REprobation, is that predesti­nation whereby God doth reiect from the kingdome of heauen such as are ordained to euerlasting destruction. And it is meant in the name of hate, Mal. 1.3. Roman. 9. 13.

Some are afraid to name reprobation, as if the word were vnluckie and vnfortunate, and vtterly to be banished out of Christian do­ctrine: [Page 117]but they should not be so must afraide of it, because the holy Scripture it selfe doth vse it. For Ier. 6.30. it is saide, they are called re­fuse siluer, because the Lord hath reprobated them: where the Prophet vseth the word maas, which is cōtrarie to bachar, which is to choose, as appeares, Esa. 7.15. The Greeke translation hath [...], the Lord refused them. And the Scripture sates they are [...], reprobates.

There are two parts of reprobation: first, a deputation to reproach, that is, both to vses vn­honest, or to those works which the reprobates doe commit afterward, and also to eternal de­struction: secondly, Reiection from the grace of election, and the effects of the same grace, and so from the ende eternall life.

Destination to shame, is before reiection from the grace of election. For that which is last in execution, is first in intention, that is, in counsell and cogitation. See Zanch. de natura Dei. p. 506.6.

Bellarmine in his third tome of disputations, lib. 2. de grat. & lib. arbitr. cap. 16. saith, Repro­bation compriseth two acts in it: one nega­tiue, the other positiue. For first he saith God had no will to saue them: 2. had a will to con­demne them. All which we would haue liked well, but that he inuerted the order of the a­ctions, for that which he sets first, indeede is last. Againe, we like not his making of electi­on double, one negatiue, the other affirmatiue, [Page 118]calling that privatiue, this positiue. But other call that passiue, this actiue. For euery thing that consisteth of two parts, is not two-fold. There is but one eternall reprobation, not two, and that hath but one obiect and no more.

Eternall reprobation is 1. of the deuill: 2. those that are vnited to the deuill.

Reprobation of the deuill, is that whereby God from euerlasting hath reiected the deuill that should become the prince and head of falling from God, and hath adiudged him to euerlasting punishment.

Reprobation of them that are vnited to the deuill, is of such as are ioyned to the deuill as their prince and head: and it is either of the e­uill angels, or damned men. Mat. 25.41. Gen. 3.15. Ioh. 8.14.

The eternall reprobation of euill angels is predestination, whereby God from euerla­sting decreed to forsake some angels ordai­ned to eternall destruction, not to confirme them in good, to suffer them to fall through pride, and casting them from heauen to ex­clude them from eternall happines. Math. 25.41. Apoc. 12.9.

That there is a reprobation of some of the angels is euident by this, because some angels are elected, by Pauls witnes: now election can not stand without reprobation.

Concerning the cause thereof, Bellarmine is of this iudgement, that the negatiue repro­bation [Page 119]of the angels, doth not depend on the foresight of sinne. For God foresaw that the angels which perish should most vndoubtedly perish, if indeede he should giue them but that grace onely which he did giue them, therfore giuing them no more grace, he would withall not predestinate them to glorie, but suffer thē to fal from saluation. For if he would absolute­ly haue saued them, his wisdome would haue found a meanes to doe it. Therefore there can be no reason giuen, why God would giue some angels grace, by which hee sawe they should most certenly be saued, and to other whereby hee sawe most certenly they should not, but onely because he would saue these and not them. But the cause why he would positiuely damne the euill angels was out of doubt their sinne foreseene. For the punish­ment of condemnation is not iustly inflicted, but where sinne went before. Nowe in this we like it well, that he acknowledgeth no o­ther cause why some angels were not elected to saluation, but onely the meere will of God. But we very much mislike, first that he makes two kindes of reprobation in stead of the two parts of one and the s [...]lfe same thing: se­condly, that he makes foresight of sinne the cause of his will in condemning the euill an­gels, seeing it is impossible that the efficient cause should in time be after the effect. And it is very grosse that the sinne should be the efficient cause of the eternall will of God, [Page 120]that is, of Gods very essence, willing. The ar­gument he brings is beside the point, because the punishment of damnation is one thing, and the eternall decree of inflicting the puni­shment of damnation is an other. Indeede God decreed to lay the punishment on the de­uills for sinne, but sinne is not therefore the cause of the decree. Sinne is the cause of puni­shment, but not of the decree of punishing.

The eternall predestination of men to be condemned, is that predestination whereby God hath determined frō euerlasting to passe by those that are left in the common destructi­on, into which all men should plunge them­selues by sinne.

1 There are two parts of this definition, the genus, and the difference: or, the matter and the forme. The genus or matter is Predestination, which is common to election & reprobation: as Austin teacheth, l. 15. de Civ. dei, c. 1. We deuide (saith he) mankinde into two kinds or branches, one of those that liue according to man, the other that l [...]ie according to God. Which mystically we call two cities, that is, two societies of men, the one whereof is predestinated to raigne for euer with God, the o­ther to vndergoe euerlasting torment with the de­uill. And againe in his Enchirid. to Laurentius, cap. 100. God should bring to passe that which he would, vsing well euen the euill, as chiefly good to their condemnation, whome he iust­ly predestinated to punishmēt, & to the others saluation, whome in mercie he predestinated [Page 121]to grace. And the author of the booke of the calling of the Gentiles, calls the reprobate predestinate. So doth Fulgentius ad Moni­mum, lib. 1. cap. 27. Therefore sinners, saith he, are not predestinated to the first death of the soule, that is, sinne; but to the second, the state of fire and brimstone. And in the second booke to the same man; Gods predestination is nothing else, but the preparation of his workes which in his euerlasting disposition he foreknew he would doe either mercifully or iustly. And Anselmus in his booke of the a­greement of prescience and free will, saith, Predestination is not onely of the good, but of the badde also. So doe the schoolemen vn­der the same name of predestination, deliuer as well the reprobation of the wicked, as the election of Saints. Therefore we doe not so ill, in vsing the word predestination for repro­bation to destruction: nor yet doe we foist in­to the Church any new opinions of the eter­nall predestination of the reprobate to con­demnation, as the aduersaries charge vs: vn­lesse they will likewise accuse Augustine, Ful­gentius, and the other fathers for the same fault. Againe, whereas some would haue the reprobate called [foreknovvne] rather, indeede they know not what they say, for that Christ and the Elect are called foreknovvne both in Scripture and by Iustin Martyr, lib. 2. Apolog. and in his dialogue with Trypho the Iewe; so are not the reprobate once in all the Scripture, [Page 122]that I can remember.

2 The forme or difference to distinguish reprobation of men condemned, from eter­nall election, is, that God determined and appointed to reiect and exclude those men whome he prepared to euerlasting destructi­on, from the communion of eternall saluati­on.

So then there are two parts of reprobation of men to be damned, 1. deputing them to ig­nominie, and so to euerlasting destruction: 2. excluding them from grace of election, and the effects thereof.

Of the first part it is said, Rom. 9.21. Hath not the potter power ouer his clay, to make of the same masse one vessed to honour, and an other to di­shonour? and vers. 22. they are called vessells of wrath made to destruction. 2. Tim. 2.20. In a great house there are not onely vessells of siluer and gold, but also of wood and stone, some to houour, o­ther to dishonour. and 1. Pet. 2.7. The disobedient are set for this, namely to stumble at the word. Iude, v. 4. Certaine are crept in, long ago [...] ordained to this condemnation, wicked men, that t [...]rne the grace of our God into lust.

Of the second part Christ speaketh, Ioh. 13.18. I speake not of you all, I know whome I haue cho­sen. Mat. 20.16. Many are called, but few are cho­sen. Math. 15.13. There are plants which the hea­uenly father hath not planted. Apoc. 13.8. All the inhabitants of the earth shall worshippe the beast, vvhose names are not vvritten in the booke of life [Page 123]of the lambe. And Apoc. 17.8. The inhabitants of the world wondred whose names were not written in the booke of life, before the foundation of the vvorld. Therefore reprobats are shutt from the grace of election. Mat. 11.25. I glorifie thee O father, Lord of heauen and of earth, for hiding these things from the vvise and learned. Ioh. 17.9. I praye not for the vvorld, but for those vvhich thou hast giuen mee, because they are thine. Matt. 7.23. J neuer knevve you. Therefore reprobates are also excluded from the effectes of free electi­on.

That there is reprobation, both the scripture doth affirme and other arguments proue: the places of scripture are these. Ier. 6.30. They shall be called reprobate siluer, because the Lord hath re­probated them. Obiect. That is spoken of tem­porall reiection. Ans. If wee should graunt that, they could not denie reprobation, nay that necessarily prooues it. For whomesoeuer God hath reiected in time, hee decreed from euerlasting to reiect: both because God knows all his works from euerlasting. Iam. 15.18. As also because God worketh all thinges accor­ding vnto the counsell of his ovvne vvill. Eph. 5.11.

Test. 2. Ro. 9.22. The reprobats are called vessels of wrathand of destruction. To which they answer, that is not to be ment of reprobation, because vessels of wrath are made of the deuill, to destruction, that is, the deuill doth frame and fitt them, to bee more and more prepared [Page 124]to euerlasting dishonor. But they are deceiued two waies. 1. in the efficient cause of this fit­ting, 2. in the exposition of the word. For they saye the efficient cause thereof is the de­uill; then they construe the word, to induce ha­bilitie and fitnes vpon the vessels of wrath, that they may bee more and more prepared to e­uerlasting dishonor.

Er. 1. But 1. it is blasphemie to say they are prepared of the deuill to destruction: for by this meanes the work of distinction of mākind, and the iust iudgement which is proper vnto God, is made the deuils. Much better doth S. Austin speake lib. 2. contra 2. Epi. Pelagii. He hath mercie on whome he will, and whome he vvill he har­dens, that makes one vessell to honor, and another to dishonor; and yet more clearly Epis. 105. to Sixtus the priest: God maketh vessels of wrath to destruction, to shew his wrath and declare his power: And lib. 1. ad Simplicianum. Whereas of the number of the wic­ked vvhome he doth not iustifie, he maketh vessels to dishonor, he doth not hate this in them which he ma­keth. And againe, see he hateth Esau, vvhich vessel he made himselfe to dishonor.

Obiect. 1. The aduersaries prooue their as­sertion thus. 1. Paul saies not that the vessels of wrath are made of God to destruction: ergo God made them not. Ans. The like collecti­on may we make, Paul saieth not, that they are not made of the deuill: ergo: the deuill made them not.

Obiect. 2. God is delighted with them that [Page 125]that he maketh: he is not delighted with the vessels of wrath: ergo: he made them not. Ans. The proposition speaks of their substance, the assumption of their accident, sinne. For God is delighted withal he made, in respect of their substance and the good things created there­in: but hee is not pleased with the vessels of wrath, as they are defiled with sinns, by which they prouoke Gods wrath vppon their owne heads: therfore it followes not, that god made not the vessels of wrath: that is, made not the reprobate against the euill day, raised not thē vp to shew examples of his wrath: for the ves­sels are called vessels of wrath, because God made them to shewe in them examples of his wrath for the declaration of his power.

Obiect. 3. Those which hee doeth endure, he made not: but hee endures and beares with the vessels of wrath: ergo: he made them not. Ans. If the proposition be generall, it is false. For the Lord made all things for himselfe, the vvic­ked also against the day of euill. Pr. 16. And doth he not beare long with such? yes, he bestowes ma­ny good things vpon them: suffers his sunne to shine vppon them, he feeds them, &c: so much for their first error.

Er. 2. They expound the worde ill: it doth not signifie to induce an habilitie and fitnes &c. for seing it is the iust worke of God, it is not the induction of any such fitnes: that is, of sinne, by which the reprobates are made fitt to condemnation, as they speake, though im­properly: [Page 126]for God is not the author of sinne.

Test. 3. Iude v. 4. There are crept in certen mē, appointed long since to this condemnation. Against this they obiect, the meaning of the worde [...] is this, described before, of whome now lōg ago, it is writtē & foretold in the pro­pheticall scripture, that at their due time, they should inuade and disturb the church of god, & so in the ende perish euerlastingly: but this ex­position is not true, being repugnant vnto the Apostles words, which saith flatly, men long a­goe described before, and not of whome it is written long since in the scripture.

Thus farre authoritie of scripture: now fol­low other arguments.

Arg. 1. If there are not many written in the booke of life, then there is reprobation: but many are, not Apo. 13.8. and 17.8. ergo.

2. If but few are elected, thē the rest are re­iected: for we cānot conceiue of electiō, with­out reprobation, one necessarily establishing the other: but the first is true. Mat. 20.16. ergo.

Obiect. There is an homony my in the word Elect: Christ Iesus there calleth elect, sincere, the true and liuely members of the church, as choise gold, that is pure, and tried. Ans. Though they take elect in that sense: yet it cannot a­gree but to those that are predestinated to eternall life, for they are onely true and sin­cere: nay if we stand strictly vpon this signifi­catiō, there is no mā liuing that shalbee elect, because so long as they liue in this body, none [Page 127]is without greatstore of drosse and refuse.

3. If God hath not mercie vppon all, then there is a reprobation: but he hath not. Ex. 33.19. I will be gracious to whome J will be gracious, and haue mercie on whom I will haue mercie. This place doth the Apostle bring in the misterie of pre­destination. Rom. 9.15. What shall we say then? is there any vnrighteousnes vvith God? God forbid, for he saith to Moses, I vvill haue mercie on whome I will haue mercie &c, Ergo: there is a reprobatiō.

Ob. 1. Ro. 11.32. God hath concluded all vnder contumacie, that he might haue mercie on all.

Ans. Paul doth not gainesay vs. For this ge­nerall particle is vnderstood one way in my ar­gument, and another way in him: we meane al & euery one, none excepted, but Paul means al that beleeue, or that are to be saued, not only of the gentiles, but also of the Iewes: that they obtaine saluatiō no way but only by the mercy of God: that there is nothing in man, for which he should be saued, the gentiles haue no priui­ledge ouer the Iewes; for looke how many so e­uer are saued, are saued by the meere mercie of god. Therfore they shew their ignorance that stretch the vniuersall particle to another mea­ning then Paul doth: but yet they will confesse themselues, that God hath not mercy on all actually.

Ob. 2. The Lords words to Moses do not proue▪ the opinion of absolute decree, but to cōfu [...]e the wicked grudging of the Iewes, who falsly iudged, Gods iustice was called into question [Page 128]if he denied the reward of eternall blessednes to their labour and trauell.

Ans. 1. They cauill in the word (absolute de­cree) for they imagine, that we call absolute de­cree, an inordinate decree: wherein the whole order of election, is distracted from election it selfe, and the order of saluation is not inclu­ded in election, but is vnder the same onely in the executiō. But we call it an absolute decree, because the efficient cause thereof is not the condition of faith foreseene, or of merits fore­knowne, but the onely will and pleasure of God.

2. They begg the question, saying those words do not belong to the secret of predesti­nation: the text doth prooue the contrary: for Paul taught a little before, that al are not Isra­elites that descend of the father Israel, not all sonnes that are the seede of Abraham: that is, that all are not elect that are borne of the holy seed: this he prooued 1. by the example of the sonnes of Abraham, of whome none but Isaac was chosen, Israel being reiected. [...]. of Isaacs sonnes, of whome Iacob alone was chosen. For when the children were yet vnborne, before they had done either good or ill, that the purpose of God that is according to election, not of workes but of him that calleth should stand fast, [...]t was saide to Rebecca their mother, the elder shall serue the yonger, as it is vv [...] ­tten, Iacob haue I loued, and Esau haue J hated: that is, that Esau was reiected from euerlasting, and the signe of this reprobation was, that hee [Page 129]should serue his yonger brother. Nowe against this doctrine carnall reason obiects this. If god respected neither good nor ill deeds in electi­on or reprobation, then there is vnrighteous­nes with him. This consequence Paul denies saying: God forbidd. And he sets downe the rea­son of this negation, taken from the ende: be­cause whomsoeuer God hath chosen, he chose for the declaration of his mercie in them, and whomesoeuer hee reiected, it was to declare his power in them.

4. If he hardens whome he will, there is a reprobation: but he doth Rom. 9.18.

5. If most men take the broad waye to de­struction, they are reprobated: but they doe. Mat. 7.13.

6. If at the last day many shall not bee ta­ken but be left, then they are reprobated: but that is true. Mat. 24.40. But why shall this bee so, because euerlasting predestination hath so appointed it. Act. 15.18. Gods works are knowne vnto him from euerlasting. Eph. 1.11. Hee worketh all things by the councell of his owne will.

7. If some be called to Christ by the prea­ching of the gospell, and other not, then there is reprobation: but some are and for experi­ence shewes it, Christians are called, but many thousands of Turks, Tartars, and other heathen people neuer heard of Christ.

8. [...] christians some repēt & are saued, o­ther remaine & die in their sinnes, then &c. ergo.

[Page 130]9. Some waxe hard Rom. 11.7. The elect ob­tained it, but the rest are growne hard: ergo: there is reprobation.

10. None shall enter into the heauenly church, that commit any abominable thing or speake lies, and Apoc. 21.17. Ergo: it is certaine there is an eternal reprobation.

11. Euerie plant vvhich the heauenlie father hath not planted shalbee rooted out. Mat. 15.13. Ergo.

And thus wee haue sufficiently prooued that there is an eternall reprobation: now to aun­swer the false arguments, which the aduersaries bring against it.

We are all by nature the children of wrath: ergo: Adv. 1. arg. there are no vessels prepared to destructi­on.

Ans. 1. The consequent is blasphemous, flatt contrary to the holy ghost. Rom. 9.22. say­ing there are. 2. it doth not follow, but rather the contrary (viz.) therefore all by nature are prepared to destruction, and that is true: but whereas some are elected to be deliuered frō the generall destruction, it is the grace of God that electeth.

2. The waye to remoue the enuie of others destruction from God, is to make no reproba­tion.

Ans. 1. Although wee make a reprobation, yet shall not the enuie of the others destructi­on rest in God, seeing whosoeuer perish, they may thank thēselues. For saluation is Gods. Ps. 3. [Page 131]vlt. 2. Paul labours not greatly, to excuse God with a lie, but onely giues warning that it is not lawfull for the clay to choppe lo­gicke with the potter, nor the creature with the Creator.

3 VVhome God doth in great gentlenes indure, he hath not reprobated: but he doth tolerate the vessells of wrath: ergo. Ans. The proposition is true of the repentant onely. The assumption speaks of those that are not repen­tant. Besides they gold Pauls words; for he addes, vessells of wrath that are made to destruction. Lastly, Paul doth not ascribe that patience to God, whereby he looketh for their conuersion; whō he saies are made to destruction. For well saith August. l. 5. c. 5. against Iulian, expounding this place: where power of suffering is set downe, that God doth not let, but moderate with his might.

4 They that are not prepared of God to destruction, are not reprobate: but the vessells of wrath are not, Rom. 9.23. Of the vessells of mercie indeede Paul saies, God hath prepared them to glorie, but of the vessels of wrath, it is not said that God prepared them, but onely that they are prepared, namely of themselues, to destruction.

Ans. The assumption is not denied. 2. The place quoted doth not pertaine to the matter: seeing Paul denies not that God prepares them, nor saies they prepare thēselues. 3. How grosse is it that any bodie should make himself to destruction, as if any made thēselues. 4. The [Page 132]comparing the members togither shewes that both are the workes of God: the place in the Acts puts it out of controuersie, Act. 13.48. where it is passiuely spoken of the elect that they were ordained to eternall life. and Prov. 16.4. God made all men for himselfe, euen the wicked also for the euill day: ergo Reprobation stands, their obiections notwithstanding.

The effici­ent cause of Reprobati­ [...]The efficient principall cause of eternall re­probation is God, for he refuseth all that are not elect. Ier. 6.30. the Lord reiected them. A­gainst which they oppose.

Obiect. 1. The beginning of so great a mis­chiefe is not from God. God is not the author of euill. but this is euill.

Ans. 1. The proposition is not generally true, but onely of the euill of sinne. 2. The as­sumption is false.

Obiect. 2. God is not delighted with the destruction of a sinner, Ezek. 18.23. and 32. Psal. 5.5. Wisd. 1.13. ergo he is not the author of eternall reprobation.

Ans. 1. The proposition that is wanting is false for the elench of the wrōg cause: because it supposeth that the delight of the destruction of the wicked is the cause for which God reie­cted them. 2. The assumption must be taken but in part: for God is not delighted with their destruction as it is destruction, but as it is the execution of his iust iudgement. 3. There is an homonymie in the place alleadged out of Ezekiel: for there God speakes of the wicked [Page 133]that is conuerted; with his death he is not de­lighted, nor wills his death. Therefore it is not truly cited of the destruction of the reprobate, who neuer turne, and of whome the holy Ghost pronounceth the cleane contrarie, Pro. 1.24. I will laugh at your destruction, &c. 4. The place out of the Psalme is impertinent: for is eternall reprobation, vanitie, or iniquitie? 5. To the place out of Wisdome, the answer to Ezekiel will serue.

The moouing cause for which eternall re­probation was made, is not sinne: for the bet­ter vnderstanding whereof, I will explane this position.

Whomsoeuer God condemneth and punish­eth with eternall death, those he decreed to condemne euerlastingly & punish with death, so that the immediat cause of damnation and punishment is sinne. But this is not now the question, but onely what is the cause of the de­cree, why God when he foresaw that all men would be sinners alike in Adam, and by nature the children of wrath, determined to shew his mercie in the one, & to leaue the other in their sinnes and condemne them for the same? there can be no other cause tendred of it, but Gods pleasure only. Yet more plainly. Why did God choose the one, and refuse the other, that is, de­creed to cast off them, to leaue them in their sinnes, and for their sinnes to condemne them, when as the Elect should haue bin no lesse the children of wrath by nature then all other? I [Page 134] answer, because it so pleased him. It can not be answered it was for sinne, because sinne was to be in the elect also. If here any doe obiect, that there is a difference betweene the elect and the reprobate, because the elect were to declare their repentance, and to beleeue firmely and constantly in Christ, and so were not the re­probate, yet that doth not take away my an­swer. For still the question remaines, why God gaue vnto the elect the gift of repentance and constant faith, and not to the reprobate? Whereunto no other answer can be made but this, that it pleased God so. As that onely ma­ster of ours teacheth vs, Math. 11.25. I giue thee glorie O father, Lord of heauen and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reuealed them to babes: euen so O Father, be­cause it was thy good pleasure before thee.

