Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	harden_v	heart_n	pharaoh_n	2,001	5	11.6391	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20679	An aduertisement to the English seminaries, amd [sic] Iesuites shewing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of religion, in the whole course of their workes. By Iohn Doue Doctor in Diuinity.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.; Walsingham, Francis, 1577-1647.	1610 (1610)	STC 7077; ESTC S115461	57,105	88

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

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