Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
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.
