A4r

A
Discourse
Concerning the
Love of God.

Whatever Reproaches have
been made by the Romanists
on the one hand, of
the Want of Books of Devotion in
the Church of England; or by the
Dissenters on the other, of a dead
and lifeless Way of Preaching; I
think it may be affirm’d, That there
cannot, any where, be found so good
a Collection of Discourses upon Moral
Subjects, as might be made of
English Sermons, and other Treatises
of that Nature, written by the
Divines of our Church: Which A4 Books A4v 2
Books are certainly, in themselves,
of the greatest and most general
Use of any; and do most conduce
to that which is the chief Aim of
Christianity, a good Life. For whatsoever
else it Professors, divided into
Parties, may contend about; This
they must all agree in, That we
ought to be a People zealous of
good Works.

Yet tho’ no body can deny this;
And all are forced to allow, that the
Duties of a good Life ought to be
practis’d; It is certain, that this
which is so essential to Religion, is
so far degraded by some, as not to
pass for a part of it. They accordingly
distinguish a Religious, from
a Moral Man; and carry their Zeal
for the Doctrinal Part of Religion
so far, that they seem to lay little
Stress on the Performance of those
Vertues recommended by our Saviour
Christ, as the Way of Eternal
Life; Which Vertues, have been
commonly enough term’d Splendid
Vices, in those they account not true A5r 3
true Believers; And the Books writ
by others, to recommend the Practice
of them to the World, are
look’d upon by these Men, as little
more worthy of a Christian’s Perusal,
as such, than Histories or Maxims
of humane Prudence.

But others there are, who do not
in this manner undervalue Morality,
that yet perhaps are not less injurious
to it; Whilst they strain the
Duties of it to an impracticable
Pitch; or pretend to ascend by it
to something beyond, or above it:
Which has been mightily the Fault
of Those in the Church of Rome;
Who having a better Relish of Religion,
than to be satisfied with one
consisting of nothing but idle, superstitious,
and pompous Shows,
have betaken themselves to that
which they call the inward Way, or
Life of Contemplation: Of which,
there never has wanted great Numbers
in that Church, known in several
times by several Names, which
distinguish’d them more than their A5 Opi- A5v 4
Opinions. For in those, they all
agreed in one common Difference
from all the rest, though variously
express’d: And who (whatever their
Errours have been) have yet seem’d
the most in earnest in the Business
of Religion, of any that the Roman
Church can boast of.

But however excusable these may
be, in regard of their own Church
(which perhaps allows them no other
Way of being Religious, than that
which lead them into these Mistakes)
they yet are certainly very
injurious to Christianity in the Representations
they make of it; by
supposing, as they do, the Perfection
of a Christian State to consist
in Contemplation; And the Duties
of a social Life (for which ’tis plain
Mankind were intended) to be low
Matters, fit only to exercise the
young Christian, not yet advanced
into the spiritual State; to which
when he arrives, even but to the
first Degree (for they talk of three
Degrees at least of it, by which Perfectionfection A6r 5
is to be ascended to) he
then looks down upon all the Duties
of the second Table, as an inferiour
Dispensation, belonging to those of
a lower Class: And when he is ascended
to the highest Degree, he is
then got above Reason it self; being
first melted and brought to nothing,
and then lost and swallowed
up in God. And by these, who
suppose themselves thus far advanced,
the Use of Reasoning, and internal
Discourse, tending to fix our
Affections upon God, and expressing
it self in sensible Devotion; and even
outward Acts of Obedience to God’s
Will, are look’d upon as parts of the
active Life, and less perfect State of
a Christian; as may be seen in divers
Books which treat of this Matter,
and particularly in Santa Sophia,
Treat. 1st. Ch. 1. 0. 3. Which
sufficiently shows of how dangerous
Consequence it is to talk after this
Fashion; and to erect into a Rule,
or Dispensation of Life, what possibly
the Experience of some (whose Circum- A6v 6
Circumstances, or extraordinary Illuminations,
for ends unknown (and
which we have nothing to do with)
may have inabled them to give a
sober, and intelligible Sense of to
themselves; though to others it appear
Jargon, Enthusiasm, or even
Irreligion.

If Books of this kind (which more
or less those usually are, the Papists
call their spiritual Books) are wanting
in the Church of England, it is
well that they are so; since they
would be likely to make many more
Enthusiasts than good Christians.
For as the Bishop of Worcester (in
his Fanaticism of the Roman Church)
says very well: “If once an unintelligible
Way of Practical Religion become
the Standard of Devotion, no
Men of Sense and Reason will ever
set themselves about it; but leave it
to be understood by mad Men, and practis’d
by Fools.” Which is a Reflection
that it were to be wish’d all
would make, who may be tempted
by Affectation of Novelty, Fondness of A7r 7
of an Hypothesis, or any other better
Reason, to build their Practical and
Devotional Discourses upon Principles
which not only will not bear
the Test, but which oblige them to
lay down such Assertions in Morality,
as sober and well disposed Christians
cannot understand to be practicable:
Than which, I think there
never was any more evidently so,
than that Mankind are obliged strictly,
as their Duty, to love with Desire,
nothing but God only; Every
Degree of Desire of any Creature
whatsoever, being Sin. This Assertion,
though not altogether new,
yet has been but lately brought into
our Pulpits, and been pretended to
be set on Foot upon a Philosophical,
or Natural Ground, viz. That God,
not the Creature, is the immediate,
efficient Cause of our Sensations: For
whatever gives us Pleasure (say they
who hold this Hypothesis) has a
right to our Love; but God only gives
us Pleasure, therefore he only has a
right to our Love.

Indeed, A7v 8

Indeed, in a Sermon upon this
Subject, Matt. xxii. 37. the Author
pretends to establish his Sense of the
Words upon a double Basis. “1. That
God is the only Cause of our Love.
2. That he is also the only proper Object
of it.” But in Reference to the
first, he does no more to this Purpose,
but prove what (plainly express’d)
cannot be contested; viz.
That we receive the Power which
we have of Desiring, from God:
And then asks himself several Questions,
as “Can God act for a Creature?
Does not God make all things
for himself? &c.” Which amount only
to thus much, that they signifie it is
his Opinion, that God (who doubtless
made all things for himself) because
his own Glory was his
primary End in creating all things,
had not therefore Secondary, and
intermediate Ends for which he
made the Creatures to operate one
upon another: Which is but in a tacit
Way to beg the Question. But
he confesses rightly, that the Stress of A8r 9
of this Business lies in the Proof of
the second Proposition. “Upon this
Hinge” (says he) “the whole Weight of
the Theory turns,” viz. That God is
the only proper Object of our Love,
as being the only Cause of all our
pleasing Sensations; the Creatures
having no Efficiency at all to operate
upon us; they being only occasional
Causes of those Sentiments
which God produces in us. And on
this Foundation it then is, that he
asserts, that every Act that carries
our Desires towards the Creature is
sinful: Which Opinion if receiv’d,
and follow’d, must necessarily bring
in the like unintelligible Way of Practical
Religion, which the Bishop of
Worcester has justly censured in the
Church of Rome.

But however perswaded, either
the Author himself, or this great
Assertor of this Hypothesis are of
its Truth, or Reasonableness; As
there was no need at all of interesting
Religion, and Morality, in the
Matter; so it is also very unserviceableable A8v 10
to them; Since that which they
would inferr from it is manifestly
no just Consequence, any more than
a useful, or practicable Doctrine.
And a Man that had not been mighty
fond of an Hypothesis, would
never have attempted from the Pulpit,
to fortifie by Scripture, an Opinion
so opposite to the Tenour of
it; as well as to that Morality which
has been so excellently preach’d to
the World by the Divines of his
own Church: Whose Discourses are
generally, if not universally, founded
upon this Supposition; (or at
least imply it) that there may
be a lawful Love of the Creatures:
And being herein conform’d to
right Reason, and consequently adapted
to humane Life, they have
helped to make some Opposition to
that Irreligion, which by looseness
of Manners on the one hand, and
uncharitable Zeal on the other, has
spread it self amongst us in this last
Age; But must doubtless have prevailed
further, had not more reasonablenable A9r 11
Principles of Morality been
inculcated into Men, than can be
grounded upon seeing all things in
God, &c.

For apparently, if the practical
Duties of Religion had not been
better accounted for, and inforc’d,
than by the so much boasted of spiritual
Books of the Roman Church,
Religion and Vertue had before this
time been disputed, or ridicul’d, out
of our World. And yet any of these
Books of mystical Divinity, will be
found as well able to support them,
as some of the late practical Discourses
of Mr. N. or as any Man’s
else can be, upon the Principle of
our being obliged to have no Love
of Desire for any of the Creatures:
Which is particularly endeavour’d
to be made good in the foremention’d
Sermon, upon the great Commandment
of the Law, Matt. xxii.
37. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy Heart, with all
thy Soul, and with all thy Mind.”
Wherein the Author pretends to show, A9v 12
show, that all our Love is to be so
intirely center’d upon God, that not
any part of it is to be allow’d to
the Creatures.

But least the inlarging this first
Commandment to such a Magnitude,
should make it seem to swallow up
the second; He prevents that Objection
by shewing, that these Two
Commandments clash not at all:
The Love of God, and of our Neighbour
(as he says) being different
Loves: “For we love God with Love
of Desire; and love, or should love,
our Neighbour, only with Love of
Benevolence.” Which Distinction,
in other Discourses of his, he is more
large upon; and seems to believe the
latter part of it confirm’d by these
Words, “Thou shalt love thy Neighbour
as thy self.”

Moses, in Levit. xix. repeating to the
Children of Israel sundry Laws, and
amongst others, several special Duties
towards their Neighbour, thus concludes
the last; ( ver. the 18th) “Thou
shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self.” Which A10r 13
Which Conclusion is comprehensive
of all that preceded it, or that had
been omitted; And in a short Rule,
better teaches the Extent of what
we owe to our Neighbour, than it
was possible any Enumeration of
Particulars could. This Duty is
indeed so full express’d herein, that
we cannot conceive any Addition
could be made to the Perfection of
this Precept by our Blessed Saviour;
Who came to teach us the whole
Will of the Father, and to give us
the most perfect Rule of Life that
had yet been delivered to Mankind;
and accordingly, Luke the 4th ch.
v. 25. being asked, “‘Master what shall
I do to inherit Eternal Life?’” He
said, “‘How readest thou in the Law?’”
It being answer’d, “‘Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and
with all thy Soul, with all thy Mind,
and with all thy Strength; and thy
Neighbour as thy self:’” He replied,
“‘Thou hast answer’d right; This do,
and thou shalt live.’” He had answer’d
right, in joining together together these two Com- A10v 14
Commandments in the Law, “on
which all the rest of the Law and
Prophets did depend,” Matt. xxii. 40.
And our Saviour assures him the
Rule of the Law was in neither part
short, or defective: For he says,
“This do, and thou shalt live.” We
are here taught, that the Love of
God, and of our Neighbour, comprises
the whole of our Duty: And
accordingly we are else-where also
told, “That Love is the fullfilling of the
Law.” Its Regulation therefore is
certainly of the utmost Consequence
to us; And the Measures of it are,
“That we love God will all our Heart,
with all our Souls, with all our Mind,
and with all our Strength; and our
Neighbour as our selves.”

These Precepts are joined together
in the Gospel, and there is a
very near Affinity between them.
But they are not so joined in the
Law from whence they are cited;
Neither is there any Appearance
that those to whom they were there
given understood, or could understandstand A11r 15
by them, the Love of God
and the Love of their Neighbour
“to be distinct Affections, differing in
kind;” as is affirm’d by Mr. N. Who
in Pursuance of (at best) a useless
Notion, would take from a great
part of Mankind their only sure
Retreat, when bewildered in the
Maze of Opinions, endlesly contested
by the Men of Skill in Disputation:
He having done as much to
perplex the plain Duties of Morality,
as others have done the speculative
parts of Religion. But there
appears no Ground from the Text
here, to affirm that the Command
of loving their Neighbour as themselves,
was (as he says it was) “not
only as absolute Measure, but a relative
Character put in one purpose to
distinguish it from their Love of God,”
Page 165. of his Philosophical and
Divine Letters: Unless that Mr. N.
will say, that the Words necessarily
imply so much; which is to beg the
thing he contests for, and not to
prove it.

Moses A11v 16

Moses speaking as a Law-giver, to
a Multitude that did not much refine
in their Speculations, or distinguish
things with Philosophical
Niceness, seems very plainly by
this Text (as the foregoing ones
make it evident) to design only to
tell them how far the Love of their
Neighbour ought to extend: As
not only to the doing no Injury
(specified in sundry Instances) but
even to the “bearing no Grudge”; And
(Finally says he) “Thou shalt love thy
Neighbour as thy self.” That is, do
him as little Harm, and as much
Good, as thou desirest should be
done to thy self. Whether, or no,
he should be the Object of Desire,
is not determined by this Precept,
any farther than as Love naturally
draws Desire after it. But
against the Lawfulness of any Creature’s
being desired by us, it is said
by Mr. N. “That as we cannot love
God with a Love of Benevolence, he
wanting nothing to be wished to his
Perfection, and Happiness; so we ought A12r 17
ought not to love the Creature with a
Love of Desire, they being uncapable to
make any part of our Happiness.” What
we cannot do, we are certain we
shall not: And we need little Caution,
not to desire what is no desirable,
or (which is here equivalent)
not pleasing to us. But though
Men may possibly (in the Ignorance
they are in of their own Being, and
the Constitution of other things,
with their mutual Relations) mistake,
that which can make them
finally happy; yet none can be supposed
not to know what, at the present,
pleases them; which is the Happiness,
or Pleasure here intended.
How little it signifies to this Matter
(though the Stress of the Assertion
lies in it) to say, That sensible Objects
are not the efficient, but occasional
Causes of our pleasing Sensations,
will soon be consider’d. But if when
we use the Word “Love”, we reflected
what it is we mean by it, we should
perhaps be more inlighten’d than by
Mr. N’s Definition of it, and should learn A12v 18
learn to distinguish better, than to
call different Passions by the same
Name; or confound Love, with
whatever is a Concomitant of it.

