ground of our saluation which relyeth it selfe vpon the mere loue of God not procured by any desert or any occasion whatsoeuer on our owne behalfe Sch. If you thinke that our Sauiour Christ meaneth that wee should beare as great loue to strāgers to our enemies as to our friends you are farre deceiued for so he should destroy nature it selfe which hath with her owne fingerwritten in our hearts this description of loue which I haue brought to wit that our loue shuld be greater towards them at whose hands we haue receiued pleasure and comfort then to them who are strangers or enemies vnto vs. But his meaning is that to our enemies wee should not bee full of anger and reuenge but patient gentle yea louing and helpful labouring by good to ouercome their ill and that by doing good to straungers from whom or from any in their name we are neuer like to receiue any retribution we should shewe the faith and loue which we beare vnto God in obedience of whose commaundement we do that which of it selfe is hurtfull vnto vs. But that a man should loue a malitious enemie as earnestly as a louing and faithfull friend a strange and vnknowne woman as well as his owne wife other mens children as well as his owne it is not onely not commendable but euen monstrous and contrary both to the light of nature to the law of God For so we should be vniust and iniurious to our owne friends to whom our loue and the duties of it do belong in bestowing it vpon others and in suffering them to to reape the croppe where they did not sowe any seed yea then Christians should endeuour to procure to themselues the good will of their brethren not by duties of loue but by iniuries then the which what can bee said or supposed more absurd Now as touching the loue of God towards vs the which you affirme to come of the free motion of his will not proucked caused or occasioned by any good or pleasure which he getteth by vs I confesse that GOD electeth to saluation without any motiue of goodnesse foreseene in vs euen of hi◠mere will and good pleasure and that it were mere madnesse to imagine that there is any thing in vs or in any creature by the which we might eyther pleasure or profit God yet I answere you first that we are to distinguish betwixt the election and the loue of God for God chuseth and predestinanateth to loue of his owne mere will but hee loueth not but for some cause For as his loue is in the generall notion inclined to good not to euill so he loueth nothing but that which is good yea and hee loueth it because it is good and for the goodnesse sake If you say what is our goodnesse to God that he should loue vs for it what doth it profit or pleasure him indeed he standeth in no need of it yet he taketh pleasure in it the Lord delighteth in the righteousnesse of his Saints their sins are as eyesores vnpleasant sights vnto him For why God delighteth in himselfe and euery thing in that which is like it selfe he taketh pleasure to behold his own Image in vs euen as the greatest ioy pleasure that a mā can haue in any worldly thing is to behold his owne fauour and fashions his owne countenance and conditions in his son And therefore the more that a man in holinesse resembleth god the more he is beloued of him as being so much liker to him as it is said of Dauid that he was a man according to the heart of God Gent. This doctrine soundeth very harsh to me and so I think it wold do to others if they should heare it as that which giueth a great blowe to Gods free election I am sure you haue read that Christ loued vs being his enemies Rom. 5. and that you do not doubt but that God loued the Apostle Paule euen in his infidelitie and when he in great furie did persecute the Church Sch. It may bee that it would seeme strange to them that haue not considered of it but the doctrine is as I thinke good and sound that God neither hateth any but for sin neither loueth any but as they are holy Yet our foreseen holines is not the cause why God doth elect vs to saluation for first he electeth vs to loue to life then afterward by sanctifying vs he maketh vs capable of his loue and of eternal life The proper obiect of Gods loue is the holinesse of the reasonable creature vnto the which as being agreeable to his owne nature God doth encline himself by dooing good vnto it as hee receiueth a kind of contentation in it and from it As for the estate of the elect before they bee called and sanctified we know that whom God loueth once he loueth alwaies and Paul euen in the heate of his furie against Christ was beloued of God as one whom hee had chosen and predestinate to beare at the appointed time his owne Image of holinesse and so the foresight of holinesse in him may be said to be the the cause of Gods loue though not of his election For God may chuse to loue whom he list but hee cannot loue but according to his owne nature neither any thing