Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	apostle_n	know_v	love_v	4,027	5	6.3882	4	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

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 thē 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 Gētiles beleeue they spake no more thē 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 whē 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 s●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

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