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
Christian. p. 30. Mr. Lock having alledg'd those word The Messias which is being interpreted the Christ John 1. 42. tells us that Christ is but the Greek name for the Hebrew Messiah and that both signifie the Anointed So p. 216. he says The Faith required was to believe Jesus to be the Messiah the Anointed He was anointed to three great Offices viz. of Priest Prophet and King see him p. 217. Concerning the other Title the Son of God he says p. 303. Who being conceiv'd in the Womb of a Virgin that had not known Man by the immediate Power of God was properly the Son of God for which he cites Luk. 1. 35. According to Mr. Lock then the Son of God signifies our Saviour's having been conceived in the Womb of a pure Virgin by the immediate Power of God whereas Messiah signifies his being anointed to the Offices of a Priest a Prophet and a King Since then by his own confession these Titles have two so different Significations how he can say and defend that they are one in signification I know not If when he says that they are synonymous Terms Expressions of the same thing one in Signification c. his meaning was only this that the same Person is express'd or signify'd by them that both these Titles agree to the same Person or that the same Person is both the Son of God and the Messiah there would be no Controversie as to it for it is that which was never question'd But Mr. Lock will not be satisfied with this as appears from his Reasonableness of Christianity and the two Vindications of it especially the latter For it was acknowledg'd more than once that the Titles agree or are apply'd to the same Person and yet he is so far from acquiescing that he disputes the Point as earnestly as ever See Second Vindication p. 349 c. CHAP. XII Of two Natures in one Person and of the Trinity I Do not remember that I ever read in my Bible either of these Propositions in these precise terms There are three Persons in one Nature or There are two Natures and one Person I do not here question their Truth nor deny that they may be drawn from the Scripture but I deny that these very Propositions are in express words in my Bible for that is the only thing I deny here Mr. Lock Third Letter p. 224. OBSERVATIONS It is well known how much Mr. Lock complains that he was join'd with the Unitarians See his Second Letter p. 7. The World says he will be apt to think that I am the Person who argue against the Trinity Ibid. p. 24. That I am one of the They and Them that oppose the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 27. I might transcribe much more to this purpose But might not Mr. Lock do well instead of complaining of others to consider whether he himself hath not given the World reason to suspect that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity As by taking no notice of S. Matth. 28. 19. in his Reasonableness of Christianity where our Saviour being about to leave the Apostles and to be taken from them to Heaven and instructing them what they should teach the Unbelieving Nations and how they were to admit them into his Church says Go teach all Nations baptizing them in or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This lay directly in Mr. Lock 's way when he was acquainting us what the Apostles were to preach to Unbelievers so that it may be justly suspected that there was some special reason of his omitting it and particularly that the reason was because these three the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are mention'd here So whereas it is believ'd that this Title the Son of God doth in sundry places include or denote that Christ is God Mr. Lock very studiously and industriously opposeth this and by so doing hath likewise given Persons reason to think that he is no Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity Thus he contends that in S. Luk. 4. 41. S. Mar. 3. 11 12. S. Matth. 16. 16. S. Job 11. 27. S. Luk. 22. 70. S. Matth. 27. 54. Act. 8. 37. the term the Son of God doth not denote our Saviour's being God See his Second Vindication p. 361 362 363 364 366 367 368 369 374. I shall not consider all that he saith of these Texts but with reference to S. Luk. 22. 70. I would ask him Whether the Jews understood not this Appellation the Son of God so as that it denoted the Person so call'd to be God And therefore as soon as he had own'd himself to be the Son of God v. 70. they said What need we any farther witness for we have heard from his own mouth ver 71. We have heard viz. his Blasphemy as S. Matthew and S. Mark expound it Then the High Priest rent his cloaths saying that he had spoken Blasphemy what farther need have we of witnesses behold ye have now heard his Blasphemy S. Matth. 26. 65. See also S. Mar. 14. 63 64. If they had not understood that by owning himself to be the Son of God he had made himself God how could they say that he blasphem'd This matter is fully clear'd by S. Job 10. 33 35 36. The Jews said For a good work we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and because thou being a man makest thy self God Jesus answer'd If your Law call'd them Gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Here it is plain 1. That the Jews made Christ to be a Blasphemer because being a Man he made himself God 2. That according to them he made himself God by saying that he was the Son of God 3. That our Saviour doth not blame the Jews for making this Inference but contrarywise maintains that he did not blaspheme in saying that he was the Son of God and so God by alledging the Psalmist's words I said Ye are Gods If the Psalmist did not blaspheme in recording these words I said ye are Gods how say ye that he whom the Father hath set apart and sent into the World doth blaspheme because he said that he is the Son of God and so God But Mr. Lock most especially gives the World just reason to suspect that he is not a Friend to the Doctrine of the Trinity in his Third Letter As 1. By refusing to follow the friendly Advice that was given him for removing all Jealousies and Suspicions of him as to this particular He was told that the way to clear himself had been by declaring to the World that he own'd the Doctrine of the Trinity as it has been receiv'd in the Christian Church But this he would not be persuaded to do alledging That he needed not to reply to what was never objected and