Hence we see how vniustly our aduersaries doe slaunder our doctrine, saying, that wee teach, that God by a certaine kinde of abso­lute decree, hath ordained some to eternall destruction, without any respect of sinne, or regarde of vnbeleefe and vnrepentance. Whereas we teach, that God hath reprobated, that is, decreed to leaue the reprobate in the destruction, whereinto they should volunta­rily plunge themselues, and to condemne them for sinne, and punish them with euerlasting punishment. He decreed, I say, to condemne and punish for sinne.

This did Zanchius plainely teach, lib. 5. de [Page 135]natura Dei, cap. 2. and lib. 3. of his Miscellan. pag. 53. of the edition set forth 1592.

So doe the Palatine Diuines, as the admo­nition of Neustad witnesseth, pag. 313. de for­mula Concordia. Their words are these: VVee teach with the Apostle that God in the con­demning of the reprobates will declare his iustice, and therefore hath not allotted any to condemnation but for sinne, and doth not will damnation, as it is damnation, but as it is a most iust punishment. And punishment hath no place, but where sinne goes before. But in the Elect he would declare his mercie, because when he might very iustly cast away all mankinde, for the sinne whereinto they were falne, (for all of vs were the children of wrath as well as other) of his onely meere mercie, he determined to take some out of the common destruction, that euery mouth might be stopped, and all the glorie be giuen to God.

The very same doth Luther, Calvin, Mar­tyr, Beza, Bucer, and other excellent Diuines teach.

Although God decreed to reprobate, and condemne, & punish for sinne those that were reprobated, yet is not sinne the cause of the decree. And that I prooue by these reasons.

1. Arg. If Esaus reprobation was decreed, before he was borne and had done either good or ill, then sinne is not the efficient cause of the decree of reprobation: but the first is [Page 136]true: ergo. Rom. 9.11. prooues the first. re­moouing both Iacobs good works and Esaus ill from beeing the efficient cause of reproba­tion.

1 Obiect. The aduersaries obiect, that this place is not so much to be vnderstood of Iacob and Esau, as of the people that were borne of them, which they prooue because the places of Moses and Malachie that are alleadged talke of the people of Israel and Idumea, or the po­steritie of Iacob and Esau.

Ans. 1. They cauill of set purpose. For they doe not answer the place of Paul, which I brought to confirme mine argument, namely, when the children were yet vnborne, and before they had done either good or ill. Let them say that the Apostle remooues not away both Esaus ill works and Iacobs good ones. Here is the pith of mine argument, let them hamstring this si­new if they can or dare. 2. They passe by this argument with silence, and obiect against the two testimonies alleadged by Paul, as if the argument of proofe had beene fetched from them, and so gainesay Pauls words, who most certenly speakes of Iacobs and Esaus persons. vers. 10. Neither did he onely (saith he) but Rebec­ca also, when shee had conceiued by one, namely our father Isaac, had experience of the same. I pray of whome did shee goe then, not of Esau and Iacob? the same is cleare by vers. 11. for before the children were yet borne, or euer they had done ei­ther good or ill. Of what children doth he speak? [Page 137]of Esau and Iacob. 3. They refute them­selues wherein they saide, that Paul speakes not so much of Esau, as of his posteritie, when they say when Esau was a type of the repro­bate Iewes. If Esau was here brought in as a type of the reiected nation of the Iewes, what neede they in Esaus name, vnderstand Edu­means or posteritie of Esau? Againe, he that takes the words of the Prophet, Malach. 1.2, 3. to be vnderstood of their posteritie, and not of Esaus and Iacobs owne persons, doe iniurie to the text.

2 Obiect. This place of Paul may not be vn­derstood of eternall election or reprobation, because else it should necessarily follow, that not onely Iacob was absolutely predestinated to eternall saluation, but also the whole peo­ple that descended of him. And againe, that not onely Esau was simply reiected from the grace of God, but that all his posteritie every one was simply reprobates. For the testimonies which Paul brings to prooue his purpose, speake of the people that issued from these fa­thers.

But these consequences were absurd, be­cause all Iacobs posteritie were not saued, nor yet all Esaus condemned. Therefore.

Ans. 1. It is false that this place of Pauls is not to be vnderstood of eternall election or reprobation. For he speakes so plainely that none that is well in his wittes can denie it. When the children were yet vnborne, &c. that the [Page 138]purpose of God which is according to Election, not of workes, but of him that calleth, should stand sure. Now graunting there is Election, we must needes allo graunt Reprobation, because there is no election without reprobation.

2. It doth not follow: for those absurdities doe not ensue by graunting our opinion, be­cause v. 11. out of which the argument of our reason is fetch, speaks of their persons and not of their posteritie, but they deale not with vs as if we disputed out of Moses, Gen. 25. and Malach. 1.

3. In the application of our authorities, v. 12. & 13. they accuse not vs but Paul, as if he had wrongly drawne it vnto their persons, which the seat it selfe (as they fondly speake) doth shew it should be referred to the people which came of them. As if they were better in­terpreters of Moses and Malachie then the A­postle Paul, and that which he applieth to their persons, did not indeede belong to them, but to both postetities.

But to the ende that Pauls applying of it may be tho [...]owly vnderstood, we must obserue 3. axiomes very behoouefull for the interpre­tation of this Scripture.

Ax. 1. Corporall and temporatie matters promised vnto the fathers in the old testamēt, were types and sacraments of greater matters, euen of spirituall and eternall.

2 The things that God ioyned wich his pro­mises, no man may plucke asunder, but he [Page 139]ioyned spirituall and eternall thinges with corporall and temporall: ergo not to bee seue­red.

3. Pauls vse is to comprise the question or the sentence to bee confirmed and the confir­mation thereof both together in the testimo­nie he alleadgeth, so that omitting the sentēce to be confirmed, he sets downe the testimonie onely, because there in the sentence to be con­firmed is contained also. Now I will annex the reason of Pauls application; because that the chiefe or greater part of the Iewes being puft vpp with the title of the church set at naught the gospell of Iesus Christ, the faith of many simple men beganne to faint, who among the gentiles had imbraced the gos­pell: because they thought it not likelie that Iesus Christ and the saluation in him promi­sed could possiblie bee reiected of the elected people, the holy nation and naturall Israe­lites. Therefore Paule to arme the weaker sort against this scandall, giues them to witt: that none of the beleeuers ought to bee of­fended, that all the Israelites did not imbrace the gospell and beleeue in Christ Iesus, be­cause they were reiected: which reiection on some good reason hee sets downe very ob­scurely. Romaines 9.1.2.3. then ver. 6. there is an occupation, wherein hee meets with this obiection. Jf the nation of the Jevves bee reiected, then the vvorde of God is fallen to the grounde: that is, his promise that hee made [Page 140]to Abraham is made voide, whereby he adop­ted his posteritie into a people to himselfe. Paul denies the cōsequence, and saies the pro­mise is not annihilated, because all are not Israel that are of the father Israel. that are of the father Israel. We must vnderstand there are two houses of Iacob, one of flesh and blood the other borne of the spirit and faith saith Iustine Martyr in his dialogue with Try­pho the Iew. Now the promise belongs to the sonnes that were borne of the spirite and faith, and not to the sonnes of the flesh: and this hee proueth by two like examples.

1. The first is of Abrahams children, of whom Isaac was onely counted for his sonne: and lest any man should surmise, that this dif­ference stretched no further then Isaac and Is­mael onely, the Apostle sets downe the gene­rall application. Those are not the children of God that are the children of the flesh, but they that are the children of the promise are accounted in the seede.

2. The second example is of Esau and Ia­cob: who albeit they were borne of Isaac the sonne of the promise, both of one mother and at one birth, not at diuers as Ismael and Isaac were, yet onely Iacob was chosen and Esau was reiected. The time of the reiection is described in these words: when the children were yet vnborn: that is before shee was deliuered: then their works are denied to bee the efficient cause of Iacobs election and Esaus reprobatiō, in these words when they had done neither good nor ill: ergo: [Page 141]good works were not the cause of choosing Ia­cob, norill works the cause of casting of Esau. And thus doth Augustine expound this place tom. 7. in his booke of the predestination of the Saints cap. 16. But we come back to little ones, to twins, to them (if that be two little) that were yet vnborne: who were begot both at one time, and to bee borne both at one instant. The diuers and discrepant iudgement of Gods will appears in them: vvhere the deepnes of the question vvill trouble the sence of men, that argue to proudly of the vvill of God. Exalt thy voice vvith all thy power now thou vniust accuser of the iust, and tell me what harme he did, what good the other: and Paul shall answer thee not I, neither of them had deserued any thing, but the potter hath power ouer the clay, to make of the same lump, one vessel to honor, another to dishonor.

Then is set downe the end why their works must not bee accounted the cause of election and reprobation, (viz.) that the purpose of God which is according to election, not of works but of him that calleth, should remaine firme. After that Esaus reiection is hereby proued, for that albeit hee were the elder brother, yet he was giuen to be his brothers seruant, according to the diuine oracle extant Gen. 25.23. But as Pauls stile is concise and briefe, the sentence concerning the difference betweene Iacob and Esau is in­cluded in the testimonie that he citeth out of Genesis: when they were yet vnborne &c. as if hee should haue said: the elder was reiected & the younger elected, as it was said to Rebecca. The [Page 142]elder shall serue the younger.

Obiect. But this application of this oracle may seeme vnseasonable for two causes.

1. Because that speaks of the whole peo­ple, whereas Paul deals but of Esau and Iacob onely.

2. That speakes but of corporall seruitude or Lordship, but Paul of their spirituall condi­tion. Ans. For the first, wee are to learne that the oracle speaks so of two peoples as not excluding their beginners: nay comprehen­deth-them in their authors. For to speake pro­perly the two nations themselues were not in Rebeccaes wombe, but onely their authors: therefore that which the oracle spake of the na­tions, Paul did rightly applye to their begin­ners: because the triall and truth ought to bee exhibited in the authors and heads of the na­tions themselues. Therefore Isaac-saies to E­sau Gen. 27.39. Behold I haue made him thy Lord.

Now for the second, the truth is, the ora­cle soundes of the externall prerogatiue of the birthright and possession of the land of Canaan, translated vnto Iacob and of the cor­poral seruitude wherein the posteritie of Esau was subiect to the posteritie of Iacob, but it doth not exclude spirituall and internall mat­ters.

For the translation of the birthright and title of possessing the land of Canaan vnto Iacob, and Iacobs dominion ouer Esau, and [Page 143]Esaus seruitude, was a tipe of a greater thing, namely of Iacobs spirituall election, and E­saus reprobation: that is, that Iacob was e­lected, both to bee the heire of eternall life, as also to bee the enlarger of the church, so that his posteritie possessed the name and ti­tle of the church and enioyed the preroga­tiue of the couenant of grace. And on the other side that Esau was reiected, both from the inheritance of eternall life, and also from the societie of the church: and therefore that his offspring the Idumeans should bee cut from the body of the church. So doeth Au­gustine expound this place of election or pre­destination to honor. lib. de praedest. & gra. cap. 9. saying, that the blessed Apostle, speaking a little aboue of the iudgement of Gods power in mens election, confirmed it with impregna­ble examples, where hee spake of Rebeccaes child bearing and issue yet within her bellie, referring the whole matter to Gods grace: and he concludes the chapter thus, he saieth not of workes before going, but when hee saide generally not of vvorkes, there he would haue vs vnderstand both past and to come: past which were not at all; to come, which were not yet. Iacob was predestinated a vessell to honor, because not of vvorkes, but of him that calleth i [...] voi [...] saide, the elder shall serue the younger. VVhat could Saint Augustine haue spoke more plainly? for out of the verie ora­cle [Page 144] the elder &c. hee concludes, that Iacob was predestinated a vessel vnto honor. The like he doth de praedest. sanct. cap. 16. and again in his booke de correp. & gra. cap. 7.

Obiect. If that oracle must bee vnderstood of election and reprobation, then all Iacobs posteritie were elected and all Esaus reiected: but they were out: ergo:

Ans. The connex is vntrue, for it followes not, if Iacob be elected vnto life, that al his po­sterity must needs be so: because election doth not depend vpon the carnall generation of Ia­cob, but of the freewil of god electing whome he will: likewise againe it is not necessary that al Esaus sonnes should be reprobates, because of the same reason: for that reprobation doth not depend vpon the carnall generation, but of the iust will of God.

Obiect. But neither Rebecca not Esau vn­derstood that oracle (the elder shall serue the yon­ger) of Esaus eternall reprobatiō, no more must we: and much lesse, that he was by Gods most absolute will and decree neuer more to bee re­pealed, adiudged to the punishment of hel fire eternally: and this is good for two reasons. 1. because if Isaac and Rebecca, by the illumina­tion of Gods spirit, had thought the oracle cō ­cerning the children yet vnborne must bee vn­derstood, how could it possiblie be, that they should not be vtterly swallowed vpp and kild vp with such vnspeakable griefe, if they had [Page 175]though that there little babie dandled on his mothers lapp, and sucking at her brest had bin by force of the oracle a firebrand of hell, in so much as that all meanes of grace and saluati­on had beene barred vpp against him most in­fallibly, and that for no other cause in the worlde, but because God would haue it so? and ergo the mother vnderstood it not thus.

2. Because Isaac, or rather the verie spirit of God, professedly expounding the oracle Gen. 27. did not vnderstand it of eternall reprobati­on.

Ans. 1. They deale sophistically by many captious interrogations as if they were al one: for in this consequent there are two questions put for one. The first of which onely pertaines to the controuersie now in hand: the second is nothing to the purpose & detractory: because by the simple will and vnchangeable decree of God, whereby Esau is adiudged to hell fire, they vnderstand according to their manner, to be ordained to damnation without respect of sinne: but we hold that god hath adiudged none to dam­nation, but onely for sinne: therefore auaunt with this slaunder.

2. The proposition that is lest out doth not follow, if Rebecca and Isaac did not vnderstād the oracle so, then we must not: for all things were not so plainely deliuered to the faithfull in the old restament, as they are in the new: ergo though Isaac and Rebecca did not fully knowe the meaning of it, yet Paul did, whome we fol­low, [Page 146]as a most true interpreter of the old testa­ment.

3. But Rebecca and Isaac did vnderstand it so, as for the proofes they proue it not. For the first is but a meere and idle florish of rheto­rike, and an exaggeration of the sorrowe which Isaac and Rebecca should haue taken if they had vnderstood the oracle of eternall re­probation, and such as would greatly moue pitie in seelie women, that can easily shedd teares very tēderly for any thing, but not such as truely beleeue, and reuerently submit them­selues vnto the will of God; as Isaac and Re­becca did, without grudging or resisting gods will. What? did not Abraham vnderstand that Ismael was excluded from the earthly inheri­tance and therewithall from the inheritance of eternall life? and yet he died not for griefe: Did not Dauid knowe that Absolom was the childe of hel, and yet was neuer swallowed vp with sorrow for the matter? wee must not bee more mercifull then God, but with reuerence approue his good will, though it seeme some­what hard to flesh & blood. The second proofe beggs the question, as if Isaac when he blessed Iacob, had his minde setled vpon corporal and temporall matters onely, and had not rather his eye vpon spirituall and eternal, as we col­lect Heb. 11.20. Where the Apostle bringeth the exāple of Isaac, by faith blessing his sonnes of future matters; thereby to proue the nature of sauing faith which is not fixed vpon earthly [Page 147]but heauenly things.

Obiect. Yet Esau in Paul is brought in not for an example of eternall reprobation, but for a type of the reprobate people of the Iewes: arguing thus, he that was a type, &c. is not an example of reprobation.

Ans. 1. The proposition is false, and such an other as this; He that was a type of Iudas the betraier as Doeg was, is not an example of betraying. Doeg both was a type and the man himselfe: and so was Esau. 2. They di [...]prooue their assumption themselues, saying the per­son of Esau is not so much meant in this place, as the people that sprong of him. For if the E­domices be here meant by Esau, how then is Esau here put for a type of the reiected Israe­lites? if they say the Edomites are also by him vnderstood, this answer is not worth a rush. For if by Esau all his posteritie be vnderstood that were ingaged to be slaues to Iacob and his posteritie, and reiected from the lande of Canaan, it will follow that all were seruants: which is false. For Esaus posteritie was first of all subdued by Dauid and brought into bon­dage, 2. Sam. 8.13. whereas beforetime they had bin free, and their kings no others vassals. Neither did they euer serue, because the Edo­mites shooke off the yoke of bondage and seruitude vnder Ioram the sonne of Iosaphat, 2. King. 8.20. as Isaac prophecied, Gen. 27.40. yea and that which is more then so, Herod the Edumean and his posteritie [Page 148]ruled and raigned afterward in the lande of Ganaan. 3. If the assumption were true, that is, that Esau was a type of the people of the Iewes that was so to be reiected, then can it not be denied but that Esau himselfe was a re­probate.

They prooue their obiection thus: Ismael also was cast out of his fathers house, and in him there was a type shadowing out that my­sterie that the people of the Iewes should one day be reiected: but who would hereupon inferre, that Ismael was reiected by euerla­sting reprobation from saluation? Ans. Marrie that doth Paul, Galat. 4.30. What saies the Scrip­ture? cast out the bondman and her sonne, for the sonne of the bondwoman shall not be heire with the sonne of the free: but the barring from the earth­ly inheritance, was a signe & token of barring from the heauenly.

2 Obiect. That by this place of Paul we are not to gather Esaus eternall reprobation, is cleare by the very manner of applying this type of Iacob and Esau to his purpose. For thus hee would say. Euen as the title of the birthright and the promise of possessing the land, did not depend vpon workes, as it did not vpon this carnall priuiledge, that Esau was elder then Iacob, but vpon free election, by which, not of workes (which the children yet vnborne could haue none of, neither good nor badde,) but of him that called it was said, The elder shall serue the younger. So againe in [Page 149]the type, (the inheritance of eternall life) we must not thinke is theirs, that stand vpon their carnall generation and natiuitie of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, or seeke saluation in their workes: but the inheritance is theirs, who neither vaunt of their workes, nor bragge of their carnall prerogatiue from Abraham, but put their whole trust and affiance of their righ­teousnesse and saluation in the free mercie of God. This is Pauls onely drift in this place, and not any other thing contrarie hereun­to.

Ans. This instance is false, foolish, and hangs not together. False, first because Paul doth not in this manner applie those things he spake of Esau and Iacob, to his purpose, but the cleane contrarie way. For this is Pauls proposition in the 6. verse, Not all that are of the father Israel, are Israel: that is, not all that de­riue their pedigree from Israel, are to be num­bred among the true Israelites, or all the po­steritie of the Patriarke Iacob, are in truth the sonnes of Iacob. This the Apostle prooueth by two very like examples: first, because all the sonnes of Abraham, are truly sonnes: se­condly, not all the sonnes of Isaac and Rebec­ca, are sonnes in deede. And thus doth the Apostle applie them. As all the sonnes of Isa­ac and Rebecca are not truly sonnes, so not all that are of the father Israel, are true Israe­lites, or truly the sonnes of Israel. That all the sonnes of Isaac and Rebecca are truly sonnes [Page 150]he prooueth by the adiuncts, because one of them, that is, Iacob was elect, the other, to wit, Esau, was reiected. And shewes that the tran­slating of the birthright vpon Iacob, was the testimonie of his election, as also his Lordship ouer Esau, and the taking away of the birth­right from Esau, and giuing him to be a bond­setuant vnto Iacob, was a signe of Esaus reie­ction. And the cause of Gods disposing mat­ters after this order, by which meanes Esau was reiected and Iacob elected, he saith was not their workes, either good or ill. 2. It is false for so consitruing the priuiledge of the birth­right, as if there were nothing else meant thereby, but onely the inriching Iacob with earthly blessings, and depriuing of Esau of temporall commodities, without any respect had vnto the heauenly. And so that Iacobs faith was fixed but onely vpon temporall things, which is very absurd.

2 It cannot stand. For it saies that the pro­mise of possessing the land did not depend on workes, as neither on this carnall priuiledge that Esau was the elder brother; seeing that promise was made to Iacob, how can the re­moouing away of Iacobs works & Esaus pre­rogatiue of the flesh stand both together? ther­fore they should haue said thus, that the pro­mise of possessing the land, did not depend on Iacobs good works, nor yet was hindred by Esaus carnall priuiledge, because Esau was the elder. And not that it did not depend theron.

[Page 151]3 It is also friuolous and foolish: making the inheritance of eternall life a type: but of what can they tell? so doltish they are, that they know not what they say or asseuere. They say the inheritance of eternall life is [...], that is, the very truth of the type say they. But I say [...] and [...] are simply taken for the same thing in the Scripture, Heb. 9.24. the ho­ly things made with hands are called [...] of the true ones, that is, types. Sometimes, for a new type agreeing with the old in the ende or scope, 1. Pet. 3.21. baptisme is called [...] of the deluge, that is, a type answering, sig­nifying, and sealing the same thing: but neuer of the thing it selfe signed, or the truth of the type. So these men are both absurd Diuines and foolish grammarians. If they had but loo­ked vpon Bezaes larger notes on the new te­stament, there they might haue learned the exposition of this word: but they are ashamed to learne, and will rather say any thing, be it neuer so false or foolish then yeelde to the truth.

And thus farre in defence of the first argu­ment, shewing that the cause of the decree of reprobation is not sinne. Nowe followe more.

2. Arg. Sinne is not the cause of the eter­nall will of God: but the decree of reprobati­on is the eternall will of God: therefore sinne is not the cause of the decree of reprobation.

The proofe of the maior is, because the eter­nall [Page 152]will of God is the first and highest cause other wise it were not, but sinne should be be­fore it: for euery efficient cause is before the effect. August. tom. 1. lib. 1. de genesi contra Ma­nich. cap. 2. If the will of God hath any cause, some­thing goes before it: which is grosse to surmise. 2. Because Gods will dependeth on no superiour cause.

