Of the redemption of mankind three bookes wherein the controuersie of the vniuersalitie of redemption and grace by Christ, and of his death for all men, is largely handled. Hereunto is annexed a treatise of Gods predestination in one booke. Written in Latin by Iacob Kimedoncius D. and professor of Diuinitie at Heidelberge, and translated into English by Hugh Ince preacher of the word of God.

CHAP. XI. Of the cause of reprobation.

IT sufficiently then appeareth by so many proofes alleaged, that God elected his Saints in Christ vnto eternall life, not for any workes, or through foreseeing of their faith: but ac∣cording to the purpose of his own will, of meere grace, which doth not finde,* 1.1 but make them to be elected, as the ancient say∣ing is. And albeit wee seeme with the same labour not ob∣scurely to haue touched, what must bee held concerning the cause of reprobation: yet to make the matter more cleere, wee thinke good seuerally to declare,* 1.2 that the cause of repro∣bation consisteth not in the future vnbeleefe of the repro∣bates, or other sinnes, which God foresaw, but in the will of God himselfe, chusing whom he pleaseth, and reprobating whom hee pleaseth, by his will, which is surely remote from our senses, yet most right, and to bee adored rather than cu∣riously searched into.

* 1.3For if sinnes were the cause of reprobation, wee had all been reprobates: seeing all of vs are vnder sinne, the children of wrath and eternall death, that such election should adopt, as abdication doth refuse. And albeit the grace of the Me∣diatour bee offered vs in the Gospell, yet it is Gods gift, that we begin to haue faith, and doe hold it vnto the end. For what hast thou that thou hast not receiued?* 1.4 Why then is this mer∣cie withdrawne from the reprobates,* 1.5 that faith is not inspired into them? Is it, because they will not? No. For so on the contrary the elect should therefore beleeue, because they are willing: and so God should not giue them faith but they by being willing should bestow it on themselues, and should haue some thing that they had not receiued.

* 1.6Further, if wee should consider reprobation to slow from vnbeleefe, or from malice foreseene, it wil necessarily follow, that election dependeth on faith or workes foreseene. This reason is Augustines, but that he speaketh particularly of Ia∣cob

and Esau: If (saith he) we graunt,* 1.7 that Esau was not ha∣ted but for the desert of vnrighteousnes, it followeth that Iacob was loued for the merit of righteousnes. Againe, If because God foresaw the future euill workes of Esau, therefore he pre∣destinated him to serue his yonger brother: euen God prede∣stinated Iacob therefore, that his elder brother should serue him, because he foresaw his future good workes.

Paul doth alike speake of both:* 1.8 While the children were yet vnborne, when they had done neither good nor euill, that the purpose of God might stand sure according to election, not of workes but of the caller it was said: The elder shall serue the yonger. These words Augustine weighing, expressely wri∣teth in the foresaid place: that Esau was reiected for no de∣sert because both he was vnborne, and also had done nothing, no not in the foreknowledge of his future euill will: because so Iacob also had been approued by the foreknowledge of his fu∣ture good will, and in vaine it should bee said, Not of workes. The same things he writeth ad Laur. cap. 98.

The obiection that the Apostle moueth:* 1.9 Is there there∣fore vnrighteousnes with God? and the answere to that obie∣ction, and also the parable of the potter, of his owne power and will making vessels to honour, and vessels to dishonour, fully confirme our opinion: that as wee can assigne no o∣ther reason of the election of the one, so of the reiection of the other, but because it so pleaseth God, for the manifesta∣tion of his mercie or iudgement.

Hereunto may be added the case of innumerable children without the Church, who are preuented with death,* 1.10 before they haue the iudgement of reason, and cannot bee iustly re∣proued for the neglect of helping grace. If such as dissent from vs be asked concerning these, whether they thinke that none of them doe perish, they dare not I suppose denie: If they perish, they are reckoned among those whom God hath reiected: yet he could foresee in them no contempt of grace, seeing they should not haue it, yea he foreknew rather that they should not contemne grace.