and propose to them what yet remain'd to make them Christians but they were by the instigation of the Jews fallen upon and Paul stoned before he could come to open to them this other fundamental Article of the Gospel Thus Mr. Lock Second Vindication p. 384 who certainly rely'd very much upon his Reader 's Credulity when he writ this presuming that he would never consult the History of the Acts. For this that the Apostles had not time to proceed to the Article of the Messiah is his mere Fiction there is no ground for it nor the least footstep thereof in that History tho' he hath the Confidence to say that it is apparent yea the quite contrary appears that they had time to finish their Discourse and did finish it For S. Luke Act. 14. having set down their words or the sum of them v. 15 16 17 says v. 18. And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people that they had not done sacrifice to them This shews that they had finished their Discourse as it also shews what effect it had it did restrain the Multitude from sacrificing to them but with difficulty The People were at that time so far from stoning them or giving them any disturbance or interruption that they looked upon them as Gods come down to them in the likeness of Men and would have honour'd them as such Tho' after this and how long after Mr. Lock with all his Skill in Chronology cannot tell us Jews came from Antioch and Iconium who persuaded the People and they stoned Paul See Act. 14. 19. Lastly Is it not strange that he should say that this that Jesus is the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preached by our Saviour and his Apostles and yet maintain that the Apostles did not in plain and direct words preach this Doctrine of his being the Messiah till after his Resurrection and that our Saviour did not in plain and direct words declare himself to the Jews to be the Messiah till near the time of his Death Thus in his Reasonableness of Christianity p. 55 c. having observed that there is a threefold declaration of the Messiah 1. by Miracles 2. by Phrases and Circumlocutions that did signify and intimate his coming tho' not in direct words pointing out his Person he comes p. 59. to the third or last which is by plain and direct words declaring the Doctrine of the Messiah speaking out that Jesus was he as we see the Apostles did when they went about preaching the Gospel after our Saviour's Resurrection This was the open clear way and that which one would think the Messiah himself when he came should have taken especially if it be of that moment that upon Mens believing him to be the Messiah depended the Forgiveness of their Sins And yet we see that our Saviour did not but on the contrary for the most part made no other discovery of himself at least in Judea and at the beginning of his Ministery but in the two former ways which were more obscure Thus Mr. Lock So that according to him as our Saviour did not take the open clear way of discovering himself to be the Messiah so his Disciples did not speak out that he was so till after his Resurrection Yea he insists largely upon our Saviour's concealment of his being the Christ. Now I say Is it not strange that he should dwell so long upon his concealing his being so and yet maintain at the same time that his being the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by him Since Mr. Lock appeals so confidently to the History of the Evangelists and of the Acts and abounds so much in Citations out of them to make good his Pretentions insomuch that some have computed that this takes up about three quarters of his Reasonableness of Christianity it might have been expected that I should have examined the Texts by him alledg'd but that would have swell'd this Tract too much withal I may have an opportunity hereafter of doing this tho' that which hath been said might save that labor for it will be easie to shew that many of the places he produceth make indeed against and not for him As to the Commission given to the Apostles how comes it that he takes notice of that which they had when Christ sent them to preach to the Jews and makes no mention of that which he gave them when taking his solemn Farewel of them he sent them to preach to all Nations He ought certainly to have taken notice of the one as well as the other This Commission we have S. Mat. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things what soever I have commanded you The Apostles were to teach adult Persons before they baptiz'd them and what were they to teach them surely the necessary Doctrine concerning those in or into whose Name they were to be baptiz'd and so concerning the Holy Ghost as well as touching the Father and the Son If Mr. Lock will translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples it comes to to the same for they could not be made Disciples without being taught We see then what their Commission was viz. to teach the Doctrine of the Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so to admit Men into the Church by Baptism And we are sure that they faithfully executed their Commission and did that which their Lord and Master gave them in charge Whence it is clearly manifest what the Apostles were to teach all Nations and consequently what they did teach them CHAP. XV. Of the Fall of Adam WHat Adam fell from was the state of perfect Obedience By this Fall he lost Paradise wherein was Tranquility and the Tree of Life i. e. he lost Bliss and Immortality The Penalty annex'd to the Breach of the Law stands thus Gen. 2. 17. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die How was this executed In the day he did eat he did not actually die but his Life began from thence to shorten and waste and to have an end Death i. e. a state of Death and Mortality enter'd by Sin Mr. Lock Reason of Christ. p. 3 4. By Death here I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be the losing of all Actions of Life and Sense Such a Death came on Adam and all his Posterity by his first Disobedience in Paradise under which Death they should have lain for ever had it not been for the Redemption by Jesus Christ Ibid. p. 6. As Adam was turned out of Paradise so all his Posterity was born out of it out of the reach of the Tree of Life all like their Father Adam in a state of Mortality void of the Tranquility and Bliss of Paradise Ibid. p. 7. Though all die in Adam yet none are truly punished but for their own Deeds Ibid.
