Commentary on Romans, Chapter 9 (2 of 5)
But not as though the word of God hath fallen away. For not all they which are of Iſraell are Iſraelits: nether are they all children which are the ſede of Abraham: but in Iſaake ſhall thy ſeede be called. That is: Not they which are the children of the fleſh are the children of God: but they which are the children of the promiſe are counted for the ſeede. For thys is a word of promiſe. In thys ſame time will I come, and Sara ſhall hauehave a ſonne. And not onlye thys, but alſo Rebecka, when ſhe had conceyued by one, euen by our father Iſaake. For the children being not yet borne and when they had done neither good nor euill (that y• purpoſe of God might remaine according to election not by workes, but by him that calleth) It was ſayd vntounto her, The elder ſhall ſerue the younger, As it is written, Iacob hauehave I loued▪ and Eſau hauehave I hated.
But not as though the worde of God hath fallen away.] Thoſe thynges which Paul had ſpoken in the commendation of the Iewes, ſemed (as Chriſoſtome ſayth) to hauehave aggrauated the queſtion. For the Iewes were offended, for that they being adopted into the people of God, and hauing the Law geuen vnthem, and endewed with promiſes ſhould be reiected, and in theyr places ſhould be put the Gentiles, which had bene alwayes aleants from God, without adoption, without the Law, and without any promiſe at all of Chriſt. And thys offence had now ſo much increaſed amongeſt thē, that they ſayd, that that Chriſt whome Paul preached was not the true Meſſias promiſed of God. Paul conſidering theſe things with him ſelfe, erneſtly lamēted that the Iewes were reiected. But leſt any man ſhould thinke, that he ſo lamented, as though he thought that the promiſes of God were made voyde, therfore he now both defēdeth himſelfe, and the promiſes. I doo not (ſayth he) therefore ſpeake theſe thinges, or am therefore ſo erneſtly ſorry, for that I thinke that the worde of God is fallen away, for I know that his promiſes are conſtant and firme, although theſe men periſh. I bewa…e indede theyr caſe: but yet not ſo, that I thinke that the league and couenantThe cauſe of the griefe of Paul. with God made with the children of Abraham is violated. For although the Iewes being blinded refuſe the Goſple, yet the promiſes of God abide conſtant. But that which moueth me thus to bewayle my nation, is this, for that when as I know that vntounto that nation were made the promiſes, and do ſe that ſo many of them do periſh, now I perceaue that that ſaluatiō promiſed pertayneth only to a few: for which thing doubtles I am excedingly ſorry.
For not all they vvhichwhich are of Iſraell, are Iſraelites: neither are they all children, vvhichwhich are the ſede of Abrahā: but in Iſaake ſhall thy ſede be called.] That theſe thinges may the playnlier be vnderſtanded, this we ought to know, that the Apoſtle toke this as a thing moſt manifeſtly knowen by the holy ſcriptures, that the promiſe touching Chriſt and euerlaſting ſaluatiō, was made vntounto y• Iewes: vntounto the Iewes (I ſay) that is, vntounto the poſterity of Abraham which ſhould beThe cauſe of ſaluation commeth not of carnall procreation. borne of his fleſh: but yet that naturall procreation from Abraham was not the cauſe of ſaluation, and of receauing Chriſt. For if that had bene the cauſe, then coulde none iſſuyng from him hauehave bene fruſtrated of the promiſe of God. But that ſome were fruſtrated, the Apoſtle declareth in Iſmaell and Eſau: which although as touching carnall propagation they came of Abraham, yet they fell away from the promiſe. Wherefore the promiſe (as we ſayd) was geuen vntounto the carnall poſterity of Abraham: although that earthly generatiō was not theWorks and carnall propagation ar not cauſes of ſaluation cauſe that the promiſe ſhould …e of efficacy, and take place in all. Paul remoueth away two thinges whiche he will in no wiſe to be the cauſes of the promiſes: namely, carnall propagation, & workes. What ſhall thē be the cauſe of the promiſe? Verely nothing elſe, but the electiō and purpoſe of God. To remoue awayElection is the cauſe of ſaluation. theſe two thinges, Paul vſeth the oracles of God, and mencioneth the examples of Iſmael and Eſau. And as touching Iſaak whom God preferred before Iſmael, it is written in the boke of Geneſis. But there are two places touching Iacob, the one is in Geneſis, and the other in the prophet Malachie. There are alſo moreouer promiſes of y• calling of ye Gentiles: but therof is not at this preſent entreated. That ſhall afterward be handled in his due place, where it ſhalbe declared, that the Iewes being repulſed, the Gentiles are ſubſtituted in theyr places: andThe promiſe was made to the ſtocke of Abraham indefinitely. the ſame ſhalbe confirmed by many teſtimonies of the ſcriptures. Now is entreated only of the promiſe made to the ſtock of Abrahā. And the Apoſtle ſayth, that the promiſe indede was made indefinitlye: but yet not to eueryevery one that ſhould come of that bloud. Wherefore the promiſe muſt needes pertayne to the ſede elected: whereunto many are annexed by the propagation of the fleſh, in whome the promiſe taketh no effect. It is indede offred vntounto all: but it is not fulfilled in all. For euen as the common welth of the Iſraelites was by the mercy of God ſeioyned from other nations: ſo y• by y• ſelfe ſame mercy of God ſome of the Iſraelites were elected to be pertakers of the promiſe of God, which pertained not to all men vniuerſally. Hereby we may know, that many of the Iewes by reaſon of that promiſe ſhoulde receaue Chriſt, and attayne vntounto ſaluation. For the promiſe of God can by no meanes fayle. And for that cauſe the Apoſtle before ſo much extolled his nation, for that he ſaw that y• promiſe of God ſhould yet hauehave place in it. Neither is that any let, that y• greater part was at y• time blinded: for the oracles of the prophetes foretold, that that thing ſhould come to paſſe: who declared that the indefinite promiſe of God is by the hidden purpoſe of God contracted to a few. They which thinke, that theſe thinges pertayne to the Gentiles, referre the promiſe vntounto them: as though they were truely made Iſraelites, and the ſede of Abraham: eſpecially ſeing that Paul ſayth in the. 3. chapiter to the Galathians: Thoſe which are of fayth, are the ſonnes of Abraham: and when as alſo Iohn Baptiſt ſayth in the Goſple, God is able of theſe ſtones to raiſe vp children to A…raham. We indede deny not but that the Gentiles are tranſferred to the nobility of y• Hebrues: but foraſmuch as that cōmeth not vntounto them by naturall propagation, as it did to the Iſraelites, they belong not to Abrahā as touching the fleſh, but only by ſpirite and faith pertaine vntounto him. Wherfore we are grafted, adopted, and planted into that ſtocke. All theſe thinges are true but Paul entreateth not of them in this place. This thing only his entent is to declare, that in Iſraell iſſueng from Abraham as touching the fleſhe▪ lieth ſtill hidden ſome ſede of the election, and that ſome remnantes thereof ſhall at the laſt be ſaued. But of the Gentiles he will afterward in dew place inteate. In the meane time he defendeth the promiſes of God, that they ſhould not ſeme vnconſtant and vnſtable, when as ſo few of the Iewes were ſaued by Chriſt.
For not all they which are of Iſrael, are Iſrael: neither all they which are of the ſede of Abrahā, are children. But in Iſaac ſhal thy ſede be called. That is, not they which are the children of the fleſh are the childrē of God, but they which are the children of the promiſe are counted for the ſede.] Chriſostome in this place demaūdeth, what this Iſraell is, & what thing this ſede is. And this he noteth: that the children of the fleſh are not the children of God. Howbeit he denieth not but that they are the childrē of Abrahā. And he thinketh that the Apoſtle in this place calleth them the children of God, which are borne after the ſelfe ſame maner that Iſaack Iſaack borne of the promiſe.was borne. But he was procreated of the promiſe and worde of God. For the worde & promiſe of God framed and formed him in the wombe of his mother. And although the mothers wombe was vſed to procreation, yet foraſmuch as that was now dryed vp and barren, it could not be the cauſe of his procreation. So (ſaith he) the faythfull, when they are regenerated in Baptiſme, are by the worde and promiſe of God borne againe. And if thou wilt ſay, that the water alſo is therunto adioyned, we graunt it is ſo in deede: yet of it Regeneration is not to be attributed vntounto the water.ſelf it is a thyng cold and barren lyke the wombe of Sara. Wherfore whatſoeuer is done in Baptiſme, commeth wholy of the holy ghost and of the promiſe of God. It is well to be liked that Chriſoſtome attributeth not regeneration vntounto the water, but referreth it rather to the holy ghoſt, and to the worde of God. But there are two thinges which he auoucheth, which may not ſo eaſely be graunted. Firſt, that the ſcope of Paul is to contract the promiſes of God to the Gentles. For here as we hauehave ſaid, firſt is entreated of the Iewes: Secondly ſeing that the children of the Hebrewes were long time regenerate before Chriſt came, and had the promiſe of their ſaluation ſealed with circumciſion, no otherwiſe then we now hauehave by Baptiſme, what nede was there to contract regeneration only to baptiſme? Let vsus rather vnderſtand y• the promiſe was ſet forth indefinitely vntounto the people of Iſraell which as touching y• fleſh came of Abraham. Which promiſe was in the children of the Hebrues ſealed by circūciſion: wherfore that people was here before ſaid to hauehave had the couenauntes and promiſes. And Peter in the Actes of the Apoſtles calleth the Hebrues, The chilldren of the couenauntes, for that the promiſes of God were (as we hauehave ſaid) ſet forth vntounto them generally, although they toke not effect in them all. After this maner are to be vnderſtanded many places in the Prophets, whereIn what maner many oracles in the Prophetes concerning the people of Iſrael are to be vnderſtanded. the people of Iſraell is indefinitely called the people of God, although in very dede many of them were aliantes from God. Eſay hath: I hauehave nouriſhed and exalted children: but they hauehave deſpiſed me. And in Ezechiell God ſaith: That the children of Iſraell are his children: namely, by reaſon of this promiſe generally publiſhed amongſt them, and confirmed by circumciſion and many other ceremonies and rites. Howbeit foraſmuch as many of them fell away from piety and from ſaluation, it was very plaine, that not all they were the children of God, or the ſéede of Abraham, vntounto whom the promiſes were by election due. Wherfore when Paul ſaith: That not all they which are of Iſraell, are Iſraell, by Iſrael in the ſecond place, he vnderſtandeth that ſéede whereunto is adioyned election, and by children, and by the children of God, and by the children of the promiſe he vnderſtandeth thoſe, vntounto whō the perfection of ye promiſe was by the purpoſe of God cōtracteth. He bringeth the firſte example of Iſaack and Iſmael, out of the 21. chapiter of Geneſis: where Abraham is commaunded to caſte forthe the handemayden and her ſonne: as Sara had requeſted▪ For in Iſaack (ſaith he) ſhall thy ſeede be called▪ That is, that promiſeThe generall promiſe is by electiō …ontracted to ſome perticuler men which I hauehave made to thy ſéede, ſhall by electiō be performed in Iſaack, neither ſhall pertaine to thine other ſonne Iſmael. This place declareth, that that which was before promiſed generally, is by the hidden election of God contracted to certaine perticuler men. The other oracle touching this ſelfe ſame matter is extant in the 18. chap. of Geneſis: In that tyme will I come, and Sara ſhall hauehave a ſonne. This thing God promiſed, when he was entertained of Abraham vnderunder y• oke of Mambra. Iſmael was nowe borne, yet God promiſed vntounto Abraham perticularly thatA ſimilitude. he ſhould hauehave a ſonne of Sara, in whom ſhould be certainly performed the promiſe which before ſemed to hang vncertaine. As if a father hauing many childrē, ſhould be promiſed, that it ſhould come to paſſe, that in his ſtocke he ſhould hauehave a kyngdome, he ſhould not ſtreight way perceiue, which of thoſe children ſhould be exaltedElection or purpoſe directeth the promiſes. Election is not repugnaunt vntounto the promiſe. to that dignitie: but that appointing ſhould conſiſt onelyonly in election. Paul here by ſheweth that the hidden purpoſe of God moderateth and contracteth that which was promiſed generally. Not as though the election of God is repugnant vntounto the promiſe, yea rather it performeth & accompliſhethit, but yet in theſe in whom it is decréed to be performed. Neither ought we to thinke, that the election of God is bound to naturall procreation. And when the Apoſtle maketh mencion of the children of the fleſh, and of the children of the promiſe, by children of the fleſh he vnderſtandeth thoſe, which hauehave in them nothing ſinguler or excellent, beſides the generation of the fleſh, which came vntounto them from the holy Patriarkes. And the children of promiſe he calleth thoſe, vntounto whome the promiſe is now by election appointed.From a perticuler propoſition he aſcendeth to a generall propoſition. And in this example of Eſau and Iſmael, this is to be noted, that the Apoſtle from a perticuler propoſition aſcendeth to a generall propoſition, that by ſuch ſinguler factes he mought gather the order and maner of the election of God. Here are we admoniſhed neuer to ſtep backe frō the faith of the word of God, although theſe thinges which are in it intreated, ſéeme to ouerreache humane reaſon and iudgement, or to be made void. Doubtles there ſhould at that time moſt of all hauehave bene great doubt, when as the promiſes made vntounto the nation of the Iewes were now publikely extant: but on the other ſide there were none in the whole world which more reſiſted Chriſt, or with more cruel furiouſnes repelled his Goſpel, then did that nation. And yet notwithſtanding the Apoſtle with an inuincible faith perſiſteth: and (as we hauehave now declared) comforteth himſelfe touching the promiſe of God. After the ſame maner commeth it to paſſe, touching the children of the faithfull. We hauehave a promiſe, that God is not onelyonly our God, but alſo the God of ourWe baptiſe infantes vnderunder the faith of the indefinite promiſe. Againſt the Anabaptiſtes. ſéede: which promiſe being indefinite, is by the hidden election of GOD applied vntounto infantes: not in déede alwayes to all, but to ſome certaine, as it ſhall ſéeme good vntounto the purpoſe of God. Which purpoſe being hidden from vsus, and we being bounde to follow the outward worde which is commended vntounto the Church, vnderunder that promiſe we baptiſe our infantes, euen as the Elders circumciſed theirs. This facte the Anabaptiſtes reproue, for that wee are not any thing aſſured either of the ſpirite, or of the faith, or of the election of theſe infants. But we nothing paſſe vponupon that, only we hauehave a reſpect vntounto the worde of God, which is offred vntounto vsus in the generall and indefinite promiſe. But the execution therof we commit vntounto God, when as we cannot iudge of his election. But let them on the other ſide aunſwer vsus, by what reaſon they baptiſe thoſe that are of full age, when as it is vncertaine whether they pertaine to election or no, and whether y• thinges which they ſay they beleue and profeſſe, be truly ſaid, and whether with a ſincere minde they come vntounto Chriſt or no. Here they can anſwer nothing, but that they follow the confeſſion of that faith, which they that are of full age make before the church, when they come to be baptiſed. But foraſmuch as by y• confeſſion they may eaſely be deceiued, neither do they certainly know any thing either of their mind or of the election of God, there is no cauſe why they ſhould accuſe vsus. For it is euen ſo with vsus in infantes, which are offred vntounto the church to be baptiſed, as it is with them in thoſe that are of full age.
