Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	harden_v	hardness_n	pharaoh_n	2,882	5	10.8987	5	false

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