our case we do not love the Creature with the same sort of Love or in the same Sense in which we love God i. e. not with a Religious Affection but with a Natural only not as our Spiritual but as our Temporal Good not as the Good of our Immortal Souls but our Frail Bodies not as our End our Rest or our chief Good not for its own but for God's sake whereas we love God with a religious Affection as the Spiritual and Eternal Good of our Immortal Souls as our End Rest and our chief Good and even for himself For this he doth saith the Excellent Bishop Taylor who loves God above every thing else for all that supereminent Love by which God is more loved than all the World all that Love is pure and for himself For the Philosophers were wont to say A Man loved Virtue for Virtues sake if he loved it when it was discountenanced when it thwarted his temporal Ends and Prosperities and what they call loving Virtue for Virtuâ—s sake the Christian calls loving God for God's sake And had Mr. N. when he said There are but two sorts of Love that of Desire and Benevolence considered that this love of Desire may be branched into religious and natural Desires desire of things Spiritual and Temporal of things good for the Body and for the Soul of things to be used here and to be enjoyed here and hereafter of things as necessary for our being and our well-being of things to be desired for their own and for God's sake He would have discerned as great a difference betwixt one Love of Desire and another as betwixt Love of Desire and of Benevolence or at the least would not have thought that he who desired the Creature in a sense thus limited desired him in the same sense or with the same sort of Desire with which his Love and his Desire is carried out towards his Great Creator So that I need not now to advertise him that he should not insist so much on the English Particle with since the Original Greek from whence these words are cited ran thus Thou shalt love the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the whole Heart now sure we may love one thing ex animo from the whole Heart and desire it entirely and yet may also sometime imploy our desires upon other things The Second Objection from Scripture is taken from the words of the Apostles Iames and Iohn the words of the Apostle Iames are these Ye Adulterers and Adulteresses know ye not that the Friendship of this World is enmity to God Whosoever therefore will be a Friend of the World is an Enemy to God Whence he infers that in St. Iames's account our Heart is so much God's Propriety and peculiar and ought so entirely to be devoted to him that 't is a kind of Spiritual Adultery to admit any Creature into Partnership with him in our Love I Answer That as a Woman becomes not an Adulteress by any Affection to or Friendship with another Man for she ought to love her Friend and Neighbour and Relations and to shew Friendship to them but only by loving Friend or Neighbour with the love proper to her Husband with that love which comes in competition with and invades that conjugal Affection which belongs to him alone So neither doth all love of the Creature make us guilty of Spiritual Adultery but only that love of the Creature which is proper to God and stands in competition with him and makes us Idolize the Creature by giving it that share in our Affections which is due to God alone as is evident from the very words Ye Adulterers and Adulteresses for that Phrase as often as it Metaphorically occurs in the Old Testament imports the declining of the Iews to Idolatry and the giving that Worship and Service to Idols and false Gods which belongs only to the true and consequently that Friendship of the World which rendred the Persons here represented Guilty of Spiritual Adultery must be that inordinate Affection to the World which made it Rival God and Rob him of the Service and Obedience due to him and this the Context clearly shews for the Friendship of the World there reprehended was such as proceeded from the Lusts which were in their Members and caused them to desire the World 's Good not to supply their wants but to consume them on their Lusts and such a love of the World as produced Wars Fightings and even Murther that they might obtain the Worlds good things ver 1 2 3 4. But saith Mr. N. Every lover of the Creature is in proportion an Idolater upon our former Principle for by loving Creatures we suppose them our Goods that they are able to act upon our Souls and affect them with pleasing Sensations that they perfect our Being and are the causes of our Happiness which is to suppose them to be so many Gods so that there can be no such thing as loving the World with moderation since we ought not to love it at all for we Deifie the Object of our Love and to affect the Creature in any degree is so far to Idolize it To this I Answer First If there can be no such thing as loving i. e. desiring the Creature with moderation why doth the Scripture prescribe this Moderation as to the things of this World by saying Let your moderation as to these things be known unto all the Lord is at hand Be careful for nothing but in every thing by Prayer and Supplication with Thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God Are not our Petitions of these things from God our desires of them Is not our dependance on that Providence for them which will give good Things to them that ask them the Remedy here prescribed against our anxious Cares for these things And must not then the Moderation here required Respect the same things Again Brethren saith the Apostle the time is short it remaineth that both they that have Wives be as if they had none and they that weep as though they wept not and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not and they that buy as though they possessed not and they that use this world as not abusing it For the Fashion of this world passeth away Here do not all the Ancient Commentators agree that the Apostle prescribes mediocrity as to these transitory Things we can enjoy but for a short time And that by commanding us to have and use them as if we did it not he only doth enjoin us not to have our hearts affixed and our chief care imployed about them and that to abuse the world is thus to use it to the Satisfaction of our Lusts or so as to imploy all our Studies and Affections on it doth not the Apostle himself thus explain our weeping for our lost Friends viz. That we should not do it immoderately and is not