When I say that I love my Child,
or my Friend, I find that my Meaning
is, that they are things I am
delighted in; Their Being is a Pleasure
to me.

When I say that I love God above
all, I find I would express that he is
my chiefest Good, and I delight in
him above all things.

Again, when I say that I love my
self, I likewise mean by it that my
Being is dear, and pleasing to me.
To say one loves a thing, and that
it is that which one has Complaisency
in, is just the same: Love being
only a Name given to that Disposition,
or Act of the Mind, we
find in our selves towards any thing
we are pleas’d with; and so far as it
is simply Love, consists barely in
That; and cannot be distinguish’d
into different Acts of wishing well,
and desiring; which are other differentferent B1r 19
Acts of the Mind, consequential
to Love, according to the difference
of the Object. To intelligent Beings
that we love, our Love is follow’d
with acts of Benevolence, or wishing
well to the Being, and Happiness of
that thing that helps to make us happy;
and with desire of injoying that
in them that delights us: And our
Love to Inanimate things is follow’d
with Benevolence and Well wishing
to their Being, if it may be continued
with their Injoyment; and with desire
also of injoying them. But, because
Benevolence appears most in Wishing
Happiness to Beings capable of it, And
the use of most Inanimate things
which we love and desire to injoy, destroys
them in the Injoyment, Therefore
Learned Men have talk’d as if
there were two sorts of Love; Whereas
Love is but one simple act of the
Mind, always accompanied with Desire,
and Benevolence too, where the
Object is capable of it. But as that
Definition which Mr. N. has given
us, (viz. “That Love is that Original
Weight, Bent or Indeavour, whereby the B Soul B1v 20
Soul stands inclin’d to, and is mov’d forwards
to Good in general, or Happiness”
tells us not so well what Love is, as
our own Hearts can when we consult
them; So perhaps an Examination of
them will not only better acquaint us
with the Nature of our Passions; but
also direct us better to the Measures
of their Regulation, than Notions
concerning them deduced from the
Consequences of an Hypothesis.

Let us therefore consider more particularly,
how by the different Objects
of our Love our Hearts are affected.

When we say we love our selves:
Have we then only a simple Perception
of Pleasure, and Complaisance
in our Being? Or is any thing else annex’d
to the Pleasure as a necessary
Concomitant, or Consequence of it:
Mr. N. says ( Letters Philosophical and
Divine, p. 165. that “our love of our
selves is not love of Desire, but love of
Benevolence most undoubtedly.” Most
undoubtedly these words of Mr. N.
very much clash with what he affirms
elsewhere (see his Theory and Regulation
of Love, p. 14. and 15.) where having B2r 21
having reduced or comprehended
Love under Concupiscence and Benevolence,
he expresly tell us, that
“There is no desire without Benevolence,
and no Benevolence without desire.” But
he does not in this oppose himself only,
but Truth also, since the desire of
the continuation of our Being is
truly a Desire of our Selves, a Desire
of something of our selves which
we have not already; As he, that
having Light and Warmth enough of
the Sun, desiring its Continuation,
desires, more of the Sun than he has
already. The Continuation of our
Being is necessary to our Happiness
in the Beatisick, Vision: And if we
desire more of that Happiness, by
only desiring the Continuation of
it, we certainly desire more of our
selves, by desiring the Continuation
of our Being.

Let us farther observe, how our
Hearts are affected in our love of
other things. Our Being, we evidently
find stands in need of other
Beings for its Support and Happiness;
because it is not sufficient aloneB2 lone B2v 22
for either: And therefore to
the Complaisance or Pleasure we
have in it, we find necessarily annex’d
a wishing to it whatever we
conceive may either continue, or
improve it.

As to God himself, whom Mr. N.
makes the sole Object of our Desires;
I wish Mr. N had a little more explain’d
himself what he means by our
Desiring of God. For the Perfection
and Superlativeness of his Nature,
makes him the Object of our Love,
Desire and Benevolence, in a quite
different way from Created Beings.
We love God for those Excellencies
of his Nature, wherein he infinitely
surpasses all that is good, or desireable
in the Creature. When we are
said to Desire him, I think we mean
such a Communication of his Goodness,
whereby he bestows on us any
Degree of Happiness: And in this
sense, we shall to Eternity desire
more and more of him.

But he being both Necessary and
Perfect, we can therefore wish no
good to him, which he has not already;ready; B3r 23
Because we cannot conceive
any Addition of Good can be made
to him. Our Benevolence is limited
by his perfect Nature, only to
Acts of Joy and Complaisance in his
Perfections, which is all we can do;
But the doing of That declares,
That if any thing could be added to
his Perfection and Happiness, we
should wish it. And therefore, as an
Expression of that Benevolence, it
is made our Duty to give him Praise,
and as much as we can to Glorifie
him.

Again, When we say, That we
love our Children, or Friends; It is
evident also from the Nature of the
Object, that we not only wish to
them as to our selves, whatever we
conceive may tend to continue, or
improve their Being; but also, that
Desire of them is a necessary Concomitant
of our Love: Because we
are not always present with them,
whereby we should enjoy them
more: And it is impossible to love
the Presence, or Kindness of any B3 thing, B3v 24
thing, without desiring to possess
it. Now, If any one will say,
we ought not to be so pleased; They
then deny that we ought to love:
For we cannot love but what we are
pleased with. It is true, that every
one may apply words as they think
fit; But then others ought to take
care not to be imposed on by them.
And if any one will either tell us,
That we love things in which we
find no Pleasure; Or, That being
pleased with a thing, we do not yet
love it; Or will call different Passions
by the same Name; Or imply in the
word “Love”, that complication of other
Passions inseparable, indeed, from
Love, but varying according to
the Objects of it; It will concern us
to examine what they say, before
we receive their Dictates, as Measures
for the Regulation of a Passion,
upon the right Regulation of which
depends both our Present, and Future
Happiness.

Love is but one simple Act of
the Mind: But whether our desiring of B4r 25
of what we love, or only wishing
well to it, or both, follows that act
of Love; the Nature of the lov’d
Object alone Determines. For if
that be both capable of being a good
to us, and of receiving good from us,
or from any thing else, it is then
certain that we wish both: If it be
capable of but one, and we know it
to be so, it is certain we can then
wish but one. The Distinction
which is made of love of Benevolence,
and Concupiscence, (arising
only from the different Natures of
the Objects of our Love) is only
the Mis-application of the word
Love to different acts consequent to
Love, but distinct from it, and depending
on the different Nature of
the Object.

But it is said, “That no Creature is
capable of being a Good to us.” Every
Man’s Experience confutes this every
Day, and would do so, although
that were true that these Men contend
for; which therefore cannot in
the least tend to promote Piety.

B4 It B4v 26

It is certain, that to believe
(which is evidently true) that we
receive all our Good from the Hand
of God; ought to be, and effectively
is, the proper Ground of our Love
of Him above all things. But that
we do receive all our good from the
Hand of God, is equally acknowledged
whether we believe the creature
receives an Efficiency from
God to excite pleasing Sensations in
us; Or that God himself exhibiting
part of his Essence to us, at the presence
of the Creature, is himself the
immediate Author of those Pleasing
Sensations: Which is the Hypothesis
proposed for the Advancement of the
Love of God.

But as Truth of no kind is ever
advantaged by Falshood; so also, it
seems a respect Due to so important,
and withal, so evident a Duty as the
Love of God, no needlesly to lay
the stress of it upon any Doubtful,
Unintelligible, or Precarious Hypothesis;
whatever Pretences it carries
with it of Piety.

Pompous B5r 27

Pompous Rhapsodies of the Soul’s
debasing her self, when she descends
to set the least part of her Affections
upon any thing but her Creator,
(however well they may possibly be
intended) are plainly but a complementing
God with the contempt of
his Works, by which we are the
most effectually led to Know, Love,
and Adore him. And such kind of
Expressions as carry not a Relative,
but Absolute Abhorrence, or Contempt
of Injoyments the most Lawful,
seem only allowable, as unpremeditated
Raptures of Devout Minds,
not the Productions and Philosophical
Disquisition; and will only affect
those that are truely Pious, whilst
they carry a show of some Truth in
the Heart of the Speaker, which
they strictly have not in themselves.
For ’tis not unlikely that a
lively Remorse may so turn the
Stream of some Men’s Affections
from all sensible Pleasures, and give
them so strong a Disgust for them,
that the very Remembrances and B5 Ideas B5v 28
Ideas of those Pleasures, even where
allowable, may become Ungrateful:
As Men have often Aversion to see
or hear of Places or Persons, (othertimes
Dear to them) by which, or
in which, they have suffer’d much.
The Passions where they are strong,
argue by a Logick of their own, not
that of Reason, which they often
and significantly enough, invert to
serve their own Purpose. And when
Religion is in the case (with which
too many are perswaded Reason has
little to do) they can easily advance
this so far, as to dress out an intire
System, intelligible only be Sentiment,
not to Reason; of which,
perhaps some of the Mystical Divines
are an Example. But to what
Extravagance soever this may be
carried, it is not therefore to be believed,
That he who requires the
Service of the whole Man, rejects
the Passons from bearing a part;
whilst we suffer them neither to impose
upon our selves, nor others, to
the admitting of wrong Notions, Preju- B6r 29
Prejudicial to true Religion. And
it is likely, that many People of
weak Understandings, may owe
most of their Religion to their Passions;
It being certain, that if some
Men had no more Religion than
they are capable of having by a Rational
Disquisition, it must be exceeding
little.

But whenever any one pretends
to prescribe Measures of Duty, not
suited to a Popular Audience, but
such as shall challenge the strictest
Attention and Scrutiny of Reason,
he ought to exclude all Metaphor
and Hyperbole. For those
Notions will deservedly be suspected
of some Defect, which are usher’d
in, or attended with Flights, not
only out of the reach of common
Sense, but which oppose the Experience
of Mankind; As all such do
that have for Foundation the Creature’s
being uncapable to procure us
any good: There being none of
them, perhaps, that we approach,
which either does not, or may not, contri- B6v 30
contribute to our Good, or Ill; And
which truly are not in Effect allow’d
to do so, by those who deny
them to be Efficient Causes. For it
will be found to amount to the same
thing in regard of us, and our Obligation
to desire them, whether they
are Efficient, or Occasional Causes,
of our pleasing Sensations: The
proof of which last Opinion, (taken
from their own Ignorance of any
other way to explain the Nature of
our Ideas, and Perceptions) They
can hardly feel the force of; Without
having a great Opinion of their
own Faculties, or a very small one
of the Power, and Wisdom of God.
And they must also be very clear
sighted, if they can discern how this
Hypothesis of seeing all things in
God, helps us one jot further in the
Knowledge of our Ideas, and Perceptions;
which is the thing it was
Primarily pretended to be design’d
for. They who advance this Notion,
do only fetch a Circuit, and
then return where they were before, without B7r 31
without gaining any advantage, by
Derogating (as they do) from the
Wisdom of God, in framing his
Creatures like the Idols of the Heathen,
that have Eyes, and see not;
Ears, and hear not, &c.

But we are only now concern’d,
to inquire of what Use this Opinion
is in Morality; That any one
should be zealous in asserting it on
that account.

The Creatures they say are occasional
Causes of our pleasing Sensations.
Then, however, they are
Causes of them. They deny not
also, That they are such Causes as
are always accompanied with the
Effect, and without which the Effect
is not produced. And are they not
then consider’d as Goods to us, just
the same as if they were efficient
Causes? Or must we think a beautiful
Flower has not the same Appearance,
whether it be believ’d that God has
lodg’d a power in the Flower to excite
the Idea of its Colour in us, or
that he himself exhibits the Idea of its B7v 32
its Colour at the presence of that
Object? If the Flower is either way
equally pleasing (as certainly it is)
then it is also equally desireable. But
the Wisdom of God cannot herein
be equally admired, because it is not
equally conspicuous. For if God
immediately exhibits to me all my
Idea’s, and that I do not truly see
with my Eyes, and hear with my
Ears, then all that wonderful Exactness
and curious Workmanship,
in framing the Organs of Sense,
seems superfluous and vain; Which
is no small Reflection upon infinite
Wisdom.

We are moreover told, That the
whole of our Duty, and Happiness,
consists in making God the sole Object
of our Desires; “The least spark of
which sacred Fire cannot light upon the
Creatures, without so far defrauding
him:” And that the Reason of this
Duty is, because “the Creatures are
not the efficient Causes of our Sensations.”
If this be so, this seems also to
lay an Imputation upon the Wisdom and B8r 33
and Goodness of God, who has laid
the Foundation of our Duty in a Reason
which he has concealed from us.
For this great Cause why we should
love him alone, (“viz. because the Creatures
are not the efficient Causes of our
Sensations”) is so hidden from us by
all the Art, and Contrivance, observable
in Nature, that if it were purposely
design’d to be conceal’d,
and we purposely intended to be
misled, it could not be more so. For
in Effect till this last Age, it has not
been discover’d; Or at least very
sparingly; And even still (as it seems)
only Heads cast in Metaphysical
Moulds are capable of it. This, I say,
one would think were some Reflection
upon the Divine Wisdom; Yet
no less than this is said. For the whole
of our Duty is place in a right Regulation
of our Love: The whole
of that Regulation in making God
the sole Object of our Desires; And
having only Charity, or Benevolence,
for his Creatures. And this
Distribution is grounded on no clear Text B8v 34
Text of Scripture; Nor on other
Foundation from Reason, than this
only, That the Creatures are not the
efficient Causes of our pleasing Sensations.