And not only this, but alſo Rebecka, when ſhe had conceaued by one, euen by our father Iſaack, For the children being not yet borne, and when they had done neither good nor euill.] VntoUnto the example which he before brought of Iſaack and Iſmaell, he now addeth an other of Iacob and Eſau: and that not without great cauſe: for men mought hauehave ſuſpected, that there had bene a diuerſity in Iſaack and Iſmaell: for that one was the ſonne of an handmayden, and the other of a frée woman, when as no ſuch thing could be pretended in Iacob and Eſau. For they had one and the ſelfe ſame father, and one and the ſelfe ſame mother, they were brethern which came both out of one bely, and alſo twines conceaued in one and the ſame houre. Wherefore as touching nature or procreation of the fleſh, there could be put no difference at all betwene them. Wherefore ſeing that the one of them was reiected of God, and the other elected, it is of neceſſity, that the ſame be attributed wholy vntounto the will and election of God, as to a higher ground and principle, whereby are ſeuered thoſe which hauehave one and the ſame nature of carnall generation. And by this ſecond example alſo Paul aſcendethWorkes & propagation of the fleſhe are remoued away in the latter example. higher, neither remoueth he away only carnall generation from the cauſe of the efficacy of the promiſe of God, but alſo workes. For he ſayth, that thoſe infantes were not yet brought forth to light, neither had done either good or euill: neither were they therefore ſeperated the one from the other, that the one ſhould be reiected, the other elected, that the one ſhould be loued of God, and the other hated. Of theſe two thinges the Hebrues were accuſtomed continually to boaſt, as of thinges moſt excellent, namely, nobility of bloud, & holynes of workes. The one of thē Paul had now before remoued away: now alſo he remoueth away workes.
When they were not yet borne, neither had done any good or euill.] The Apoſtle entendeth in this place to ſet forth certayne thinges, from which humane reaſon excedingly abhorreth: for firſt he ſayth, that the mere goodnes and clemēcy of God is the ground of election. Which thing men, for that they to muchTwo things here entreated of▪ from which humane reaſō excedingly abhorreth. delight in themſelues & to much louelove themſelues, do not eaſely graunt. For they would rather appoint the groundes of their ſaluation in themſelues, and not gladly committe the ſame wholy vntounto God. Farther he ſayth, that this liberality and mercy of God is vtterly frée from all lawes, ſo that it is bound to no man, but that it fréely either reiecteth or electeth whom it will. Here alſo is our reaſon excedingly offended for vntounto men it ſéemeth equity, that ſeing all men are of a like eſtate and condition, God ſhould alſo hauehave towardes all men a like and equall inclination, for, that (they ſay) longeth to iuſtice. Wherefore they ſeme couertly to accuſeOur ſoules liued not before they were ioined to the bodies. God as an accepter of perſons. Farther by theſe wordes of the Apoſtle is condemned their error, which thought that our ſoules, either ſinned, or liued iuſtly, before they were thruſt into the bodyes: for if it were ſo, then had not the Apoſtle ſayde rightly, before they had done either good or euill. Of that opinion was Origen thorough to muche following the doctrine of Plato, Wherefore we muſte holde, that our ſoules had no being before they were ioyned vntounto the bodyes. For they could not hauehave liued idely: and if they had done any thing, the ſame doubtles ſhould hauehave bene either iuſt or vniuſt: and ſo they had done either ſome good or ſome euill. But they which thinke, that God in his election followeth workes foreſene, deny, that they are by theſe ſentences of the Apoſtle confuted. For in that Paul ſayth, that God elected the one of theſe, and reiected the other before they were borne: that they ſay is to be referred to the ſingular ſharpenes of the ſight of God, which ſéeeth thoſe things which ſhall come to paſſe long time before they hauehave their being. But the Apoſtle when as he ſtraight way addeth, that the election ſhould abide according to purpoſe, ſemeth not to hauehave had a reſpect vntounto workes foreſene, but only to the ſingular will of God. But neither by this do they confeſſe themſelues to be confuted. They affirme that the election of God is gouerned by foreknowledge, wherebyAgainſt thē which think that election conſiſteth of works foreſene. when as he foreſéeth, what maner one eueryevery man ſhall be, ſo he either reiecteth or electeth eueryevery one. The ſelfe ſame thing alſo affirme they of the purpoſe of God that it ought to be iuſt: and therefore ought to be moderated by the foreknowledge of workes: and that for that cauſe it is called purpoſe, becauſe that that ſhall vndoubtly and immutably come to paſſe, which God foreſéeth. But if it were ſo as theſe men imagine, Paul ought then to hauehave ſayd, that vntounto workes and merites ſhould abide their dew honor, which yet he ſaith not, but oppoſeth vntounto them the election and purpoſe of God. And he expreſſedly addeth, Not of workes, and as it were euen of purpoſe denieth that which theſe men ſo earneſtly endeuor themſelues to obtrude, wherfore thus to thinke ſemeth to be nothing els then to ſwim againſt the ſtreame, and manifeſtly to fight againſt the purpoſe of the Apoſtle. For Paul, to the end that nothing ſhould want to confirme that which we ſay, namely that the election of God is the chief cauſe of our ſaluation, addeth.
But of him that calleth.] Whereby we vnderſtand, that our ſaluationThere ought not to be put in man any thyng that is good which ſhold moue the will of God to elect him wholy dependeth of him, which electeth and calleth vsus. And it is verye abſurde to ſet in man any thing ſo good, that can moue the will of God to elect vsus: for whatſoeuer good thing is in man, the ſame wholy procedeth from God, vnles we wil ſay, that there may be ſome thing that is good, which is not of God, which were to make of a creature a God. And if they graunt, that all good thinges which men either ſhall do, or can do, do proceede from God, then alſo doubtles muſt they nedes confeſſe and graunt, that God diſtributeth not theſe thinges raſhly, or by chaunce, or vnaduiſedly. But now if theſe things be deſtributedGod in no wiſe d…ſtributeth his gifte… raſhly. The things which God geueth vntounto vsus are not the cauſes of election. by the election and predeſtination of God, then can they not be y• cauſes of election, or of predeſtination. Farther the Apoſtle a litle afterward ſo referreth all things to the wil of God, y• he vtterly excludeth our wil, for he ſaith, I will hauehave mercy, on whome I will hauehave mercy, and will ſhew compaſsion, on whome I will ſhew compaſsion. Wherefore it is not either of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. And that we ſhould not take it ill, for that God after this maner dealeth with vsus, he vſeth a ſimilitude of the potter, which of one and the ſelfe ſame maſſe maketh one veſſel to honor, and an other to contumely: and he addeth, That the clay yet can not complayne of his maker. Moreouer it is a thing dangerous and not agreeable with a godly man, to aſſigne thatOur wil alſo is excluded from being the cauſe of the election of God. If this ſhould be put to be the cauſe of ſaluatiō ▪ neither ſo doutles ſhould humane reaſon be ſatiſfie…. to be the cauſe of the election of God, which is neither put of Paul, when yet he of purpoſe entreateth of that matter, neither is any where extant in all the whole ſcriptures. For, that is to imagine vntounto our ſelues that which ſemeth to be agreeable vntounto our reaſon: and beſides that, neither doubtles can thys imagination in all pointes ſatiſfy humane reaſon. For Auguſtine againſt the two epiſtles of the Pelagians in his 2. booke and 7. chapter, faineth two children to be borne of vngodly parentes and ſtrangers from Chriſt: both of them are caſt forthe and ſet to daunger of death. And the one of them in deede dieth: but the other being of ſomewhat more ſtronger nature is by a Chriſtian by chance comming by, preſerued, and brought to the Church, and baptiſed, and is with other of the faythfull made a partaker of Chriſt. Verely touching the ſaluation of the one childe, we hauehave nothing that we can certainly affirme: but of the other if the childe dye, we can ſkarſely put any doubt. And if the matter be ſo, we affirme that one of them was elected, and the other reiected. Wherevnto then had the election of God a regarde? Thou canſt not ſay vntounto workes foreſene, when as thoſe thinges which ſhall neuer come to paſſe, can not be foreſene. For the prouidence of God prouideth thoſe thinges which ſhall come to paſſe, and not thoſe thinges which ſhall not be: yea rather he forſeeth that thoſe thinges ſhall not come to paſſe. Wherefore we ſee that that deuiſe touching workes foreſeene can not in all caſes ſatiſfy humane reaſon. Wherefore we muſt rather beleue Paul, who leadeth vsus to the higheſt cauſe, namely, to the wyll of God: whereunto doubtles we do iniury, if we thinke that there is any cauſe aboue it. What ſhoulde we flye vntounto the workes of men, when asAll men are by nature of one and the ſelfe ſame diſpoſition and prones to euill. This opinion mak…th Paul very blockiſh & du… …itted▪ we all are of one & the ſelfe ſame nature, of one & the ſelfe ſame propriety, and of one and the ſame diſpoſition? For, that lompe of Adam, wherehence we are deriued is vitiated and corrupted, whereunto if peraduenture there be added any thing that is good, the ſame it hath of the mere and only goodnes of God. Farther they which ſo teach, ſeeme to make Paul very blockiſhe and dull witted, which could not ſee that which theſe men ſo eaſely vnderſtand. For he of the election of God bryngeth no other cauſe, but the purpoſe and wyll of God. And at the laſt alſo he crieth out, O the depth of the riches. &c. But theſe ſharp… witted men doo euen eaſely rid themſelues of this greated difficulty, euen (I ſay) by one pore word. Augustine being yet a prieſt, and newly baptiſed, expounding this place, although he ſaw that God could not hauehave a reſpect vntounto our workes to come as cauſes of predeſtination, wherby he embraſeth vsus, yet he thought fayth foreſene to be the cauſe of his louelove towardes vsus. And of this his ſentence as touching ether part he bringeth this reaſon: It is certayne that good workes are deriued into vsus from the holy ghoſt (for thorough him God worketh all in all, and the ſame God geueth vntounto vsus the holy ghoſt) Wherefore▪ good workes (ſayth he) foraſmuch as they procede from God, cā not any thing moue to his electiō or predeſtinatiō. But he thought that God had a reſpect vntounto our fayth, and electeth them, whome he foreſéeth ſhould beleue, for that he thought that fayth is of our ſelues. For although we rede (ſayth he) that God worketh all in all, yet we rede not, that God beleueth all in all. WherforeAuguſtine erred whileſt he was yet a prieſ…. he thought it is of our ſelues to beleue: but to work wel, he thought to come of God. Theſe thinges wrote he being yet rude following as it ſhould appeare to me, the doctrine of his father Ambroſe. For he vponupon this ſelfe ſame place teacheth, the ſelfe ſame thing: namely, that God electeth them whome he knoweth ſhall afterward beleue. But Auguſtine when his iudgement was now thoroughAuguſtine reuoked his error. age & excerciſe more ripe and of deeper conſideratiō, reuoked this ſentence, as it is euident by his firſt boke of Retractations the. 33. chapiter, in which place he thus writeth of him ſelfe. Theſe things had I not writtē, if that I had vnderſtode that Faith is no leſſe the gift of God then good workes.fayth is no les the gift of God, then good workes. And that fayth is geuen of God, he gathereth by that which is written to the Epheſians in the 6. chapiter: Charitye and fayth from God the father, and from our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. And in the ſame epiſtle the 2. chapiter: By grace ye are made ſafe thorough faith, & that not of your ſelues: For it is the gift of God, not of workes, lest any man ſhould boaſt. And vntounto Timothe I obteyned (ſayth he) mercy that I might be faithfull: but he ſaith not, for that I was faith full. To this purpoſe mought be brought a greate many other ſentences: but for this preſent I thought theſe ſhould ſuffice. And as touching the wordes of Paul, Purpoſe & electiō, why they are attributed vntounto God.no man ought to wonder, that the Apoſtle, when he ſpeaketh of theſe things, at tributeth vntounto God, purpoſe and election. For the holy ſcriptures eueryevery where frame themſelues to our infirmity, and ſpeake vntounto men after the maner of men. By thoſe wordes we vnderſtand the conſtancy and immutability of the will of God. For euen as men are wont as touching thinges whiche they hauehave raſhly appoynted, afterward, when they hauehave better conſidered the matter, to alter them, but thoſe thinges which they hauehave decréed with good conſideration and deliberation they will hauehave to be firme and to continew, ſo alſo thinke they of God. For that cauſe Paul calleth his will, purpoſe and electiō. An oracle was geuen to Rebecka, That the elder of theſe two brethern ſhould ſerue the yonger: for ſhe had aſked counſell of God, what