Good-will and kindness to Mankind and terminating in his Happiness Whereas Mr. N.'s account of God's Love his Will and Actings doth render him the most selfish Being that we can imagine one who can love nothing but himself will and do nothing but purely for himself Our Charity must be such as seeketh not our own things it must engage us not to seek our own but every Man anothers Good and to please him for his Good Our Friendship purely must respect the Welfare of our Friend and when we exercise our Charity or pretend Friendship purely from prospect of our own Advantage our Friendship becomes Mercenary and our Charity degenerates into self-Self-love And to this Charity and Friendship we are incited chiefly by the Example of our God and yet it seems his Love terminates only in himself and can be no other than the love of himself and how then can it oblige me to the forementioned Charity and Friendship to my Neighbour for his sake To this Question therefore Can God move us towards a Creature Can he move us from himself I Answer Yes he doth move us towards the Creatures by all those Appetites Affections and Desires he hath implanted in our Natures to them by all the Commands he hath laid upon us to pray for our daily Bread to be industrious to procure them and to bless him for them Does he not move the hungry Appetite to desire Meat the thirsty Drink the naked to desire Cloths the Poor supply of his Wants c. And doth he not in all these Cases move us towards the Creature Hath not God made these things the matter of his Promises and his Encouragements to Duty entailing upon Godliness the Promises of this Life and engaging to them who seek first the Kingdom of God that all other things shall be added to them We therefore are by him moved towards the Creature as a motive to the Enjoyment of himself And sure thus moving us to the Creature is not to move us from himself but to himself by means very proper to excite us to love obey and cleave unto him who doth thus load us with his Blessings and poureth his Benefits upon us as the whole Book of Psalms and the whole Law of Moses testifies The Love here discoursed of and recommended is the Love of a God that is of all that is Good of all that is Perfect of all that is Lovely of all that is Desirable in short of all that truly is and can any Love be too great or too high for such an Object Or rather doth he not deserve infinitely more than we or any of his Creatures can bestow upon him What can infinite Good be loved too much Or is any degree of Love too high for him who is infinitely lovely and who infinitely loves himself And why then should it be thought such a stretch of the Love of God to make it intire and exclusive of all other Loves Can we love God too much or Creatures too little To this I Answer First That what I have discoursed is sufficient to evince that this is such a stretch of the Love of God as renders it inconsistent with our Duty and Obligation to pray for any temporal Blessings which we want That it tends to depreciate the Gifts of God and to impair the sense of Divine Goodness in them to destroy all our Industry in our Callings and all pursuit of Temporal Enjoyments by our honest Labours That it removes the natural Foundation of all Injustice and cramps all charitable Beneficence That it casts a vile Contempt upon the Works both of Creation and of Providence And lastly that it casts this imputation upon the Just and Holy God that he hath made that our Sin which is Natural and Necessary As sure it is to desire Food when we are hungry that he will not allow us to desire what he knows we have need of It makes him to have planted in us natural Appetites and Desires which he intended we should gratifie and yet hath not permitted us to desire that which alone can gratifie them And sure if this Hypothesis do all or any of these things it by so doing must stretch this Duty of the Love of God beyond the bounds prescribed to it by our God and Saviour Secondly If God be all that truly is all that is not God truly is not and what is not can have no Love to God or any other thing So that this stretch of Metaphysicks destroys that Love he recommends Moreover to say that God is all that is Good is to contradict God himself who said of all the Creatures that he made that they were very Good To say that he is all that is lovely all that is desirable is to beg the Question Again that God deserves infinitely more than we can bestow upon him that an infinite Good cannot be loved too much i. e. more than he deserves is very true but not pertinent for we can be no more obliged to love God than we are to serve him as he deserves which we can never do For he deserves to be served answerably to the Reward that he hath promised but can we perform such Service He deserves Perfect and Angelical Obedience but are we therefore in this State of Imperfection obliged to it The Question is not What is too much for him if we could perform it but What he hath made our Duty and therefore doth expect we should perform Now hath he made it our Duty so to love him as not to love our selves not to love Health and Pleasure not to desire Food and Raiment or any other Blessing he hath promised as the Reward of our Obedience If not 't is evident that Duty of Affection which we owe unto him cannot be exclusive of all love of the Creature But Thirdly the Absurdity of this way of Arguing will best appear by the propounding of some Parallel Instances as 〈◊〉 The Messalians or Euchitae stretching those words of Christ which command us to pray always and not to faint and those of the Apostle pray without ceasing as Mr. N. doth the Command to Love God with all our Heart c. declared That they who would be saved must be continually employed in Prayer so as to do nothing else till they had found their Sins sensibly expelled by them and going out from them as an Evil Spirit and the Holy Ghost as sensibly entring into and dwelling in their Souls And this said they was the true Communion of Christians one with another Hence they declared themselves to be the Men who had wholly renounced the World left all things and had no Possessions upon Earth as Epiphanius saith of them And misunderstanding those Words of Christ Labour not for the meat that perisheth they held it unlawful to work for the sustaining of this present Life And therefore they stiled themselves Spiritual Men or the Poor in Spirit and spent that
