praed sect 6. others that hold predestination to be ex praeuisis to deliuer it in the same maner Lessius a Iesuite among the rest hath one c 5. assert pag 367. n. 75. assertion that containes all this All the iustified are elected and predestinate to glorie but this election and predestination is not complete but requires a condition on our behalfe that it may be complete the which condition it is in our own power to accomplish or not to accomplish and therefore it is also in our owne power to make that our predestination may be complete Aureolus d 1. d. 41. art 1. pag. 490. edit Rom. sayes that all Schoole men which hold predestination ex praeuisis expound that God wils all men to be saued antecedently before their working but not consequently by his will following the foresight of their workes Which words make the doctrine of Gods antecedent and consequent will thus expounded to set the first act of Gods louing Iacob after the foresight of Iacobs good life and to make the foresight of mens good or ill deserts to be the cause of their election and reprobation The question then between the Iesuite and me touching predestination The state of the question touching Gods Anâ—ecedent will is this not whether God from all eternitie decreed to punish the reprobate eternally for their sinnes so that their sinnes should be the immediate cause of their damnation for this I denie not but the true state is touching the CAVSE OF THE DECREE IT SELF that is to say what is the cause why God foreseeing that all men should equally in Adam be sinners yet notwithstanding decreed to shew his mercy in forgiuing some electing them to life and to shew his iustice and wrath in other some by reiecting them from this election forsaking them in their sinnes that they might eternally be condemned I say there can no other cause of this decree be assigned then onely the free will of God whereas the Iesuite in his doctrine of antecedent and consequent will exemplified in this his comparison of an earthly King makes the reason of this decree to be works foreseene so that on the behalfe of the elect their foreseene grace should be the cause of their election and on the behalfe of the reprobate their foreseene sinne should be the cause of their reiection 11 The which doctrine of my aduersary how plaine soeuer he thinke it to iudicious wits whether predestination were in the corrupted masse of sinne or before and whether the foreseene workes be vnderstood to be of grace or of nature is false vpon fiue grounds First it seemes to be the very opinion of the Massilians who of all hands are holden to haue bene Semi-pelagians or the relicks of Pelagius Prosper e Epist ad August sayes This is their profession that euery man sinned in Adam and that no man is regenerate to saluation by his workes but by the grace of God neuerthelesse the propitiation which is in the mysterie of Christs bloud is propounded to all men without exception that whosoeuer will come to faith and baptisme may be saued but who would beleeue and who would perseuere in that faith which afterward should be holpen by Gods grace those God foreknew before the world was made and those he predestinate vnto his kingdome who he foresaw being freely called would be worthy of election and would depart this life well And Faustus that was a Bishop of that sect f De grat lib arb l. 2. c. 2. sayes What God may foresee or fore-ordaine touching vs concerning that which is to come that consists in our well or ill doing g Cap. 3. pag. 833. It is one thing for God to foreknow and another to predestinate praescience foresees what is to be done and then afterwards predestination appoints the rewards that foresees the merits this fore-ordaines the rewards when that hath pronounced a cause then this foretels the sentence and so vnlesse Gods praescience discouer something his predestination decrees nothing This is the selfe same that my aduersarie h Pag. 166. writes how God vpon the foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well in the secret chamber of his diuine knowledge and will pronounces a particular sentence and decree of saluation to some and of damnation to others Which also is the doctrine whereinto this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is resolued Againe if God predestinate no man to his end but vpon the foresight and respect of his workes then he hath no perfect or formall will to elect any but after the foresight of his good life nor to reprobate any but after the foresight of his euill life which being so I demaund whence it comes that the elect beleeue and the reprobate beleeue not and how it comes to passe that God foresees grace in the one and sinne in the other It must needs be answered either that it is Gods will the elect shall haue grace and the reprobate no grace giuen them or that they beleeue or not beleeue of their owne free will by the strength of nature without any working of God This latter is grosse Pelagianisme making nature the beginning of grace But if the former be granted that God foresees no grace but what himselfe predestinates to giue nor no sinne but what vpon the withholding of his grace the reprobate will freely worke then against all discourse this makes that the cause of predestination which is an effect ensuing on it for therefore God will and doth giue grace because first he hath elected and will giue no grace because he hath reprobated as I will shew by and by 12 Secondly it is a ground both in Diuinitie and nature that the will intends the end before the meanes hence it followes that God cannot haue this consequent will to saue vpon the foresight of grace For I reason thus * Quia volens ordinatè finem ea quae sunt ad finem prius vult fineÌ„ quam aliquod entium ad finem propter talem finem alia vult Ergo cum in toto processâ— quo creatura beatâ—ficabilis perducitur ad perfectum finem cum finis vltimus sit beatitudo perfecta Deus volens huic aliquid istius ordinis PRIMO VVLT HVIC CREATVRAE BEATIFICABILI FINEM ET QVASI POSTERIVS VVLT SIBI ALIA QVAE SVNT IN ORDINE ILLORVM QVAE PERTINENT AD FINEM scilicet Gratia Fides Meritum bonus vsus liberi arbitrij Omnia ista ad istum finem sunt ordinata licet quaedam remotiùs quaedam propinquiùs Ergo PRIMO ISTI VVLT DEVE BEATITVDINEM QVAM ALIQVID ISTORVM ET PRIVS VVLT â—I QVODCVNQVE ISTORVM QVAM PRAEVIDEAT IPSVM HABITVRVM quodcunque istorum Jgitur PROPTER NVLLVM ISTORVM PRAEVISVM VVLT EI BEATITVDINEM Scot. 1. d. 4. qu vnic §. Potest aliter Media vt media non possunt appeti nisi propter finem non igitur potuit Deus
Theol. l. 1. pros 3. Soto in Rom. 9. tract de Praedestinat Caietan 1 p. qu. 23. art 3. in Rom. 9. whereof all are cleare for election and many also for reprobation by the best anciēt Schoolmen that I haue looked into so that if the matter were to be caried by nūber and voices Caluines doctrin z Reported by the Reply pag. 151. That God hath predestinated without any merit or demerit of their parts that are predestinated onely because it so pleased him must be acknowledged the truth and my Aduersaries doctrine transcribed and stolne out of Becanus a dozen leaues together must be awarded to containe a The poison of the most pestelent opinion which Caluine holdeth A.D. pag. 145. the poyson and the pestilence The Iesuits also and moderne Diuines of latter time in the Church of Rome follow the same conclusions and maintaine them though I do not deny that some by vertue of the vnity alway found in the Church of Rome dissent from them Henriquez a Iesuite touching election b Sum. de fin hom cap. 11. n. 3. sayes The true and common opinion of the Diuines supposes no motiue cause or condition no mans behalfe foreseene of God why he should by the immutable will of God be loued and predestinated to eternall life and to all the effectuall meanes thereof but all men that shall effectually be saued are freely chosen out of the masse of corruption and predestinate for the merit of Christ before the preuision of the course of their life and their vse of reason and so consequently before the preuision of their perseuerance in grace or any free worke worthy reward and loue and the whole reason is the free will of God Touching reprobation he holds otherwise Bellarmine c De Grat l. 2 c. 9. sayes there can no reason of our part be giuen of Gods predestination I say there cā no reason be assigned to exclud not only merits properly so called but also the good vse of freewill or grace foreseene d Cap. 15. ad 4. God reprobates before the foresight of workes in as much as he will not deliuer the partie reprobated out of the masse of sinne e Cap. 16. prop. 9. Reprobation which S. Austin calles Predestination to death comprehends two acts the one Negatiue whereby God will not saue them whereof there is no cause on the part of men The other positiue whereby he will damne them the cause whereof is the preuision of sinne f Dried concord part 1. c 3. Sixt. Sē l. 6. ann 251. Pomponat de praedest pag. 955. Tolet. in Ro 9. ann 19. 26. c. 11. ann 4. Peter select disp in Rom. 9. disp 5 Suar. de praedest l. 1. c 8. n. 32. l. 2. c 23. nu 14. 