Book 3, Chapter 22

CHAPTER XXII.
TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE IN CONFIRMATION OF THIS DOCTRINE.

All the positions we have advanced are controverted by many, especially the gratuitous election of believers, which nevertheless cannot be shaken. It is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing what would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a correspondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as his children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace, and devotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees will be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure election by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that it originates in another cause. Nor is this commonly received notion the opinion of the vulgar only, for it has had great advocates in all ages; which I candidly confess, that no one may cherish a confidence of injuring our cause by opposing us with their names. For the truth of God on this point is too certain to be shaken, too clear to be overthrown by the authority of men. Others, neither acquainted with the Scripture, nor deserving of any attention, oppose the sound doctrine with extreme presumption and intolerable effrontery. God’s sovereign election of some, and preterition of others, they make the subject of formal accusation against him. But if this is the known fact, what will they gain by quarrelling with God? We teach nothing but what experience has proved, that God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom he chooses. I will not inquire how the posterity of Abraham excelled other nations, unless it was by that favour, the cause of which can only be found in God. Let them answer why they are men, and not oxen or asses: when it was in God’s power to create them dogs, he formed them after his own image. Will they allow the brute animals to expostulate with God respecting their condition, as though the distinction were unjust? Their enjoyment of a privilege which they have acquired by no merits, is certainly no more reasonable than God’s various distribution of his favours according to the measure of his judgment. If they make a transition to persons where the inequality is more offensive to them, the example of Christ at least ought to deter them from carelessly prating concerning this sublime mystery. A mortal man is conceived of the seed of David: to the merit of what virtues will they ascribe his being made, even in the womb, the Head of angels, the only begotten Son of God, the Image and Glory of the Father, the Light, Righteousness, and Salvation of the world? It is judiciously remarked by Augustine, that there is the brightest example of gratuitous election in the Head of the Church himself, that it may not perplex us in the members; that he did not become the Son of God by leading a righteous life, but was gratuitously invested with this high honour, that he might afterwards render others partakers of the gifts bestowed upon him. If any one inquire, why others are not all that he was, or why we are all at such a vast distance from him,—why we are all corrupt, and he purity itself,—he will betray both folly and impudence. But if they persist in the wish to deprive God of the uncontrollable right of choosing and rejecting, let them also take away what is given to Christ. Now, it is of importance to attend to what the Scripture declares respecting every individual. Paul’s assertion, that we were “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world,”[463] certainly precludes any consideration of merit in us; for it is as though he had said, our heavenly Father, finding nothing worthy of his choice in all the posterity of Adam, turned his views towards his Christ, to choose members from his body whom he would admit to the fellowship of life. Let believers, then, be satisfied with this reason, that we were adopted in Christ to the heavenly inheritance, because in ourselves we were incapable of such high dignity. He has a similar remark in another place, where he exhorts the Colossians to “give thanks unto the Father, who had made them meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints.”[464] If election precedes this grace of God, which makes us meet to obtain the glory of the life to come, what will God find in us to induce him to elect us? Another passage from this apostle will still more clearly express my meaning. “He hath chosen us,” he says, “before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, that we should be holy, and without blame before him;”[465] where he opposes the good pleasure of God to all our merits whatsoever.

II. To render the proof more complete, it will be useful to notice all the clauses of that passage, which, taken in connection, leave no room for doubt. By the appellation of the elect, or chosen, he certainly designates believers, as he soon after declares: wherefore it is corrupting the term by a shameful fiction to restrict it to the age in which the gospel was published. By saying that they were elected before the creation of the world, he precludes every consideration of merit. For what could be the reason for discrimination between those who yet had no existence, and whose condition was afterward to be the same in Adam? Now, if they are chosen in Christ, it follows, not only that each individual is chosen out of himself, but also that some are separated from others; for it is evident, that all are not members of Christ. The next clause, stating them to have been “chosen that they might be holy,” fully refutes the error which derives election from foreknowledge; since Paul, on the contrary, declares that all the virtue discovered in men is the effect of election. If any inquiry be made after a superior cause, Paul replies, that God thus “predestinated,” and that it was “according to the good pleasure of his will.” This overturns any means of election which men imagine in themselves; for all the benefits conferred by God for the spiritual life, he represents as flowing from this one source, that God elected whom he would, and, before they were born, laid up in reserve for them the grace with which he determined to favor them.

