And either you speak of goodness or holiness existent or non-existent. In a devil there is substance, which is good in its natural kind, and therefore so far loved of God; but there is no holiness in him, and that which is not, is not amiable: but if you meant existent holiness, in a saint, then it is false that God loveth the person of a devil better than the holiness of a saint. Nor is it a proof that he loveth them equally, because he equally willeth their existence; for he willeth not they shall be equal in goodness, though equally existent: and it is complacency, and not mere volition of existence, which we mean by love.
Otherwise your arguing is as strong if it run thus: that which God bringeth to pass, and not another thing, he willeth and loveth more than that other; but God bringeth to pass men's sickness, pain, death, and damnation, and not the holiness, ease, or salvation of those persons: therefore he loveth their pain, death, and damnation better than their holiness: therefore we should love them better, than the devils or miserable men should love their misery better than holiness. God showeth what he loveth oft by commanding it, when he doth not effect it; he loveth holiness _in esse cognito_, and _in esse existente_, respectively as his image.
_Object._ But at least it will follow, that in this or that person as the devils, God loveth the substance better than holiness; for what he willeth he loveth: but he willeth the substance without the holiness; therefore he loveth the substance without the holiness.
_Answ._ It is answered already. Moreover, 1. God willed that holiness should be the duty of all men and devils, though he willed not insuperably and absolutely to effect it. 2. The word "without" meaneth either an exclusion or a mere non-inclusion. God willeth not the person excluding the holiness: for he excludeth it not by will or work; but only he willeth the person, not including the holiness as to any absolute will. And so God loveth the person without the holiness; but not so much as he would love him if he were holy.
_Object._ But you intimate, that it is best as to the beauty of the universe, that there be sin, and unholiness, and damnation; and God loveth that which is good as to the universe, yea, that is a higher good than personal good, as the subject is more noble, and therefore more to be loved of us as it is of God.
_Answ._ 1. I know Augustin is oft alleged as saying, _Bonum est ut malum fiat_. But sin and punishment must be distinguished: it is true of punishment presupposing sin, that it is good and lovely, in respect to public ends, though hurtful to the person suffering; and therefore as God willeth it as good, so should we not only be patient, but be pleased in it as it is the demonstration of the justice and holiness of God, and as it is good, though not as it is our hurt. But sin (or unholiness privative) is not good in itself, nor to the universe: nor is it a true saying, that It is good that there be sin; nor is it willed of God, (though not nilled with an absolute, effective nolition,) as hath been elsewhere opened at large. Sin is not good to the universe, nor any part of the beauty of the creature: God neither willeth it, causeth it, nor loveth it.
_Object._ At least he hath no great love to holiness in those persons, that he never giveth it to; otherwise he would work it in them.
_Answ._ He cannot love that existent which existeth not. Nor doth he any further will to give it them than to command it, and give them all necessary means and persuasions to it. But what if God make but one sun, will you say that he hath no great love to a sun, that will make no more? What if he make no more worlds? doth that prove that he hath no great love to a world? He loveth the world, the sun, and so the saints, which he hath made: and he doth not so far love suns, or worlds, or saints, as to make as many suns, or worlds, or saints, as foolish wits would prescribe unto him. Our question is, What being God loveth, and we should most love, as being best and likest him, and not what he should give a being to that is not.
_Object._ VI. Holiness is but an accident, and the person is the substance, and better than the accident; and Dr. Twiss oppugneth, on such accounts, the saying of Arminius, That God loveth justice better than just men, because it is for justice that he loveth them.