purely and intirely from our selves The former Part of this I absolutely allow and contend for concerning the latter I distinguish when you say that all our Evil is purely and intirely from our selves if you mean of moral Evil I grant it but if you mean of natural Evils then I must distinguish again upon the Words from our selves which may signifie either a physical or moral or if you will an efficient or a meritorious Causality We are certainly the meritorious Causes of all our natural Evils as bringing them upon us by our Sins but that we are the efficient Causes of any of them I deny As all our good is wholly from GOD so in this Sense is also our evil We have not the Power to modifie our own Souls and can no more raise the Sensation of Pain in them than that of Pleasure GOD is the true Author of both as I have elsewhere shewn You say again that Afflictions are not evil but good to which I return that they are both in different Respects They are certainly evil in their own formal Nature and simply in themselves considered and can be good only occasionally or consequentially as they may serve as Means to some greater Good And this I think may serve to reconcile the Goodness of Pain to that Assertion of mine that nothing does us good but what causes Pleasure that is either formally and directly or occasionally and consequentially some Way or other whatever does us good must be supposed to cause Pleasure to us Now though Pain cannot cause Pleasure formally as being a Sensation formally distinct from it yet it may occasionally and consequentially and so may come within the Inclosure of those things that do us good You think fit to confine my Sense of the Word Pleasure to such only as are truly agreeable to the Nature of Man by which I suppose you mean those Pleasures which are called rational and Intellectual To this I reply that it seems to me very evident and I think I have elsewhere made it so that GOD is the true Cause of all the Pleasure that is resented by Man But you say you know not how it can consist with the Purity of the most holy GOD that he should be the Author of those pleasing Sensations which wicked Men feel in what we call sinful Pleasures But 't is your Mistake to suppose that sensual Pleasures as such are evil or that there is any such thing as a sinful Pleasure properly speaking As Sin cannot be formally pleasant so neither can Pleasure be formally sinful All Pleasure in it self is simply good as being a real Modification of the Soul 't is the circumstantiating of it that is the Evil. And of this GOD is not the Cause but the Sinner who rather than forego such an agreeable Sensation will enjoy it in such a Manner and in such Circumstances as are not for his own or for the common Good and therefore unlawful But concerning this matter you may further satisfie your self out of the Letters between Dr. More and Me and by reading the first and second Illustration M. Malebranch makes upon his De la Recharche de la Verite Where he shews you that GOD does all that is real in the Motions of the Mind and in the Determinations of those Motions without being the Author of Sin There are two other Passages in your Letter which I know not how to assent to till I better comprehend them One is that mental Pain is the same with Sin the other is that Sin is the only true Evil of Man I cannot stay long upon these but as to the first besides that Sin is an Act and Pain a Passion of the Soul and that Pain is a real Modification of our Spirit whereas Sin in its Formality is not any thing positive but a mere Privation I say besides this if mental Pain be the same with Sin how shall we distinguish Sin from the Punishment of it And how shall a Man repent for his Sin For if mental Pain be the same with Sin then to be sorry for one Sin will be to commit another Then as to the other Part that Sin is the only evil of Man I grant it is the greatest but I cannot think it the only one for besides that mental Pain is as I have shewn an Evil distinct from it there is also a thing call'd Bodily Pain which I have also shewn to be an Evil. Now Madam as to what you request of me in the Conclusion of your Letter if you think that distinction of mine of seeking Creatures for our good but not loving them as our good too nice I further illustrate it thus you are to distinguish between the Movements of the Soul and those of the Body the Movements of the Soul ought not to tend but towards him who only is above her and only able to act in her But the Movements of the Body may be determined by those Objects which environ it and so by those Movements we may unite our selves to those things which are the natural or occasional Causes of our Pleasure Thus because we find Pleasure from the Fire this is Warrant enough to approach it by a Bodily Movement but we must not therefore love it For Love is a Movement of the Soul and that we are to reserve for him who is the true Cause of that Pleasure which we resent by Occasion of the Fire who as I have proved is no other than GOD. By which you may plainly perceive what 't is I mean by saying that Creatures may be sought for our good but not loved as our Good But after all I must needs acknowledge that this as all our other Duties is more intelligible than practicable though to render it so I know no other Way than by long and constant Meditation to free our Minds of that early Prejudice that sensible Objects do act upon our Spirits and are the Causes of our Sensations carefully to distinguish between an efficient Cause strictly so called and an Occasion to attribute to GOD and the Creature their proper Parts in the Production of our Pleasures to bring our selves to a clear Perception and habitual Remembrance of this grand Truth the Foundation of all Morality that GOD only is the true Cause of all our Good which when fully convinced of we shall no longer question whether he ought to be the only Object of our Love I am Madam With great Respect Your humble Servant J. NORRIS Bemerton Nov. 13. 