up to him we love In his set Discourse upon those words of St Iohn Love nâ—t the World neither the things of the World he expresly declares That God doth not absolutely forbid us to love these things but only not to love them as our Happiness not so as to neglect our Creator that he requires us to use a mean in our Affection to them and not to enjoy what we should only use nor have our Affections cleaving to them In his Meditations which is one of his Devotional Tracts he observes how the World and all things in it serve both our Necessity and Delight but hence he will allow us to love them only as things Subject to and serving of us as the Gifts of God remembring that we owe them to him and must not love them for themselves but for him not with him but for him and should love him by and above them And this I think may be sufficient to acquaint us with the Opinion of St. Austin in this Matter I am only farther to acquaint the Reader that the Substance of many of these Arguments was sent to Mr. N. long before his Letters appeared in Print and seeing he thought none of them worthy of the least notice I humbly offer them to the Reader especially to the Ingenuous Author of the late Discourse concerning the Love of God to whom I own my self obliged and rest THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. The Question Whether we are obliged to love God so entirely as that we may love nothing else with a love of Desire § 1. This Assertion is shew'd to be contrary 1st To our Prayers for our daily Bread § 2. 2dly To God's Promises of temporal good Things § 3. And to his Threats of temporal Evils § 4. 3dly To the Representation of them as God's Gifts and Blessings and our good Things § 5. To God's Command to rejoice in them § 6. To the Industry required by God to procure these things and his Blessing promised to that Industry § 7. Proofs from Reason That God hath not absolutely forbidden the Desire of Pleasure of Honour or of temporal Enjoyments § 8. Corollaries 1. That this Doctrine is inconsistent with our Obligation to Pray and with the Prayers of our own and of Ancient Liturgies 2. With the Praises due to God for temporal Blessings and with the Thanksgivings for them used in our Liturgy 3. It tends to depreciate the Divine Gifts to teach Men to slight God's Promises and contemn his Threats 4. To destroy all Industry in our Calling 5. It lays the vilest Imputation upon the Dispensations of God's Providence towards us § 9. Page 1 CHAP. II. To avoid the seeming Inconsistence betwixt the Love of God only and the Love of my Neighbour as my self it is said That the Love of God with all our Heart enjoined in the First Commandment is the Love of Desire the Love of my Neighbour required in the Second is only Love of Benevolence § 1. To take off this Evasion it is proved First That the Love of God required in the Injunction to love him with all our Hearts c. cannot be discharged by a Love of Desire only but requires also a Love of Benevolence § 2. Secondly That though the Love of our Neighbour here enjoined be not love of Desire of him as our Good yet neither is it love of Benevolence or wishing well to him only but to the due performance of it a desire of the Creature is necessary § 3. Thirdly That the Love of our selves our Relatives our Neighbour and our Friend all which saith Mr. N. is love of Benevolence only is indeed that Love which chiefly opposes and obstructs our Love to God and is the rise of our inordinate Affections to the World § 4. Fourthly That tho' the Command to Love our Neighbour as our selves doth not require us to Love our Neighbour as our Good yet is not only lawful but very commendable so to do § 5. This Doctrine That the Love of God is entirely exclusive of all Love to and Desire of the Creature destroys the Foundation of these two great Virtues Iustice and Charity § 6. It also casts a great Contempt upon the Works both of Creation and of Providence § 7. P. 27 CHAP. III. The ordinary Exposition of these Words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. laid down in the Words of Mr. N. and of the Scoolmen viz. That we are obliged by them to love God above all Things 1. Appretiatively 2. Comparatively 3. Intensively and 4. So as to love other things only by way of Relation and Subordination to God § 1. That our Lord Christ hath approved of this Exposition is shewed § 2. The Censure which Mr. N. gives of this Opinion and the Abettors of it reflects very unbecomingly upon all the Prelates and Pastors of the Church of England which are not of his Mind and lays unworthy Imputations on them § 3. Some General Considerations offered to engage him to abate somewhat of his Confidence and his Censorious Reflections for the future § 4. Especially this That they who adhere to the common Exposition of these Words differ no more from him than he differs from his former self Sect. 5. The common Exposition further confirmed First From this Consideration That this Command was given to the Jewish Nation whose Promises were chiefly Temporal and therefore could not be exclusive of the desire of Temporal Blessings Sect. 6. That therefore it ought to bear that Sense which is the certain Import of the like Phrases in all the Old Testament where they are only to be found which Sense is plainly opposite to that which Mr. N. contends for Sect. 7. The true Sense of loving God with all the Heart and Soul in the Old Testament shew'd from that primary Relation and respect it hath to their owning God to be the true God in opposition to all strange Gods § 8. Secondly From this Consideration That this Love is required as the Condition of Salvation § 9. Thirdly That to love God with all our Mind cannot bear this Sense § 10. The common Exposition serves all the Designs of Religion in General and of Christian Religion in Particular as well as the Exposition of Mr. N. and the Lady § 11. P. 53 CHAP. IV. This Chapter contains an Answer to Mr. N.'s Arguments from Scripture for a Love of God exclusive of all love of Desire of the Creature as V. G. 1st From these Words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. Matth. 22.37 § 1. 2dly From those Words of St. James Ye Adulterers and Adulteresses know ye not that the Friendship of this World is Enmity to God Iames 4.4 § 2. 3dly From these Words of St. John Love not the World neither the things that are in the World 1 Iohn 2.15 § 3. And to his Arguments against the Relative Love of the Creature V. G. 1. That it is as much