that he did preach viz. That Men should repent and believe the good Tidings which he brought them Believing Jesus to be the Messiah and repenting were so necessary and fundamental Parts of the Covenant of Grace that one of them alone is often put for both Repentance is not only a Sorrow for Sins past but what is a natural Consequence of that Sorrow if it be real a turning from them into a new and contrary Life It is an hearty Sorrow for our past Misdeeds and a sincere Resolution and Endeavour to the utmost of our Power to conform all our Actions to the Law of God It does not consist in one single Act of Sorrow tho' that being the first and leading Act gives Denomination to the whole but in doing Works meet for Repentance in a sincere Obedience to the Law of Christ the remainder of our Lives It is in other Words well express'd by newness of Life And sometimes turning about is put alone to signifie Repentance Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 197 198 200 201. To be baptized into his Name is to enroll our selves into the Kingdom of Jesus the Messiah and profess our selves his Subjects By Baptism we are made Denizons and solemnly incorporated into that Kingdom Ibid. p. 212 213. Baptism was made use of by our Saviour to be that solemn visible Act whereby those who believ'd him to be the Messiah receiv'd him as their King and profess'd Obedience to him were admitted as Subjects into his Kingdom So Peter began Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptiz'd these two things were required for the Remission of Sins Ibid. p. 199 200. God propos'd to the Children of Men that as many of them as would believe Jesus his Son to be the Messiah the promised Deliverer and would receive him for their King and Ruler should have all their past Sins Disobedience and Rebellion forgiven them and if for the future they liv'd in a sincere Obedience to his Law to the utmost of their Power the Sins of Humane Frailty for the time to come as well as all those of their past Lives should for his Son's sake because they gave themselves up to him to be his Subjects be forgiven them Tho' in consideration of Mens becoming Christ's Subjects by Faith in him whereby they believe and take him to be the Messiah their former Sins shall be forgiven yet he will own none to be his nor receive them as true Denizons of the New Jerusalem into the Inheritance of Eternal Life but leave them to the Condemnation of the Unrighteous who renounce not their former Miscarriages and live in a sincere Obedience to his Commands Ibid. p. 211 212 241. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Believing Jesus to be the Messiah and Repenting are so necessary and fundamental Parts of the Covenant of Grace that one of them alone is often put for both so Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 198. But I would know why they are the more necessary and fundamental Parts of the Convenant of Grace on this account that one of them alone is oft put for both or how this that one of them alone is oft put for both doth prove that they are necessary and fundamental Parts of it Withal how appears it that one of them alone is oft put for both All the Proof that he tenders for it is in the Words immediately following For says he St. Mark chap. 6. 12. mentions nothing but their preaching Repentance as St. Luke in the parallel Place chap. 9. 6. mentions nothing but their evangelizing or preaching the good News of the Kingdom of the Messiah Thus Mr. Lock But how will he hence make good this Inference Therefore of these two Believing and Repenting one alone is oft put for both There is no mention of believing in either Place St. Luke says that the Apostles preach'd the Gospel St. Mark says that they preach'd that Men should repent of believing here is not a Word But from both Texts we may gather that this That Jesus is the Messiah was not the only Article which the Apostles preach'd For in St. Mark 6. 12. they preach'd that Men should repent or that they should have their Sins remitted upon their Repentance as St. Peter afterward preach'd Repent and be baptiz'd for the Remission of Sins Acts 2. 38. and as our Saviour says St. Luke 24. 47. that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preach'd so that it is clear that the Apostles preach'd this Article of Remission of Sins upon our repenting And then in St. Luke 9. 6. they preach'd the Gospel which comprehends more than that one Article That Jesus is the Messiah as the good News that a Saviour was born into the World c. Mr. Lock in Reasonab of Christianity p. 201. having said that sometimes turning about is put alone to signifie Repentance cites St. Matth. 13. 15. and St. Luke 22. 32. where the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and why that should be rendred to turn about rather than to convert or turn I am to be taught Ibid. p. 212. he says That to be baptiz'd into the Name of Christ is to enroll our selves in the Kingdom of Jesus the Messiah But as we are said to be baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus so we are also said to be baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost St. Matth. 28. 