1693. If you are satisfied thus far I would desire you to go on to communicate what other Thoughts you have concerning the Love of GOD for 't is a Subject I like and would willingly pursue to the utmost LETTER V. To Mr. Norris SIR SO candid and condiscending a Treatment of a Stranger a Woman and so inconsiderable an one as my self shews you to be as much above the Generality of the World in your Practice as you are in your Theory and
of this present State And certainly to be fortified against the Venom and secured from the Shame of Sin is no inconsiderable Blessing Repentance is indeed an excellent Atidote to expel the Poyson but 't is much better not to take it For though I were sure to be delivered from the evil Consequences of Sin I would not commit it merely on account of its natural Turpitude and concomitant Evil. 'T is so exceeding ugly in its own Nature and such a Reproach to ours that though I know GOD so great is his Goodness will pardon me upon my true Repentance yet I know not how to forgive my self Even that very Goodness which frees us from the punishment encreases the Shame of Sin and makes it so much the more abominable in that it is an Offence against so great a Goodness Ioseph's Expostulation in my Mind is very emphatick How can I do this great Evil and sin against GOD He does not say how can I expose my self to the Hazzard of Discovery the Pain of Repentance and all the evil Effects and Punishments of Sin No that which was most grievous to him and is so to all ingenious Tempers was the Opposition that is in Sin to the Nature of GOD the Affront that it offers to his Majesty and Goodness In his Opinion Sin in its self was the only considerable Evil the only thing to be avoided and fled from for certainly of all Punishments this is most deplorable to be given up to our own Hearts Lust and suffered to follow our own Imaginations But to return from this Digression What was observed above is by the way a sufficient Apology for the Strictness of the Divine Law For since 't is GOD only that does us good and he only that is our Good since all our Happiness consists in a Union with and Enjoyment of him and since without Holiness there can be no Union with GOD and that without Obedience to his Commands we can never partake of his Nature therefore Holiness is of absolute Necessity because it is impossible to be happy without being holy To suppose it is to suppose the greatest Absurdity and to imagine either that GOD is not our Happiness or that 't is possible to enjoy him without being like him We have therefore no reason to complain of the strictest Precepts of our Religion For when we are commanded to cleanse our selves from all Filthiness of Flesh and Spirit to perfect Holiness to deny and mortifie that Part of us which is the Scene of Temptation the corruptible Body which presses down the Soul to be holy in all manner of Conversation and in a word to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect we are but in other Words commanded to be as happy as ever we can no difficult Task one would think we may rather wonder why it should be enjoyned us since Nature and the Reason of things dictate and press it on us But though we all naturally pursue after Happiness though we all constantly desire it yet we are too apt to mistake the means of attaining it And therefore GOD has thought fit out of his unspeakable Goodness to send his Son into the World to shew us by Precept and Example the true way to Felicity and explicitly discover that which we all blindly pursue He does not exact of us any Duty but what if we had a just View of things we would chuse our selves and only engages us by all that Deference that is due to his Wisdom by all that Obedience we owe to his Authority to seek for Happiness there only where we are sure to find it to make use of such Methods as will infallibly secure us from Delusion and Disappointment and therefore we can never answer it either to Reason or good Nature if we be refractory to such exuberant Kindness and Condiscention But secondly the intire Love of GOD is necessary because unless we love GOD only we do in effect not love him at all the Desire of GOD and Desire of the Creature being in their own Nature incompatible and by allowing our selves to love the one we do by consequence forsake the other For besides what you have already very excellently observed to this purpose in the Discourse it self it may further be considered that Love being the same to the Soul that Motion is to Bodies as Bodies cannot have two Centers or different Terms of Motion so neither can the