Idolatry as the Relative Worship of the Creature This Answered 1. ad hominem by shewing that it was formerly approved by Mr. N. 2. By shewing the Disparities betwixt the Relative Love of the Creature and the Relative Worship of Images § 4. Object 2. If Creatures be truly and properly lovely as being our true and proper Good they are to be loved absolutely and for themselves if not they are not to be loved at all Answered By shewing in what Sense they may be stiled our true and proper Good and be loved for themselves viz as that imports a love of them only for that Goodness God hath put into them and how they may not be loved absolutely and for themselves viz. as that excludes the Subordination of that Affection to the Love of God § 5. P. 91. CHAP. V. Mr. N. grants That we may seek and use sensible things for our Good but saith he we must not love them as our Good and that we may approach to them by a bodily Movement but not with the Movements of the Soul This is Examin'd and Confuted § 1. Argument 1. That God is the sole Cause of our Love and therefore hath the sole Right to it Answered § 2. Argument 2. The Motion of the Will is Good in General i. e. to all Good and therefore to God only Answered § 3. Argument 3. God is the end of our Love since he cannot act for a Creature but only for himself or move us to a Creature but only to himself Answer'd § 4. Argument 4. That God cannot be loved too much nor the World too little Answered § 5. Argument 5. That God having called us thus to the Love of himself cannot afterwards send us to a Creature § 6. Argument 6. A Man cannot repent of placing his whole Affection upon God or have any thing to Answer for on that account Answered § 7. Argument 7. God only is to be loved because he only acts upon our Spirits produceth our Pleasure and he only does us Good Answered § 8. What the Lady offers on this Subject briefly Considered and Answered § 9. P. 114 ERRATA PAge 2. Line 7. in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 3. l. 25. greater worth p. 7. l. 5. affect p. 8. l. 20. our p. 9. l. 2. fat p. 16. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 17. l. 3. add our p. 24. l. 27. add are p. 35. l. 17. add desires p. 44. l. 25. add as p. 45. l. 6. the p. 46. l. 25. add all p. 49. l. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 51. l. 18. add giveth p. 52. l. 6. add fatness p. 58. l. 17. dependent p. 66. l. 19. dele him p. 67. l. 5. entreat p. 69. l. 25. accuse p 73. l. 25. add from p. 74. l. 15. add be p. 75. l. 28. affect p. 104. l. 11. them p. 106. l. 14. the p. 111. l. 32. the p. 121. l. 14. be p. 139. l. 8. Iustice p. 143. l. 10. of p. 153. l. 21. us A DISCOURSE OF THE Love of God CHAP. I. The Contents The Question Whether we are obliged to love God so entirely as that we may love nothing else with a love of desire § 1. This Assertion is shew'd to be contrary 1st To our Prayers for our daily bread § 2. 2dly To God's Promises of temporal good Things § 3. And to his Threats of temporal Evils § 4. 3dly To the Representation of them as God's Gifts and Blessings and our good Things § 5. To God's Command to rejoice in them § 6. To the Industry required by God to procure these things and his Blessing promised to that Industry § 7. Proofs from Reason that God hath not absolutely forbidden the Desire of Pleasure of Honour or of temporal Enjoyments § 8. Corollaries 1. That this Doctrine is inconsistent with our Obligation to Pray and with the Prayers of our own and of Ancient Liturgies 2. With the Praises due to God for temporal Blessings and with the Thanksgivings for them used in our Liturgy 3. It tends to depreciate the Divine Gifts to teach Men to slight God's Promises and contemn his Threats 4. To destroy all Industry in our Calling 5. It lays the vilest Imputation upon the Dispensations of God's Providence towards us § 9. THE love of a Being infinitely Excellent in himself and infinitely Beneficial to us is so much our Duty and so much our Interest 't is such an excellent preservative against the Charms of sinful Pleasures and all the Lures of those Temptations which tend to the destruction of our precious Souls such a powerful incentive to that Obedience and Holiness which will most certainly conclude in everlasting Happiness such a constraining motive to that assimulation to God which renders us partakers of the Divine Nature and by the Heathen Moralists is truly stiled The Perfection of Man 'T is such a Treasury of inward Satisfactions and ravishing Delights such a Feast of Marrow and Fatness such a soveraign Antidote against the Miseries and Evils of this present Life such a Spring of sweet Contentment under all Conditions and of entire resignation to the Will of our Beloved that a good Man cannot without Reluctancy of Mind and secret Regret seem to dislike any Opinions or Hypotheses which are honestly designed to advance it to the highest pitch And did I not certainly believe that the Measures of Divine Love I approve of and contend for serve all those glorious Ends and minister as properly and fully to kindle and advance within us this divine Affection as do those high and impracticable Stretches to which my worthy Friend and this Incomparable Lady with so great Beauty of Expressions and with as hearty Zeal have laboured to scrue it up and that they do all this without those Inconveniencies to which their singular Hypothesis seems evidently exposed and without those Temptations it may minister to Men not well affected unto Piety and without those Misbodings it may create in those who are religiously enclined I should not have given my self the uneasie task of contradicting the Opinions of Persons I so highly and so justly love and honour or the Fatigue of canvasing the ensuing Question so fully as these Papers do I hope without offence to either of the Persons concerned because with all the Deference I can shew to their great Endowments and their great Works The Question then is this Quest. Whether the Scripture doth require us to love God so entirely as that we may love nothing else with a love of desire though it be only with Subordination to him So the philosophical and divine Letters dogmatically do assert declaring That the love of God is exclusive of all other love that it requires us in Iustice to withdraw every straggling desire from the Creature and that it is clear from the letter of the Commandment that God is not only the Principal but the sole Object of our Love Whence it must follow that every degree of desire
