salvation, inasmuch as it is said, in the words immediately following,
_Then shall the children of Judah, and the children of Israel, be
gathered together, and shall appoint themselves one head, and they shall
come up out of the land_, _viz._ of Babylon, _for great shall be the day
of Jezreel_. Therefore this remnant, here spoken of, which should be
called the sons of the living God, respects only such as should return
out of captivity, and consequently not the election of a part, to wit,
the believing Jews, to eternal life: for it is plain, that, when this
prediction was fulfilled, they were to _appoint themselves one head_, or
governor, namely, Zerubbabel, or some other, that should be at the head
of affairs, and help forward their flourishing state, in, or after their
return from captivity.
_Answ._ It seems very evident, that part of this prophecy, _viz._ chap.
iii. 5. respects the happiness of Israel, at that time, when _they
should seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and should fear
the Lord and his goodness, in the latter days_; therefore why may not
this verse also, in chap. i. in which it is said, that they shall be
called the sons of the living God, have its accomplishment in the
gospel-day, when they should adhere to Christ, who is called, _David
their King_? The only difficulty which affects this sense of the text
is, its being said, that they shall return to their own land, under the
conduct of a _Head_, or governor, whom they should _appoint over them_,
which seems to favour the sense contained in the objection: but the
sense of the words would be more plain, if we render the text, instead
of [THEN] _And the children of Judah_, &c. as it is rendered in most
translations, and is most agreeable to the sense of the Hebrew
word.[192] According to our translation, it seems to intimate, that the
prophet is speaking of something mentioned in the foregoing verse; and
inasmuch as the latter respects their return from the captivity,
therefore the former must do so; whereas if we put _and_, instead of
_then_, the meaning of both verses together is this: there are two
blessings which God promised, namely, that a part of the Jewish nation
should be made partakers of the saving blessings of the covenant of
grace, which was to have its accomplishment when they were brought to
believe in Christ, by the gospel, or when this remnant, taken out from
them, should be saved; and there is also another blessing promised to
the whole nation, which should be conferred upon them, when they
returned from the Babylonish captivity.
If it be objected, to this sense of the text, that their return from
captivity is mentioned after that promise, of their being called the
_sons of the living God_, therefore it cannot be supposed to relate to a
providence that should happen before it; I need only reply to this, that
it is very usual, in scripture, for the Holy Ghost, when speaking
concerning the privileges which the church should be made partakers of,
not to lay them down in the same order in which they were to be
accomplished; and therefore, why may we not suppose, that this rule may
be applied to this text? And accordingly the sense is this: the prophet
had been speaking, in the tenth verse, of that great salvation, which
this remnant of the Jews, converted to Christianity, should be made
partakers of in the gospel-day; and then he obviates an objection, as
though it should be said, How can this be, since the Jews are to be
carried into captivity, and there broken, scattered, and, as it were
ruined? In answer to this, the prophet adds, that the Jews should not be
destroyed in the captivity, but should be delivered, and return to their
own land, and so should remain a people, till this remnant was gathered
out of them, who were to be made partakers of these spiritual privileges
under the gospel-dispensation, as mentioned in the foregoing words.
Thus having endeavoured to prove, that this remnant, spoken of in Rom.
xi. are such as should be made partakers of eternal salvation, we may
now apply this to our present argument. If that salvation, which this
remnant was to be made partakers of, be the effect of divine power, as
the apostle says, in Rom. ix. 16. _It is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy_; and if it be the gift
of divine grace, as he says elsewhere, in Eph. ii. 8. _By grace are ye
saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
God_; then it follows from hence, that God designed, before-hand, to
give them these blessings; and if he designed them only for this
remnant, then it is not all, but a part of mankind, to wit, those that
shall be eventually saved, that were chosen to salvation.
(2.) The doctrine of election may be farther proved, from God’s having
foreknown whom he will sanctify and save. It will be allowed, that God
knows all things, and consequently that he knows all things that are
future, and so not only those whom he has saved, but whom he will save.