3 That which was from euerlasting hath not sinne for the efficient cause, for nothing that began to be in time can be the efficient to that which was from eternal: but the decree of reprobation was from eternall: ergo.

4 Whatsoeuer is after the decree of repro­bation in time, is not the efficient cause of the decree: sinne is after it in time: ergo.

Obiect. Though sinne be after it in time, yet it may be the cause thereof, because with God nothing is past or to come, but all things are present actually.

Ans. If this be a good argument, so is that: Because with God there is nothing past or to come, therefore good workes is the efficient cause of election, how soeuer in time it comes after it.

5 If sinne be the cause of the eternal decree of reprobation, it followes that either all men are reprobated to euerlasting death, because all are by nature the children of wrath, for [...] haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God; or else that the elect are not subiect to sinne, or else are better then other in nature, and there [Page 153]sore for their dignitie and merits are not repro­bate: both which are absurd and contrarie to the Scripture: therefore.

6 If sinne be the cause of the decree of re­probation, merits are the cause of the decree of election: but that is not so: ergo. this is Luthers reason, Tom. 6. printed at VVittenberge, fol. 532. pag. 2.

7 If it proceedes originally out of eternall predestination, who shall not beleeue, nor be deliuered from sinne, then surely the efficient cause of that predestination is not vnbeleefe nor any other sinne: but the antecedēt is true: ergo. Luther saith it in his Dutch preface vpon the epistle to the Romans.

8 If God hath decreed reprobation of his meere free will and good pleasure, then surely sinne is not the cause of the decree: but the first is true. For if God decreed to conceale his sauing knowledge from the wise and pru­dent, for no other cause in the world but his owne free pleasure, then he decreed their re­probation also, onely of his meere pleasure. For there is no other cause of hiding the grace Euangelicall from worldly men, then there is of reiecting the same. But the first is true, Math. 25.26. Therefore the last also.

9 If sinne were the cause of eternall repro­bation, many absurdities would thereof insue.

1. Paul had erred, vrging this expressely, whē they had done neither good nor ill.

2. His answers had bin friuolous to the fol­lowing [Page 154]obiections, as first: If God reiected Esan because he hated him, he is vniust: secondly, why is yet displeased, for who hath resisted his will? for the readiest answer had bin this, to haue said sinne was the cause of Esaus and Pharaos reprobation. But he is so farre from betaking himselfe to this answer, that by preuention he cut the throat of it, saying, when as yet they had done neither good nor ill, and commanding vs to rest in the sole will of God. Thirdly, God should be curbed, that he should not haue free power to doe with his owne what he wil, and at his owne pleasure to make himselfe a vessell, wherein to shew his wrath and exhibit an example of his power.

10 The orthodoxall fathers, Augustine, Ierome, Prosper, Fulgentius, Bernard, nay and the very schoolemen themselues, Peter Lom­bard, Thomas Aquinas, Gregorius Arimi­nensis and Durandus: yea both Luther and some of his owne sectaries (I speake this for the Lutherans sakes) doe prooue that the cause of eternall reprobation is not sinne: for bre­uities sake I will here alleadge but some of them.

Augustine, tom. 4. lib. 1. ad Simplicianum, quast. 2. pag. 447. in Frobens print, saith, If because God foreknew Esaus euill workes, therfore he predestinated him to serue his yoūger brother, for that cause also he predestinated Iacob to haue dominion ouer his elder brother, because he knew his works would be goods. And again [Page 155]to hate Esau but for merit of iniustice, is vniust: but graunt that once, and we shall haue Iacob begin to be loued for his merit of righteous­nes: which if it be true, thē is that false, that not of works: And by and by after, why vvas Esau yet vnborne disliked: when he could neither beleeue him that called him, nor yet contemne his cal­ling, nor worke either good or il, without gods foreknowledge that his will would be euill: which if you graint once, that any could be li­ked or disliked, for that which yet was not in time, but onely because god knew before hād that it would be, it will follow, that he could be liked for his works also which God foresawe be in him, albe it yet he had done nothing. A­gain in his Ench. ad Laur. cap. 98. it is in all mens iudgements an vniust matter, that without the merits of good or euill works, god should loue one & hate another: here, if he would haue the ones good works, & the other ill bin mēt, which God foreknew, he would neuer haue said, not of works: but, of future works, and so would haue assoiled that questiō, or rather haue made no question that should neede the assoyling. The like he saith tom. 2. Epist. 105. ad Sixt. pag. 305.

It is straūge, whē they are pinched with these straits, into what downfals they cast thēselues: being afraide of the vessels of trueth: for this cause (say the Pelagians) before they were borne he hated the one & loued the other, be­cause be foresaw their future deeds: who doth [Page 156]not wonder that the Apostle was so ouershort: for he thought not of this, when as it were the aduersatie popt him in the mouth with this question, hee did not aunswere thus brieflie, plainely, soundlie and easilie. And a little af­ter. Whatshall we say then? is there iniquitie with God? God forbid: but why God forbid? for the works which he knew both should do­no, God forbid this too.

Therefore it is the heresie of the Pelagi­ans, that God did elect or reiect men for their workes good or ill foreseene, by Augustines iudgement, whome we are bound to credit more then a companie of vpstarts, of yester­daies growth as Tertullian calls them contra prax. cap. 2.

Peter Lombard lib. 1. dist. 41. cap. 1. Then se­ing there are no merites of the grace which is laid before a man to iustification, much lesse of predestination it selfe, whereby god eternally elected whom he would, can there be any me­rits: so nether of reprobation, whereby he fore­knew from eternall, that some would bee euill and condemned, as he elected Iacob and reie­cted Esau, which was not for the merits which they then had, because they had none, for they thēselues were not, nor for their future works which he foresaw, either elected he the one or cast of the other.

Thomas Aquinas 1. par. quest. 23. art. 5. and pan. 5. quest. 6. art. 2. euidently proues that there is no cause besides his will onely, why he chose [Page 157]the one or refused the other: and so doth Lu­ther Tom. 6. in Wittenberg print. fol. 532. pag. 2.

And thus farre we haue shewed that sinne is not the cause of reprobation: now we must dismember our aduersaries forces, maintai­ning the contrary opinion.

Hose 13.9. Thy destruction is of thy selfe O I­srael: ergo sinne is the cause of eternall reproba­tion.

Ans. The place alleadged is wrongly tran­slated: for in the Heb. it is thus. Shicethca Iisrael chi bi beezreca: that is, it hath destroyed thee (meaning the calfe which they worshipped) O Israel, whē as in me (as) in thy help (thou stoo­dest or shouldest haue stood firme and fast.) The Chaldie paraphrase of Ionathan expoūds it thus. When you corrupted your owne works you house of Israel the gentiles had dominati­on ouer you: but you returned vnto the law of my word, I was your help: or thus, Thy king on whome thou didstrelie neglecting me hath vndone thee: or, thy fained comfort, as Aben Ezra giues it the he brew hath neither (thy de­structiō) noryet (of thy selfe.) Now out of this corrected translation it is cleere, that here is no hold to ground any efficient cause vpon of the decree of reprobation, but teacheth that whether it was the calfe or their imaginrie comfort or (which better a grees with the text) their king in whome they were some what to confident, was the cause of the peoples destru­ction [Page 158]whereas contrary wise had they relied vppon the Lord they should haue had experi­ence of his help.

2. Though the version were sound, yet they would pick out nothing else out of it but this, that the Israelites were the cause of their perdition, but eternall reprobation is neither their destruction nor cause of the same.

2. Arg. That whose be ginning is from mans homebredd naughtines, is caused of sinne: but the beginning of reprobation is such Rom. 11.20. They are broken of by vnbeleefe: ergo.

Ans. 1. The assumption is not true: for the beginning of eternall reprobation is from the will of God, that would shew his power vpon man, and his great right and rule.

2. The proofe of the assumption is beside the cushion; for the assumption talks of the e­ternall cause of reprobation: but the Apostle speaketh of the Iewes temporary barring from the church: for the oliue tree wherfrom the Iewes are brokē, is the church or people of god: now that breaking of, is their reiection from the communion of the church and people of God, made for their vnbeleefe.

3. Argu. The reprobate by repelling the word of god whereon faith ariseth, make them­selues vnworthie of eternall life. Act. 13.46. Ergo.

Ans. 1. Here is an elench of a false cause: for the making themselues vnworthie of e­ternall [Page 159]life, is not the cause of the decree of reprobation which is eternall, that in time.

2. They wrest Pauls words to a wrōg sence: for he doeth not their deliuer the cause of the decree of reprobation, but accuseth the Iewes of ingratitude, because being chosen by God out of al people, to whom the gospel of Christ the Sauiour of the world should be preached, maliciously contemned so great a blessing, and therefore iudged themselues to be vnworthie of eternall life: that is gaue sentence of them­selues that they were not worthie of life eter­nall.

4. Argu. That whereof the holy ghost was to condemne the world, is the cause of the de­cree of reprobation: but that was concer­ning sinne, as Christ Iesus witnesseth. Ioh. 16.9. Ergo.

Ans. 1. The proposition is false, for sinne was a thing temporall: the cause of the other, e­ternall.

2. They take needeles paines about proo­uing the assumption, which none denies, and let alone the proposition that needs it more.

5. Argu. God is not the author of eter­nall reprobation because it is euill: Ergo: sinne is.

Ans. 1. The antecedent is false: and 2. the proofe thereof: for how can eternall reproba­tion be cuil, being Gods eternall decree, as [Page 160]Theodoricus Snepsius in his Theses of prede­stination discussed at Tubing anno 1583.

6. Argu. God is not one that wills iniquitie Psal. 5.5. therefore sinne is the cause &c.

Ans. Here is a rope made of sand: for the heretikes (as faieth Irencus lib. 1. contra hereses cap. 1.) la bour to make ropes of sand: they goe about to prooue their assertions, by applying either the Lords parables, or the sayings of the Prophets or speaches of the Apostles thereun­to, least their braines childe should want co­lour: wherein they passe ouer the order and course of the scripture, and as much as in them is, pluck a sunder the members of trueth: for they translate and transforme, and making one thing of another, deceiue a great many, with wisedome ill contriued out of the Lords words, that they pretend to their error: euen so play our aduersaries in this case: for howe hangs Dauids wordes with their cause? howe proue they it, if not thus?

That which God wils not, the cause of that is sinne: but the decree of reprobation God wills not: proofe, because it is iniquitie: ergo: the cause of reprobation is sinne.

Ans. 1. The proposition is not vniuersallie true: for god wil not manie things whose cause notwithstanding is not sinne, as that Christ should be an earthly king, or that thou shouldst be God, or an angell, or the monarke of the whole world.

2. The assumption is false: for when god did [Page 161]reiect those he elected not, surely by the coun­sell of his owne will he reiected them, because he doth all things by the councell of his owne will. Eph. 1.11.

3. The proofe of the assumption is false, that Gods decree is iniquitie: what fend would say this?

7. Arg. They that being inuited refused to come to the feast, the cause of their reprobati­on is sinne: the reprobate refuse. Luc. 14.24. Ergo.

Ans. There is an homonymie in the word Reprobation: for in the maior it signifies the de­priuing of their partaking of the feast, whereof the maister of the house saith, I say vnto you that none of the men that were called shal tast of my supper, but we meane Gods eternall de­cree. 2. if they meane so, their maior is falset of that which is done in time as the refusing of the supper cannot cause a thing that is from euerlasting. 3. Their assumption is particu­lar where it should be generall: otherwise the conclusion must not be generall: for all repro­bates refuse notto come, as he that came with­out his wedding garment.

8. Arg. They that are rebellious to god that cals thē, sinne is the cause of their reprobatiō, the reprobate are so. Esay. 65.2. I stretched out my hand all the day long to are bellious people that walke in no good vvay, by following their ovvne ima ginations.

Ans. There is a fallacie in the proposition [Page 162]of a false cause: for rebellion is not the cause of the decree of reprobation, but consequentlie flowes from it. 2. The proposition is halfe crazie, and he confirmes the assumption. 3. The prophets words are impertinent, for the cause of reprobation is not there handled, but the Iewes wickednes: which is not said to be the cause of the decree of reprobation.

9. Argu. The reprobate contemne their calling, despise his councell, and neglect his reproofes. Pr. 1.24. Ergo: sinne is the cause &c.

Ans. The proposition that is wāting is false: for those things are not the cause, but the con­sequent of the decree of reprobation. 2. No man denies the assumption, yet that doth he prooue. 3. The place out of the Prouerbs is nothing to the matter: because Salomon doth not thereuppon in ferre, that sinne is the cause of reprobation: now impertinently to quote a place, is not at all to proue any thing.

10. Argu. The reprobate rest not in good­nes. Rom. 11.22. Ergo: sinne is the cause of re­iection.

Ans. 1. The proposition is false, that is a­way. 2. for the reprobate were neuer in good­nes, but rather in bountifulnes [...]: for so the greeke is. 3. the proofe of the assump­tion is from the point: for Pauls words are conditionall, which put nothing in esse, [...]ffirme nothing, but the assumption is categoricall or affirmatiue. Againe the assumption speaks of the reprobate, but Paul of the elect.

[Page 163] Obiect. 1. He threatens them with cutting off, and therfore speakes not of the reprobate.

Ans. Though it cannot fall out that they should be cut off, yet haue they neede of such round dealing to abate the pride of their flesh: which as it is indeede contrarie to their salua­tion, so must it be skared with feare of dāna­tion. As thē we are elect we heare to our assu­rance [that the gifts of god are without repentance,] but in as much as we carrie flesh about with vs, which is skittish and wanton against the grace of God, we had neede to be schooled with this commination to be humbled and shake off this drowsines of the flesh.

11 Coloss. 1.23. The reprobate are said to be instable in the faith, suffering themselues to be re­mooued from the hope of the Gospel ergo.

Ans. 1. In the proposition is a false cause, of that eternall decree: because it is tempora­tie.

2 The assumption meant of liuely faith is false, because that hangs not for reprobates mowing; it beeing a thing they neuer had nor could haue, but the elect onely: if they meane the doctrine of faith, I yeelde.

3 The place doth not prooue it, being con­ditionall, if you persist founded and stead fast in the faith, &c. Lastly, the assumption speakes of the reprobate, Paul of the elect.

Obiect. Against the answer to the maior. Al­though sinne be after it in time, yet is it the efficient cause of the decree of repro­bation, [Page 164]because all things are present to God, and nothing is either past or to come in his foreknowledge, or rather knowledge.

Ans. The same did Pelagius obiect against the orthodoxall fathers, that maintained that Faith was not the efficient cause of election, which was before the world. Which obiecti­on of Pelagius I would faine haue our ad­uersaties to answer. But we will vse no other answer but that the fathers gaue him. To that Austin answers, tom. 7. lib. 1. cap. 17. de praedest. Sanct. denying that Faith foreseene or fore­knowne was the cause of election. So doe we that sinne is of reprobation. Now if vnder pre­tence of Gods prescience, the difference of things past, present, and to come shall be ta­ken away, then we may conclude that all things are from euerlasting, the world, angels, men, the deuill, and sinne; because they were all present vnto God euerlastingly. Therefore now Aristotle may say the world is eternal, be­cause it was in his prescience: the Arians may say the sonne of God was eternall, not for that he was indeede, but as in Gods prescience. See what Augustine saith, 4. tom. 1. lib. ad Simp. 2. quest.

12 If sinne be not the cause of the decree of reprobation, then God condemneth inno­cents and those that doe not deserue it vnto death: but that is absurd: ergo.

Ans. It follows not: for though sinne be not the cause of that decree, yet doth he not [Page 165]iudge innocents to death vndeseruedly. For all are subiect to death by nature, and children of wrath, and cut out of a corrupt lumpe: and all that are condemned haue the cause thereof in themselues. Therefore how can they charge God with any iniurie?

Therefore it standeth fast, that sinne is not the cause of the decree of reprobation: and thus farre is one false cause remooued, now to the next.

Neither is Gods hate toward the reprobate the cause of the decree of reprobation. 2. false cause.

Obiect. Mal. 1.2. Rom. 9.13. it is saide, Iacob haue I loued, Esau haue I hated: ergo hate is the cause. Ans. The meaning of that saying is, I haue hated Esau, that is, I haue preferred Ia­cob before him, not vouchsafing him this ho­nour, to be a vessell to honour; I haue reiected him frō the fauour I haue bestowed on Iacob. Therfore Gods hate in this place doth not sig­nifie a passion or disease of the mind, moouing him to some thing, which is not incident to God, but to preferre some before him, not to vouchsafe him that honour that an other hath. Luk. 14.16. If any comes to me and hates not his father, &c. that is, makes more account of his father then of me, is not worthie of me. For Christ doth not here disanull the 4. com. honour thy father, &c. In a word, the reprobation it selfe is here meant vnder the word hate; as e­lection vnder loue.

And thus haue I remooued the false moo­uing [Page 166]cause for which the decree of reprobati­on was made, now I come to the true, whereof I say this position.

The moouing cause, whereby God was in­duced to make a decree of reprobation, is his onely [...], that is, meere pleasure, that is, his good and free will.

The expli­cation.Gods beneplacitum must not be restrained to his workes that concerne the elect onely (vn­lesse it be by an excellencie sometime) but is also the cause of his workes which belong to the reprobate, Matth. 11.25. Luk. 10.21. I giue thee glorie O father, Lord of heauen and earth, &c. So that out of his good pleasure is not onely the reuealing, but also the concealing of the mysterie of the Gospel. Therefore we must not acknowledge Gods good pleasure by his benefits onely, but also by the declaring his power, right, and authoritie ouer men. What­soeuor God wills he wills well, and whatsoe­uer pleaseth him is good, as the very hiding of his mysteries from the wise and prudent, is his good worke. And thus we see, that it is truly saide his pleasure is cause of both de­crees.

The demō ­stration.1 The moouing or impelling cause of Gods will, is nothing but his meere will: but his eter­nall decree of reprobation is his will: ergo the onely cause thereof is his will. The reason of the proposition is, because there is nothing without God to mooue him to will any thing. For therefore he wills because it pleaseth him. [Page 167]Neither could there be any thing without him eternally to mooue him to will.

2 If Gods will onely be the cause of the decree of election, then of reprobation also: but it is the first: ergo. the consequence I make good thus, because Paul makes them equall in their cause, Rom. 9.18. of whome he will, he will haue mercie, but whome he will, he hardeneth, that is, hath not mercie: as the opposition requires and Augustine doth expound, tom. 4. lib. 1. ad Simplic. quaest. 2. The assumption hath bin prooued.

3 If Paul makes Gods will the cause of the decree of reprobation, then it is: but he doth: ergo.

The antecedent is true, 1. because Paulren­ders no other reason of Gods will, Rom. 9.18. saying, Whom he will he hardneth. nor any where else. 2. He makes this preuention of Gods will onely, thou will say vnto me, why then is he yet displeased, who hath resisted his will? This praeoc­cupation had bin nothing worth, if besides Gods will, he had bin of opinion that there had bin any other cause of reprobation, as sup­pose sinne. For he made the obiection of his owne head, knowing himselfe and vnderstan­ding himselfe better then any other bodie. 3. Because he graunted the antecedent of that obiection of Gods will, Rom. 9.19, 20. which he would neuer haue done, if it had not bin the cause of the decree of reprobation.

4 If reprobation be for this end that therby [Page 168]God might shew his power to doe with his owne what he would, and power and authori­tie ouer all men, then surely the whole will of God is the impulsiue cause of the decree of re­probation: but it is so: ergo. Roman. 9.17, 21.

5 If the potter for no other cause makes one vessell to honour, and an other to disho­nour, much more God chose vs for no other cause & reiected other, but because he would: the first is true, Ier. 18.4, 6. Rom. 9.21. ergo.

6 If the will and pleasure of God onely be the cause of hiding the mysterie of the Golpel, thē also of the decree of reprobation, because this is the cause of that: but the antecedent is true, Math. 11.25. Luk. 10.21. ergo.

But the aduersaries denie this doctrine, and alleadge these reasons to the contra­rie.

God will not the death of a sinner, Ezek. 33. ergo his will is not the cause, &c.

Ans. They are put as contradictories which are not, by an homony mie in the word [will.] for in the Prophet it signifies to take delight: and not to will, signifies not to delight in. But in the question it sigolfies, sirmely and vnchangeably to decree. 2. Though it did stand for that in the Prophet, yet not to will the death of a sinner, and to will the decree of reprobation, were not con­tradictorie: 1. because the same predicate is not affirmed and denied: for the death of a sin­ner, and the decree of reprobation are not all [Page 169]one, neither is the decree of reprobation the cause of the death of a sinner. 2. Because both wills belong not all to one thing, but to two di­uerse matters. For God wills not the death of a sinner, that repenteth, but he wills the decree of reprobation of such as he doth not giue the gift of grace and of repentance vn­to.

Obiect. The Prophet speakes of all and singular persons, and not of the repentant onely; because all and euery one are sin­ners.

Ans. The first falsitie of this obiection is this proposition, God will not the death of any sin­ner at all, whether he repent or no: therefore it is cunningly omitted, and that is cleare first by the text. For that which followes, but that we might be turned and liue, shewes the former speech is referred to sinners that doe conuert and repent: so that in those other he onely putteth repentants in good hope, that none might doubt that God is readie to pardon so soone as a sinner doth returne. 2. The vn­truth thereof is euident by other places. For if be wil not the death of a sinner, why is it gi­uen to some to know the mysteries of the king­dome of heauen, and is not to other? why pu­nished he Sodom and Gomorrah with death? why were Core, Dathan, and Abiram swal­lowed vp of hell? why are Cain, Saul, Doeg, Abimelec, the rich glutton, and Iudas, thrust [Page 170]downe into hell torments?

1 Obiect. Yea but God doth earnestly and ardently wish the eternall blessing of all and euery one, as appeares by his protestation most religiously and solemnly swearing and say­ing, as I liue, &c.

