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 ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock.

CHAP. XII. Of two Natures in one Person, and of the Trinity.

I Do not remember that I ever read in my Bible ei∣ther 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 on∣ly 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 Se∣cond 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 complain∣ing 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 ad∣mit them into his Church, says, Go teach all Na∣tions, 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 ac∣quainting 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 men∣tion'd here. So whereas it is believ'd that this Title, the Son of God, doth in sundry places include or de∣note 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 under∣stood 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 far∣ther 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, main∣tains 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 Psal∣mist 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 Do∣ctrine of the Trinity, in his Third Letter: As, 1. By refusing to follow the friendly Advice that was gi∣ven 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 ob∣jected, and clear himself from what was never laid to his Charge. 2. That what was laid upon him, was what he could not do without owning to know what he was sure he did not know. For (says he) how the Doctrine of the Trinity has been always receiv'd in the Christian Church, I confess my self ignorant. Thus Mr. Lock, in his Third Letter, p. 7, 9. To the for∣mer 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 insi∣nuated, being so well acquainted with two Discour∣ses, one intituled Some Thoughts concerning the seve∣ral Causes and Occasions of Atheism, the other Soci∣nianism 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 Scri∣pture which respect the Holy Trinity, were either dis∣regarded 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 Re∣ply 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 lat∣ter, that he is ignorant how the Doctrine of the Tri∣nity 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. There∣fore both these are apparently mere Shifts and Eva∣sions.

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 Signi∣fication 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.