the brethern ſtriuinge together in her wombe ſignified. By this oracle we ſe, that it is God which putteth a differenceGod putteth a difference betwene thoſe y• are borne betwene thoſe which are borne, when as otherwiſe by nature they are equall. And promiſes made to this or that ſtocke, and to this or that poſterity ſignifie nothing elſe, but, y• of that ſtocke or poſterity ſhall ſome be elected: but who they be, it lieth not in vsus to iudge. We ought rather to hauehave a reſpect vntounto the effects, and whom we ſe to be called, to beleue, to geue themſelues to good works, thoſeForaſmuch as prebeſtination is a thing h…dden, vntounto what thinges we ought to hauehave a reſpect. A ſimilitude. to count for elect, and alwayes in this matter to hauehave a regard vntounto the commaundementes and vntounto the promiſes, that is, vntounto the outward word of God. But concerning the hidden counſell of God as touching eueryevery perticular man, we hauehave nothing reueled vntounto vsus. But Chriſoſtome ſemeth to be againſt this. Firſt …e ſayth, That there aroſe greate offence touching the reiection of the Iewes, and the election of the Gentiles: eſpecially ſeing that the Gentiles had alwayes bene vncleane: but the Iewes had moſte playne promiſes. For it is all one (ſayth he) as if the ſonne of a king, vntounto whome the kingdome ſemeth to be by inheritaunce due, ſhould be reiected, and in his place ſhould be put ſome vile man taken out of the common people, and but newly deliuered out of priſon Which kinde of fact doubtles would cauſe greate offence to riſe. For if any man would finde fault that the kinges ſonne is therfore reiected, for that he had behaued himſelfe ill, he would ſay, that there ought in his place to hauehave bene put one better then he, and not one as wicked, and as ill as he. Wherefore ſeing the Gentiles were no better then the Iewes▪ they ought both of them to hauehave bene in like ſort ether puniſhed or aduanced. And that the Gentils were as great ſinners as the Iewes, & therfore were vnworthy of the kingdom of God, it is by that euident, which was before ſpoken in the firſt chapter, and moreouer in the third, All hauehave ſinned and want the glory of God: and it is wonderfully to be meruayled at, that God would promiſe that thing vntounto the Iewes, which he would not performe. For, man indede, foraſmuch as he i… ignorant of thinges to come, if ſometimes he change his minde, may after a ſort be excuſed: but it is not ſo of God: when as be moſt plainlye forſeeth all thinges that ſhall come to paſſe, whatſoeuer they be. How Note the methode & interpretatiō of Chriſoſtome.(ſayth he) doth Paul diſsolue theſe thinges? Th… he now addeth, to declare, who is the true Iſraell, vntounto whome are made the promiſes. And his minde is vtterly, that thoſe thinges which are here ſpoken of Paul, pertayne to the calling of the Gentiles: for that they are the true Iſraell. Farther he ſayth, that the diſſolution of the queſtion herein conſiſteth, that the Gentiles came vntounto Chriſt thorough fayth: but the Iewes reſiſted fayth, & reiected the goſpel, being bēt only to the workes of the law. And this he ſayth we muſt not thinke to come thorough Gods default, when as his will is that al men ſhould be ſaued. Howbeit he plainly confeſſeth, that Paul ſayth not ſo. For he thinketh that he diſſolueth not the queſtion, but only increaſeth the difficulty: as he had done in the 5 chapiter, when he entended to proue, y• the rightouſnes of Chriſt ſaueth vsus: and that (he ſayth) ſemeth farre from the truth, that the righteouſnes of Chriſt ſhould redound vntounto vsus. Wherefore he ſhould hauehave proued this, which yet he did not: but rather thus wrote, If we be cōtaminated thorough the ſinne of one mā Adam, how ſhall we not be made cleane thorough the righteouſnes of one man Chriſt? Here (ſayth he) is brought an other doubt, how the ſinne of Adam could hurt vsus: which doubt yet is not diſſolued of Paul. But, that he thus left theſe queſtions vndiſcuſſed, he thinketh is for this cauſe done, for that Paul would euen at the firſt brunt ſtop the mouthe of the Iewes agaynſt whome be then had to doo. Theſe examples (ſayth he) which he bringeth, he of purpoſe diſcuſseth not: but only ſeketh this, to make his owne matter more perſpicuous vntounto thē. As if he ſhould hauehave ſayd: doth this (O ye Hebrues) offend you, for that ye ſe your ſelues reiected, & the Gentils brought to the kingdome of God? do ye not ſe, that the ſelfe ſame thing hapned in your patriarkes alſo, for they were reiected, vntounto whō pertayned the inheritāce. For God waiteth not for the ſucces, but ſtreight way ſeeth this man to be good, & that man to be euill. And touching the ſelfe ſame matter, when as in the time of Moſes, they were all obnoxious vntounto deth by reaſō of the idolatry which they had cōmitted in the golden calfe, yet notwithſtanding ſome of thē were puniſhed, and other ſome were by the mercy of God preſerued. I hauehave mercy (ſayth God) one whome I hauehave mercy: and I ſhew compaſsion, on whome I ſhew compaſſion. Pharao was ſtirred vp, that in him the power of God mought be declared, but why was …e more then other ſtirred vp? What, for diſobedience and obſtinacy? As though others alſo were not as diſobediente and as obſtinate as he. And ſeing that the promiſes ſeme to be made vntounto the Iſraelites, and they had now ſo increaſed, that they were in nomber as the ſand of the ſea, why only ſhall the remnātes be ſaued? All theſe questions (ſayth he) Paul moueth: but yet he diſolueth them not. For neyther is it expedient that thou ſhouldeſt to quickelye diſsolue thy queſtion, when as thyne aduerſarye ſticketh in the ſame myre. For it is labor loſte, that thou ſhouldeſt take all the paynes, when as thyne aduerſarye ſhoulde take as muche paynes as thy ſelfe. Which thing if thou ſhouldest attempt, thine aduerſary would triumphe, as though he had in his question put thee to the foyle. Diſsolue first (ſaith he) O thou Hebrew, theſe ſelfe ſame questions which I hauehave put forth vntounto thee out of the law. Which if thou canſt not do, why then triumphest thou ouer me, as though thou haddest gotten the victorye? Wherfore Chriſoſtomes minde is, that theſe thinges are of Paul put forth in that maner as we hauehave ſaid: but he afterward diſſolueth them, when he ſaith, that the Gentiles were therfore grafted in, for that they came through faith: and y• Iewes were reiected, for that they caſting away faith, did put their confidence onelyonly in workes. He addeth moreouer, That God knoweth all thinges before they are done, and forſeeth who ſhall be good, and who euill, and therfore we must stande to his iudgement▪ neither muſte we enquire of him reaſons of his election. But the iudgementes of men are oftentimes deceaued: and therefore we ſee, that thoſe oftentimes are greeuouſlye puniſhed of God, whome otherwiſe we thinke to be of the beſte kinde of men, and thoſe whome we abhorre as the worſt kinde of men, are oftentimes crowned of him: He knoweth and ſeeth the hartes of all men, we conſider onelyonly outward ſignes, and follow the iudgement of other men. Of this thinge God hath no neede: for he ſeeth the cauſes of thinges: wherefore we muſt content our ſelues with hys iudgement. Theſe wordes of Chriſoſtome may not be vniuerſally allowed, for they conteine many thinges whiche are ſtraunge fromThe words of Chriſoſtome before alleged, are exami…ed. The things that are here ſpoken pertaineth not to the calling of the Gentils. We muſt not faine vntounto Paul that which he neuer ſpake. Paul in this ſelfe ſame …hap. diſſolueth the queſtiō which he dyd put forth. Paul proued that we are defiled by the ſinne of Adā. y• ſcope of Paul. Firſt, this diſſenteth, that he draweth thoſe thinges, which are here ſpoken of Paul, to the calling of the Gentiles: ſecondly, that he affirmeth, that God electeth thoſe whome he knoweth ſhall beleue: whiche ſentence we hauehave before at large confuted. Farther why preſumeth he himſelfe to aſſigne a cauſe of the election of God, which he plainly confeſſeth is no where put of Paul? But how it is true that God willeth that all men ſhoulde be ſaued, we hauehave in other places declared, neither is it needefull now to repeate the ſame againe. This only now I lay, that that propoſition is not altogether ſo ſimplye to be vnderſtanded. Farther, this alſo is not true, which he taketh as a ground, when he ſaith, that Paul in this place diſſolueth not the queſtion which he did put forth▪ For Paul moſt plainely ſayth, that the election of God is the cauſe of our ſaluation. And of the election of God he putteth none other cauſe, but the purpoſe of God, and his mere louelove, and good will towards vsus. Neither is he any thinge holpen by that ſimilitude whiche he bringeth out of the fiueth chapter of this Epiſtle. For there Paul ſayth, that it is not abſurd to ſay, that we in ſuch ſort hauehave the fruicion of the righteouſnes of Chriſt, that by it we are iuſtified, foraſmuch as by the offence and diſſobedience of one man many are condemned. This (ſayth he) he ought to hauehave proued, that we are infected by the ſinne that we hauehave drawen from Adam, which yet he did not, but left it vndiſſolued. Yea rather Paul proued, that we are pertakers of that corruption, euen by this, that we die. And they die alſo whiche hauehave not ſinned after the likenes of the tranſgreſſion of Adam. Wherefore by death, as by the effect he ſufficiently proued original ſinne. For in y• Paul afterward ſayth (when he entreateth of the calling ofThat the Gentiles by fayth ca… vntounto Chriſt, is not the cauſe of predeſtinatiō, but the effect. God g…ue…h not faith vntounto his r…ſhly, but of pu… poſe. the Gentils, and of the reiecting of the Iewes) that the Gentils came by faith, but the Iewes ſought ſaluation by the works of the law, he putteth not that as a cauſe but onelyonly as an effect of predeſtination. For it may ſtraightwaye be demaunded, wherhence the Gentils had theyr fayth. And if they had it of God, as doubtles they had, why did God geue it vntounto them? Surelye for no other cauſe, but becauſe he would. Wherfore let vsus leue thoſe thinges as not agreable with the wordes of the Apoſtle, and this rather let vsus conſider, how the Apoſtle in this place confuteth iij.The Maniches confuted of Paul. errors. Firſt, he ſtoppeth the mouth of the Manichies, which attributed much vntounto the houre of the natiuitie: as though we ſhould by the power of the ſtarres iudge of the life, death and other chaunces that happen vntounto men. For Paul ſayth: that Iacob and Eſau were borne both at one time, in whome yet we ſee that in theyrThe Pelagi…s confuted. whole life was great diuerſitie. He confuteth alſo the Pelagians, which taught that the will is ſo frée, that eueryevery one is according to his merites foreſene of God: which error is alſo in other places confuted of Paul by moſt ſtrong reaſons. For to the Epheſians he ſaith: Which hath elected vsus in him before the conſtitucion of the world, that we ſhould be holy. He ſaith not, that he elected vsus, for that we were holy, but that we ſhould be holy. And vntounto Titus: He hath ſaued vsus, not by the woorkes of righteouſneſſe which we hauehave done, but according to his mercy. And to Timothe: Which hath called vsus by his holy calling, not according to our woorkes, but according to his purpoſe and grace, which is geuen vntounto vsus in Chriſt Ieſus before the times of the world. By which wordes we ſee, that the election of God conſiſteth of Grace, whiche we hauehave had from eternally. Farther, by theſe woordes of Paul is alſo confuted Origen as we hauehave ſayde.Origene cō futed. For Paul ſaith that theſe two had done neither good, nor euell.
The elder ſhall ſerue the younger.] This ſeemeth to be a temporall promiſe.What is the ground…ele of earthly promiſes But we hauehave before oftentimes admoniſhed, that the foundation and groundſell of theſe earthly promiſes is the promiſe touching Chriſt, and touching the obteynement of ſaluation through him. And this maye hereby be gathered: for if we hauehave a reſpecte vntounto the principallitie of the firſt birth, we ſhall not finde that Iacob atteined to it. For he neuer bare dominion ouer his brother Eſau ſo longe as he liued: yea rather when he returned out of Meſopotamia he came humblye vntounto him, and deſired that he mought obteyne mercy at his handes, and it vndoubtedlyIacob had the poſſeſſiō of the firſt birth, not in himſelf, but in his poſterity. ſeemeth, that Eſau was farre mightier then he. Althoughe touching the poſteritie of eche it is not to be doubted, but that the promiſe tooke place. For in the time of Dauid and of Salomon, the Iewes obteined the dominiō ouer the Edumites. If theſe thinges be well applied to the purpoſe of the Apoſtle, then muſte it needes be that that they be vnderſtanded of the promiſe of Chriſt, and of eternall felicity. For this is it that Paul endeuoreth, that it ſhoulde not ſéeme to be againſte the promiſe of God▪ that few of the Iewes are receaued vntounto the Goſpell, ſéeing that the greateſt part of them were excluded. And when he had brought this teſtimony of Iacob and Eſau, that the elder ſhould ſerue the yonger, of that oracle he bringeth this reaſon, that the election mought abide according to purpoſe. Which thinge for that it ſéemed hard vntounto humane reaſon, he confirmeth by an oracle of Malachy.