20. 27. Pezant 1. p. qu. 23. art 5. disp 6. p. 157. concl 4. Zumel disput vv part 3. pag. 343 345. 346. Rispol lib. 1. qu. 1. concl 3. the same is affirmed by othes though the most of them hold which I deny not that predestinatiō is in the masse of sinne and reprobation positiue which onely is Gods purpose to punish the reprobate is to punish them for workes foreseene yet that helpes not my aduersaries opinion who affirmes predestination in what state soeuer it were to be ex praeuisis and sayes that not onely positiue reprobation which is no more but Gods purpose to damne and to execute that which is called negatiue reprobation but election it selfe is for the preuision of workes done by our owne free will which the workes euen of the corrupt masse are not but are done by Adams will which all these confute Vasquez g Vasqu 1 p. disp 95. n 2. the same thing affirmed by Suar. de praedest l. 5. c. 3. n. 1. saies There be not a few Thomists that affirme God to haue kept the same order in reprobation that he did in election that before any foresight of their sinnes of his owne will alone he decreed to exclude some from the kingdome of heauen though he did not ordaine them to the punishment of sense and then that such as he would exclude he permitted to fall into sinne with that intent that he might exclude them from the kingdome of heauen as he had decreed in such sort as he calles effectually after election to glory And Cardinall Tolet speaking of reprobation seemes h In Rom. 9 annot 26. pag. 428. to say the same thing that our aduersaries so much obiect to M. Caluine that by the right of the dominion and power which God hath ouer man and euery creature God may without any iniustice do and exercise whatsoeuer it pleaseth him be it good or euill for if a man that is lord but of a little wood or stone may of the said wood or stone make what he list either a vile and base or an honorable worke or burne it much more may God do the same thing whose dominion is full and absolute and hereupon he concludes that if it were so that no man can resist Gods will but he hardens whom he will yet we might not pleade with him because all men are vnto God as the clay to the potter and so he may by his good right inflict his punishments shew his wrath and power according to his owne will I haue bene something curious in alleadging or citing these authors because I would make it manifest that neuer a one of my aduersaries assertions either that God elected to saluation vpon foresight of grace and good workes or left it to mans owne will whether he would vse the meanes offered well or ill or that the reprobate are reiected from election and saluation for their sinne foreseene or that the meanes of saluation are giuen alike to all is the doctrine of the Church of Rome but these assertions proceede from the ignorance and rashnesse of a few therein that care not what they say so they may be barking against Caluine And albeit many of these Authors hold all predestination to be in the masse of sinne yet for so much as out of the masse God first i Reprobat Deus ante praeuisionem operum quatenus nō vult aliquē ex massa peccati liberare Bellar. de grat lib. arb l. 2. c 15. quarta obiect p. 474. freely and then determinately and lastly absolutely elects whom he will hence it will follow necessarily that this foresight of the good and ill vse of freewill and this consequent will to saue and refuse vpon the preuision of after workes can haue no place because God once for all in a corrupted masse makes his decree absolute vpon the state of sinne wherein he findes Adam and his posteritie and not conditionall vpon the condition and foresight of that which they themselues shall also do hereafter their workes good or euill being subordinate meanes to bring them to their end but not any cause or condition whereupon God in
all men is NO PROPER and FORMALL act of willing in God because he hath no imperfect act of willing as they call VELLEITIE but onely * Voluntatem signi a signification of will which onely is METAPHORICALL and INTERPRETATIVE in that he carries himselfe towards men as if he had that act of willing Thus thinke Caietan and Marsilius Others say the formall and proper will of God reaches not to the saluation of all men for that cause because it is not fulfilled but onely to the giuing of sufficient meanes which will onely to appoint sufficient meanes is formall in God and thereof God is said to will the saluation of all men and of this minde are many Schoole men This will of God b In 1. Tho. disp 83. nu 22. saith Vasquez whereby he would the saluation of all men euen of the reprobate verie many Schoole-men especially the newer thinke to be onely a CONDITIONATED will which they call a VELLEITIE whose act is not absolute and perfect but vnder condition Now the probabler opinion c 1. p. q. 19. ar 6 concl 2. comm saith Dominicus Bannes is that there is FORMALLY no will in God which is signified by the name of velleitie Whence it followes that since by the doctrine of Thomas and many others this Antecedent will is but a VELLEITIE it cannot be formally in God But to take downe this raw student yet a little more Soto Maior d Soto Maio. in Tim vbi sup pag. 274. saith This word God will the saluation of all men by the good leaue of so many ancient Authors we will not onely expound of will PROPERLY so called which is Gods good pleasure but of his antecedent will that is to say an IMAGINARY and METAPHORICALL will according to the which it is no inconuenience to say God will haue all men to be saued of which antecedent will or will IMPROPERLY so called Damascen speakes And e Pag. 276. againe Damascens antecedent will is but a GENERALL METAPHORICALL and IMPROPER will which they call a VELLEITIE Here you see that Damascen and Thomas his antecedent will is but a velleitie and this velleitie is no will simply or formally in God and therefore I spake not ignorantly but after the minde of the best Schoole men that write when I said out of Durand that this antecedent will is not simply properly and formally the will of God but knew well enough what I said and such as hold the contrary that this antecedent will whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men is simply properly or formally the wil of God f Opus est fateri non omnem voluntatem Beneplaciti semper impleri Magal in Tim. pag. 252. are driuen to hold a paradoxe that Gods absolute will which is defined to be the will of his good pleasure may be defeated and not accomplished which is a desperate shift and contrary to the doctrine of g Tho. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. Magist 1. d. 46. ibi Scot. Occham Dionys Capreol d. 45. q. vnic art 2. concl 5. Caiet in 1. Tim. 2.4 Dom. Ban. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. concl 2. in sum text Perer. select disp in Ioh 1. nu 73. the best ancient Diuines in the Church of Rome and directly against the Scripture which saith h Psal 135.6 Our God hath done whatsoeuer pleased him in heauen and earth i Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will k Eph. 1.11 who worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will 7 Thirdly he saith that in our ignorance possible we vnderstand not this distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will and that is the cause why we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls words thereby which may be true and himselfe also as ignorant therein as we For be it spoken in good time Ludouicus Viues a man of his owne side hath l In August de ciuit lib. 22. c. 1. obserued that the late Diuines of the Church of Rome either to solue or cut asunder things obiected against them haue found out so many wils of Good pleasure of Signification Antecedent Consequent of simple Complacencie or Displicencie that it were to be wished they would better explane what they say in words suited to common sence and not with these absurd nouelties of words seeke for admiration Neuerthelesse because my aduersary is so peremptory in charging vs with ignorance that we vnderstand it not and so confident of his owne exposition that any iudicious wit by the very sound of words must needs grant it to be a good and a true exposition let the triall hereof proceed betweene vs and let it be obserued whether my confident Iesuite with his wit so iudicious hath hit the bird in the eye 8 The question therefore is whether we vnderstand the distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will touching the saluation of all men right because we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls text made thereby or rather whether himselfe haue giuen the true exposition thereof For the deciding whereof note first that m Capreol 1. d. 45. qu. vnic art 2. concl 4. Molin concor qu. 19. art 6. disp 1. Vasquez 1 p. disp 83. c. 3. Rispol de praedifin lib. 1. q. 1. dub 2. the Schoole-men who are the principall Diuines that haue bene in the Church of Rome and labour most to fit it to the text yet differ and are contrary one to another in expounding it Ariminensis n 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad 1. sayes This distinction is vnderstood by some one way and by some another Gregorie of Valence o Tom. 1. disp 1 q. 19. punct 2. sayes All Diuines do not declare after one manner what is to be vnderstood by the names of Antecedent and Consequent will but they expound it diuersly It is therefore an obscure and perplexed distinction conceiued in diuers sences that on our part the matter were not great whether we vnderstood it or no but on our aduersaries part it is ridiculous to tell vs we vnderstand it not when they vnderstand it not themselues and to expound the Scripture by it when all Scripture should be expounded in words plaine and manifest Note secondly that Damascen p Can. loc lib. 11. c. 