19. Now to be baptiz'd in the Name of the Holy Ghost cannot signifie the enrolling our selves in the Kingdom of the Holy Ghost for we do not read in Holy Writ of the Kingdom of the Holy Ghost as we do of the Kingdom of the dear Son of God And why then should we make In or into the Name to signifie one thing when it is spoken of the Son and another when it is spoken of the Holy Ghost or of the whole blessed and glorious Trinity As then to baptize in or into the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is to baptize 1. by Authority and Commission from them 2. into the Worship and faithful Service of them all the Days of our Life So I conceive we are to interpret the being baptiz'd in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus Ibid. p. 241. Mr. Lock says In consideration of Mens becoming Christ's Subjects by Faith in him whereby they believe and take him to be the Messiah their former Sins shall be forgiven But other where he makes Men become the Subjects of Christ by Baptism as well as by Faith and both Repentance and Baptism to be required for the Remission of Sins alledging Acts 2. 38. and not Faith only And therefore he might have express'd the Gospel-Terms or the Conditions of Forgiveness more fully by saying that if Men repent and believe the Gospel and be baptized they shall through the Merits and Death of their blessed Saviour have their former Sins forgiven CHAP. XXV Of the Immortality of the Soul and
of Christian. p. 248. The infinite omnipotent Creator of all things out of nothing c. The Third Letter p. 152. You will say Is it not impossible to admit of the making any thing out of nothing since we cannot possibly conceive it I answer No because it is not reasonable to deny the Power of an infinite Being because we cannot comprehend its Operation We do not deny other effects upon this ground because we cannot possibly conceive the manner of their Production We cannot conceive how Thought or any thing but Motion in Body can move Body and yet that is not a Reason sufficient to make us deny it possible against the constant experience we have of it in our selves in all voluntary Motions which are produc'd in us only by the free Thoughts of our own Minds 'T is an over-valuing our selves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our Capacity and to conclude all things impossible to be done whose manner of doing exceeds our Comprehension Essay l. 4. c. 10. § 19. When the thing is wholly made new so that no part thereof did ever exist before as when a new Particle of Matter doth begin to exist in rerum natura which had before no Being we call it Creation Essay l. 2. c. 26. § 2. Adam being the Son of God S. Luke 3. 38. had this part also of the Likeness and Image of his Father viz. that he was immortal Jesus Christ being also the Son of God was like his Father immortal The great Evidence that Jesus was the Son of God was his Resurrection Acts 13. 32 33. Then the Image of his Father appear'd in him when he visibly enter'd into the state of Immortality And that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein these who were the immediate Sons of God so as to have no other Father were made like their Father appears probable not only from the places in Genesis concerning Adam above taken notice of but seems to me also to be intimated in some Expressions concerning Jesus the Son of God in the New Testament Reasonab of Christian. p. 202 203 207. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS I agree with Mr. Lock That Immortality is part of that Image of God in which Adam was created but as to Christ he as Man was not made like his Father in that part of his Image till he was raised from the Dead for before that as Man he was was mortal As Man he did partake of our Infirmities and was in all things made like unto us only without Sin and so he was made like us in being mortal He was indeed made Man for the suffering of Death Heb. 2. 9. which he did for it follows in the same Verse that By the grace of God he tasted death for every man wherefore God highly exalted him and crown'd him with Glory Honour and Immortality The first place in the New Testament which according to Mr. Lock intimates that Immortality is a part of that Image wherein Christ as Man was made like his Father is Col. 1. 15. where he is call'd The Image of the invisible God and the first-born of every Creature But how appears it that he is call'd so as Man Certainly as God he is most properly the Image of the invisible God But you will say it follows the first-born of every Creature and so he is spoken of in this place as a Creature i. e. as Man To which I answer 1. Suppose I should grant that the Apostle speaks of him as a Creature in this latter Expression doth it follow that he must speak of him as such in the former Might he not call him the Image of the invisible God as God and the first-born of every Creature as Man 2. I do not grant that the Apostle in these words the first-born of every Creature speaks of him as Man The Meaning may be that he was begotten of the Father before any Creature whatsoever did exist and therefore it immediately follows ver 16 17. By him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him He is before all things and by him all things consist Which agrees with S. John 1. 