termine my Meaning, that a Man who is awake when he reads then, might juitly wonder how my Adverfaries could miss it fo widely, or fuppofe me to mean fo abfurdly as they do. Nay, the very Nature of the Thing (peaks it felf. For fuppofing I had not laid in any Cautions against fuch a Construction, nor had dropt one word whereby my Meaning might have been explain'd, yet if they will but allow me to have Common Sente (which their very Writing againft me fuppofes me to have) how could they imagine that my words were intended in fuch a Meaning as by their oppofition of it they put upon me!

As firit of all for the World's being a Good, can thefe Men imagine that I ever meant to deny the Creatures to be good in the lax and popular finle of the Word, meaning, that they contribute fome way or other to our good, and ferve to the Neceffity and Conveniency of Life, fo that it is better to have them than to be without them? Or do they in good earnest think that I would fcruple in the ordinary way of fpeaking, to call the Furniture of my Houle, or the Books of my Study, my Goods, efpecially fince the late augmentation it has received by their two Learned Difcourfes? There is indeed a Senfe wherein I do not, cannot allow them to be my Goods, but fure not in the Senfe that is pretended.

And then again as to not loving the Creatures, can any Body imagine that 'twas ever my intent to deny the lawfulnels of loving them in the lax and popular fenfe, as that fignifies the willing the ufe of them, or the defiring to have them, or serve our felves of them for our prefent Accommodation and Conveniency while we are here? Or that I would fcruple to conform to the common way of fpeaking, by faying, that I defire Meat when I am Hungry, or Drink when I am Thirty, or Cloaths when I want them to keep me warm, or Phyfick when I have occafion for it for my Health: Or that I would make any doubt to say, I love a Pen that writes well, or a Knife that cuts well, or a Horfe that goes eafie, or an Adverfary that reafons clofely and to the purpofe. There is indeed a Senfe wherein I cannot allow the Love of these things, but fure not in that popular Sense which is pleaded for, which as my D.fcourfes do not condemn, fo I can fafely fay it was never in my Thoughts to deny.

To what purpole then does Dr. Wb--- lay himself out fo profufedly to prove that the Creatures are good, quoting that Text for it, P. 8. that every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with Thanksgiving, for it is fanctified by the Word and Prayer. Upon which he gravely Comments, by the Word giving us Authority to eat of every Herb, and every living Creature, quoting for it Gen. 9. 3. And by Prayer, aking thefe good Creatures of him who is the giver of every good thing. From whence he very folemnly draws two Weighty (I

do

do not say Heavy) Inferences: First, That every Creature of God is good, i. e. good for Food to be received by us, (I fancy 'twas about Dinner-time when he wrote this, and he thought he was faying Grace) and therefore for our Food and confequently for our good. And why elfe is it to be received with Thanksgiving, for what we are obliged to thank him for is fure his Bleffing, and our good. Secondly, That every Creature which is thus good for us must be defired of God, it being fanctified or fitted for our ufe by interceffion to God for the enjoyment of it. Ibid. To what purpofe again does he tell us that Temporal things are good becaufe God promifes them as the Reward of our Obedience,and thatRubies are good,p.10.because Wildom is better than Rubies, Prov. 8. 11. p. 11. And that Life, Plenty, and the Fruits of the Earth, Kine, Sheep, are good things, because in certain Cafes God threatens to deprive Men of them Ibid. And that Temporal Enjoyments are good things because Mens Iniquities are faid to with hold good things from them. p. 12. And because they are God's Bleffings, and his Gifts, and are alfo call'd the good of a Man's Labour, Ibid. Ecclef. 3. 13. And because in the Story of Lot we have twice mention of his Goods; and in that of Jacob, that he carried away all his Goods. And because St. Luke fays, of him that taketh away thy Goods ask them not again. And because the Rich Man is introduced, faying, There will I beltow all my Fruits and my Goods. As allo Abraham faying to Dives, Son remember that thou in thy Life time receivedít thy good things. As alfo Zacheus faying, Half of my Goods I give to the Poor. And lays St. Paul, Tho'l give all my Goods to the Poor, and have not Charity---And he Commends the believing Jews for taking joyfully the spoiling of their Goods. And then comes in the Wife Man alfo frequently informing us that it is the good of Man to Eat and Drink, and make his Soul Enjoy the good of all his Labour. p. 13. Well, here are a great many good things reckon'd up, and yet I can tell him of a very good thing (though not always well used) that he has left out, and that is a good Concordance, which I find has done him good Service.