Ans. Here is a sophisine of many questi­ons, chaunging the state of the controuersie. For we denie not but he doth earnestly and ar­dently wish all mens eternall happines. For wee say, That God offering all men saluation, doth not dissemble, nor enuie saluation to any, but is de­lighted with all mens repentance and saluation, Admon. Theustad. de form. Concord. pag, 19, & pag, 112, and with no mans blindnes and destruction. And againe, That God wills earnestly all mens saluation and health, in his owne approbation and ioy. For he wills not nor approoues of sinne, but is highly displeased with it, nor is delighted with any mans, no not the very deuills perdition, [...]ment, and destruction, so farre forth as it is destruction of his worke: He doth not dissemble then in bidding all repent, that they might be saued, &c. But we denie that God did decree from eternall, to adiudge no sinner at all to death.

2 Obiect. God preaching the same do­ctrine, Ezek. 18. addes this moreouer, why should ye die ye house of Israel, because I vvill not the death of him that dies, saith the Lord God. Therefore God absolutely wills not any way the death of those that die or pe­rish.

Ans. Againe he chaungeth the state of the [Page 171]question: for we deny not that it is truely said, that God doth not absolutely will the death of those that die and perish: but say with the Apostle, that death is the stipend of sinne. Rom. 6.23. and with the Prophet, that soule vvhich sin­neth shall die. Ezech. 18.4. neither denie we that it is truely said, that God will not the death of him that dieth, that is, that he delighteth not in it, but this we denie, that it is truely said that the will of God is not the cause of the eternall decree of reprobation.

Obiect. 3. God speaks not in the foresaid place of the temporall death onely, but of e­ternall.

Ans. Neither doe we vnderstand it of tem­porall death onely, but of eternall.

Obiect. 4. If it be contrary to Gods nature & will for any to die a temporall death, much more it is repugnant incōparably to his boun­tifull will for one to be tormented with euer­lasting and endles paines.

An. Again the state of the question is alte­red: for we say not that God in his bountifull will, will haue any punished euerlastingly, but this, that God iustly will that the reprobate be endlesly tormented. For this is the question: whether the vvill of God bee the cause of the eternall decree of reprobation: we say it is. 2. The ante­codent is doubtful, and may be taken 2 waies, either that God is not delighted so much as with mās tēporal death: or that God wil by no meanes the tēporal death: in the first sense wee [Page 172]graunt it, but that is no question: in the second we deny it: for if by no means he would it, none should die.

Obiect. 4. If an earthly father cannot abide that his sonne should cruelly be whipped and scourged, and it would euen gripe him to the heart to see him put to death? much more tru­ly may we say it of God, if he doth a straunge work by afflicting men with temporall punish­mēts as he calleth it Es. 28. much more straūge a work is it to deliuer him vp to be punished in hell euerlastingly. Therefore this opiniō stands fast and firme inough: yet that God by his simple and absolute hate without respect of impenitencie will not by any will, the destru­ction or damnation of any.

Ans. 1. The state of the question is chaun­ged againe, because this opinion stands sta­ble and firme to vs also, that God by his sim­ple and absolute hate without respect of impe­nitencie wil not by any will the destruction or damnation of any.

2. The first part of the comparison is but particular: for I could giue some instances that should infringe it: for example T. Manlius Tor­quatus cōmaunded his sonne should be scour­ged to death. Iunius Brutus sate iudge himselfe to condemne his sonnes going about some treacherie, and when they were beheadded looked on; a memorable example of iustice. Turius a wealthy man banished his sonne and was commended for it through all Rome: as [Page 173]Seneca records lib. 1. de Clem. cap. 15. Philip king of Spaine that now is, suffred his owne sonne as a sacrifice to beheld captiue for Pius 5. sake bi­shop of Rome, and after that to bee murthe­red, as is euident by the kings owne hand to the same Pius, witnes Gitolam Catena pag. 94.

3. The reddition of the comparison is faul­tie for two causes. 1. ambiguous in calling the inflicting of punishment and sending affli­ction Gods straunge work: as if it were not gods owne work to be the iudge of the world, and shew examples in the wicked of his iustice. Es. 38.21. That is called Gods straunge work and vncouth, that is rare and vnvsuall, infre­quent and very admirable: namely when he op­pressed the Philistines and threatned to do the same to the Iewes ere they wist, without any mans art: therefore it is so called straunge that yet it is said to be Gods. Gods work to come vpon them sodenly from heauen as he serued the Philistines 2. Sam. 5.24. 1. Cr. 14.15. yet a straunge work, because it was rare, strange & admirable.

2. False, because it auoucheth that it is a work farre from Gods nature, to deliuer a man vp euerlastingly to bee tormenred in hell fire: when as God saith. Deut. 32.35. Reuenge and retribution is mine▪ and ver. 41. I will auenge me of mine enemies and repay it those that hate me. And Christ Mat. 10.28. Rather feare him that is able to destroy the soule & body both in hell. Was it straūge [Page 174]from Gods nature to stirre vpp Pharao to shewe his power in him, or to thrust the dam­ned into hell torments, that is, to exercise iu­stice?

Rom. 11.32. God hath concluded all vnder vn­beleefe that he might haue mercie on all: therefore none of those that are shutt vnder vnbeliefe, is absolutely reprobate from the mercie of God, but Gods sauing mercie is offred vnto all indifferently.

Ans. 1. The question is altered, for this should haue bin inferred: Ergo: the will of God is not the cause of the decree of reprobation. 2. Againe they deceiue vs by a captious plu­ralitie of interrogatories, as if they were but one. The first whereof is false, the second true: for wee graunt that Gods sauing is offred in­differently to all: but wee denie that none of those that are shutt vpp vnder contuma­cie or disobedience (for so the greeke doth ra­ther beare) is absolutely reiected, without the condition of their future naughtie works, as impelling causes; for we euicted the con­trarie before. 3. This false consectarie is but euen ilfauouredly pickt out of Pauls words. For therein the generall particle of the elect both Iewes and Gentiles is to bee vnder­stood; for of them the Apostle spake, which also the article set before the generall par­ticle doeth declare [...]: God concluded those: euery one in contumacie, that hee might haue mercie on them euerie one. The mea­ning [Page 175]thē is this, all that are saued of the Iewes or Gentiles, are not saued any other way but by the mercie of God, whereas all of them are concluded vnder contumacie and in themselues are guiltie of eternall death. And therefore the Gentiles had no cause to dis­paire of the Iewes, for whatsoeuer they were nowe they had beene as all other: and if by Gods meere mercie they had escaped out of vnbeliefe and rebellion, they should giue o­ther men leaue to haue the like fauour. In a word the Apostle shewes that God hath so ordered matters by his owne prouidence, that all should bee guiltie of rebellion and disobedience and vnder the iudgement of God, and that for this purpose, that saluati­on should proceede from his meere mercie. Therefore they aree freelie saued whosoe­uer are saued, because all are lost indifferent­lie.

Obiect. If this place is ment of the elect on­ly, it followes the elect onely are shutt vpp vn­der disobedience, & not the reprobate: which is absurd.

Ans. The connex is deceitfull because doubtfull: for the place is not to bee vnder­stood of the elect onely, as if they onely were shutt vnder disobedience, but because they of whome God hath mercie to saue them be­ing none but the elect, are all shutt vpp vn­der disobedience, as well as the reprobate. This then is the Apostles meaning, that [Page 176]none of the elect, or such as should bee saued, should attribute their saluatiō vnto their works, but altogether vnto Gods mercie. 1. Tim. 2.4. God vvould that all men should bee saued and come to the knovvledge of the trueth: Ergo: his will is not the cause of the decree of reproba­tion.

Ans. Here is a sophisme, making them op­posites which are not: for the word vvill in the latter part of the enthymeme, signifies Gods e­ternall counsell, which he hath propounded with himselfe from euerlasting: but in the first part, of Pauls words, his precept, cōmande­ment, incitation vnto saluatiō and the know­ledge of the trueth: as that, Come vnto me all you that are wearie and laden. Mat. 11.28. Looke vnto me and yee shalbe saued all the ends of the earth. Es. 45.22. with feare and trembling vvorke your ovvne saluation. Phil. 2.12. And indeed the whole prea­ching of the gospell is the inuiting of all men to saluation and the knowledge of the trueth: as Paul speaks Act. 17.30. The time of this igno­rance God regarded not, but now hee admonisheth all men euerie where to repent. That this is the mea­ning of the word will in the Apostles speach, the text will manifest: for by what meanes hee would haue men come to the knowledge of the trueth, by the same hee would haue all men sa­ued: for he compriseth both these vnder the same will. But God would haue all men come to the knowledge of the trueth, by bidding, inuiting, commaunding, and euen praying thē [Page 177]to come: therefore he would haue them saued by bidding, &c. as is cleare by the testimonies aboue alleadged: whereto we add this. 2. Cor. 5.20. We are Embassadors in Christs name, and as if God did beseech you by vs, vvee praye you in Christs steed be reconciled to God. But it cannot be ment of Gods eternall councell: for if it were his e­ternall decree that all should be saued, surely all should be saued. For the councell of God consi­steth for euer, and the thoughts of his heart euery age. Psal. 34.11. The Lord of boasts hath purposed and who shall frustrate him. Es. 14.27. My counsell shall stand and I will work all my pleasure. Es. 46.10. But yet all men are not saued. For the gate is large & the way is large which leadeth to destruction, & ma­ny are they that enter through it. Saith our Saui­our Mat. 7.13.2.

Arg. 4. Pet. 3.9. God is patient toward vs vn­willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance: Ergo: Gods will is not the cause of the decree of reprobation.

Ans. They are made opposites here that are not, by the same homonymie that was in the former: therefore must haue the same aun­swer that it had before.

Arg. 5. He that hath mercie on all, & loueth all things that are, and hateth nothing of that he hath made, doubtles his will is not the cause &c. but those things are true of God: ergo: Wis. 11.24. &c.

Ans. There is an homonymie in the words to haue mercie, to loue, to hate: For in the proposi­tion [Page 178]is ment a speciall loue and mercie, by which God as a most free Lord hath mercie on whome he will Rom. 9.18. and an especial loue which peculiarly he extendeth to his elect, in­riching them with all the benefites thereof, in which sort he loued Iacob Mat. 1.2. Ro. 9.13. and a speciall hate by which God (hauing cho­sen to saluation whome he would) passed ouer whome he would, such as hee vsed toward E­sau Mat. 1.3. Rom. 9.13.

But in the assumption and place out of the booke of wisedome, gods generall mercie ex­tended to all creatures that are in any mise­ries, and therein to al men aswell vniust as iust, wherein he is prone to succour them and doth indeed preseruing and nourishing all things, euen the eury rauens that crie Psal. 147.9. that is that croke.

The old translation hath that call on him, but it is not so in the hebrew: that is his owne. So likewise his generall loue &c, so God hates no­thing of that he hath made so farre forth as he made it, 2. If the words be hardly vrged and vnderstood of the speciall mercie, loue, & hate, it will follow, that no man at all is reiected of God, no not for sinne, which I thinke they will not say.

Argu. 6. He that will gather all, his will is not the cause of reprobation: God would ga­ther all Mat. 23.37. How often vvould J haue ga­thered thy children &c. ergo.

Ans. 1. Vnder the name will, in the subiect [Page 179]is meant a desire and earnest labour, but in the predicate Gods counsell and purpose. 2. But be it so, that the counsell of God should be meant in the subiect of the proposition, yet there should be still a fallacie of homonymie in the obiection, because in the assumption by will is meant desire and earnest labour. 3. They offend in proouing the assumption, by allega­tion of an impertinent testimonie; because the assumption speakes of the will of God, but the saying that is brought out of Matthew is spo­ken of the humane will of Christ. For Christ speakes of himselfe as he is man, namely as he is the minister of circumcision, or a Prophet sent to the people of the Iewes, which Christ by his humane will desired and sought to ga­ther together euery one that was offered vnto him, into the kingdome of God by the prea­ching of the word.

1 Here they vrge: 1. if Christs humane will be here meant, then was that contrarie to his will as he was God, which is the cause of the dectee of the reprobation of the Iewes. 2. The diuine will is rather to be vnderstood, by which he would gather the Iewes by the Pro­phets which he sent vnto them, and that con­tinually rising earely and sending them as Ie­temie speaketh, Ier. 7.13: 11.7. and 35.15.

Concerning the former part of this their exception, 1. there is an elench of non conse­quence. For how could Christs humane will be contrarie to the diuine will, seeing it wholly [Page 180]rested in the eternall good pleasure of God, as appeares by Math. 11.25, 26.2. If the conse­quent were true, God also might be thought contrarie to himselfe: for he would, that is, he desireth that all men should be saued, and yet he doth indurate whome he will. Now as tou­ching the second part of this exceptiō, though we should graunt that the diuine will of Christ be meant, yet it followes not thereupon that his will is not the cause of the decree of re­probation: for the homonymie remaines still. For Christ would so gather together the Iewes, namely by inuiting them to come vn­to him, that they should repent and beleeue the Gospel, and so would the decree of re­probation by his eternall counsell and pur­pose.

2 They vrge againe. If Christ would haue the gathering together of the Iewes, and yet withall willed the decree of reprobation, then was he a dissembler, and had contrarie wills. But this is absurd. Therefore that. Ans. I denie the consequence. For he was no dissembler, for he willed in earnest and not dissemblingly, but they would not: neither had he contradi­ctorie wills. For in a contradiction the tearmes must be the same in both places, and take all one way. But when it is said, God would the ga­thering together of the Iewes, and God would the e­ternall decree of their reprobation, there is no con­tradiction at all. First, because the same predi­cate is not in both places: secondly, will is not [Page 181]all one in both subiects. In the first it signifies to desire, in the latter euerlastingly to decree. Indeede thus it were a contradictorie, God did desire to gather the Iewes. God did not desire to gather the Iewes. Gods counsell is the cause of the decree. Gods counsell is not the cause, &c.

They replie and say; yes two wills are ascri­bed to God, if he will all should repent, and yet wills eternally the reprobation of many, that doe not repent. I answer there is an homo­nymie in the word will. For God would haue all repent [by his commandement:] but yet would the reprobation of many by his counsel and purpose.

Obiect. Then his commaundement crosses his eternall counsell. Ans. No: because in that he declares what he likes and seekes hartily for, in all men, but not what he will doe in e­uery one: but by this he casts what he will doe in euery one. Therefore God willing and com­manding repentance, shewes he is pleased in all that repent, but willing the decree of re­probation, he determines to reiect those that doe not.

7 He that promiseth saluation to all, his will is not the cause of reprobation. God doth promise so: ergo.

Ans. He that promiseth saluation to all, (sim­plie without any condition of faith.) 2. God promiseth saluation, but not simply but with this condition, if they beleeue, if they lay hold [Page 182]on saluation by faith. For the vniuersall pro­mise of grace belongs indeede to all, but yet to all that beleeue onely; because promise and faith are relatiues one to an other. Now then he is simple, to vnderstand that simply that is spoken but in respect.

8 He that offers saluation to all, his will is not the cause of the decree of reprobation. God offereth to all. Ans. He that offers it without commandemēt of taking it by faith, but so doth not God. No maruell then if he would haue their reprobation which were not to obey this commaundement of be­leefe.

9 If there be any absolute reprobation, that is, if Gods will be the sole cause of the decree of reprobation, the reprobates cannot choose but sinne: but that is false: ergo.

Ans. 1. The connex is false. For reproba­tion is not the cause of sinne, nor yet is sinne the end of reprobation. 2. The assumption is false also. For it is not absurd to say that the re­probates cannot choose but sinne, who lie al­together in wickednes. Though no man sinnes against his will, as Cyprian saies, lib. de bap. Chri. Yet he sinnes necessarily, because he cannot doe otherwise, as Ieremie speakes, chap. 13.23. Can the Ethiope change his skinne, or the leo­pard his spottes? then may ye also doe good, that are accustomed to doe euill. and our Sauiour, Matth. 7.18. An euill tree can not beare good fruit. and, Matth. 12.34. Generation of vipers, how can you [Page 183]speake good things beeing euill. Rom. 8.7. The wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God. For it is not subiect to the law of God, neither indeede can be.

Obiect. If they cannot but sinne, then they deserue to be excused. Ans. Nere a whit. Nay they deserue to be punished so much the more, because by how much the more necessarily they sinne, by so much the more voluntarily they doe it, seeing their will hath brought them this necessitie, and they resist and iniurie God wittingly and willingly. Therefore they cannot excuse themselues by pretending ne­cessitie.

10 If Gods pleasure onely be the cause of the decree of reprobation, then God is a ty­rant and vniust iudge, that for no cause is an­grie with them that neuer offend him: but not so. Ans. The connex is false, because it is pluckt in by head and shoulders of that ante­cedent. But if Gods pleasure be the sole cause indeede of the decree of reprobation, then it follows onely that God hath highest rule and free power, to doe with his owne what he list. Which right and power whosoeuer depriues God of, denies him, or at least preferres him­selfe before him. Seeing euery one would di­spose of his owne how he list, may not a credi­tour of his meere good will exact his debt of one and pardon another? may not a prince take one into his house to serue him and let passe many other? now should that prince [Page 184]or creditour be vniust for so doing? no. Then if a man be not vniust for dealing according to his owne minde, shall God whose iudge­ment is most iust? so then there is great diffe­rence betweene a tyrant that deales in all things as he list, and God that worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will. For their list is vniust and ruled by no law, but Gods will is the rule of all iustice, so that whatsoeuer he wills is iust and equall. Neither frame we a God that is law lesse, but he is a law to himselfe. Men neede lawes, that are subiect to lewde desires, but Gods will is not onely pure from all vice, but the chiefest rule of all perfection, and the law of all lawes.

2 The proofe of the connex is false: arising of a false definition of the decree of reproba­tion, namely to be Gods wrath. But the decree of reprobation, is his eternall will, (not his wrath,) passing ouer some in electing whome he thought not good to take. Gods wrath is stirred vp by sinne, so is not his decree of repro­bation: other wise God were a tyrant and vn­iust, beeing angrie for nothing with them that neuer grieued him.

11 If Gods meere will be the cause, then God doth with crueltie abuse his creatures: but that is blasphemous.

Ans. It followes not. For God reiecting whome he will, doth not abuse, but vse most holily and iustly the reprobate to declare in them his great power and freedome, so that [Page 185]euen they also serue Gods glorie. Doth a king cruelly tyrannize ouer his subiects whome he taketh not to honour and offices in his court? then if he be free from this, God much more.

Thus farre of the efficient cause of the de­cree of reprobation: now followes the rest.

2. the mate­riall.The matter of eternall reprobation, is Gods purpose or decree.

3. the for­mall.As the forme of election is the taking of some men out of the whole rout, to be deliuered out of the common destruction, and ordained to life euerlasting, so the forme of reprobation is the passing by of some in the generall destru­ction, whereinto all thorough sinne were falne.

I will set certen theses or positions of the endes.

4. the finall.1 The ende of reprobation is not sinne, as it is simply a transgression, that is, no man is pre­destinated of God to sinne. 1. Because sinne, as it is sinne or transgression, is hatefull and abominable to God. As it is sinne I say: to di­stinguish betweene the act and defect. For ex­ample: the crucifying of Christ as it was a grie­uous sinne committed of the Iewes and Gen­tiles, God did hate and detest it, but as it was an act or worke to satisfie Gods iustice, it li­ked and pleased him. 2. Because it is contra­rie to Gods wisdome and goodnes, for God to ordaine any to that which is ill, as it is ill. 3. Because God could not predestinate a man [Page 186]to that, which himselfe had decreed both to forbid by expresse commaundement, and in mercie to blotte out and in iustice to punish. Neither can he be the author of sinne, whereof he is a mercifull disposer and a iust reuenger, as saith Fulgent. lib. 1. ad Monimum.

Obiect. But Christ was deliuered vp by Iudas the betraier by Gods determinate counsell, Act. 20.23. and, 4.27. Therefore the reprobate are predestinate of God to sinne.

Ans. They inferre more then their argu­ment will permit. For onely this can be con­cluded, Therefore they were predestinate to doe those actions: but not to sinne, that is, euil­nes and naughtines concurring by Satans in­stigation and mens fault with those actions.

2 Neither is the ende of reprobation the destruction of the reprobate. 1. For if sinne be not the ende of reprobation, then nor their de­struction which is caused by sinne. 2. If it were, God might seeme to be delighted with mens destructions: for he taketh delight in the ende of all his workes.

1 Obiect. Saluation of the elect is the ende of election, therefore destruction of the repro­bate is the end of reprobation. Ans. It follows not, for there is not the same reason. For sal­uation is of God, and the destruction as it is destruction is the creatures; not of God but from himselfe. 2. God findeth a man in de­struction, and doth not cast him into it: but he [Page 187]findeth none capable of saluation, but choseth them vnto it.

2. Obiect. God createth the wicked to the day of euill. Prov. 16.4. Ergo: destruction is the ende of reprobation.

Ans. The meaning of Salomon is this, God creates not wickednes, but the wicked men: for after the fall he maketh man of that lump, that he came vnto by his fall: that is, corrupt, which thing the harmonie doth acknowledge in the point of originall sinne fol. 261. of the e­dition set out in Germanie 1580. And so God creats the wicked man for the euill day, that is, to declare his owne power by iustly puni­shing of him.

3. But the end of reprobation is both Gods glory and the saluation of the elect. It serues the glory of God two waies. 1. it maketh to the declaratiō of his free power and absolute right, to do with his owne creatures what he please. For God saith to Pharao, For this very ende haue I stirred thee vp to shew my povver in thee, and to de­clare my name throughout the whole earth. Rom. 9.17. Therefore willing to shew his wrath and make his power knowne, be beareth vvith great gentlenes the vessels of wrath Rom. 9.22. If earthly princes haue that authoritie, God much more.