2 3. The Word was in the beginning with God By him all things were made and without him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as much as any one thing was made that was made And we are told ver 1. that this Word was God These words therefore The first-born of every Creature do not hinder but that the former words Who is the image of the invisible God were spoken of Christ as God and then they make not for Mr. Lock 's purpose who would have him here call'd the Image of the invisible God as he is Man I know that Mr. Lock saith that the words The first-born of every Creature are explain'd ver 18. where he is term'd The first-born from the dead But I conceive that these are distinct things and that we need look no farther for the Explication than ver 17. He is the first-born of every Creature ver 15. i. e. He is before all things v. 17. CHAP. VI. Of Christ. THE Son of God whilst cloath'd in Flesh was subject to all the Frailties and Inconveniences of Humane Nature Sin excepted Mr. Lock Essay l. 3. c. 9. § 23. Christ after a Life illustrious in Miracles and good Works attended with Humility Meekness Patience and Suffering and every way conformable to the Prophecies of him was lead as a Sheep to the slaughter and with all Quiet and Submission brought to the Cross though there were no guilt or fault found in him Reason of Christian. p. 61. Christ's coming into the World was not for such an end as the over-turning the measures of Right and Wrong and thereby introducing and authorizing Irregularity Confusion and Disorder in the World but on the contrary to reform the corrupt State of degenerate Man and out of those who would mend their Lives and bring forth fruit meet for Repentance erect a new Kingdom Ibid. p. 215. The chief end of his Coming was to be a King and as such to be received by those who would be his Subjects in the Kingdom which he came to erect Ibid. p. 217. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS What means Mr. Lock when he says The Son of God was cloath'd with flesh Is it his Meaning that the eternal Son of God the second Person in the Trinity was cloath'd with Flesh If so it was to be wish'd that he would do that Justice to himself plainly to declare it and thereby remove out of mens minds the Jealousies they have of him as to this Point It may be enquir'd also what he means by that Expression Whilst cloathed in Flesh As there was a time before the Son of God was incarnate or cloath'd with Flesh so hath he after his Incarnation ceas'd to be cloath'd with it
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
good sense be taken otherwise for if it be not in Act. 3. 6. and 4. 10. us'd as a proper Name we must read those places thus Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth 2. I think it is plain in the other places cited Thus Mr. Lock But to the former I say What if we read those places thus Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth i. e. Jesus the Messiah that was of Nazareth is not this good sense Besides these Texts might have been produc'd rather to prove the contrary for in them his proper Name is express'd viz. Jesus to which is superadded this of Christ given him from his Unction As to the latter it is enough to say that Mr. Lock 's Word will scarce pass for a sufficient Proof But farther the other places are Act. 2. 38. not 28. as it is misquoted in Mr. Lock 3. 20. 24. 24. Now it is so far from being plain that Christ is us'd in them as a proper Name that there is no ground at all to think that it is yea as to Act. 2. 38. and 3. 20. there is ground to think the contrary That which Mr. Lock adds Second Vindicat. p. 375. that long before the Acts were writ the name of Christ did denote the Person of our Saviour as much as Jesus is nothing but what every one knows and therefore in vain doth he trouble either Chronologers or Suetonius and Tacitus about it But how doth he prove that it denoted the Person of our Saviour as a proper Name or if it did doth that prove that it is us'd as a proper Name in those places of the Acts When Mr. Lock says that Christ's Obedience and Suffering was rewarded with a Kingdom it must be understood of that Kingdom or Power which was given him by God the Father at his Resurrection for that he was a King before his suffering Death Mr. Lock does not deny CHAP. XI Of the Son of God and the Messiah BElieving Jesus to be the Son of God and to be the Messiah was the same thing The Jews Luke 22. 70. asking Christ Whether he was the Son of God plainly demand of him Whether he were the Messiah which is evident by comparing that with the three preceding Verses They ask him ver 67. Whether he were the Messiah He answers If I tell you you will not believe but withal tells them that from henceforth he should be in possession of the Kingdom of the Messiah express'd in these words Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit at the right hand of the Power of God Which made them all cry out Art thou then the Son of God i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah To which he replies Ye say that I am This was the common Signification of the Son of God Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 34 35. Confessing Jesus to be the Son of God is the same with confessing him to be the Messiah those two Expressions being understood among the Jews to signifie the same thing Ibid. p. 96. Messiah and Son of God were synonymous Terms at that time among the Jews Ibid. p. 50. The Son of God and the Messiah are one in Signification Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 353. The Answer of our Saviour set down by S. Matthew chap. 26. 64. in these words Thou hast said and by S. Mark chap. 14. 