We need not prove that God fore-knew all things, for that is not denied
by those who are on the other side of the question, or, at least, by
very few of them; and, indeed, if this were not an undoubted truth, we
could not depend on those predictions, which respect things that shall
come to pass; and these not only such as are the effects of necessary
causes, or things produced according to the common course, or laws of
nature, but those which are contingent, or the result of the free-will
of man, which have been foretold, and consequently were fore-known by
God; and if it be allowed that he fore-knew whatever men would be, and
do, let me farther add, that this foreknowledge is not barely an act of
the divine mind, taking a fore-view of, or observing what others will
be, or do, without determining that his actual providence should
interest itself therein; therefore it follows, that if he fore-knew the
salvation of those who shall be eventually saved, he fore-knew what he
would do for them, as a means conducive thereunto; and if so, then he
determined, before-hand, that he would bring them to glory; but this
respects only a part of mankind, who were chosen by him to eternal life.
In this sense we are to understand those scriptures that set forth God’s
eternal purpose to save his people, as an act of fore-knowledge: thus,
in Rom. xi. 2. _God hath not cast away his people, whom he fore-knew_,
that is, he hath not cast them all away, but has reserved to himself a
_remnant, according to the election of grace_. That he either had, or
soon designed, to cast away the greatest number of the Jewish nation,
seems very plain, from several passages in this chapter: thus, in verses
17, 19. he speaks of _some of the branches being broken off_, and ver.
22. of God’s _severity_, by which we are to understand his vindictive
justice in this dispensation: But yet we are not to suppose, says the
apostle, that God has cast them all away, as in ver. 1. and so he
mentions himself, as an instance of the contrary, as though he should
say, I am called, and sanctified, and chosen, though I am an Israelite.
Moreover, God’s not casting away his remnant of the Israelites, being
the result of his fore-knowledge, does not barely respect his knowing
what they should be, or do, whom he had chosen to eternal life, for it
is represented as a discriminating act of favour; whereas, in other
respects, they, who are rejected by him, are as much the objects of his
knowledge, as any others, since the omniscience of God is not the result
of his will; but it is a perfection founded in his nature, and therefore
not arbitrary, but necessary.
Again, the apostle, in 1 Pet. i. 2. speaks of some who were _elected,
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto obedience_, &c.
that is, not chosen, because of any obedience performed by them, which
God foreknew; for this is considered, as the result of his
fore-knowledge, not the cause of it; and this word is yet farther
explained in another place, where it is used, when the apostle says, in
2 Tim. ii. 19. _The Lord knoweth them that are his._ He had before been
speaking of the faith of some, who professed the gospel, being
overthrown; nevertheless, says he, that _foundation_ of hope, which God
has laid in the gospel, is not hereby shaken, but _stands sure_; the
faithful shall not be overthrown, for _the Lord knoweth them that are
his_, that is, he knows who are the objects of his love, who shall be
kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation; so that God’s
fore-knowledge, considered as a distinguishing privilege, is not to be
understood barely of his knowing how men will behave themselves, and so,
taking his measures from thence, as though he first knew what they would
do, and then resolved to bestow his grace; but he knows whom he has set
apart for himself, or designed to save, and, with respect to them, his
providence will influence their conduct, and prevent their apostasy.
God’s knowledge, in scripture, is sometimes taken for his approving, or
loving, those who are the objects thereof: thus he says unto Moses, in
Exod. xxxiii. 17. _Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by
name_, where one expression explains the other, and so it imports a
knowledge of approbation; and, on the other hand, when our Saviour says
to some, in Matt. vii. 23. _I will profess unto you, I never knew you_,
it is not to be supposed that he did not know they would behave
themselves, or what they would do against his name and interest in the
world; but _I never knew you_, that is, I never approved of you, and
accordingly, it follows, _Depart from me, ye that work iniquity_; and
when it is said concerning knowledge, as applied to man, in John xvii.
3. _This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God_;
no one supposes that a speculative knowledge of divine truths will give
any one ground to conclude his right to eternal life; therefore to know
God, is to love, to delight in him: and the same is applied, by the
apostle, to God’s loving man, when he says, in 1 Cor. viii. 3. _If any
man love God, the same is known of him_, that is, beloved by him. Now if
God’s knowing his people signifies his loving them, then his
fore-knowing them must signify his determining to do them good, and to
bestow grace and glory upon them, which is the same as to choose them to
eternal life: he fore-knew what he designed to confer upon them; for he
_prepared a kingdom for them, from the foundation of the world_, Matt.
xxv. 34. which is the same with his having, from the beginning, chosen
them to salvation.
_Object._ As all actions, performed by intelligent creatures, as such,
suppose knowledge, so their determinations are the result of
fore-knowledge, for the will follows the dictates of the understanding;
therefore we must suppose God’s fore-knowledge, to be antecedent to, and
the ground and reason of his determinations. This the apostle seems to
intimate, when he says, in Rom. viii. 29. _Whom he did fore-know, he did
predestinate_, that is, he had a perfect knowledge of their future
conduct, and therefore determined to save them.
