that God did predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound for the lumpe being sound men were in state of life iure creationis by the right of their first creation and if the lumpe had continued sound there had bene no vse of predestination for that is grounded vpon Christ his merits which were to take place massâ perditâ corruptâ the lumpe being corrupted And much lesse did Caluin hold that God did predestinate or ordeine to death ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound For besides that it was impossible that man should dye the whole lump 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing in the first integrity it could not stand with Gods iustice But Caluins doctrine is that God did ab aeterno ante 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creatam multò magis antè massam integram aut corruptam eternally before the lumpe was created and therfore before the integrity or corruption of it predestinate out of it by his decree some to life some to death foreseeing that it should be corrupted For in his predestination he had a generall respect to the whole lumpe which hee foresaw should be corrupted though not to the corruption of euery particular vessell which was to be framed out of that lumpe so his predestination which was decreed from eternity was executed in time after the lumpe had receiued corruption for so long as it cōtinued sound there could be no vse of predestination nor possibility of death And so euen as they which are saued are the children of God before they are borne by eternall predestination but not by actuall adoption vntill they be sanctified likewise they which are damned be eternally by reprobation before they are born but not actually before they be infected with sin the children of Belial and vessels of destruction Secondly how could there be praeuisio peccati in massâ integrâ aforesight of sinne in the lumpe being sound when integritas massae originale peccatum the soundnesse of the lumpe and originall sinne cannot stand together God did foresoe that the sound lumpe should be infected but not so long as it continued in integrity The lumpe so long as it was found consisted but of two persons Adam and Eue both which are saued by all mens confession how then did God predestinate any to damnation out of the lumpe being in integrity I confesse that in respect of the corruption of the whole lumpe which God did foresee there was first afore-sight of sinne then a decree that Christ should be incarnate and then the decree of predestination founded vpon the merits of Iesus Christ which were in order as we do apprehend them one before the other yet in eternity with God they were altogether but in respect of massa integra the lumpe being sound there were none of these so that this syllogisme confuteth not Caluin His second argument is this Infants sath he dying without baptisme according to Caluins doctrine are saued by the faith of their parents therefore God hauing a respect to their faith predestinated them non sine intuitu operum not without a foresight and relation to somewhat which was in the persons of those men To which I answer That in the state of innocency Baptisme was not instituted neither was Faith preached and therefore he disputeteth idlely Againe if he had brought this argument to proue predestination after the lumpe was corrupted to proceed from any thing that God respected in man It were but a Fallacie non causa pro causà For faith which God foresaw in any man is not the cause why hee did predestinate him to saluation but contrarily his predestination is the cause why man is comprehended vnder the couenant of Grace and why hee giueth him faith that hee may bee saued For whomsoeuer he vouchsafeth the end them also he vouchsafeth the meanes whereby they may attaine to that end Gods predestination consisteth with good workes as it doth with faith though he predestinateth freely without the merit of good workes the workes being an effect and end of Gods election and not the cause that moued him to elect vs for the Apostle saith He chose vs that we might be holy and not because we were holy or because he did foresee that we should be holy And his election is made sure to vs by good works which are the effects and fruits thereof Against reprobation or predestination to death ante praeuisionem originalis peccati ex massà integrâ before the foresight of originall sinne out of the lumpe being sound he argueth in this manner First God decreed to create man to perpetuall happinesse where it is said Faciamus hominem let vs make man according to our owne image Secondly he decreed not that man should dye vnlesse he were disobedient Quacunque die what day soeuer thou shalt eate of the middle tree thou shalt dye Thirdly he decreed to shew mercy to all mankinde rather then cruelty vniuersae vie eius misericordia all his waies are mercie Yea God was mercifull euen to the reprobates because he gaue his Sonne to be the Redeemer of mankinde And there digressing from his argument he exclaimeth against Caluin as if Caluin should say that God did execute cruelty vpon mankinde elect but a few and damne a great multitude condemne man before his cause is heard stirre man vp to commit sinne that thereupon he might take occasion to punish him My answer is as before First that he did not foresee any originall sinne that could be in man so long as man was to continue in the state of innocency and therefore he doth but beate the aire as before to proue that against Caluin which Caluin neuer meant that God should predestinate any man to death the lumpe being pure for reprobation and the state of innocency could not stand together As he created man to euerlasting happinesse so he decreed not that man should continue in that happinesse As his decree of death was but conditionall if man were disobedient so he gaue not man constancy to perseuer in obedience As all the wayes of the Lord are mercy so his mercy belongeth onely to the faithfull but he gaue not to all the gift of faith As he was mercifull euen to the reprobates in that he gaue his Sonne to be a redeemer of the whole world so this benefite did not extend any way to the reprobates but onely to the elect Hee gaue him to bee a sufficient Redeemer of the whole world if the whole world would haue receiued him but he was an effectuall redeemer onely to the beleeuers He offered his grace through Christ to all men euen to the reprobates but he sealed and confirmed it onely to the elect So these arguments refute not Caluin And that I may answer his exclamations This cannot be cruelty in God but as the Apostle saith It is iustice Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet May not God do as much as the