Soul have a twofold Desire We may as reasonably expect that a Stone should go up Hill and down Hill at the same time as that the Soul should 〈…〉 GOD and any 〈…〉 To love is in 〈…〉 to make the thing 〈◊〉 our End We move towards good in order to make that good our own and to embrace and acquiesce in it Now he that loves the Creature does it because he expects some Degrees of Happiness at least from it and so far makes it his End and consequently does not center upon GOD as his compleat and only Felicity for if he did it were impossible to with-hold any Degree of his Love from him Again if as you said in your last he that enjoys GOD cannot Desire any thing out of him because of the infinite Fulness of GOD then certainly he that desires any thing besides GOD whatever he pretend or however he deceive himself does not truly love GOD for if he did that would quench all Desire of the Creature He that has discovered the Fountain will not seek for troubled and failing Streams to quench his Thirst He can never be content to step aside to catch at the Shadow who is in Pursuit and View of the Substance The Soul that loves GOD has no occasion to love other things because it neither needs nor expects Felicity from them whenever it moves towards the Creature it must necessarily forsake the Creator and it can never truly turn to him without a Dereliction of all besides him Perhaps this may be thought a skrewing up things to too great a Heigth a winding up our Nature to a Pitch it is not able to reach and though it may be fit and desirable yet it is not at present practicable to love GOD with such an intense and abstracted Affection But I consider that since we are so apt to tumble down the Hill so inclinable to take up with the least and lowest Measures since 't is impossible we should love too much and very great Danger of our loving too little and that our Practice does constantly come short of our Theory our Copy seldom reach the Original it cannot be amiss to represent our Duty in the strictest Measures to excite our Endeavours to do as well as we can since we cannot expect to compass what we ought or pay to the Divine Majesty what is due to his transcendent Excellencies and infinite Love to us And since our just Debt cannot be discharged is it not fit to raise our Composition as high as our Stock will bear Besides the
Power to act upon our Spirits and to give them new Modification I say Modifications for that well expresses the general Nature of Sensation And it is a new Modification or different Way of existing of the Soul that makes this or that Sensation which is not any thing really distinct from the Soul but the Soul it self existing after such a certain Manner Wherein it is distinguished from our Idea's which are representative to us of something without us whereas our Sensations are within us and indeed no otherwise distinct from us than Modalities are for the thing modified Accordingly there is a vast Difference between knowing by Sentiment and knowing by Idea We know Numbers Extension and Geometrick Figures by Idea but we know Pleasure and Pain Heat and Colour c. by interior Sentiment To know Numbers and Figures there is need of Ideas for without an Idea the Soul can have no Perception of any thing distinct from it self as Numbers and Figures are But to know or perceive Grief there is no need of an Idea to represent it A Modality of the Soul is sufficient it being certain that Grief is no other than a Modification of the Soul who when in Grief does not perceive it as a thing without and distinct from her self as when she contemplates a Square or a Triangle but as a different Manner of her own Existence Sensation then being a Modification of the Soul this single Consideration setting aside all other Discoursings will furnish us with a demonstrative Argument to prove that not Bodies but GOD alone is the Cause of our Sensations For who else should either have Power or Knowledge to new modifie our Beings but he who made them and perfectly understands them But I shall not enter upon a further Demonstration of this Point since I have abundantly proved it in my printed Discourse of the Love of GOD and since you do as good as allow it in your present Objection This therefore appearing to be a clear and certain Truth give me leave again to remind you of a certain Maxim that I observed to you in my first Letter That we are to stick to what we clearly see notwithstanding any Objections that may be brought against it and not reject what is evident for the sake of what is obscure Supposing therefore that there are or might be Objections raised to shew that GOD is not the Cause of our Sensations which I could not answer yet since my Reason as often as I consult her does most convincingly assure me that he is I ought to rest here and not suffer that which I do not perceive to hinder me from assenting to that which I evidently do But to consider your Objections I observe in the first place that having granted that sensation is only in the soul that there is nothing in Body but Magnitude Figure and Motion and that being without Thought it self it is not able to produce it in us and therefore those sensations whether of Pleasure or Pain which we feel at the Presence of Bodies must be produced by some higher Cause than they