when we are hungry It makes him to have planted in us natural Appetites or desires which he intended we should gratifie and yet hath not permitted us to desire that which alone can gratifie them That he hath filled the Earth with his Blessings and given it to the Children of Man to no end that he hath caused the Herb to grow for the service of Man Wine to make glad and Bread to strengthen Man's heart and yet will not permit us to desire that Bread which gives us strength or love i. e. be pleased with that Wine which maketh our hearts glad Why therefore doth the good Lady enquire When shall we be so just to God and so kind to our selves as totally to withdraw every straggling desire from the Creature Is it justice to God to say that he requires us to Pray and Praise him for what he requires us totally to withdraw our desires from Has God required as an act of Justice that we shouâ—d not desire what he by promising as the rewaâ—d of our Obedience doth even couâ—t us to desire and by those Appetites he hath implanted in us doth even force us to dâ—siâ—e 〈◊〉 it kindness to our selves to hate our owâ—â—â—esh as the Apostle intimates he doth who takes not care to to nourish it Is it kindness to our selves not to desire for our selves that which is needful for the Body How then can it be Charity to give that to others which out of kindness we desire not to our own selves Again why doth she add That if we did consult either our Honour or Interest we should abandon all other desires it being as unjust so unsafe to give desire the least tendency towards any Object but him who is the only proper and adequate one Is it our interest not to desire Food convenient for us or is it for our Honour to think the Blessings God hath promised not worth a wish Can it be unjust to gratifie my natural Appetites according to the intention of the God of Nature Can the regular application of the Faculty of desire to such Objects as are agreeable to our Nature be either unjust or unsafe Why then doth she here give us this as the Definition of that Pleasure which she declares to be the grand motive to Action CHAP. II. The Contents To avoid the seeming Inconsistence betwixt the Love of God only and the love of my Neighbour as my self it is said That the Love of God with all our Heart enjoined in the First Commandment is the love of Desire the love of my Neighbour required in the Second is only Love of Benevolence § 1. To take off this Evasion it is proved First That the Love of God required in the Injunction to love him with all our hearts c. cannot be discharged by a love of Desire only but requires also a love of Benevolence § 2. Secondly That though the love of our Neighbour here enjoined be not love of Desire of him as our good yet neither is it love of Benevolence or wishing well to him only but to the due performance of it a desire of the Creature is necessary § 3. Thirdly That the love of our selves our Relatives our Neighbour and our Friend all which saith Mr. N. is love of Benevolence only is indeed that love which chiefly opposes and obstructs our love to God and is the rise of our inordinate Affections to the World § 4. Fourthly That though the Command to lâ—ve our Neighbour as our selves doth not requirâ— us to love our Neighbour as our good yet 〈…〉 only lawful but very commendable so to do 〈…〉 This Doctrine That the love of God is 〈◊〉 exclusive of all Love to and desire of the Câ—â—ature destroys the Foundation of these two 〈◊〉 Virtues Iustice and Charity § 6. It also casts a great Contempt upon the Works both of Creation and of Providence § 7. I Proceed now to my Second Head viz. to shew that this Exposition of the Precept to love God with all our hearts renders it contrary to the following Command enjoining us to love our Neighbour as our selves That this is a just Prejudice if true against this new Invention the Admirable Lady confesseth and confirmeth in these words It were I confess a strong prejudice against their way of stating the Love of God if it were in any measure injurious to the right Understanding and due performance of the love we owe to our Neighbour For since the Precepts of the Gospel are an exact and beautiful System of Wisdom and Perfection every one of whose Parts are so duly proportioned to the other that the result of all is perfect Harmony and Order I must needs conclude that when such a sense is put upon one Precept as causes it to clash and interfere with another it cannot be the genuine meaning of it and if I cannot make over the whole of my desire to God without defaulking from that portion of love he has assigned my Neighbour I must of necessity set the signification of that Precept to a lower pitch and find out some other Medium to interpret the first and great Commandment But then they think to salve the matter with the distinction of love into love of desire and love of Benevolence declaring that the former is due to God alone and is the thing required in the Commandment to love God with all our hearts the second only belongeth to our Neighbour and is the thing enjoined in the Command to love our Neighbour as our selves Thus Mr. N. 'T is most certain that the most entire love of God enjoined in the first Commandment does by no means exclude the love of our Neighbour enjoined in the second in case these two loves be of two different kinds the former suppose love of Desire and the latter love of Benevolence there being no manner of Repugnancy between the desiring none but God and the wishing well to Men. Thus saith he is it in this case for the word Love when applied to God in the First Commandment signifies desiring him as a good and when applied to Men in the Second it signifies not desiring them as a good but desiring good to them And cannot I thus love God only and my Neighbour too and so fulfil both Commands Cannot I desire but one thing only in the World and yet at the same time wish well to every thing else 'T is plain that I may and that the entireness of my love to God does no way prejudice my love to my Neighbour supposing the latter love to be of a different kind from the former Now in Answer to these Suggestions I shall endeavour to shew 1 st That the Love of God required in the Command to love him with all our hearts is not only a love of desire but of Benevolence also 2 dly That though the love of our Neighbour here enjoined be not love of desire of him as our good