Indeed, sometimes, the Severity
of some Precepts of Morality may
well be thought to have been a hindrance
to the Discovery of their
Truth; And this of Centering all our
Affections upon God, and not permitting
the least part of our Desires
to run out after sensible Goods, carries
at first Sight, a specious Pretence
of being of that Nature. And
doubtless, with many plain, well-
meaning People, (who understood
not the Metaphysical Ground of it,
But endeavour’d to practise it without
pretending to prove it) it tended
to great Austerities; sometimes perhaps
Useful; but most commonly
Superstitious, and Pernicious to true
Religion. But a late Teacher of this
Doctrine, tho’ he has advanced the
Theory, is more favourable in the
practical part, than to recommend by B9r 35
by it any such Popish Mortifications
and Severities: And he, with great
Reason, seems to believe, that the
good things of this World were given
to be enjoyed by us. “No Creature”
he says, “indeed can be Loved,
or Desired, without Defrauding God,
and ever committing the Sin of Idolatry,”
Vol. III Practical Discourse
p. 62. 67. Consequently therefore,
there can be no more hateful Sin to
the Almighty than (feeling Cold, or
Hunger) to desire Fire, or Food, as any
good to us: But he tells us at the
same time, That tho’ the things
which satisfie these Natural Cravings
are by no means to be desired
as Goods “Yet they may be securely
sought for as such, and enjoyed,” p. 73,
74. He whose Head is cast in a Metaphysical
Mould has, it may be,
Privileges of Nature which accompany
it, that ordinary Mortals are
Strangers to; Who tho’ they can
conceive indeed a thing to be lov’d
without being sought, or to be
sought without being lov’d; Yet from the B9v 36
the Frailty of their own Constitutions
will scarce ever be perswaded
in Fact that they, and this Author,
being thoroughly Cold, seek for Fire,
upon different Motives; Or will
think that He being truly Hungry,
seeks Food only upon a prudential Account,
and not out of any Desire that
he has to the Meat; Should he tell
them ever so much, That the Mind
of Man, conscious of its own Dignity,
and Innate Nobleness, ought not
to debase it self to such mean Affections,
as the Love of any Creature:
“The Creatures being no more capable
to please any Faculty than to
Create it; And therefore have no Pretence
to the least Interest in our Love,”
Prac. D. p. 59. And it will even
not be easie for him to perswade
them, That he does not, in this, vilifie
the Wisdom of his Creator, and
reproach God for not having made
him as he ought to have done. For
Men are very seldom talk’d out of
their Senses. And if they should
not want the Charity to believe him sincere, B10r 37
sincere; they will yet also be very
ready to conclude him unacquainted
with the World, and Humane Nature,
to judge of that of others by
his own extraordinary, and Metaphysical
Constitution.

But the Words of the Text, Matt.
xxii. 37. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy Heart, with all thy
Soul, and with all thy Mind,” he says,
will admit of no other good Interpretation
than that God is solely, and
only, to be Loved: “Since with no tolerable
Sense he can be said to Love
God with all his Soul, and all his
Mind, that only loves him above other
things; Allowing other things at the
same time a share in his Love,” p. 10.
“The highest Sense,” he thinks, “that is
generally put upon these Word amounts
to no more than this: That God is to be
the Prime, and Principal, Object of
our Love, and Delight: That we are
to Love him in a superlative way above
all other things whatsoever, so as to lose
any Good, or suffer any Evil, rather than
commit the least Sin against him: That B10v 38
That we are always to preferr him in
our Love, chusing to obey him rather
than Man, and to please him rather
than satisfie our own Will, and to enjoy
him rather than any WorldyWorldly or Carnal
Pleasure,” p. 5, 6. But this Interpretation,
he thinks, “exhausts not the
Sense of the Commandment; since no
Logick, or Grammar, can bear to call
the Part, though the larger Part, the
whole,” p.10. But it is not the Question
whether Logick, or Grammar,
will bear calling the Part the
whole; but whether every Text in
Scripture is to be interpreted by his
Logick, and Grammar: Or whether,
in some Cases, Scripture does not
accommodate it self to the fashion,
and figurative ways of speaking usual
amongst Men; Which when rightly,
not literally understood, are not contrary
to Logick, and Grammar. This
it is plain the Opinion of the Divines,
and other Learned Men is, That the
Scripture does so accommodate it
self: Because they have interpreted
this Text, and not this alone, but others B11r 39
others also in such a Sense. And
therefore if he would put any Stress
upon this Argument, he must first
show that those are mistaken who
think that Scripture oftentimes
speaks figuratively and popularly;
which is so receiv’d an Opinion, that
to oppose it as he does (or else says
nothing to the Purpose) without giving
any reason at all, in this place,
for so doing, seems to argue more
Arrogancy than Impartiality in the
search of Truth. Now if Scripture
does sometimes accommodate it self
to the ordinary ways of speaking
amongst Men; Why should it not be
thought to do so in this Text? Wherein
the common Sense of Mankind
opposes any other Meaning as possible,
than that which is familiar to us.
For it cannot be deny’d, that, in every
Language, nothing is more ordinary
than to say we love a Person intirely,
or with all our Hearts, when we love
them very much; And yet better
many this be said, if we love them
above all others. And as we mean no B11v 40
no more than one of these two things,
by these Expressions, so we design
not to be understood otherwise: And
this is so well known, that we are
also never mistaken in them.

But it is yet more evident, that
this Text is to be understood in the
familiar Sense of the Words; If it
be remembred that they are the Injunction
of a Law-MakterLaw-Maker ( Deut. vi.
5. from whence our Saviour cites
them) to a Rude, and Illiterate People.
Now the Duty that these Words
injoins, Mr. N himself confesses, cannot
be carried higher than the Interpreters
have carried it (viz. “to Love
God supremely, and above all things)”
“without building in the Air”; Unless
his Hypothesis be received: Which
unless he will say Moses delivered also
to the Israelites, he makes him an
admirable Lawgiver, to deliver to
his People the most Essential of all
his Laws, so as it was not, or cannot be
thought, likely that one of a Hundred,
if a least any one amongst them, did
understand it. For I suppose it will not B12r 41
not be deny’d by Mr. N. That though
by the Parturiency of his own Mind, he
very early light upon his Notion, and
was not (as the World imagines he
was) beholden to Pere Malbranche
for it; That the Israelites generally
were not so speculative, and philosophical
as he, in their Natural Genius;
And yet less, that they either
Cultivated any such Speculations in
the time of Moses; Or had any Tradition,
or receiv’d Opinion amongst
them, “That the Creatures were not
Efficient, but Occasional Causes of their
Pleasing Sensations;” by which they
might be enabled to understand this
Command concerning loving God,
not in the familiar, and conceivable
Sense of the Words, and in Mr. N’s
Logical, and Grammatical, though
otherwise Inconceivable Sense of
them.

But besides that Lawgivers always
give their Laws in the most familiar
manner they can; The Inconceivableness
also of Mr. N’s Sense of
the Words as a Moral Rule, is a sufficientcient B12v 42
reason in it self why Moses should
not be understood according to his
Explanation; Which puts a Meaning
upon the Command that is apparently,
and plainly impracticable:
viz. That God is so wholly to be
loved, that it is defrauding Him, to
place the least Degree of our Love
upon the Creatures; And that therefore,
though they may be sought and
injoyed by us as Goods, yet they
cannot be desired by us as such, without
Sin. This Inconceivableness of
any other Sense, that could (by his
Auditors at least) be put upon his
Words; might, I doubt not, in any
other Case, plead Moses’s Excuse to
Mr. N. himself, for having thus
transgress’d, as he thinks, against Logick
and Grammar, whilst he express’d
himself in a way, that may
well be suppos’d to have been as familiar
and usual then, as it is now.
It is to be hoped, that to many others
he will not need excuse in this,
wherein, (with what has a Natural
Connexion, and is accordingly, out of C1r 43
of Moses, joined to it by our Saviour)
he has so well comprehended
the Duty of Mankind, that Christ
says, “This do, and thou shalt live:”
That is, “Love the Lord they God with
all thy Soul, with all thy Heart, with
all thy Mind, and with all thy Strength:
And thy Neighbour as thyself.”

These Commands have no Obscurity,
or Difficulty at all to be understood,
if he have honest Hearts,
and Heads no possess’d with an Hypothesis
which every thing must be
made to chime to. For to love any
thing with all our Hearts, is in its
known and usual Signification, to
love it ardently. Moses joins to loving
God with all our Hearts, loving
him also, with all our Souls, and all
our Minds; That is, with all the
Faculties of our reasonable Nature,
And by this, we are taught not only
to love him very ardently, but
above all other things; As being our
Creator, and great Benefactor, upon
whom we depend every Moment,
and from whom we receive all the C Good C1v 44
Good that we injoy, and from whose
Bounty we expect all that we hope
for; As also, as being every way in
himself infinitely (beyond all Degrees
of Comparison) a Being the
most lovely. Foolish Men (too frequent
Experience shows) love ardently
oftentimes, without considering
whether the Object of their
Love be worthy of it. But to love
with the Mind and the Soul, as well
as the Heart, is not to love so; but
to love with the Understanding, Rationally,
as well as Passionately. And
we cannot Love God with our Souls
and with our Mind, that is, with the
Application of our Understandings,
and with a reasonable Love, without
loving him above all his Creatures;
Because he is infinitely more lovely;
And every ones reason, when he consults
it, must always assent that he
is so.

The Duty then that we are taught
is plainly what reason requires, viz.
That we love the most lovely Being
above all others; And that all the Powers, C2r 45
Powers, and Faculties of our Mind,
consent in this Preference of him:
That we think of him (as well as we
are able) as his is; and pay the highest
Tribute of Affection, and Adoration,
to him that our Natures are capable
of. This is also plainly Practicable,
and what we may know whether
we perform or no, by asking
our selves, whether we are willing
to part with any other Good for the
Sake of this; (as Father, Mother,
Husband, Wife, or Children &c.)
Which our Saviour tells us, whoever
is not ready to part with for his
Sake is not worthy of him; But that
whosoever parts with any of these
for the Gospel’s Sake, shall receive
manifold Reward, both in this Life,
and in the World to come. Now if
none of these were allow’d to be desirable
to us, but to be only Objects
of our Charity (as Mr. N. says they
ought to be) Why should we deserve
so great Reward for forsaking of them
for God’s Sake? And why should
our Saviour, as he plainly does, confirmC2 firm C2v 46
the Desireableness of these
things to us, if they were not in
some Degree allow’d to be desired?

But Mr. N. says, “we are commanded
to ‘Love our Neighbour, as our
selves’; And that is being plain, that
we do not love our selves with a Love
of Desire, therefore it is plain that
we ought not to love our Neighbour
so.”

Moses, in Levit. xix. from whence
the above cited Text is taken, having
rehears’d divers other Laws to
the People, comes to tell them what
they owe to their Neighbour;
which he does from the 13 to the
18th. Verse with which he thus
concludes: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor
hear any grudge against the Children of
thy People. But thou shalt love thy
Neighbour as thy self.” The Sense of
these Words could not be mistaken
by any one who was not prepossess’d
with an Hypothesis, which he was
willing to support from Scripture
Authority. For Moses having told
the People, That “they should not defraudfraud C3r 47
their Neighbour; That they
should not mock at his Infirmities:
That they should not oppress him; But
judge in Righteousness, not respecting
the Person of the Poor or the Rich;
That they should not only not stand
against the Blood of their Neighbour;
But also, not hate him in their Heart;”
And further, That they should not
only take care of his Temporal
Wellfare, but also of his Spiritual;
By “rebuking him when he sins”; And
likewise, be so far from avenging
themselves when injured by him,
that “they should not so much as bear a
Grudge against him”; He concludes
all with that which ought to be the
Spring from which all these good
Offices to our Neighbour should
proceed; and which in short, fully
teaches us the Extent of our Duty to
him: “Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour
as thy self”. That is, plainly, That
as we love our selves; and from that
Principle of Love, do good to our
selves; so we should also love our
Neighbour, and from that Principle C3 of C3v 48
of Love to him, should do him all
the good that we can: Not only
barely performing towards him the
outward Acts of those Duties here
injoined, or any other; But performing
them upon the same Principles
of Delight, and Complaisance
in his well being which we have in
our own; Without which, all our
Performances will be defective.

We must here consider, Moses
speaking either as a Lawgiver, or as
a Philosopher. If as the First, then
without doubt he must be thought
to have spoke so, as the People
whom he spoke to could the earliest
apprehend him. And the whole
Scope of his Discourse, makes the
above-mentioned Sense of his Words
plainly the most obvious meaning of
them, viz. That as People love
themselves, and upon that Principle
of Love do good to themselves; So
also it is their Duty to love their
Neighbour; without which, they
cannot discharge what they owe to
him. Neither could any other Sense be C4r 49
be put upon the Words of “Moses,
Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour as thy
self;” Without the Learned Distinction
of Love of Benevolence, and
Love of Concupiscence; Which it
is hard to believe, That Mr. N, or
any one else can think many, if any,
of the Israelites were acquainted
with. Tho’ if he could suppose they
had been so, and that Moses himself
Philosophiz’d as ill as the People;
I wonder Mr. N. should not see that
it would yet make nothing to his
purpose: Since Moses is not here telling
them all that they lawfully
may do, but all that they necessarily
must do, not fail in their
Duty.

