to all but dâ—th our affirmation viz. that God loveth onely his Church with his highest and greatest love contradict that of the Psalmist viz. that God is good to all let the Author better consider hath the Lord nothing to bestow unlesse he give them the top of his love Thirdly he saith it contradicteth the force of all his exhortations and calls to such as refuse nay it leaveth a way for these there being not his highest love for greater it is for God to give hearts willing to obey his call which his very words intimate he giveth not to all therefore loveth not all with his highest love And so for the rest they are weake and to no purpose alledged onely apted against this position that God hath not loved every man at all which is not our affirmation let them that broach it maintaine it But he hath a more stupendious piece of blasphemy against our assumption viz. It saith he hath not loved any other of mankinde no not when he made and beheld them all righteous but hated them Oh fearefull to say that he hateth the righteous Psalm 45.7 But here envy speaketh and ignorance admires for we say not nor can it be infer'd from us that God loved not innocent man at all but that he loved not him with his transcendent and greatest love he did not manifest the top of his love to him and this is no such blasphemy or fearefull thing to say for the gift that he gave to his Church viz. His Son was greater then primitive grace or any thing that he conferred in the creation and our deserts lesse for though in creation we could deserve no good and so his gift be free yet now in in our restoring we deserved much evill in creation what good he gave us was onely without merit but he now bestoweth all against our me it hence the scripture puts the emphasis of love upon the worke of redemption mercy having more in it then meere goodnesse by the former rather then by the latter he would be knowne as by his glory Exod. 33.19 34.6.7 But besides why should he fasten that on us as blasphemy which will prove the result of his owne words he saith to hate is to love in a lesse degree page 92. now doth not God love the righteous in a lesse degree then he loveth his onely Sonne in then he hateth the righteous by his owne doctrine oh fearefull to say but thus much is cleare that grant him that God loved innocent man yet it followeth not that he loved every man with the top and greatest of his love so that our Minor yet standeth good But he descendeth to give some satisfactory answer to the argument and it is well he doth so for his former words have yeelded but little it is well if his afterwords yeeld more we shall not shut our eyes against it He would have the Scripture shewed where it speaketh of the love and hatred let it be so as also his words which are these The Scripture mentioneth a diverse kinde and degree of love and hatred in God shewen in the effects of it Now herein I shall willingly joyne issue with him seriously to consider and weigh not onely what Scripture saith but what the Scripture meaneth in such speeches least we vent our owne conceits unworthy the nature of God love and hatred is no more attributed to God then desire griefe rejoycing with all other affections and passions of men which in us are perturbations and why not then love and hatred but to grant any perturbations in God comes little short of blasphemy therefore it may be controverted whether as all the rest of our affections incident to us so love and hatred be attributed to God properly or onely by an Anthropopathy as the members of our body are given to him by an Anthropomorphy that there is such a thing in God which we call love I grant but that the name of love and hatred is but figuratively given to it that also I affirme Gods love is generally thus defined Velle dare bonum creaturis a will to bestow good upon his creatures now this will is properly said to be in God but it is as I conceive figuratively called love after the manner of men because whom man loveth to him he willeth to bestow good So Gods will to bestow good is termed his love yet this is the difference mans will to bestow good is an effect of his love but God when he willeth to give good it is not any effect of his love but his love it self Scripture furnisheth us with such expressions John 3.16 God so loved the world that he sent his Sonne that is his actuall sending is an effect of his love that is of his will to send but we never finde this nor any such God so loved that he willed to send his Sonne because his will to send his Sonne is that love it selfe Hence that assertion of Cortinus in Molin l. 5. s 3 Let him that will consult with him about that expression Alius affectus mensura alterius affectus causa quod deus decretum faciat hath not stabiliment at all in Scripture this being considered it will appeare that Gods love hath no augmentation diminution alteration diversification Aquin. p. 1â— Q 20. Art 30. Q. 20. Art 20. Q. 23. Art 30. but what proceeds from the good things bestowed or will to bestow them so that as God is said to will a greater or lesse good so he is said to love more or lesse Ex parte boni voliti unum diligit magis aut minus And as the willeth some good freely and yet some evill for the sinne of the creature that creature may be said to be both loved and hated Idem potest odio haberi amari diversa ratione peccator amatur odio habetur and that