proved that there is but one thing a Good to us this last Assertion serves for 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 no 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 of 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 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 'T is 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 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 had 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 against 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 corrupt 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 substitured one of 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 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 them 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 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 understood 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 Fathe Which seems not only to oppose St. John But also sounds very harshly and 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 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 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 Wife and what the Weak whose Souls are Doubtless of as much value and They as much concern'd for them may easily comprehend That 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 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 and 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 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 last of these Opinions Pere Malebranche's Hypothesis maintains tho' he accounts for it differently from others Children he
says This do and thou shalt live That is Love the Lord thy God with all thy Soul with all thy Heart with all thy Mind and with all thy Strength And thy Neighbour as thy self These Commands have no Obscurity or Difficulty at all to be understood if we have honest Hearts and Heads not 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 a dently 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 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 and Faculties of our Mind consent in this Preference of him That we think of him as well as we are able as he 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 confirm 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 it 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 bear 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 defraud 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 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 easiliest 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 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 had had Regard to it and had also 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 to fail in their Duty But if 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 for them to obey It is then more evident That the Words of Moses will not only not 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