But it Mr. N. had rather Moses
should be consider’d here, speaking
as a Philosopher, according to, (and
instructing the People in) the true
Nature of things; as well as laying
down Precepts from them to obey;
It is then more evident, That the
Words of Moses will not only not C4 comply C4v 50
comply with the Sense He puts
upon them, but also that they are
opposite to it. For Moses says, “Thou
shalt Love thy Neighbour as thy self:”
That is, thou shalt take the same
Complaisance, in the Being, and
well Being of thy Neighbour, as in
thy own. Now it is manifestly impossible,
and contradictious, that we
should rejoice, and take Complaisance,
in what is no way desirable
to us: Or that we should not desire
that in which we rejoice, and take
Complaisance. The Being therefore,
and well Being of our Neighbour,
must necessarily be desireable to us;
and we could not otherwise love him
as our selves. For it is certain, That
our own Being, and well Being, are
desirable to us: (Who is there that
does not desire the Continuation of
them?) And therefore that there is,
no Love without Desire, any more
than without Benevolence (as is apparent
in our Love of God) so far as
the Objects of our Love admits of
both.

But C5r 51

But Love simply, as is above said,
is that Disposition, or Act, of the
Mind, which we find in our selves
towards any thing we are pleas’d
with; and consists barely in that
Disposition, or Act; And cannot
be distinguish’d into different Acts
of wishing well, or Benevolence;
And Desiring: Which are other different
Acts of the Mind, exerted according
to the different Objects of
our Love. We desire to injoy in every
thing, that in them which delights
us: And we wish well to the Being
of every thing that helps to make
us happy. If their Being can be
continued with our Injoyment of
them; that Injoyment is also necessarily
desired by us: It being impossible
for any Creature not to Desire
whatever appears to them to make
a part of their Happiness.

But now whence is it that arises
either those Wars, and Violences,
that are in the World amongst Men
one with another; or those Tumults
and Perturbations, that too frequently C5 spring C5v 52
spring up in their own Breasts,
when all things without them are
Serene, Peaceable, and Quiet? From
Desire, it is true, all these Mischiefs
proceed: And Desire is the
inexhaustible Fountain of Folly, Sin,
and Misery.

It is not therefore worthy of our
greatest Application, and Endeavours,
to free our selves from so
Dangerous Evils? Without doubt it
is so. And this has always been the
Care of the Wife: Present, as well as
Future Happiness, being concern’d
in it.

“Qui Cupit aut metuit, juvat illum sic Domus aut res; Ut Lippum pictæ Tabulæ fomenta podagram, Auriculas Citharæ collecta sorde dolentes.”

But we are to enquire what remedy
Religion gives us to this Disease? And
that we are sure can be no other than
Reason prescribes; which is to proportionportion C6r 53
our Desires to the worth of
things: For where they go beyond
that, we are certain to be disappointed,
whether we miss, or obtain, what
we desire. But so far as the injoyment
of things are in their real
worth answerable to our Desires; so
far we are really Happy: And should
we always so succeed in a constant
train of our Desires, we should, according
to our Capacity, be perfectly
Happy.

We cannot conceive any Being to
but without Desires but God. Nor can
we conceive it to be a fault for any
Creature to act suitable to its Nature;
and desire things that can be
injoy’d; and will contribute to its
Happiness. This I am sure Holy Writ
allows us: For the Apostle tells us,
That “God has given us all things
richly to injoy.” And Moses himself,
(whatever Metaphysical Notions Mr.
N. puts into him) tells the People
of Israel, Deut. xxvi. II. “Thou shalt
rejoice in every good thing which the
Lord thy God has given to thee; Thou and C6v 54
and the Levite, and the Stranger that
is amongst you:” Which was but suitable
to the Land of Promise, flowing
with Milk, and Honey, proposed
to the Desires of that whole People.
And, I think, we may say, not one
of the Six hundred Thousand would
have marched through the Wilderness,
had not Moses allow’d them to
desire the good things of Canaan,
but told them they must desire nothing
of the Creature. But our Errour,
and Unhappiness is, that we
do not regulate our Desires aright
They are not under the Government,
and Direction of our Reason,
and Judgment; but lead these away
Captive with them in their endless
Chace after whatever strikes our
Imaginations with any Pleasing Idea.
The best Remedy for which that
Reason can prescribe, is what Religion
has injoyn’d us; viz. an Ardent
Love of God above all things.
For our Desires placed upon this Object
will not only never be disappointed;
But also the Love of God above C7r 55
above all other things, will the most
effectually secure us from any immoderate
Love of any of his Creatures:
Because the contrariety between
such a Love of God, and any
sinful or inordinate Love of the
Creature makes them inconsistent.
If therefore the Love of God, and
the Interests of another life, were
constantly our Ruling and Predominant
Passion; If in this sense (as low
as it seems to Mr. N.) we did Love
God “with all our Heart, with all our
Soul, and with all our Strength”; We
should not only be secure of doing
our Duty, but also make the best
provision that we could for our Happiness
even here in this World. For
then the disappointments we might
meet with in the Love of any thing
else, would never indanger the foundations
of our Satisfaction; which,
like a House built upon a Rock, could
not be mov’d by any Storms or
Tempests of Fortune: And we
might say, with Dr. H. More, What’s C7v 56 “What’s Plague, or Prison, Loss of Friends, War, Dearth, or Death, that all things Ends? Mere Bugbears for the Childish Mind; Pure Panick Terrors of the Blind.”
Which however it may look to
some like a Religious Rant, is no
more than in other instances we may
find Experience to have made good
the truth of. For even in the Love
of the things of this World, very
often, one Affection, or Desire, has
so much the Possession of a Man’s
Heart, that all others (how natural
a tendency soever he has to them)
do but very weakly, and superficially
affect him in their Success,
or Miscarraige: And this no Man that
is either very Ambitious; very Covetous;
very much in Love; or possess’d
strongly with any other Passion;
can deny to be so.

The C8r 57

The Love of God therefore as we
are capable of loving him, (that is,
chiefly, not solely) does effectually
secure our Happiness, and consequently
our Duty: For he desires
nothing of us, but that we should be
as Happy as he has made us capable
of Being; And has laid no Traps,
or Snares, to render us Miserable;
Nor does he require impossible Performances
from us. Yet it is true
nevertheless, that the constant Communication
that we have with sensible
Objects, which are apt too far
to ingage our Affections, makes the
Regulation of our Desires to demand
our greatest Care, and Watchfulness:
And too much can never be said of
the Necessity of this Duty, which in
general consists in desiring every
thing according to its worth: And
the Objects of our Desires are either
Things of Temporal concern only, or
of Eternal also; between which, as
there cannot be in themselves, so
therefore there ought not to be in our
Estimation, any Comparison.

Of C8v 58

Of things Temporal which are
the Objects of our Desires, They
are either such as are so, from Wants
of Nature; or Wants of our own
making. For it is certain, That Custom,
and Education (to which we
owe most of the Mischiefs we suffer,
and usually charge upon Nature)
have procur’d us very many Wants
which She intended us not; And
different Countries, and Ages of
the World: And these Wants are
very many more (especially in the
Civiliz’d Nations as we call them)
than the Wants of Nature; viz. “Queis humana sibi doleat. Natura negatis.”

They are wise who indeavour to
contract their Desires to the last:
But whoever says the Denial of what
Nature requires, ought not to be
esteem’d an Unhappiness, talks like
a Disciple of Chrysippus, and not of
Jesus Christ; Whose followers are so often C9r 59
often exhorted to do good to all
Men: Which, at least a chief part
of it, consists in removing the Pains
and Miseries they suffer from their
Natural Wants, and Necessities: And
This great part of Charity must be
perform’d according to that Rule of
the Apostle, Heb. xiii. 16. “To do
good and to communicate forget not,
for with such Sacrifice God is well
pleased.”

And altho’ when the want of those
things which Nature requires, comes
in competition with any good of
Eternal Concernment, they may well
be thought light, and be slighted in
that Comparison; yet in themselves
they cannot, nor ought to be so:
And our Master himself, thought
thus; When “for the Joy that was set
before him he indured the Cross,” &c.
But tho’ it be a great part of Wisdom
to contract our Desire, only to what
Nature requires; Yet, as we must
not seek the Satisfaction of our Natural
Appetites, when it cannot be
obtain’d without prejudice to some Duty C9v 60
Duty which ought at that time to be
perferr’d; So the gratification of Appetites
which are not properly Natural,
but which we have receiv’d
from Custom, and Education, is not
always Sinful. For besides that Custom
(which it may be was none of
our fault) is oftentimes as strong as
Nature in us; Those acquired Appetites
are also many times no ways
prejudicial to what we owe either to
God, or our Neighbour; And where
they are not so, their Gratification
cannot be Sinful. Our Saviour, who
said, “This do, and thou shalt Live;” assures
us, That he who heartily loves God,
and his Neighbour as himself, can
make no mistake in his Duty dangerous
to his Salvation: And those
Mistakes which are so, only to our
happy living whilst here; are sufficiently
punish’d in the disappointment
they carry along with them.
It is not therefore hard for a Man,
if he be sincere, to know when his
Desires are rightly regulated: And
he will need no Casuist besides himself,self, C10r 61
to tell him what, and how far,
he may lawfully Love, or Desire;
and what or how far he may not do
so. Loves he any thing in the World
to the prejudice of his Love of God,
or his Neighbour; it is Sinful: Does
he not do so, there is no Sin. To
oppose this, would be to contradict
those words of our Saviour.
And indeed these two great Duties
of the Love of God, and our Neighbour,
imply or include each other.
“If,” says the Apostle, ( 1 John iv. 20.)
“a man say, I love God, and hateth his
Brother, he is a Liar;” And v. 12.
“If we love one another, God dwelleth
in us, and the Love of God is perfected
in us.” Again, v. 7. “Let us love
one another, every one that loveth is
born of God, and knoweth God:” v. 8.
“He that loves not, knoweth not God:”
Chap. iii. 17. “But who so has this
Worlds Goods, and seeth his Brother
have need, and shutteth up his Bowels
of Compassion from him, how dwelleth
the Love of God in him?”

God C10v 62

God in an invisible Being: And it
is by his Works, that we are led
both to know, and to love him.
They lead us to their invisible Author.
And if we lov’d not the Creatures,
it is not conceiveable how we
should love God; at least, how they
should have lov’d him, who not having
the Law, yet did by Nature
the things contain’d in the Law.
And this, however opposite to what
some tell us, seems nevertheless the
sense of the above-named Apostle,
who says ( John iv. 20. “He that
loveth not his Brother whom he has
seen, how can he love God whom he has
not seen?” And I would demand of
any one if they could suppose themselves,
or any other, never to have
loved any Creature, what they could
imagine they should love? I suppose
it must be reply’d by such a one, That
as he was not the Author of his own
Being, and saw clearly that he could
not be produced by nothing; He
was thereby led to the Acknowledgment
of a Superiour Being, to whom he C11r 63
he was indebted for his own; and
therefore stood obliged to love him.
But Being, or Existence, barely consider’d,
is so far from being a Good,
that in the state of the Damn’d, few
are so Paradoxical as not to believe
it an intolerable Misery: And many,
even in this World, are so unhappy,
that they would much rather part
with their Existence, than be eternally
continued in the State they are
in. The Author of our Being therefore
merits not our Love, unless he
has given to us such a Being as we
can Love. Now if none of the Objects
that every way surround us,
were pleasing to us; How could our
Beings, that have a continual Communication
with, and necessary Dependance
upon these, be so?

But if the Objects that surround
us do please us; that is, if we do
love them; As it is then evident,
they must be the first Objects of our
Love, so from their Gratefulness, or
Pleasingness to us, it is also evident,
that we have both the Idea of Love, and C11v 64
and are led to the Discovery of the
Author of that Being, that produces
what is lovely. And like as our own
Existence, and that of other Beings,
has assur’d us of the Existence of
some Cause more Powerful than
these Effects; so also the Loveliness
of his Works as well assures us, that
that Cause, or Author, is yet more
Lovely than they, and consequently
the Object the most worthy of our
Love. But if none of those Beings
which surround us did move our
Love, we should then both be ignorant
of the Nature of the Author of
all things, and of Love it self. For
what should then exert it, that it
should not lie for ever Dormant?
And which way could we (in the
state we are in) receive the Idea of
Love, or Lovely? For God as Powerful
(which is all we should know
of him, consider’d barely as a Creator)
is no more an Object of Love
than of Hate, or Fear; and is truly
an Object only of Admiration. It
seems therefore plain, that if any could C12r 65
could be without the Love of the
Creatures, they would be without
the Love of God also: For as by the
Existence of the Creatures, we come
to know there is a Creator; so by
their Loveliness it is that we come
to know That of their Author, and
to Love him.