_Answ._ I do not deny that, according to the nature of things, we first
consider God as knowing, and then as willing: but this does not hold
good, with respect to his knowing all things future; for we are not to
suppose that he first knows that a thing shall come to pass, and then
wills that it shall. It is true, he first knows what he will do, and
then does it; but, to speak of a knowledge in God, as conversant about
the future state, or actions of his people, without considering them as
connected with his power and providence, (which is the immediate cause
thereof) I cannot think consistent with the divine perfections.
As for this scripture, _Whom he did fore-know, them he did
predestinate_, we are not to suppose, that the meaning is, that God
fore-knew that they, whom he speaks of, would be conformed to the image
of his Son, and then as the result hereof, determined that they should;
for their being conformed to Christ’s image, consists in their
exercising those graces which are agreeable to the temper and
disposition of his children, or brethren, as they are here called; and
this conformity to his image is certainly the result of their being
called: but their calling as well as justification and glorification, is
the consequence of their being fore-known; therefore God’s fore-knowing
here, must be taken in the same sense as it is in the scriptures, but
now referred to; for his having loved them before the foundation of the
world, or chosen them to enjoy those privileges which are here
mentioned.
(3.) It farther appears, that there is a number chosen out of the world
to eternal life, from the means which God has ordained for the gathering
a people out of it, to be made partakers of the blessings which he has
reserved for them in heaven. This is what we generally call the means of
grace; and from hence it appears, that there is a chosen people, whose
advantage is designed hereby. For the making out of this argument, let
it be considered,
_1st._ That there always has been a number of persons, whom God, by his
distinguishing providence, has separated from the world, who have
enjoyed the ordinances, or means of grace, and to whom the promises of
eternal life have been made. We do not say that these are all chosen to
eternal life; but it appears, from the design of providence herein, that
there have been some, among them who were ordained to eternal life. If
God gives the means of grace to the church, it is an evident token that
some are designed to have grace bestowed upon them, and consequently
brought to glory.
_2dly._ They who have been favoured with these means of grace, have had
some peculiar marks of the divine regard to them. Thus we read, in the
early ages of the world, of the distinction between those, who had the
special presence of God among them, and others, who were deprived of it;
as Cain is said, _to go out from the presence of the Lord_, Gen. iv. 16.
as one, who, together with his posterity, was deprived of the means of
grace, and also of God’s covenant, in which he promised to be a God to
some, from which privilege others were excluded: thus he was called the
_God of Shem_, chap. ix. 16. and afterwards of _Abraham_, _Isaac_, _and
Jacob_, Exod. iii. 6. whose descendants were hereby given to expect the
ordinances and means of grace, and many instances of that special grace,
which a part of them should be made partakers of: and would he have made
this provision, for a peculiar people, in so discriminating a way, if
there had not been a remnant among them, according to the election of
grace, to whom he designed to manifest himself here, and bring to glory
hereafter? No, he would have neglected, or over-looked them as he did
the world; whereas both they and their seed had the promises of the
covenant of grace made to them which argues, that there was a remnant
among them, whom God designed hereby to bring into a state of grace and
salvation, and, in this respect, they are said to be the objects of
divine love.
This leads us to consider the meaning of that text, which is generally
insisted on, as a very plain proof of this doctrine, in Rom. ix. 11, 12,
13. _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 unto her, the elder shall
serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated._ Here is an express mention of the purpose of God, according to
election, and Jacob is, pursuant thereunto, said to be the object of
divine love. For the understanding of which, let us consider the sense
that is given of it, by those on the other side of the question; and how
far it may be allowed of, and what there is in the words to prove this
doctrine, and wherein our sense of them differs from their’s.
It is supposed, by those who deny particular election, that Jacob and
Esau are not here considered in a personal capacity, but that the
apostle speaks of their respective descendants, as referring to two
divine predictions; in one of which, Gen. xxv. 23. God told Rebekah,
before her two sons were born, that _two nations were in her womb; and
the elder_, that is, the posterity of Esau, _should serve the younger_,
namely, that of Jacob; and in the other, Mai. i. 2, 3. he says, _I loved
Jacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains waste_; so that if, in
both these scriptures, referred to by the apostle, nothing else be
intended but the difference that should be put between them as to the
external dispensations of providence, or that Jacob’s family, in future
ages should be in a more flourishing state than that of Esau, we must
not suppose that he designed thereby to represent them as chosen to, or
excluded from eternal life.