2. It maketh to the commendation of his mercie to the elect: that is, God hath reiected some, to make knowne his great loue to vs: for his benefite which hee freelie bestoweth on some would not bee seene, but by passing by [Page 288]some, and so declaring what he might lawfully haue done to both, but the more that are reie­cted, the brighter doth his grace shine vnto the elect. This is the highest grace of faith (saieth Lu­ther) to beleeue that he is mercifull, that saueth so few and condemneth so many. Thus by eternal re­probation, is his glory aduaunced, which they detract from him that would haue the doctrin of reprobation suppressed and foisted out of the church doores. And this is the first ende of reprobation.

2. The second is the saluation of the elect as Austine tom. 7. lib. de praedest. & gratia cap. 6. saith. Hee vvould haue the destruction of them that perish to be an argument of saluation to them that are predestinated of him vessels of mercie, and hee vseth the death of some to the life of other: for the potter hath power ouer the clay to make of the same lump one vessell to honour, another to dishonor.

The faluation of the elect is wrought by o­thers reprobation two waies. 1. for that the elect are stirred vp with the thought that other are reprobated to feare and reuerence the power of God in them set forth. 2. seing by meditation of the same they growe to more knowledge & feeling of the greatnes of gods grace to them ward, in as much as the elect do know that by nature they are not a whitt bet­ter then the reprobate, and therefore cannot but discerne and see the excellencie of Gods grace to them ward: which is more euident & sweet vnto vs when wee thinke how it is deni­ed [Page 289]vnto some as we make not so much accoūt of a good thing that more haue thē our selues, as we do of that no more pertake. This may be declared by enumeration of Gods benefites that are temporall, both simplie in them selues, as of temporall life, riches, and honor, and in comparison of spirituall gifts, as eternall life, e­uerlasting riches, heauenly promotion &c. 1. Whereby we are stirred vp to a greater loue of God, for shewing so great loue to vs, in that God hath not reprobated vs as well as other. 2. Againe wee are mooued to abate our pea­cocks traine and be humble, by knowledge of our vile vnworthines, no better by nature thē the reprobate, to thinke basely of our selues, so that if we will needs boast, wee boast onely in the Lord that hath not reiected vs a swell as o­ther. Thou art not a reprobate, then bee hum­ble, be not proude, boast not in thy selfe, as if by thy desert thou deseruedst not to be so: but boast in the Lord, that hath not made thee so as he made Esau, Pharao, Saul, Iudas, Nero &c. then whome thou wert not better, but like. 3. Lastly we are moued to shew all thankfulnes to God for euer, gratefulnes to him for not re­probating vs, patience in aduersitie thinking it inough that we haue the grace not to bee re­probated, studie to do good works, confidēce toward God, & hope of euerlasting life: which al they shal surely haue that are not reprobats. Thus the elect doe reap by reprobation great fruite, which they enuie them and defraude [Page 190]them of, that would haue this doctrine of re­probation buried or more sparingly handled in the church.

Thus much of the causes of reprobation, now follow the effects.

The effects.The effect of reprobation is not sinne: and this doth Tho. Aquinas acknowledge 1. part. q. 23. art. 3. and is cleare by these reasons 1. be­cause reprobation is the holy worke of God & ergo not the cause of sinne. 2. the deuill is the principall cause of sinne. 3. sinne is not gods effect, nor therefore of reprobation.

Obiect. If the reprobate cannot but sinne, then their reprobation is the cause of sinne: but it is: ergo.

Ans. I denie the consequence, for reproba­tion is not the cause that they can do no other but sinne, but the corrupt nature of the repro­bates: who being euil trees cannot beare good fruite. Mat. 7.18. For the verie elect themselues before regeneratiō cānot chose but sinne, but they that are borne of God sinne no more. 1. Ioh. 3.9. Therefore sinne proceeds not frō pre­destination: & to this doth Iustine Martyr cō ­sent in his dialogue with Trypho saying, God is not in fault that men or angells are predestinated vn­iust: but euerie one is such by his owne default as hee appears to be.

They except, why then doth he bestow the grace of election vpon the elect and not vpon the reprobate. Jans. with Austin in his booke de genesi. ad lit. c. 10. God could conquer the wil of e­uill [Page 191]men into good, seing he is omnipotent: he could so, but why doth he it not? because he would not: and why wovld he not? it is his owne power: for we may not bee wiser then we should.

2. The effects of reprobation are 1. a stir­ring vpp of the reprobate for God to shew his power and iustice in them. 2. a hiding of the misterie of saluation frō them. 3. a breeding a reuerence in the elect of Gods power and iudgements toward the reprobate.

Thus much of the effects, now followes of the subiects. The sub­iects

1. As all that God doth beffow eternall life vpon, are elected vnto eternall life, so contrari­ly all are reiected and excluded from it, that God will not bestow it vpon.

2. Wee may know how many are repro­bate by Christs words, few are chosen: for if it be so, then many are reprobate: and it is not more harsh to say, many are reprobated, then to say, many runne the broad way which leadeth to destru­ction. Mat. 7.13. seing none are reprobate but such as runne to destruction.

3. Therefore more are reprobate thē elect. 1. because more are condemned then saued: as Esay cries ouer Israel and Paul repeats it. Rom. 9.27. Although the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, but a remnant shalbe saued.

2. More heare the word without profite thē with profite, seing as appears Luc. 8.15. the fourth parte of the hearers onely receiue the [Page 292]seede of the word with a good and holy hart, and bring forth fruite by patience.

3. More are vnbeleeuers then beleeuers. Esay 53.1. Who hath beleeued our report &c. And the Lord, Luc. 18.8. The sonne of man vvhen he commeth shall he sinde faith in the earth? therefore he calleth the companie of the faithfull a little flock. Luc. 12.32.

4. The causes why God hath reiected more then elected, are, 1. because he would: which will of his none can iustly reprehend. 2. be­cause so it was the wisest & best course: where­in euery godly man must rest. 3. The more are reiected, the greater shewes his grace to the elect, as his loue to the Israelites was more apparent in choosing it alone vnto himselfe & refusing all other, then if he had made choise of more. Deut. 7.7.4. the saluation of the e­lect is more set forward, the more are reiected. For the more they know are reprobated, the greater they know and feele his loue to them: and therefore are mooued to more thankful­nes to him, and studie to make their election sure.

5. The number of the reprobate is so cer­taine with God, that it can neither be increa­sed, nor diminished, nor chaunged: that is nei­ther more nor lesse can bee reprobated then were from euerlasting. Thus farre of the sub­iects.

The ad­iuncts.1. There are three necessarie adiuncts that ensue of Reprobation. The depriuing of sa­uing [Page 293]grace, sinnes, & the punishmēt of sinners: that is, whosoeuer are reprobated, 1. they are not made partakers of that grace whereby we are saued, namely neither of that fatherlie fauour which he extendeth to the elect, nor yet of the effects of the same, namely vocation ac­cording to the purpose of his election, faith, iustification, and regeneration. 2. they sinne necessarily: that is, they can doe no other but sinne, when as being destitute of sauing grace they are euill trees that cannot beare good fruite. 3. They are sure to abide both in this life and that to come most iustlie for their sinnes.

2. Concerning the vnchaungeablenes and certainetie of reprobation: which is such: that as the elect cannot become reprobate: so the reprobate cannot become elect. And repro­bation is immutable both in respect of God reprobating, in as much as he doth not chaūge, make voide, nor repeale, the decree of his will set downe from euerlasting: and in respect of men reprobated, in that hauing not receaued sauing grace they cannot but remaine in eter­nall death, whereinto they voluntarie plunged themselues: now he doeth not bestow that sa­uing grace vppon the reprobate, because he is not bound to giue it, but hath mercie on whome be will.

That reprobation is immutable, I prooue it thus.

1 Because God is immutable, with whom [Page 194] there is no alteration nor shadow of turning Ieam. 2.17. The force of the argument stands thus be­cause reprobation is an internall and eternall action of god, which in truth differeth nothing at all from his verie essence, but onely in rea­son: els God should be compounded.

2. Because it is his decree, made according to his good pleasure, now all Gods decrees made according to the pleasure of his will are vnchaungeable, or to speake more plainclie, because it is Gods will, and his will is immuta­ble.

3. Because it is eternall, and whatsoeuer is so is vnalterable and vnchangeable.

4. It onely dependeth on his wil, It cannot be hindred with any thing without God.

5. It is ioyned with his infallible presci­ence, and therefore vnchaungeable.

6. It is linked with Gods omnipotencie which cannot be impeached. God is omnipo­tent, able to execute his decree, neither can it be hindred any way.

The aduersaries to infringe this vnchaun­geablenes of reprobation obiect.

Obiect. By this meanes, mans free will is cleane taken away, and a meere fatall necessi­tie is induced, which is absurd.

Ans. That doth not follow: for God by his immutable decree, doth not abolish second causes, nor ouerthrow their nature: therefore mans freewill may stand with the vnchaungea­blenes of predestination. Besides necessitie of [Page 195]supposition, and (as the schoolemen call it) of infallibilitie, must be distinguished from coa­ctiue necessitie, as also from fatall and Stoical necessitie.

Fate or destinie (which the Greekes call [...] of [...], that is, [...], to deuide or part,) the Stoicks called the vntwineable linking or order of the second causes, where­of all things are so necessarily and vnresistab­ly ruled, that God himselfe cannot chaunge the order thereof, nor worke against it. We that are Christians knowe no such foolish fate.

Obiect. If it be immutable, God complai­neth of the reprobate vniustly, and vniustly punisheth them for sinning: but this is blasphe­mie to say so: ergo.

Ans. The consequence were true if repro­bation were the cause of sinne, as it is not: and therefore his complaining and punishing of them is not vniust, beeing for sinne.

Now to refute the contrarie opinion.

1 If eternall reprobation be changeable, Gods purpose is so too: which is false. For if reprobation be the purpose of God, then if reprobation be chaungeable, his purpose is chaungeable: but it is: ergo.

2 If it be mutable▪ it may be frustrated of his owne proper ende. For that which is mutable may be frustrated of his ende: but reproba­tion cannot possibly be put by the ende: be­cause it [...]s the purpose of God, which must [Page 196]needes take effect.

3 If it be mutable, it is because God sees, that either he could haue better deliberated then he hath done, and taken better counsell then he hath, or els that he could not execute his first deuise: but neither of these can agree to God: for he is alwaies both most wise and most omnipotent. Thus farre of the ad­iuncts.

Some things differ from Reprobation as diuers onely from it, The dissen­tanies. some as contrarie vnto it. They dissent as diuers onely, that may stand with it and be attributed to the reprobate: such as are those that are reckened vp Hebr. 6.4, 5. illumination, a tast of that heauenly gift, parti­cipation of the holy Ghost: a tast of the good word of God, and the vertues of the world to come. and Heb. 10.26. a receiuing of the knowledge of truth, sanctification by the blood of the couenant. and 2. Pet. 2.20. flying the carruptions of the world, know­ledge of the Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ, know­ledge of the way of righteousnes. and Luk. 8.12. hearing of Gods word, receiuing it with ioy, tempora­rie faith.

Of which I thinke it not amisse to explane some, least by their ambiguitie they trouble the rude and vnskilfull reader.

1 First Illumination, Illumina­tion. Hebr. 6.4. is the same that baptisme is: which by a metanymie of the cause, of the baptisme of men of yeares that were instructed, was called illumination, whereupon [...] is here taken for baptiza­ri, [Page 197]to be baptized: as Hebr. 10.32. and so doth the Syriack translatour expound it, who makes to be inlightened in this place the same, that to goe into the water to be baptized. And so doth lustin Martyr expound it, in his second apologie for the Christians to M. Antonius the Emperour. This washing is called illumination, be­cause their mindes that learne these things are in­lightened. The Apostles drift shewes this expo­sition to be true. For he admonished such as had beene baptized, not to become apostates. Whereupon in the verse next before the se­cond, he flattely nameth the doctrine of bap­tismes, by which they were inlightened, that before time had their vnderstanding darkned with the cloudes of ignorance. This inligh­tening of the vnderstanding is in the repro­bate without the amendement or chaunge of their wills for the better, their vnderstanding is inlightened with knowledge of the truth, but their will remaines vnchanged, neither is it turned vnto God.

2 There is ascribed vnto them, a tast of that heauenly gift, that is to say, of the sweetenes of eternal life. This tast they haue by knowledge onely, and not by any sound fruition. As he that tasteth meate onely, is nor fedde of the same, nor nourished by such tasting: so some reprobates haue indeede a tast of the sweete­nes of eternall life which God bestoweth vp­on the elect, through a smackering of know­ledge, [Page 198]but enioy not the gift to the full frui­tion of the thing. Therefore that verye tast is in a short time gone and without fruite.

3. More then these some reprobates haue a participation of the holy Ghost, namely as much as pertaines to his operation that is common to the elect and reprobate. For that knowledge of the doctrine that bringeth sal­uation, which is great in some of the repro­bate, and there ioy vpon that knowledge ari­sing, is wrought by the operation of the ho­ly Ghost, but without any grace of regene­ration, which the holy Ghost worketh in none but the elect, by his owne gratious a­ction.

4 They haue also a tast of the good words of God, and of the vertues of the life to come, that is, their receiuing of the Gospel with ioy, as is saide of the second kinde of auditours, Luk. 8.33. which they are as glad of as if they enioyed the commodities of future blessed­nes.

5 And some haue sanctification by the blood of the couenant, Hebr. 10.29. which is, no internall clensing of their heart from sinnes such as befalleth the elect onely, and those that haue the gift of sauing faith: but a sequestring of themselues from the prophane without the Church, and a ioyning of them­selues to the companie of the faithfull, by par­ticipation [Page 199]of baptisme, which is the sacra­ment of the blood of the couenant. And this is the Apostles meaning, as is euident by his scope; because he threatneth the apostates and backsliders from Christianitie after recei­uing of baptisme. And least any should thinke it a small matter after baptisme to slide backe from Christs Church, he doth exaggerate this sinne so, as he declareth that the Apostates that contemne and make light account of baptisme, by which they were admitted into the Church and number of the faithfull, con­temne and make light account of the bloode of Christ, whereby the couenant of grace was established. Besides the text shewes to lesse from the two and twentie verse to this pre­sent place. The like is said, Heb. 9.13. The blood of bulls and goates, and the ashes of a heifer beeing sprinkled vpon the vncleane, is saide to sanctifie them, namely figuratiuely and in a sacra­ment. To this doth Augustine agree, cal­ling outward baptisme visible sanctification.

The opposites of eternall reprobation, Opposites are either Disparates or Contraries. Those are temporall exclusion from the Church of God for a time; Damnation, Commination of eter­nall death.

1 Exclusion from the Church for a time, is either of the elect before they become mem­bers of the Church by calling; or els of such as are excommunicated.

For God will haue all the elect be mem­bers [Page 200]of the Church so soone as euer they be borne, but many times deferres their calling a long time, as he did Sergius Paulus, Dionysius Areopagita, Damaris, Lydia the seller of pur­ple, and many other; this their shutting out from the Church for a space, is not that e­uerlasting reprobation, neither were they that beleeued at Pauls preaching, Act. 13. reprobates before that. For it is saide in flat words, that they were ordained to euerlasting life.

Againe, Excommu­nication. that same excommunication from the Church, caused of some publike scandall giuen, is not that euerlasting reprobation. For it may be that one that is elected from eter­nall to euerlasting life, may be excommunica­ted for giuing some offence, and deliuered to Satan, to the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saued in that day of the Lord Jesus, as Paul speakes, 1. Cor. 5.7.

2 Secondly, Damnation is disparate from reprobation. For 1. reprobation is from eter­nall, damnation in time. 2. sinne is the cause of damnation, so is it not of reprobation. It is necessarie to know this difference betweene them, for feare of confounding vnskilfully dā ­nation and reprobation together, and least that which is said of the one be foolishly refer­red to the other.

3 Threatning of eternall death, differs also from reprobation. The Con­tratie.

Election is contrarie vnto it. For when some [Page 201]of mankinde are elect and ordained to salua­tion, we are necessarily to vnderstand, that o­ther are refused and reprobate. We can not conceiue the one without the other, much lesse can one be without the other. For con­traries are by nature together.

And thus hauing declared the dissentanie arguments of it, I come to the comparates, Compa­rates. e­specially such as belong to the equalitie or in­equalitie of reprobation and election.

Reprobation is equall to election, 1 Paritie. 1. in the efficient causes. For God is author of both, Gods good pleasure or freewill is the motiue cause of both.

2 In the matter. For both is the decree of God.

3 In the endes: for both are for the glorie of God and saluation of the elect.

4 In the cōmon subiect, which is mankind, in asmuch as it was to be corrupted & thrown into eternall death by their owne default. As then election is the decree of deliuering such as are giuen to Christ by mercie out of the common destruction: so Reprobation is the decree to leaue such as are not giuen to Christ in that common destruction by iustice. There­fore as election founde not men worthie but made them so, so reprobation cast none into e­ternall death, but by iust iudgement leaues them that are plunged into it by their owne sinne and fault in it. For as God decreed not to choose any that was iust alreadie, but the [Page 202]sinner to be made iust by grace, so likewise he did not decree to reprobate the iust, but the sinner to be iustly condemned for sinne.

5 In the adiuncts both were from eternall: both are firme and immutable: both not to be altered, whether you respect Gods coun­sell, or the persons themselues elected or re­probated. So that neither the counsell of God can possibly be made frustrate, nor the elect become reprobates, nor the reprobates e­lect.

The inequalitie or vnlikelines of reprobatiō and election, 2 Disparitie appeares in these.

1 In the forme. For as election is a decree of pitying and deliuering out of the vniuersall ruine, and taking into saluation: so reproba­tion is a decree of not pitying but relinquish­ing in the common wast, and of not vouchsa­fing of saluation.

2 In the effects. For inward calling, faith, iustification, glorification, good workes, and eternall saluation, are the effects of election: but debarring from the grace of inward cal­ling and faith, and iustification, glorification, good works, and the blessing of saluation, and sinnes, and the punishments of the same, are not the effects of reprobation.

3 In the proper subiects. For election is of such as shall be saued, reprobation of them that are to be condemned.

4 In the ensuing adiuncts. For though sinne [Page 203]bee not the cause of reprobation, yet it is of damnation: for no man is condemned but for sinne: but the good works of the godly, as they are not the cause of election so neither of salua­tion, but onely the way that God hath prepa­red for the godly to walk in. Eph. 2.10. We are his workmāship framed in Christ Iesus to good warks, which God hath prepared that vve should vvalke in them: Nowe as the way is not the cause of the mark, so are not good works the cause of sal­uation.

Hauing thus laid forth the Cōparates, now comed to the Coniugate.

Of the misterie of Reprobation they that are to be condemned are called reprobats: of whome these positions following must be ob­serued.

1. The reprobates are reprobated of God according to his good pleasure, and free, ho­ly, and iust will: because God doth all things of the counsell of his owne will. Eph. 1.11. so saieth a certaine Prophet to Amazia king of Iudah 2. Cr. 25.16. I know god hath entred into a determina­tion to destroy thee.

2. They giue themselues to do euill, as Elias sares to Achab. 1. King. 21.20. Thou hast giuen thy selfe to work that which is euill in the eies of the Lord. They sinne, or▪ set their minde to sinne as Iohn speaketh. 1. Ih. 3.

3. They are rebellious and stiff necked. Ro. 10.21. Esay. 65.2.

4. They are raised vp for this end that gods [Page 204]power might bee shewen in them. Rom. 9.17.

5. They are made of God against the euill day. Pr. 16.4. But the question is what the mea­ning of this place may be. The aduersaries of the trueth auouch, that it cannot be collected out of this place, that the reprobates are created a­gainst the euill day: and they make the wicked a­gainst the euill day, to be, to reduce him to be iustly and worthily punished for his former wickednes: if this be not to depraue the sence of the scripture, I know not what is: The he­brew goes thus.

Colpagnal Jehoua lamanguanchu vegam rashang leion raguah: which words cannot possibly be otherwise translated but thus: The Lord hath made or wrought all things for his owne selfe, Aug. tom. 7. lib 2. de nup. &c c [...]ncup. c. 17. He doth so create the euill as he feedeth and nourisheth the euill. the wic­ked man also to the day of euill. In these words Sa­lomon treateth of the principall end of Crea­tion, which he affirmeth to be God himselfe, or which is all one, Gods glorie. For (for himselfe) is the same that (for his glorie): therefore God made all things for himselfe: this sentence he doth illustrate, by a particular example, adding (namely he made) the vvicked also to the day of e­uill: for euery body sees that word must be vn­derstood indifferently in both places. What peeuishnes is it then to seuer that which the spirit of God hath ioyned, and to foist into the Bible that, that is not there? What audacious­nes is it to say that to make the wicked to the euill day, is to draw him back to punishment: but the [Page 205]verb pagnal is spoken of both: of the wicked and all other creatures or works of God: ther­fore is God made all things, all one, with this, God drew back all his works: well thus stands the case: looke in what sence God is said to haue made all things, in the same he is vnderstood to haue made the wicked man: but he made all things by creating: therefore he made the wicked man by creating.

Now he speaketh of the continuance of the creation of man as he is after the fall. God had made the first man, pure, holy, godly, but after the fall such, as he is, of the masse whereof hee made him: that is, corrupt of a corrupt lump, and by nature the child of wrath: for none are borne holy, but al are borne wicked. Now the elect by Gods free bountie are made godly of vngodly, whereas the reprobate remaine vn­godly. Now then whereas God createth man such, that is, wicked, it is a most iust punishmēt, like as in creating him at first holy it was his gracious bountie: God createth the wicked man but not wickednes.

6. They are set for this to stumble at the preaching of the gospell. 1. Pet. 2.8.

1. These words two sophisters at this day do corrupt and falsifie. One of them saith that the reprobats also are placed, on Christ the corner stone, being so in Luthers germane trā ­slation, but this is farre from Peters words, who speaking of the disobedient, to whome Christ is a stumbling block, writeth that they [Page 206]are set to this cis ô: he doth not say they are pla­ced vpon Christ: neither wil the text abide this falsifying: for the article ô is of the neuter gen­der and to be set after: therfore can not be re­ferred vnto Christ: beside that, no noune of the neuter gender that is vnderstood of Christ cā goe before: for [...] is either the masculine or feminine gender.