As it is written: Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hated.] This ſentence of Scripture which is here cited is the reaſon and cauſe of the other ſentenceThe latter oracle is cauſe of the firſt. A place of Malachie declared. which he before alleadged: namely, That the elder ſhould ſerue the yonger: Which is herebye confirmed for that it is written: Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hated. Theſe wordes are written in Malachy aboute the beginning of the firſt chapter in which place God thus vpbraydeth vntounto the people their ingratitude: I hauehave loued you. And they are ſayd thus to hauehave anſwered: Wherein hast thou loued vsus? Thē ſayth the Lord, Iacob and Eſau were they not brethern? And yet hauehave I loued Iacob, & hated Eſau. And this he hereby proueth, for that they beinge bretherne, yet he preferred Iacob before Eſau. And vntounto Eſau he gaue a waſte and ſolitary land, & ſuffered not the Edumites to be deliuered from theyr captiuitie: yea rather he threateneth, that if they ſhould enterpriſe to reedifie theyr countrey being ouerthrowen, he would then deſtroy it. But vntounto the Iſraelites he gaue a good & fertile land: who if peraduēture they ſhould for theyr ſins be led away into captiuitie, yet he promiſedFrom the louelove of God commeth eternall lyfe: and frō h…s hatred eternal deſtruction. y• he would bring thē home again, & fully reſtore again vntounto thē theyr old kingdom. But theſe things foraſmuch as they are earthly, we do not at this preſēt meddle wt. This thing onelyonly I thinke is diligently to be weighed, y• of the louelove of God cōmeth eternall life, and from his hatred eternall deſtruction. Some in this place with great curioſity enquire touching Iſmaell and Eſau, whether they be faued, or whether they be condemned. And the like ſome do, touching Salomon, Origen and others ſuch like. But I omitte theſe thinges, and thinke of Eſau and Iſmaell, ſo much onelyonly as the holy ſcripture hath ſet forth vntounto vsus. And I think that there areWhat is to be thought of Eſau. no places extant, by which we may define any thing touching their ſaluation? The ſcripture thus ſpeaketh of Eſau, that he ſo vehemently hated his brother, that he ſought to kill him, that he ſold his birth right, that he prouoked h… …arentes to anger, when he had take ſtrange women for wiues: that he was a violent man, and deſpiſed the land of Chanaan promiſed vntounto the fathers: and in the epiſtle to the Hebrues it is written, that he although he poured out many teares, yet found he no place of repentance. Of Iſmaell alſo we reade, that he was reiected not onlyWhat is to be thought of their ſtocke. by the will of Sara, but alſo by the will of God. But touching both their poſterities, I deny not, but that ſome of them mought be ſaued, no les then ſome of the ſtocke of Iacob might become runnagates and obſtinate. For it is ſufficient to the election and reiection of God, that ſome part of ech ſtocke be either elected or reiected. And touching this ſentence I hauehave Ambroſe on my ſide: who affirmeth that the moſt holy man Iob was of ye famely of Eſau. Which ſaying yet how much it is to be regarded I know not. This thing only I dare affirme, y• as many as were ſaued that came of Iſraell, thoſe were ſaued by the grace of God: and had a promiſe of their ſaluation: and on the other ſide, as many as were ſaued of the ſtocke of Eſau, thoſe alſo were ſaued by the mere grace of God, but there was no peculiar promiſe touching their ſaluation. But as many as were of that ſtocke condemed,Indefinite promiſes at not to be vnderſtanded of eueryevery one perticulerly they were condemned for their ſinnes. And the ſentence of the reiection of the poſterity of Eſau is indefinite, neither is to be vnderſtanded of eueryevery one perticularly. But it may ſéeme more then wonderfull, that God in his election worketh not only contrary to our iudgement, but alſo contrary to his own lawes. For not only after the mauer of men the firſt borne are preferred before the reſt of the brethern, but alſo by the preſcript of the lawe of God they were holy, and obtayned a dooble portion of the inheritance. But God therefore ſo doth, that we ſhouldGod doth thinges contrary to his lawes. vnderſtand that we are ſaued only by grace, and not through any priuiledges or conditions of this life: and moreouer to geue vsus to vnderſtand that he is vtterly free from all lawes. For his will is euen iuſtice it ſelfe, and the rule of all thinges that are vpright and iuſt. But becauſe men can not attayne to the knowledge of of this hidden election, therefore we ought to frame our ſelues to the lawes of of God, which are publiſhed abroade and ſet forth to all men. For Iſaack circumciſed his ſonne Eſau as God had commaunded him: neither was he greatly carefull whether he were elected of God, or reiected: for he was then vtterly ignorant of the counſaile of God. But the mother, for that ſhe had hard the oracle gaue faith vntounto it, as it became her, and had a care that the bleſſing mought be diſtributed according to the will of God: And ſo by her induſtry it came to paſſe, that Iacob preuented his brother of the bleſſing. Touching which will, when the father alſo was by the ſpirite of God made more certayne, he would by no meanes make voide that which had now paſſed betwene him and Iacob. Paul mought now ſeme to hauehave thoroughly defended the truth of the promiſes of God, when as after the example of Iſmaell and Iſaack, which were borne of diuers parentes and at diuers tymes, he with ſo great diligence bringeth in alſo an other coople of bretheren, Iacob and Eſau, in whome all thinges in a maner were equall. For they were borne both of one and the ſelfe ſame parentes, and in one and the ſelfe ſame day, and as Augustine ſaith in his epiſtle to Sixtus, both conceaued at one and the ſelfe ſame time: leaſt any man mought cauell, that the father was better when he begat the one, then he was when he begat the other. And the mother which bare them both was one and the ſelfe ſame woman. And although ſhe myght in that ſpace of time whileſt ſhe was with child, alter her maners and diſpoſition, yet that could not in ſuch ſort profit the one, to be a let vntounto the other. Although by the Greke it appeareth not, that they were both conceaued at one and the ſelfe ſame tyme. Howbeit this is red, That Rebecka had fellowſhip by one, euen by our father Iſaack. But Auguſtine followed the latine tranſlation. Farther it is not vnlikely to be true, y• they which were borne in one and the ſelfe ſame tyme, were alſo begotten atone & the ſelfe ſame tyme: eſpecially ſeing that the Apoſtle in this place endeuorethThe induſtry of y• holye ghoſt in Paul. in this coople of twynes vtterly to take away all maner of differences. In Paul alſo is to be conſidered the induſtry of the holy ghoſt: who when he had affirmed out of the holy ſcriptures, that of theſe two brethern the one was elected, the other reiected, bringeth no other reaſon or cauſe of the counſell of God, but that election ſhould abide according to purpoſe. But becauſe he ſaw, that this would in no caſe ſatiſfy humane reaſon, therefore he confirmed his ſentence by an oracle of Malach. who ſtraight way at the the beginning of his firſt chapiter, thus writeth: The Lord hath loued you: And ye hauehave ſayd, wherein hath the Lord loued vsus? And the Prophet maketh anſwere, Iacob and Eſau were they not brethern? But I hauehave loued Iacob and hauehave hated Eſau. Wherefore with Malachy, to louelove, is all one wyth that which Paul hath, That the Election of God ſhoulde abide according to purpoſe. Neither is this to be paſſed ouer, that the Apoſtle in thus ioyning together theſePaul moſt diligently red the ſcriptures. two teſtimonies declareth, that he had not negligently red the ſcriptures. Wherfore we alſo muſt endeuor our ſelues to do the like, when as we ſhall ſee places of the ſcriptures alleadged either of the Apoſtles, or of other writers. Paul, when he red the Prophet Malachy and ſaw that God proueth his louelove towardes the Iewes, by that, that he had loued Iacob and hated Eſau, when yet notwithſtanding they were brethern and twines, ſtraight way turned himſelfe to the hiſtory of Geneſis, and there conſidered many thinges, which mought conduce to adorne and amplifye this matter: namelye, that they were borne bothe at one and the ſame time, and of one and the ſelfe ſame parentes: and that the oracle was geuen when they were yet in the wombe, neither had yet done either any good or any euill. And peyſing theſe thinges he conſidered that that which the Prophet had ſpoken more briefely, mought be of him not without great profit and edification dilated: ſo alſo is it profitable for vsus to do, namely, diligently to waigh the places of the ſcriptures which are ſometimes cited of the Apoſtles The Prophetes were (as we hauehave oftentimes ſaid) interpreters of the bokes ofThe Prophets interpreters of Moſes. Moſes. They preached repentance, not only agrauating ſinnes, but alſo ſetting forth the promiſes of the Goſpell concerning grace. Which thinges Malachy in this place did excellently wel comprehend. Farther Paul moſt thoroughly ſaw, that of the louelove of God, and of that oracle which was geuen vntounto the mother touching the infantes, was aſſigned no cauſe thorough works or merits. Theſe thinges I ſay mought ſuffice as touching this place, but that there is yet one doubt remayning to be diſſolued. For Eraſmus in hys booke which he wrote de Libero Arbitrio, for that he ſaw that theſe places which we hauehave now made mencion of, make agaynſt hym, thus diſſolueth them: Firſt he ſayth y• anſwere was made vntounto Rebecka touching thinges temporall, that the elder ſhoulde ſerue the younger, and God may at his free wil & pleaſure cauſe, that a mā whether he will or no ſhall leade a pore life, and be a bond mā, whom yet he will not reiect from eternall ſaluatiō. Farther he addeth, that theſe teſtimonies, as Paul bringeth thē, are repugnāt ye one to ye other, whē yet in their places they are not ſo repugnant. Here doubtles is to be required in this mā not onelyonly prudēce butPaul faithfully alleageth y• holy ſcriptures & dalied no… in them. alſo plety. For it is not mete for a man to thinke, that Paul whē he layd the firſt foundations of Chriſtian religiō, did vnfaithfully cite the ſcriptures, or brought thoſe places for teſtimonies, which ſerued litle to the purpoſe. Paul dalied not in the holy ſcriptures, to make in his writings thoſe teſtimonies repugnāt, which in theyr owne places are not repugnante: for this were, as the blaſphemous cauiller, and vngodly Prophirius did, to abuſe the ſimplicity of the vnlerned. But if at any time we can not vnderſtand, how the teſtimonies which are cited of Paul and of other of the Apoſtles make to theyr purpoſe, why doo we not rather confeſſe our owne infirmity of vnderſtanding and negligence, whereby it commeth to paſſe, that we can not attayne to the exact contemplacion of thinges diuine? But whereas he ſayth that the oracle was geuen to Rebecka touchingWhether the queſtion be vnderſtanded touching thinges ſpirituall or temporall it is all one as touching the ſcope of Paul. thinges temporall, it nothing helpeth him, for yet ſtill the reaſon of Paul remayneth ſtrong. For foraſmuch as he concludeth that a man is made either a Lord or a bondman, a rich man, or a pore man, by theſe teſtimonies he inuinciblye proueth that that commeth not thorough any merites or workes of men. For thereto only had Paul a reſpect. Put the caſe, that the queſtion were moued, why by the election of God one is made a prince, an other a ſubiect, one is afflicted, an other fortunate: here doubtles, this is the thinge that is in controuerſy, whether theſe thinges are ſo ordred thorough the vertues and merites of men, or thorough the mere goodnes of God. Paul leueth no place at al to merites: yea rather he ſayth, that God had decreed that theſe thinges ſhould come to paſſe, before that they which ſhould doo them, were borne: and had appoynted that the one ſhould be a Lord, and the other a ſeruaunt, before that they coulde ether doo or thinke any thinge. Wherefore the queſtion is generally and vniuerſally put forth, and not only touching the maner of principality or ſeruitude. Wherfore whether thoſe be ſpirituall or temporall thinges, the ſcope which the Apoſtle entendeth is vtterly one and the ſame: namely, that they come without any our workes or merites. If a man ſhould alledge ſentences nothing pertayning to the purpoſe, euen amongſt the philoſophers he ſhould be laughed to ſkorne: how much les then ought we to impute any ſuch thing to Paul? But to make thée to vnderſtande that thoſe teſtimonies are moſte agreeyng to the matter propoſedThe oracle before cited, applied to the ſpiritual promiſe. I will declare that in them are contayned not only thinges temporall, but alſo and that chiefely, thinges ſpirituall. For foraſmuch as God promiſed that the greater people ſhould ſerue the leſſer, the ſame, vnles we will to farre ſtray out of the way, we ought to thinke ſhould therefore come to paſſe, for that the leſſer natiō ſhould be receaued of God into fauor, and ſhould become his people. For otherwiſe neither the leſſe people could ouercome the greater, nor the weaker the ſtronger. It is God only, which is the doer thereof, and vpholdeth that people whome he hathe decreed to be his. And where the people of God are, there follow infinite ſpirituall benefites: namely, the word of God, the heauenly bleſſing, the breathing of the holy ghoſt, remiſſion of ſinnes thorough Chriſt, and laſt of all eternall life. Let vsus conſider the hiſtorye it ſelfe as did Paul, and we ſhall perceaue that in the bleſſing of Iacob the things which his father Iſaake bleſſeth him withall, are chiefely ſpirituall: namely, that vntounto him ſhould be ſubiect not only his brethern, but alſo the Gentiles: which there is no man but ſeeth that it was accompliſhed in his ſede and yet not in all his ſede, but in it onelyonly, whicheThe bleſſings of the fathers are to be referred to Chriſt and to his members. was ſo long time, and ſo carefully waited for: which doubtles was Chriſt, whō at this day both the Iewes and y• Gentils worſhip. Thoſe that bleſſe thee (ſaith he) let them be bleſſed: and thoſe that curſe thee, let them be curſed. And theſe thinges are agreing vntounto Chriſt onelyonly and vntounto the elect. For whoſoeuer ſhall worſhip him, ſhalbe rewarded with eternall felicitie: and whoſoeuer is contumelious either againſt him, or againſt his members, ſhalbe obnoxious vntounto the eternall curſe and deſtruction. The ſelfe ſame thinges alſo are to be vnderſtanded in the oracle of Malachy. For if the poſteritie of Iacob ſhould be in good caſe, and the poſteritie of Eſau in yll, it is not enquired, whether God promiſeth thinges ſpirituall or temporall: but whether he would geue thoſe thinges vntounto them in conſideration of theyr workes and merites, or no. But that I am ſure thou ſhalt not finde in that whole prophet: Which thinge Paul alſo dilligētly peyſed: although theſe thinges are alſo to be referred vntounto ſpiritual matters. For how came it to paſſe that the pub. wealth of the Iſraelites was preſerued, that they had a commodious land …o dwell in, and that they were reſtored from the captiuity of Babilō? Doubtles by no other meanes, but for that they had God fauorable vntounto them. And God, as touching thoſe, whoſe God he will peculiarly be, prouideth for thē not only commodities in this life, for he is the God of the whole man, and hath no les care ouer the ſoule then he hath ouer the body, & that not only in this life, but alſo in this life to come: but let vsus peiſe the entent of Malachy. He reprouethGod prouideth for his not onelyonly things erthly but alſo eternall. the people of ingratitude towardes God: God (ſaith he) is your father, and Lorde: Howbeit ye neither louelove him, nor reuerence him, when yet he hath loued you. And that louelove he proueth by a double benefite of God towards them: firſt, for that he loued Iacob, and preferred him before Eſau, when yet notwithſtanding they were brethern and twines: ſecondly for that he gaue vntounto the one a ſertile and plentifull land to inhabite, but vntounto the other he gaue an vnfruitful and barren land: and for that he deliuered the one from theyr captiuity: but would hauehave the captiuity of the other to be perpetuall. So the louelove of God is proued by the effectes: but