as God willeth to give this man eternall life and to deny that man the same good he is said to love the one and hate the other although to both he give some good Deus omnes amat in quantum omnibus dat aliquod bonum in quantum aliquibus non dat vitam aeternam ideo eos od o habet These being considered I shall make it appeare that there is more feare of his confounding the degrees of his love of compassion then that wee should confound his love of compassion and delight as he speaketh Now to proceed to what he saith of Gods love and hatred of Gods love he speaketh of a double sort Love of Compassion and Delight I shall not insist on these termes though I might and show his want of wisdome in hinting such expressions without explanation for true the Scripture gives to God compassion but in compassion there must needs be passion but none in God Nor yet to insist upon what he saith of either by way of bounding to each its limits in good things bestowed though I might expatiate my selfe herein for
he maketh Gods compassion and mercy to extend no further then to make men salvable and his delight to be in the giving union and possession of all priviledges but this division is without ground for all good that God gives to fallen man even to glory it selfe floweth from his compassion and mercy glory in heaven is mercy as well as any thing we receive on earth 2 Tim. 1.18 and all that love that rests not till the party loved be brought into union c. is that love of compassion though he make it to be the love of delight which properly rests not till all that be done for delight is rather in the thing done then tending to the doing of it these two constitute not a good distinction as he boundeth them but these with many other things I passe by and come to examine what he speaketh of hatred that also he saith is twofold 1. A not so much loving as Gen. 29.30.31.33 Luke 14.26 2. A positive and furious hatred tending to the destruction of the hated Deut. 19.11 Now that a not so much loving should be called hatred is not cleare from those Texts alledged as for Gen. 29.30 that Text speaketh not of a lesse degree of love but of no love at all that is conjugall affection so he loved her not at all therefore hated her and for Luke 14.26 there is not spoken of a lesse love but absolute hatred if they stand in opposition to Christ for else it is enough to give worldly respects some part so that we give Christ the greatest part of our love but this is not sound divinity Againe if a not so much loving be hating then it is no such fearefull thing to say that God hateth the righteous for certaine it is that he loveth not them so much as he doth his onely Sonne But to let this passe I am now to examine how he welldeth these weapons to cut down our assumption That of Gods love he pursueth thus farre A love of compassion and mercy Psalm 136.25.145.8.9 is such a love as extendeth it selfe so farre for the good of man loved in good things afforded that a man is made salvable and so much done for him that in accepting c. he maybe saved Psal 36.5.6.7 That God is full of compassion and his mercy is over all his workes and he saveth man and beast those Texts affirme and that by the virtue of his compassion the sonnes of men come to partake of the well of life we grant but all the rest is of his owne making none of these Texts say that every of the sonnes of men have so much of Gods compassion as to have life procured for them by Christs death no nor yet that every man enjoyeth the height of Gods compassion this is to be yet proved for if creatures irrationâ—ll may have much of Gods compassion and yet not the height of his compassion why may not some men have much compassion yet not the height of it yet our assumption stands firme Againe he saith Lesse love then this was not to the Angels before they fell nor lesse love to mankinde before the fall Ecel 7.29 Gen. 12. This though it serve him not yet he discovereth his folly for this supposeth that Angels and men had compassion showen them before they fell but this is false for compassion presupposeth misery and the fall which was not before the fall but what is the result of all this no more but this that all men have some degree of Gods compassion manifested on them but what is all this to prove that every man hath the height of his compassion so that his reasoning cometh to this head every man hath some compassion showed him therefore that is high blasphemy to say that every man hath not the height of his compassion this is but miserable reasoning Againe thus he urgeth The love of compassion and the hatred that is in a lesse degree of love may stand together both in God and man Hos 11.5 Jer. 9.1.2 This is a truth nay I shall grant further that his love of compassion and his positive hatred may stand together that is God may give some expresses of his compassion to many whose destruction he willeth and whom he purposeth to destroy and this is so far from overthrowing that it confirmeth our assumption For it cleareth this that every degree of his compassion enjoyed doth not argue an eye to the salvation of them whom God bestoweth that low degree of compassion on therefore the compassion that God showeth to many is no argument that every man enjoyeth also the height of Gods compassion Yet hitherto we are untouched He saith further To say whoever he loveth with the love of