but that which is in some sort agreeable to his nature for he cannot loue or like but must of necessitie hate and abhorre euill as well in concreto as in abstracto in parricular subiects as well as in generall notions that so hee may be alwaies like himselfe Sect. 3. Gent. I Will not contend with you about it at this time because I will not hinder you from other matters now that you haue laid the foundation of the description of Gods loue I pray you go on with the rest of the building Sch. We will and first we may out of that that hath bene said to this purpose define the loue of God to be the motion or rather the act of his will enclining it selfe by dooing good to good preuailing in the reasonable creature In this discription wee are to obserue these three things first that the loue of God belongeth onely to the reasonable creature secondly that the motiue or inducement stirring vp in God this loue is goodnesse preuailing in the creature and lastly that the manner or rather a proper and necessary effect of this loue or inclination of God to the creature is by dooing good vnto it The first point being plain inough of it selfe needeth no further explanation for although all the creatures in theyr seuerall kindes and degrees haue in them a speciall goodnesse in respect whereof God may bee said to loue and fauour them as we read Gen. 1. 31. that God hauing finished all the creatures looked vpon them and seeing them all to be good blessed them and still to extend his gracious prouidence ouer them al preseruing and vpholding them not onely by the ordinarie force of
but euen the spirituall Angels are subiect to affection passion and perturbation but God is a pure and mere forme and therefore altogither actuall hee is immateriall and therefore impassible Gent. Belike you make all affections to be acts motions and inclinations of the will but with this difference that in God they are eternall generall constant and quiet and indeed acts of the will but neither motions nor inclinations but in man momentanie variable euident raging particular stirred vp not by the generall consideration of the diuerse natures of things as they are in God whose affections in that respect must needs be constant because the generall natures and notions of things are eternall and immutable but with this or that particular obiect and therefore variable and vncertaine Gent. I perceiue your meaning saue only that I doo not see why Gods will should be said to be mooued with generall obiects onely and not also with particular persons accions for we know that he is diuersely affected towards particular men and hateth euill not onely in abstracto and in the vniuersall idea of it but also in particular men in whom soeuer he findeth it Sch. Affections and will in God are not blinde nor yet peâ—uerse and rebellious to reason as they are in men but wholely agreeing vnto it and therfore they follow the generall grounds of it euer in particular obiects whereas in men they follow the impression of the particular obiect without yea contrary to the grounds of reason Sect. 2. Gen. VVEll I pray you shew mee the particular poynts of doctrine in the loue of God for as I remember you put that first of the affections which you say are attributed to God Sch. Loue is most fitly and truly attributed to God who for that he excelleth in this affection is defined by it as if it were his very essential form for so we read 1. Iohn 4. 16. God is loue But that wee may knowe the particulars of this loue of God it is needfull that wee first search out and consider the nature of loue in generall the which may thus after a sort bee described Loue is an inclination of the will to a pleasanâ— obiect for the fruition of the pleasure of it the which breedeth a desire of doing good vnto it if it be capable of it This description is to be explained by alleadging the seuerall obiects of loue or of those things which men do vsually loue in all which it will appeare that the cause why they are loued and sought vnto is some sweetnesse or pleasure which may be sucked out of them that nothing is loued which doth not bring with it some delight and pleasure thus Iohn reasoneth 1. Ioh. 4. 20. How can he that loueth not his brother whom he hath seene that is with whom hee hath conuersed and so might haue taken delight pleasure by him loue God whom hee hath not seen and wee read Gen. 25. 