of that louelove is alledged no cauſe. I graunt indede, that the poſterity of Eſau were alwayes wicked men, and enemies vntounto the people of Iſraell, & although by affinity they were ioyned vntounto them, yet they were alwaies aduerſaries and enemies vntounto them. Some ſay alſo, that Mahumet came of that natiō: although there are others which referre his ſtock to the Iſmalites. Farther the earth alſoThe earth is by reaſon of ſinnes made barrē. is by reaſon of ſinnes made barren. Therfore Dauid ſayth. That for the ſins of the people the earth is turned into a wildernes, and is made of God vnfruit full. But neither Paul, nor the prophet deſcribe theſe thinges as cauſes of the louelove of God. Yea rather if we ſhould fayne any ſuch expoſition vntounto Malachie, his reprehenſion ſhould ſomewhat be extenuated. For when he vpbraydeth vntounto the people ingratitude, for that God had loued thē, they mought in one word hauehave made anſwere. Therefore hath he loued vsus, bycauſe we deſerued it: for he foreſaw that our workes ſhould be good: and for that cauſe he loued vsus. Wherefore much wayght is taken away from this reprehenſion, if we admitte this opinion. Many trouble theyr heddes about the hatred and louelove of God: and ſay that he neither loueth nor hateth, as we vſe to doo. Which thing in dede I graunt: for God loueth with out all maner of troubled affection: and loueth perpetually, for he is not changed: he hateth alſo without perturbation: and for that he is not mutable, he perpetually hateth thoſe whom he hateth. They ſay moreouer, that theſe thinges are to be conſidered by the effectes, ſo that God is ſayd to louelove him to whome he doth good: and to hate him whome he ouerpaſſeth, and leueth in ſinnes: and for his ſinnes which he hath committed afterward greuouſly puniſheth. Herein I will not contend with them: although in graunting thysGod in dede loueth, and in dede hateth. I alſo affirme wyth the holy ſcripture, that God truly and in dede loueth and hateth: and that thereof followe thoſe effectes, which we hauehave now mencioned. And bycauſe we can not by it ſelfe vnderſtand the force and might of the louelove & hatred of God, therfore we conſider thē by the effects: namely, ether by his gifts, or by his puniſhmēts. But the ground of y• queſtion is, whither y• louelove come of our merites, or fréely. The Apoſtle excludeth merites: other ſome fayne woorkesWhether God louelove or hate in reſpect of works fore ſene. foreſéene. Wherefore it ſhall not be amiſſe to recite theyr opinions, that we maye ſee how this is to be vnderſtanded, that God either hateth or loueth. Chriſostome thinketh, that God therefore loued Iacob, becauſe he was good: and reiected Eſau, becauſe he was euill. And if thou ſaye, that they, foraſmuche as they were not yet horne, had done neither good nor euill, he maketh aunſwere, that vntounto God if is not needefull to waite for the euent of thinges. For he by the moſt ſharpe ſighte of his foreknowledge ſeeth before all eternitie, what thinges ſhal afterward come to paſſe: and he alone knoweth truly, who ſhall be woorthy of his election, & who vnworthy. But here Chriſostome ſomewhat ſtrayeth from the truth, when hee ſaith,God findeth not in men an… worthines for which they ſhould be elected. that God findeth in men any woorthineſſe for which they ought to be elected. For what thing els is that: but, not onelyonly to diminiſhe, but alſo vtterly to take awaye euen the grounde of grace? For if of our ſelues we be worthy to be elected, verely the grace of GOD is not geuen vntounto vsus freely. Howbeit he confeſſeth, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh not this: for if he had made aunſwere, that Iacob was therefore elected, for that he was good, and Eſau reiected for that he was euil, he ſaith that the Iewes mought ſtraightway hauehave replied, if we be reiected for our wickednes, what were the Gentiles whiche are now receaued any better then we? This thinge alſo woulde they vtterly hauehave denied. For the Gentiles were infected with moſt gréeuous ſinnes: howbeit he ſayth, it moughte be graunted, that the Gentiles which were nowe called were good, for that they had receiued the ſaith of Chriſte: which the Iewes by all maner of meanes withſtoode. But Paul would not in ſuch ſorte make aunſwer, but referred the whole matter to the foreknowledge of God: againſt which doubtles (ſaith he) none that hath his righte wittes will ſtande. ForPaul reſolueth not the queſtion into the fore knowledgeof God, but into his wil by it God foreſeeth, who ſhalbe good, and who euill. But here againe he is far out of the waye. For Paul reſolueth not the queſtion into the foreknowledge of God, but into his will, mercy, and power. For he ſayth: that it is not of hym that willeth, nor of him that rūneth, but of God that hath mercy: & that he hath mercy on whom he will: and hardeneth whome he wyll: and laſtly, that the potter maye of one and the ſelfe ſame maſſe or lompe make one veſſell to honor, and an other to contumely. And to the Epheſians (he ſaith) that we are elected accordinge to the good pleaſure of his will. Chriſoſtome addeth, that when it is ſayd, that the elder ſhall ſerue the younger, thereby is ſhewed that the right and dignity of the firſt birth ſhould nothing profite hym, which came first out of the wombe, but the vertue which God foreſaw before workes. Here it is a harde matter to vnderſtand what manner a thinge that vertue is, whiche ſhould goe before works. For what doth he peraduēture thinke, y• theſe men are borne endued wt vertue? But there cā no ſuch thing be foūd in ye ſcriptures: for they teſtifie y• mē are borne ye children of wrath, & obnoxious vntounto ſinne. But as far as we can coniectureA mynde prone to good things is not in vsus by nature, but dependeth of god. by thoſe thinges which follow, he taketh vertue for a minde apte and prone to good thinges. But God cannot in election hauehave a regard vntounto any ſuch minde. For there is none that hath ſuch a mind by nature or proper vntounto himſelfe, but it vtterly dependeth of the grace and fauor of God. For, as it is written in the booke of Geneſis, All the imagination of mans hart is …uill. But becauſe he ſeeth that in the words of the Apoſtle is no mencion at all made of foreknowledge, it is a world to ſee, where hence in Gods name he picketh it out. That which Paul ſaith, That the election Chriſoſtom by purpoſe vnderſtandeth foreknowledge. What is the purpoſe of God. There is no differēce whether a man take works done or workes to be done. Againſt workes and merites.ſhould abide according to purpoſe, he thus interpretateth, That in that birth of twynes God mought declare his election according to purpoſe, that is, according to the foreknowledge of workes to come, which foreknowledge election followeth. But he ſhould hauehave proued, that purpoſe ſignifieth onelyonly foreknowledge. Which doubtles he can not doe: for it ſignifieth rather a deliberate ſentence and decrée of the minde. Neither doth thys any thing helpe hym, which is of ſome obiected, that Paul when he ſayth, Not of workes, excludeth workes alredy done, and not workes that ſhalbe done. As though forſooth there were any difference, whether they be done, or whether they be to be done. For when the Apoſtle had ſayd, that we are ſaued by grace, he added. If of grace, then not of workes, and if of woorkes, then not of grace. For theſe hauehave ſuche an Antitheſis or contrariety, the one to the other, as touchinge our election and ſaluation, that the one excludeth the other. Farther, when Paul had ſayde, Not of woorkes, he added, But of him that calleth, which word euen alone oughte to hauehave feared awaye men, from attributing ſo much to merites. But Chriſostom, and ſuch like as he is, alwayes ſay, that God electeth and calleth thoſe whome he knoweth ſhall beleue. Wherefore Chriſoſtome ſayth, Let no man obiect vntounto vsus the ſentence of the ſcripture, or continuall ſeruitude, when as God beholdeth, I ſay, not the outwarde parts, but alſo the inward worthines of the minde. Wherefore he ſaith, We must beleue the ſecrecy of the election of God, for that it is incomprehenſible. But althoughe we alſo confeſſe thatHow the ſecrecie of God is ſaid to be incomprehenſible. theſe ſecrecies are incomprehenſible, yet taketh he it, one waye, and we an other way: for he thinketh that that ſecrecie is to vsus incomprehenſible, for that we can not attaine to the knowledge of the worthines or vnworthines of thoſe which are reiected, or elected. But we refer that obſcurity to the order of the counſels of God, which counſels, as we beleue they are iuſt, and right, ſo alſo ſée we not the reaſōs & cauſes of that iuſtice: and thoſe cauſes we affirme oughte not in this matter of election to be conſidered by thinges here, but by the high and vnſpeakeable wiſedom of God. But Chriſoſtome, for that he leaneth to the worthines of the menne, whicheA ſimilitude of Chriſoſtome. worthines he ſaith we cannot conſider, but God vnderſtandeth right well, ſetteth forth an example of Mathew: who being a publicane, and excerciſing a moſte vile & vnhoneſt office, was yet not withſtandinge a precious ſtone drouned in durte or myre. Which God did not onelyonly eſteme, but alſo gathered vp, and poliſhed it with grace, and a great many giftes. Here he ſéemeth plainely to ſaye, that Mathew had that worthines of himſelf: for he ſayth that grace was afterward geuen vntounto him, and becauſe he would the plainelier expounde himſelfe, he addeth two ſimilitudes. The firſt is, of cōning lapidaries, which chooſe not out thoſe precious ſtones, which they ſee allowed of men ignoraunte and of the common people, but for that theyTwo ſimilitudes. hauehave a moſt ſkilfull ſight, they ſometimes take thoſe, which others reiecte. The ſecond is of ſuche as tame & breake horſes: which do not ſtraight way chooſe out thoſe coltes whiche the ruſticall people iudge to be beſte, but they hauehave certaine aſſured markes, which the common ſorte of men ſée not, wherebye they knowe, that thoſe horſes will be couragious and good, when they are better growen. So God elected the harlot, the thiefe, and the publicane, reiecting the high prieſtes, Scribes, & Phariſies, in whome the common people thought conſiſted al doctrine and holines. Oftentimes alſo in the church, thoſe which were highly eſteemed, and ſéemed to excel, when perſecution came, fell awaye: when in the meane time men abiecte and vile triumphed with the glory of martyrdome. Wherfore take not vponupon thee (ſaith he) of ſo great a woorkeman to enquire the cauſes, why this man is beloued, and that man reiected, why this man is crouned, and that man puniſhed. For if he loued Iacob, & hated Eſau, doubtles he did not that vniuſtly. But he requireth a noble harte, and a gratefull minde. For they which are ſuch, although they ſometimes fall into vices, yet they ſtreight way ſtep vp againe. And although they ſome longe while abide in ſinnes, yet God at the length deliuereth them. But they which are of a vitiate and corrupt mind, although they ſéeme ſometimes to ſhine with good workes, yet whatſoeuer they do, they wholy viciate it with the prauitie of theyr mind: and to declare this, he bringeth alſo examples. For Dauid was not of purpoſe or malice, but by the violence of the fleſh, and vehemency of luſte led to ſinne: and therefore was he forgeuē of God, and returned againe into the right way. But the phariſeyExamples of Chriſoſtome. for that he ſemed vntounto himſelf to abound in good works, by his boaſting & hipocriſy loſt al. This is ye ſum of y• which Chriſostom hath when he expoundeth how God loued Iacob, & hated Eſau. But how litle theſe things agrée with y• words of ye Confutatiō of the ſentence of ChriſoſtomApoſtle, although it may be vnderſtāded by thoſe things which are red in this cha. yet is it moſt of al manifeſt by y• which is had in ye 11. chap. of this epiſtle, where is deſcribed the anſwere which was made by God to Elias, That God had lefte vntounto himſelf ten M. mē, which had not bowed their knées before Baal: where Paul thus ſaith, The remnantes according to the election of grace ſhalbe made ſafe, not of workes: otherwyſe grace ſhould not be grace. In which wordes is to be marked the HebrewWhat is the election of grace. If election hange of workes. grace is not grace. phraſe, According to the election of grace. For it is all one as if it had bene ſayde, According to the gracious or free election. For in that tong the ſonne of perdition, is nothing els but the loſt ſonne. But that we ſhould vnderſtand that our election conſiſteth fréely, Paul ſo excludeth workes, that if they ſhould be receaued, he ſaith, Grace can no more be grace. And thus much touching Chriſoſtome. Now let vsus ſée what Ieromes minde is touching this matter. He in his 10. queſtion to Hedibia, The opiniō of Ierome.beginneth doubtles in my iudgement not very ſoūdly. For he ſaith, that this is a moſt obſcure place, when as otherwiſe in the wordes of the Apoſtle as touching the queſtion there is no ambiguity at all. But he and other ſuch like make the thing obſcure, whileſt they labour to eſchew more thē is nedeful the offence of humaneWe muſt not pretend any obſcurenes in this chapter. reaſon. For Paul, if a man hauehave a regard to the grammaticall ſence, if in any other place then moſte of all in this place obſerued both in his interrogation and anſwere, and proſpi…uous placing of his wordes, whatſoeuer mought ſeme requiſite. And ſhould be not a litle contumelius againſt the holy ghoſt, if he would of purpoſe hauehave ſo obſcured the doctrine concerning the principall ground of our ſaluation, ſo that we ſhould not be able to vnderſtand it. For in this place is entreatedHere is entreated of the chiefe promiſe of our ſaluatiō of a matter which is of all other of moſt waight, namely, to what thing we ought to attribute our ſaluation and election: whether to our workes foreſens or to the frée mercy of God. Ierome vſing this for his preface, turneth himſelfe afterward to reproue Origen, howbeit he leueth his name vnexpreſſed. For Origen labouring to iuſtify God, as touching the louelove of Iacob, and hatred of Eſau, which as yet had done neither good nor euil, ſayth, y• that came to paſſe by reaſon of thoſePlato & Pithagoras. things which their ſoules had done, before they came into their bodies. For of thoſe merites it cōmeth, y• mē in this life are of diuers eſtates. Theſe things Ierome worthely reproueth. For they pertain not to Chriſtian piety, but to the doctrine of Plato and of Pithagoras. For they fayned ſondry courſes, departures & returnes of the ſoules. Why do we not rather (ſaith Ierome) confeſſe our own ignorance. This ſentence as I commend, ſo alſo ſe I that it is not alwayes kept of him which ſpake it. For if he would hauehave bene content with a godly ignorance, he had not fained & imagined thoſe queſtions and ſuppoſitiōs of Paul, which in very déede are none at all. But he would not, that the Apoſtle ſhould ſeme to hauehave tought theſe thinges contrary to common ſence. For when Paul had ſaid, Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hated, and afterward had added, What is there iniquity wyth God? and had made anſwere,Ieromes diſcourſe vponupon this place. God forbid & proued by teſtemonies of the ſcriptures, that God tempereth and moderateth his election according to his wil, mercy, and power, Ierome ſought to bow and to wreſt thoſe thinges which Paul had moſt ſimply ſpoken, as if they were importunatly obiected vntounto Paul by way of interrogation: as though when Paul had anſwered, God forbid, the importunate caueler ſhould go on, and ſay, If God ſayd vntounto Moſes, I wyll hauehave mercy on whome I wyll hauehave mercy, and wyll ſhew compaſſion on whome I wyll ſhew compaſsion, then ſhall it not now be neither of hym that wylleth, nor of hym that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. And if he to thys ende rayſed vp Pharao to declare in him hys power, what could he then do wythall? And if we be as clay in the hand of the potter, why do we yet complayne? Who can reſiſt hys wyll? Shall there be nothing remayning of free wyll? Let Paul make anſwere to theſe impudent obiections: what art thou o man, which thus reaſoneſt wyth God? Euen by thyne owne malepertnes thou mayſt ſufficiently vnderſtand, that thou art not as clay in the hand of the potter. For the clay complayneth not of hys maker: but thou (I wyll not ſay greuouſly) complayneſt, but alſo powreſt out blaſphemy