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. disp 43 sect 3. Baron because some make him elder by almost 400 yeares who liued 750 yeares after Christ was the first that euer expounded Gods will to saue all men in these termes Capreolus q Capreol vbi sup sayes he brought in this distinction And r Valentian vbi sup Gregorie of Valence He seemes to be the first that thus distinguished the will of God Damascens words be these ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de orthod fid l. 2. c. 29. We must know that God ANTECEDENTLY will haue all men to be saued and obtaine his kingdome for he made vs not to punish vs but to partake
his goodnesse as one that is good but such as sinne he will punish as one that is iust The first therefore is called his ANTECEDENT will and GOOD PLEASVRE but the latter his CONSEQVENT will and PERMISSION arising because of vs. And this Permission againe is twofold the one Dispensatorie and correctorie to saluation the other Condemnatorie to finall iudgement Againe t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog de Manich. prope fin Albeit God will condemne yet this he doth not according to his ANTECEDENT will but his CONSEQVENT That is an ANTECEDENT will which a mans wils of himselfe and that is a CONSEQVENT will which arises from the cause of the things that are done For God ANTECEDENTLY of himselfe wils that all men should be saued and come to the knowledge of his truth but when we sinne he will punish vs so much as he sees expedient And thus Gods ANTECEDENT will is of his goodnesse and his CONSEQVENT will of his iustice These are the words of Damascen expounding the manner how God will haue all men to be saued wherein he seemes to affirme fiue things touching the antecedent and consequent will of God First that his Antecedent wil is that whereby he wils a thing simply of himselfe of his owne goodnesse and nature not moued thereunto by any thing in the creature out of himselfe As when he wils the good and saluation of the elect His consequent will is that when he wils according to the disposition and nature or circumstances of the creature as it deserues for the manifestation of his iustice as when he wils the punishment of him that sins because in iustice sinne deserues punishment Secondly that Gods consequent will followes vpon the condition of the creature and vpon some cause therein going before in which regard it is called consequent that is a will ensuing after as when he wils the punishment of man after that man hath sinned against him Thirdly that the antecedent will of God is his good pleasure whereby he takes delight in that he wils but his consequent will is his permission suffering iudgement to be inflicted on them that sinne Fourthly that by this antecedent will God would all men to be saued and come to his kingdome and by his consequent will such to be punished as sinne against him Fiftly that God by his antecedent wil decrees onely good things according to his goodnesse and by his consequent will onely euill things according to his iustice in that he made no man to punish him but to participate his goodnesse From this sence of Damascen thus explicated I gather three things that ensue vpon it First that by Damascens iudgement the first roote of election should be foreseene merits and the first roote of reprobation should be the foresight of the reprobates sinne because none is either saued or refused but by a consequent will which will arises in God from the cause in the creature Secondly I gather that what God wils not simply of himselfe without the condition of the creature he wils not antecedently but consequently because all Gods antecedent will is simple and independant whereupon it o Hence it manifestly appeares that this Antecedent will in God is no Formall will because it works nothing followes that albeit God by his antecedent will would all men to be saued yet no man is saued by it forasmuch as all men are saued consequently vpon the condition of their workes Thirdly I gather that God willing to saue all by his antecedent will and yet de facto sauing none but by his consequent will arising from that which he sees or foresees in the creature it followes that the distinction of wils antecdent and consequent is not reall because according to the one of them God workes nothing And this touching Damascens owne exposition 8 Others expound the antecedent will to be vpon the first consideration of a thing and the consequent vpon the latter consideration thus as God considers man absolutely abstracting from euery thing that circumstantially belongs vnto him and representing him to himselfe onely as a creature he wils his good and saluation antecedently But considering him againe not onely according to his nature but also as he is a sinner or a iust man so he wils his saluation or damnation consequently according to that he findes in him u Tho. 1. p. q. 1◠art 6. ad 1. Thus Aquinas expresses the distinction out of the Metaphysicks w As Gregor Arimin shewes at large ◠46. q. vnic ad 3. cleane contrary to Damascens yea x Pag. 306. e. in 1. part Tho. sayes Gregorie of Valence There is a manifest difference betweene this exposition of Thomas and the former of Damascen And this appeares sufficiently of it selfe which must be noted against my aduersarie because he ioynes Thomas and Damascen in a distinction wherein they are so far from agreeing that they are contrary and when he hath done talks of our ignorance and not vnderstanding 9 A third exposition is that which I noted in the margent of my y THE WAY p. 94. s booke that Gods antecedent will is when he supplies mankind with all such helpes and meanes whether of nature or grace as are sufficient to bring him to saluation But his consequent will is when he makes these meanes not onely sufficient but effectuall also and thereupon according to the merit of our workes conferres saluation and so he wils the saluation of all antecedently by giuing them the meanes and by consequence when he workes effectually that which men deserue This exposition as it is the best so is it the commonest a Occh. 1. d. 46. q. 1. Camerac q. 14. art 1. Bonau d. 47. q. 1. Dionys d. 46. q. 1. Dur. d. 47. q. 1. Clicton in Damasc orth fid l. 2. c. 29. and most vsed and in Gregories opinion the fittest but it differs really from the two former and falls in with the fourth interpretation of Saint Pauls words b Before n. 4. mentioned whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men onely voluntate signi and no further and how my aduersarie will like it I know not but whether he doe or no he may blush to see himselfe and his doctors thus vsing Damascens words and yet retaining so little of his meaning The which tricke if our aduersaries would lay by and as they vse the same termes and words of the Doctors so all of them in the magnified vnitie would retaine the same sence and definition of the words we should haue shorter worke with them and the ignorant should not be so deluded with colourable shew of antiquitie as they are Pag. 146. A. D. Let vs therefore imagine that there were an earthly Emperor or King who of his owne nature were most milde and gracious and who of his owne gracious and good disposition towards his subiects did desire with a true inward primarie or antecedent will that euery subiect he hath
