contrary to the purity of his nature, and to have condemned that eternal law of right which is holy, just, and good, of which no one precept or rule is abrogated or repealed, nor, indeed, can be whilst God is a holy, just and righteous God, and man a rational creature.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; nor can it be taken away, or dispensed with, without changing the nature of things, or overturning the measures of right and wrong, and thereby introducing irregularity, confusion, and disorder in the world. Christ's coming into the world was not for such an end as that, but, on the contrary, to reform the corrupt state of degenerate man, and, out of those who would mend their lives and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, erect a new kingdom." The law of faith does not displace the law of works. It only provides that they who humbly and in a contrite spirit believe in Christ, and who prove the reality of their belief by doing all they can to live righteous lives, shall be forgiven for their frailties and weaknesses, and have righteousness imputed to them.1

What that righteousness is, Locke maintained, may be abundantly and sufficiently learnt from the Bible. Christ came to complete the law, "by giving its full and clear sense, free from the corrupting and loosening glosses of the scribes and Pharisees," and out of his teaching may be built up the most complete and comprehensive code of ethics possible to us, containing in their most perfect form all the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, which I were identical with the law of nature or the law of reason. It is unfortunate that Locke did not substantiate this bold thesis. In the course of his work, however, he quoted enough from the teaching and example of Christ to show what an excellent standard of Christian duty was thereby afforded. "Our Saviour not only confirmed the moral law, and showed the strictness as well as obligation of its injunctions, but, moreover, upon occasion requires the obedience of his disciples to several of the commands he afresh lays upon them. There is not, I think, any of the duties of morality which he has not, somewhere or other, by himself and his apostles, inculcated over and over again to his followers in express terms."2

We may fairly regret that Locke did not, in discussing "the reasonableness of Christianity," treat more fully of its ethical aspects. But this appears to have been no part of his purpose in writing the book. He wrote it, not to

1 The Reasonableness of Christianity,' pp. 210-213.

2 Ibid., p. 231.

VOL. II.

19

convert unbelievers, or to elaborate any dogmatic system of theology or religion, but to controvert what seemed to him the most offensive dogmas of those who claimed to be the only true believers, and especially of the self-styled orthodox members of the church of England.

It was accepted in that light. Immediately after its publication in the summer of 1695, it was met with a storm of abuse. "The buzz and flutter and noise which was made, and the reports which were raised," Locke said himself, "would have persuaded the world that it subverted all morality, and was designed against the Christian religion. I must confess, discourses of this kind, which I met spread up and down, at first amazed me, knowing the sincerity of those thoughts which persuaded me to publish it, not without some hope of doing some service to decaying piety and mistaken and slandered Christianity.”1

One of these discourses, probably the only one that appeared at that time in print, was included in Some Thoughts concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism, especially in the Present Age,' by John Edwards, a very intemperate and pugnacious clergyman, who afterwards became a nonconformist. Twenty pages of the book, which appeared only two or three months after Locke's work, were devoted to coarse condemnation of it; and this attack was all the more unwelcome to Locke because, although the work had been published anonymously, Edwards openly referred to him as "the ingenious gentleman who is supposed to be the author of this treatise." He was here charged, not only with Socinianism, but even with atheism. He had reason to be angry with his critic, but he showed his anger so 1 'A Vindication of "The Reasonableness of Christianity" (1695). 2 Edwards, Some Thoughts concerning Atheism' (1695), p. 114.

. 62-63

plainly as to do some damage to his wn dignity, in the short' Vindication '-twice as long, however, as Edwards's chapter-which he published without delay.

Neither Edwards's attack nor Locke's Vindication' claims much notice here, as they hardly at all affected the position of 'The Reasonableness of Christianity' in theological literature. Locke re-asserted those of his opinions and assertions that had been assailed, and insisted upon their strict accordance with the plain meaning of the Bible. He indignantly repudiated other opinions and assertions that Edwards had invented for him. He vehemently denied that there was any Socinianism or atheism, or any "cause of atheism," to be found in his book. And he scornfully protested against the vulgar personalities, and unseemly jokes, and "declamatory rhetoric," in which his antagonist had indulged.

Edwards appears, however, to have been well pleased at finding that Locke had consented to make any reply at all to his attack, as an excuse was thus given to him for renewing it. This he did; and other assailants followed. 'The Reasonableness of Christianity,' indeed, when it was known to have been written by the author of 'An Essay concerning Human Understanding,' was the prime cause of all the controversy in which Locke came to be involved. Of that we shall have to take account in a later chapter.

Anxious that it should be anonymous, Locke appears to have told none of his friends that he was writing this book. Edwards had charged him with the authorship, however, and, though he parried the charge very cleverly, the secret could not be kept. "I find by some little pieces I have lately met with," Molyneux wrote to him in June, 1696, "that you are the reputed author of 'The

Reasonableness of Christianity.' Whether it be really so or not I will not presume to inquire, because there is no name to the book. This only I will venture to say on that head, that whoever is the author, or vindicator thereof, he has gotten as weak an adversary in Mr. Edwards to deal with as a man could wish. So much unmannerly passion and Billingsgate language I have not seen any man use.'

"What you say of 'The Reasonableness of Christianity Locke replied, "gives me occasion to ask your thoughts of that treatise, and also how it passes amongst you there "-in Dublin; "for here, at its first coming out, it was received with no indifferency, some speaking of it with great commendation, but most censuring it as a very bad book. What you say of Mr. Edwards is so visible that I find all the world of your mind."" "As to The Reasonableness of Christianity,' Molyneux wrote back, "I do not find but 'tis very well approved of here amongst candid unprejudiced men that dare speak their thoughts. I'll tell you what a very learned and ingenious prelate said to me on that occasion. I asked him whether he had read that book, and how he liked it. He told me very well, and that, if my friend Mr. Locke writ it, 'twas the best book he ever laboured at; 'But,' says he, 'if I should be known to think so, I should have my lawns torn from my shoulders.""3

Locke had better excuse for desiring not to be known as the author either of this book or of the Letters concerning Toleration,' than can be found for the bishop who agreed with The Reasonableness of Christianity,'

1 Familiar Letters,' p. 149; William Molyneux to Locke, 6 June, 1696. 2 Ibid., p. 157; Locke to William Molyneux, 4 August, 1696. 3 Ibid., p. 163; William Molyneux to Locke, 26 Sept., 1696.

but dared not say so publicly, for fear of being unfrockel. He held no brief for the creeds and dogmas of the established church, and therefore could not be accused of secretly entertaining one set of opinions while professing another. But he knew that the Essay concerning Human Understanding' was his most important work, and the one most likely to be of permanent value to the world; and in it he had started so many heresies and provoked so many prejudices, that he was bound to protect it as far as possible from any additional prejudices that might be stirred up against it because of the additional heresies of its author.

Our review of Locke's miscellaneous occupations, as far as they can be traced, has been brought down only to the spring of 1692-3, when he began to be especially busy in literary ways. During the next two years or more he made good use of his retirement at Oates, as we have seen, in preparing old manuscripts for the press, and in doing much new work; and, though he paid many short visits to London, these appear to have been chiefly occupied in supervising printers' work and in other employment incidental to authorship. We have at any rate only stray notices of his engagement in other ways.

"I have for a long time been intending to send you a very full letter," he wrote from London to Limborch, in June, 1693, "but have not been able to find leisure for it, and now that I have been called to town by pressing business, I can hardly get time for even this short note. I wrote to you last winter, enclosing a letter from the archbishop, and since then have heard nothing from you.