him he would be thought to see more then others did before and therefore feedeth his owne phantasie with new trickes and busieth the reader with strange conceipts farre fetched and nothing pettinent to the matter In his whole tract hee beateth the ayre and fighteth with his owne shadow but commeth nothing neere vnto that which is cardo questionis prora quasi puppis totius controuersiae the maine matter now in controuersie betweene him and vs. But that we may first come to Bellarmine Of reprobation he speaketh thus Causâ reprobationis partim ad solam Dei voluntatem partim ad peccata prauisareferenda est The cause of reprobation is partly the meere will of God and partly the foresight of sinne In these termes he seemeth to impugne vs. But afterward he explaneth his meaning by a distinction saying Reprobatio duos actus comprehendit vnum negatiuum alterum affirmatiuum Negatiuus est Non habet Deus voluntatem eos saluandi quantum ad illum actum nulla datur eius causa ex parte hominum Affirmatiuus est Habet Deus voluntatem eos damnandi huius causa est praeuisio peccati There are two acts of God in his reprobation the first negatiue the other affirmatiue His negatiue act is this He hath no will to saue them and of that act there is no cause at all in men but onely in himselfe The affirmatiue act is this He hath a will to damne them and the cause of this is the foresight of sinne For proofe of the negatiue saith Bellarmine God hated Esau antequam aliquid mali agisset non solum coram hominibus sed etiam in praescientià Dei before he had done any euill not onely in the sight of men but also in the fore-knowledge of God He hated him saith he not for originall sinne for then should he as well haue hated Iacob because originall sinne was common to them both nor because he was worthy of hatred for so they were both and so he should haue hated all men and elected none because all were worthy of hatred By the way saith he it is to be noted that these words to hate to harden which in termes are affirmatiue in sense are negatiue as odisse est nolle diligere indurare nolle misereri to hate is not to loue to harden is not to be willing to shew mercy Againe saith he that a man is hardned though it be a punishment for sinnes past yet it is an effect of this reprobation so that God doth harden him because from eternity he appointed him to be a reprobate Last of all saith he facere vasain contumeliam to make men vessels of dishonour though being vnderstood in this sense deputare ad contumeliam to depute them to dishonour and shame is affirmatiue yet being thus vnderstood Facere vasa qualia requirit totius massae conditio sic relinquere nihil aliud addere to make them such vessels as the nature and condition of the whole lumpe requireth and so to leaue them and do no further act is negatiue and of all these there is no cause in men but onely in God But for proofe of the affirmatiue which is Habere voluntatem damnandi to haue a will to damne them saith he that is by reason of the foresight of sinne we haue instance Ite maledicti in ignem aternum Go ye cursed into euerlasting fire the cause of this damnation is shewed to be in themselues I was hungry and ye gaue me no meate c. Bonus Deus est iustus Deus est God is good and God is iust he can saue though men haue not deserued saluation because he is good but he cannot condemne them vnlesse they haue deserued condemnation because he is iust Condemnare aliquem sine culpà est punire sine causà quod iniustum est To condemne a man without fault is to punish without cause and that cannot stand with iustice So farre goeth Bellarmine Now that I may speake to euery point I will first repeate his words Reprobation saith he hath two parts one negatiue that God will not saue the cause of that is in God the other affirmatiue that God will condemne the cause thereof is in man First I say this is no lawfull distinction to make a diuersity of that which is an identity for there is aequipollentia in re they be different onely in termes but are equipollent one to the other in substance He sheweth out of Saint Augustine that to hate and to harden which in termes are affirmatiue are in matterall one with nolle diligere nolle misereri not to loue not to haue mercy which are negatiue But after the same manner I come vpon him Deus vult damnare God will condemne is a proposition in voyce affirmatiue and equiuolent to this Deus non vult saluare God will not saue which is negatiue And as there is no meane betweene loue and hatred mercy and induration but he that is not loued of God is hated he that findeth no mercy is hardned So in Gods predestination there is no meane or third thing betweene saluation and damnation but necessarily by this decree he that is not saued must be damned he that is not separated from the lumpe of iniquity must be left to continue in the lumpe of iniquity no meane betweene separation from it and continuance in it But secondly to leaue his idle termes to himselfe which sauour of subtiltie and not of substance and which make that to seeme darke and obscure which is as cleere as the day light I will shew plainely out of himselfe that in doctrine he consenteth with vs For concerning this affirmatiue act God will condemne Esau which he saith is an act of Gods reprobation let him acquit himselfe if he can I would know whether he will haue it to be a part of reprobation as it is in ipso decreto in the decree it selfe or in decreti executione in the execution of the decree in intention or in action one of them it must be The decree it selfe which is Gods intention is eternall the action which is the execution of his decree is temporall If he meane it is to be referred to the decree it selfe I proue by his owne argument that then the cause why he would condemne Esau was not in Esau but only in God For he framed his argument to proue the negatiue part in this manner That God would not saue Esau it was not because he foresaw sinne in him for then he should not haue saued Iacob for he foresaw sinne in Iacob as well as in Esau So I come vpon him with his owne argument That God would condemne Esau it was not because he foresaw sinne in him for then he would haue condemned Iacob because he did foresee sin in Iacob as well as in Esau Therefore as Bellarmine inferreth the cause was onely in God that he would not saue Esau So I inferre the cause
before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatorū the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat It cānot stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after