28. that Isaac loued Esau because his venison tasted sweete in his mouth and Leah saith Gen. 29 32. Now my husband will loue mee hauing borne him a son By these and infinite other examples it appeareth that all men incline to that wherein they finde and feele some pleasure and sweetnesse and this inclination is called the loue of that thing Yet this is not all in loue and therfore we must adde the second part of the descriptioÌ„ which saith that the pleasure in true loue procureth a desire in him that loueth and enioyeth the pleasure to return pleasure delight and any good whatsoeuer can bee done vnto it to the thing loued For without this mutual relation of pleasure it is not to be called loue but rather lust as the inclination which men haue to those meates drinks and such other things the which they loue is not true loue but rather lust and those things are properly said to be loued to the which wee may returne that pleasure and delight which wee receiued from and by them and procure their good as well as they procured our pleasure For example the inclination which a man hath to an harlot and to the pleasure that may bee hadde by her is not true loue but onely lust because heerein a man hath respect onely to himselfe and to his owne pleasure not caring what become of her when his lust is satisfied But the affection which a man beareth to his wife is of an other kinde and is true loue because he doth not rest in that pleasure which hee enioyeth by her meanes buâ— addeth thereunto an earnest desire and indeuour by all meanes possible to procure her good beeing farre more desirous to please and profit her then to please himselfe by her otherwise it is not true loue but selfe loue for true loue hath a hand to giue as ready yea more ready then one for to take And therefore meates and drinkes and such other pleasant things although they doo greatly delight vs yet they cannot bee said to bee loued because they perish with the vse and though they did â—emaine they are not capable of any pleasure or good to bee done in way of requitall which is the cheefe part of loue But men are truly said to loue theyr friends wiues and children because as they doo many wayes receiue pleasure comfort ioy delight and profit by them so theyr whole desire is to returne all that good backe againe into theyr bosomes with double interest Gent. You say that it is not true loue but lust to take pleasure in any thing without returning and as it were repaying the said pleasure to him from whom it was taken and as it were borrowed Indeed this is good honest dealing and to be commended but if I be not deceiued I can shew you a more true and excellent loue then this which you haue propounded to wit that which Christ preferreth farre before this your loue the which may be called a kind of traffiquing and exchanging of one good turne or benefit for an other But the loue which he commendeth vnto vs is not procured and as it were bought or hired by precedent pleasure but commeth from a mere desire of dooing good vnto them which haue not onely not deserued it at our hands by louing vs but contrarely haue by hating and harming vs prouoked vs to requite and repay them with the like hard measure Math. 6. 43. You haue heard that it hath bene said loue thy neighbour and hate thine enemie but I say vnto you loue your enemies for if you loue your friends onely what great matter is that do not the Publicans so And as this loue is farre more excellent then yours so it doth farre better agree to your purpose and serue for the explication of the loue of God for if wee should make the ground of his loue towards vs to bee the fruition of some pleasure in vs or by our meanes we should make a faire peece of work of it or rather marre all the
other thing whatsoeuer and procureth to himselfe more pleasure happines theÌ„ he doth to any creature Yea it is his will that according to this rule this affection of loue in the godly be squared to wit that they loue those most in whom they see a greater measure of goodnesse and godlinesse and bee more inclined towards them to doo any manner of good vnto them then to any other as it is Psal 16. 3. All my delight is in the saints on earth euen to those that are excellent And so Gal. 6. 10. Sect. 4. BY this doctrine of the loue of God wee may easily gather what hatred the contrary affection is to wit a motion or act of Gods will declining and abhorring the person wherein euill doth preuaile And first for the cause or ground of Gods hatred wee must hold that God doth not hate or abhor any creature vpon the meere motion of his owne will for his will neither doth nor can mooue eyther towards or from any creature but vpon good and iust cause taken euen from his owne nature Wee know that God of himselfe loueth all his creatures euen because they are his owne workmanship and therefore good and woorthie to bee both liked and loued as immediately after the creation hee behelde them and seeing them to be good and excellent euery one in his proper kinde he powred downe his fauourable blessing vpon them euen as the deawe and raine falleth vppon the hearbes and flowers of the fielde whereby they waxe faire and flouâ—ish Neither did God eyther play the dissembler in pretending loue to all his creatures whereas hee hated many of them or yet is he a changling to turne his loue into hatred