2. The 2. sophister saith that those words (to which also they were set) are so to be vnderstood, as if it had bin said, They beleeue not the word of the gospel, whereunto notwithstāding they were called in times past by the prophets, and placed for this by the gracious will of god, that that word should first be preached to thē: but this sence is tugd in by the eates, & not colle­cted out of the words, being repugnant there­unto, which goe thus. v. 7.8. To you then it is an honour that beleeue: but to the disobedient, the same stone which the builders refused, is made the head of the corner, and astone to stumble at, and a rock of of­fence: namely to such as stumble at the vvord being disobedient, to which they were also set. These words will not beare that construction for that (to which) cannot bee referred to the word [...] that goes before, because (ô) is the neuter gen­der, [...] the masculine. This caueling com­panion shall not teach vs a new grammer, that (ô) should be the masculine gender, or haue any reference to [...]: which must of neces­sitie bee, if his exposition should goe for cur­rant. But I will declare their true meaning: [Page 207]which is this.

Peter exhorteth those that beleeue, that lea­ding a holy life, they would be edified more & more, as it were liuing stones in Christ Iesus. Now that the faithfull must be edified in Iesus Christ, he prooueth thus: because he is that stone which God hath laid in Sion in the bot­tome of the corner, in which stone whosoe­uer beleeueth shall not be ashamed. Out of this promise made to the beleeuers, Peter drawes this consequence. Therefore to you it is an honor that beleeue: that he doth amplifie by that that is vnlike: But to the disobedient hee is a stumbling block and a rock of offence. How that is, he shewes in the next wordes: saying that they stumble at the worde. Nowe least any might thinke that is by meere chaunce, the A­postle saith moreouer, that they are set for this purpose, namely to stumble at the word prea­ched. So then there are three thinges in this speach that may breede any doubt, First to what the disobedient were set, second­lie by whome, thirdlie what that is, they vvere set.

1. For the first, they were set to this, that they might stūble at the preaching of the gos­pell of Christ, and that by the iust iudgemēt of God, by this meanes punishing the sinnes of the disobedient with sinnes. This constructi­on the sintaxe must needs haue to referre the neuter relatiue [...] to the whole oration next before going, seing there is no word of the [Page 208]newter gender before to referre it to: if it bee not absurd that Christ is set for a downefall for many, no more is it, that many should be set for this to stumble at the preaching and so fall.

They were set for this of god, as a iust iudge, by that meanes reuenging the sinnes of the re­bellious and stubburne Scribes and Pharises, and punishing them with sinnes. For all sinne is either a proofe and declaration of mans frailty, as was the transgression of our fore-fathers (whome God suffered to fall to manifest and make proofe of the greatnes of mans weaknes, & how litle auailable euen the most innocent man of all other is, vnlesse he be vpheld by Gods especial grace) or els a iust chastisement, as are most of the sinnes of the holy, or els a pu­nishment of former sinnes, or the merite of greater sinnes and punishments, as are all the sinnes of the reprobats.

Therefore they are not placed to this of themselues: and it is not more absurd that the disobedient are placed to this of God, to stum­ble at the preaching of the gospell, then for Christ to be set of God in Sion a stone to stum­ble at, a rock of offence, or that the ministers of the gospell should be a good sauour vnto god at the very time that they are a sauour of death vnto death.

3. They were put, is the same that they were ordained, appointed, and by consequence stir­red vp and framed as Paul speakes Rom. 9.17. [Page 209]and 22. whereupon this also doth ensue that necessitie to sinne, is laid as a iust iudgement v­pon the vnregenerate.

7. They are vessels of wrath made to dishonor & framed to destruction. Rom. 9.21.22. Now here ariseth a great doubt, who did make & frame them so. God, or the deuill, or thēselues. Some cauilling sophisters say themselues: some saye the deuill: both these do rake the heresie of the Maniches out of hell. But the orthodoxall writers say, God. August. to [...]n. 4. lib. 1. ad simplie. quaest. 2. Behold he hateth Esau, which vessel himself did make to dishonor.

And a little after: In that of the number of the vngodly whome he doth not iustifie, hee maketh ves­sels to dishonor, he doth not hate this in them that hee maketh, for in as much as they are vvicked they are abominable, but in as much as they are made vessels, they are made for some vse, that by their appointed punishments the vessels that are made to honor might take some profite: therefore God doth not hate them neither so farre forth as they are men: nor yet as they are vessels: that is to say, neither that which hee ma­keth in them by creation, nor that he maketh in them by ordination: for he hates nothing of that he made. But yet in as much as he maketh them vessels of de­struction, he maketh them for this vse, to correct o­ther; for he hateth the wickednes in them, which hee made not: for as a iudge hateth the fact in a man, but doth not hate that he is set to the mines. For that the theefe doth, this the iudge doth; so God in making of the corruption of the wicked vessels of destructiō doth [Page 210]not hate that hee doth himselfe: that is, the worke of his owne ordination. So againe tom. 7. lib. 2. de nupt. & concup. ad Valer. cap. 3. God is so the maker of them that are borne, that all of one goe into condē ­nation, whose deliuerer he is by regeneration: for he is termed a potter, of the same lump making one vessell to honor according to his mercie, another to disho­nor according to iudgement: And in the same book cap. 16.

God by his owne goodnes made men, the first with­out sinne, and the rest vnder sinne for the vses of his owne profound counsells: for as be knew not vvhat to doe with the euilnes of the deuill himselfe, & what­soeuer he doth is iust and good, though he of whome he doth it is on iust and naught, neither refused there­fore to make him, because hee knew he would be euill; so of the whole stock of mankinde, though no man is borne without the contagion of sinne, he worketh good who i [...] [...] good, making some as it were vessels of mercie, whom he seuereth from those that are vessels of wrath by grace, other as it were vessels of wrath, to make knowne the riches of his glorie vpon the vessels of mercie. Now let this fellow goe and dispute against the Apostle whose sentence this is, nay against the pot­ter himselfe, whome the Apostle forbids to aunswer saying; O man who art thou, that makest aunswer to God? doth the clay say to him that made it, vvhy hast thou minde me thus? hath not the potter povver ouer the clay to make of the same lump, one vessel to honor, another to dishonor? doth he then denie that the ves­sels of wrath are vnder the deuill? or because they are vnder the deuill, doth any other make them but hee, [Page 211]that makes the vessels of mercy or of any other stuffe, but of the same lump.

Againe tom. 2. Epis. 105. ad Sixtum. pag. 302. But if there be vessels of vvrath, which were made to destruction, vvhich is giuen them of due, let them thanke themselues: because they are made of the same lump, which God did iustly & worthely condēne for one mans sinnes sake wherein all had sinned.

8 They are of old ordained to this condemnati­on. Iud. ver. 4. VVranglers say, this is the mea­ning of these words, of whome it was long agoe written and fore-told in the bookes of the Prophets, that at their time they should creepe in and molest the church of God, and in the ende come to euerlasting perdition. But it is plaine that they delude the Apostles words. For he saieth not, of vvhome it vvas vvritten, but, vvhich (that is men) vvere before described. For I praye you what manner of speach is this, of certaine men it is forewrit­ten and prophecied to this destruction. The true and naturall sence of these words is this. Those wicked men are long since ordained, and appointed to this condemnation: of whome are they ordained and appointed? of God: howe? by his eternall counsell and decree. And he whosoeuer he is, that re­prehends this doctrine, as absurd, reprehends Gods iustice and power as absurd: For in that God reiecteth manie, maketh the wicked man against the daye of euill, sets the re­probate for this, to stumble at the preaching [Page 212]of the Gospel, makes them to dishonour, frames them for destruction, it is the iust worke of Gods iudgement, which we must no lesse holily and faithfully maintaine, then the work of his mercie.

Againe, we must so maintaine Gods mercie, as that we ouerturne not nor darken his iu­stice. He that can take it let him take it: he that cannot, let him leaue it to such as can: and ne­uer let him finde fault with that he hath not learned, nor speake ill of that he doth not vn­derstand. As all men haue not faith, so haue not all men the knowledge of the mysteries of faith.

9 The mysteries of the kingdome of hea­uen are hid from them. Math. 11.25.

10 They are hated of God. Mal. 1.3. Ro. 9.13

11 Christ is placed to them for a fall. Luk. 2.34.

12 The preachers of the Gospel are to thē the sauour of death to death. 2. Cor. 2.16.

13 They are hardned of God according to his will. Rom. 9.17.

14 God giueth them the spirit of stumber, eies not to see and eares not to heare, Esa. 29.10. and 6.9.

15 They are cursed for euer. Math. 25.41.

16 They are not of God. Ioh. 6.47.

17 They are not written in the booke of life. Apoc. 17.8.

18 It is not giuen to them to know the my­steries of the kingdom of heauen. Mat. 13.11.

[Page 213]19 They beleeue not, Ioh. 12.39. because they are not of Christs sheepe. Ioh. 10.26.

20 They cannot beleeue, because god hath blinded their eies. Ioh. 12.39.

21 They are not healed, that is, obtaine not remission of sinnes, Math. 13.15. Mark. 4.12.

22 They obtaine not righteousnes & life, but waxe hard, Rom. 11.7.

23 They are not regenerated, first because they are not made righteous: for denying of the cause makes the effect be denied; they that are not iustified before God are not regene­rated, because regeneration is the insepara­ble effect of iustification. Secondly, because God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber, eies that cannot see, eares that cannot heare. Rom. 11.8.

24 They are not conuerted. Math. 13.11. Mark. 4 12.

25 They cannot receiue the spirit of truth, because they neither see nor know it. Ioh. 14.

26 Christ reckeneth them not as his. Mat. 7.23. I know you not.

27 He doth not pray to the father for thē. Ioh. 17.9.

Now remaine examples of them, Examples which are so many, as damned persons. For none is condemned, but he is reprobated from euer­lasting: as, Cain, Esau, Saul, Achitophel. Iudas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Caligula, Nero, Helio­gabalus, &c.

And thus through the assistance of God I [Page 214]haue brought this doctrine of Predestination to an ende. The Lord graunt by the same assi­stance of his grace, that it may serue for the setting forth of his glorie, and edifying of his Church.