velle dare certiâ— hominibus media infallibilia ad salutem nisi prius dare vellet ijsdem hominibus ipsam salutem Bellarm. de grat lib. arbiâ— l 2. c. 15. pag. 472 D. In the order of reason and causalitie the will of the end goes before the will of the meanes that brings to the end in that the meanes are not intended but for a certaine end and so the said end is entred the will and propounded by it before the meanes But Gods will to elect men to glorie is his will of the end because glorie is the end of faith and a good life and faith and a good life are the meanes because they bring to glorie o Deus nulli electorum ab aeterno ideo ordinauit dare finalem beatitudinem in patria quia praeordinauit dare ei gratiam iustitiam in via sed potiùs è conuerso ideo praeordinauit ab aeterno dare ei graetiam pro via quia gratis pure praedestinauit ei dare finalem beatitudinem pro patriae Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. concl 5. Deus prius vult glorium Petro deinde gratiam c. Fra. Mayro 1. d. 41. qu. 4. §. Hoc autem declar Therefore Gods will to elect men to glorie goes before his will to giue them faith and grace therefore he elects not after or vpon the foresight of faith and grace therefore before hee see faith or grace in Iacob which he wil giue him he purposes to giue him life eternall therefore he purposes to giue faith and grace after his will to giue him eternall life and therefore he elects no man consequently vpon the foresight of his faith and good life nor antecedently wills the saluation of the reprobate from whom by his eternall purpose he decreed as the meanes to withhold his grace 13 Thirdly this antecedent and consequent will supposes that God elects none to glorie but for the grace and perseuerance he foresees in him nor reprobates or refuses any from glory but for the sinnes he foresees in him Thus my Aduersary sayes i Pag. 163. We must hold for certaine God did not effectually ordaine any to saluation or damnation without foresight of their good or ill desert k Pag. 164. God hath decreed in generall that all and onely those shall be effectually saued who by vsing the meanes of saluation and helpes of grace shall depart this life in good state and that those and onely those shall be damned who by neglecting grace depart this life in the state of sinne l Pag. 165. Leauing it to the libertie and free choise of men whether they will vse or not vse those helpes and meanes And so vpon this foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well or ill pronounces the sentence of saluation and damnation Against this I reason thus He that neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any onely vpon the foresight of their sin This is plaine because this antecedent and consequent will is defined by willing and not willing vpon foresight of that which man by his freewill will do and if the definition be not in God then neither is the thing defined But God neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill Ergo God hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any vpon the condition of their workes The second proposition I proue by reason and authoritie By reason for whatsoeuer he foresaw in any that himselfe purposed to worke If he foresaw grace and the good vse of freewill in Iacob he purposed to worke it by infusing it if he foresaw sin and the ill vse of freewill in Esaw he purposed m Rom. 9.18 Habemus ex doctrina Thomae quod diuina reprobatio est CAVSA de relictionis in peccato aeternae poenae Bann 1. p. pag. 665. e. to worke it by withholding grace and hardening and he not onely purposed to worke this which he foresaw but to worke and effect it as the meanes and as a subordinate second cause to bring man to the end appointed For grace freewill perseuerance and the rest are but causes leading to the end and therefore n Inter primam causam agenteÌ„ secundam est ordo quo vna necessario pendet ab altera Ergo secunda non agit nisi à prima ad agendum mota applicata ideo enim dici videtur causa secunda quia mouetur à prima alioqui enim solùm esset causa eum prima Azo instit moral tom 1. l. 1. cap. 21 ad 8. secondary and subordinate causes and therefore decreed and intended after the end and lesse principally then the end The o Suar. latè de praedest lib. 3. c. 2. inde Qâ—ic quid est in homine ordinans ipsam in salutem TOTVM coÌ„prehenditur sub effectu praedestinationis Capreol 1. d. 41. art 1. Fra. Mayron qu 4. D Thomâ—s vt Catholicus in doctrina Augustini conciliorum valde versatus considerat bonum vsum liberi arbitrij quo quis liberè vti ur auxilio Dei tanquam effectum gratiae diuinae praedestinationis praeordinatum praedefinitum à Deo Vnde colligit necessario quod ille bonus vsus non potest esse ratio praedestinationis cum ipsemet sit effectus praedestinationis praedefinitionis Dei Bann 1. pag. 632. e. Iesuites confesse not onely glory in the life to come but the first grace and iustification and all supernaturall workes and the cooperation of freewill and all the goodnes and strength of nature and perseuerance in this life to be the effects of predestination intended and effectually giuen of God to the elect for the bringing of them to glory This glory therefore could not be intended vpon the foresight of them but by the meanes of them and therefore Iacob could not be elected nor Esaw reprobated vpon the foresight of the good and ill vse of grace and freewill as any cause mouing God thereunto but the cause must be his owne will mouing it selfe in manner vnknowne to vs and Iacobs well vsing grace was the means intended by God to bring him to saluation and Esawes wickednes which God decreed to permit was the meanes intended by him to bring him to the condemnation whereunto the masse of sin would leade Secondly that neither election nor reprobation specially negatiue which alone containes the whole reason of reprobation q Odio habere non sonat solum priuationem dilectionis sed significat velle malum Caieta comm in Rom. 9.13 or his purpose not to saue or elect Esaw which is negatiue reprobation puts him into the state that he must be damned is vpon the foresight of works or vpon the condition of
mans will is the constant iudgement of the most of our aduersaries I will not ground this authoritie vpon the Scripture or r See his last chap. de praedest grat Ambrosius Catharinus vehementer in eos inuohitur qui dicunt Deum ex se aliquos reprobare excludere à vita aeterna non quidem propter eorum praeuisa mala opera sed quia ipse vult non dare illis vitam eternam Et hanc opinionem vocat ipse durissimam intolerabilem causam desperationis hominum impiam eamque assignat ipse Luthero CVMEA TAMEN SIT IPSISSIMA B. AVGVSTINI SENTENTIA Peter selâ—ct disp in Rom. 9. n. 31. And that the iudgement of S. Austin is that neither election nor reprobation is for workes foreseene is affirmed by Grego Arimin d. 40. Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. Sixt. Senens biblioth l. 6. annot 251. Tolet. in Rom. 11. annot 4 Suar. opusc de auxil l. 3. c. 16. 17. tract de diuin praedest l. 1. c. 8. pag. 179. Zumel var. disp part 3. pag. 358. S. Austin because I intend no solemne discourse about the question and haue to do with an aduersary whose arrogancy p Rom 9 11. 11.33 Eph. 1 11. and ignorance is fittest to be buffeted with the authority of his owne side but I will make it appeare that going about to confute Caluine and expound his antecedent will he is fallen into that grosse opinion about predestination that scarce any of his owne Doctors hold That predestination therefore to eternall life was according to the doctrine of Caluine without and before the foresight of workes so that it was made without any respect of them so freely and in that manner that grace and good works rather are effects of it is affirmed by diuers of the principall Schoole Doctors in the Church of Rome Gregorius Ariminensis and after him the Cardinall of Cambray lay downe r Arim. 1. pag. 163. Camerac 1. pag. 175. their iudgement in fiue propositions the first No man is predestinated for the good vse of his freewill which God knew he would haue howsoeuer the goodnesse thereof be considered The second No man is predestinated for that he was foreordained to perseuere in habituall grace without let to the end The third Whomsoeuer God predestinated he predestinated onely freely and of mercy The fourth No man is reprobated for the euill vse of his freewill that God foresaw he would haue The fift No man is reprobated because it was foreseene that he would finally hinder grace Andreas Castrensis Å¿ Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. pag. 179. inde sets downe fiue conclusions The first God from eternity neuer predestinated to giue to any iustifying grace that should make him worthy eternall life because he foresaw any merit of theirs to come whereby they should either of condignity or congruity merit that grace The second God from all eternity foreordained to giue grace and charity to some in time not therefore because he foresaw they would vse that grace well The third God from all eternity predestinated to giue euery one of the elect some grace and supernaturall benefit of his meere free goodnesse and not because he foresaw any merit of that man whereupon he should either condignily or of congruity merit the gift The fourth God from all eternity predestinated none of the elect because he foresaw his good works or merits nor for his good workes to come or merits foreseene The fift God from all eternity ordained to giue eternall life to none of the elect BECAVSE HE FOREORDAINED TO GIVE HIM GRACE CHARITY AND IVSTICE IN THIS LIFE BVT CONTRARY therefore he foreordained from all eternity to giue him grace in this life because he freely and purely predestinated to giue him eternall life Dominicus Bannes t Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. â— Pag. 634. b. layes downe diuers conclusions but fiue to this matter 1. There can none cause be assigned not onely of the act of Gods predestination but neither