Potter may do Neither is this to condemne men the cause being not heard for the whole lumpe being corrupted the particulars could not be cleare neither was any particular to expostulate with God the whole lump being iustly damned more then Moses was to be admitted to plead for himselfe why he should not be cast into the water when it was decreed generally that all male children of the Hebrues should be cast into the water It was sufficient without further arguing the case that Moses was a male childe of the Hebrues so it was sufficient that Esau was the sonne of Adam That God elected but a small remnant and damneth many millions it is no new doctrine our Sauiour saith Many are called but few are chosen Saint Augustine saith God is glorified as well by destroying as by sauing of mankinde else he would not create so many millions whom he knew before should be damned If all saith Augustine which are borne of Adam should be saued lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis Gods mercy to them which are saued which are indeed vnworthy of saluation would not appeare Plures Deus facit damnandos quà m saluandos incomparabili multitudine vt reiectorum multitudine ostenderetur quà m nulli momenti est apud Deum iustū quantalibet numerositas iustissimè damnatorum atque vt hinc quoque intelligant qui ex ipsâ damnatione redimuntur hoc fuisse massae illi vniuersae debitum quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent God ordeined more to condemnation then to saluation without all cōparison first that it might appeare by the maier part of them which are damned how little God which is so iust regardeth the destruction of whole multitudes of sinners which are most iustly punished Secondly they which are redeemed from that damnation may by their owne redemption confesse when they see the maior part damned that that damnation was due to the whole lumpe which was adiudged to the greater part And last of all if he thinke it an hard speech in Caluin to say that God inciteth men to sin that so he might take occasion to punish them let Saint Paul answer it out of whom Caluin did alledge it where he saith God hardened and God stirred vp Pharaoh for this purpose that he might shew his power in him and that his name might be declared through all the earth To conclude whereas he obiecteth 1. Tim. 2. It is the will of God that all men should be saued And Ose 13. Perditio tua ex te salus ex me Israël that thou art damned it proceedeth from thy selfe that thou art saued it is to be ascribed to me ô Israël And therefore inferreth that the cause of predestination is in our selues not in God I answer first to Saint Paul It is his will that all should be saued that is his reuealed but not his secret will and to Hose our destruction is of our selues and yet it is of God that men are predestinated to destruction for as much as there are two causes of damnation one principall which is his will and that is outward and not in men the other subordinate which commeth betweene the decree and the execution of the decree which is damnation and that is sinne matter worthy enough of damnation and that is inherent in man And thus you see the saying of the Apostle verified of this Iesuite Volentes esse Doctores legis non intelligunt quid loquuntur neque de quibus affirmant They would bee Doctors of the law and yet vnderstand not what they speake neither whereof they affirme CHAP. 4. Of inuocation of Saints THe Church of Rome hath bene for many yeares past charged with the crime of idolatry for yeelding that worship to dead mens soules which is due onely to God Being not able to stand any longer vpon the iustification of themselues the matter appearing so fowle they flye frō their first holds and deuise new defences to auoide that grieuous imputation and yet still to retaine their ancient superstition Therefore concerning inuocation of Saints they deliuer this doctrine Non licet à sanctis aliquid petere vt nobis tanquam auctores aliquid concedāt sed vt corū precibus à Deo nobis beneficia concedantur It is not lawfull to pray vnto Saints as authors and giuers of any good thing which they should bestow vpon vs but onely as helpers and mediators vnto God in our behalfe that by their praiers for vs we may more easily obtaine at the hands of God such things as we shall aske Being charged that their practise is contrary to this doctrine that in the practise of their religion throughout their Churches they pray still in as grosse maner as before they did howsoeuer in their Schoole-diuinity they dare not maintaine it to cleare themselues they say Si quis dicat sancte Petre miserere mei quantum ad verba sic licet dicere sed sensus intelligendus est Miserere mei orando pro me da mihi aditum coeli id est precibus impetra It is lawfull to pray in these termes S. Peter haue mercy vpon me open to me the gate of heauen but that praier is not to be vnderstood as it is conceiued in those expresse words but in another sense which is this Pray for me that I may obtaine mercy by thy praiers obtaine for me that the gate of heauen may be opened vnto me To which I reply that the common people among them are no Schoole-men and therefore this euasion doth not make their prayer to bee lesse idolatrous then it was before This is but to hold the people still in darknesse and to rob God of his honour by the fallacy of equiuocation But let vs examine the grounds of this defence They alledge the words of the Apostle I magnifie my office to try if by any meanes I might prouoke them of my flesh to follow them and might saue some of them And in another place I am made all things to all men that I might by all meanes saue some To these words I answer they are sufficient to proue that while Saint Peter liued God stirred him vp as an instrument of his glory to bring men to the kingdome of heauen and to saue their soules but not after he was departed out of this life So Timothy taking heed to learning and continuing therin might both saue himselfe and them which heard him when he liued but not after his death For who knoweth not that verbum Dei est officio seruatrix humani generis the word of God hath a sauing power and that the ministery of the Gospell is the ordinary meane to saue mens soules But what is this to Saints departed whose ministery ceaseth or to proue the lawfulnesse of prayer to the dead which do not heare vs S. Paul spake of sauing men in his life time not after his death by his preaching to them