This seems a very plausible sense of the text; but yet the apostle’s
words may very well be reconciled with those two scriptures, cited to
enervate the force of the argument taken from it; and at the same time,
it will not follow from thence, that there is no reference had to the
doctrine of eternal election therein. Therefore,
1. We will not deny, when it is said, _Jacob have I loved, and Esau have
I hated_, that their respective descendants were intended in this
prediction, yet it will not follow from hence, that Jacob and Esau,
personally considered, were not also included. Whoever reads their
history, in the book of Genesis, will evidently find in one the marks
and characters of a person chosen to eternal life; whereas, in the
other, we have no account of any regard which he expressed to God or
religion, therefore he appears to have been rejected; yet,
2. So far as it respects the posterity of Jacob and Esau we are not to
suppose that God’s having loved the one, and rejected the other, implies
nothing else, but that Jacob’s posterity had a better country allotted
for them, or exceeded Esau’s in those secular advantages, or honours,
which were conferred upon them. This seems to be the principal sense,
which they, on the other side of the question, give of the apostle’s
words; when comparing them with those of the prophet Malachi, who,
speaking concerning Esau’s being hated, explains it, as relating _to his
lands being laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness_. This had been
foretold by some other prophets, Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Ezek. xxxv. 7, 9.
Obed. ver. 10. and had its accomplishment soon after the Jews were
carried captive into Babylon, from which time they ceased to be a
nation; but, certainly, though this be that particular instance of
hatred, which the prophet Malachi refers to, yet there is more contained
in the word, as applied to them by the apostle Paul. It is true, the
prophet designs, in particular to obviate an objection which the Jews
are represented as making, against the divine dispensations towards
them, as though they had not such an appearance of love, as he supposes
them to have had, therefore they are brought in as speaking to this
purpose: how canst thou say, that God has loved us, who have continued
seventy years captives in Babylon, and since our return from thence,
have been exposed to many adverse dispensations of providence? The
prophet’s reply is to this effect: that, notwithstanding, they still
remained a nation, and therefore were in this respect, more the objects
of the divine regard, than the posterity of Esau were, which is
represented as hated, for they never returned unto their former state;
or what attempts soever they made to recover it, they were all to no
purpose. This the prophet alleges, as a sufficient answer to the Jews’
objection, in the same sense in which they understood the words, _love_
or _hatred_; but, doubtless more than this was contained in the
prediction before Jacob and Esau were born, and in the apostle’s
application of it, in the text before-mentioned. If nothing were
intended but outward prosperity, or their vying with each other in
worldly grandeur, Esau’s posterity, in this respect, might be concluded
to have been preferable to Jacob’s; thus when they are reckoned, by
their genealogies, Gen. xxxvi. they are many of them described as dukes
and kings who made a considerable figure in the world. When Jacob’s
posterity were few in number, and bondmen in the land of Egypt, and when
the Israelites were carried captive into Babylon, the Edomites are
represented by the prophet, as looking on, and rejoicing in their
destruction, as being, at that time, in all appearance, secure, and
enjoying their former liberty.
Neither could this love or hatred signify nothing else but the
descendants of Jacob being planted in a more fruitful soil; for there is
little difference put between them, in this respect, in the patriarchal
benediction pronounced by their father, who tells Jacob, that God _would
give him the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of
corn and wine_; and to Esau he says, _Thy dwelling shall be the fatness
of the earth, and the dew of heaven from above_, chap. xxvii. 28,
compared with 39. therefore, when one is described, in the prediction,
as loved, and the other as hated, we are not to suppose, that outward
prosperity on the one hand, or adversity on the other, are, principally
intended thereby, for that might be said of both of them by turns;
therefore let me add,
3. That God’s loving or hating, as applied to the posterity of Jacob or
Esau, principally respects his determining to give or deny the external
blessings of the covenant of grace, or the means of grace, and therewith
many special tokens of his favour. In Jacob’s line the church was
established, out of which, as has been before observed, there was a
remnant chosen, and brought to eternal life; how far this may be said of
Esau’s, is hard to determine.
_Object._ 1. But to this it will be objected, that Job and his friends
were of Esau’s posterity, as is more than probable; but these were far
from being rejected of God.