any reason or motiue on the behalfe of the creature 2 Pag. 6 32. b. or of God himselfe 2. It cannot bee said that merits preexisting in this life are the reason or cause of the effect of predestination 3 Ibid. d. 3. It cannot be said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination the meaning is that therefore God should be vnderstood to giue any man grace or predestinate to giue him grace because he foresaw he would vse that grace well 4 Pag. 650. b. 4. No cause of predestination is giuen on our behalfe 5 Pag. 664. c. cum 665. a. 5. It is the opinion of Thomas that speaking simply there is NO CAVSE OR REASON OF REPROBATION ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE REPROBATE AS NO CAVSE OR REASON OF ELECION IS ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE ELECT and the sense is not speaking comparatiuely why he should reprobate Esau rather then Iacob but absolutely considering the reprobate themselues THERE CAN NO CAVSE BE ASSIGNED ON THEIR OWNE PART OF THEIR REPROBATION AND THIS IS THOMAS HIS MEANING and this is proued c. Capreolus shews his owne and Aquinas his iudgement in 7. conclusions u Capreol 1. d. 41. q. vnic whereof the first is Neither merits nor demerits are the cause of predestination on the part of the act of him that predestinateth The fourth is The merits which follow the effect of predestination are not the cause of the effect of predestination in that manner that some say that God therefore giues a man grace and predestinated to giue it him because he foresaw he would vse it well as when the King giues a horse to him that he foreknowes will vse him well The fift Though some particular effect of predestination haue cause on our behalfe yet the totall effect of predestination in common hath no cause on our behalfe The sixt The goodnesse of God is the cause of the totall effect of predestination The seauenth The reason of the election of some and reprobation of other some is takeÌ„ out of the goodnesse of God whose diuine will alone is the reason why he reprobates these and elects them * Aâ—t 2. arg 2. There is no cause in speciall why this man is reprobated and that man elected but the simple will of God These conclusions of Cameracensis Andreas Castrensis Bannes and Capreolus are extracted out of x 1 d. 41. qu. 1. 1. p. q. 23. art 2. 3 4. 5. cont Gent. l. 3. c. 1 61. Lect. in Ro. 9. Aquine followed for substaÌ„ce y Magist 1. d. 40. 41. Altisiod sum l 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 1. 2. Scot. 1. d. 41. q. 1. Mayron ibi qu. 4. art 1 Maisil art 2. Concl 4. Duran qu. 2. Egid qu. 1. art 2. Dionys qu. 2. Maior d. 40. qu. 2. Ferrat contr Gent. l. 3. c 61. §. pro solutione Gerson consol
vidit inquam non lanxit praedixit non praedefiniuit vt sicrent praescit omnia sed non omnia praefinit Sayes Marian. tract de mort immortal p. 415. some and the Iesuite cannot reconcile it with his principles And d Fonseca as saith Rispol pag 3. or Molina as saith Syluius explicat p. 38. other some to auoide it and for the reconciling of Gods predestination with mans freewill haue inuented the distinction of scientia media or conditionata e Fonsec 6. metap qu. 6. sect 8. Molin concord qu. 14. disp 52. Suar. opusc de Scient Dei l. 2 c. 3. n. 4. which importes that God fore-knowes things to come not by his simple intelligence but vpon the condition of the second causes by foreseeing what they would freely and meerely of themselues worke which is confuted by f Zumel disp vv part 3. pag. 181. concl 7. Rispol de praedefinit l. 1. q. 1. concl 4. Sylu. explic part 2. art 9. diuers But for the vnderstanding of the proposition that God by his will effectually predetermins to one thing the will of man in all things note first that God may be supposed to concurre with our wil as with all other secondary causes whether they be naturall or free two waies First by flowing and concurring onely into the effect and so producing it equally with the second cause As when two men equally carry a blocke betweene them the one holding it at the one end and the other bearing at the other where one of the men is not mooued or stirred by the other but both together make one cause equally producing the effect which is the moouing of the wood Thus God concurs not with our will Secondly by moouing our will it selfe and touching it by his effectuall power whereby it is determined and applied to the effect as in a clocke we see one wheele to moue another Now my proposition is vnderstood of Gods moouing our will in this latter manner Note secondly that God againe may be supposed in this latter sort to determine our will 2. waies The first is by constraining and violent inforcing it as when a man throwes a stone or shoots an arrow and thus he mooues vs not The second is by stirring it vp easily and delightfully to will that which it selfe allowes and approues withall the iudgement of reason going before and of this kinde of determination my proposition is vnderstood viz. that God by his effectuall will and prouidence stirres vp applies and bends the wils of all men to that they will and is the cause of the election This I proue by the Diuines of the Church of Rome it selfe for Aquinas g Posseuin Biblioth l. 1. c. 10. whose doctrine is receiued of the Iesuits and almost in all their Vniuersities h So say the Bull before his works Sylu. explic in Praef. And who so keepes himselfe thereunto is neuer found to swerue from the truth but such as impugne him are alwaies suspected to be in an error i Refert Sylu. ib holds that God is the first moouer that mooues all things vsing all inferiour causes as his instruments and applies their operatiue vertues to the operation and touches the cause when he mooues it and so mooues the will that without necessitie he determines it to one thing k Referunt Commbric physic l. 2. c. 7. q. 13. art 1. the same is said by Andrae Castrēs p. 105. col 4. so that all second causes before their operation receiue from God a certaine influence and motion which is * Quaesi esse intentionale virtutis diuinae as it were the intentionall being of his Diuine power whereby they are excited to produce their actions in the same manner as instruments of arte are vsed or as an Axe or Hatchet receiues motion going before from the workman when they are applied to the worke And indeed this is l 1. p. qu. 105. art 5. 12. qu. 6. art 1. ad 3 q. 109. art 1. qu. disp qu. 3. de Potent art 7. de Verit qu. 6. art 6. cont Gent. l. 2. c. 21. nu 4.5 exposit in Rom. c. 9. v. 19. the perpetuall doctrine of Thomas wherein many m Andrae Casstrens vbi sup see Zumel vbi sup p. 136. inde others follow him Scotus n 1. de 41. §. sed contra saies God foresees not that a man will vse his free-will well but because he wils and preordaines that he shall vse it wel because the certaine preuision of future contingence is from the determination of Gods will Driedo o Concord lib. arb c. 3. It is true that men iustified by Gods predestination by their endeuour and deliberation determine themselues to the election of good workes but God makes them thus to determine themselues and to do all these things with a freewill p Philosoph de commun princip nat l. 8. c. 8. Pererius In that which Thomas sayes our will is mooued applied and determined by God to be willing though diuers Diuines dissent from him yet I for my part very willingly with hands and feete go into that opinion For this is the condition and connexion of causes subordinate that the latter mooues not but as it is mooued by the former q Bassol 1. d. 38. Bassolis It behoues vs to say that all things are determined in the knowledge of God yet we must not therefore deliberate because the manner also of coming to the things thus determined of God by deliberation with them to whom they are not determined before they be done is determined of God Dominicus Bannes r Bann 1. part Tho. q. 14. art 13. p. 450. c. I affirme that the will of the creature will infallibly faile about any matter of vertue vnlesse it be effectually determined to well working by the will of God Wherefore God euidently knowes that the will of the creature will sinne and faile by this that he knowes his owne will hath not determined the said will of the creature to well working Therefore other future things contingent God knowes in their Causes according as they are determined by the first cause but sinne to come he knowes in it cause in asmuch as the said cause of sinne is not by the first cause determined to well working ſ Qu. var. part 3. p. 109. Zumel It is most certaine that the will of the creature that is our vnderstanding and freewill not onely as it is a certaine nature but as it is free and not onely as it is a faculty in man but euen in the vse of it owne liberty depends of God And t Pag. 111. concl 2. The helpes of Gods actuall grace concurring are not onely morall but also Physicall causes of supernaturall actions u Pag. 112. concl 3. In supernaturall acts God foremooues or predetermines our will efficiently properly 22 And this is confirmed by reason First for * Scot.