an interpreter and a spokes man for him with God So then as the Catholike prayeth to the image of the saint that the saint his selfe may heare him and not the image likewise the Gentile prayeth to the idoll not that the idoll but God should heare him Other arguments he produceth weaker then these as namely That the Gentiles thought their idols to be gods because they were so taught by their Priests and the world did so beleeue because the idols did seeme to speake when indeed not they but the diuels spake out of them as also because they had the shape of men they thought they had in theÌ„ life motion To which I answer their Priests did not so teach them neither did the world beleeue that they were gods but analogically as before For the Gentiles held that God was a spirit and not a body the diuels speaking out of them could not make the GeÌ„tiles beleeue they spake no more theÌ„ the friers speaking out of the rood-loft maketh the Catholike thinke that the image in the rood-loft speaketh Again the diuels speaking out of them did imitate God which spake out of the fiery bush wheÌ„ it could not seeme probable that the bush spake but God out of it Lastly that their idols had the shape of men it maketh against him for that should be an inducement rather to make them thinke they were no gods but rather men And to conclude that I may not be tedious concerning the erecting of images in the Church whether it be lawfull or no They alledge for proofe of the lawfulnesse thereof the example of God himselfe which commanded images to be erected in the temple of Salomon and thereupon conclude we may by that warrant erect images in our Churches which is but to deceiue the simple with a fallacy called A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Salomon lawfully erected images in his temple hauing receiued a commandement from God therfore we may erect them in our churches when God hath not giuen any such commandement The Israelites lawfully robbed the Aegyptians when God appointed them so to do but we may not do the like hauing no such dispensation from God He is liberrimum agens a free agent and aboue his law but we are vnder it and may not breake it without warrant from him God saith Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image and yet we may Deo sculptilia facere make grauen images to God that is when he doth so appoint it and so Salomon did CHAP. 3 Of Predestination FOr the better vnderstanding what predestination is it behoueth vs to know first that God hath written three bookes the one of nature to hold vs without excuse in which we may reade there is a God and that is the fabrike of the world The other of Grace to saue our soules which is the holy Bible where he hath manifested himselfe in his Sonne The third of life for our farther assurance which is his secret counsell and it he reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome In it we cannot reade particularly whose names are written because it is not published as the two other are but it is sealed vp with seuen seales and none can open it but the Lambe Christ Iesus Yet out of the booke of Grace we are taught that some few are written in the booke of life and the lambe Christ Iesus hath reuealed to S. Paul his chosen vessell seuen leaues of that booke containing seuen heads or principall chapters to giue vs some small light and taste thereof that we may not be meerly ignorant of so much as in his wisedome he thought fit to impart vnto vs. The Apostle hath these words We know that all things worke together to the best to them that loue God euen to them that are called of his purpose for those whom he knew before he hath predestinated to be made like the image of his Sonne that he might be the first-borne among many brethren Moreouer whom he hath predestinated them he called whom he called them he iustified whom he iustified them also he glorified And in another place He hath chosen vs in him meaning Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blamelesse before him in loue who hath predestinated vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto his selfe according to the good pleasure of his will In which words are deliuered these seuen principall heads to wit Purpose Fore-knowledge Predestination Election Vocation Iustification Glorification which all of them I define after this manner His purpose is his eternall and immutable decree in generall that he will be glorified by his creatures Fore-knowledge is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding meerly from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of men Which fore-knowledge called in Latine praescientia is not deriued of the verbe scio which signifieth barely to know but of sâ—isco which is antè decernere to know with a certaine decree or determination that he will haue it to be so as where it is written This foundation remaineth sure God knoweth who are his And againe where our Sauiour saith in the gospell to the false apostles I know you not For otherwise though the foreknowledge of God be immutable it cannot be the cause that any thing should come to passe for nothing cometh to passe because he knew it would be so but because he ordained that it should be so Predestination is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding onely from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of some particular men aboue the rest as where it is written I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau Election is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding from his will and pleasure that the whole lumpe being a lumpe or masse of iniquity they which are predestinated to be vessels of honour should be separated from the other clay which serueth to make vessels of wrath and destruction And all these foure go before the conception of man the other three follow after not in Gods secret determination but onely in his execution two of them in this life and the other in the life to come Vocation is an action of especiall grace in this life in which by the holy Ghost inwardly working the Minister of the word outwardly preaching and the will of man vnfainedly consenting man is effectually conuerted to the faith and piety of life Iustification is a sentence of grace in this life out of which they which are effectually called are by him through Christ absolued from sin and consequently from the sentence and decree of death Glorification is an action of glory in the life to come by which corruption being cast off he doth cloath them with immortality after the similitude of the resurrection of Iesus Christ These are subordinate one to the other the first foure being