compassion he loveth for ever or to say he hateth with any other hatred then that which is in the lesse degree of love any before they have hardened their hearts against him c. is contrary to Hosea 9.10 to 15. Zach. 7.11.13 1.18.28 2.4.5 In which words there is confusion impropriety and fallacy 1. He speakes confusedly not distinguishing the severall degrees of his compassion for it may be granted that to whom he giveth some degrees of his compassion he continueth not that for ever because some good he may give that is not to last for ever viz. a temporall good yet certainely to whom he giveth his highest pitch of compassion he loveth such for ever Will he say that Rom. 6.15 is not an everlasting compassion that compassion mentioned Ier. 31.33.34 is not for ever continued consult with 36.37 2. He speaketh improperly because though hatred may stand with a lesse degree of love that is he may deny some good to them to whom he giveth some good yet it is not proper to say that hatred consists in that lesse degree of love for in that he bestoweth any good he hateth not neither can hatred consist in the giving that good but rather in the deniall of a greater good he hated nor Esau in that he gave him some good but in that he gave him not that great good that he gave to Jacob. 3. He speaketh fallaciously suggesting to his followers that we hold that God hateth with a hatred that is without any degree of love that is he so willeth evill to to them that he willeth not to bestow any good at all but this we say not for the greatest hatred is to will to deny grace and glory but God may give much good to such he hateth not the reprobate with the hatred that excludeth all good yet some and many he hateth so as to deny them the top and height of his compassion and that before they turne away their hearts from him and how doth he in all this overthrow the Minor but by this hatred which he makes to be after their turning away from him I suppose he meaneth or at least should doe his will to deny saving grace and glory and then happily 4. He may seeme to speake
any that denyeth the great love of God to the world of mankind John 3.16 Which is that he sent his Son that those that beleeve might not perish but have everlasting life 2. For his deduction there-from it is no high blasphemy to deny Secondly As for that Phrase Hating most men from Eternitie He doth not deale very candidly to set before his Reader the odious tearme of Hating most men from Eternity which flesh and bloud doth not well digest without explaining the meaning of his Adversaries herein as if they taught some monstrus Doctrine when indeed it is his owne Doctrine For that God hated Esau he cannot deny and that that hatred consisted in his denying that peculiar favour to Esau which he gave to Jacob he granteth Pag. 93. And so he defineth Gods hatred to be a lesse loving Pag. 92 And this lesse loving is a denying of that good which he giveth to another Now for God to deny that great good viz. Grace and Glory to most men which hee giveth to his Elect this is in our sense to hate them and let him if he can produce any that speaks otherwise of Gods hatred But this is no such Blasphemy as he pretendeth for he saith no lesse himselfe He decreed to harden and give up the residue for contempt of meanes to shew his justice when he overcommeth his Elect and brings them in to beleeve and so to the inheritance Pag. 123. Now is not to decree to harden to deny that great good Grace and Glory which he giveth to his Elect in overcoming them to beleeve And is not this to hate And is not this to most men in his owne expresses Yet he cries out of blaspheming the love of God in saying that in that sense God is said to hate most men But he may happily reply that Gods hardening most men is for contempt of meanes but this helpeth him not because he overcommeth his Elect notwithstanding contempt of meanes therefore he denies that grace to one which he giveth to another Aquin. part 1. q. 23. art 3. Therefore to this I say with Aquinas In quantum vult omnibus aliquod bonum omnes amat in quantum aliquibus non dat quodcunque bonum nec illud bonum quod est vita aeterna ideo eos odio habet reprobat Thirdly As for that Phrase of Most men being not beholding to God for any good at all It is his owne perverse inference that because we say he denyeth the top of his love to most men therefore he chargeth us with this that they are not beholding to God for any good False suggestion That God shineth both on Just and unjust shews many mercies to all no man denyeth Omnibus dat aliquod bonum ideo omnes amat Fourthly As for the last And no doore of life and repentance set open for them I only demand what doore can be set open and with what intention it is set open to them whom God hath determined to give up to destruction But this he hath done to most men as he saith Pag. 120. Now that I may in a few words thus reason they that are decreed to be given up and hardened are Reprobated and they that are Reprobated whilst they remaine so cannot be saved nor receive Faith or Conversion is the Confession of Corvinus Cap. 26. §. 5 Si intelligatur de reprobo qua tali in sensu composito nego reprobum posse salvari aut fidem accipere se convertere And that they that are from Eternity Reprobated do alwaies remaine so is cleare from their Principles because Reprobation is past on them that do finally persist in Infidelity and disobedience whom God foreseeth to do so and by vertue of his prescience do infallibly persist in it and so remaine alwaies Reprobates Hence is it that Corvinus himselfe Cap. 21. §. 