of the Flood as Noah that saw it or that he himself would have had had he then been alive and seen it And I readily grant that no Man who understands what he says will affirm that he has as clear a Knowledge of the Flood and of the Circumstances of it in every Particular as Noah had that saw it but this I shall be bold to say that I know not but that there may be some who as firmly and certainly believe that there was such a Flood as is describ'd in the Book of Genesis as if they had been then alive and seen it as I hope that there may now be some of those blessed ones who though they have not with the Apostle Thomas seen the Print of the Nails yet do as certainly and firmly believe our Lord's Resurrection as if they had seen it In the same Essay l. 4. c. 16. § 14. he writes thus The Testimony of God is call'd by a peculiar Name Revelation and our Assent to it Faith which has as much Certainly as our Knowledge it self Where I would have these last Words observ'd Faith has as
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
than a mere Vital Spirit and that it subsisted and acted in a separate State To all which Mr. Lock in his Reply in his Third Letter p. 440 441. says nothing at all nor does he take the least notice of it But Mr. Lock to justifie his using the Word Spirit in such a Signification alledges the Authority of one greater than Cicero or Virgil or the most enlightned Person of the Heathen World viz. Solomon himself Eccles. 3. 19 21. That which befalleth the Sons of Men befalleth Beasts even one thing befalleth them as the one dieth so dieth the other yea they have all one Spirit Who knoweth the Spirit of a Man that goeth upward and the Spirit of a Beast that goeth down to the Earth See Mr. Lock 's First Letter p. 71. To which I answer 1. How appears it that these are Solomon's Words and not the Sayings of others which Solomon only repeats Is it probable that Solomon would affirm absolutely as his own Sense that Man hath no Pre-eminence above a Beast Which Words we have v. 19. tho' they are omitted by Mr. Lock If they be not Solomon's Words then it is clear that he hath not the Authority of Solomon yea then he hath not the Authority of our Translators who this being suppos'd applied not the Word Spirit to Beasts but they whose Words the Preacher repeats apply'd the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them which Word our Translators render Breath v. 19. and Spirit v. 21. 2. But let it be supposed tho' not granted that they are Solomon's Words and Sense I need only borrow once more Mr. Lock 's Words As I take it Solomon never us'd the English Word Spirit and tho' it be true that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred Spirit yet that therefore Spirit in English hath exactly the same Signification that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in Hebrew I think Mr. Lock will not say for then Spirit must signifie the Wind Breath c. since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is apply'd to these In vain therefore doth he pretend that he hath the Authority of Solomon And yet he seeks to justifie his use of the Word also by the Authority of one greater than Solomon When our Saviour says he after his Resurrection stood in the midst of them they were affrighted and suppos'd that they had seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit S. Luke 24. 37. But our Saviour says to them v. 39. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have See Mr. Lock First Letter p. 71 72. who forgot to tell us who the They and Them are but they are the Apostles and from our Saviour's words to them he here argues And if he would argue directly he must do it in this or the like form If our Saviour say that a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones then he useth the word Spirit as signifying something from which Matter is not excluded But Mr. Lock must have invented a new Logick before he could have made good this Consequence He therefore goes another way to work both in his First and in his Third Letter I shall briefly examine what he says in both In his First Letter p. 72. he says that these words of our Saviour's put the same distinction between Body and Spirit that Cicero did in the place above cited viz. That the one was a gross Compages that could be felt and handled and the other such as Virgil describes the Ghost or Soul of Anchises Ter conatus ibi collo dare brachia circum Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago Par levibus vent is volucrique simillima somno Thus Mr. Lock So that in short according to him in those words of our Saviour an Image is call'd a Spirit And can we not conceive an Image that doth not include Matter I may instance in those Ideas or Images which are the immediate Objects of Mr. Lock 's Mind in thinking are they material Likewise in the Images that we see in our Dreams which latter Instance I the rather mention because Virgil in these very Verses compares the Image of which he speaks to Sleep or to an Image appearing in Sleep formam apparentem in