But it will be said here, That we
have Pleasing Sensations (’tis true)
as soon as Perception; But that we
have them not from the Beings
which surround us, but from God.
I ask, can we know this, before we
know that there is a God? Or, will
they say that we know there is a
God as soon as ever we have Perception?
Let it be true, that the
Creatures have receiv’d no efficiency
from God to excite pleasing Sensations
in us, and are by the occasional
Causes of those we feel: Yet, does
a Child in the Cradle know this? Or
is this apparent so soon as it is that
the Fire pleases us when we are
Cold? or Mean when we are Hungry?
No, nor is it at any time a self- C12v 66
self-evident Truth. We must know
many other Truths before we come
to know this; which is a Proposition
containing many complex Ideas
in it; and which we are not capable
of framing, till we have been long
acquainted with pleasing Sensations.
In the mean while, it is certain, that
till we can make this Discovery, we
shall necessarily Love that which appears
to us to be the Cause of our
Pleasure, as much as if it really were
so; It being unavoidably by us the
same thing to us: And we are necessitated
by God himself to that
which Mr. N. says is truly Idolatry.
For our Passions are not moved by
the reality, but appearance of things,
To the prevention of which, this
Notion were it true, and receiv’d
amongst Men as such, could be of
no use at all, neither could it teach
them not to ascend to the Love of
God, by the Love of Creatures:
Since it can be of use to none till
they are convinc’d of it, and none
are capable of being convinc’d of it, till D1r 67
till sensible Objects by appearing the
Causes of their Pleasing Sensations,
have gotten Possession of their Love,
and have as soon assur’d them that
God is the Object the most worthy
of their Love, as they have assured
them of his Existence. It is true, when
first in our infancy we feel pleasing
Sensations, we are no more capable
of being taught by them that there
is a Superiour Invisible Being that
made these things to affect us thus,
who therefore ought supreamly to be
lov’d; than that this Invisible Being,
at the Presence of these Objects,
exhibits to us a part of his own Essence,
by which these Pleasing Sensations
are excited on occasion of
those Objects without us, and that
therefore he is only and solely to be
loved. But tho’ we are uncapable of
these both alike, when first we cry
for the Fire, or the Sucking-Bottle;
Yet it is certain, that by the former
way we are not only safe, all the time
of our Ignorance, from the Sin of
Idolatry, and the fatal pre-ingagementD ment D1v 68
of a sinful affection; but that
our love to God upon that ground is
of easier deduction, and earlier apprehended
than by the latter. So
soon as we do being the leave off
judging by appearances, and are Capable
of being convinc’d that the
Diameter of the Sun exceeds that of
a Bushel; We are capable also of understanding
that there is a Superiour
Invisible Being, the Author of those
things which afford us pleasing Sensations,
who therefore is supreamly
to be loved. But if we are not capable
of scaping Idolatry unless we
love God alone, because he immediately
exhibits to us a part of his
Essence, by which all pleasing Sensations
are caus’d in us, I fear all
Mankind (before this present Age)
lived and died Idolaters, and the
greatest part for the future will do
so; Since I guess not One of a Thousand
will be found capable of apprehending,
and being convinced of this
new Hypothesis of seeing all things
in God. And as, I think, this cannot be D2r 69
be denied, so is it also more suitable
to the Wisdom, and Goodness of God,
that it should be true. For one must
say, that the Happiness and Welfare
of Mankind were ill taken care for,
if it depended upon a Knowledge,
which not only few are ever likely
to have, but which comes too late
to any for much Use to be made of
it. For when sensible Ideas have taken
Possession of us for Twelve, or
Twenty Years, they must be very
ignorant of the constitution of Humane
Nature, that can think it possible
they should presently, or probably
they should ever, be dispossess’d
by a Notion, altho’ a true one.

And for this, Mr. N. is not so
kind as to furnish us with any remedy.
But he whom he is suppos’d
to have receiv’d this Hypothesis
from, indeavours to solve the Goodness
and Wisdom of God in this
Matter, and to help us out of this
Difficulty, by making this Principle
of our being obliged to have no Love
for the Creatures, to be the very D2 Ground D2v 70
Ground upon which Christianity
stands; Which he thus, in short,
accounts for.

We must not Desire, or Love the
Creatures, they being uncapable to
be our Good. We yet do Love,
and desire them, tho’ Reason assures
us of This. And our Doing thus, is
the Original Sin which we bring into
the World with us: Which makes
us Children of Wrath, and liable to
Damnation; Unable to please God
but by a Mediator, both God and
Man, who only could atone the
Justice of God by the Excellency of
his Sacrifice; Intercede to God by
the Dignity of his Priesthood; and
send us the Holy Ghost by the quality
of his Person.

But as this Ground of Christianity
has a weak Foundation, viz. The
Creature’s being only occasional
Causes of our Pleasing Sensations,
(which is neither proved, nor would
support the Superstructure that is
rais’d upon it, if it could be proved)
So it is to be hoped, that if we rejectject D3r 71
what so few have receiv’d, or
so much as thought of, we may yet
be good Christians. And those seem
more than a little to indanger Christianity,
if not Deism also, who lay
the great stress of their proof upon
the Hypothesis of seeing all things
in God. For in that, the whole Argument
for both (by which Atheists
or Sceptics are propos’d to be
brought over to Deism, or Christianity)
terminates; in the Conversations
Chrestiennes of Mr. Malebranche, lately
Translated into English, for the introducing
amongst us that Unintelligible
way of Practical Religion, above
spoken of. And I doubt not,
but if it were generally receiv’d and
Preach’d by our Divines, that this
Opinion of Seeing all things in
God was the Basis upon which Christianity
was built, Scepticism would
be so far from finding thereby a
Cure, that it would spread it selt
much farther amongst us than it has
yet done; And that many who find
Christianity a very Reasonable ReligionD3 ligion D3v 72
in the Scriptures, would think
it a very unaccountable one in a System
that (laying down That for its
foundation) adds also further, That
the Desire we have to the Creature,
is the Punishment of Sin, not the
Institution of Nature: For this Concupiscence
is transmitted to us from
our first Parent. “Qui voyoit clairement
Dieu en toutes choses: Il sçavoit
avec evidence, que les Crops ne
pouvoient estre son bien, ni le rendre
par eux mêmes heureux ou Malheureux
en aucune maniére: Il estoit
convaincu de l’opération continuelle
de Dieu éur luy; Mais sa Conviction
n’estoit pas sensible. Il le connoissoit
sans le sentir. Au contraire il sentoit
que les Corps agissoient sur lui,
quoy qu’il ne le connût pas. Il est
vrai qu’estant raisonnable, il devoit
suivre sa lumiére, et non pas son sentiemnt;
& qu’il pouvoit facilement
suivre sa lumiére contre son sentiment,
sa connoisance claire contre sa
sensation confuse, parce qu’il arrestoit
sans peine ses sentimens, lors-qu’il le “vouloit, D4r 73
vouloit, à cause qu’il étoit sans concupiscene.
Cependant s’arrêtant
trop à ses sens, se laissant aller peuà-peu
à les écouter plus volontiers
que Dieu même, à cause que les sens
parlent toûjours agréablement, et
que Dieu ne le portoit pas à l’écouter
par des plaisirs prévenans qui auroient
diminué sa Liberté; vous
concevez bien comment il à pû s’éloigner
de Dieu jusqu’à le perdre de
vûe, pour s’unir de volonté à une
Creature,” Entr. iv. p. 106, 107. “Who
did clearly see God in all things, and
evidently knew that Bodies could not
be his true Good, nor properly make
him in the least happy, or unhappy, and
was fully convinc’d of God’s continued
Operation on him. But he had no sensible
conviction: He knew this, but without
feeling it. On the contrary, he
could feel that Bodies acted on him,
tho’ he could not know it: Yet having
Reason, he should have follow’d his
Light, not his Sentiment; And could
have done it; since he could stop his
Sentiment when he pleas’d, being free D4 from D4v 74
from Concupiscence: However deferring
to his senses, and suffering himself
to hearken to them more willingly
than to God, by reason the senses always
more pleasingly, and God did not
move him by pre-ingageing Pleasure,
which might have lessen’d his freedom,
it is easie to conceive how he came to
remove himself so far from God as to
lose sight of him, and to joyn himself
to the Creature.” The same Author
also gives us an account how Adam’s
Posterity came to be infected; (which,
it seems, was not from Adam, as is
commonly taught but from Eve)
“à cause de l’union ques les enfans ont
avec leur mere,” p. 110. “By reason of
the Union that Children have with
their Mother.” “Il n’y a point de femme
qui n’ait dans le cerveau quelque
trace & quelque movement d’esprits,
qui la sasse penser, et qui la porte à
quelque chose de sensible. Or quand
l’enfant est dans le sein de sa mere,
il a les mêmes traces et les mêmes
émotions d’esprits que sa mere; donc
en cet état il connoît et aime les “corps, D5r 75
corps,” p. 111. “And there is no Woman
that has not some traces in her
Brain, and motions of her Spirits,
which carry her to something sensible.
Now when the Child is in the Womb
of its Mother, it has the same traces,
and the same motion of the Spirits:
Therefore in this estate it knows and
loves Bodies, and consequently is born
a Sinner.” And this no holiness
of the Mother can hinder; Since
“L’amour de Dieu ne se communique
pas comme l’amour des Corps:
Dont la raison est, que Dieu n’est
pas sensible, et qu’il n’y a point de
traces dans le Cerveau, qui par l’institution
de la Nature representent
Dieu, ni aucune des choses qui sont
purement intelligibles.

Une femme peut bien se representer
Dieu sous la forme d’un Venerable
Vieillard: Mais lors qu’elle pensera
à Dieu; son enfant pensera à
un Vieillard: Lors qu’elle aimera
Dieu, son enfant aura de l’amour
pour les Vieillards,” p. 112, 113. “The
Love of God does not communicate it D5 self D5v 76
self like the love of Bodies; Of which
the reason is, that God is not sensible,
and there are no Vestiges in the Brain,
which by the institution of Nature represent
God, or anything that is purely
intelligible.

So that the Children of Women who
represent to themselves God in the
form of a Reverend old Man, will
love Old Men: And whenever the Mothers
think upon God and love God, the
Children will think upon Old Men and
love Old Men.” Wherefore from this
Original Corruption, springs the Necessity
of a Mediator, who must be
both God and Man, &c.

There seems to be some things in
this Hypothesis very unintelligible;
And also that it has Consequences intolerable
to be admitted. But if
neither of these were so; ’tis yet
reason enough not to imbrace it,
that it is no where either reveal’d, or
prov’d; it being all but a Chain of
Consequences (such as they are) depending
upon the Supposition of our
seeing all things in God. For the Desiresire D6r 77
we have to the Creatures, is
asserted to be the Punishment of Sin,
not the Institution of Nature, because
(which is a strange Reason) the Desire
of the Creatures is suppos’d Sinful,
upon the ground of their not
being the Efficient Causes of our
Pleasing Sensations. And the Proof
which is brought that they are not
the Efficient Causes of our Pleasing
Sensations is, that we see all things
in God. But this Proof it self which
is the Foundation of all, remains yet
to be proved. For neither Pere Malebranche,
nor any one else has done
it; nor I think can do it. And that
which might alone give just ground
for this Suspicion is, That this Hypothesis
tends to the shaking and unsettling
the known Grounds of True
Piety; tho’ He, and a late Follower
of his, would establish it upon this
new, and formerly unknown Foundation.

But setting aside those Absurdities
that this new Conceit would run us
into, in Morality (which are sufficient Reasons D6v 78
Reasons for rejecting it) there are, I
doubt not, some, who, if they would
be at the Pains to treat it Philosophically,
might be able to demonstrate
its Weakness and Inconsistency
on other Grounds, as well as those
or Morality. But whether, or no,
any one shall believe That a Work
worth their while; This Hypothesis
seems, yet at least, of moment enough
to be so far inquired into, as these
Papers have Undertaken: Since how
unserviceable or injurious soever it
really is to Piety, it has yet been
Seriously and Zealously pretended
to be of great Use to Religion; And
that not only by a young Writer,
whose Judgment may, perhaps, be
thought Byassed by the Affectation of
Novelty; But also it is made the very
Ground of Christianity, by a Man of
an establish’d Character in the World
for Philosophical Science. But as
Christianity (whatever some are perswaded)
is a rational Religion, and
needs no Inventions of Men to support
it; so it receives no Advantage by D7r 79
by this, which it has not in the Orthodox,
and commonly receiv’d Doctrine
of Original Sin. That serves
to all the purposes this is brought in
for, as well; and therefore makes this
Needless; Unless it be pretended that
the Opinion of Seeing all things in
God, &c. is needful to give Light
and to make the commonly receiv’d
Doctrine of Original Sin intelligible;
Which is, to charge this Doctrine
with having wanted such Evidence
before this Discovery was made, as
was necessary for the making it the
Foundation of Christian Religion:
Which surely those cannot agree to
who have made it so. And those
who have not made it so, will not be
concern’d in the Light pretended to
be brought to it; The thing it self
being no more prov’d by this Explanation
of the manner of it, than
it we before. Upon which of these
two accounts, or whatever other,
Mr. N. declin’d, or approv’d not
the declaring this Opinion of the
Creatures not being Efficient Causes of D7v 80
of our Sensations, &c. to be the
Ground and Basis of Christianity;
Yet certainly his Subject (especially
being Preached to a Country Congregation)
obliged him, if not to account
for the Goodness of God in
this Matter, in making us without
any fault of ours, the Subjects of his
Wrath; yet at least to have show’d
which way we were to be brought
out of the State, and by what means
after we were come to the Knowledge
of the Truth, we should be
made obedient to it. For if (as it is
to be hoped he does) he believes God
to wink at our Sins in the time of
our Ignorance, before we are capable
of understanding the Creatures to be
only Occasional Causes of our Pleasing
Sensations; Yet we must suppose
when Men are convinced of that
Truth, they are call’d on not only
to Repentance, but Amendment.
And if Loving the Creatures so, as
yet to be willing readily to part with
them all for the Love of God, or rather
than offend in any thing that we D8r 81
we know to be our Duty, (which is
the highest Love of him that most
People can conceive themselves capable
of,) will not hinder us from
being truely Idolaters, and Sacrilegious;
Whilst being Hungry or Cold,
Food or Fire are desired by us; And
that we cannot Love our Children,
or Friends, without looking on them
as Goods Desireable to us; Methinks
he should tell us by what
means we may get rid of Appetites
and Affections so offensive to God,
and destructive to our Soul’s Happiness;
and should let us know whether
he finds this attainable by our
own Natural Abilities, or whether
Christ has Purchas’d the Ability of
doing it for those that believe in
him; Or what we are to do, or conceive
of our selves in an Estate so
deplorable. He says indeed, “That
could we but see how God alone acts in
us, and Causes all our Sensations, whilst
the Creatures stand mute, and silent,
like so many Ciphers in his Presence,
having not the least Activity or Operationration D8v 82
upon us; We should quickly dismiss
the whole Creation from our
Hearts, and be wholly swallow’d up by
the Love of God.” But as the case is,
he gives us no Remedy at all. For
his making no question afterwards, but
that it is thus in Heaven, and that
this is the Measure of Divine Love
There, is so far from helping us; That
it will not so much as infer (if he
could prove it were so) that this ought
to be the Measure of Divine Love
upon Earth. But we have a better
Authority than his for it, That we
know not what we shall be There;
Therefore cannot tell what may be
added to, or chang’d in our present
Faculties: And as for those of Angels,
and Arch-Angels, (which he
mentions) we are yet less acquainted
with them: And every one will
not be convinc’d (tho’ they did agree
in Mr.N--’s Supposition concerning
them) that it were more reasonable
to propose or pray to be like them
(at least whilst upon Earth) then it
would be for the Fishes (if they were capable D9r 83
capable of it) to propose, or pray to
God, that they might fly in the Air
like Birds; or Ride Post-Horses as
Men do. For it may be our Earthly
Element no more admits of the first,
than theirs of the last. And those
must be very little considerate or serious
in their Prayers, who will venture
to ask God for their sakes, to
change the Order of Nature, which
he has establish’d. It is certain, that
if we had no Desires but after God,
the several Societies of Mankind
could not hold together, nor
the very Species be continued: For
few would give themselves Care, and
Sorrow, in the pursuit of Possessions
not desireable.