To what purpose again is he fo free of his Pains and of his Readers Patience in proving fo largely (in Senfe as well as Compals) that the Creatures may be lov'd, that we may defire our daily Bread, p. 5. that we may move towards our Meat when we are Hungry, and Drink when Thirty, p. 14. and that we may rejoice in these things, and that the Jews were Commanded to rejoice in their Feafts, p. 7. telling us withal that the Contrary Doctrine (as he will have it, though I know of no fuch) is con. trary to our Prayers for daily Bread, to God's Promifes of Temporal good things, and his Threats of Temporal Evils, to the reprefentation of them as God's Gifs and Bieffings, and our good Things.

Things. p. 3. To God's Command to Rejoice in them, p. 15. To the Industry required by God to procure thefe things, and his Bleifing promiled to that Industry, p. 21. And that 'tis inconfiftent with our Obligation to pray for Temporal Bleifings, and with the Prayers of our own and Antient Liturgies. With the Praifes due to God for Temporal Bleifings, and with the Thanksgivings for them, ufed in our Liturgy, p. 22. That it tends to depretiate the Divine Gifts, to teach Men to flight God's Promifes (he might as well have faid to ftand upon their Heads) and Contemn his Threats, p. 24. to deftroy all Industry in our Calling, and that it lays the vileft Imputation upon the Difpenfations of God's Providence towards us, p. 25. To what purpofe again does he Appeal to Solomon's Prayer at the Dedication, imploring Temporal Mercies, and asking Deliverance from the Peftilence, Famine, Mildew, Blafting, Locust, Drought, Exile, p. 21. And to Dr. Comber about the Antient Liturgies, Praying for Temperate Air, Gentle Showers, Refreshing Dews, and Plenty of all Fruits; and to our Liturgy, Praying that God would give and preserve to our Use the Kindly Fruits of the Earth. And that the King may study to preserve his People in Wealth, Peace,and Godliness; with a long Story about the Land of Canaan flowing with Milk and Honey, p. 72. and tedious Quotations out of Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus, about being blefs'd in the City, and blefs'd in the Field, in the Basket, and in the Store, &c. I fay to what manner of purpose is all this, and abundance more that I might Mutter up together of the fame importance, but that I am weary of Repeating,what once faid is too much. For 'tis vifible, to the Eye that can fee any thing, that all this is quite off from the Point, valtly Wide of the Mark (whoever 'twas that fhew'd him his Ground) and a puré Ignoratio Elenchi, fuch as Learned Men ufe to be guilty of, that won't Think. Of which we have a lare and tref Inttance in the very Noily Controverfy between F. Malebranche and M. Arnauld, Dr.of the Sorbonne, who with great Zeal and Earneftness write Volum after Volum against the Other,and yet very feldom, if ever, Oppofed his true Meaning.

Suppofe I fhould fay afer St. Austin, that the World is not to be Enjoy'd, taking the word (Enjoy) as he does, ftrictly, as 'tis opposed to, and diftinguith'd from Ufing, and a Zealous and Over Orthodox Adverfary thinking to Contradict me, fhould with great Paffion Contend that we may enjoy the World, ufing the Term (Enjoy) in the large Popular Senfe, as it fignifies the Having, Pollefling, or ufing of a thing, and fhould quote Scripture for it, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy, and fhould alfo pretend that the Contrary is against the Doctrine of the Church of England, who Prays in her Liturgy, That it may pleafe thee to give and preferve to our wife the Kindly Fruits of the

Earth,

Earth, fo as in due time we may enjoy them, would not this be mere Stuff, wretched Trifling, quite befide the Matter, a perfect Ignoratio Elenchi, and as much to the Purpose as if he had faid just Nothing ?