6. though he said that Justified persons might be reprobated yet he durst not say that Reprobated persons could be justified because that was the conclusive Act being done after finall impenitence after which no man can beleeve or repent Therefore how a doore of life can be opened to such in time I cannot see and to deny it is no blasphemy The second thing which he sadly layeth to heart is That Many contradict plaine sayings of Scripture as that Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2.6 Christ tasted death for every man Heb. 2.9 and affirme contrarie that Christ did not shed his bloud or die for everie man But herein he discovers either affected Ignorance or wilfull Calumny For 1. He cannot produce any that deny the truth of those Scriptures If he will content himselfe with what those places affirme he shall have no Antagonist but that which we deny is his glosses on and inferences from those Texts as that Christ did by death procure Eternall life for every son of Adam which no Scripture affirmeth The Remonst to whom our Author must come behind in these Controversies have been so farre from charging us with denying Plaine sayings of Scriptures that they have granted that their Tenent is not nor can be thought to be contained in plaine sayings of Scripture Col. Hagien 170. Vrgent fratres articulum istum totidem verbis Scripturae nunquā reperiri sed respōdemus fierinon posse ut articulus Controversus inter eos qui Scripturam pro verbo Dei agnoscunt totidem verbis Scripturae concipiatur They had the ingenuity to conceive that no man that had the least sparke of grace or reason would question or deny that which the Scripture plainely affirmeth Rep. ad art 31. art 12 and Arminius professeth that in this very point the Controversie is not about the words but sense and interpretation as may be seene in that place quoted in my Frontispiece but our Adversary delights fingere sibi adversarium stolidum to make to himselfe a foolish Adversary A third thing that he complaineth of is this That the Doctrine of the Church of England should be called a flat lie viz. that God redeemed me and all mankind in this assertion he redeemed none but the Elect. Wherein we may see the Church of England hath a Son of a very good nature but a very bad ingeny sorry to have her wronged but knoweth not when she is so therefore pickes quarrels without cause For 1. He that takes the Liturgie of the Church of England for the Doctrine thereof may very well take that for an injury which is not and what cause many have had to say that many expressions were foisted into the Liturgie and it not retaine its Primitive purity I leave to him to examine 2. To redeem totum genus humanum is no more then Omnia genera hominum all mankind no more then all the kinds of men and if he would have that Phrase to meane further he must prove it now this is not proved a lye by saying he redeemed only the Elect for such he hath in all
falsely for his will so to doe is not after their turning away from him but long before it there is a double hatred of God mentioned in scripture 1. A denyall of saving grace to some which he giveth others whence their turning away from him followeth which others having turne not away 2 A punishment of such for turning away now the first is proper to our controversie and it is no way against Scripture to say that such hatred is before men turne away from God of the latter his Texts speakes as Hos 9.15 and nothing to the purpose for more then this cannot be concluded that God destroyeth none till they turne away from him which any may grant our hardning or not hardning our hearts cannot be the measure of his giving or denying grace or will so to doe because his giving or not giving saving grace is before our hardning or not hardning our hearts as also because God doth not deny grace and glory to all that turne from him all turning from him are not so hated of him Paul did so in a greater measure then many that God never willed to give grace or glory to and in them who are given over and denied his speciall grace and so hated of him he doing of it in time willed to do so before time as be confesseth p. 121. If so he hated them before they hardned themselves against him Esau was hated before he had done good or evill now if he be hated as they would have it in a small degree without and before his evill why may not God hate him in the highest degree before his evill Justice is seene in small things as well as great ones if any shall say his foresight of their sinnes is the cause why he so hateth them I demand why did not the foresight of Pauls infidelity move him to hate him which he saw to be greater then of many who were hated and passed by both in respect of grace and glory but he concludeth wherein if ever he must undoe our assumption For such as while his compassion floweth c. they will persist till he give them up to Satan such are reprobated of God and so hated of him Ezeck 24.13 Ier. 6.16.27.30 1 Ioh. 5.18 c. and none but such set forth in Scripture to be hated of God Prov. 1.23.33 which overthroweth the assumption Which words are yet very fallacious therefore not fit to satisfie us