agaynſt the creator, and calleſt hym vniust: and euen in thys thou declareſt that thou haſt free wyll, when as thou ſpeakeſt what thou list, yea euen agaynſt God himſelfe. And if God woulde by his greate patience long ſuffer Pharao, and declare his mercy towardes others, he is not therefore to be accuſed of thee: the faulte is rather to be layde vppon the ſinnes of men. For euen as by one and the ſelfe ſame heate of the ſunne clay is made hard, and waxe made ſoft, ſo by one and the ſelfe ſame goodnes of God, ſome are made more obstinate, and other ſome returne to health. And therefore were the Gentles admitted into ſaluation, for that they receaued the fayth of Christ, and the Iewes were for ſaken and reiected, for that they reſiſted that fayth. Wherefore not the men themſelues, but theyr wylles are elected. Wherfore by theſe thinges it is euident, that Ierome alſo was of that mynde, that the election of God dependeth of the wyll and workes of men. And toward theAn interpretation of an author not named. end of this tenth queſtion, he ſayth, that he had red in a certaine author, whoſe name yet he kepeth in ſilence, that the Apoſtle doth not only not diſſolue the queſtion, but alſo maketh it more intricate by teſtimonies of the ſcriptures, and reproueth the curious inquiſitor after this maner. O man, what art thou? forſoth clay in the hand of the potter. Wherefore kepe downe this thy malepertnes with eternall ſilence, and be mindfull of the infirmity which is in man. As touchingThis queſtion cā not ſo be diſſolued to ſatiſfie humane reaſon. Ierome vponupon Malachy. y• diſſolution of the queſtion, if Ierome meane of that, wherin humane wiſdome may be ſatiſfied, we alſo do graunt, that the queſtion is not diſſolued: but if he ſpeake of that kind of ſolution, which ought to be ſufficient vntounto Chriſtian piety, and which may be had in this life, there is nothing wanting to this diſſolution. Of the ſelfe ſame matter Ierome vponupon Malachy, expounding the place which we are now in hand with writeth after this maner, The louelove and hatred of God is either of foreknowledge, or of workes. For, thoſe God loueth, whome he ſeeth to be haters of ſinne: and thoſe he hateth, whome he ſeeth wyll build vp thoſe thynges, which he wyll hauehave to be ouerthrowen. Finally he ſaith, that God is ſayde to louelove or to hate foreign ▪ that is, after the maner of men, euen as he is ſayde to be angry, to be ſory, to reioyce: and therefore is he ſayd to hate the wicked, that we ſhoulde eſchew thoſe thinges whiche we know he hateth, I know alſo that the Rabines of the Hebrues, and eſpecially Chimhi, when they expound this place of Malachy, do runne vntounto workes. But although in properties & phraſes of wordes, I iudge thoſe men worthy ſom what to be eſtemed, yet as touching the ſence of ſcripture and doctrine, I do not geue much credit vntounto them. For they are vtterly blinded: neither will they ſée Chriſt,Ierome againſt the Pelagians. Ierome praiſeth Auguſtine. which is the only ſcope of all the ſcriptures. But as touching Ierome, from thoſe things which he wrote in thoſe places, which we hauehave now aledged, I apeale vntounto thoſe which he learnedly & godly wrote againſt the Pelagians. For they thought y• our ſaluation dependeth of our workes & merites. He in the end of his third dialoge highly commendeth Augustine, neither any where els, y• I can remember of, ſpeaketh he more worthely of him. For he calleth him a man holy, and eloquent, and excellently commendeth his bookes againſt this hereſy: and eſpecially his booke of the baptiſme of infantes to Marcellienus, and to Hilarius, And he ſayth, that he would not in that diſputation procede any farther: for that either he ſhould ſpeake the ſelfe ſame things, that Augustine had before ſpoken, or els if he ſhould ſéeke to bring other thinges, ſeing Auguſtine had before brought better, he ſhould but loſe his labour. But in thoſe bookes, how much Auguſtine is againſt this ſētence, namely, that election dependeth of workes, eueryevery one that readeth them, may eaſely iudge. Farther he alleadgeth many thinges out of the ſcriptures, whereby is moſt euident and playne, that the ſtrength of our frée will is ſo broken, and weakned,Teſtimonies which Ierome bringeth againſt free will. that our ſaluation can by no meanes depend of it. Ioſeph (ſaith he) was led away into Egipt, and when beyng now captiue he was ſhut vp in priſon, the Iailer committed all thynges to hys power and fidelity. And thereof is rendred a cauſe, namely, for that the Lord was wyth hym. He interpretateth vntounto Pharao his dreames: he is exalted vntounto the dignity next vntounto the king: he fedeth hys father & brethren. Iacob goeth downe into Egipt: encreaſeth into a populous nation: hys poſterity is afterward brought forth out of Egipt: and all theſe thinges is God ſayd to hauehave brought to paſſe. Where then (ſayth Ierome) is the power of fre will? And Salomon ſayth, with all thy hart put thy cōfidence in God the Lord, but be not thou puffed vp in thine owne wiſdome. In all thy wayes acknowledge him, that he may make thy wayes right. By him are directed the waies of mā. And Paul ſaith, not that we are ſufficiēt to thinke any thing of our ſelues, as of our ſelues, but our ſufficiency is of God. And moreouer (ſayth he) dareſt thou ſtill glory in free will, and abuſe the benefites of God to the contumely of him that geueth thee them? and eſpecially ſeing that the ſelfe ſame veſſell of election agayne writeth, We hauehave this treaſour in veſſelles made of clay, that the aboundance of our ſtrength ſhould be of God, and not of our ſelues. And agayne, he which glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. And when then Lorde ſayth in the Goſpel, I am the vine, and ye are the braunches: he which abideth in me, and I in him, bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can do nothing: Agayne, No man can come vntounto me vnles my father ſhall draw him: by theſe wordes he breaketh the liberty of our will outrageous in pride. He addeth alſo, that this is to be marked, that he which is drawen is ſignified to hauehave bene before ſlowe, yea rather reſiſting and vnwillinge. And ſeing y• the matter…k ſo, how can the power of our will be ſo great, wherbyThe ſtrength of our free wil is not ſo great, that it coulde moue God to elect vsus. God could be moued to elect vsus? Vndoubtedly we cānot ſo much as imagine any ſuch power: when as how great ſo euer it be, we muſt always count to hauehave receiued it of y• grace of God. Now let vsus ſe what Origens mind is touching this matter. He beginneth in dede well, if he could hauehave continued ſtill in the ſame minde. For at the beginning he ſayth, That election is not of workes, but of the purpoſe of God, and of the good pleaſure of him that calleth. And vponupon the chapiter next going before, when he expoundeth this place of Paul, whome he foreknew, thoſe he predeſtinated, to be made like vntounto the image of his ſonne, he ſayth that foreknowledge can not be taken for a bare and ſimple knowledge: For God in his foreknowledge comprehendeth alſo the wicked, whome yet he predeſtinateth not, to be made like vntounto the image of his ſonne. Wherfore he ſaith, that that knowledge ſignifieth an effect and louelove, wherby God embraſeth ſome, as Paul ſayth to Timothe: The Lord knoweth who are his: whē yet notwithſtanding he knoweth alſo thoſe that be aleantes from him. So it is written that Chriſt knew not ſinne: when yet vndoubtedly he knew the nature of ſinne. But he is ſayd not to hauehave knowen it, bicauſe he allowed it not, neither at any time committed any ſinne. The leuites alſo which together with Moſes ſlew the Iſraelites that had played the Idolaters, are ſayd to hauehave knowen neither father nor mother, nor kinſfolkes, nor frendes, for that they were not drawen by any priuate affection, to ſpare them, or to abſteyne from killing of them. Wherfore whē Paul ſaith, whome he foreknew, thoſe alſo he predeſtinated he thus interpretateth it, that God predeſtinated thoſe whome be loued. Theſe things being thus well ſet, afterward he addeth vntounto them thinges clene contrary, making ſome kinde of proteſtation, as Ierome did, of the obſcurenes of the place. He alſo imagineth that the purpoſe of Paul was much like to this: namely, thatA ſimilitude of Orig…n…. he in this epiſtle to the Romanes, doth as a mā which wil lede about a ſtranger thorough a goodly large Palace of a king. For whileſt y• ſtrāger is led thorough diuers romes, and pa…lers, and chambers, it oftentimes commeth to paſſe, that he knoweth not neither which way he came in, nor which way to get out. This ſimilitude in dede ſome like very wel, but in my iudgement it is not to be liked. For, this he ſemeth plainly to ſignifie, that God hath commended vntounto vsus hys holy ſcriptures, as a Labirinth or maze, wherein we ſhould wāder. For neitherThe holy ſcriptures are not like a Labirinth or maſe. is therein this place any obſcurenes, but ſuch as is of theſe mens own deuiſing. Wherfore he ſayth, that when Paul had ſayd out of Malachie, Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hatred, he ſtreight way obiected vntounto him ſelfe: What then ſhall we ſay, is there iniquity with God? And made anſwer vntounto himſelfe, God forbid: which anſwere he thinketh is to be repeted, as often as the Apoſtle is aſked the queſtiō of the importunate and froward demaūder. For he imagineth, that one ſhould thus continue in queſtioning with Paul, If it was ſayd vntounto Moſes: I wil hauehave mercy, on whome I will hauehave mercy: and wil ſhew compaſſion, on whome I wil ſhew compaſſion, therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath compaſſion. Here he ſayth muſt be added, God forbid. Farther if it ſemed good to God to rayſe vp Pharao, to declare in him his power, therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, & hardeneth whom he wil. Why then do we ſtill complayne? For who can reſiſt his wil? Here againe he addeth, God forbid. He for no other cauſe, as I ſuppoſe, thus wreſteth ye text, butWhy this place is made ſo troubleſome of theſe fathers. Origene wrote a boke of free will. for y• he would not hauehave mans vnderſtanding to much offended, or free will impayred. But that this wreſted expoſitiō yet ſatiſfied hym not, it is manifeſt by y• which he alledgeth out of a boke of fre wil, which he ſaith he wrote, although y• boke be not at this day extāt. And in it he endeuoreth to interpretate theſe words as if they were the wordes of Paul himſelfe, and not of any other man aſking a queſtion: They hurt no more free will, ſayth he, then that which we rede in Dauid, Vnles the Lord build the houſe, they labour in vaine which build it. The builder in dede doth ſomwhat, for he is carefull, and laboreth: but God remoueth away the lets, and permitteth the worke to be accompliſhed. So will he hauehave that to be vnderſtanded, whiche is written vntounto the Corrinth. Neither he which watreth, nor he which planteth is anye thing, but God which geueth the encreaſe. Wherefore although we labor, yet it is God, which geueth perfection & accompliſhmēt to our labors. After this maner thinketh he, may aptly be expounded this ſentence: It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. But this cauillation Auguſtine (of whoſe iudgment as touching this matter I am) in a greate many places excellently well confuteth. For ſo (ſayth he) we may inuert the ſentence the other way, and thus ſay: It is not of God that hath mercy, but of man that willeth and runneth. But touching this matter we will ſpeake more at large in due place. Thus much we thought good at this preſent to reherſe, that thou moughteſt ſe that Origen hym ſelfe putteth no greate affiance in this his firſt interpretation: howbeit he goeth on in it, and thus repelleth that troubleſome and importunate inquiſitor: O man what art thou that anſwereſt vntounto God, and goeſt to Law with him? when as thou art as clay in the hand of the potter? Neither voucheſafeth he to make anye other anſwer to the troubleſome inquiſitor. For ſo he ſayth, Chriſt when he was demaunded, by what power he did thoſe thinges, would not make anſwere vntounto the Scribes. Whome doubtles he would hauehave aunſwered, if they had aſked the queſtion with a godly minde, and with a minde deſirous to learne. For ſo alſo a maſter, that hathe a malipert ſeruaunt, which neglecteth to doo the thinges which he is commaunded, and troubleſomely enquireth the cauſes of thoſe thinges which are commaunded him, would ſay vntounto him: What haſt thou to doo to enquire touching theſe thinges? I will hauehave it ſo, bycauſe it is my pleaſure ſo: When as otherwiſe he would make anſwere, if he were aſked the queſtion of a faythfull and an obedient ſeruaunt. Therefore God although he hid from many what he would do, yet reueled he his ſecretes vntounto Daniell a man deſirous of knowledge. So we alſo, if we be not raſh and importunate inquiſitors, may in the ſcriptures know the cauſes of the louelove and hatred of God towardes Iacob and Eſau: although to the malepert and importunate inquiſitors that anſwere which is here geuen of Paul ought to be ſufficient. And in the firſt epiſtle to Timothe it is written, That, In a greate houſe are veſſells, ſome of gold, ſome of ſiluer, ſome of clay: in this place that diſtinction of veſsells is not diſcribed. Thys thing only Paul ſayth, That the potter may of one and the ſelfe ſame maſſe make one veſsel to honour, and an other to contumely. But vntounto Timothe is geuen a cauſe of the diuerſity. For thus it is written: He wich ſhall purge himſelfe from theſe thinges ſhalbe a veſſell to honour ſanctified to God, and prepared to eueryevery good worke. Of which wordes we may inferre to the contrary. He which purgeth not himſelf, nor clenſeth him ſelfe ſhall be a veſſell Origene geueth a cauſe of the louelove of God towardes Iacob▪ and … his hatred towardes Eſau. The opiniō of Origene is cōfuted.to contumely. Lo (ſaith he) the cauſe which was not geuen vntounto the Romanes, is geuen vntounto Timothe. Wherefore Iacob was therefore beloued, bycauſe he had clenſed him ſelfe from ſinnes (for the ſcripture geueth teſtimony of hym, that he was a man ſimple, gentle, and obedyent to his parentes.) And Eſau was therefore hated, for that he had not purged him ſelf, but perſeuered in malice & in impiety. This expoſition of Origen conteyneth many things which are not to be allowed. Firſt for y• he perſiſteth not in thoſe thinges, which he had ſpoken at the beginning: namelye, that election conſiſteth not of woorkes, but of the purpoſe of God, and good pleaſure of him that calleth: Secondlye, for that he maketh darke thoſe thinges which in the Apoſtle are plaine and perſpicuous. Thirdly, for that in his booke of frée will he declareth that he followeth not the expoſition which he preſently bringeth, moreouer, for that he thinketh, that the Apoſtle in this place diſſolueth not y• queſtion, where he of purpoſe putteth it forth, and entreateth of it: but diſſolueth it in the Epiſtle to Timothy, where he onelyonly by the way toucheth that matter. Laſtly, for that out of thoſe wordes of the Apoſtle, he gathereth not a good ſolucion. For of that ſentence of Paul, He which purgeth himſelfe, ſhalbe a cleane veſsell, oughte not to be inferred, that a manne can by hys owne ſtrengthes purge hymſelfe, for that thinge doth God onelye and not we our ſelues: Neyther is that argument of force to proue our ſtrengthes and the libertye of our wyll, whyche is taken of a commaundemente or of an exhortacion. For God oftentymes commaundeth, and oftentimes exhorteth after this maner: If thou ſhalt do this or that, theſe, or thoſe thinges ſhall happen vntounto thée, to the ende we might vnderſtande our infirmity, and acknowledge, from whence thoſe things which are commaunded are to be ſought for. But to be clenſed and purged in ſuche ſorte as God geueth grace, cannot be the cauſe of election. Now wil I come to Ambroſe, who in a maner nothinge diſagréeth from theſe thinges: for he alſo will hauehave the purpoſe of God, to ſignifie foreknowledge. And when y• Apoſtle ſaith, That the election ſhould abide according to purpoſe, he peyſeth that word, ſhould abide, and thereof gathereth, that the foreknowlege of God cannot be deceaued: neither is it poſſible, but y• eueryevery thinge ſhall ſo come to paſſe, as God foreſéeth eueryevery thing ſhall come to paſſe: but he ſaith,What acception of perſons …. that God loueth, and