undoubtedly declare the contrary for Self-Preservation and the continuance of Life are the natural Desires of all Men Now these are truly a Desire of our selves that is of something of our selves which we have not already and yet this desire of Life and love of many Days being only the desire of what God doth promise as the Reward of our Obedience it is unquestionably the Desire of something Good for us and so of something which Self-love doth prompt us to desire When Christ requires us to love him more than Life it self and God enjoins his People to obey his Precepts that they may live do not all these things teach us That the continuance of Life is a thing desirable and that we may love many days Now this only Happiness to be the desire of some Good to us because the desire of our selves i. e. of the continuance of our Being is the desire of some Good to us and is at once the desire of our selves and the continuance of Good that is of Being to our selves And this we learn from Mr. N. himself in these very Letters whereof he saith That since our Being is in it self a Good and the Foundation of all the Good that we do or shall ever enjoy it can be no sooner received that it brings an Obligation of loving our Creator For if our Being is in it self a Good must it not be our Good Must not the continuance of it be the continuance of our Good Doth it not therefore lay an Obligation on us to love our Creator because we by receiving it have received Good from him And if our Being is the Being of our selves must not the love of it be the love of our selves and the desire of the continuance of it be the desire of the continuance of our selves Thirdly That the love of Benevolence is indeed that love which chiefly opposeth and obstructeth our true love to God and is the rise of our inordinate Affections to the World is also very evident For 1. That the love of our selves is love of Benevolence he and this Lady have informed us Now This saith the Excellent Dr. Barrow is the Root from which all other Vices do grow and without which hardly any Sin could subsist the chief Vices especially have an obvious and evident dependance upon it All Impiety doth involve a loving our selves in undue manner and measure so that we set our selves in our Esteem and Affection before God we prefer our own Conceits to his Judgment and Advice we raise our Pleasure above his Will and Authority From hence particularly by a manifest Extraction are derived those chief and common Vices Pride Ambition Envy Avarice Intemperance Injustice Uncharitableness Peevishness Stubbornness Discontent and Impatience For We overvalue our selves our Qualities and Endowments our Powers and Abilities our Fortunes and external Advantages hence we are so Proud that is so Lofty in our Conceits and Fastuous in our Demeanors We would be the only Men or most considerable in the World hence are we Ambitious hence continually with unsatiable greediness we do affect and strive to procure encrease of Reputation of Power of Dignity We would engross to our selves all sorts of good Things in the highest degree hence enviously we become jealous of the Works and Virtue we grudge and repine at the Prosperity of others as if they defalked somewhat from our Excellency or did Eclipse the brightness of our Fortune We desire to be not only full in our Enjoyment but free and absolute in our Dominion of Things not only secure from needing the Succour of other Men but independant in regard to God's Providence Hence are we so covetous of Wealth hence we so eagerly scrape it and so carefully hoard it up We can refuse our dear selves no satisfaction although unreasonable and hurtful therefore we so greedily gratifie sensual Appetites in unlawful or excessive Enjoyments of Pleasure Being blinded or transported with fond Dotage on our selves we cannot discern or will not regard what is due to others Hence are we apt upon occasion to do them wrong Love to our selves doth in such manner suck in and swallow up our Spirits doth so pinch in and contract our Hearts doth according to its Computation so confine and abridge our Interests that we cannot in our Affection or in real expression of Kindness tend outwards that we can afford little good Will or impart little Good to others Deeming our selves extreamly Wise and worthy of Regard we cannot endure to be contradicted in our Opinion or cross'd in our Honour Hence upon any such Occasion our Choler riseth and easily we break forth into violent Heats of Passion From the like Causes it is that we cannot willingly stoop to due Obeisance of our Superiors in Reverence to their Persons and Observance of their Laws that we cannot contentedly acquiesce in the Station or Portion assigned us by Providence that we cannot patiently support our Condition or accept the Events befalling us In fine if surveying all the several kinds of naughty Dispositions in our Souls and of Miscarriages in our Lives we do scan their particular Nature and search into their Original Causes we shall find inordinate Self-love to be a main Ingredient and a common Source of them all In particular the love of Life which is by them esteemed Love of Benevolence to what base Fears and sordid Actions doth it not expose us How many myriads have lost their Reputation Honesty their Conscience and their own Souls to save it This therefore is that piece of Self-denial so oft inculcated so vehemently pressed in Scripture that we may continue Christ's Disciples and may be Faithful to him to the Death The immoderate love of it being that which is especially pronounced inconsistent with the love of God and with Fidelity to Christ. Hence he so often saith He that findeth his own Life shall lose it and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it And if any Man come to me and hateth not his own Life he cannot be my Disciple Can therefore any Person doubt whether this self-love this love of Life be not as much forbid by the Command of loving God with all our Hearts as the desire of Houses Lands or any temporal Possessions or think it less obstructive of or inconsistent with it because it is love of Benevolence But will Mr. N. or his Good Lady by reason of the mischievous Effects of this Self-love this love of Life perswade the World that no Man ought to love himself at all or desire at all the Preservation of his Life And yet would they be pleased to revise their Arguments and those especially which are taken from the Consideration of the Danger of the Love of the Creature they would soon perceive they were of equal Force against all love of our selves and of our lives Again the love of Parents Children Husbands Wives Relations Friends is love of Benevolence and