Now this is the very Cafe in hand. Dr. Wh, has taken a great deal of pains to prove that we may defire to have Fire when we are Cold, Meat when we are Hungry, Drink when we are Thirsty, and other Accommodations of Life as we want them. And he has proved these things very Learnedly, and like a Sound Orthodox Divine. But I think he might have ipared his Pains, for who opposes him in any of these things? I know of no Adverfary he has, or is like to have in any of these Momentous Points. For though I cannot allow the Loving of Creatures in the ftrict and rigorous Senfe of the Word, mean ing by it the Uniting our Souls to them as our True Goods or the Efficient Gaules of our Happiness (as not being able to Conceive that they can be fo) yet 'tis plain enough that I allow the Ufe of them, and the Willing or Defiring them for that Uie, and therefore he might have spared, among other Impertinencies, that Abufive Reflection, p. 5. Now is it not strange Doctrine to affirm as Certain, that we cannot truly love God if we define our daily Bread, and that we forfake God if we move towards Meat when hungry, or Drink when thirsty. Strange Doctrine indeed, but whole 'tis I cannot at prefent recollect. This therefore I fay might have been fpared, as well as that Invidious Quotation from St. Paul who he fays Condemns thofe Hereticks who taught Men (as if I did fo) to abstain from Meats, which God hath Created to be received with Thanksgiving, &c. p. 8. 1 Tim. 4. 3. The Unkindness as well as Impertinence of which Infinuation is Obvious enough both from the place it felf, where this is alfo call'd the Doctrine of Devils, and froin his distinguishing the word (Heretick) by a different Character; and I need not aggravate it any further to ingage the Readers Notice, than by praying God to forgive him for it.

But to fet him right in the Notion he pretends to oppose, but indeed does not understand, and fo levels his Aim at another Mark, let him take this fhort Account of it. 'Tis confider'd here that we are Beings of a Compounded Nature, confifting of Body and Spirit, having our Place and Abode in a Material and Senfible World. 'Tis alfo fuppofed that neither the Body to which we are united, nor the Bodies which are without and about us, no part of the Material World can act upon our Spirits, which are fubject to the Power of God only, whose Priviledge alone it is to act upon them. And that therefore we are not to unite our Souls to these external Objects, which cannot really and truly by way of Caufal Efficiency act upon them, bur to God, who both can and does. But yet however because

Bodies

Bodies do make a real Impreffion upon our Bodies, and by that (according to the Divine Establishment) are alfo Occafions of what is felt in our Souls, we may unite our Bodies to these external Objects, which tho' occafional Caufes with respect to our Souls, are yet real ones with respect to our Bodies, and therefore may be approached to and united with by our Bodily part, as the Natural Condition, Means, or Occafion of that Pleasure which God truly caufes in our Spirits upon fuch Impreffions made in our Bodies: That is, in other words, we may Will the use of these things according to the Order of Nature, or rather the Law of its Author, but not unite our Souls to them, as not being our Beatifick Objects: or, as I otherwise express it, seek or use them for our good, but not love them as our good; or, as in the Letters, approach them by a Movement of the Body, but not by a Movement of the Soul. Which Diftinction is as clear as that of the Soul and Body it felf, and is not in the leaft invalidated by what Dr, Wh-- has offered against it. For what tho' the Movements of the Body are not pure Mechanical Motions, but do alfo include a Movement of the Soul, (as he very truly obferves, but not very pertinently objects, p. 122) yet 'tis to be confider'd here what this Movement of the Soul is, or, what is its Term. And when we do fo we shall find that all the Movement of the Soul here is only to will the Movement of the Body towards these things, and not that the unites her felf to them, which comes to the fame as that the wills the ufe of them as Occafions, but does not unite her felf to them as Caufes of her Good, as was faid before. So that the Diftincti. on remains firm and unfhaken.

In thort then, I allow the Loving of Creatures, as that fignifies at large the willing the use of them; but I deny the Loving of Creatures, more ftrictly speaking, as meaning by it the uniting our Souls to them as our true Goods, or Beatifick Objects. Which will refolve at last into that Maxim of St. Austin, Utendum eft hoc Mundo, non fruendum, that the World is to be used not enjoy'd; only with a better Foundation for it than he has affign'd, viz. because the Creatures are only Occafions, not the true Caufes of all that Good and Happiness which accrues to us in the use of them. A Principle which I have elsewhere proved at large, and which my Learned Adversaries

have not thought fit (no doubt with due Prudence i Disc. p. 78. and Caution) fo much as to meddle with, much

lels to Confute; tho' one of them thinks it might be done by fome, if they would be at the Pains, and thought it worth their while. Now for my part I think it very well worth their Pains and their while too; and that fo much, that I cannot but wonder that Men fhould pretend to Confute a Moral Discourse built прод