62. in these I am is an Answer only to this Question Art thou then the Son of God and not to that other Art thou the Messiah which preceded and he had answer'd to before though Matthew and Mark contracting the Story set them down together as if making but one Question omitting all the intervening Discourse Whereas 't is plain out of S. Luke that they were two distinct Questions to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers In the first whereof he according to his wonted Caution declin'd saying in plain express words that he was the Messiah though in the latter he own'd himself to be the Son of God Reasonab of Christian. p. 144 145. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Here I conceive it will not be very easie to reconcile that which Mr. Lock says p. 34 35. and otherwhere with that which he hath p. 144 145. He says p. 34 35. That the Jews asking Christ whether he were the Son of God plainly demand of him whether he was the Messiah and again They cry out art thou the Son of God i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah So that here Mr. Lock plainly makes Art thou the Son of God and Art thou the Messiah one and the same Question And yet p. 145. he says expresly that they are two distinct Questions to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers Yea he appeals to one and the same Evangelist S. Luke for the truth of both these It is evident by comparing Luke 22. 70. with the three preceding Verses that the Jews asking whether he were the Son of God demanded of him whether he were the Messiah says Mr. Lock p. 34. It is plain out of S. Luke that they are two distinct Questions says he p. 145. And indeed it is very plain out of S. Luke that they are two distinct Questions not only from our Saviour's giving two distinct Answers to them but also from hence that they ask'd the former Question touching his being the Messiah of their own accord the latter whether he was the Son of God upon occasion of his mentioning his sitting at the right hand of the Power of God S. Luke 22. 69. I might add That I question whether they would have accounted it Blasphemy if he had answer'd affirmatively to the former Question as they did when he own'd himself to be the Son of God This directly overthrows all that Mr. Lock saith about the Son of God and the Messiah as being synonymous terms or one in signification for if they be Expressions of one and the same signification these two Art thou the Messiah and Art thou the Son of God cannot be distinct Questions as according to Mr. Lock 't is plain out of S. Luke that they are No man will say that Art thou the Christ and Art thou the Messiah are two distinct Questions because Messiah and Christ are known to signifie the same thing and if the Son of God and the Messiah did likewise signisie the same thing those other could not be said to be two distinct Questions And therefore Mr. Lock must either retract this that 't is plain out of S. Luke that Art thou the Messiah and Art thou the Son of God are two distinct Questions or else renounce his beloved Notion which takes up a great part of his Reasonableness of Christianity that the Son of God and the Messiah are synonymous terms and one in signification though not in sound The truth is the account which Mr. Lock himself gives of the signification of the Son of God and of the Messiah is sufficient to overthrow that Notion of his In his Reasonah of
by him become the Father of a great People which should possess the Land of Canaan The thing promis'd to him was no more but a Son by his Wife Sarah and a numerous Posterity by him which should possess the Land of Canaan These were but temporal Blessings and except the Birth of a Son very remote suchas he should never live to see But because he question'd not the performance of it but rested fully satisfied in the Goodness Truth and Faithfulness of God who had promis'd it was counted to him for Righteousness The Faith whereby those Believers of old i. e. before our Saviour's time pleased God was nothing but a stedfast reliance on the Goodness and Faithfulness of God for those good things which either the light of Nature or particular Promises had given them grounds to hope for This was all that was requir'd of them to be persuaded of and embrace the Promises which they had They could be persuaded of no more than was propos'd to them embrace no more than was reveal'd They had a Belief of the Messiah to come they believ'd that God would according to his Promise in due time send the Messiah to be a King and Deliverer All that was requir'd before the Messiah's appearing in the World was to believe what God had reveal'd and to rely with a full Assurance on God for the performance of his Promise and to believe that in due time he would send them the Messiah this anointed King this promised Saviour and Deliverer according to his Word Thus Mr. Lock p. 23 24 247 249 252 253 254. of his Reasonab of Christianity OBSERVATIONS Here in Reasonab of Christian. p. 23. Mr. Lock says This Faith for which God justified Abraham as p. 24. he says Ahraham was justified for his Faith and in like manner p. 22. God justifies a Man for believing Now as it was observ'd above Chap. 19. this is not the Scripture-Language he constantly reads in his Bible Justified by Faith not for it It may therefore be justly wonder'd that Mr. Lock who is so much for keeping close to the Expressions of his Bible and thinks it our Duty to do it see his Third Letter p. 123. and 210. should affect to say so often that God justifies for Faith But perhaps he will correct it in his next Edition It is also just matter of Wonder that he should say that no more than temporal Blessings were promis'd to Abraham and that the Faith which God counted to him for Righteousness was nothing but his believing those Promises and resting fully satisfied of their Performance See Reasonab of Christian p. 24. and 249. especially when speaking of those Believers of old mention'd Heb. 11. of whom Abraham is one he says expresly that they had a Belief of the Messiah to come and that they believ'd that God would according to his Promise in due time send the Messiah see Ibid. p. 253 254. And he that consults the New Testament will find that as to the Promise of the Messiah and the Belief of it there is more said of Abraham than of the rest Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoyc'd S. John 8. 