all points contained in Scripture all which are points of faith and consequently are points necessary to be beleeued either expressely and in particular or implicitely and in generall vnder paine of damnation Indeed I do grant and neuer did deny but that there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts necessitate medij and some necessary to be known necessitate praecepti In which points implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines to be ioyned to the assent of our faith Whereby appeareth that M. White doth vtter two grosse vntruthes 2 White p. 5. 7. when he saies that we vtterly refuse knowledge and that the Colliars faith is canonized for our Creed In other points so farre as we neither know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them we may well commend the Colliars faith in beleeuing in generall as the Church beleeueth For in this generall act is infolded a vertuall or implicite beleefe of all points both in regard a generall includeth all particulars contained in it as also for that this particular act of beleeuing the Church eo ipso in that we are moued vnto it by the authority of diuine reuelation as the primary or formall cause and by the authoritie of the Church it selfe as a necessary condition or the secondary cause doth so dispose the minde of the beleeuer that he is ready to beleeue euerie other point reuealed by God and propounded by the Church Againe * Pag. 140. Thirdly whereas M. White 3 White p. 5. requireth particular knowledge to be ioyned with the assent of faith as though he meant that one could not beleeue any point of faith which he did not first expressely and in particular know this his assertion is not onely contrarie to his fellow M. Wotton Wotton p. 46. who admitteth a generall or implicite beleefe of some points which we do not in particular know 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. but it is also against the Scriptures Fathers and naturall reason it selfe In the Scriptures we haue that not onely Faith and knowledge Heb. 11. v. 1. are 2. distinct things but also that faith is of things not apparant or not knowne and that faith doth captiuate the vnderstanding for the seruice of Christ 2. Cor. 10 v. 5. Rom. 10. v. 16. requiring an obedience in the beleeuer all which were not verified if expresse particular distinct knowledge were presupposed before beleefe or if beleefe and such knowledge were all one thing The Fathers do not onely distinguish faith and knowledge but do also affirme Faith to be without knowledge of things beleeued Iren. l. 2. c. 45. It is better saith Irenaeus that one that knoweth nothing beleeue God and perseuere in his loue which doth quicken a man then by subtilties of questions and by much speech to fall into impietie Not to know saith S. Hilary that which thou must beleeue Hilar. l. 5. de Trin. ante medium Aug. Ep. 102. ad Euodium doth not so much require pardon as reward because it is the greatest stipend of faith to hope for those things which thou knowest not If saith Saint Augustine Christ was borne onely for those that can discerne these things with certaine knowledge in vaine almost do we labour in the Church which he saith in regard the common sort cannot with all the preaching in the world discerne with certaine knowledge the high and hard Mysteries of the blessed Trinitie Incarnation and other such mysteries of faith and therefore not the viuacitie or quickenesse of vnderstanding saith the same Saint Augustine but the simplicitie of beleeuing Aug. cont Fund c. 4. Tract 40. in Ioan. doth make the common sort of people most safe And againe he saith of some they did not beleeue because they knew but they beleeued that they might know And in the same place he asketh what is faith but to beleeue that thou seest not Conformable to which also he saith Serm. 120. de tempore After we haue receiued Baptisme we say I am a faithfull man I beleeue that which I know not Reason also and experience it selfe teacheth that beleefe and knowledge are distinct and that beleefe doth not necessarily presuppose knowledge but is rather sometimes an antecedent to it Insomuch that euen in naturall things the Philosopher acknowledgeth that one that learneth must beleeue before he come to knowledge M. White may aske how one can assent to the veritie which he doth not first apprehend or know I answer that some apprehension at least confuse rude and generall I do not deny to be requisite in the assent of faith but expresse particular distinct or cleare apprehension or knowledge is not necessary otherwise not onely the common sort but the learnedest in the world might despaire of saluationâ— in regard they could not beleeue the mysterie of the blessed Trinity which no man in this life can distinctly and clearely vnderstand and know and yet all sorts of men are bound to beleeue it explicite and much lesse could they beleeue both it and all other mysteries contained in the whole corps of the holy Scripture all which are necessary to be beleeued in one sort or other explicite or implicite as hath bene proued and yet no one learned man hath particular distinct knowledge of euerie truth contained in the Scriptures Quis enim est hic laudabimus eum 1 FOr the reducing of this wilde discourse into some order and the better discerning of the controuersie you are to note that the Iesuite in the beginning of his Treatise laied downe 4. propositions touching faith out of the which he would spin his motiues to Papistry the first is that Faith is necessary to saluation The second that this faith is but only one The third that it must be infallible The fourth that it must be entire extending it selfe to all points vniuersally This conclusion I graunted in one sense and denied in another That our beleefe must be entire whole and sound in all points by obtaining a particular distinct knowledge of the same in our selues that so our faith might include an apprehension and knowledge of that we beleeue as well as an assent in the will I granted but if his meaning were that which then I suspected and now he bewraies that the implicite faith taught by the Iesuites and schoolemen destitute of knowledge and onely beleeuing as the Church beleeues were this entire faith so necessary and infallible then I denied it and gaue my reasons and a Dig. 2. in a speciall Digress shewed and confuted it All which he passes by and onely mentions as you see my bare assertion against his implicite faith but what I said in describing it confuting it and shewing the drift and purpose of it he touches not though it concerned his cause more then that which he replies to This is his method whereto he cleaues in all his booke to reply entirely to
no such antecedent will at all 19 He replies secondly that they haue the meanes yea all aswell infants as others r Pag. 165. 171. at least in potentia remota Å¿ Pag. 170. 171. and mediatly whereby he might come to that which is sufficient Which I take to be the same that some say how God giues euen these sufficient helpe in actu primo which is some inspiration as a beginning which if men would obey they might successiuely and by degrees rise vp to faith and iustification as t THE WAY pag. 95. in the marg I noted out of Paul Windeck But this will hardly be maintained for I demand first touching these inspirations or motions that are said to be thus offered and stirred vp in the Gentiles are they supernaturall or naturall If supernaturall by what meanes are they wrought for the word of God to produce them they haue not and Gods Spirit doth neuer sufficiently inspire when it doth not sufficiently reueale it selfe to be his spirit Are they narurall arising onely from naturall knowledge then I demand againe whether being harkened vnto and pursued they may be able to bring him that hath them to iustifying grace if they be not they are insufficient if they be then this is u CoÌ„cil Diospol nu 10. 