all which well agrees with the Conclusion I contend for you afterterwards object against their being only Conditions serving to determine the Action of the true and proper Cause which Objection seems to come a little unexpectedly after such a Concession For if they are not true and proper Causes of our sensations what else can they be but Conditions serving to determine the Agency of him who is so Yes you seem to point out a middle Way by supposing that as they are not so much as proper Causes so they are more than mere Conditions viz. That they have a natural Efficacy towards the Production of our Sensations But if I am not mightily mistaken this middle Way will fall in with one of the Extreams For to have a natural Efficacy for the Production of a thing is the same as to have a Causality and that again is the same as to be at least a partial Cause If therefore the Objects of our Senses be not true and proper Causes of our Sensations then neither have they any natural Efficacy towards the Production of them But if they have any such natural Efficacy then they are true and proper Causes which though it be a Proposition which you formally and expresly deny is that however which your Objection in the true Consequence and Result of it tends to prove And to prove this That Bodies have a natural Efficacy towards the Production of our Sensations or that they are true Causes of them for I take them to be Propositions of an equivalent Import you argue from a twofold Topick first That the contrary Theory renders a great Part of GOD's Workmanship vain and useless Secondly That it does not well comport with his Majesty Now to set you right in this matter and to acquit our Theory from both these very threatning Inconveniences we need only fairly propose it The Case then is this GOD has united my Soul to a certain Portion of organized Matter which therefore for the particular Relation it has to me I call my Body This Body of mine is placed among and surrounded with a vast Number and Variety of other Bodies These other Bodies according to the Laws of Motion established in the World strike variously upon mine and make different Impressions upon it according to the Degree of their Motion and the Difference of their Size and Figure These Impressions have a different Effect upon my Body some of them tending to the Good and Preservation and some to the Evil and Dissolution of its Structure and Mechanism even as in the greater World some Motions tend to the Generation and Perfection and others to the Corruption and Destruction of natural Bodies Now though it be not necessary that my Soul should know what is done to other Bodies yet for the good of the animal Life it is very necessary she should know what passes in her own whether such or such Impressions make for its good or hurt Now there are but two Ways for this Light and Sentiment My Soul must know this either by considering and examining the Nature of other Bodies the inward Configuration of their Parts the Difference of their Bulk and external Figure the Degree of their Motion and withal the Relation that all these bear to the Configuration of her own Body or by having some different Sentiment raised in her according to the Difference of the Impression or in clearer Terms by being differently modified her self according as the Modification of her Body is altered by the Incursion of other Bodies The first of these Ways besides that it would employ and ingage the Soul which was made for the Contemplation and Love of GOD her true and only good in things altogether unworthy of her Application is withal considering the Narrowness of our Faculties and the frequent Return of such Occasions not only infinitely tedious painful and distracting but
being they proceed from infinite Goodness and tend towards it And therefore since he has made us passible only for our good and designed Pain as well as Pleasure in order to our Happiness that by these two different Handles he might the better move and direct our Souls towards himself their true and only Felicity I see no reason but to conclude that he is every whit as lovely when he produces Pain as when he causes Pleasure For the Truth is my Letter was principally designed in Favor of a Notion which I have entertain'd and which you further confirm me in by what you add in your Postscript viz. That Afflictions by which we usually understand something Painful are are not Evil but Good which at first seem'd to be contradicted by your Assertion That nothing does us good but what causes Pleasure though upon second thoughts I think they are consistent enough And if there by any shadow of a difference I suppose it arises only from the equivocalness of the words Pleasure and Pain as in truth our mistakes are chiefly owing to our encumbring one word with divers Idea's most of the Controversies that are in the World being in my Opinion rather about words than things By Pleasure I suppose you mean in general all those grateful Sensations which Mankind is capable of that is all such as are truly agreeable to his Nature For I know not how it can consist with the purity of the most holy GOD to say he is the Author of those pleasing Sensations wicked Men do or pretend to feel in what we call sinful Pleasures so that we must either conclude that