56. In thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the earth be blessed Act. 3. 25. To Abraham were the Promises made and to his Seed which is Christ Gal. 3. 16. CHAP. XXII Of our Faith under the Gospel THE Belief of one invisible eternal omnipotent God Maker of Heaven and Earth c. was requir'd before the Revelation of the Gospel as well as now The Gospel was writ to induce Men into a belief of this Proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah which if they believ'd they should have Life After his Death his Resurrection was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article and sometimes solely insisted on Salvation or Perdition depends upon believing or rejecting this one Proposition That Jesus was the Messiah I mean this is all is requir'd to be believ'd by those who acknowledge but one eternal and invisible God the Maker of Heaven and Earth For that there is something more requir'd to Salvation besides believing we shall see hereafter All that was to be believ'd for Justification was no more but this single Proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Messiah This that Jesus was the Messiah was all the Doctrine the Apostles propos'd to be believ'd Above 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 that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God Whoever would believe him to be the Saviour promised and take him now rais'd from the dead and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men to be their King and Ruler should be saved Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 25 29 31 43 47 93 194 304. That this that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah is the sole Doctrine pressed and required to be believ'd in the whole Tenour of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching we have shew'd through the whole History of the Evangelists and the Acts. And I challenge them to shew that there was any other Doctrine upon their Assent to which or Disbelief of it Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers and accordingly receiv'd into the Church of Christ or else kept out of it Ibid. p. 195. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock challenges others to shew any other Doctrine when he shews it himself He says that our Lord's Resurrection was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article Reasonab of Christian p. 31. What can be more plain So The Belief of one invisible eternal omnipotent God Maker of Heaven and Earth c. is requir'd Ibid. p. 25. We must believe him to have been raised from the dead and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men and to be our King and Ruler for if we do not believe these how can we take him now rais'd from the dead and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men to be our King and Ruler which he expresly requires Ibid. p. 304. He says Ibid. p. 30. that we may gather what was to be believ'd by all Nations from what was preached to them by the Apostles Now he expresly tells us that the Apostle S. Paul preached that Jesus being risen from the dead now reigneth and shall more publickly manifest his Kingdom in judging the world at the last day Ibid. p. 191. In like manner p. 190. We see what it was our Saviour preached to the Apostles and what it was that was to be preached to all Nations viz. That he was the Messiah that had suffer'd and rose from the dead the third day and fulfill'd all things that was written in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah and that those who believ'd this and repented should receive Remission of their Sins through this Faith in him Here Mr. Lock plainly testifies that beside this one Article That Jesus is the Messiah the Apostles preach'd
certain as that of Sense and Science He and other worthy Men of our Church who writ in his time were not wont to argue so loosly and withal he gives it as a Reason of something else see him cap. 6. § 2. There every one may also see that when he says Faith is not Knowledge he takes the word Knowledge in a different Sense from that in which he takes it § 3. where he speaks of the Knowledge of the Articles of our Faith When he speaks of Knowledge of the Articles of Faith he by Knowledge understands only an Apprehension or Belief but when he says Faith is not Knowledge he takes the Word properly and exactly in the Sense in which he uses the Word Science By this time Mr. Lock may see what the Task is that he hath set himself viz. He is to prove this Consequence Faith is not Knowledge therefore there is not requir'd of us under pain of Damnation an Apprehension or Belief of the Articles of Faith as certain as that of Sense or Science But since Mr. Lock mentions Mr. Hooker together with Mr. Chillingworth as if they countenanced his Notion of Faith and Certainty I have consider'd that which they say of this Matter and find that he hath no countenance at all from those excellent Persons He makes Knowledge and Certainty to be the same thing and Faith to be only Probability let him shew where either Mr. Hooker or Mr. Chillingworth doth either of these He distinguishes between Assurance and Certainty yea he makes full Assurance of Faith to come short of Certainty I would know where those excellent Persons do this He ridicules the Certainty of Faith but Mr. Hooker and Mr. Chillingworth ascribe a Certainty to Faith They both of them speak of a Certainty of Evidence and a Certainty of Adherence and when Mr. Hooker in his Sermon upon Heb. 1. 