11. Pelagianisme that a man by naturall strength may eleuate himselfe and obtaine the grace of God Secondly I demand what he meanes by his potentia remota media for if the meaning be God giues meanes sufficient of themselues but no meanes to vse them * â—es in esse potentiali in causis secundis antequam sit in proprio genere est simpliciter non esse then he giues no sufficient meanes as I noted out of Vasquez If the meaning be that God prepares them for some no otherwise then the Physition * In the Reply vbi sup mentioned doth his physicke so as he neuer offers it them nor discouers himselfe or his arte to them what is this but to mocke the world with Sophistrie If the meaning be that God offers at the least such motions of nature and of grace that by degrees he may arise from knowledge to knowledge till he come to sufficient knowledge this is confuted before for motions of nature are not sufficient and motions of grace cannot be proued to be giuen infants and Barbarians as appeares by the difficulty of conuerting the wisest and ciuillest Philosopher or Barbarian that euer was or if they be yet they are not of that eleuation that they can fulfill the iust measure of sufficiency 20 Thus I haue shewed three sorts of people to be perpetually destitute of sufficient helpe in regard of all outward and ordinary meanes so far as we can perceiue yet it is certaine that some of these are saued and some reprobated their saluation therefore and reprobation neither beginnes in nor arises from the foresight of their good or ill vse of the meanes but from some higher will and purpose in God vnknowne to vs but iust and holy in himselfe else were there no such mysterie in the doctrine of predestination that the Apostle should neede to crie x Rom. 11.33 O altitudo O the depth of the riches wisedome and knowledge of God how vnsearchable are his iudgements and his waies past finding out nor say y Rom. 9.20 what art thou that pleadest with God z Rom. 9.18 he will haue mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth a Rom. 9.11 before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill it was said I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau For my Aduersaries distinction of Gods willing euen the reprobate to be saued by his antecedent will and the rest of his doctrine of predestination leaue no rome for these sayings They say b Aug. ep 105. saith S. Austin that therefore God loued Iacob and hated Esau being yet vnborne because he foresaw their workes to come but who would not wonder that this sence so acute should be wanting to the Apostle for he saw not so much when the question being obiected to him he had not readie this so briefe so plaine so true and absolute answer as these men thinke this to be For when he had propounded a profound matter touching those that were not yet borne and had done neither good nor euill how it could rightly bee said that God loued the one and hated the other he obiects to himselfe a question What shall we say then saith he is their iniustice with God God forbid THIS THEREFORE WAS A PLACE WHERE HE SHOVLD SAY WHAT THESE MEN THINKE THAT GOD FORESAW THEIR FVTVRE WORKES when he said The greater shall serue the lesser but the Apostle sayes no such thing but rather least any man should glory in the merit of his workes he would haue that which he said to bee of force that the grace and glory of God might be commended for hauing said God forbid that there should be iniquity with God as if we should say how shew you this that there is no iniquity with God when you auouch that not of workes but of him that calleth it was said The elder shall serue the yonger He answereth because Moses saith I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy and will shew compassion on whom I will shew compassion therefore it is not in him that wills nor in him that runs but in God that shewes mercy WHERE NOW ARE MERITS * He excludes not onely the works of nature but of grace also WHERE ARE THESE WORKES EITHER PAST OR TO COME PERFORMED OR TO BE PERFORMED AS IT WERE BY THE STRENGTH OF FREEWILL Doth not the Apostle pronounce a plaine sentence touching the commendation of free grace that is to say of true grace Hath not God made the wisedome of Heretiques foolish 21 Lastly this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is destroyed by the doctrine of Gods Predetermination which teacheth that the will of God as the highest and effectuallest cause predefines and determines the will of man to that it wills and applies it to the worke for whose will in all things God predetermines vnto one thing though not by way of necessitation by the influxe of his will their will is no condition or motiue of Gods will for then Gods will were passiue But mans will in all things God predetermines to one thing by the influxe of his owne will Ergo mans will is no condition or motiue of Gods will Therefore God predestinates none vpon the foresight of the good or ill vse of their free-will therefore there is no such antecedent and consequent will in God as my Aduersary maintaines The second proposition is denied by c Martinez de Auxil p. 134. inde Bellar. de Grat lib. arb l. 1 c. 12. §. Est igitur alia Quicquid electuri sumus vidit Deus intuitu aeterno cognitio necessitatem non affert
1. d. 39. qu. vnic Ioh. Bassol 1. d. 38. Dom. Bann 1. part ou 14. art 13. pag. 450. God foresees all contingent effects to come in his owne determination of the causes thereof and therefore foreseeing the contingent operation of our will he determines it to the effect Secondly Else there should be two seuerall beginnings of one and the same effect in asmuch as mans will should begin to worke as soone as God and concurre to the effect willed as principally as God Thirdly The will of man is but Gods x Quid dubitamus fateri nos miseras creaturas esse instrumenta Dei cum Deo per Deum operari sicut instrumentum operatur cum artifice per artificem à quo mouetur excitatur applicatur ad agendum Fra Sylu. expl p. 35. instrument whereby God works his owne pleasure but euery one that vses an instrument mooues applies and determines it to his owne will Fourthly And it is a secondary and subordinate cause vnder the first cause which is God and exceedes not the measure of second causes but if it were not determined by the first cause it should be all one with the first cause it selfe for first and second causes differ in their eleuation the second being alway mooued to their effect by the first and in their operation reduced to the motion of the vniuersall cause which is God Fiftly therefore the Scripture saies y Ier. 10.23 The way of man is not in himselfe neither is it in man to direct his own steps but z God giues a new heart x Ier. 31.33 32 39. Ezech. 11.19 36.26 and puts a new spirit into men and takes away their stony heart and giues them a heart of flesh and puts his Spirit into them and causes them to walke in his statutes and to keepe and do them a 1. Cor. 12.16 He workes all things in all men b Ph. 2.13 He workes in vs both the will and the deed c Pro. 21.1 The Kings heart is in the hands of God and he turnes it whither soeuer it pleaseth him d Exod. 7 3. 9.12 1 6. Rom. 9.17 He stirres vp Pharao hardens his heart for he hath mercie on whom he wil whō he wil he hardens The meaning wherof e Can. loc l. 2. c. 4. ad 7. Tolet in Ioh. 12 annot 22. Perer. select disp in Exod. 11. disp 6. 8. our aduersaries grant to be that God hardens the wicked partly by forsaking them withholding his grace whereby they should be preserued from hardening partly by working many things within thē and about them whereupon they become hardened and so consequently determines their will f Minimè periculosum iudico si PERMISSIONI NON NIHIL ADDAMVS quod nec actio propriè Dei sit nec sola permissio Can loc p. 24. further then by bare permitting it so that it may truly be said that mans minde and will g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odyss Augustinus sententiam Homeri approbat Zum vv qq 3. p pag. 120. A. is such as it pleaseth God to giue him Whence I infer and so will end God is not mooued consequently by any thing which himselfe as a superior cause mooues and determines to the effect But God himselfe as a superiour cause mooues and determines the will of man to the effect or that which it wils whether good or ill Therefore God is not consequently mooued by the good or ill vse of the will of man Therefore the good vse of mans will foreseene mooued not God to elect him and the euill vse of mans will foreseene was not the cause that God reprobated him therefore God had no such antecedent will to saue the reprobate if they would by their freewill vse and receiue his grace aright Therefore Gods decree touching the saluation and reprobation of men is lastly and finally resolued into his owne pure will as into the first and highest cause thereof To the Reader WHatsoeuer followes in the Reply from this place to that wherewith I begin the next Chapter is but a continuance of the matter of Predestination transcribed out of Becanus his Enchiridion wherewith I haue nothing to do For albeit that which he quarrels in M. Caluine be no more then were easily defended and then many Schoolemen haue written long since yet I haue propounded to meddle with no more of the Booke then directly touches what I writ it being a taske for him that knowes not the price of time to stand answering euery thing that fals from a Seminarie especially when we plainely see them to be set a-worke onely with barking for I dare say themselues conceite no substance in their books to interrupt and detaine men