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
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
was only in God that he would condemne Esau But if he meane that the affirmatiue part is to be referred to the condemnation which is the execution of reprobation which is temporall and not to the decree it selfe which is eternall as needs he must and it appeareth plainely by his words following that so he meaneth we hold with him and his defence is all one with ours For how doth he proue the affirmatiue part That God will condemne them it is in themselues but by this sentence of Scripture Math. 25. Go ye cursed into eternall fire the cause being shewed to be in themselues I was hungry and ye fed me not These words are a finall sentence to be pronounced at the end of the world and not the decree it selfe which was before the beginning of the world these words put the decree in execution and are a sentence published to the world by the mouth of our Sauiour Christ whereas reprobation is a secret which God reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome And whereas he calleth this finall sentence of the Iudge reprobation it cannot properly be so called but onely by the figure called metonimia effectus pro causa where the effect is vsed for the cause for this is condemnation and not reprobation an effect of reprobation but not reprobation it selfe And where for proofe of the affirmatiue part he sayth out of Saint Augustine Condemnare sine culpâ ost punire sine causâ quod iniustum est To condemne without fault is to punish without cause and that is against iustice I hold with him God cannot in his iustice punish or condemne any man which hath not deserued condemnation or punishment but what is this to reprobation Peter Martyr acknowledged so much long before Bellarmine his workes came forth where he sayd Peccata sunt causa cur condemnantur non tamen cur à Deo reprobantur Sinnes are the cause why men are damned and yet no cause why men are reprobates So where he saith that God doth make vessels of dishonour the cause is in himselfe but that he doth deputare ad contumeliam appoint them to wrath and dishonour It is in the men themselues we consent with him in as much as this deputation is an action which is temporall but that making of vessels of wrath is a decree which is eternall Peter Martyr saith Peccata sunt causa damnationis quae fit in tempore sed non reprobationis quae fuit ab aeterno Sinne is the cause of damnation which is in time but not of reprobation which was before time sinne is an effect of reprobation and therefore it cannot be a cause of reprobation As the Apostle Saint Paul and Bellarmine his selfe do shew that good workes are no cause but an effect of election so the argument followeth sinne is not a cause but an effect of reprobation The sinne of Pharaoh was hardnesse of heart he would not let the people go this could not be the cause why God eternally did reiect him but God reiected him eternally and therefore in time he hardned his heart that he should not let the people go Last of all there are two sorts of causes one the highest an other subordinate which go betweene the decree the execution thereof So that albeit Gods will was the first and highest cause that he ordained some to damnation which cause was onely in himselfe yet there are found other causes inferiour and subordinate sufficient to stand with the rule of iustice that his decree should be put in execution as hardnesse of heart infidelity and other sins which causes are inherent in the men themselues Becanus writeth in this manner The doctrine of predestination saith he is vnderstood two manner of wayes either according to the Catholike defence that God did post praeuisionem originalis peccati quum vniuersae esset massa perdita aliquos aligere ex suâ misericordia ad gloriam alios in massâ perditionis relinquere vt essent vasa in contumeliam After he foresaw originall sinne in the whole lumpe being corrupted of his mercy choose some to be vessels of honour and leaue others in the lumpe of perdition to be vessels of dishonour Or according to Caluin that God before he fore saw originall sinne Ex massâ integrâ Out of the lumpe being sound ordained some to life others to death without any offence of theirs or their parents And as it is taken in that second sense he argueth against Caluin and out of this diuision so made by himselfe he frameth his disputation By the way before we come to his arguments First it is superfluous and idle to suppose that God did predestinate antè aut post praeuisionem peccati before or after the foresight of originall sinne because he did both praeuidere praedestinare ab aeterno foresee and predestinate from euerlasting with him there is nihil prius aut posterius nothing before or after because he is before all time Againe this were to impute ignorance vnto God as if some thing had bene to come to passe which once he did not foresee Thirdly our question is not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate I confesse with Bellarmine these termes Post praeuisionem operum expraeuisis operibus After the foresight of workes and out of a foresight of workes making this foresight to be the cause are all one so that he disputeth not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate But with this Iesuite it is otherwise as it appeareth by the sequele of his disputation and therefore he commeth not neere the question which he proposeth As also massaintegra corrupta the state of innocency and of sinne though in time they succeeded one another yet in Gods foresight they were both at once But let vs come to his argument That God did not predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him he taketh vpon him to confirme by two reasons the first is this If God did so then the decree of predestination was before the decree of Christ his incarnation but that decree of predestination was not before the decree of Christs incarnation Therefore God did not predestinate man to life out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him He proueth the sequele of the Maior because the foresight of sinne is more ancient then the decree of incarnation for had not Adam sinned Christ had neuer bene incarnate He proueth the Minor because else our election had not bene grounded vpon the merits of our Sauiour Christ For Saint Paul saith Elegit nos in Christo he hath chosen vs in Christ c. To which I answere This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a skirmish with his owne shadow but no combat with Caluin because he obtrudeth that to Caluin which is not his doctrine Caluin doth not hold