Nowe because Augustine assoyles many doubts which arise in the secret of Predestina­tion in Tom. 4. lib. 1. ad Sim [...]lis. in his answer to the second question, I haue thought good to set downe the whole answer in this place. His words are these: But now I iudge it high time to proceede to the other question, which in these wordes you haue laide downe, of that that is written, Rom. 9.11. Neither he onely felt this, but also Rebecca when shee had conceiued by one, euen by her father Jsack. For ere the children were borne, and when they had done neither good not ill, &c. to the nine and twentie verse, Except the Lord of hostes had left vs a seede, &c. we had beene as the citie of Gomorrah. The whole discourse beeing debated, would be something more intricate. But I shall not be able to explane these things rightly vnto you, as I know you looke for at my handes, vnlesse you become an humble suter to God for me, by whose helpe beeing made something more confi­dent, I willingly come to the point. And first I meane to betake my selfe to the full intent, and scope of the Apostle, quite through the e­pistle, which I will chiefly respect. And that intent, I take it to be this; That no man boast [Page 215]him of his good deedes, as the Israelites did, because they had beene obedient vn­to the law which was giuen them, thereup­on challenging wholly vnto themselues the grace of the Gospel of God, as due to them by desert, and denying that it was to be of­fered to the Gentiles, who were altoge­ther vnworthie of it, vnlesse they would re­ceiue the sacraments of the Iewes. The which doubt, is cleared in the Acts of the Apostles. For they vnderstoode not, that euen for this cause, because it is the grace of the Gospel, therefore it is not due to workes. Otherwise this grace should now be no grace at all. And this is in many places testified by faith, preferring grace before workes, not that it might thereby cleane extinguish workes; but that it might shew how workes doe not goe before grace, but rather followe it: and that no man therefore: ought to thinke, that he hath receiued grace, because he hath wrought well; but rather that he could not possibly haue wrought thus wel, vnlesse he had first receiued grace by faith. Now a man be­ginneth then to receiue grace, when beeing stirred to faith, in or by some earthly admoni­tion, he beginneth to beleeue in God. But it concerneth vs to know at what time, or cele­bration of the lacraments, a more full and e­uident grace is infused into vs. For euen those which haue not beene instructed, doe not beleeue, or else C [...]nelius did not, when by [Page 216]his giuing of almes, and making of praiers, he seemed worthie to haue an Angel sent vnto him. But, had he not first beleeued, he would neuer haue wrought such thinges. Neither would he euer haue beleeued, vnlesse he had bin called, either by the secret admonitions of his minde, and spirit; or else by the more ma­nifest warnings through the senses and parts of his bodie. But some haue onely so much grace of faith, as that they can not attaine vnto the kingdome of heauen thereby; as those which are newly taught, and as Corne­lius before he was made a member of the Church, by the participatiō of the sacraments. Now contrariwise, this grace of faith is so great in others, that they be euen now repu­ted members of Christ and of the Church of God. For the temple of the Lord, saith the Apo­stle, is holy, which you are. And this is the Lords owne saying, Vnlesse a man be borne of water and the holy Ghost, be can not enter into the kingdome of heauen. There are then certaine beginnings of faith, much like vnto conceptions, yet not­withstanding we most not onely be concei­ued, but also borne, that we may fully enioy e­uerlasting life. Neither is any thing of all these, without the grace of the great mercie of God; because if there be any good workes, they follow this grace, as we saide before, and can in no wise be before in. Which thing the Apostle beeing very desirous to perswade vs, because, as he mentioneth in an other place; [Page 217]it is not from vs, but it is the gift of God, not by reason of our workes, least peraduenture any man should extoll himselfe, he spake of them which were not yet borne. For no man could say that Iacob beeing now vnborne did mooue God by his workes to speake of him: And the elder shall serue the younger. Therefore, saith he, not onely Isaac was pro­mised, when it was saide, About this time I will come and Sara shall haue a sonne, who by no meanes may be thought to haue deser­ued at Gods handes by his workes, to be thus promised before his birth, and that the seede of Abraham should be called in Isaac. That is to say, That those should belong to the companie of the Saints, which is in Christ, who knewe them-selues to be the sonnes of pro­mise, not waxing proude vpon any of their owne deserts, but imputing it wholly to the grace of vocation, that they were made fellow heyres with Christ. For when they were pro­mised onely, it could not be that they as yet deserue any thing, before they themselues had any beeing. But Rebecca also hauing brought forth after one copulation with our father Isa­ac, vttereth this saying very circumspectly. Af­ter one copulation. For shee conceiued a cou­ple, least peraduenture, it might be attributed to the fathers deserts, if some man should speake on this manner; The sonne is thus, or thus, because at the very same instant that he [Page 218]was placed into the wombe of the mother, the father was thus, or thus affected: or because the mother was thus affected when she con­ceiued him. For both Isaac begot them both at one time, and Rebecca at the same time conceiued them both. To commende this thing vnto vs, shee speaketh thus, By one co­pulation. That shee might neither leaue any place here for the Astrologian, or rather to that kinde of soothsaier, who by the nariuitie is woont to coniecture of the conditions, and fortune of those which are borne. For they haue nothing to alleadge for themselues, why at the same conception, likewise at the same moment, the constitution of the heauens, and planets nothing differing, when euery thing did so ioyntly agree, there was such great diffe­rence betwixt that couple. And they may easily perceiue, if they please, that those their an­swers which they sell to poore distressed wret­ches, proceede not from any art, or skill they haue, but onely from a casual kinde of suspiti­on. But to leaue all things not pertinent to our matter. These things are rehearsed to break the neck of their pride, who are so vnthankfull for the grace of God, and dare boast of their owne deserts. For when they were yet vn­borne, and had done neither good nor euill, not for their works, but in regard of him who called them, it was saide vnto him, that the el­der shal serue the yonger. This grace therfore is [Page 219]his who calleth, & consequently good works are his who receiueth this grace; yet not so as that they were the bringers forth of grace, but rather themselues were brought forth by grace: euen as the fire doth not heare other things that it selfe may be hotte, but because it selfe is hotte, nor the wheele doth therefore runne smoothly that it may be round, but be­cause it is round: so no man doth therefore effect good workes, that he may hereafter re­ceiue grace, but because he hath alreadie re­ceiued it. For how can he liue righteously who hath not beene iustified, or he holily, who hath not beene sanctified, or he at all liue, who hath not had life ministred vnto him? Now grace doth iustifie, that he which is iustified may liue righteously. Grace therefore is first, and then follow good workes, as he saith in an o­ther place. But to him which worketh there is a reward ascribed, not according to grace, but according to debt: As that immortalitie after good workes, yet if it be required as due, as the same Apostle saith, I haue fought a good fight, I haue runne my race, and kept my faith, and nowe there remaines a crowne of iustice for me, which the Lord beeing a iust and vpright iudge shall render vnto me in that day. For happily because he saide, he shall render, it is now vpon debt. But when he ascending lead captiuitie cap­tiue, he did not render, but bestowed gifts vpon men. For whereupon I pray you [Page 220]should the Apostle presume, that it was resto­to him as dew, vnlesse he had before receiued grace which was not dew, whereby being iu­stified, he fought a good fight? For he was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and a doer of wrong; but he obtained mercie, as himselfe te­stifieth; beleeuing verely in him, who iustifieth not the godly, but the vngodly, that by iustifi­ing him he may make him godly: not in regard of their works, saieth he, but in regard of him which calleth, it is said vnto him, that the elder shall serue the younger. Hither tendeth that which he saith, for whē they were yet vnborne, and had done nothing, either good or euill, that it might be said, not for their works, but in regard of him that calleth: whereuppon it commeth to my minde to enquire, wherefore he said, that Gods purpose might remaine, ac­cording to his election. For how may that be called, not onely a iust election, but so much as a bare election, where there is no difference? For if Iacob, vnborne as yet, & hauing wrought nothing, was not chose for any desert of his, neither could he be chosen at all, there being no difference whereby he might be chosen; A­gaine if Esau was disliked without any desert, because he was as yet vnborne & had wrought nothing: when it was said, and the elder shall serue the younger: how can his reproofe bee thought iust? with what discretion therfore, or with what proportion of equitie, do we vnder­stand that which followeth, I haue loued Iacob, [Page 221]but hated Esau? which thing is set downe in a Prophet, who was long after their birth and in­terring. But yet that sentence should seeme to haue beene spoken whereby it is said, and the elder shal serue the younger, before they were borne or had yet wrought any thing: Where-hence therefore is this election, or what māner of election may it bee thought to bee, if these two being yet vnborne, and cleane voide of works, there were no quantitie of desert? or wil you say that their natures & essences did some thing differ? who can euer gather this by one father, one mother, one copulation, one ma­ker? Or did the same maker, as he brought forth diuers kindes of liuing creatures and mates, out of the same earth: so out of the same marri­age of man and woman raise a diuers issue which he might partly affect, and partly hate? There was no election therefore, before there was that which might be elected. For if Iacob were made good to the intent that hee might please, how did hee so please before hee was, that he might be made good? Therefore he was not chosen that he might be made good, but being now made good he might verie well be chosen. What therefore according to electi­on, because God foreseeing all things, had also a foresight into Iacobs future faith being yet vnborne? That although euery man do not de­serue to be iustified by his works, since he is not able to worke: but being iustified, yet because God doth iustifie the nations by faith, and no [Page 222]man beleeueth but of a freewil, God foreseing the future will to beleeue, chose him before he was borne, vpon the foresight wherby he iusti­fied him. If thē electiō be through the meanes of this foresight, and God did foresee the faith of Iacob, what proofe cā you bring for it, whē as hee chose him not nowe in regard of his works? But because neither of them was yet borne, nor had done good or euill, hitherto likewise neither of thē had beleeued. But as by reasō of this foreknowledge he had an insight into his future beliefe, so by the same he might assure himselfe of his works which were to en­sue. That as he is said to be chosen for the after faith, which God was priuie to before hand, so some other bodie may affirme, that he was ra­ther chosen for those works of his which were to come, whereof notwithstanding God had a certaine foresight. Whereuppon therefore the Apostle sheweth, that it was not spoken by rea­son of their works, And the elder shall serue the younger; but because they were not yet borne, it was not onely not spoken in regard of their works, but euen without any respect of their faith also, because before their birth, they had no iotte at all of either of them. He would not therefore haue vs vnderstand that by this fore­knowledge there was choise made of the yoū ­ger, that the elder should serue him; for being desirous to shew that works were not the cause of this election, he did add this vppon set pur­pose saying, for when they were yet vnborn, & [Page 223]had done neither good nor euill. Otherwise might it haue bin obiected to him: yea but god did now know whatsoeuer he was to do here­after. Wherefore, may it be demaunded, where hence did this election spring? because certain­ly it could in no wise arise from works, which in these yet not borne, were none at al; nor from faith which was euen as little to be seene in thē as the other. Shall we say that there could be no election, so lōg as there appeared no diuer­sitie either of faith, or works, or any deserts at all in the wombe of the mother? But it is said, that the decree of god might remain according to the election, & we therefore demaund be­cause it is said, vnlesse peraduenture we must make this distinction vppon the sentence, that we do not vnderstād it to be spoken not in re­gard of the works, but in regard of him which calleth, whē it is said, And the elder shal serue the younger, that the decree of God might re­maine according to election; but thus rather, that no election at all being here vnderstood, we should receiue this as an example of those who were neither yet borne, nor had wrought any thing at all. For whilst they were yet vn­borne, & had done nothing, either good or euil, that the decree of God might remaine accor­ding to electiō: that is to say, and had done ne­ther good nor ill, in so much that for the verie, actiō there might be some choise made of him who had done wel▪ Since therfore there was no choise of the wel doer, according to which the [Page 224]decree of god might remaine, not in regard of works, but of him which calleth: that is to say, of him which by calling the vngodly to faith through grace, doth iustifie him, it is said, & be­cause the elder shal serue the yoūger. Therefore the decree of god doth not remaine according to electiō, but electiō by the decree: which is in effect as much as one should say, the decree of gods iustificatiō doth not therfore remaine, because God hath foūd any good works in mē which he may choose. but because that doth re­maine that he may iustifie those which beleeue therefore hath he found out works, which hee may choose for the kingdome of heauen. For were there no election, what elect could there be? or how might it be well said, who stood ac­cuser against the elect of God? yet election go­eth not before iustification, but iustification before election. For, what should any be ele­cted, vnlesse there were some difference be­tweene him and the reiected person? Wherev­pon I know not what to make of the saying, because God hath chosen vs before the foun­dation of the world, vnlesse I should thinke that here is vnderstood foreknowledge. But whereas he saith in this place; It was said vnto him not in regard of workes, but of him who calleth, because the elder shal serue the yōger, he wold haue the place thus interpreted, not by choise of merits, which shew themselues after the iustification of grace, but by the infinitenes of Gods rewards, least some man should boast [Page 225]himselfe of his works. For we are saued by the grace of God: And this proceedeth not from workes, but it is the benefite of God; not from works least some man peraduenture should be puffed vp. Now there ariseth a doubt by the way, whether faith merit a mans iustification, or it be rather to be thought that the deserts of faith, do not go before the mercie of God, but the faith is rather to bee accounted amongst the gifts of grace. Because euen in this place, when he had said, not by workes: he doth not presently inferre, but by reason of faith it was said vnto him, because the elder shall serue the younger, but this is it which he addeth imme­diatly, but for his sake which calleth. For no man beleeueth, vnlesse he be called: Nowe the mercifull God calleth, giuing thus much to no merits of faith, because they rather follow vo­cation then goe before it: for how shall they beleeue him whome they haue not seene? and how shall they heare vnlesse some man telleth them? If therefore in calling, the mercie of god go not before, neither without doubt can a mā beleeue, that hereby he may begin to be iusti­fied, and receiue power to do well: Grace then is before all desert: For Christ died for the wic­ked. Wherefore it was giuen to the younger that the elder should serue him, not for any deserts of his owne, but in regard of him who calleth, and that should bee imputed to the calling of God, & not to Iacobs works where it is written, I haue loued Iacob. But what was [Page 226]the reason that Esau serued his younger bro­ther, and that it was thus written of him, but E­sau haue I hated? what euill had he committed whereby he deserued this, being yet vnborne and hauing done neither good nor euill when this was spoken of him, and the elder shall serue the younger? Or will you say, that as that was spoken of Iacob for no good thing done on his part: so this is also said of Esau for no badd deed of his that he was hated? For if be­cause God foreknew his bad works which he was to performe hereafter, he was therefore predestinated to serue his younger brother, by the same reason was Iacob predestinated also to be serued by his elder brother, because God foresaw his future good works: And then it is verie false which he saith, not by works. If then it bee true, that there was not such force of works, and he proues that after this māner, be­cause this was spoken of those which were yet vnborne, and had wrought nothing, & likewise if faith be of as little moment, which they were euen as much naked of before their birth, how could Esau deserue to be hated, being as yet vnborne? For without all question God made those things which he loued. And there is ano­ther place of scripture which will condemne vs of great absurditie, if we say he made those things which he hated, for nether wouldst thou haue ordained any thing that thou batest, nei­ther hast thou hated any of these things which thou hast ordained. For vpon what desert was [Page 227]the sunne made to be the sunne, or in what thing had the moone offended that it was made so much inferiour to the sunne, or what had it deserued whie by the creation thereof it should so much exceede the other starres in brightnes? But all these things beeing good were seuerally made in their kinde. For God would not say I haue loued the sunne and ha­ted the moone, or I haue loued the moone, and hated the other starres, as he saide I haue loued Iacob, but Esau haue I hated. But God loued all those things, notwithstanding their difference in excellencie, because he saw that they were good, when they were ordained at his word: but there was no shew of iustice, that without some merit of iniustice, he should haue hated Esau. VVhich beeing graunted, it wil necessarily follow, that Iacob was also lo­ued for some merit of righteousnes. And if this be true, that is most false, to say, he was not loued for his works. Or will you say it was for the vprightnes of his faith. I pray you what haue gained by this, since they beeing yet vn­borne, could not possibly haue any vprightnes of faith? The Apostle very well perceiued therefore, what might arise out of these words to the minde of the hearer and [...]ader, and for this cause immediatly added this which fol­loweth, VVhat shall we say? Is there any vn­righteousnes with God? god forbid. And tea­ching that it cannot be so: For, saith he, he tel­leth Moses thus: I will take compassion on [Page 228]him, of whome I will haue compassion, and shew mercie to him, of whome I wil haue mer­cie. By which words whether hath he released vs of our former doubts thinke you, or rather increased the same? For herein consists the ve­ry head of all our doubts; If he takes compas­sion on him, of whome he hath compassion, and shew mercie to him of whome he hath mercie, why did not Esau finde this mercie, that as Iacob, so he might also therby be made good. VVas this the cause why it was said, I will haue compassion on him of whome I will haue com­passion, and will shew mercie to him of whom I will haue mercie, because whomsoeuer God of his mercie calleth, him also of his mercie he causeth to beleeue: and whome of his mercie he causeth to beleeue, to him also he will shew mercie, that is, he will make him merciful, that thereupon he may worke well? VVhereby we are admonished, that a man ought not to boast and puffe vp himselfe with the bare workes of mercie, as though by them as by his own works he hath woon God vnto him, since he receiued mercie it selfe through his meanes, who will take compassion on him, of whome he will haue compassion. But if any man will bragge that he hath deserued it by beleeuing, let him know that he was the ground of this beleefe, who by the inspiration of faith, taketh com­passion vpon him of whome he will take com­passion, that yet he might impart vocation to the vnbeleeuer. For there is now some diffe­rence [Page 229]betwixt the faithfull and the wicked. For saith he, what hast thou that thou hast not re­ceiued? and hauing receiued it, why shouldest thou bragge as if thou hadst not receiued it? Indeede this is well, but why was Esau abrid­ged of this mercie, that so he might not be cal­led, and haue faith inspired into him beeing called, and by this faith be made mercifull, that thereby he might doe good workes? or was it because he himselfe refused it? why then if Ia­cob did therefore beleeue because himselfe would, God bestowed not this faith vpon him, but himselfe by his willingnes gained it to himselfe, and so he had something which he did not receiue. Or doth God worke faith in men by calling them, because no man can be­leeue vnlesse he be willing, nor any man be wil­ling except he be called, nor no man by his owne power worke his owne calling? because bowsoeuer a man can not possibly beleeue a­gainst his will yet without vocation he can in no wise beleeue. For how shall they beleeue him whome they haue not heard? or how shall they heare vnlesse it be preached vnto them? Therefore no man beleeueth but he that is cal­led, nor doth euery one which is called be­leeue. For many are called, but few are chosen. As also whosoeuer haue not contemned the caller, but followed him by beleefe, without doubt they haue beleeued willingly. But what followes? Therefore it is the power neither of him that willeth, nor yet of him which o [...]ste­neth, [Page 230]but of God onely which taketh compas­sion. Or because vve cannot so much as vvill vnlesse vve be called, and our vvill is of no force to performe vvithout Gods assistance. VVe must therefore both be vvilling and also speedie. For that vvas not spoken in vaine, and in earth the peace of good vvill vnto men, and so runne, that you may take hold of. Yet it is in the povver neither of him that vvilleth, not him that runneth, but onely of God vvho ta­keth compassion, that we may attain vnto that vvhich vve desire, and come thither vvhither vve vvish to come. Esau therefore refused, and vvould not runne, but although he had both beene vvilling and had also runne, yet it should haue beene the aide of God vvhich should haue brought him vvhither he vvould, vvho al­so by calling him should cause him both to vvill and runne, vnlesse neglecting his vocati­on, he vvould become a reprobate. For God doth one vvay cause vs to be vvilling, and an other vvay cause that to haue effect vvhich vve doe will and desire. For it hath pleased him that it should proceede partly from him, and partly from our selues to will any thing. But whatsoeuer it is that we do desire, it procee­deth wholly from him; that is to say, to be a­ble to doe well, and to liue blessedly. But Esau being yet vnborne could neither will nor nill. VVhy then was he disliked being in the womb of his mother? For he betakes himselfe againe to those difficulties, which are much more [Page 231]troublesome, not only in regard of their owne obscurenes, but also of our so often recitall. For why was Esau reiected being yet vnborn, who could neither beleeue him which called, nor contemne the vocation, nor doe either good or euill, without Gods foreknowledge of that future ill disposition of his? why was not Iacob also approoued by Gods foresight into his good disposition which was to come? Now let it be but once granted, that any man was euer either approoued, or reprooued, for that which was neuer hitherto found in him, onely because God did foresee that it would be in him, it may be here hence very easily ga­thered, that he might also be approoued by those works which God did foresee would be afterward in him, although he had not yet wrought any thing. And that will make very little to our purpose, that they were yet vn­borne, when it was saide, And the elder shall serue the younger, hereby to shew it was not spoken in regard of workes, because he had not yet wrought any thing. And besides, if you marke those wordes well, Therefore it is nei­ther in the power of him that runneth, nor of him that willeth, but of God which taketh compassion, you shall see that it is not the A­postles drift hereby onely to prooue, that we come to that which we desire by the assistance of God, but also to signifie that which he in­tendeth in another place, when he saith, With feare and trembling worke your owne safetie, [Page 232]for it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to worke according to his owne good pleasure. VVhere he makes it very plaine, that euen the very will to good is caused, God wor­king in vs. For if this be the onely ende of that saying, It is neither in the power of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God which taketh compassion, because mans will of it selfe is not sufficiently able to make vs line vprightly and well, without Gods mercie aiding vs, why may not it be said as well after this manner. Therefore it is not in the power of God which taketh compassion, but of man that willeth, because Gods mercie alone is not of force enough, vnlesse the agreeablenes of our will be added thereto? But that is most manifest, that our wil is not worth a rush with­out Gods mercie. And yet me thinks that I can not tell what to say to the inferring of these words, That God taketh compassion to no ende vnlesse we be willing. For it necessari­ly followes that we be willing, if God once take compassion. For it belongs to the same mercie, that we be willing. For it is God who according to his owne good pleasure worketh in vs both to will, and to doe. For I should woonder if any man would denie me that our will to good were the gift of God. Novv be­cause our vvill to good doth not goe before vocation, but vocation before it, therefore it is most iustly attributed to God that vve vvill, but by no meanes to vs, that vve are called. [Page 233]VVe must not therefore thinke that this is the cause vvhy it is saide, Therefore it is not in the povver either of him vvhich runneth, or him vvhich vvilleth, but of God vvhich taketh cō ­passion, because vve cannot attaine vnto that vvhich vve desire vvithout his helpe, but rather because vve haue no vvill vvithout his vocati­on. But if this vocation be the cause of a mans vvill to that vvhich is good, in so much that vvhosoeuer is called attaineth to it, hovv then can that be true, Many are called, but fevv are chosen? VVhich if it be so, and he vvhich is cal­led doe not consequently obey this calling, and moreouer it be in his vvill vvhither he vvill obey it, it may be very vvell said, It is not ther­fore in the povver of God that taketh compas­sion, but of man vvhich doth both vvill, and runne: because the mercie of him vvhich calleth is not sufficient, vnlesse there follovv a cer­taine obedience of him vvhich is called. Or, it may be, that those vvhich beeing thus cal­led doe not agree, beeing othervvise called, could applie their vvill to faith, vvhereby that might be also true, Many are called, but fevv are chosen. In so much that, notvvithstanding many are alike called, yet because all are not alike affected, they onely doe attaine vnto this vocation vvho are found fitte for the re­ceiuing thereof: and that is euen as true, Therefore it is neither in the povver of him vvhich vvilleth, nor of him vvhich runneth, but of God vvhich taketh compassion, vvho so [Page 234]called as he iudged it to be fitte for them vvho attained to this calling. Novv there came al­so a calling to the lotte of other men, but be­cause it vvas such a one, as that they could not be mooued thereby, nor vvere fitte to receiue it, they might indeede be tearmed called, but not chosen. And novv it is not likevvise true, Therefore it is not in the povver of God vvhich taketh compassion, but of man vvhich vvilleth; and runneth, because the vvorking of Gods mercie can not be in mans povver, in so much that his mercie should be of no force if man were vnwilling. Because if he would haue mercie vpon men he might so call them, as it was fitte for them, both to be stirred vp to vnderstand, and attaine to the same. It is ther­fore very true, Many are called, but few are chosen. For those are elected who are congru­ously called; but they which did not agree vn­to, nor obey their vocation, howsoeuer they were called, yet are they not chosen, because they attained not vnto this vocation. Againe this is true; It is neither in the power of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God which taketh compassion on, because al­though he call many, yet amongst those ma­ny he taketh compassion on them onely whō he so calleth as it is meete for them that they may attain vnto this vocatiō. But contrariwise most false if any man say, therefore it is not in the power of God which taketh compassion: but of mā which willeth and runneth, because [Page 235]God taketh compassion of no man in vaine, but he so calleth whomesoeuer he taketh pitie on, as he knoweth it to bee meete for him, to withhold him frō refusing him which calleth. But here will some man say, why then was not Esau so called that he had a desire to obey? For we see diuers men to bee moued by the same things sundry wayes shewed and signified, to beleeue, as for example, Simeon beleeued in our Lord Iesus Christ being yet a little infant, acknowledging him by the reuelation of the spirit. Nathanael after one sentence which hee heard from his mouth, before Philip called thee, when thou wert vnder the figge tree I saw thee, aunswered, Maister, thou art the sonne of god, thou art the king of Israel. Which because Peter confessed so long after, he deserued to heare, that he was blessed, and that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen should bee giuen vnto him. After he had done that miracle of turning water into wine, in Canaan a citie of Galilee, which the Euangelist S. Iohn reporteth to be the entrance to his other signes & won­ders, his disciples presently beleeued in him. He trayned diuers to beleeue by speaking, & many beleeued not although he had raised the dead to life again. His disciples being terrified as concerning his crosse and passion, did stum­ble; and yet that theefe did then beleeue, not when he saw him so excell in his works, but e­uen whē he hung on the same crosse with him. And one of his disciples, after he was risen a­gaine, [Page 236]beleeued not so much his liuing parts, as the fresh wounds which had beene made in his flesh. Many of them by whom he was cru­cified, who contemned him when they saw him worke miracles, beleeued his disciples prea­ching of him afterwards, and working the like things in his name. Since therefore one man is stirred vp to faith one way, and another ano­ther way, yea and oftentimes the same thing diuersly vttered worketh diuersly also in di­uers persons, mouing or not moouing, accor­ding as it is vttered, who dares say that that kinde of calling was wanting, whereby Esau might applie his minde, & ioyne his will to that faith, wherein Iacob was iustified. But if there can be such great stubburnes of the will, that the frowardnes of the minde can harden it self against all meanes of calling: I aske further whether this hardnes bee a punishment infli­cted by God or not? For when God doth for­sake vs by not so calling vs, as we may be mo­ued to faith, who will also say, that the meanes whereby wee might be persuaded to beleeue, was wanting to the almighty? But why should we make any question of this, since the Apo­stle addeth this immediatly: For the scripture saith to Pharao, because I haue stirred thee vpp hereto, that I might shew my power in thee, & that my name might be reported through the whole earth? Now the Apostle annexed this saying, that he might thereby proue that which he had said before: therefore it is neither in the [Page 237]power of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God which taketh compassion. For, as if some man should question with him, what ground haue you for this? he aunswers, because the scripture saith to Pharao, because I haue stirred thee vp to this ende, that I might shew my power in thee, & that my name might be made knowne ouer the whole earth. And as he sheweth here that it is neither in the power of him that willeth nor of him that runneth: but of God which taketh compassion, so hee shutteth vp this: therefore he taketh pittie of whome he will and hardeneth whome he will, since both of them were not mentioned be­fore. For it is not all one to say, it is neither in the power of him which willeth, nor of him which runneth, but of God which taketh compassion, and to inferre it thus: It is not in the power of him which willeth and contem­neth, but of God which hardeneth. Wherehēce we may vnderstand that as that which in the latter place hee hath set downe both wayes, therefore he hath compassion on whom he wil, and hardeneth whom he will, may thus be ap­plied to the former meaning, that the harde­ning of God be thought to be his vnwilling­nes to mercy, not that any of this be abrogated from man to make him worse, but onely that he arrogate nothing to himselfe to make him better, then indeed he is. But if there be diffe­rence made of deserts, who hath not cause to burst forth into that cōplaint of the Apostles? [Page 238]Doest thou then aske of me why he doth yet complaine, since no man resists his will? For God complaines oftentimes of men, as may appeare by many places of the scripture, be­cause they will not beleeue, and like wel: wher­vpon the faithfull and those which do the wil of God, are said to be conuersant without cō ­plaint, because the scripture complaineth not of them. But why doth he complaine, saith he, since no man resists his will, he taking compas­sion on whome he will, and hardning whome he please? But let vs looke into that which wēt before, what thē shall we say? Is there any wic­kednes with God? God forbidd. Let this there­fore be rooted in the minde of euerie faithfull and religious man, that there is no wickednes with God; and let this be a chiefe point of our faith, whereunto we may stick close, that this which is spoken of God, that he will take com­passion vpon whome he will take compassion, & harden whome he will: that is, that of whom it pleaseth him to haue mercie, he will, and of whome it pleaseth him not, he will not, that this I say; is a hidden point of his equitie, and dee­per then mans shall ownes is able to search into which is to be obserued in al humaine affairs & earthly contracts, wherein vnlesse we should retaine some prints of heauēly iustice, the scope of our weake capacitie would neuer be able to looke vp or prye into the admirable secrecie, holines, and purenes, of spirituall precepts. Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after [Page 229]righteousnes, because they shal be filled. Ther­fore vnlesse we were cherished with some smal blasts of righteousnes descending from aboue, whilst we be combred with this mortall life & condition, we should first wither awaye be­fore we would euer thirst. Wherefore since the fellowship of man is, as it were tied together, with a mutuall kinde of giuing and receiuing, and those things are giuen and receiued mutu­ally, which are either due, or contrarie, who sees not that no man can bee iustly accused of vniustice, who demaunds that which is due vn­to him, which is willing to forgiue, that which is due vnto him? But this is not at the pleasure of the debters, but of him to whome the debt belonges. This image, or as I said before, this print is setled in the businesses of men, from the verie heigth of equitie. Men therefore, since, by the testimonie of the Apostle, all doe die in Adam, from whome the very root of oftending God, sprong forth amongst all mankinde, are euen a lump of sinne owing penance to Gods great iustice, which whether God inflict vppon them, or pardon them, he shall by doing neither of the two shew himselfe vniust. But it is a tokē of great insolency in the debters to make them selues iudges to whome this punishment is to be forgiuen, and vpon whome to be inflicted, like as their indignatiō was most senseles who being hired in the vineyard, repined whē they saw others as largely rewarded as themselues. The Apostle doth thus therefore beat back all [Page 240]impudencie that may arise out of this questiō. O man, who art thou, that doest thus gainesay God? For what doth he else, when that displea­seth him which god complaines of concerning sinners? As if God do presently constraine a man to sinne, if he doe but only withhold the mercie of his iustification from him whilst he sinneth, and for this cause must be said to har­den some offenders, not because he inforceth them thereto, but because he taketh not com­passion on them? Now those they are of whom he taketh no compassion, vpon whome he fin­deth in that secret iustice of his, to which mans weake sense is in no case able to attaine, that there is no compassiō to be taken: for his iudge­ments are not to be searched, nor his pathes to be passed. But he iustly complaines of sinners, as of those whō he would by no meanes haue offend; and with all that those of whome hee bath compassion, seeing their god so grieuous­ly to complaine of sinners, might attaine vnto this vocation, and being gauled euen at their verie heart, returne into his fauour. Most iustly therefore and mercifully doth he complaine. But if this moue vs, for that no man resisteth his pleasure, because whome he so pleaseth he helpeth, and whome he will againe he forsa­keth; when both he whome he helpeth, and he also whome he forsaketh, come both of the selfe same lump of sinn [...], & howsoeuer both of them be subiect to punishment, yet one of them hath it pardoned vnto him, & the other [Page 241]performed vpon him: If then this do moue vs, O man, who art thou, that thou gainsaist God: For I guesse it to bee all one with that where it is said, are you not men, and doe you not walke after the manner of men? for vnder this name are ment both the carnall, and the spirituall, to whome it is said I could not speake to you as to spirituall men, but as to carnall. And againe, for you could not as yet, neither hitherto can you: for ye are yet carnall. And againe, but a carnall man doth not vnderstand the thinges which belong to the spirit of God: To these therefore it is saide, O man, who art thou, that thou gainesaiest God? Doth that which is fra­med say vnto him which hath framed it, why hast thou thus fashioned me? Or hath not hee which worketh in clay, power, to make out of the same heap, a vessell for honor, and a vessell for reproch? Euen therehence it may happely sufficiently appeare that hee spake to a carnall man, because the verie clay of which man was first framed, signifies as much. And because al, as I shewed ere whilst out of the same Apostle, are dead in Adam, he saith we are all of one & the same stuffe. And although one vessel bee made for honor, and another for disgrace, yet it must needs be that euē that which was made for honor, haue a carnall infancie, and so after­wards arise vp to a riper kinde of spirituall age; since they were now made for honor, & borne in Christ, but being he speaketh to those which are yet infants, he calleth them carnall, saying, [Page 242]I could not speake to you as to spirituall, but as to carnall. I gaue you being as yet little ones in Christ, milke to drinke not stronger meate, for neither were you able, neither yet are you: for euen yet ye are carnall. For all therefore he tearme them carnall, yet he addeth further that they are borne in Christ, and little ones in him, and sucklings; and in that he ioyneth to all this, neither yet can you: he insinuateth thus much, that when they haue profited something more hereafter, they will be able, because that now grace is begunne in them, being spiritu­ally borne a new. Therefore they were now vessels made for honor, and yet so as that it might well be said vnto them, O man, what art thou, that thou shouldst gainesay God? And if it be rightly spoken to such, much more rightly may it be spoken to such as are not yet so rege­nerate, but are made for disgrace. Let vs still hold this with a stedfast faith, that there is not iniustice with God: and whether he be contēt to pardon man his debt, or to exact it at his hands, neither can he rightly finde fault with his iniustice of whome he exacteth this debt, nor be in any case boast himselfe of his owne deserts to whome he forgiueth it. For both that is debt which the one payeth, and the other receiueth whatsoeuer he hath. But here wee must labour, with the help of God, to see how that may bee true, which is written, thou hast hated nothing which thou createdst. And a­gaine that, I haue loued Iacob, but Esau haue I [Page 243]hated. For if he therefore hated Esau, because he was a vessell made for disgrace, and the same potter maketh one vessel for honor another for disgrace, how hast thou hated nothing of that which thou createdst? For see, he hath hated E­sau, which himself created a vessell for disgrace: which doubt may be thus manifested, that we know God to bee the maker of all creatures; now euerie creature of God is good: and euery man so farre as he is man, is a creature of god▪ but not as he is a sinner. Therefore God is the maker both of the bodie, and of the minde of man, and neither of these is euill, neither doth God hate either of them, for he hateth nothing which himselfe hath created. But the minde is more excellent then the body, and God, then either the bodie or the minde, being the maker and creator of them both, neither doth he hate any thing in man but sinne. Now the sinne of man is a certaine disorder & crookednes; that is to say, a turning backward from his excellēt maker, and a bending to his baser creatures. Therefore God hateth not Esau as he is a man, but as he is a sinner: as it is said of the Lord, He came amongst his owne, and his would not entertaine him: to whom also he saith himselfe, yet therefore haue not heard, because ye are not of God. How were they his? and how were they not of god? vnles because the one be spo­ken of men, whom the Lord himselfe made, and the other of sinners whom the Lord him­selfe did condemne. And yet the same are [Page 244]both men and sinners: men, by their estate, but sinners by their owne proper will. Why then did he loue Iacob? was he not a sinner? But he loued in him not the fault, which he cleane extinguished, but the grace which he bestow­ed on him. For Christ died for the wicked, yet not that the wicked should remaine dead, but that being iustified they might be conuerted from their wickednes, beleeuing in him which iustifieth the wicked. For God hateth wic­kednes, therefore in some be punisheth it by condemnation, in others he taketh it away by iustification, as he thinketh best in those his vn­searchable iudgements. And because he ma­keth them vessels of disgrace amongst the wic­ked, whome he doth not iustifie, he hateth not this in them which he maketh; for inasmuch as they are wicked, they are accursed, but in as much as they are made vessels, they are so made for some vse. That through the punishment ordained for them, those vessells which were made for honour might reape some profit. Therefore God hateth them, neither as they are men, nor as they are vessells; that is to say, he hateth not that in thē which by ordinance he made: for he hateth nothing that he hath made. But yet in that he maketh them the ves­sels of perdition, he maketh them to the ende to correct others. For he hateth in them the wickednes, which himselfe made not. For as the iudge hateth the theft in the man, but not the weapon which he vsed in the attaining of his bootie, the one beeing the trespasse of a [Page 245]thiefe, the other no more then the iudge him­selfe doth and may vse: So God when out of the heape of wicked men he maketh vessels of perdition, hateth not that which he maketh, that is, the worke which he ordained, in the punishment due to those which perish, where­in they of whome he taketh compassion may finde meanes of their owne saluation. So was it saide to Pharao: I stirred thee vp thereto, that I might shew my power in thee, that my name might be made knowne through the whole earth. This manifestatiō of the power of God, and illustration of his name through the whole earth, is good to draw them to feare, and correct their waies, with whom such a cal­ling agreeth. So consequently he saies, that if God beeing desirous to shew his anger, and make knowne his power, did in great aboun­dance of patience bring the vessells of anger, which were made for destruction (there must be vnderstood who art thou, that thou shoul­dest gainesay God? that the sentence taking recourse to the former words, this may be the meaning.) If God beeing desirous to shew his anger, and make knowne his power, brought the vessells of wrath, who art thou that thou shouldest gainsay God? yet not only being de­sirous to shew his wrath and make known his power, brought in abundance of patience, the vessels of wrath which were made for destru­ction, but that which followes too; That he might manifest the riches of his glorie vpon the [Page 246]vessels of mercie. For what profiteth it the ves­sels made for destruction, that God sustaineth them patiently, that he may destroy the ordai­ner, and vseth them as an instrument of other mens saluation, whome he taketh compassion on? But it likewise profiteth them for whose safetie he vseth these: That, as it is written, the righteous may wash his hands in the blood of the sinner, that is to say, that he may be clen­sed from his euill workes through the feare of God, when he seeth the punishment of sinners. It therfore auaileth to cause a profitable feare in other men, and to make knowne the riches of Gods glorie toward the vessells of mercie which he hath prepared to glorie, that God willing to shew his anger, brought the vessels of wrath. For that hardning of wicked men maketh both these plaine: As wel what is to be feared that euery man may be conuerted to God in pietie, as also how great the graces of Gods mercie are, who sheweth how much he pardoneth some, by punishing others. But if that be no iust punishment which he inflicteth vpon some, he pardoneth nothing vnto others, vpon whō he doth not inflict this punishment. But because that is most iust, and there is no in­iustice with God, who is able worthily to thanke him that remitteth this, which if he would inflict vpon vs, no man could rightly say that he ought not. Whom also he called. Vs, quoth he, not only of the Iewes but also of the Gentiles, that is, the vessells of mercie which [Page 247]he prepared to glorie. For he called not all the Iewes, but some of them: nor all the Gen­tiles, but likewise some of them. For there is one lumpe of sinnefull and wicked men pro­ceeding from Adam, wherein both Iewes and Gentiles, the fauour of God beeing set apart, haue equall share. For if the pot­ter, as out of the same heape he maketh one vessell for honour, an other for disgrace; now it is manifest that some of the Iewes are made vessels for honour, and some for dis­grace, as likewise it is with the Gentiles. It followes that all be vnderstoode to belong to the same heape; Then he beginneth to rehearse diuers protestations of the Prophet in euery particular kinde, the order beeing chaunged. For first he spake of those of the Iewes which were conuerted, and afterwards of those of the Gentiles. Now he first alleadgeth testimo­nie for the Gentiles, and then for the Iewes. For as he saith in Osee, I will call those which are not my people, my people, and those which are not my beloued, my beloued: and where it is said you are not my people, there shall it be said, you are the sonnes of the liuing God. This saying is meant of the Gentiles, because they had not one appointed place of sacrifice, as the Iewes had in Ierusalem. But the Apo­stles were sent to the Gentiles, that euery one might beleeue, in the place where he was, and might there offer sacrifice of thanksgiuing, wheresoeuer they beleeued, to whom he gaue [Page 248]power to be made the childrē of God. But E­sai saith, he crieth out for Israel. That all Isra­el may not be thought to haue gone again into destruction. And then he sheweth, that there were other besides made for honour, other for disgrace: If, quoth he, the number of the chil­dren of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, the remnant shall be safe; the rest of the com­panie then, were vessels made for destruction. For, saith he, the Lord shall accuse vpon the earth. That is to say, that by the benefit of faith, he may saue those which beleeue through grace, not through the infinite ob­seruations wherewith that multitude beeing most basely loaden was oppressed. For tho­rough grace he finished his word for vs vpon the earth, saying my yoke is light, and my bur­den pleasant: which is here mentioned a little after. The word is almost in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach, because if thou confesse in thy mouth, because Iesus is the true Lord, and beleeue in thy heart, because God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be safe. For we beleeue in our heart for righteousnes sake, but confesse with our mouthes for saluation. This is that ac­complished word which God made vpon the earth, by which accomplishment, the theefe was iustified, who hauing all his other mem­bers fastened vpon the crosse, and these two onely free, beleeued in his heart for righteous­nes, and confessed with his mouth for sal [...]ati­ons sake, thereupon deseruing to heare this, [Page 249]To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. For now his good works should follow, if by the receit of grace, he were to liue longer amongst men. But yet those good works went not be­fore, that he might deserue the same fauour, beeing after his offence fastened to the crosse, to be transported to Paradise. And as Esaias foretold, saith he, vnlesse the Lord of the Sab­both had left vs seede, this is in the same place, the remnant should be safe. But the other as vessells of destruction haue perished as they ought. And it was not their desert, that all of them perished not, as at the downefall of So­dom and Gomorra, but the grace of God left a seede, from whence newe increase might spring throughout the whole world. And this a little after, So therefore, saith he, in this time also the residue was saued by election of grace. And if by grace then not by workes: otherwise grace is no grace. VVhat then? Israel obteined not that which it sought, but the chosen obtained it, the other beeing blinded. The vessels of mercie obtained it, but the ves­sells of anger were blinded, yet proceeding both out of the same heape, as in the fulnesse of the nations. There is a place in the Scrip­ture very fitte for the point which we haue in hand, ratifying the same with a woonderfull contestation, in the book, which some tearme, Iesus of Syracke, some Ecclesiasticus, where it is thus written. And all men are of the same mould or earth, from whence Adam was crea­ted. [Page 250]In the multitude of discipline, God separated them and altered their waies. And some of them he blessed & exalted, sanctifying them and applying them to himselfe, and some he cursed and brought low, and turned them to their disagreement, as the clay of the potter in his hand, to lay it and order it. All his waies are according to his owne disposition, so man is in the hand of him which made him, and shall re­store vnto him according to his iudgement. Good is contrarie to euill, & life to death: so is the iust also to the wicked. And so looke into al the works of the most high. Two against two, & one against one. Here first the discipline of God is commended. In the multitude of discipline, saith he, he separated them; From whence but onely from the blessednes of Paradise? And al­tered their waies, that they might now liue as mortal men. Thē was there made one lump of all cōming out of the brāch of sinne, & punish­ment of mortalitie, howsoeuer God made and created in all things good. For the shape & pro­portiō of our bodies, is in euery member so well ordered, that the Apostle to winne men to charitie, did there hence draw a certaine likenes to be in all men. Our breath is also full of life, and cherisheth our earthly limmes, and all the nature of mā, by the gouernment of the soule, and seruice of the bodie, and wonderfully tempered condition thereof, but so that the lust of the flesh doth now raigne by reason of the punishment of sinne, had confounded all mankinde, as one and the same heape, the [Page 251]guiltinesse from the beginning remaining o­uer all; and yet it follows, some of thē he bles­sed and exalted, and sanctified them, and ap­plied them to himselfe, and some of them hee cursed and brought low, & set them at dissen­tion among thēselues. As if the Apostle should say, Is it not in the potters power to make out of the same heap one vessell for honor, ano­ther for disgrace? And therefore that which is added, and it is not vnlike that. As the potters clay, saith he, is in his hand to lay and order it: all his wayes are according to his owne dispo­sition, so is man in the hand of him which made him. But because the Apostle sayes, Is there a­ny iniustice with God? see also what he ioynes hereto, he shall pay him saieth he according to his iudgement. But since iust punishments are inflicted vppon the damned, yet because it is turned to that vse, that they may reap profite thereby who are taken pittie on; marke what followes. God is contrarie to euil, saith he, and life to death; so also the iust to the wicked: and so looke into all the works of the most high, there are two against two, and one against one. That out of the comparison of the good, bet­ter may arise, which are better as it were by grace. As if he should say, the residue shalbe sa­ued: he goes on and speaks in the person of the residue. And I haue very lately watched, some­thing like one which gathereth grapes after the maister of the vineyard hath done. And how will he make this good, because not for their owne deserts, therefore by the mercie of god? [Page 252]In the blessing of God, saith he, and I hoped: & like the labourer in the vineyard I filled my presse. For although he watched very lately, yet because, as it is said, the latest were first, he ho­ping in the blessing of the Lord, glauncing out of the reliques of Israel, filled his presse out of the fertilitie of the vineyard, which proceeded from the whole world. Then I can see no other meaning of the Apostles, and all the iustified, through whome the knowledge of grace was shewed vnto vs, but that hee which boasteth should boast in the Lord. For who can search into the works of God, that out of the same heape, condemneth one, and iustifieth another? The free choice of will, is of great force; verie true: but it little auaileth them which are sold vnder sinne. The flesh saith he, lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, that ye cannot do what you would, we are warned to liue wel: this reward being propounded to vs, that we may get to liue blessedly for euer. But who can liue well, and do that which is good, vnlesse he be iustified by faith? we are warned to beleeue, that through loue receiuing the gift of the holy ghost we may do well. But who can beleeue vnlesse he be touched with some voca­tion, that is, with some testification of things? In whose power is it to haue his minde tou­ched with such a vision, as that his will may thereby bestirred vp to faith? And who embra­ceth that in his minde which delighteth him not? Or who hath that power to meet with that [Page 253]vvhich may delight him, or if he do meet vvith it, to delight himselfe therein? Since therefore those thinges delight vs by which wee may come to God, this commeth by the grace of God; not at our beck, nor is it gotten by our in­dustrie or vvorks: because it is his gift that vve haue a will, industrie, and works of charitie. Therefore we are bidden to aske that we may receiue, to seeke that we may finde, to knock that it may be opened vnto vs. Is not one verie prayer sometime so luke warme, or rather so colde, and almost none, nay none at all, that we doe not so much as marke this in our selues with griefe, because when we grieue at it we do euen then pray also: What is therefore else shewed vnto vs, but that he commaunds vs to aske, seek, and knock, who bids vs flie all these things: therefore it is not in the power either of him which willeth or of him which runneth, but of God who taketh compassion on, since vnlesse he stirre vs vp thereto, we can neither will nor runne. But if here were any election, that we should thus vnderstand that which was spoken, The residue were saued, by the electi­on of grace, not that the electiō of those which are iustified should be to life euerlasting, but that they might be knowne which are iustified, surely this is so secret an election, that it can by no meanes appeare vnto vs out of the same heap: or if it do appeare to some, I am content herein to acknowledge mine owne weakenes. For haue not wherewith to looke into the [Page 254]choosing of men to sauing grace, if I be drawne by any cogitation to thinke vppon the top of this election, vnlesse I had either more witt or lighter sinnes, or both, or, if you will haue a fourth, vnlesse I had honest and profitable do­ctrines: whatsoeuer hee bee therefore that is tainted but with the least sinnes, for well I know that there is none free from all sinne, if he be of a quick witt, and haue the liberall sci­ences at his fingers ends, my thinks he is wor­thie to be chosen to this grace. But whilst I professe thus, he which choseth the weak of the world that he may confound the strong, and the foolish that he may confound the wise, will come vpon me so, that I being now with ey­ing him become somewhat shamefast, may thus scoffe at many, which both in regard of some sinners are something pure, and in res­pect of fishers accounted orators. Haue we not seene many of these our faithful ones walking in the way of God, to bee for witt compared, not onely to no heretike, but not so much as to any base morrise dauncer? Againe do we not see diuers of both sexes liue in all matrimoni­all chastitie without complaint, and yet either hereticks or pagans, or at least scarce warme in the true church and beliefe, in so much that we wonder seing them surpassed not onely in pa­tience and temperancy: but also in faith, hope, and charitie, euen of verie bagages and stage­players, who are but newly conuerted? It ther­fore remaines that our wills be chosen. But [Page 255]the bare will vnlesse something meet with it that delighteth and inticeth the minde, cannot by any meanes be moued. Now it is not in mās power that any such thing should meet with it. What was Sauls will, but to rush amongst, draw, binde, and kill the christians? what a raging, furious, and blinde will was his, who notwithstanding was made to dapp to the very ground by one voyce sent from aboue, and a vision appearing with it; which minde of his, & headstrong wilbēt to all crueltie, being wrung and wrethed to beleife; he was in a trise made of a maruelous persecutor of the gospel, a more maruelous preacher of the same. And yet what shall we say? is there any iniustice with God? which punisheth & pardoneth whom it please him, punishing them onely that deserue it, and pardoning [...]y one, not for any thing that the pardoned can alleadge for himselfe? Is ther now any iniustice with God? God forbidd: but wherefore then doth he deale thus with one, and contrariely with another? O man, who art thou? if thou suffer not that which thou deser­uest, giue God thanks: thou art happie: mar­rie if thou do suffer it, thou hast no cause to cō ­plain: let vs only beleeue, if we cānot take hold of: because he which made euery creature, both spirituall and corporall, disposeth al things in iust number, weight, & measure: but his iudge­ments are vnsearchable, & his pathes not to be trodden. Let vs say Alleluia, and sing a song of praise, without questioning, either what is this, [Page 256]or for what ende was that? For all things were created in their due time. Hitherto were Au­gustines words pertaining to the setting clear of the second question. And least any should thinke that Austin handled this doctrine which he sent to Simplician cōcerning prede­stinatiō ▪ more thē once heare what he himself, after he had absolued the 2. book of his retra­ctations, writeth in the 7. tome of the 1. booke de praedest. Sanct. chap. 4. pag. 843. Ye see now what I thought then of faith and workes, al­though it were my care to commend vnto you the grace of God, in which opinion I see that these brethren are now also, because they had not the like care to profit with me in these bookes, that they had to read them with me. For if they had taken any care, they might haue found this question discussed, according to the truth of the holy Scriptures, in the first of those two bookes which I wrote to Simplician bi­shop ouer the Church of the Mediolanenses, that man of blessed memorie, in the very be­ginning of his bishopricke, then succeeding S. Ambrose, vnlesse peraduenture they came not to the knowledge of those bookes; which if it be so, be a meanes. I pray you, that they may know them. Againe out of the same Au­gustine, tom. 7. lib. de praedest. & grat. cap. 16. pag. 832. But I come to the little ones, I come to the twinnes; that is not enough; I come to those which are yet vnborne; which were be­gotten at one and the same copulation, and [Page 257]were to be brought forth at the same instant. The differing & diuers iudgemēt of Gods will appearing to thē, The greatnes of this question troubleth the senses of mē disputing so proud­ly of the will of God. Now stretch thy winde­pipe, and baule thou as loude as thy throat wil giue thee leaue, thou vniust accuser of the iust. What ill had he committed, tell me? or what good had the other deserued? and he aunswe­reth thee, not I, but Paul the Apostle, truely nei­ther of them had deserued any thing: but it is in the potters power, to make out of the same lump one vessell to honor, and another to dis­grace: you will aske why? what confused diuer­sitie is there in this iudgement? Let him againe confute this presumption, and say, O man what art thou that thou thus gainsaiest God? especi­ally because the intent being againe chaun­ged, aunswereth to that comparison of mans actions, that the creditor cannot be condem­ned of iniustice, who meanes thus to dispose of two of his debters, that he will aske of one, & remit to the other, that which he may, if he please, exspect alike from them both. And sure­ly it is most true, that in all the sleights & con­tracts of mans conuersation, which are appli­ed to the desciding of any matter or to the iudging of this iustice whereby we seeme to trie any other, it floweth into our hearts, out of the vnspeakable fullnes of Gods iustice, bles­sed Iohn affirming that same in his gospell, be­cause we haue all receiued of the fulnes there­of: [Page 258]of: which being so, with what impudencie shal man being as clay in comparison of the pot­ter, iudge of God? Not onely saying why hast thou fashioned me so? but also with a damnable kinde of curiositie, questioning of others, and asking, why hast thou out of the same lumpe made one thus, and another so? If man, which at the first was made of nothing, were not borne subiect to death and sinne, and yet it would please God to send some of them into vtter destruction, who would say to the omni­potent creator, why hast thou fashioned me so? For wee cannot denie him to appoint them to what end pleaseth him, who when they were not, gaue thē their being. Neither should some others say, why doth Gods iudgement differ, since all deserts are alike, because it is in the power of the potter, to make out of the same lump one vessell for honour, another for dis­grace. But now since the damned be iustly pu­nished, & those which are saued, cannot claime their saluation vpon due, who being forgetfull of mans estate, may so farre looke into the se­cret of God, as that himselfe being deseruedly punished, he dare aske why another receiued that fauour which was not due vnto him? Mo­ses therefore when he them taught that fleshly people, shewed that this diuine election, was not due to deserts, but that it was giuen to mē by the sole bountie of God. For thus he spea­keth to the people most manifestly in Deute­ronomie, Behold the heauen is the Lord thy [Page 259]Gods, and the heauen which is aboue the hea­uens, the earth and all that therein is. But the Lord chose your forefathers to loue them, and their seede, and after them he chose you be­fore all other nations. And he added, Be ye circumcised therfore from the hardnes of your hearts, and stiffen not your neckes any more. But blessed Steuen, when he called vpon the Iewes, shewed that this hardnes of heart was in them, as I saide before. For he saith in the Acts of the Apostles on this wise. You haue alwaies resisted the holy ghost, with stiffe necks and vncircumcised hearts and eares. VVhere­hence arose the stiffeneckednes in the people which was chosen from the whole world be­sides, who by tenne miracles got to be freed from bondage, to whome the law was giuen, for whose safetie the mouthes of all the Pro­phets did contend, for whome Christ became flesh, and to whome he was sent, but because there was blindnes ouer a great part of Israel, till it beeing adopted, out of the fulnes of the nations, entred into the kingdome, and the Lord shut vp all of them in incredulitie, that all of them might stand in neede of the mercie of the Sauiour. The sacraments of which diuine coūsaile, & mysterie of Gods maiestie, euen he which for persecutions & blasphemies deser­ued not to be tearmed a vessel of electiō, short­ly touching (for howsoeuer by the multitude of reuelations he knew them, yet he was faine to yeeld in regard of his humane weaknes) in ad­miration [Page 260]crieth out, O the depth of Gods most rich wisdome and knowledge! confessing fur­thermore, that his paths and counsels were vn­searchable. Therefore whensoeuer there ari­seth any question amongst vs concerning such things, let vs wonder, and holding this still for certaine, that there is no iniustice with God, if that whereof there is doubt, be a thing ex­ceeding our vnderstanding, and our capacitie cannot reach into the depth of it, let vs con­fesse it to remaine in that fulnes of the iustice, mercie, and foreknowledge of God, without any breach of his iustice. Least disputing of the high secrets of Gods will, otherwise then the pitch of our estate will permit vs, we for­sake the iustice of God, and coueting to build vp our own, fall downe headlong into the bottom­lesse gulfe of diso­bedience.