from better duties then is the answering of their vnsauory writings farced with rudenesse and intemperance and vnworthy for their immodesty to beare the name of Christian Authors CHAP. XXVI 1. The properties of the rule of faith described 2. None follow priuate spirits more then our Aduersaries 3. How the rule must be vnpartiall and of Authority A. D. Pag. 173 Concerning the sixt Chapter hauing shewed in the former Chapter that Almighty God of his part hath prouided a meanes necessary and sufficient to the saluation of all sorts yea of all men and consequently that he hath prouided some rule and meanes sufficient to instruct men of all sorts in that one infallible entire faith which is necessary to saluation In this Chapter I did set downe certaine conditions of this rule and meanes by which men that seeke may be directed towards the finding of it My Aduersaries do not deny that the rule and meanes must in some sence haue these three properties which here I speake of For the first to wit infallibility M. White saith White pag. 10. that faith must be with full assurance and perswasion the which saith he we cannot obtaine vnlesse the rule giue it vs. Now it is certaine that the rule and meanes which here I speake of cannot giue infallible assurance if it selfe were not infallible and knowne or such as may bee knowne to be infallible For nothing can giue more then it selfe hath neither can it breed more certainety in our knowledge then it selfe is or may be knowne to haue For the second to wit easinesse to be knowne or vnderstood of all sorts M. Wootton interpreteth Wootton p. 74. that it must be such as may be knowne although with paines As for some paines I shall not gainesay For I did neuer dreame that one might attaine knowledge of matters of faith by onely dreaming as M. Wootton seemeth to interprete my meaning Onely I would not haue it so difficult or hard as that it should be morally impossible for any sort of men hauing sought found and attended to the rule and meanes without miraculous illumination or extraordinary and excessiue difficulty to vnderstand the determinate meaning of it In which M. White
is one thing it selfe that is beleeued the fore to be grounded on some superior authoritie Can loc l. ◠§. 8. D Weston layes the resolution of faith thus Our faith of any mystery is resolued into a former act wherby the Scripture containing this mystery is beleeued to be the word of God and this also is resolued into a former act as the cause thereof that the Church cannot erre Which we beleeue for the signes and notes which shew it to be a true Church Thus resoluing all diuine faith into humane motiues de Tripl offic c. 3. pag. 143. aduersaries themselues as I haue often shewed after all authoritie of Fathers Church Councels Pope and all do rest and resolue their faith vpon the second proposition of this Syllogisme I am taught this by Scripture our aduersaries denie not but Fathers Councels Popes may erre or if they cannot yet the authoritie of these things is not the reason of our faith for then faith should be humane but the inward authoritie of the Scripture and the Spirit of God If it be demanded how the Protestants can giue infallible assurance to others that they vnderstand the Scripture aright I answer that the same question is to be made to the Papists and both they and we must answer that vnlesse God illuminate their hearts we can giue no assurance neither they by the Church nor we by the Scripture but such as haue this illumination do see manifestly the truth of the things they haue beleeued But Luther he sayes held against the vniuersall Catholicke Church I answer and let all Papists well consider of it that they must proue this which I call the Papacie to be the vniuersall Catholicke Church afore they can say Luther was deceiued That they cannot proue but by the Scripture in which triall Luther shall retire to the Scripture no faster then themselues and then they may be deceiued as well as Luther in as much vnlesse they will runne in a round as all their other authoritie proofes and motiues must be tried by the Scriptures OVER WHICH GOD HATH SET NO VISIBLE IVDGE IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN INFALLIBLY CONVINCE AND PERSWADE ALL MEN. I wil make this plaine by laying downe the maner how Luther and how a Papist assures himselfe Luther and the Protestants for their part beleeue for example that a man is iustified by faith onely because the Scripture in plaine places excluding workes and proposing Gods free grace in Christ and maintaining the sole merits of Christ applied by faith debarres euery thing from iustifying that is in our selues and so teaches expresly that we are iustified onely by faith in Christ The Papists hold the contrary alledging the Church and the Pope whose doctrine they say it is that we are iustified by our workes But being demanded how we know infallibly that the Church or the Pope hath not erred in holding so they grant they may erre and answer that yet they are known not to erre in this point by the Scriptures which Scripture and the true sence thereof is knowne and beleeued for it selfe Here they are fallen into the same issue that the Protestants are I am taught this by the Scripture Now if they reply that we are infallibly assured the Scripture is meant as we say because the Church expounds it so who sees not that they make a circle thus to beleeue the Church first because of the Scripture and then againe to beleeue the Scripture because of the Church Their maine resolution therfore is the euidence and authoritie of the Scripture perswading them both that the doctrine is true and that the Church which teaches it is the true Church And so they lie open to the same cauils that are made against the Protestāts Luther in vnderstanding the Scripture may be deceiued so may they It is Luthers own cause so is this the Papists Luthers iudgment is to be suspected when he preferred himself before the iudgement of the Church The same say we to them They preferre their iudgement before the Church and all the Fathers in as much as we can shew the Church and Fathers to be against them and themselues professe that the Popes authoritie is aboue both Church and Fathers 2 Indeed if M. Luther had had a thousand Austins and Cyprians and other Fathers of the Church with one consent and plainly against him he had bin so much the more to be suspected for this is one maine thing that makes vs abhorre the present Roman Church because it prefers it selfe and the Popes determination before all the Doctors in the world but he neuer thought so nor said so His words are these in c Tom. 2. Wittemb pag 344. a booke that he writ against King Henry the 8. Lastly he produces the sayings of the Fathers for the establishing of the sacrifice of the Masse and sees my foolishnes who alone will be wiser then all other This is is it I say that by this my opinion is confirmed For this I said that these * His vnciuill speeches to the King himselfe afterward retracted Sleid. They are but a weak argumēt to discredit his reformation Lucifer Caralitanus his books against the Emperor Constantius are as bitter and violent If Luther offended against K. Harry the Iesuites and their supplies repay it to K. Iames and long since haue returned it with the interest to good Q. Elizabeth Thomisticall asses haue nothing to produce but a multitude of men and antique vse and then to him that brings the Scriptures to say Thou art the foolishest of all men that liue Art thou onely wise and then it must needs be so But to me who am the foolishest of all men it is sufficient that the most wise Henry can bring no Scripture against me nor answer that which is brought against him besides he is constrained to grant his Fathers haue often erred and his antique vse makes no article of faith in which it is lawfull but for the multitude of that Church to trust whereof he himselfe with his pardons is defender But against the saying of Fathers men Angels and diuels I oppose not ancient custome nor a multitude of men o This is that which the Fathers themselues aduise vnto when heresies haue long continued preuailed in the Church to flie to the Scriptures because the writings of the Fathers after the long continuance of heresie are in danger of corruption See Chrysost op imperf hom 49. sub init §. Tūo cum videritis abominationē Vincen. Lyrin cōmonit c. 39. but the word the Gospel of one eternal maiestie which themselues are constrained to allow wherein the Masse is euidently taught to be the signe and testament of God wherein he promises and by a signe certifies to vs his grace For this worke and word of God is not in our power here I set my foote here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Sophisters and