4. says that this Certainty of Adherence is greater in us than the other he plainly implies that both the one and the other Certainty is in us but not both in the same degree And as to Mr. Chillingworth when he says of this Hypothesis that all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God we cannot ordinarily have any rational or acquired Certainty more than moral see him c. 1. § 8. he grants that we may have a moral Certainty of that Hypothesis But § 9. he adds Yet this I say not as if I doubted that the Spirit of God being implor'd by devout and humble Prayer and sincere Obedience may and will by degrees advance his Servants higher and give them a Certainty of Adherence beyond their Certainty of Evidence But what God gives as a reward to Believers is one thing and what he requires of all Men as their duty is another and what he will accept of out of Grace and Favour is yet another To those that believe and live according to their Faith he gives by degrees the Spirit of Obsignation and Confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe and to be as fully and resolutely assur'd of the Gospel of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears which saw it with their eyes which look'd upon it and whose hands handled the Word of Life If Mr. Lock will say thus much with Mr. Chillingworth more will not be requir'd of him I said that Mr. Lock makes Faith to be only Probability and I have in this Chapter transcrib'd sundry Passages from him which make this out Herein lies the Difference between Probability and Certainty Faith and Knowledge says he in Essay l. 4. c. 15. § 3. where as Knowledge is in his Sense Certainty so Faith is Probability So again He says he that says he barely believes acknowledges that he assents to a Proposition as true upon bare Probability And again To say that Believing and Knowing stand upon the same grounds is I think to sâ—y that Probability and Demonstration are the same thing See his Third Letter p. 159 223. Mr. Lock in his Third Letter p. 124. haâ—h these Words That this Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind I have so plainly declar'd Essay l. 4. c. 17. § 16. that no body I think can question it If you ask in what words he declares it he tells us that speaking of some Propositions wherein Knowledge i. e. in his sense Certainty fails us he says that their Probability is so clear and strong that Assent as necessarily follows it as Knowledge does Demonstration Thus Mr. Lock But how does he so plainly declare that the Assurance of Faith may approach very near to Certainty and not come short of it in a sure and steady influence on the Mind when neither in the Words which he cites nor in that whole Section out of which he cites them there is any mention either of the Assurance of Faith or of Faith it self He speaks indeed of probable Mediums the probability of some of which may be so clear and strong that Assent necessarily follows it and perhaps he would have us to apply this to the probable Grounds of Faith for he will not allow the Grounds of Faith to be more than probable But as he saith of probable Mediums that they cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Knowledge so probable Grounds of Faith cannot bring us to the lowest degree of Certainty and so according to him our Faith cannot advance it self above Probability as was observ'd before When Mr. Lock says in his Third Letter p. 133. I think it is possible to be certain upon the Testimony of God where I know that it is the Testimony of God should he not rather have said It is impossible for him who knows that God is true yea Truth it self not to be certain upon the Testimony of God provided he know that it is the Testimony of God And after all what is this to us who live now since according to Mr. Lock it is impossible for us unless we had an immediate Revelation from God himself to know that it is the Testimony of God and so by this Proviso he makes it impossible for us without such an immediate Revelation to be certain upon the Testimony of God though we should be suppos'd to have a certain knowledge of his Veracity CHAP. XXI Of Abraham's Faith and the Faith of those that liv'd before our Saviour's time THE Faith for which God justified Abraham what was it It was the believing God when he engaged his Promise in the Covenant he made with him The Faith which God counted to Abraham for Righteousness was nothing but a firm Belief of what God declar'd to him and a stedfast relying on him for the accomplishment of what he had promised Abraham believ'd that tho' he and Sarah were old and past the time and hopes of Children yet he should have a Son by her and