GOD is not the Author of these irregular Sensations or else that they are not Pleasures I am for the latter and do indeed think it the greatest nonsense in the World to call any thing that is sinful pleasant Pain you tell us is nothing else but a disagreeable Modification of the Soul an uneasie Thought occasion'd by some outward Bodily Impression In which Definition there are two things considerable the Bodily Impression and the uneasie Thought that is consequent thereunto And when you say that GOD is the Author of Pain I suppose you mean no more than that an uneasie Thought is produc'd in the Soul of Man by the Power and Will of GOD at the presence and by occasion of that Impression which sensible Objects make upon the Body Now I suppose that this disagreeable Modification is in the inferiour part of the Soul that which is exercis'd about Objects of Sense and does not necessarily and directly affect the superiour part the Understanding and Will and therefore is no real Evil to that which is properly the Man And this I take to be the right Notion of Pain considered as a Sensation and as GOD is the Author of it but then I deny that in this sense it is strictly and properly an Evil. Now as this Sensation which for distinction sake I will beg leave to call sensible or Bodily Pain is occasioned by some disorder in the parts of the Body or else by the presence of something disagreeable or absence of something necessary to the well-being of the Bodily Frame In like manner when the Understanding and Will deviate from the Order and Perfection of their Nature and are destitute of their proper good they are as truly and if they be in Health as sensibly affected with Pain as the Body is when it suffers the above-mentioned displacences This I call mental Pain and do reckon it the only proper Evil of a Man both because the Mind being the Man nothing is truly and properly his Good or Evil but as it respects his Mind as also because so long as he is under it 't is impossible for him to enjoy any degree of real Happiness For where there is a true Vital Principle where the Soul is not quite mortified or at least Paralytick and Diseas'd 't will as certainly feel Pain when 't is thrust out of its Natural Order and does not move towards GOD the true Term of its Motion as its Body will when its Members are distorted will be as sensibly affected with craving and unsatisfied desires when destitute of the Grace of GOD the proper aliment of the Soul as that is with Hunger and Thirst when in lack of its necessary Food and will feel the same uneasie chillness and darkness come upon it when deprived of the Light of GOD's Countenance that its inferiour part does when it wants the Sun 's comfortable and enlightning Beams And this I take to be the true meaning of what some People call Desertion pain and torment being as necessary to the Soul when she does not stand rightly affected to her GOD as to the Body when under Sickness or outward Violence And in proportion to the health of the Soul and the fineness of its Complexion so is the degree of its Pain when interrupted in its Motion towards him But can GOD in any sense be said to be the Author of this Pain Hath he not taken all the Care that is consistent with the Nature he hath given us to secure us from it and has made all imaginable provision to prevent our falling into that disorder which is necessarily attended with mental Pain so that whenever we fall into it 't is purely owing to our own Folly For though it be sometimes said that GOD does arbitrarily withdraw the chearing Beams of his Countenance which cannot but be uneasie to us so long as we are under that Eclipse yet for my own part I cannot think that he ever does it unless to quicken our Desires and exercise our Graces and then since 't is in order to our greater good it cannot strictly and absolutely be call'd an Evil. Or else 't is the noisom Vapours of our Sins that raise a Cloud between us and the Sun of Righteousness which being our own fault we only are to be blam'd for it Nor do I believe GOD ever denies his Grace to any but such as have first wilfully obstinately and habitually refus'd it So that in fine mental Pain is neither more nor less than Sin which I take to be the true and only Evil of a Man For as nothing is good but GOD so nothing is essentially evil but Sin because nothing else is directly opposite to the Essence of Goodness Since therefore GOD can in no manner of Way be said to be the Author of Sin he cannot be the Cause of mental Pain And I know no Hypothesis that does infer it except the Predestinarian which for that Reason I look on as irrational and absurd and can scarce forbear giving it severer Epithets The short is GOD is the Author of Pain considered as a Sensation and so he is of all our Faculties and Powers and as it proceeds from him it is good designd to do us good and therefore our good But he is not the Author of Pain considered as an Evil as such it is purely