III. Wherever this decree of God reigns, there can be no consideration of any works. The antithesis, indeed, is not pursued here; but it must be understood, as it is amplified by the same writer in another place: “Who hath called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.”[466] And we have already shown that the following clause, “that we should be holy,” removes every difficulty. For say, Because he foresaw they would be holy, therefore he chose them, and you will invert the order of Paul. We may safely infer, then, If he chose us that we should be holy, his foresight of our future holiness was not the cause of his choice. For these two propositions, That the holiness of believers is the fruit of election, and, That they attain it by means of works, are incompatible with each other. Nor is there any force in the cavil to which they frequently resort, that the grace of election was not God’s reward of antecedent works, but his gift to future ones. For when it is said, that believers were elected that they should be holy, it is fully implied, that the holiness they were in future to possess had its origin in election. And what consistency would there be in asserting, that things derived from election were the causes of election? A subsequent clause seems further to confirm what he had said—“according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in himself.”[467] For the assertion, that God purposed in himself, is equivalent to saying, that he considered nothing out of himself, with any view to influence his determination. Therefore he immediately subjoins, that the great and only object of our election is, “that we should be to the praise of” Divine “grace.” Certainly the grace of God deserves not the sole praise of our election, unless this election be gratuitous. Now, it could not be gratuitous, if, in choosing his people, God himself considered what would be the nature of their respective works. The declaration of Christ to his disciples, therefore, is universally applicable to all believers: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;”[468] which not only excludes past merits, but signifies that they had nothing in themselves to cause their election, independently of his preventing mercy. This also is the meaning of that passage of Paul, “Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?”[469] For his design is to show, that God’s goodness altogether anticipates men, finding nothing in them, either past or future, to conciliate his favour towards them.

IV. In the Epistle to the Romans, where he goes to the bottom of this argument, and pursues it more at length, he says, “They are not all Israel which are” born “of Israel;”[470] because though all were blessed by hereditary right, yet the succession did not pass to all alike. This controversy originated in the pride and vain-glorying of the Jewish people, who, claiming for themselves the title of the Church, would make the faith of the gospel to depend on their decision; just as, in the present day, the Papists with this false pretext would substitute themselves in the place of God. Paul, though he admits the posterity of Abraham to be holy in consequence of the covenant, yet contends that most of them are strangers to it; and that not only because they degenerate, from legitimate children becoming spurious ones, but because the preëminence and sovereignty belong to God’s special election, which is the sole foundation of the validity of their adoption. If some were established in the hope of salvation by their own piety, and the rejection of others were owing wholly to their own defection, Paul’s reference of his readers to the secret election would indeed be weak and absurd. Now, if the will of God, of which no cause appears or must be sought out of himself, discriminates some from others, so that the children of Israel are not all true Israelites, it is in vain pretended that the condition of every individual originates with himself. He pursues the subject further under the example of Jacob and Esau; for being both children of Abraham, and both enclosed in their mother’s womb, the transfer of the honour of primogeniture to Jacob was by a preternatural change, which Paul, however, contends indicated the election of the one and the reprobation of the other. The origin and the cause are inquired, which the champions of foreknowledge maintain to be exhibited in the virtues and the vices of men. For this is their short and easy doctrine—That God has showed in the person of Jacob, that he elects such as are worthy of his grace; and in the person of Esau, that he rejects those whom he foresees to be unworthy. This, indeed, they assert with confidence; but what is the testimony of Paul? “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”[471] If this distinction between the brothers was influenced by foreknowledge, the mention of the time must certainly be unnecessary. On the supposition that Jacob was elected, because that honour was acquired by his future virtues, to what purpose could Paul remark that he was not yet born? It would not have been so proper to add, that he had not yet done any good; for it will be immediately replied, that nothing is concealed from God, and therefore the piety of Jacob must have been present before him. If grace be the reward of works, they ought to have had their just value attributed to them before Jacob was born, as much as if he were already grown to maturity. But the apostle proceeds in unravelling the difficulty, and teaches that the adoption of Jacob flowed not from works, but from the calling of God. In speaking of works, he introduces no time, future or past, but positively opposes them to the calling of God, intending the establishment of the one, and the absolute subversion of the other; as though he had said, We must consider the good pleasure of God, and not the productions of men. Lastly, the very terms, election and purpose, certainly exclude from this subject all the causes frequently invented by men, independently of God’s secret counsel.

V. Now, what pretexts will be urged to obscure these arguments, by those who attribute to works, either past or future, any influence on election? For this is nothing but an evasion of the apostle’s argument, that the distinction between the two brothers depends not on any consideration of works, but on the mere calling of God, because it was fixed between them when they were not yet born. Nor would their subtilty have escaped him, if there had been any solidity in it; but well knowing the impossibility of God’s foreseeing any good in man, except what he had first determined to bestow by the benefit of his election, he resorts not to the preposterous order of placing good works before their cause. We have the apostle’s authority that the salvation of believers is founded solely on the decision of Divine election, and that that favour is not procured by works, but proceeds from gratuitous calling. We have also a lively exhibition of this truth in a particular example. Jacob and Esau are brothers, begotten of the same parents, still enclosed in the same womb, not yet brought forth into light; there is in all respects a perfect equality between them; yet the judgment of God concerning them is different. For he takes one, and rejects the other. The primogeniture was the only thing that gave one a right of priority to the other. But that also is passed by, and on the younger is bestowed what is refused to the elder. In other instances, also, God appears always to have treated primogeniture with designed and decided contempt, to cut off from the flesh all occasion of boasting. He rejects Ishmael, and favours Isaac. He degrades Manasseh, and honours Ephraim.