But Mr. N. pretends that there are
places of Scripture, besides that of
his Text, which make good his Opinion.
Scripture-Authority, is that
to which Reason may safely refer it
self: But it were to be wished that
it were appeal’d to with more Care
and Consideration than it often is;
and that Men would not presently, because D9v 84
because perhaps they are perswaded
their Opinions are Right, back them
with any Text of Scripture that they
can make Chime to them, tho’ they
be very little, or not at all to the
Purpose; as they could not oftentimes
but discern, if they would but
either regard the Scope of the Discourse;
or read to the end of it.

The first Text Mr. N. brings for
his purpose, is Mat. vi. 24. “No Man
can serve two Masters; for either he
will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other; ye cannot serve God
and Mammon.” Here, Mr. N. says, “We
are plainly told, we cannot divide between
God, and the Creature: and the
reason is not only because our Capacities
are too narrow and scanty to be empoly’d
upon two such vastly different
Objects; but also because we cannot
love either of them, but upon such a
Principle as must utterly exclude the
Love of the other. For we must not
love any thing but what is our true
Good, what kin both deserve and rewardward D10r 85
our Love: And there can be
but one thing that is so, and that must
either be God or the Creature. If
then the Creature be our Good, let us
Love That, and that only; That, and
not God: But if God be our True Good
(as most certainly he is) then let us
Love God, and God only; God, and not
the Creature: For ’tis a most inconsistent
and impracticable thing to talk
of Carving out our Love between both:
Ye cannot serve God And Mammon.”
Practical Discourse p. 64, 65. By
“Mammon”, I suppose was never understood
before, any thing but Riches,
or those things for which Riches
are desired: And our Saviour
here tells us, we must not set our
Hearts upon these things, or make
our selves Slaves, or Servants to
them: That is the Desire of them
must not command us; If we command
it, and make it Obedient to
Reason, it is then certain it does not
command us, and consequently that
we are not Servants to it. This is
then plainly no more, but that our Desires D10v 86
Desires after Riches, &c. must not
be beyond their Worth; So as that
we forget they are perishable, and
uncertain Goods, such as Moth and
Rust do corrupt, and the Violence
and Injustice of Men may deprive us
of; No longer (at best) of any value,
than during our short abode in this
World. For, if we do otherwise,
our Reason is captivated, and we become
truly Servants; The Servants
of Mammon; And cannot be the
Servants of God; Because we cannot
Serve two so opposite and differing
Masters. For it is from the contrariety
of their Commands, and not
from the littleness of our Minds, or
Capacities, that we cannot Serve
God and Mammon; Since neither
little nor great can obey two Masters
that command Contraries; And that
is true of the Apostle. “His Servants
ye are, to whom you obey.” But our
Minds, as little as they are, may
love God, and the Creature; when
the Love of the Creature is Subordinate;
And I think Mr. N. nor no one D11r 87
one else, will deny, That there are
many who sincerely love God, that
do yet love something in the Creature;
And if so, whether their Love
be Sinful, or no, it is evident their
Capacities are not too little love
both; As it is also that our Reason is
not captivated, and we thereby inslav’d,
or render’d the Servants of
every thing that we love. And therefore it is
no more true that we are here forbid
by our Saviour to love any thing but
God, than that our Capacities are
too little to love any two different
Objects. For if Mr. N. means any
thing else by “to be employ’d,” than To
Love, when he says, “That our Capacities
are too narrow and scanty to be
employ’d upon two such vastly different
Objects,” it is not to his purpose. But
if he means by “employ’d”, to Love;
what he affirms is then neither true
in his own sence of Love, nor in that of D11v 88
of the Text. For it is not true that
our Capacities are too narrow to
Love any two different Objects, either
in the smallest degree, (which he
contends for) or so as to become the
Servants of them, which is what the
Text says; Provided, there be no
contrariety in their Commands. His
first Reason therefore therefore why we cannot
divide our Love, viz. From the scantiness
of Our Capacities, is utterly
false; our Capacities being evidently
not too narrow to love any two different
Objects, or even every Object
which appears to us to be lovely.
And there is no reason that if we
love the Creatures in some degree, as
occasions of Pleasure to us (we necessarily
loving whatever is accompanied
with Pleasure) that That Love
of the Creature should exclude the
Love of God; any more than that
the Love of Cherries should exclude
the love of our Friend that gives
them us. And if we love God, yet
less does the Love of him exclude our
Love of his Creatures: For we love them D12r 89
them then not only for the Pleasure
that they occasion us, but for the
sake of their Author; and the more
we Love God, the more we shall
Love his Creatures.

But another Reason, besides the
narrowness of our Capacities, Why
“we cannot divide our Love” between
God and the Creature, is, “because
we cannot love either of them, but upon
such a Principle as must utterly exclude
the love of the other;” which is thus
offer’d to be made out: “We must not
love any thing but what is our true
Good: There can be but one thing that
is so: And that must be either God, or
the Creature.”

What is our “True Good,” he tells us
is that which can both “Deserve and
Reward our Love.” But certainly
whatever is a Good to us, is a “True
Good”; since whatever pleases us, pleases
us: And our Love, which he
says is to be “deserv’d and rewarded”,
is nothing else but that Disposition of
Mind, which we find in our selves
towards any thing with which we are pleas’d. D12v 90
pleas’d. So that to tell us, that we
must not love any thing but what is
our True God; Is as much as to say,
that we must not be pleas’d with any
thing but what Pleases us; which it
is likely we are not in Danger of.
And what is added of “deserving and
rewarding our Love”, being put in as a
Synonymous Expression, to explain to
us what is meant by our True Good;
Our True Good, does consequently
tell us what is meant by “deserving
and rewarding our Love”; They both
signifying one and the same thing.
There can therefore no more be made
of This notable Principle, viz. “That
we must not love any thing but what is
our True Good,” that is, “which can both
deserve and reward our Love”, then
that we must not be pleased with any
thing but what Pleases us; or reflect
upon the Pleasure any thing causes
in us, which never did cause us any
Pleasure.

This, without doubt, carries much
information with it; But the word
“True” (otherwise very impertinent here) E1r 91
here) is Subtilty to insinuate that
which should be prov’d, viz. “That
the Creatures are not the Efficient
Causes” of our Pleasing Sensations.
And in the Lines following, he scruples
not to beg the Question in
more express terms; When he says,
“There can be but one thing that is so;”
viz. our True Good: And then follows,
“and that must be either God, or
the Creature; But if God be our True
Good (as most certainly he is) let us
Love God, and God only; God and
not the Creature: For ’tis a most inconsistent
and impracticable thing to
carve out our Love between both: Ye
cannot serve God, and Mammon.” Here
we see, having needlesly told us that
we “must not love any thing but our
True Good;” That is, that which pleases
us; He tells us next, that there can be
but one thing that is so, viz. our True
Good: Which is yet more evidently
false, than his first Assertion is impertinent.
Notwithstanding, as if
it were evidently True, as it is
manifestly the contrary; He offers E not E1v 92
not any thing at all to make it
good; His Astertion only seeming to
him sufficient to oppose to the daily
Sense and Experience of all Mankind.
But indeed if by True Good,
he did mean our chief Good; then
it is true that there is but one such
Good, and that is God alone, who
is also the Author and Donor of all
our other Good: But in this sense
it is nothing to his purpose. To
conclude his Demonstration, “that we
cannot Love God, or the Creature,
but upon such a Principle as must utterly
exclude the Love of the other;”
Having said we “must Love nothing
but our True Good;” and “that That
can be but one thing”; He tells us
lastly, that that one thing “must be
either God or the Creature.” Which
Conclusion, when he has prov’d his
foregoing Assertion, viz. “That there
can be but one thing our Good”; it may
be convenient for him to explain a
little better; But till he has proved
that there is but one thing a Good
to us, this last Assertion serves for nothing E2r 93
nothing, unless to make it more evident
that he has all along said nothing
to the Purpose. For his Affirmation
“that we cannot Love either
God, or the Creature, but upon such a
Principle as must utterly exclude the
Love of the other,” Was of as much
Authority to us as his Assertion,
“that there can be but one thing a Good
to us”: And there is not more proof
offer’d by him for the one, than the
other.

This, I believe, his own Observation
and Experience, has often offer’d
to him, for the confutation of what
he affirms, viz. That it is not true
that all Men in the World either
Love God, and God only; Or the,
Creature only, and God not at all:
Which ought to be, according to
his Principles. But the Admonition
of St. John, he says, is somewhat
more express to his Purpose than
that our Saviour was, 1 Joh. 11. 15.
“Love not the World nor the things of
the World: If any Man love the
World, the Love of the Father is not E2 in E2v 94
in him.” Here again Mr. N. acknowledges,
that according to the
common Interpretation, “this is meant
of the immoderate love of the World.”
But he says, “they interpreted it so
for want of Principles on which to raise
a higher sense. ’Tis plain the words
import more;” viz. “That we are not to
love the World at all; That all Love
of it is immoderate.” And by his,
former measures (before laid down)
it appears how, and why, it is so.
But I believe St. John will be found
to explain himself much better than
Mr. N. explains him. St. John says,
“Love not the World, nor the things
of the World; If any Man love the
World, the Love of the Father is
not in him.” Now the Question is,
whether Mr. N. be in the right
in understanding (as he does) by
“Love”; every the least degree of
Love: Or whether other Interpreters
are so, in thinking that by “Love”,
immoderate Love is meant: And I
think there needs nothing more to
satisfie us that the last are in the Right E3r 95
Right than Mr. N-’s own concession,
viz. That without his Hypothesis,
this Scripture could not be
understood otherwise than those Interpreters
understand it: So that
unless St. John writ not to be understood
by those he wrote to; or that
the Christians to whom he wrote,
had Mr. N-’s Hypothesis, it is past
doubt that the other Interpreters he
mentions are to be thought in the
Right. But because it is believed by
him, that St. John, who so much
presses Love to others, and himself
so little Love to Mankind, as to leave
the strongest inforcement of their
greatest Duty in obscurity; We will
see whether, or no, there is any appearance
that he did so; And whether
Mr. N-’s Hypothesis serve to illustrate
this Scripture. For that this Hypothesis
could not be learnt from it, is
apparently confess’d; Because the
Hypothesis must be known (as he
himself owns) before the Scripture
Proof of it can be understood: And
therefore our former Argument againstE3 gainst E3v 96
this Hypothesis from the
Goodness, and Wisdom of God, that
would not permit a Doctrine of the
consequence this is pretended to be,
to be so obscure as it is, stands still
good, for all this fresh pretence
to Scripture Proof. But St. John
( 1 Joh. 11. 15.) says, “Love not the
World, nor the things which are in
the World: If any Man love the
World, the Love of the Father is
not in him.” Now that this is meant
of the sinful Pleasures of the World,
or the immoderate, and consequently
sinful Love of Pleasures in themselves
not sinful; what words can
make Plainer than the immediately
following ones, wherein the Reasons
are given why we should not Love,
the World, nor the things of the
World? viz. ( v. 16.) Because all that
is in the World, as “the Lust of the
Flesh, the Lust of the Eye, and the
Pride of Life, is not of the Father,
but is of the World”: That is, proceeds
not from God, but from the
Passions, Vanities, and Follies of corruptrupt E4r 97
and sinful Men: And we should
not set our Hearts upon the World;
That is, even the allowable Pleasures
of it; Because ( v. 17. “The World
passes away”; And therefore by no
means ought to be consider’d as the
ultimate Good of a Being of a more
induring Nature; But is indeed so
far remov’d from it, as the little Duration
of the one holds of proportion
to the endless Duration of the
other. This is what St. John says; And
it seems too plain to need any other
Explanation, than what he himself
has given. But as if every Text in
Scripture were a distinct Aphorism,
it is frequently enough quoted by
some, without any regard to what
goes before, or to what comes after;
with how much sincerity cannot be
said; But certainly to the manifest
bringing into Contempt those Oracles
of Truth.

But for whatever Cause Mr. N.
omitted these Reasons of St. John
for our “not loving the World, and the
things of it”; And substituted one of E4 his E4v 98
his own in the Place; viz. “That the
Creatures are not the Efficient, but
Occasional Cause of our Pleasing Sensations;”
He does say, That, without
the knowledge of this his Hypothesis,
we cannot know that every degree
of Love of the Creature is sinful;
and consequently that St. John’s
Reasons for inforcing the Duty he
urges, were defective. But St. John
tells us not that every degree of
Love of the Creature is sinful: On
the contrary, he says, “If we love not
our Brother whom we have seen, how
can we love God whom we have not
seen?”