withall for we grant such as persist till they be given up are hated and that in the highest degree but here is the question do they then begin to be hated of him doth Gods hatred follow or precede their being given up yea their persisting Gods hatred or reprobation we make no more then a will in God to deny both speciall grace and glory Now did he not will to deny it nay did he not deny it actually to them before they persisted certainely he did else they would not so persist We never finde this method or God thus saying If thou persist I will reprobate thee Or if thou persist till I give thee over to Satan I will deny thee my speciall grace and decree so to do let the Author produce such if he can But wherein hath he in all this overthrowne the assumption his assertions are overthrowne and therfore have not strength to overthrow this assumption that is setled upon such evidence cleare it is all that he saith notwithstanding that God did decree to deny the height of his compassion to many long before they persisted in rebellion if so then he did not intend Christ to them which is the height of his compassion Those Texts cited by him do all speake thus much that every man is not loved with the height of his compassion as Rom. 9.13 speaketh thus much that Esau was not so much loved as Iacob and therein affirmeth that he was not loved with the height of his love for if he had been so loved he had received so much grace as to have kept his birthright And this the Author granteth page 93. That Esau was hated in respect of peculiar love But he saith The hatred of Esau may stand with the love of compassion Let it be so yet we are safe for his hatred cannot stand with the height of his compassion which is our assumption Againe he saith If laying his Mountaines waste did witnesse such hatred did not the giving him those Mountaines testifie like love though not so much as to Iacob Were it so yet we are where we were by his owne confession Esau was not loved with the height of his compassion because not so much as Iacob Besides let the Author consider were not those sayings waste and so Gods hatred of Esaâ— and love to Iacob though showne in part in temporall things yet to be accomplished in spirituall how comes the Apostle in Rom. 9. to use this example in his businesse which was to prove that all Abrahams feed according to the flesh were not heires according to promise As for his reiterated calumny viz. that our assumption confoundeth the love of compassion and delight it is not worth the naming the contrary hath appeared rather he confounds the severall degrees of compassion in arguing that because every man partaketh of some degree of compassion therefore every man must partake of the highest degree but this reasoning can never overthrow our assumption and so our argument still holdeth firme I shall againe resume it Those for whom Christ died so as to procure eternall life for he loved with height and top of his love But he loveth not every son of Adam with the height of his love Ergo He did not lay downe his life for every sonne of Adam so as to procure eternall life for them and what passage is there in all his discourse that everteth either of these premises from which the conclusion followeth firme CHAP. XV. Of the third Objection THe third Argument which he pretendeth to answer is this All they for whom Christ died to satisfie his Fathers justice are justified by his blood c. But. But every son of Adam is not justified by his blood c. Ergo He did not die for nor satisfie his fathers justice for every son of Adam which argument though any that will may finde it propounded in other termes in the third argument in the conference at Hague thus Those for whom he died he so died in their stead that he did translate the death which they deserved upon himselfe so that they died not thus to die for is taken 2 Sam. 18.33 Rom 5.7 Rom. 9.3 But he did not so for every son of Adam Ergo Not the former But seeing the Argument in the issue comes to one head I shall engage in the Argument as he propoundeth it and first I shall make the Argument appeare in its native and intended strength For God not to deale with Christ according to the exigence of his merits and with us
odious that wherin the vigour of the argument lyeth is left out and a superfluity of confusion intermingled which giveth us a taste of his faithfulnesse in this businesse which he at first promised if he do it willingly he is to be blamed if ignorantly he will not I hope thinke much to be informed the argument in its genuine shape runs thus and it was the sixth in order in the conscience at Hague Those for whom Christ died he loved them some with the top and greatest love that is showne to man But so he loveth not all and every man with his greatest love Ergo He died not for every man that is for every son of Adam The major proposition is grounded on many Texts wherein the love of Christ in dying for us is not set downe as an expression of love barely but with an emphasis and transcendebly as Rom. 5.8 a love with all commendation or magnification 1 Iohn 3.16 He so loved the world not great love onely but greatest John 15.13 no greater love then for a man to lay downe his life for his friend but Christs greater in that he did it when we were enemies therefore we propound it not so remissely as he fallaciously whom he dieth for he loveth and