Neither doth that deuice any thing helpe them, that God

saw what they would doe if they had recouered. For God in punishing and pardoning respecteth not what any man would doe, but what good or euill he hath done in his body. Thus it is manifest, that the reprobation of the vngodly, no lesse than the election of the Saints dependeth vpon the on∣ly will of God, and not vpon the foreseene good or euill wils of men.

Neither is it materiall, that some persons defame this do∣ctrine by this or that name, and endeuour to make it odious. It is the doctrine of the Scriptures, and defended by Augu∣stine constantly as we see,* 1.11 according to the Scriptures. As al∣so by Hilarie, Prosper, Primasius, and others, who long agoe well perceiued the naughtines of the Pelagian spirit. Pros∣pers words out of his epistle to Augustine of the remnants of Pelagian heresie, are: That according to Gods purpose before the world, there was made a difference betweene them that were to bee elected, and reiected, and that some were created vessels of honor, and others vessels of dishonor, according to the good pleasure of the creator. And againe he saith: that God according to the purpose and counsell of his owne will, in his secret iudgement, but yet in a manifest worke, made one vessell to honour, another to dishonour: whereas no man is iustified but by grace, and no man is borne but in sinne. And this (saith he) they of necessitie graunt that confesse that all good merits are preuented by grace, and by it haue this free gift, that they might be.

* 1.12Neither is the doctrine any other of the Master of Senten∣ces, as they call him: for he saith, He chose whom it pleased him, of his free mercie, not because they would be faithfull, but that they might be faithfull. So also he reprobated whom he would, not for future merits, which he foresaw, yet in most vpright trueth, and beyond our vnderstanding. The same o∣pinion Thomas Aquinas, and other Schoolemen of no ob∣scure account doe follow, and doe confirme it with strong reasons.

Looke also Luthers iudgement in his booke of seruile will, where, vpon the place of Malachie hee boldlie writeth these

wordes: Eternall and vnchangeable is the loue of God,* 1.13 eternall is the hatred of God towards men, before the world was made, not onely before the merite and worke of frewill. And he mani∣festly reiecteth it as a fained thing, that God should bee said to hate them while they were yet vnborne because hee foreknewe, that they would commit things worthy of hatred.* 1.14 Neither is this anie hindrance, saith he, because we reade that the Iews for the merits of their vnbeliefe were cut off from the oliue tree, and that the Gentiles were graffed in by faith. We knowe that men by faith are ingraffed, and by infidelity cut off, and that they are to be exhorted to beleene leaest they be cut off.* 1.15 But we dispute not what followeth beleeuers or vnbeleeuers, but by what merite, by what helpe doe men attaine to faith, whereby they are ingraffed, or to vnbelief whereby they are cut off. This merite Paul describing vnto vs teacheth, that by no worke of ours, but by the onely loue & hatred of God it commeth to passe. All these words are Luthers.

The same man afterward vpon the similitude of the potter and claie, answering the cauill, that this potter (as Erasmus in his Diatribe did interperet) maketh a vessell, to dishonour through precedent merits, as he reiected the Iewes for vnbe∣liefe, and receiued the Gentils for their faith: If God (saith he,) do thus, why murmure they, and find themselues grieued? why saie they, wherefore doth he complaine? who shall resist his will?* 1.16 what neede had Paul to represse them? further, where is the power that the potter hath to do what he will, if being subiect to merites and lawes, he is not suffered to doe what he will? for the respect of merites fighteth with the power and libertie to doe what he will, &c.

Therefore what vnreasonable dealing is it? and what enuie against the truth, to cast in our teeth Caluinisme, because we auouch, that neither the righteousnes nor maliciousnes of men, but the secret will of God is the cause why grace pluck∣eth some out of the common destruction, whereunto we are all subiect by nature, and doth not plucke others? If this be Caluinisme, what shall be done to Luther, to saie nothing of the auncient writers?

Yet it is to be obserued, that we doe not maintaine, as our aduersaries spitefully doe imagine of vs:* 1.17 That no man is con∣demned for sinnes or vnbeliefe as the foregoing cause. We teach the contrary, and our men with one consent haue al∣waies taught, that God taketh punishment of none, and no man shalbe damned of him, but for sin. For punishment hath no place but in respect of sin.