yet it is the Root of many and great Vices it is that which renders it exceeding difficult to obey the Laws of Christ when they once come in Competition with these Beloved's of our Souls for where there is by Nature the closest Union and the most intimate Affection it must be very difficult to burst these Bonds asunder and disingage our Hearts from them Hence that great Duty of Self-denial is still expressed by loving God more than these for He saith Christ that loveth Father and Mother Son or Daughter more than me is not worthy of me And by a comparative hatred of them for He saith Christ that hateth not Father and Mother Wife and Children Brothers and Sisters cannot be my Disciple Moreover doth not Experience convince us that from the excessive love we bear to our Relations beloved Sects and Parties mostly proceeds that Strife Debate and Variance those Quarrels and Contentions that Wrath Hatred Envy Bitterness of Spirit those Schisms Factions and Seditions those Animosities and Heart-burnings those Calumnies Detractions rash Censures which are in the World Is not this one great Root of that Avarice that scraping for the World that hoarding of it up that want of Charity we complain of that Men are very desirous to advance their Families and leave them in great Plenty and Splendor in the World Can it be therefore doubted Whether this love of Benevolence be one great thing forbidden in this Injunction To love the Lord with all our Heart c. or whether it be not inconsistent with it as that love of the Creature of Houses Lands joined with it in the Text which Men do often part with to preserve the Life of these Beloveds But will Good Mr. N. or the Lady hence conclude That the Love of God with all our Hearts is entirely exclusive of all Love of Benevolence to Father or Mother Wife or Children Fourthly That though this Precept thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self cannot be reasonably supposed to command us to desire our Neighbour as our Good yet is it not only lawful but very commendable so to do I say the Command to love our Neighbour cannot be a Command to desire him as our Good because the love of my Neighbour is this love of another as such the wishing well and doing good to another without a formal respect to my self whereas loving another as a Good to me is properly Self-love The true reason then why I cannot love my Neighbour in the Sense here required with love of desire as a Good to me is not because he is a Creature for I my self am a Creature and yet may love my self as I have proved with a love of Desire and I may love and desire those temporal good Things God hath promised though they be only Creatures but because whatsoever I thus love must be affected and desired from Self-love and not from love unto another Nevertheless it is very evident that I may and sometimes ought to desire my Neighbour as a Good to me For is there not such a thing as a good Friend a good Companion a good Neighbour a good Counsellor and may not I want and so have reason to desire this Friend Companion Neighbour Counsellor as a Good to me Are not such Persons very needful and beneficial to us in this Life And will not self-Self-love teach us to desire what is so needful and so beneficial to us May not the Parish of B. desire that Mr. N. may continue their Minister as being a Good to them When Great and Good Men are in danger to be taken from us by Sickness or the Casualties of War how heartily do we pray for the continuance and preservation of their Lives And do we not desire this as a publick Good And when we grieve for them as dead and gone into a State of Happiness can we do this out of Benevolence to them Or do we not so from the Sense of our own Loss of one so good and so desirable to us Did not Ioash weep over Elisha because he was the Charriot of Israel and the Horsemen thereof Did not all Iudah and Ierusalem mourn for Iosiah because they said Under his shadow we shall live among the Heathens Are not Good and Righteous Men the greatest Blessings to a Nation and may we not then desire the continuance and encrease of them as our Good Does not the Psalmist speak of God's Saints and Servants as the Excellent in whom was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all his desire Does not Mr. N. say There are some things which I love with great Passion such as are Conversation with select Friends Is not Vir desiderii the Scripture Expression for a Person highly beloved And may not Madam B. and Madam I. be to the Lady Mulier desiderii What though they cannot supply our Wants yet if they can supply any of them our want of good Company Instruction Learning Knowledge Health may they not be desired on that account What though they must seek their Felicity abroad and cannot be their own chief Good can this authorize us wholly to withdraw our Hearts from our Neighbour or from a faithful Friend who is better to us than a Brother and never to desire any Conversation with him for our Good 'T is therefore evident from those Considerations That we may not only desire Good to our Neighbour but that we may also desire him as a Good to us Thirdly I add that this Opinion That the Love of God is absolutely exclusive of all love to and all desire of the Creature destroys the whole Foundation of these two great Virtues Justice and Charity For 1. This is the natural Foundation of all Justice Thou shalt do to others as thou wouldst be dealt with If then the love of God obligeth me to have no love and no desire of the Creature it must oblige me to have no desire to preserve my own Life my Health my Goods my Wife my Servant or any other Creature that is mine and then no Obligation can be laid upon me from this Rule of Christ To desire to preserve the Life Health Goods Relations of my Neighbour or any other thing that is his Nor if I suffer them to be impair'd can I have any inward Sense that I do that to others which I would not have done unto my own self 2. All Charity or Love unto my Brother depends upon this Precept Thou shalt love thy Brother as thy self Now if this love to my self doth naturally produce within me a desire of all things that will do me good i. e. a desire of the continuance of my Being and so of all things necessary to my Being a desire of Ease when I lie under Pain of Supplies when under Want of Comfort when I am in Trouble of Pleasure when I may innocently enjoy it In a word a desire of every thing by which I may receive Advantage