no more but loveth eminently with the greatest love The minor is undeniable for that God should love every man most and with his greatest love yea the damned with so great as beloveth the saved withall the Arminians durst never yet affirme Scripture no where speaketh and the Author himselfe overthroweth page 89. to some more especiall love is showne Now any may see the wide difference betwixt the argument in its genuine force and as he propoundes it and all his answers fall to the ground being apted not to the argument but his perversions of it yet I shall reply that I may reduce him to truth As for that Text 1 Iohn 3.16 it is picked out of purpose by himself it is not so clearly holding fâ—ith the force of the argument as many others yet to take it as it lieth let us consider that it meaneth that transcendent love beyond the greatest of mans Hereby perceive we that love Cap. 4.10 11. and if he so loved us and behold what love Cap. 3 ver 1. Now can every son of Adam say I perceive the greatest love of God to me in that Christ died for me if every man perceiveth the greatest love then no roome for his expresse page 89. to some more speciall favour iâ— showne His after-plea The place speakes of the perception of love by beleivers helpeth not because it speaketh of no other perception then what arose from the former assertion Christ hath died for us it is a conclusion from infallible premises which any may conclude that can so premise there is such a connexion betwixt his dying for and his greatest love that every one that affirmeth the one doth in eodem instanti affirme the other it is no speciall priviledge of some to perceive his greatest love in dying for them but of all for whom he died Thus for the major He then violently assaulteth the minor thus The assumption is full of infidelity and blasphemy A heavy charge if he can make his charge good but like â—ailing Raâ—shekah he oftner barketh then biteth but how great is his impudence and injury to misalledge his adversary into infidelity and blasphemy let him take the assumption as he should propound it viz. God loveth not every man with his greatest love then either it is not infidelity and blasphemy or else he is equally guilty with us for he saith page 89. God giveth to some more speciall love if so then he loveth not every man with his speciall and greatest love nay yet further he saith page 90. If it had been God loveth not every man in the world it might be granted and proved which is more then he can prove but if it be a truth that he loveth not every man in the world then certainely it is far from infidelity and blasphemy to say that he loveth not every man with his transcendent and greatest love no nor ever hath loved every man with his greatest love Neither is it such blasphemy as he pretendeth to say that he hath not nor doth love any but his Church with his transcendent or greatest love the Apostle giveth great reason so to affirme Ephes 5.25 26. He therefore exhorteth to conjugall affection which is the greatest and strongest of all relations and to the greatest and highest degree of that kinde and the patterne of this he fetcheth from Christ to his Church and that expressed in giving up himselfe to death for them is it not cleare that he loveth his Church with his transcendent and greatest love nay this he plainely affirmeth page 9â— from this very Text Ephes 5.25 where he saith That Text speakes of higher ends of giving himselfe then ransome even of the speciall fruits of application ver 26. so the Author page 94. So intimating that the application holds forth greater love then the giving his life to procure but this is groundlesse for though the Text speaketh of the application of his blood yet the specimen of his transcendent love is not in that but his giving himselfe to that end In that he loved it and gave himselfe for it Besides Scripture speaketh as if to give his life to procure is a signe of greater love then to give his spirit to sanctifie the Apostle inforceth from the greater to the lesse if he gave us him to die for us much more with him will he give us all things spirit to helpe infirmities vocation justification glorification Rom. 9.32 And when the Scripture commendeth his love it is not that he gives them Spirit to apply but his life to merit in that he died and no better testimony doe I desire then of the Remonstrants themselves Collat. Hagien in Arg. 6. Quum vitâ nullum pretiosius pignus quia pro alio constituere potest merito dicitur summam esse charitatem vitam deponere hoc cum scipo Christi convenit sicut cum aliis locis Ephes 1.2 1 Iohn 3.16 That is seeing none can lay downe for any a greater pledge then life therefore it is deservedly said that it is the greatest love to lay downe life for one by which the evidence both of Major and Mâ—nor appeareth But here in page 90 he instanceth where the blasphemy of our assumption lyeth viz. in contradicting and blaspheming many Texts of Scripture as Iohn 3.16 where it speakes of Gods love to the world true but is in the beleeving part of it as the afterwords show for them that beleeve not whom God foreseeth how doth God expresse his love to them doth he send his sonne to die for them that as many of them whom he foreseeth to persist in unbeleefe as that beleeve should not perish So he saith it blasphemeth Psal 145.8.9.136.25 where it saith the Lord is good