The Second Crimination

Here the distinction of the double act in reprobation must be repeated and retained. First therefore I answer, that reprobation in regard of the former act is absolute, that is, in regard of the purpose to forsake the creature, and to manifest justice in it: so we teach, and believe. For we cannot so much as imagine a cause in the creature, why it was God's will to pass by it, and to suffer some to fall finally from their blessed estate. Yes, sin is itself after the desertion and just permission of God: and therefore it can by no means be the cause of the permission and desertion. From where it is that Lumbard the Master of all the Schoolmen says, that God has rejected whom he would, not for any future merits which he did foresee, but yet most righteously, though we cannot conceive the reason thereof. And Jerome long before him does thus expound the place of Paul (Romans 9:11): "Ere the children were born, and when they had neither done good nor evil" — If Esau, says he, and Jacob were not yet born, neither had done good or evil, whereby they might win God's favor or offend him, and if their election and rejection does not show their several deserts, but the will of the Elector and Rejector, what shall we say? Afterwards: If we grant this, that God does whatever he will, and that he either chooses or condemns a man without desert and works: it is not therefore in him that wills, nor in him that runs, but in God that shows mercy. Again: Therefore it is in vain asked, seeing that it is in his power and will either to choose or to refuse a man without good and evil works. Anselmus: It is not ours to know why God denies grace to them which would gladly receive and consent to grace, and neglects another, that would so well consent to it. This is only known to God. Again, No creature is able to search out why he is merciful to this man rather than to another. Thomas: Why he elects these to glory, and rejects those, he has no reason but the divine will. Again, The difference of those which are to be saved, from them that are to be damned proceeds from the principal [illegible] of the first [illegible]. Again, We [illegible] not inquire why he converts these and not those. For this comes of his own mere will. And Augustine upon John: Why he draws this man, and not that, do not desire to judge, if you would not err.

Nevertheless reprobation in regard of the second act, that is, in respect of the purpose to damn, is not absolute but for sin. For no man perishes but through his own default; and no man is absolutely ordained to hell or destruction, but for his sin; having also received before in Adam power, whereby he was able to live holily and happily, if so be that he would. And therefore I say that that which they allege is a very calumny.

Secondly I answer, that God did not simply create man to destroy him, but that he might manifest his judgment by the just destruction of the sinner. Now it is one thing to will the destruction of a man as he is man; and another thing to will the deserved destruction of a man as he is a sinner. Here also the judgment of Cameracensis a judicial Schoolman is to be heard and observed. According to the Scripture, says he, although God should punish or afflict some creature eternally, or utterly abolish it without any sin in it, yet he should not deal unjustly or cruelly with it. From where it is (Wisdom 12:12): "Who dare accuse you, if the nations perish which you have made?" God is not bound to laws created, as if any thing were just before God did will it, whereas indeed the contrary is true.