but as once hee did so alwaies hee doth both loue and blesse the creature which hee seeth to bee good Yet if the creature at any time become euill and bee not as it was made by him but as it hath beene marred by it selfe not bearing any longer his excellent and glorious image but some other moÌ„strous shape then it cannot bee loued any longer but must incontinently be hated of God Yet God is the same that hee was and not a whit altered but the creature hath chaunged his place and condition and is remooued and as it were transplanted out of Gods pleasant paradice in the which it did flourish amidst the foure riuers of the blessings of God into a wide wilde desert where it being schorched with the burning beames of gods curse withereth for want of water and beeing cleane dried vppe is become most deformed Gent. I could well agree that loue should haue place in God both in his nature and in his actions for as hee is the chiefe and the very fountaine of all goodnesse so it seemeth very meet that hee should extend his goodnesse to all his creatures by doing good vnto them all according to their seuerall kinds but for this affection of hatred I do not see how it can so well agree to the nature of God it being by nature euill and contrarie to the louâ— of God for the which he is so renowmâ—d And therefore mee thiâ—kes it were better for you to passe ouer in 〈◊〉 this head of doctrine as it were to 〈◊〉 it cut as a foule blemish which in my 〈◊〉 disgraceth this faire picture of Gods nature which you haue so carefully drawne Sch. If you graunt the one you cannot deny the other for as God is good so hee must maintaine and vphold his goodnesse against euill by hating and abhorring it yea by confounding all the maintainers and vpholders of it For it is as necessarie naturall to God to abhorre euill generall and to hate it in the particulaâ— subiects as it is to him to inclin to good and to loue it in his creatures Gent. You will haue much ado to perswade me that God hateth any although I confesse you make a show of argument to proue it but before we argue the matter I would knowe whom and how God hateth Sch. Indeed the state of the question would bee agreed vpon before disputation and it may easily be known if you call to mind that which hath been said of the loue of God for first the reasonable creature onely is the subiect as of the loue so also of the hatred of God for of all the creatures in the world the reasonable onely can be and is euil The reason hereof is because all other things as they were created good so they continue in that state of goodnesse and in respect of it are in some sort loued of God although not in that degree of perfection and excellencie God hauing for the sin of man withdrawne from them some part of it But man hath cleane forsaken that state and standing wherin he was placed by God and lost that goodnesse for the which hee was so beloued of God Yea not onely so but also hee hath made an exchange of the said goodnesse for the contrarie naughtinesse of knowledge obedience for ignorance errour rebellion and contempt yea of the whole image of God for the vgly shape of Sathan and so is iustly become odious to God to whom before he was dearely beloued Gent. Belike man was created in a woorse estate then the rest of the creatures for they were sure to continue in the state of the loue of God and in happinesse from the which we see that man is most miserably fallen and that into y e hatred of god as you wold haue it I coÌ„fesse y â— as now y e case staÌ„deth with him man is in a farre woorse estaâ—e then any vnreasonable creature And that it were farre better to be a brute beast or a sencelesse stone then a man out of the fauour of God for who had not rather without any comparison with theÌ„ want the sweete sense of the loue of God as all the reasonable creatures do which eyther haue no sence at all or at the least no sence of God then to feele the heaâ—ie burthen of the wrath of God and would not chuse not to bee happie with them rather then to bee miserable with man Yet if we compare their first estates togither we shall find that mans estate was farre more excellent then theirs in that hee was created in the fruition of all pleasure and happinesse of the which their nature is not capable And what though hee were created in the possibilitie of being miserable from the which the other creatures are exempted Who would refuse the offer of riches honour fauour and loue made by his Prince vpon this condition that if hee were found to bee traiterous rebellious and disloyall hee should not onely bee depriued of all the aforesaid benefits but also be most shamefully and miserably toâ—tured and tormented to death Gent. That is it I lookt for you haue madâ— a very good reason against your selfe for protest vnto you I haue alwaies carried this minde that I had rather liue in a meane and