Therefore there is no more need
of Mr. N’s Opinion, to inforce what
St. John teaches; than there is use of
what St. John teaches to confirm
Mr. N--’s Opinion. For that St. John
meant not by Love every degree of
Love, is evident; Both because he
would contradict himself if he did,
and also from the Reasons he gives
why we should not love the World,
and the things of the World: viz. Because E5r 99
Because all that is in the World “is not
of the Father, and passes away” quickly.
For he would either have given us
the true Reason of This, or stopping
where Mr. N. did in his Citation of
him, not have misled us, by giving
us Reasons, which not only reach
not the matter, But which also
serve to Determine us to another
sense. For, as short-liv’d Flowers,
tho’ they ought not to imploy the
continual care of our whole lives,
may yet reasonably enough be found
in our Gardens, and delight us in
their Seasons; So the fading Good
Things of this Life, tho’ (for that
reason) they are not to be fixed on
as the Ultimate Good of Eternal Beings,
yet there is no reason why we
may not rejoice in the, as the good
Gifts of God, and find all that Delight
which he has joined with the
lawful use of them.

But St. John says, “Love not”; Therefore
Mr. N. says, we must “not Love
them at all”. Our Saviour also in
St. Matthew, in the Chapter above E5 cited, E5v 100
cited, says, “Seek not”: But Mr. N.
says not in like manner “seek not at all”.
On the contrary, he tells us very
expresly, we may seek the good
things of this World, provided we
love them not. Now, if he knows
a Reason why one of these places
must be taken strictly according to
the Letter, and not the other; he
was doubtless obliged to tell it us;
especially having been so indulgent
to Seeking as to have given no rules
of restriction to that. But our Saviour
says, “Seek not what ye shall
Eat, or what ye shall Drink, or with
what you shall be cloathed, for after
these things do the Gentiles seek.” Mr. N.
must doubtless say to this that our
Saviour meant by not seeking, that
we should not seek immoderately,
and solicitously; And so say others
to what St. John says: The sense of
the Discourse in both places determining
that to be the meaning of
both. And till Mr. N. has told us
why “Seeking” must be understood in
this sense, and not “Loving” be understoodstood E6r 101
so; he cannot surely disallow
of it, if (after his example) we thus
understand the words of St. John, viz.
That we should not love immoderately;
that is, beyond the worth
of what we love. And thus the Admonition
of St. John is no more express
to his purpose than that of our
Saviour, in St. Matt. was. I am
sure the reason with which St. John
inforces his Admonition, is expresly
contrary to that with which Mr. N.
inforces his interpretation of it.
St. John says, “Love not the World, &c.
For all that is in the World, viz.
the lust of the Flesh, the lust of the
Eye, and the Pride of Life, is not of
the Father, but is of the World.” But
Mr. N. says, Love not the World, &c.
For all that is in the World, viz. all
those Pleasures Worldly-minded Men
so greedily hunt after; as “the lust
of the Flesh, the lust of the Eye, and
the Pride of Life,” are not of the
World, but of the Father: Which
seems not only to oppose St. John;
But also sounds very harshly, and offen- E6v 102
offensively to many Pious Persons;
Who are apt to think it unworthy
of, and mis-becoming the Majesty
of the great God, “who is of Purer
Eyes than to behold iniquity”, to be as
it were at the beck of his sinful Creatures,
to excite in them Sentiments
of Delight, and Pleasure, whenever
they are dispos’d to transgress against
his Laws, tho’ in the most gross, and
erroneous Instances.

But the Author of this Hypothesis
tells us, That this is that indeed
which makes Sin to be so exceeding
sinful, viz. That we oblige God in
Virtue of that first immutable Law,
or Order, which he has establish’d
(that is, of exciting Sentiments
of Pleasure in us upon some operation
of Bodies upon us) to Reward
our Transgressions against him
with Pleasure, and Delight. It is
strange that we cannot seem sinful
enough, without having a Power of
forcing God to be a Partner in our
Wickedness! But this is a Consequence
of an Hypothesis whose uselesness,lesness E7r 103
and want of proof, are alone
sufficient Causes for rejecting it. And
if we will once quit what Reason
and Revelation evidently and plainly
tell us, to build our Religion upon
the foundation of uncertain Opinions;
where must we stop? Every
Man, indeed, cannot so handsomly
compose his System as P. Malebranche;
But every Man has as much
Authority to impose it upon others,
or to be credited without Proof.
The abovemention’d account of Sin,
is plainly only supported upon its
being a consequence of our seeing
all things in God; who being the
alone efficient Cause of all our Pleasing
Sensations, must necessarily be
the only efficient Cause of sinful, as
well as innocent Pleasures: But no
Pleasure, simply as Pleasure, being
evil, God is not suppos’d in this by
P. Malebranche the Author of Sin, but
only Man himself; Who, he says,
“étant pecheur & par consequent
indigne d’être récompensé par des
sentimens agréables, oblige Dieu “en E7v 104
en conséquence de ses volontés immuables,
de luy faire sentir du
plaisir dans le tems même qu’il
l’offense.” Entr. III. p. 91. “We being
Sinners, and by consequence unworthy
to be recompenc’d by agreeable Sentiments,
oblige God in consequence of his
immutable Will, to make us feel pleasure
in the time that we offend him.
Viz.” Whenever we Love or Delight
in any Creature. But our seeing all
things in God, upon which this Notion
of Sin, of Original Corruption,
and the following account of Christianity
stands, remains yet to be
better proved; Before we reject, for so
unintelligible a fancy, what is evident
and plain; What may satisfie the
Wise, and what the Weak (whose
Souls are Doubtless of as much value,
and They as much concern’d for
them) may easily comprehend.

The God has made us Reasonable
Creatures, we certainly know: And
it is evident also, that by virtue of
our being such; we are obliged to
Live by the Law of Reason; which whenever E8r 105
whenever we transgress, we must necessarily
offend against God; We inverting
that Order which he has established,
in making that to obey, which
ought to command; and that to command,
which ought to obey. And that
we are so prone (as Experience shews
we are) to offend against this Law
of Reason, is from the Unruliness of
our Affections; Which being strong
in us, (whilst Reason is weak an unable
to direct them) take up with
the first alluring Objects, whose impressions
making settled habits in us,
it is not easie for Reason to remove
them, even when it does discover
their Pravity; and sets us to struggle
against them. And to this loose Education,
and ill Custom, greatly contribute:
There being scarce any
Vice we are capable of, which is not
instill’d into us (or at least the Seeds
of it) in our very Childhood, by
those foolish People that usually have
the Direction of it. For it is obvious
that there are few Children who are
not taught by their Nurses to be Proud, E8v 106
Proud, Angry, Covetous, and Revengeful;
and principled with those
Vices, even before they have Language
enough to talk of them. But
God made Adam a Man, and not a
Child; Therefore his Reason was in
its full strength as early as his Appetites;
and he had not the unhappy
Preventions which others receive. He
himself therefore, and his Posterity,
one would have thought, ran no very
great Hazard of losing those Advantages
his Obedience would have procured
them.

That Mankind did lose by Adam
what they are restor’d to by Jesus
Christ, we are plainly told in the
Scripture: But that by his Miscarriage,
or Eve’s, any one single Soul
should be doom’d to Eternal Misery,
or to any condition worse than not
being; whether immediately, as some
hold, for Adam’s Sin; or by subjecting
them to a state of necessary
sinning; Can neither comport with
the Goodness of God, or is any
where reveal’d in Scripture.

The E9r 107

The last of these Opinions, Pere
Malebranche’s Hypothesis maintains;
tho’ he accounts for it differently
from others. Children, he expresly
tells us, become (through their Union
with their Mothers) Sinners; and
are in a state of Damnation before
they are born into the World. But
both the Apostle and Reason assure
us, that where there is no Law, there
is no Transgression. And Pere Malebranche
opposes this, upon no other
ground offer’d by him for so doing,
but that the conclusion he makes, viz.
That Children are born Sinners, is a
necessary consequence of our seeing
all things in God. For God only causing
us Pleasure, he only has a right
to our Love, and all love of the
Creature is sinful. But “a Child (by
virtue of its union with the Mother)
does, whilst in her Womb, know and
love Bodies; consequently therefore is
a Sinner, and shall be necessarily
Damn’d,” p. 114. (Tho’ indeed in a
Note upon that Word, he mitigates
the sense of it to being eternally depriv’dpriv’d E9v 108
of the Possession of God). And
that we come into the World utterly
uncapable to please God, (as he expresly
says we do) is not through
any fault at all of our own, but for
Eve’s; Concerning whose Transgression
any ways influencing her Posterity,
the Scripture yet makes no
mention at all.

However, this Principle is made
by Pere Malebranche ( p. 94.) the Foundation
of Christianity. But it is certain,
that the New Testament tells
us nothing of it: And there it is,
surely, that we ought to look for the
Christian Religion. What we are
there told, is, That “as in Adam all
died, so in Christ shall all be made alive,”
Cor. xv. 22. “That he came to
abolish Death, and to bring Life and
Immortality to light,” Tim. i. 10.
“That we shall be justified by Faith,
without the works of the Law,” Rom. iii.
28 And for this end, “God sent
his Son into the World, that as many
as believe in him might have Eternal
Life. Yet do we then” (says the Apostle)stle) E10r 109
“make void the Law through
Faith? God forbid! yea, we establish
the Law.” Rom. iii. 31. But the Wisdom
of God in Christ Jesus, is manifest
in this, that we are hereby at
once the most effectually put upon
using our Endeavours to “work out our
Salvation with fear and trembling”;
And also kept from Despair, in the
sense of our own weakness to perform
that Law which Adam in his
more Advantageous Circumstances
transgressing against, forfeited thereby
Bliss and Immortality: We having
not only a Promise that we
shall receive from God whatever
(asking as we ought) we shall ask
in his Son’s Name; And also of his
Spirit to help our Infirmities; But
to compleat all, that for the sake of
Christ, our sincere, tho’ imperfect.
Obedience shall be accepted; Faith
in him supplying its defects.

This is what the Scripture tells us
of the Dispensation of God to Mankind
in the Gospel of his Son: Which
is so visibly suitable to, and worthy of E10v 110
of the Divine Wisdom and Goodness,
that no Inventions of Man can
add any thing to it, to make it appear
more so. Yet were our Views
larger than to comprehend only the
compass of our little Globe, they
would probably afford us still further
Matter for our Admiration. For
’tis a thought too limitted and narrow
for Women and Children now
to be kept in, that this Spot of
ours is all the Habitable part of the
Creation. But without understanding
the System of the World, or considering
what Mathematicians and
Naturalists offer to convince us, that
so many Regions fit for Inhabitants
are not empty Desarts, and such numberless
Orbs of Light more insignificant
than so many Farthing Candles;
We read, in the Scripture, of
other Ranks of Intelligent Beings,
besides our selves; Of whom, tho’
it would be Presumption to affirm
any thing beyond what is reveal’d,
yet we know not what Relation may
possibly be between them and us. The E11r 111
The Scripture plainly intimates
great Numbers of them, Superiour
to us in the Dignity of their Creation,
to be fallen by Disobedience
(like Man) from a Happier State;
And also that they are Enemies to us:
Whether out of Envy for what Jesus
Christ had undertaken for our Redemption,
or for other Reasons, we
know not. But by the small account
we have of them, they seem to have
set up themselves in opposition to
their Maker, as thinking themselves
sufficient to crave out their own
Happiness; And shall find full reward
of their Folly and Rebellion, when
the Judgment of the great Day shall
meet them.

But on Man, who after his Transgression
saw his Nakedness, and was
asham’d, the Father of Mercies has
had Compassion, and has found out
a Way for his Restoration: Such a
Way as may well “humble these Proud
ones in the Imagination of their hearts”;
And which leaves no room to us for
Boasting. For it is certain, That “by the E11v 112
the Works of the Law no Flesh shall be
Justified”, Rom. iii. 20. Faith, which
would have preserved Adam in the
state of Innocence, shall alone justifie
his Posterity. And tho’ the Wisdom
of God has made Faith in his Son
that which is required to Salvation,
in those to whom he is reveal’d; We
are told that “the Just”, in all Ages, have
“liv’d by Faith”: Which is necessarily
the Immutable Basis of all true Religion.
For without we believe not
only in the Being, but also in the
Veracity of God, “That he Is, and
that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently
seek him,” it is impossible we
should love “him with all our Hearts,
with all our Souls,” &c. which contains
the whole Moral Law; Whose Obligations
not being Arbitrary, but arising
from the Nature of things, must
necessarily under every Dispensation
be always the same: And Christ
tells us expresly, “He came not to destroy
this Law, but to fulfil it.” He
came to give us a clearer and fairer
Transcript of it; To inforce it by his Au- E12r 113
Authority and Example; To assure us
of our Future Existence, which
Reason could not; And of the great
Love of God to Mankind, in accepting
of Faith to supply the Defects
of Sincere Obedience; By which we
are freed from the Terrours of an
offended Deity; And have hopes of
being made Heirs of a glad Immortality;
Co-heirs with Christ, the
Author and Finisher of our Salvation,
Who, for the Joy that was set before
him, indured the Cross, and despised
the Shame, and has obtain’d for himself
a Kingdom of which all true Believers
are the Subjects. We are restored
by him to a more assured
Felicity than that from which Adam
fell, by not believing that “in the Day
he ate of the forbidden Fruit he should
surely Die;” Too little attending to the
Light of his Reason; (Which would
have taught him not to question the
Divine Veracity) and having yet no
Experience to oppose to the Solicitations
of his Appetite. And perhaps
God in this Restoration of Mankindkind E12v 114
by Jesus Christ (“who took not on
him the Nature of Angels”) having
herein “put down Mighty from their
feats, and exalted those of Low degree,”
does by this Oeconomy of his Providence
in our Salvation, teach all
the Orders of Intellectual Beings,
whom he has made free Agents (as
well as Man) That as he cannot
make a Being Independent on himself
for its Happiness; So the most
inlightned Reason is only safe and
secure, whilst it feels its weakness
and dependency: Which if we be
thoroughly, as we ought, sensible of,
we shall necessarily “love God with all
our Hearts, with all our Souls,” &c.