hateth, as he that foreknoweth thinges to come, and not as an accepter of perſons: but doubtles God cannot be ſayd to accept perſons, for that we beleue he fréely loueth and hateth whome he wil, not by the foreknowledge of merites. For acception of perſons is, when contrary to iuſtice diſtributiue we hauehave aA ſimilitude. reſpect vntounto the conditions which make not a man worthy either of y• gifte which is diſtributed, or of the office which is committed to his charge: as if a biſhoppricke ſhould be geuen vntounto a man, bycauſe he is beawtifull, and of a tall ſtature, or for that he is a ſtout warrior, neglecting in the meane time other men more worthy and méete. But of this fault God cannot iuſtly be accuſed. For he findeth in vsus no perſons, or qualities, or conditions. For we come all equally of the corrupte Maſſe of Adam. Wherefore whatſoeuer afterward commeth either as touching giftes or worthines, the ſame we hauehave not of our ſelues, but of the goodnes of God. But to returne to Ambroſe, who thinketh that ſome are elected, for that God knoweth that they ſhall beleue, and others are reiected, for that he knoweth that they wil be enemies vntounto the truth. It appeareth alſo, that Augustine beinge yet rude, nor as a then a Biſhop, followed this ſentence of his father: Howbeit afterward when he had better examined the matter, he reuoked it. And Ambroſe minde is, that the louelove and hatred of God ſpringeth of faith or infidelitye foreſéene. Therefore he addeth, Wherefore God foreknowing, that they ſhould be endued wyth an euyll wyll, counted thē not in the nomber of the good: although Chriſt ſaid vntounto the. 72. diſciples whiche afterward fell awaye from hym, as it is written in the 6. chapter of Iohn, Reioyſe and be glad for your names are written in heauen. For they are ſayde to be written accordinge to a certayne preſent iustice, and not accordinge to foreknowledge: And God foraſmuche as he is a iust iudge, iudgeth according to preſent iustice, and not according to foreknowledge. Wherefore that which the Lorde ſayth to Moſes in Exodus the 23. chapter, If any man ſinne againſt me, I wyll blot him out of my booke, is ſo to be vnderſtanded, that according to the righteouſnes of the iudge he ſeemeth then to be blotted out when he ſinneth: but according to the foreknowledge of God he was neuer writen in the boke of life. For Iohn ſayth, they wente out from vsus, for that they were not of vsus, for if they had bene of vsus, they had doubtles abiden with vsus. Afterward Ambroſe defineth the foreknowledgeDefinitiō of the foreknowledge of God after Ambroſe. of God, and ſayth, that it is that, whereby God hath certainelye appoynted what manner of will eueryevery mans will ſhalbe, wherein he ſhall abide, and whereby he ſhall ether be condemned or crowned, wherefore there is no acceptation of perſons in the foreknowledge of God. And he ſaith, that it is poſsible, that they which ſhall be good to the end, become ſometimes euill: as it came to paſſe in Dauid: & contrariwyſe that they which ſhall at the last become euill: and ſhalbe condemned, yet notwithſtandinge ſometimes ſeeme good: as Saul, Iudas, Salomon, and Ioas, as long as Ioiada the priest liued. We ſée that Ambroſe in this his ſentence was brought to that pointe, that to auoyde the acceptacion of perſons, he referred the election of God to the foreknowledge of workes, leaſt God ſhould ſéeme vniuſt. But we hauehave already declared, that the equitye andThe iuſtice and equitye of God is not here put in any danger. iuſtice of God is nothing put in daunger, if we rightly vnderſtande, wherein conſiſteth the fault of the acception of perſons. But amongſt the new writers, Phocius, whoſe ſentence is rehearſed amongſt the Gréeke Scholies, by purpoſe, vnderſtā deth (as other do) foreknowledge of woorkes: and thereof he affirmeth ſpringeth election: when as by it is put a difference betwene men. But election cannot be vnles there be put ſome difference in thoſe things which ought to be elected. But weElection cā not be but when there is differēce of thinges. The difference of things to be lected, is not taken of the nature of the thinges themſelues, but of the purpoſe of God ſay, that this difference is not to be conſidered by the thinges themſelues which are elected, but by the ſondrye purpoſe of God towardes them. For whatſoeuer good thing is founde in men, the ſame commeth from the méere mercye and goodnes of God. Neither can God foreknow that any thing ſhal come to paſſe, but that which he willeth to be. For, foraſmuche as all thinges that are hauehave by his will that that they be, whatſoeuer he foreknoweth ſhalbe, it is of neceſſitye y• he willeth the ſame to be. Wherfore God found no difference in men, but he himſelfe putteth differēce in thē. The ſame Phocius addeth, Although there were no other reaſon of the election of God, but his will, yet ought we therewithal to be contēt: But there is an other, namely, his foreknowledge of workes. But we hauehave alredy declared what deceiued this mā: namely, for that he thinketh, y• the difference, which muſt of neceſſity be in election, is alwayes taken of the thinges that are to be elected: when oftentimes they come of the méere will of him that electeth. But nowe will I come to Augustine, who in his queſtions to Simplicianus in his firſt booke and 2. queſtion at large entreateth of this matter. He demaundeth in that place, why the mercye of God, which was preſent with Iacob, was wanting in Eſau. And he maketh anſwere, that it cannot be ſayd, becauſe that the one ſhould beleue, & the other ſhould not beleue: for that fayth it ſelf is the gift of God: which thing others alſo (ſayth he) do confeſſe: but therfore they ſay, the one beleued, for that he woulde receaue that when it was offred, and y• other beleued not, for that he would not receaue it. But this aunſwere is not ſufficient. For then mought eueryevery man aſcribe his faithOur faith is not an effect of our will. to his owne will, and thus ſay: Therfore hauehave I beleued, for that I woulde. And by that meanes he ſhould hauehave, wherof he might glory, and the grace of God and our fayth ſhould be of workes. Farther vntounto the Phillippiās Paul writeth, that it is God which worketh in vsus both to will and to performe according to his good will. Wherefore no man can hauehave a will to beleue, vnles God geue vntounto him that will. MoreouerA good wil is the gift of God. it ſhould then not be of God that hath mercye, but of man that willeth & runneth. And it is meruaile (ſayth Augustine) if theſe men were demaunded, whether a good will be the gift of God, if they durſt deny it: but peraduenture they wil ſay, God in vayne hath mercy, if man will not: Which is imprudently ſpoken. For eueryevery man hath a will, vponupon whome God hath mercy. But if thou demaunde what maketh in vsus this good wil, we anſwer, the calling of God. But that ſéemeth to beThe calling of God of two ſortes. againſt this which we reade in ye Goſpel, That many are called, but fewe are elected. That ſhould not be true, if calling ſhould hauehave that force to chaunge the will. Here we ſay that the calling of God is of two ſortes: the one is common, whereby men in déede are after a ſorte ſtirred vp, but they are not bowed. For that thoſe thinges which are offred pleaſe them not: but the other is a conuenient, apte, and mightye calling, whereby the mindes are touched, and trulye chaunged. After this manner was Iacob called, and not Eſau: therefore the one was beloued, the other hated: the one drawen, the other forſaken. Neither doth this any thinge further thée to ſay,God wanteth not a meane, wherby to bow the w…s of men. It is repugnant to the wil to be compelled. God poured not malice in to Eſau, but he gaue not vntounto him grace wherby he might be made good. What two thinges are h…e to be h…ld faſt, although humane reaſon cannot make the… to agree that the willes of men are ſometimes hardened: for it is not to be thoughte that God wanteth a meane, whereby to bow and chaunge them if he will. Wherefore if we make God omnipotent, then can there be no obſtinacy of men ſo greate, but that he can ouercome it, not by compulſion, which is vtterly repugnante vntounto the nature of will, but by perſuaſion. Neither was it néedeful that God when he hated Eſau, ſhould poure into him any new malice, whereby he mought be made euil: for he had that aboundantly of himſelfe, and by the corruption of nature. It was ſufficient, y• he gaue not vntounto him grace, whereby he mought be made good. Wherfore there are two thinges which we oughte conſtantlye to holde faſte: firſte that there is no iniquitie wyth God: ſecondlye, that he hath mercye on whome he wyll, and whome he wyll at hys pleaſure he hardeneth. Whyche two thynges althoughe humane reaſon can not eaſelye make to agrée the one with the other, yet Auguſtine to the ende the iuſtice of God moughte after a ſorte the eaſilier be vnderſtanded, addeth a ſimilitude of a creditoure, who hath two debtoures: whome, if vntounto one he remitte his debte, and require his debte of the other, no no man can iuſtly accuſe. Wherefore if humane iuſtice had his originall of the iuſtice of God, it is wonderfull, that men can take this vponupon thē, to reproue that in God, which they confeſſe to be iuſt in men. And Iacob and Eſau were obnoxious vntounto the condemnation of originall ſinne. Wherefore God did nothing vniuſtly, if he pardoned the one, and vouchſafed to beſtow on him his fauour and grace: and by his iuſt iudgement puniſhed the other. Debters ſhoulde not hauehave a proude and raſhe iudgement of the minde of their creditor, eſpecially when he requireth of thē no more then his dew. But how importunatly men ſéeke to hinder God, that he ſhould not at his pleaſure geue the thinges that are his to whome he will, ChriſtGod cannot be letted, but that he geueth his thinges as ſemeth good vntounto hym. How this is to be vnderſtanded, thou haſt hat…d none of the thinges which thou ha… made. declareth in the Goſpel vnderunder the perſon of the good man of the houſe: Is it not lawfull (ſaith he) for me to do wyth myne owne what I wyll? Is thyne eye euill? I am good. Take that which is thyne owne, and go thy wayes. But it is written in the booke of wiſedome the 2. chapter, Thou hast hated none of the thynges which thou haſt made. Wherefore ſeing Eſau was made of God, it ſemeth that he could not …e hated of him. Auguſtine anſwereth, that we muſt make a diſtinction betwene nature and ſinne: and ſo he maketh anſwere, that God loued Eſau, as touching nature: but hated him by reaſon of ſinne. But with this anſwere the minde can not be quieted, for euen by this ſelfe ſame reaſon, God may ſeme to hauehave hated Iacob: for he alſo was no les obnoxious vntounto originall ſinne, then was Eſau. VntoUnto thysIacob was n… leſſe obnoxious to original ſinne thē Eſau. God hateth the ſinnes of all men, but after a d…ue…s maner, the ſinnes of the elect he w… pardon, but will puniſhe the ſinnes of the reprobate How Iacob was loued & Eſau hated when as they both were in ſinne. Three things to be conſidered: The nature o… man, ſinne▪ and the puniſhment. God …eth ſinne, as it is a puniſhmēt. obiection Auguſtine maketh anſwere, that God hated the ſinne of eche: but yet not after one and the ſelfe ſame maner. For he would hauehave ſinne to be in Iacob extinguiſhed by forgeuenes. And for that he had clered him of that debt, he is ſayd to louelove hym. But he hated ſinne in Eſau, and would hauehave it puniſhed. And ſo, for that he left Eſau obnoxious vntounto ſinnes which he would not forgeue, he was ſayd to hate him. Finally he thus interpretateth this ſentence, Iacob hauehave I loued, but Eſau hauehave I hated, namely that y• one was deliuered from ſin: but the other was left in ſinne. But how man and ſinne do either pleaſe or diſpleaſe God, he thus declareth. Firſt he ſaith, we muſt ſet before our eyes nature, ſecondly, ſinne, and thirdly, the puniſhemēt wherwith God chaſtiſeth the crime. Firſt of all he ſaith, God loueth nature, neither at any time hateth he it of himſelfe. But ſinne of his owne nature he hateth: although ſometimes when it is inflicted of him in reſpect of a puniſhement, foraſmuch as it is an inſtrument of the iuſtice of God, it vtterly diſpleaſeth him not: for then by that ſinne others of the elect are kept vnderunder, that they ſhould not in like ſort committe ſinne. And this he declareth by an excellent ſimilitude: A Iudge (ſaith he) when a thefe is brought before him, hateth not the thiefe in reſpect that he is a mā: but the theft he condemneth. Neither doubtles hateth he the puniſhement, whereby he commaundeth hym to be baniſhed, and to be put to the workes of the mines: yea rather he inflicteth it vntounto him, as good. By which ſentence of Auguſtine by the way we note, that at thatThe Romane lawes made not the… death. tyme the Romane lawes condemned not a theefe to be hanged, but only condemned him to the mines. Wherefore ſeing ſinnes hauehave oftentimes the nature of a puniſhement, as we gather by the firſt chapter of this epiſtle, it is euident that God in this reſpect hateth them not. But in what ſort he willeth ſinnes, allWhether god willeth ſinne. men are not of one and the ſame mynde. For ſome thinke that God onelyonly permitteth ſinne, and not properly willeth it: leaſt they ſhould ſeme to make God the author of ſinne, and for that cauſe vniuſt, if he woulde puniſhe that in man, which he himſelfe would hauehave to be done. But if a man diligently weigh this permiſſion, he ſhall at the length finde, that it is a certaine will of God. For if he permitte ſinne, he doth it either willingly or agaynſt his wyll: but againſtNothing cā be done againſt gods will. The opiniō of thoſe y• ſay that the wil of God in willing or not willing▪ is either of efficacy, or remiſſe. his wil doubtles he permitteth it not (for nothing can be done againſt gods wil) wherefore he willingly permitteth it. And therefore his will is that ſinne ſhould not be letted. Some to auoyde this, appoint in God a double will: the one of efficacy, the other remiſſe. And the ſigne of his will of efficacy they ſay are commaundemētes, preceptes, and lawes: but of his remiſſe wil, they put counſels and exhortacions to be the ſigne. They adde alſo, that God will not ſometymes with efficacy, & ſomtimes remiſſedly. And the ſigne of his not willing wt efficacy they ſay is prohibitiō: but of his not willing remiſſedly they put permiſſion to be the ſigne. And after this maner they ſay that God willeth not ſinne. But becauſe they ſée, that if God with efficacy willed not ſinne, it could by no meanes be committed, they ſay, that he in dede willeth not ſinne, but yet remiſſedly. This is in dede a witty diſtinction: but I am ſomwhat in doubt, whetherWe can not put in the will of God either increace or diminiſhing. it can in ſuch ſort take place in God. But, that we ſhoulde not in vayne contend, graunt that it were ſo, yet for all that they auoyde not, but that God may be ſayde after a ſort to wil ſinne. For how commeth it, that he in dede willeth not ſinne, but yet remiſſedly? Here they hauehave nothing to anſwere, but that he after a ſort willeth it. For reiection is not remiſſe, vnles ſomething of the contrary be mixed with it, namely, of the wil: as water frō whote water is not made luke warme, vnles ſome cold be mingled with it. Wherefore in that they ſay, that God willeth not ſinne, but yet remiſſedly, that can be by no other meanes, but that he after a ſort willeth it: wherefore this permiſſion which they imagine is at the lengthe reduced to the will. But it is a thing ridiculous, that they ſhould be aferd, leaſt God by this meanes ſhould ſeeme to be vniuſt: for th… will of God is the firſt and chiefe iuſtice, ſo that whatſoeuer he willeth, the ſamePermiſſion is reduced to the will. The wil of God is the firſt iuſtice. God when he will puniſh ſinnes by ſinnes, withdraweth hys grace. ſtraight way is of neceſſity iuſt. And one and the ſelfe ſame action, as it is in vsus, and commeth from vsus, foraſmuch as it proceedeth from a corrupt ground, is ſinne: but as it commeth from God it is iuſt. Theſe men ſeke ſome way to ſatiſfie humane reaſon: which yet they can not by this meanes attayne vntounto. For they are compelled to graunt, that God when he wyll puniſhe ſinnes by ſinnes, withdraweth his grace, by which ſtay only our will may be vpholden that it ſinne not. Wherefore if of purpoſe he remoue away that by which onelye ſinne is