The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2
VI. Philosopher John Locke—Bold Stand Against Innate Immortality
As we have seen, men of learning in various walks of life were now adherents to the principle of Conditionalism—clerics, physicians, educators, barristers, scientists, and philosophers. Among the latter was JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704), renowned Christian philosopher and foremost defender of free inquiry of the seventeenth century. He was educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford, where he distinguished himself by his talents and attainments. After receiving his M.A. degree, he applied himself to the study of medicine—primarily for the knowledge he would gain, rather than for its practice as a profession. For a time Locke taught Greek, rhetoric, and moral philosophy at Oxford. He also held several political posts, being sent on certain missions of state to the Continent. He was even asked to serve as an envoy to a foreign court, but declined. He was, however, secretary for the Board of Trade and Commissioner of Appeals, and was a friend of many distinguished men of his time. CFF2 187.5
Picture 2: Locke, Tillotson
Left: John Locke (d. 1706), Renowned Christian Philosopher Takes Bold Stand Against Innate Imortality.
Right: John Tillotson (d. 1694), Archbishop of Canterbury Undercuts Dogma of Eternal Torment.
Page 188
Locke was author of numerous works, several of which exerted a marked influence on subsequent British and American thought. The purpose in all his writings was the advancement of mankind in knowledge, freedom, and virtue. He pleaded for toleration, though personally he held to a severe Puritan morality. His controversial writings, which often became a battle cry, were marked by clear and cogent arguments, but by fairness and respect toward all opponents. His entire life, in fact, was a warfare against the enemies of freedom of thought and worship. Though he has been lauded by certain freethinkers, he was an earnest Christian, and regarded Holy Scripture with profound reverence, declaring: “It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter.” CFF2 188.1
His famous An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, begun in 1671, was seventeen years in the making. It attacked Platonism, and was directed against various “innate conceptions or intuitions.” He, on the other hand, was an Empiricist, believing in the pursuit of knowledge by experiment and observation. He dwelt on how the mind works, its limitations, and the tabula rasa concept. Education, owes much to him for the liberalizing engendered by his teachings. CFF2 189.1
During the political upheaval Locke fled to Holland for security reasons, and there finished his Essay, returning to the homeland in 1689. In his controversial works he sought to remove objections and clear away misapprehensions regarding his fundamental tenets. The Reasonableness of Christianity was his last work, written in 1695, late in life. This brought him into conflict with certain rectors and bishops eager to preserve “orthodoxy.” CFF2 189.2
Locke rejected all theological dogmas that rested upon mere ecclesiastical authority. Thus he took a clear and bold stand against the doctrine of the Innate Immortality and immateriality of the soul, delivering telling blows against such “heathenish fables,” as he called them, and thus revealing his thorough acquaintance with their historical origins in the philosophies of Platonism. CFF2 189.3
1. WICKED DO “NOT LIVE FOREVER.”
Locke was equally forthright in his opposition to the dogma of the eternal torment of the incorrigible. This appears in various works. To him the punishment for sin is actual death, not eternal life in misery. Thus, in his Latin treatise Resurrectio et quae sequuntur, he says: CFF2 189.4
“St. Paul, speaking of the Resurrection, [1 Corinthians 15] ... never comes to the resurrection of the wicked ...; so that from verse 27 to the end of the chapter is a description only of the resurrection of the just .... First, that which he here speaks of as raised, is raised in glory, v. 43; but the wicked are not raised in glory. 2ndly, He says, we shall bear the image of the heavenly Adam, v. 49, which cannot belong to the wicked. 3rd. We shall all be changed, that, by putting on incorruptibility and immortality, death may be swallowed up in victory, ... v. 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, which cannot likewise belong to the damned .... I think nobody will say that the wicked have victory over death .... CFF2 189.5
“Two things are plainly declared in Scripture concerning them [the wicked]. CFF2 190.1
“1st. That they shall be cast into hell fire to be tormented there, is so express, and so often mentioned in Scripture, that there can be no doubt about it. Matthew 25:41, 46. Matthew 13:42, 50. Matthew 18:8. CFF2 190.2
“2nd. That they shall not live for ever.” 25 CFF2 190.3
2. DEATH NOT “ETERNAL LIFE IN MISERY.”
In his celebrated treatise, The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke began his defense of Christianity by protesting the doctrine of immortal death with this searching question: CFF2 190.4
“By death, some men understand endless torments in hell fire; but it seems a strange way understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest of words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Can any one be supposed to intend by a law which says, ‘For felony thou shalt surely DIE,’ not that he should lose his life, but be kept alive in exquisite and perpetual torments? And would any one think himself fairly dealt with that was so used?” 26 CFF2 190.5
3. ETERNAL LIFE RESTS ON PROMISES OF GOD
Locke’s renowned controversy with Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, appears in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Stillingfleet held that the common faith in an afterlife would be endangered if the “philosophic proof” (Platonic) of immortality were abandoned. Locke’s reply was that our hope of eternal life rests on the revelation and promises of God, not on the subtleties of men. The reply was approved by Jean Le Clerc, celebrated French divine. Locke was not at all impressed by the stock argument of the “majority view,” and wisely countered with the statement: CFF2 190.6
“An error is not the better for being common, nor truth the worse for having lain neglected; and if it were put to the vote any where in the world, I doubt, as things are managed, whether truth would have the majority.” 27 CFF2 190.7