Moreouer this is also true: That as God damneth not anie but sinners, and such as deserue damnation for sins, so also he hath not decreed to damne anie but for sin. For whatsoeuer God doth in his time, also he determined frō euerlasting to do after the very same way, as it is done. Therefore because he damneth the reprobates, and wil damne them for sins, doubt∣les he also decreed from euerlasting to damne them for sins. And from hence againe the deprauing of our doctrine by the aduersaries appeareth, when they faine that wee teach, that God without respect of sin,* 1.18 of his sole and absolute will, hath ap∣pointed some men to damnation. Yea Gods decree is of the condemnation of sinners onely, and that for sins.

But seeing wee bee all sinners, and worthy of damnation, why God hath predestinated these men to bestowe vpon them freely glory, and hath predestinated others to bee puni∣shed in his iust iudgement for sins, hereof wee haue no cause to alleage, beside the alone, and that free and iust wil of God. Th•• very thing is meant by the distinction that some make,* 1.19 betweene the decree of predestination, whereof there is no cause but the will of God, and the execution of the decree, the cause whereof be the sins of such as shal be damned. From the meaning of which distinction, that which Thomas writeth, doth not disagree:* 1.20 That the prescience of sinnes may be called some reason of reprobation in respect of the punishment, which is prepared for the reprobates, to wit in as much as God purpo∣seth to punish the wicked for sins, which they haue of th••selues and not of God.* 1.21 And according to Richard, (as Eckius repor∣teth.) The merites of men are the reason of reprobation, in* 1.22 re∣spect of that which is notorious, which is temporall bardening, and future damnation: but (saith he) there is no reason, to wit,

in man, of the preordination vnto that damnation.

Caluin respecting the same thing,* 1.23 graunteth that the next cause of reprobation is, that wee are all accursed in Adam, by natiue corruption, which is dispersed throughout all mankind, which is sufficient vnto damnation. As Esau (saith hee,) was worthily reiected, because naturally hee was the child of wrath: yet Paul auoucheth that without respect of anie fault or vice, his condition was worse than his brothers, that we may learne to rest in the naked and simple good pleasure of God. What neede many wordes? whom God hath reprobated, therefore he hath reprobated because he would. But he hath reprobated, that is, foreordained to inflict iust punishment for sinne. As Augu∣stine also is rightly vnderstood when he saith,* 1.24 that God maketh some vessels of wrath according to merite, (for naturally we are all the children of wrath) & others vessels of mercie according to grace.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. hom. in Io. 38 & epist. 106
• * 1.2

  The cause of reprobation, is the will and good pleasure of God, and not foreseene vnbeleefe, or sinnes.
• * 1.3

  The 1. reason. Rom. 8. Ephes. 2.
• * 1.4

  1. Cor. 4.
• * 1.5

  Marke this. Aug. ad Simpl. lib. 1.
• * 1.6

  The 2. reason.
• * 1.7

  Aug. ad Simpl. lib. 1.
• * 1.8

  The 3. reason.
• * 1.9

  The 4. reason. Rom. 9.
• * 1.10

  The 5. reason.
• * 1.11

  Augustine and many other writers, auouch and maintaine this doctrine of reprobatiō.
• * 1.12

  Lib. 1. dist. 4••. Thom. part. 1. q. 23. & in 9. ad Rom.
• * 1.13

  Luther. de ser∣uo arbis.
• * 1.14

  Rom. 11.
• * 1.15

  The very poynt of the contro∣uersie of pre∣destination.
• * 1.16

  Marke this wel
• * 1.17

  The slaunders of Hub. thes. 350. Zanch de nat. De••fol 669. Visi. admon. Neost. pag. 113. Bez. resp. 2. ad Col. Momp. fol. 223.
• * 1.18

  Note. God decreed to condemne none but for sinne.
• * 1.19

  The decree of predestination, and the execu∣tion of that decree.
• * 1.20

  Expos in 9. ad Rom.
• * 1.21

  Ec••••us in Chry∣sopass.
• * 1.22

  Quantum ad connotatum.
• * 1.23

  Comment in ••. ad Rom.
• * 1.24

  Cont. duas epist. Pela. li. 1. c. 20.