prohibited, although he doo not vniuſtly, how can he be ſayde vtterly not to will ſinne, which of neceſſity followeth the withdrawing of grace? Wherefore we ſay that God in dede willeth the action, which is by nature produced, for vnles God would, it coulde by no meanes be produced: but the deformitie, and priuation of iuſtice, whereby that action faileth, and ſtraieth frō his rule, he in conſideration of it ſelfe willeth not▪ but ſo farforth onelyonly as it is a puniſhement of ſinne, and as we hauehave ſayd, an inſtrument to declare the iuſtice of God. Yea alſo Auguſtine ſayth, That God will not onelyonly remoue awaye his grace, but alſo hiddenly worketh in the mindes of ſinners, no les then he vſeth to worke in the bodyes: and inclineth their wils either to good, according to his mercy, or to euill according to hys iudgement being in dede iuſt, but yet hidden. And this ſentence he hath againſt Iulianus in his 5. booke, and 3. chapiter. And in his booke de Gracia & libero arbitrio the 21. chapter, and he proueth it by ſundry and many teſtimonies of the ſcriptures. But in that God is ſaid not to will and to hate ſinne, that is to be vnderſtand as touching the law and the Scriptures, and ye rule of lyfe reueled vntounto vsus He is ſaid alſo to hate ſinne becauſe he puniſheth it, and becauſe he willeth it not for his owne ſake, but as we hauehave ſayde, in conſideration of an other thing. Wherefore in that he worketh ſinne, he hateth it not, and in that he hateth it, he worketh it not. …n ſūme if we will ſpeake properlyElection & reiection depend of the wil of God. We are not wonne but by thoſe things which pleaſe vsus and ſimply, we cannot ſay y• God ether willeth ſin, or is the author therof. Thus much by the way: but now to returne to Auguſt. He goeth on to declare, that both election & reiection depēd of the wil of God. He ſaith in dede y• we hauehave free will, but what auayleth that to theſe things? For who cā beleue vnles his will be moued? But it is not in our power, that we ſhould be moued by thoſe things which are offred: for we are not allured & takē, but by thoſe things which pleaſe vsus. But that preaching reading & cōtēplaciō vpō things diuine do pleaſe vsus, it cōmeth by the breathing of the holy goſt. And Auguſt. addeth, that as touching the maſse, or lōp of al humane nature, By the ſpirit of God … commeth to paſſe▪ that thinges in very deede good do pleaſe vsus.wherof all we are brought forth, there is no difference, wherby God mought be moued to elect this mā rather then that: yea rather if ſetting aſide the grace of Chriſt, we conſider only the nature of men, there can come no difference at all, but that one is more witty then an other, or contaminated with fewer wicked factes, or endewed with better artes. But if any man would ſay that God in election or reiection hath a reſpect to theſe things, he ſhall playnly ſpeake agaynſt the holy ſcripture: For Paul to the Corrinthians thus writeth: Be hold your calling brethern: for not many wiſe men, not many noble men, not many mighty men are called: but the foliſh thinges of the world hath God elected. &c. There hauehave bene moreouer a greate many philoſophers endewed with moſt excellent wittes, and other men of ſingular grauity, as Socrates, Cato, and Scipio: who, if they be compared with others, may ſeme to hauehave bene enfected, but with a very few vices. There hauehave bene others endued with moſt excellent artes and ſciences: whom God yet hath ouerpaſſed, and hath called vntounto him men vnlerned, ſinners and wicked men: wherefore this only remayneth, that if God hauehave not a reſpect vntounto theſe thinges, they muſt ſay, that he hath notwithſtanding a conſideration to the will. But neither doubtles can that be affirmed. For, as we hauehave ſayd, it lieth not in the power of our will, to be moued with good and holy perſwaſions. For, An example of Paul.what maner of will had Paul at that ſelfe time, when he was called? Verely he thought vponupon nothing ells, but how to murther the chriſtiās, and vtterly to deſtroy and to ouerthrow Chriſtian religion, and yet notwithſtanding he was ſtreight way conuerted vntounto God, and the truth was ſo ſet forth vntounto him, that ſtreight way he embraſed it, & vtterly and wholy changed his minde. Wherefore there is no cauſe, why any man ſhould accuſe God of iniquity for when he forgeueth and pardoneth, he geueth frely of that which is his owne: but Why God is not to be accuſed of iniquity.when he puniſheth and putteth to paines, he by moſt good right requireth that which is his owne. Theſe thinges writeth Auguſt. (as we hauehave ſayd) in his boke of queſtions to Simplicianus, the ſecond queſtion. But in his epiſtle to Sixtus, which is the 105. in nomber, he ſayth, that God findeth not men mete to be elected, but maketh them. God in Iocob loued only his mercy. He hated Eſau for that he would not hauehave mercy on him. Paul wanted not ſharpenes of wit.Neither loued he any thing ells in Iacob (ſaith he) but his owne free mercy. And Eſau he hated, for that he woulde not hauehave mercye on him. Whiche thinges theſe men, ſayth he, (ſpeaking of the P…lagians) ſeking to auoyd, ſay, that God had a regard to the workes foreſene as though forſoth Paul wanted ſo greate ſharpenes of witte, that he would not ſe that, which theſe witty men ſaw. For thē doubtles was the time for Paul ſo to anſwer, whē he had obiected vntounto him ſelfe, What ſhall we then ſay? Is there iniquity with God? God forbidde. He mought ſtreight way euen with one worde after theſe men hauehave ſolued the queſtion: yea rather he had had no question at all to ſolue. We muſt conſider, what Paul there went aboute, what he did, and what was his entent. His entent was to inculcate the grace of God: but they which hauehave this ſcope before theyr eyes can not imagine any ſuche things. And in his Enchiridion to Laurentius the 98. chapiter he writeth, that if this had bene the entent of Paul, he would in no caſe hauehave ſayd, Not of workes: yea he would rather hauehave ſayd, Of workes foreſene, he loued Iacob by his free mercy, and hated Eſau by his iuſt iudgment. Wherefore they which are planted in an holy calling, let them acknowledge, that vntounto them is geuē grace not dew vntounto them: and in others, that eternally periſh, let them conſider what was dew vntounto them. Now that I hauehave thus briefely recited the ſentences of the fathers, I thinke it good to declare my iudgementWhat is to louelove. What is to hate. as touching this whole matter. Firſt I vnderſtand that, To louelove, is nothing els, but to will well to a man. And, to hate, is nothing els, but to wiſh ill to a man, or not to wyll well vntounto him. Wherefore God is ſayd to louelove them, vntounto whom he willeth eternall ſaluation, that is, the chiefe felicitie: and thoſe he hateth, vntounto whom he wylleth it not. Nowe this ſo being, the controuerſie is, whether God wylleth felicitie to the elect by workes foreſene, or no: and how he willeth it not to the reprobate. Firſt we wyll ſpeake of louelove. Nowe louelove can not be of workes foreſene: for Paul ſayth: Not of workes, but of him that calleth. And ſeingThe electiō or predeſtination of God canno… be of works foreſeene. that God findeth not good workes in men, but of his mercy deriueth them into them: how can they be the cauſes of his louelove? And in the 11. chapiter. of this epiſtle Paul ſayth: That the remnantes ſhall be ſaued according to the election of grace. And if of grace, then not of workes. And in this place the ſame Apoſtle referreth the effects alſo of the promiſes of God only to the will, and power, & mercy of God. Therfore ought we to preſume to go no farther. And in the 1. chapiter to the Epheſiās he ſayth: That we are predeſtinated into the adoption of children according to the good We ſhould be iuſtified by workes foreſ…ne▪ i… we ſhould by them be elected.pleaſure of the will of God. And, if we ſhould graunt, that men attayne to ſaluation by workes forſene, we could not auoyde, but that men ſhould be ſayd to be iuſtified by workes. For then of our workes ſhould follow the foreknowledge of God: of foreknowledge, predeſtination: and of predeſtination, calling: and of calling, laſt of all iuſtification: we ſhould conſent alſo with the Pelagians, that iuſtification and merites take theyr beginning of our ſelues: and that God afterward addeth grace, mercy, and variety of gifts. Neither ought we to thinke that the worke of God which is eternall, hath his beginning of any thing temporall.The eternal worke of God hath not his beginning of a thing temporall. The hatred of God is not of workes foreſene. After the ſelfe ſame maner we ſay, that the hatred of God dependeth not of workes foreknown. For Paul a like pronoūced of ech brother, Not of workes, but of him that calleth. And if we ſhould graunt, that the hatred of God ſpringeth of ill workes foreſene, it mought be on the contrary part inferred, (as ſayth Auguſtine) that the louelove of God alſo ſpringeth of good workes forſene. And moreouer this reaſon can not take place in all thoſe that are elected, or reiected. For many amongeſt the Iewes and Turkes periſh euen in theyr in fancy, and are condemned, and therefore are nombred amongeſt thoſe whome God hateth in whome yet he could foreſee no euil workes, foraſmuch as they ſhould neuer hauehave any: yea rather he foreknew that they ſhould worke nothing. Neither auayleth that any thing which ſome ſay, that God ſaw what they would hauehaveA cauillatiō confuted. done if they ſhould hauehave liued. For by this meanes ſhould not the iuſtice of God as touching humane reaſon be defended: for the defence whereof yet theſe men take ſo great paynes. For ſtreight way ſhould come into y• mind, why theſe men were reiected for thoſe workes, which they neuer did, nor euer ſhould hauehave done? But they ſhould hauehave done them (thou wilt ſay) if they had liued. Graunt it were ſo. But a conditionall propoſition affirmeth nothing. And, that God followeth not this conſideratiō in his louelove or hatred, Chriſt plainly declareth, whē he ſaith Wo vntounto the Corozaim: wo vntounto the Bethſaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had bene done the thinges which hauehave bene done in thee, they bad long ſince repented in ſackcloth and aſhes. Again, Wo vntounto the Capernaum, which art exalted vp to heauen, for thou ſhalt be caſt downe euen into hell. For if in Sodome had bene done the thinges which hauehave bene done in thee, thoſe cities had yet bene remayning. Theſe wordes playnely declare that God hath not a reſpect vntounto that, what a man ſhall do. For he gaue miracles vntountoGod gaue miracles to them that vſed thē ill, but gaue none to thē that would hauehave vſed them well. them that vſed them ill: and gaue not any to ſuch as would hauehave vſed thē wel. Further remember that in theſe wordes it is not ſayd, that they which had not miracles, ſhould, if peraduēture they had ha… any, hauehave beleued of themſelues, as though y• that lay in their owne nature or fre wil. For, that thing would God hauehave geuen vntounto thē. And foraſmuch as it is a ſentēce cōditional there ought not of it to be inferred a propoſition categoricall or affirmatiue. As whē it is ſayd, If a horſe ſhould flye, he ſhould hauehave winges, it followeth not thereof, that a horſe hath winges, or that to flye is of the nature of the horſe, or that the horſeNeither election nor reprobation depende of works fore ſene. The difference betwene election and reprobation. could flye if he had winges: when as vntounto flyeng are required moe things then winges. Wherefore herein election and reprobation agrée together, that neither of them dep…ndeth of workes foreſene. Howebeit they differ two maner of wayes. Firſte, for that although ſinnes are not cauſes of reprobation, yet are they cauſes of eternall damnation, wherunto the reprobate are ordeined. For they are not condemned but by iuſte iudgemente: neyther hauehave they any thing that they can iuſtlye complayne of the iniuſtice of God. But good workes are neither the beginning of the election of God, nor true cauſes of eternall felicity. Neither muſt we here harken to the ſcholemen, which put in them merite, (as they vſe to ſpeake) of condignity. For Paul contrariwiſe teacheth, that the ſuffringesMerite is not to be admitted. of this tyme are not condignae, that is, worthy the glory to come which ſhalbe reueled in vsus. The other difference is, for that the good workes where vntounto we are predeſtinate to be by them led to felicity, are not of our ſelues, but of the predeſtination of God. But ſinne is grafted in vsus euen from our birth.Good workes we hauehave of God but not ſinnes. For in iniquityes are we conceaued, and in ſinnes hath our mother conceaued vsus. Howbeit ſome hauehave gone aboute to proue, that the louelove of God dependeth of workes, by the 8. chap. of the boke of Prouerbes. For there God thus ſpeaketh, Thoſe that louelove me, I louelove. But of thoſe wordes can not be inferred that which they ſeke. I graunt indede that they are loued of God, which louelove God: but yet it followeth not, that therefore God beginneth to louelove them, becauſe they louelove him. Yea rather it followeth contrarily, that they therefore louelove God, becauſeGod beginneth not therfore to louelove vsus, for that we louelove him. God loueth them. For ſo Iohn teacheth vsus: Not that we hauehave loued God: for he hath loued vsus firſt. But that we may the plainlier vnderſtand both that which I hauehave alredy ſpoken, and alſo that which ſhall afterward be ſpoken, I will declare the ſignification of fower wordes, which are of Paul vſed in this treatiſe: namely, the louelove of God, election, predeſtination, and purpoſe. The louelove of God is it as we hauehave ſayd, whereby he willeth vntounto any man felicity. Election is, whereby he preferreth one before an other. Predeſtinatiō is, whereby he directeth thoſe whome he hath ſo loued and preferred before others, to the ende which he hath appoynted vntounto them, namely, vntounto eternall life, by apt meanes. AndThe order betwene louelove, electiō and predeſtination, theſe are in ſuch order ioyned together, that predeſtination followeth louelove and election. For (as we hauehave ſayde) whom God hath loued & hath preferred before others, thoſe he directeth to their ende. But touching louelove and election, we muſt otherwiſe conſider of them in God, then we ſee commonly commeth to paſſe in men. For men when they ſee a man adorned with excellent giftes, him they electLoueLove and election are after an other maner of ſorte in God, then they are in men. aboue others: and then they wiſhe well vntounto him, and to their power ſeeke to do hym good: but God foraſmuch as in men he findeth nothyng that is good, yet of his mere mercy and ſingular goodnes, he loueth ſome, and decreeth vntounto them many good thinges, and thereof followeth election. For, for this cauſe onelyonly are they preferred before others, for that they are loued of God, and not for any their owne worthines. And as louelove is to election, ſo is hatred to reprobation. Wherefore I miſlike not that which the maſter of the ſentences citeth out of Auguſtine, that predeſtination is a preparation to glory: and reprobation, a preparation to eternal puniſhementes, ſo that thoſe differences which we hauehave a little before mencioned be added. Nowe reſteth to declare the fourth worde, namely, purpoſe. And that we ſay is nothing els, but his good pleaſure, foreign,What the purpoſe of God is. which ſignification we gather out of the epiſtle to the Epheſians the 1. chap. where it is thus written: which hath predeſtinated vsus, to adopt vsus into children vntounto himſelfe thorough Ieſus Chriſte, according to the good pleaſure of hys wyll: And ſtraight way he addeth, Predeſtinate according to his purpoſe. This declareth thatPurpoſe is the generall worde of predeſtination. What is predeſtination after Auguſtine. purpoſe and good pleaſure are taken for one and the ſelfe ſame thing, and do pertayne vntounto wil. Wherefore the purpoſe of God is the pleaſure of his wil, and is taken as the generall worde, to define predeſtination and reprobation. For Augustine ſayth, that predeſtination is the purpoſe to hauehave mercy: and reprobation the purpoſe not to hauehave mercy. And according to this ſentence Paul ſayth in this chapiter: That election mought abide according to purpoſe. But touching all theſe matters we will hereafter more at large entreate.