somnis as some interpret it In his Third Letter p. 444 he says that from these words of our Saviour a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones it follows that in Apparitions there is something that appears and that that which appears is not wholly immaterial Thus Mr. Lock In Answer to it I shall remind him that in his Second Vindication of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 228. he mentions a Request which Mr. Chillingworth puts up to Mr. Knot and I think it no less necessary to be put up to him Sir I beseech you when you write again do us the favour to write nothing but Syllogisms for I find it an extreme trouble to find out the concealed Propositions which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems As now for example I profess to you that I have done my best endeavour to find some Glue or Sodder or Cement or Thread or any thing to tie the Antecedent and this Consequent together Thus Mr. Chillingworth Here Mr. Lock 's Enthymem is this A Spirit hath not flesh and bones ergo In Apparitions there is something that appears and that which appears is not wholly immaterial If Mr. Lock can find some Glue or Sodder to join the Antecedent and this Consequent together it is well but if he cannot I shall make bold to add that no body else can Neither can he evade by saying that it was not from those words only viz. A Spirit hath not flesh and bones but from the whole Text S. Luke 24. 37 39. that he draws that Consequence that what appears is not wholly immaterial for the case is the same This may suffice as to his Authorities which are found to do him no service at all He subjoins in his First Letter p. 72 73. I would not be thought hereby to say that Spirit never signifies a purely immaterial Substance In that Sense the Scripture I take it speaks when it says God is a Spirit and in that sense I have us'd it and in that sense I have prov'd from my Principles that there is a spiritual Substance and am certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance Thus Mr. Lock But might he not have left out those words I take it and affirm'd positively that when the Scripture says God is a Spirit the word Spirit signifies a purely immaterial Substance He tells that he is certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance and I therefore hope that he is certain that God is such and if it be a certain Truth that God is a spiritual immaterial Substance in what sense can the Scripture be judged to say that he is a Spirit but in this God is a Spirit and
difficult to be known And therefore this can be but a very uncertain 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 § 18. For let us consider this Proposition as to its meaning for it is the Sense and not sound that is and must be the Principle or common Notion viz. Vertue is the best Worship of God i. e. is most acceptable to him which is Vertue be taken as most commonly it is for those Actions which according to the different Opinions of several Countries are accounted laudable will be a Proposition so far from being certain that it will not be true If Vertue be taken for Actions conformable to God's Will or to the Rule prescribed by God which is the true and only Measure of Vertue when Vertue is us'd to signifie what is in its own Nature right and good then this Proposition That Vertue is the best Worship of God will be most true and certain but of very little use in Humane Life since it will amount to no more but this viz. That God is pleased with the doing of what he commands which a Man may certainly know to be true without knowing what it is that God doth command and so be as far from any Rule or Principle of his Actions as he was before And I think very few will take a Proposition which amounts to no more than this viz. That God is pleased with the doing of what he himself commands for an innate moral Principle writ on the Minds of all Men how true and certain soever it may be since it teaches so little Whosoever does so will have Reason to think Hundreds of Propositions innate Principles since there are many which have as good a Title as this to be receiv'd for such which no body yet ever put into that Rank of innate Principles § 19. Nor is the Fourth Proposition viz. Men must repent of their Sins much more instructive till what those Actions are that are meant by Sins are set down For the Word Peccata or Sins being put as it usually is to signifie in general ill Actions that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers what great Principle of Morality can that be to tell us we should be sorry and cease to do that which will bring Mischief upon us without knowing what those particular Actions are that will do so Indeed this is a very true Proposition and fit to be inculcated on and receiv'd by those who are suppos'd to have been taught what Actions in all kinds are Sins but neither this nor the former can be imagin'd to be innate Principles nor to be of any use if they were innate unless the particular Measures and Bounds of all Vertues and Vices