Adulterers and Adulteresses know ye not that the Friendship of this World is enmity to God James 4.4 § 2. 3dly From these Words of St. John Love not the World neither the things that are in the World 1 John 2.15 § 3. And to his Arguments against the relative Love of the Creature V. G. 1. That it is as much Idolatry as the relative Worship of the Creature This Answered 1. ad hominem by shewing that it was formerly approved by Mr. N. 2. By shewing the Disparities betwixt the relative Love of the Creature and the relative Worship of Images § 4. Object 2. If Creatures be truly and properly lovely as being our true and proper Good they are to be loved absolutely and for themselves if not they are not to be loved at all Answered by shewing in what Sense they may be stiled our true and proper Good and be loved for themselves viz. as that imports a love of them only for that Goodness God hath put into them and how they may not be loved absolutely and for themselves viz. as that excludes the Subordination of that Affection to the Love of God § 5. AGainst this sense of the Words I plead for Mr. N. hath but one Objection from the words themselves and it runs thus The Text saith Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy Mind but does he love God at this Rate who loves him only principally and more than any thing else Does this exhaust the Sense of this great Commandment Can he be said with any tolerable Sense to love God with all his Heart and Soul that only loves him above other things at the same time allowing other things a share in his love Can he be said to love God with all his Love N. B. who loves him only with a part What though that part be the larger part 't is but a part still and is a part of the whole What Logick or what Grammar will endure this To this I answer First That he assumes what never will be granted by Divines viz. That Scripture Phrases must be Interpreted not according to the Analogy of Faith and the import of the same words elsewhere occurring in the Holy Scripture but according to the Rules of Logick and of Grammar which supposition would render the Interpretation of Scripture very absurd in many places For instance 1. The Apostle saith All Men seek their own and not the things of Iesus Christ that is say Interpreters many or most Men do so The Gospel was Preached to all the World to every Creature under Heaven saith the same Apostle and the Faith of the Romans was spoken of in all the World when as then many Parts even of the Roman Empire had heard nothing of it Here therefore all Interpreters allow a Synecdoche totius pro parte i. e. the whole is put for the most celebrated Parts of the World and will he here ask Can that be said to be Preached to all and spoken of in all the World which is only Preached and spoken of in a part of it Is a part the whole 2. Again Children obey your Parents in all things Servants obey your Masters according to the Flesh in all things saith the Text. This Generality say Interpreters is to be restrain'd to all things honest to all things belonging to their Right as Parents or Masters to command and will he here cry out What Logick or what Grammar will endure this 3. In Precepts absolutely negative and even exclusive that which in Words is absolutely denied must be interpreted so as only to import that 't is denied not absolutely but comparatively not as to the whole but as to the degree as V. G. God saith I required Mercy and not Sacrifice when as yet the greatest part of Leviticus is imploy'd in giving Laws concerning Sacrifices Christ saith Fear not them which can kill the Body Samuel Only fear the Lord and serve him and yet saith the Scripture Fear the Lord and the King and Render to all their dues fear to whom fear so that the import of these Words must be this Fear not the one so much as the other fear not Man or Idols so as to incur the displeasure of God Labour not for the Meat that perisheth saith the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Work not for it and yet saith the same Scripture Let him that stole steal no more but rather let him labour working with his hands the thing that is good for he that will not labour shall not eat so that the import of that Phrase is only this Do not chiefly and primarily labour for the Meat that perisheth and will he here again cry out What Logick or what Grammar will endure this Secondly I ask what Grammar will not endure it I have already shew'd the Hebrew and the Greek of the Septuagint do use the Phrase in this Sense as for the Latins nothing is more common with them than to express an ardent Love by saying In amore est totus unicè amat toto pectore diligit omni studio aliquem amplectitur In French it is as common to say Ie vous aime de tout mon coeur We teach our very Children to say I love my Dad I love my Mam with my whole Heart nothing therefore being more ordinary in every Language than to use this Expression when we do not in the least intend to signifie the Person we thus love is loved exclusively of all others but only that he is very much beloved by us Why may not the Scripture say this of that God we are obliged to love above all things and before all things and so as to love other things only in Subordination and Relation to him loving none other with that Love which is due and proper to him For as we are commanded to serve him only and yet may serve our King our Master and our Friend to fear him only and yet may fear our Parents our Superiors and Masters because we do not serve them with that Religious Worship nor fear them with that Reverence which is due to God alone So may we love the Creature with a love of Desire and our Neighbour with a love of Benevolence and yet love God only with that Desire and Benevolence which is due to him alone When Mr. N. proposeth this Objection against his own Opinion That if the Love of God required our whole Affection we could not love our Neighbour as our selves he is forced to Answer thus that If the Love of God and of our Neighbour were of the same Kind that entire Love of the former would indeed exclude the latter but this is not the Case we are not here supposed to love God in the same Sense or with the same sort of love wherewith we love our Neighbour So say I is it in