Mr. N. says these words signifie,
“That we must love nothing but God
alone.” And to confirm that his sense
of them, he brings yet two other
places of Scripture: The first is,
James iv. 4. “Ye Adulterers and Adulteresses,
know ye not that the Friendship
of the World is Enmity with
God? Whosoever therefore will be a
Friend of the World, is the Enemy of God. F1r 115
God.” He tells us here, That in
St. James’s account, “Our Heart is so
much God’s Property and Peculiar, and
ought so intirely to be devoted to him,
that ’tis a kind of Spiritual Adultery
to admit any Creature into a Partnership
with him in our Love.” It is certain
these are not St. James’s words,
and we have only Mr. N-’s Affirmation
that this is his sense. But tho’
Mr. N-’s affirming without any
Proof, that all love of the Creature
is here condemn’d, and said to be a
kind of Spiritual Adultery, needs no
other Answer but a bare Negation;
And the saying without any Proof,
that it is only the inordinate love of
the Creature that is so call’d and condemn’d,
would be enough; Yet the
context further plainly shows, that
that is the meaning of St. James
here, by what he calls Friendship of
the World. To which let me add,
that Adultery does not wholly exclude
all other Love of any other
Person; but a love that comes in
competition, or invades that which F properly F1v 116
properly belongs to the Husband.
For a Woman may love her Brother,
or her Child, without being an Adulteress;
it being not with that Love
that is due to her Husband. The
last place Mr. N. cites to prove that
Love of the Creatures is Sinful, is,
from St. Paul, Gal. vi. 14. “The World
is Crucified to me, and I unto the
World.” Which last words, Mr. N.
says “at once comprize his present conclusion,
that the Creature is not to be”
(in any degree) “the Object of our
love; with the very same ground and
bottom upon which he has built it. For
the Apostle here first of all supposes the
World to be Crucified, that is to be a
Dead, Unactive, Silent, and Quiescent
thing, in respect of himself; as not being
able to operate upon him, or affect his
Soul with any Sentiment as an Efficient
Cause: And then in consequence of that
declares himself to be also Crucified to
the World,” p. 68. which Mr. N. explains
very truly (tho’ not very conformably
to his Opinion) “by being
insensible to all its Charms:” For, accordingcording F2r 117
to his Explanation, St. Paul knew
very well that the World had no Charms.
But whosoever will read this whole Passage
in St. Paul, will evidently see that it
amounts to this; That there were some
Men so Preach’d Christ, as yet to have
regard to the favour and good liking of
Men; That they might avoid Persecution
from some, and gain Glory from
others: But St. Paul in his Preaching of
the Gospel, had so intirely given up himself
to it, that he minded nothing but the
Preaching of the Gospel; Going on in
that Work, without any regard either
to Persecution, or Vain-Glory. And thus
the World was Crucified to him, and he
to the World: They were as Dead
things, and in this respect had no Operation.
St. Paul’s words are, “As many
as desire to make a fair shew in th Flesh,
they constrain you to be Circumcis’d; Only, lest
they should suffer Persecution for the Cross
of Christ. For neither They themselves,
who are Circumcis’d, keep the Law; But desire
to have you Circumcis’d, that they may
glory in your Flesh. But God forbid that I
should Glory, save in the Cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ, whereby the World is Crucified
to me, and I unto the World.” Very
often it happens, that a piece of a Discourse,
or as here, even a piece of a F2 Verse, F2v 118
Verse, serves for a Quotation, much better
than the whole would do. This is
so evident in this Place, that it requires
some Charity to think that a Man is in
earnest searching after Truth, or believes
himself, whilst he is a Writing after such
a manner.

But because the Character Mr. N.
bears ought to be a Warrant for his
Sincerity, we must conclude, that he
does think St. Paul tells the Galatins,
that some would have them Circumcis’d
only that they might avoid Persecution,
and might Glory in their Flesh. But God
forbid that he should Glory in any thing
but the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the Creatures are only the Occasional,
not the Efficient Causes of his
Pleasing Sensations; and he Dead to
them. This Mr. N. it seems, does think
was the Sense of what St. Paul said: “But
that it was not, I think common Sense
will sufficiently satisfie us, without consulting
Interpreters about it.”

These are the Texts brought by Mr. N.
to support an Opinion grounded on an
Hypothesis, perhaps Demonstrably false;
That has evidently no proof, but the
poor one from our Ignoreance, that yet
is not at all help’d by this Hypothesis:
Which is (therefore) as well as for the Ends of F3r 119
of Morality, plainly useless. Yet all this
might well be Pardon’d to any Effort of
advancing our Knowledge, if it did not
pretend to influence our Religion; And
not only so, but to be the very Basis, and
Foundation of Christianity, as it is made
to be by the first Ingenious Inventor of
it. Mr. N. has not, indeed, advanced that
so directly: But with more Confidence
a great deal, making it the ground of
Morality, he falls as little short of it
as it possible. And his Discourses upon
this Subject being in a more Popular way,
are more likely to do hurt. For certainly
to perswade Men that God requires what
they find impossible to perform, and opposite
to their very Constitution and Being
in this World, is to make Religion,
and the Teachers of it, ridiculous to
some; And to drive others weaker, but
better-minded People into Despair; By
giving them occasion to think that they
do not love God as they ought. Such
Effects, I fear, may be the Consequences
of Mr. N’s Doctrine, who teaches that
we do not love God as we ought, whilst
we love any Creature at all: And particularly
in the above-cited Sermon, He positively
says, That “the Creatures are no more
our Goods, than our Gods; and that we may
as well worship them, as love them.” Pract.
Disc. p. 62.

F3 These F3v 120

These Opinions of Mr. N. seem also to
indanger the introducing, especially amongst
those whose Imaginations are
stronger than their Reason, a Devout way
of talking; which having no sober, and
intelligible sense under it, will either inevitably
by degrees beget an Insensibility
to Religion, in those themselves who use
it, as well as others; By thus accustoming
them to handel Holy things without Fear;
Or else will turn to as wild an Enthusiasm
as any that has been yet seen; and which
can End in nothing but Monasteries, and
Hermitages; with all those Sottish and
Wicked Superstitions which have accompanied
them where-ever they have been in
use. And this the Author of the Christian
Conversations foresaw very well must be
the Consequence; Or rather conformably
to his Religion and Profession, might
perhaps have it in his View and Design,
to justisie those things by this his Hypothesis;
which makes them not only allowable,
but of necessary use. But however
that were, he concludes his Discourse
of our being obliged to have no Love for
any Creature, with a sincere Acknowledgment
that if this be true (which he
has concluded it is) it is then absolutely
necessary to renounce the World, and betake
our selves to Wood and Desarts: For F4r 121
For it is impossible to live in the daily
Commerce and Conversation of the
World, and love God as we ought to do.
And accordingly he makes his YoungMen,
introduced to be Converts to Religion
upon these Principles, bid Adieu to the
World, even to their Dearest Friends,
and Relations.

For Pere Malebranche, it seems, was unacquainted
with that Distinction which
Mr. N. says, “ought to be made of Movements
of the Soul, and Movements of the
Body.” Otherwise he might have assured
his Aristarchus, that he was in a very
great Mistake, to believe that the Principles
before laid down, obliged him to
any retreat from the World, or Renunciation
of the Injoyments of it: Since “the
Movements of the Body” (Mr. N. tells us)
“may be determin’d by those Objects which inviron
it; and by those Movements, Aristarchus
might have United himself to those
things which were the Natural or Occasional
Causes of his Pleasure.” (See Mr. N’s Letters
Philosophical and Divine, p.75.) But
Pere Malebranche designing his Notions to
be of some use to the World pursued
them, whether by just consequence they
led him; and sought not for any contrivance
to make them insignificant to any
other Purpose than to shew the Parturiencyriency F4v 122
of their Author. He therefore reasonably
from his Principles, insists upon
it, that the retreat from the World, is
best for all; and necessary to most who
design to lead a Christian Life; Those
“being much to be pitied whom God calls to live
in the World for the Conversion of others.”

This in a Papist, and one of a Religious
Order amongst them, cannot seem
strange. But there can certainly be no
greater Disparagement to Christian Religion,
than to say, That it unfits Men
for Society; That we must not only literally
become Fools for Christ’s sake;
but also cease to be Men. Can any Rational
Man, not bred up in the Bigottry
of Popery, ever perswade himself that
such a Religion can be from God? Or is
there any appearance throughout the
whole New Testament of its being so?
John, indeed, who had not the power of
Miracles, or a Voice from Heaven to Authorize
his Mission, made himself be taken
notice of, by the remarkable Austerity
of his Life: But he neither Preach’d
it, nor propos’d himself, in that, an Example
to to others. He was by something
extraordinary (tho’ without Miracles) to
draw Auditors to him, whom he might
prepare to receive the Messiah. But that
living in a Desart, and bidding adieu to Society, F5r 123
Society, were not necessary to Religion,
our Saviour’s Example, as well as his Precepts,
show. He came Eating and Drinking,
Conversing in the World like other
Men: And he assures us, That “he came
not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law;” viz. The
Moral Law, which is the same with the
Law of Reason; than which, “Heaven and
Earth, shall sooner pass away;” and in which
are legibly found those Duties of an active
and social Life, that have so much recommended
and eterniz’d the Memories of
many Philosophers, and Lawgivers, and
other great Men of Antiquity; Whose
Religion Mankind would be apt to think
they had reason to wish for again, if they
were perswaded that Christianity were
opposite to, and inconsistent with those
admired and beneficial Virtues that Support
and Profit Society.

There is nothing more evident than
that Mankind is design’d for a Sociable
Life. To say that Religion unfits us
for it, is to reproach the Wisdom of
God as highly as it is possible; And to represent
Religion as the most mischievous
thing in the World, dissolving Societies.
And there could not be a greater Artifice
of the Devil, or Wicked Men to bring
Christianity into contempt than this. But
it is to be hoped, that where the Scripturestures F5v 124
allow’d to be read, this can never
prevail; And that those who are not
in danger of being led into it by the Superstitions
of Priest-Craft, will not be
impos’d upon in it by vain Philosophy:
Nor can there be any stronger Evidence,
that (That Notion, of the Love of God,
grounded on his Being the immediate
Cause of all our Sensations) is false, than
this, viz. That is Destroys all the Duties
and Obligations of Social Life. This indeed
is not Mr. N’s deduction from
thence, But it is that of his Oracle Pere
Malebranche, and that of Reason; and he
will scarce be believ’d to be Sincere, that
shall say he can daily see and injoy the
Creatures as Goods, without desiring
them as such; Or that shall deny, that if
it be our Duty not to desire any Creature,
it must then necessarily be our Duty
(as P. M. expresly says it is) to have as
little communication with them as is possible;
and to betake our selves to Desarts.
But whether it were that Mr. N. has no
inclination to this way of Living, and
that it is to That that we owe his Happy
Invention of Seeking, and injoying the
good things of the World, without loving
them; Or that he was afraid by
owning his Opinion (that we are obliged
to renounce the World and live in Woods) F6r 125
Woods) He should be suspected of favouring
Popish Superstition; He can
scarcely be presum’d not to see that this
inevitably follows from the Hypothesis
he has embraced. But yet how injurious
soever this Consequence is to Religion, so
much is not therefore deny’d to what
Pere Malebranche largely insists upon, viz.
That Retirement is sometimes useful, if
not necessary to a Christian Life. Those
who live always in the hurry of the
World, and the avocations of Worldly
Business, without giving themselves time,
and retreat, frequently to reflect, being
no doubt very likely to enter too much
into the Sprit of it; We insensibly giving
up our selves to, and uniting our
Hearts with what we are constantly ingaged
in, and with delight apply our
selves to. But if in opposition to this,
any one should run into the other extream,
of retreating wholly from all commerce
and conversation with Men; And
should give themselves the Happiness
Pere Malebranche speaks of, of “attending
Eternity in Desarts”; it is to be fear’d they
would not mend the Matter. For whatever
Vices they might part with by it,
they must necessarily oppose thereby, one
great end that they were sent into the
World for, viz. of doing good; By becomingcoming F6v 126
wholly useless to others: And
such a one would certainly, by such a renunciation
of all commerce with Men,
be likelier to grow Wild, than improve
the great Virtue of Christianity, and Ornament
of Humane Nature, Good Will,
Charity, and the being Useful to others.

As for Monasteries, and Religious Houses,
(as they are call’d) all who are acquainted
with them, know that they are
nothing less than what is pretended; And
serve only to draw in Discontented, Devout
People, with an imaginary Happiness.
For there is constantly as much
Pride, Malice, and Faction, within those
Walls, as without them; And (if we may
believe what is said, and has not wanted
farther Evidence) very often as much licentiousness.

In short, our Natures are so suited to
a mediocrity in all things, that we can
scarce exceed in any kind with Safety,
To be always busy in the Affairs of the
World, or always shut up from them, cannot
be born: Always Company, or always
Solitude, are Dangerous: And so
are any other Extreams.

Finis.