of a Physical Efficiency towards the Production of them No not so much as by way of Instruments For even Instruments belong to the Order of efficient Causes though they are less principal ones and 't is most certain that GOD has no need of any since his Will is efficacious of it self If therefore this be meant by sensible Congruity that the Objects of our senses have any real Part or Share in the Production of our sensations though it be only in an instrumental Way I utterly disclaim it as an absurd and unphilosophical Prejudice and that without any Danger of rendring the Workmanship of GOD vain or unnecessary that Inconvenience being sufficiently salved by the first kind of sensible Congruity as you may easily perceive This Madam I think gives full Satisfaction to your first Instance As to your second That it seems more agreeable to the Majesty of GOD to say that he produces our sensations mediately by his servant Nature than to affirm that he does it immediately by his own Almighty Power I reply briefly First That Arguments from the Majesty of GOD signifie no more here against GOD's being the immediate Author of our sensations than in the old Epicurean Objection against Providence And indeed they seem both to be built upon the same popular Prejudice and wrong Apprehension concerning the Nature of the Deity as if it were a Trouble to him to concern himself with his Creation If it were not beneath the Grandeur and Majesty of GOD to create the World immediately neither is it so to govern it and if his greatness will permit him to order and direct the Motions of Matter much more will it to act upon and give sentiments to our Spirits though with his own immediate Hand which is necessary to hold and govern the World which it has made For after all secondly we have no reason to think it beneath the Majesty of GOD to do that himself which can be done by none but himself Which as I have sufficiently shewn to be the Case in reference to our Sensations so I doubt not but that if you carefully read over Mr. Malebranch Touchant l' efficace attribuèe aux Causes Seconds you will find to hold as true as to all things else I mean that GOD is the only true efficient Cause and that his Servant Nature is but a mere Chimera As to what you say lastly That the Supposition of Bodies having an immediate Causality in the Production of our Sensations will be no Prejudice to the Drift of my Discourse the intire Love of GOD because of the mechanical and involuntary Way of their Operation I do not know whether this Supposition will be so harmless or no. But this I am sure of that the safest Way to bar the Creatures from all Pretensions to my Love is to deny that I have any of my Sensations from them or that I am beholden to them for the lest Melioration or Perfection of my Being And besides if we should once allow them in a true and Physical Sense to cause our Sensations I am inclined to think that this may justly be used as an Argument a Posteriori to prove that they do not do it so mechanically and involuntarily as you represent it but rather knowingly and designedly since it is impossible that any thing but a thinking Principle should be productive of any Thought as all Sensation certainly is And thus Madam I have endeavoured to give you the best Satisfaction I can upon this great and noble but much neglected Argument and shall think my self very happy and sufficiently rewarded if by the Pains I have bestowed I may deserve the Title of Madam Your sincere Friend and humble Servant J. NORRIS Bemerton Sept. 21. FINIS Books printed for S. Manship at the Ship near the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MR. Norris's Collection of Miscellanies in large 8 o. His Reason and Religion The 2d Edition in 8 o. His Theory and Regulation of Love The 2d Edit in 8 o. His Reflections upon the Conduct of Humane Life The 2d Edition in 8 o. His Practical Discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Vol. I. The 3d. Edit in 8 o. His Practical Discourses upon several Divine Subjects Vol. II. The 2. Edit in 8 o. His Practical Discourses upon several Divine Subjects Vol. III. in 8 o. His Charge of Schism continued In 12 o. His Two Treatises concerning the Divine Light in 8 o. His Spiritual Conusel or Father's Advice to his Children in 12 o. Books sold by R. VVilkin at the King's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of their true and greatest Interest By a Lover of her Sex in 12 o. Dr. Abbadie's Vindication of the Christian Religion 8 o. Mr. Edwards's farther Enquiry into several remarkable Texts of Scripture the 2d Edit 8 o. His Discourse concerning the Authority Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament 8 o. Bishop Patrick's glorious Epiphany 8 o. His Search the Scriptures 12 o. His Discourse concerning Prayer 12 o. Dr Goodman's Old Religion 12 o. * The Reader is desired to take Notice that no more is meant by these Phrases than that Sin in its own Nature or Formality is entirely evil it has neither Form nor Beauty that we should desire it can never be ordinable to a good End is none of GOD's Creatures and therefore has not any the least Degree of Goodness in it is neither eligible for its own sake nor upon any other Account whatsoever * The Reader is desired to take Notice that no more is meant by these Phrases than that Sin in its own Nature or Formality is entirely evil it has neither Form nor Beauty that we should desire it can never be ordinable to a good End is none of GOD's Creatures and therefore has not any the least Degree of Goodness in it is neither eligible for its own sake nor upon any other Account whatsoever