were engraven in Mens Minds and were innate Principles also which I think is very much to be doubted And therefore I imagine it will scarce seem possible that God should engrave Principles in Mens Minds in Words of uncertain Signification such as are Vertues and Sins which amongst different Men stand for different things Nay it cannot be in Words at all which being in most of these Principles very general Names cannot be understood but by knowing the Particulars comprehended under them And in the practical Instances the Measures must be taken from the Knowledge of the Actions themselves and the Rules of them abstracted from Words and antecedent to the Knowledge of Names which Rules a Man must know what Language soever he chance to learn whether English or Japan or if he should learn no Language at all or never should understand the use of Words as happens in the Case of dumb and deaf Men. When it shall be made out that Men ignorant of Words or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country that it is part of the Worship of God not to kill another 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 to 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 proved actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules all which come under these two general Words made use of above viz. Vertues and Sins there will be more Reason for admitting these and the like for common Notions and practical Principles yet after all universal Consent were there any in Moral Principles to Truths the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise would searce prove them to be innate which is all I contend for Thus far Mr. Lock and this is all that he answers to the Lord Herbert it remains that I briefly reply to it Ad. § 15. Here in his Text Mr. Lock speaks of the Lord Herbert's assigning innate Principles giving Marks of these innate Principles and saying so or so of them Also in his Margin he hath these Words Lord Herbert's innate Principles examined and the very same Words are found again in his Margin ad § 19. And yet I do not observe that the Lord Herbert either in his Treatise de Veritate or in that which he intitles Religio Laici doth as much as once mention either the Expression Innate Principles or the Word Innate nor doth Mr. Lock direct us to any Place in either of those Treatises where he doth mention them 'T is true that in his Treatise de Veritate there is frequent mention of Communes Notitiae and in his Religio Laici of Veritates Catholicae and we may suppose that Mr. Lock took these common Notions or Notices and Catholick Verities to be the same with his innate Principles In which if he be mistaken he both makes the Lord Herbert to say that which he doth not and withal while he goes about to prove that those Catholick Verities are not innate Principles he says nothing at all against that Honourable Person who never affirm'd them to be so If it be said that the Lord Herbert affirms these Catholick Verities to be written by God upon the Hearts of all Men which is the same with their being innate I answer that it is very true that he doth say more than once that they are in foro interno or in foro interiori descriptae in mente humana a Deo O. M. descriptae but I question whether it will be for Mr. Lock 's Advantage to say that the being written by God in the Heart and being innate are the same for it may endanger the Overthrow of all that he says concerning innate Principles and force him to quit his darling Opinion that there are none For if the Question be put whether there be any Principles written in the Hearts of Men St. Paul seems to resolve it affirmatively that there are Rom. 2. 14 15. When
says he the Gentiles not having the Law do by Nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts their Conscience bearing witness and their Thoughts accusing or excusing one another By the Work of the Law here may be understood either 1. That Work which the Law prescribes or the Duties that are required by it or 2. The Effect of the Law or that which it effecteth i. e. the Knowledge of our Duty or of that which we ought to do as also of the contrary i. e. of that which we ought not to do as the Apostle says expresly Rom. 3. 20. By the Law is the Knowledge of Sin or 3. By the Work of the Law we may understand as Origen Theodoret and several others seem to do the Law it self i. e. not the Letters and Syllables of the Law but the Sentence Summ and Substance of it Which soever of these Expositions we follow the Sense is in effect the same so that when St. Paul says that the Gentiles had the Work of the Law written in their Hearts his Meaning is that they had the Sentence and Substance of the Law or many of the Duties prescribed by it and the Knowledge of them ingraven or imprinted in their Hearts And is it not as clear from hence as any thing possibly can be that they had some Principles or Communes notitiae written in their Hearts And therefore if the Lord Herber only say that there are some common Principles or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts or Minds of Men he says no more than the Apostle doth and Mr. Lock from the Apostle's saying that the Work of the Law was written in the Hearts of the Gentiles may infer that he held innate Principles with as good Reason as he doth from the Lord Herbert's affirming some Truths to be written in the Hearts or Minds of Men that he held such Principles And the Truth is there have not wanted some Prudent and Learned Persons who have expounded these Words of the Apostle of innate Notices or Principles Quod inquit Paulus Opus scriptum in cordibus significat has notitias naturales dona esse attributa naturae nobiscum nascentia they are the Words of Melancthon in loc Mr. Lock having transcrib'd five of the Lord Herbert's Notitiae Communes adds These tho' I allow them to be clear Truths and such as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving Assent to yet I think he is far from proving them innate Impressions in foro interiori descriptae Where I shall not stand to ask Mr. Lock what answers to the Word These but I must desire the Reader to bear in Mind that he allows all the five Notitiae Communes to be clear Truths and such as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to For this intimates that there is something of them written in the Heart which is the Reason why we can hardly avoid assenting to them so soon as they are propos'd to us and we understand the Terms of them To that which he says farther that he thinks that the Lord Herbert is far from proving them innate Impressions I briefly answer that as Mr. Lock hath not shewn so I have not found that the Lord Herbert any where uses the Phrase Innate Impressions It is true that he says that his Catholick Verities are in foro interiori descriptae and if it be said that Mr. Lock thinks that he is far from proving them to be so I reply that it will best appear whether he be far from proving it or no by examining the Reasons of Mr. Lock 's thinking so which we may expect to find if any where in the following Sections Ad § 16. Here Mr. Lock observes that the Five Propositions set down by the Lord Herbert are either not all or more than all the common Notions writ on our Minds by the Finger of God if it were reasonable to believe any at all to be so written To which I answer If Mr. Lock could prove that the five Propositions mention'd by the Lord Herbert are more than all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God it would follow that some of them are not such Notions and that would make directly against the Lord Herbert But Mr. Lock hath not proved this and if he had it would not be for his Advantage unless he could prove farther that none of them are such Notions for his known Tenet is that there are no Notions or Principles at all that are so written in Mens Hearts On the other hand if Mr. Lock can prove that these Five are not all those common Notions writ in our Minds by the Finger of God this makes not at all against the Lord Herbert who never said or thought that they were all as Mr. Lock might have seen if he had given himself leisure seriously and deliberately to peruse his Treatise de Veritate He would have found that he very frequently names other common Notions and particularly he takes notice that there are many Notitiae Communes in Mathematicks which they call Postulata p. 181. Edit 1633. and speaks of tota notitiarum communium series p. 206. He would also have found that where the Lord Herbert sets down those five Propositions he is not speaking of common Notions in general but of those only which concern Religion Notitiae communes circa Religionem is the Title Yea in setting down those five he did not design to give us all the common Notions that concern Religion He himself plainly tells us this Notitias communes solenniores circa Religionem praemittendas curavi says he p. 207. he did not take care to premise all the common Notions that concern Religion but only the Solenniores Yea p. 227. he makes all the Ten Commandments to be Notitiae communes Mr. Lock says that this Do as thou wouldest be done unto and perhaps some hundreds of others may as justly pretend to be Notitiae communes as at least some of those five To which I answer 1. The Lord Herbert never design'd to exclude Do as thou wouldest be done unto from being Notitia communis for he more than once mentions it as such viz. p. 54 and 57 and 106. 2. When Mr. Lock says Perhaps some hundreds of others tho' possibly he intended it only as a Rhetorical Flight yet I question whether the Lord Herbert would have deny'd that there are hundreds of Notitiae communes However I think it is plain that there is nothing in this Section that makes against that honourable Person and if Mr. Lock had carefully read his Treatise de Veritate I believe he would have wholly omitted it Ad § 17. This Section begins thus All his i. e. the Lord Herbert's Marks are not to be found in each of his five Propositions viz. his first second and third Marks agree perfectly to neither of
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