sufficient to overthrow the sense we have given of this divine oracle,
since the rejection of Esau’s posterity may take its denomination from
the far greater number thereof, without including in it every
individual, as it is very agreeable to the sense of many scriptures.
Moreover, we may consider, that these lived, as we have sufficient
ground to conclude, before the seed of Jacob were increased, and
advanced to be a distinct nation, as they were after their deliverance
from the Egyptian bondage; as also before that idolatry, which first
overspread the land of Chaldea, in Abraham’s time, had universally
extended itself over the country of Idumea, where Esau’s family was
situate; so that it doth not follow from hence, because this prediction
did not take place in a very considerable degree, in the first
descendants from him, that therefore it does not respect their
rejection, as to what concerns the spiritual privileges of that people
afterwards. And, indeed, idolatry seems to have had some footing in the
country where Job lived, even in his time, which gave him occasion to
exculpate himself from the charge thereof, when he signifies, that _he
had not beheld the sun when it shineth, or the moon walking in
brightness, and his heart had not been secretly enticed, or his mouth
kissed his hand_, Job xxxi. 26, 27. alluding to some modes of worship,
practised by idolaters in his day, who gave divine honour to the sun and
moon; and, soon after his time, before Israel had taken possession of
Canaan, there seems to have been an universal defection of the Edomites
from the true religion, otherwise, doubtless, Moses might, without any
difficulty, have got leave to have passed through their country, in his
way to the land of Canaan, which he requested in a most friendly and
obliging manner, but to no purpose, Numb. xx. 14-21. especially
considering they had no reason to fear that they would do any thing
against them in a hostile manner; therefore the unfriendly treatment
they met with from them, proceeded from the same spring with that of the
Amalekites, and other bordering nations, namely, they had all revolted
from the God and religion of their father Abraham; so that this
prediction seems to have been fulfilled, before the promise, respecting
Jacob’s posterity, in any considerable degree, began to take place.
Having briefly considered this objection, we return to the argument,
namely, that God’s loving or hating, in this scripture, as it has a
relation to the distinct nations that descended from Jacob and Esau,
includes in it his determining to give or deny the external privileges
of the covenant of grace, which we generally call the ordinances, or
means of grace. These were the spiritual and more distinguishing
instances of divine favour, which Jacob was given to expect, when he
obtained the blessing. As for the double portion, or the greatest part
of the paternal estate, that descended with it, together with the honour
of having dominion over their brethren, or a right (as it is probable
they had) to act as civil magistrates in their respective families,
these were all small things, if compared with those spiritual
privileges, wherein God’s love to Jacob, and his posterity, was
principally expressed; it was this which is so often signified by God’s
being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: In other respects, Esau was
blessed as well as Jacob; for the apostle, speaking concerning that part
of Isaac’s prediction, which respected the temporal advantage of their
posterity, says, that _he blessed Jacob and Esau, concerning things to
come_, Heb. xi. 20. yet Esau was rejected, as to what concerns the
spiritual part of the blessing, which was his birth-right, that he is
said to have _despised_, Gen. xxv. 34. and, for this reason, he is
styled, by the apostle, a _profane person_, Heb. xii. 16. If it had been
only a temporal privilege that he contemned, it might have been a sin;
but it could not then have been properly said to have been an instance
of profaneness, for that has respect only to things sacred; therefore it
evidently appears, that the blessings which Esau despised, and God had
before designed to confer on Jacob, and his seed, as a peculiar instance
of his love, were of a spiritual nature.
_Object._ 2. It will be farther objected, that men’s enjoying the
external privileges of the covenant of grace, has no immediate reference
to their salvation, or election to it.
_Answ._ Since salvation is not to be attained, but by and under these
means of grace, we must conclude, that whenever God bestows and
continues them, to a church or nation, he has a farther view therein,
namely, the calling some, by his grace, to partake of those privileges
that accompany salvation. If there were no such blessings to be
conferred on the world, there would be no means of grace, and
consequently no external dispensation of the covenant of grace; for it
is absurd to suppose that any thing can be called a means, where all are
excluded from the end which they refer to; therefore the sum of this
argument is, that God had a peculiar love to the posterity of Jacob, and
accordingly he designed to give them those privileges which were denied
to others, namely, the means of grace, which he would not have done, had
he not intended to make them effectual to the salvation of some of them;
and this purpose, relating hereunto, is what is called election, which,
though it be not applicable to all the seed of Jacob; for all, as the
apostle says elsewhere, are not Israel who are of Israel; yet, inasmuch
as there was a remnant of them, to whom it was applied, they are that
happy seed, who are represented, by the apostle, as the objects of God’s
compassion, or _vessels unto honour, in whom he designed to make known
the riches of his glory, having_, in this respect, _afore prepared them
unto glory_, Rom. ix. 15, 21, 23.
Thus having considered that God has chosen a part of mankind to
salvation, we may, without being charged with a vain curiosity, enquire
whether this privilege belongs to the greater or smaller part of
mankind, since the scripture goes before us in this matter. If we judge
of the purpose of God by the execution thereof, it must be observed,
that hitherto the number of those, who have been made partakers of the
special privileges of the gospel, has been comparatively small. If we
look back to those ages before our Saviour’s incarnation, what a very
inconsiderable proportion did Israel bear to the rest of the world, who
were left in darkness and ignorance! And, after this, our Saviour
observes, that _many were called_, in his time, _but few were chosen_,
Matt. xx. 16. and he advises to _enter in at the strait gate_, chap.
vii. 13, 14. by which he means the way to eternal life, concerning which
he says, that _there are_, comparatively, _few that find it_. And when
the gospel had a greater spread, and wonderful success attended the
preaching thereof, by the apostles, and many nations embraced the
Christian faith, in the most flourishing ages of the church, the number
of Christians, and much more of those who were converted, and
effectually called, was comparatively small. Whether the number of true
believers shall be greater, when there is a greater spread of the
gospel, and a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, to render it more
successful, as we hope and pray for that time, and that not altogether
without scripture-warrant; I say, whether then the fewness of those who
have hitherto been chosen and sanctified, shall not be compensated, by a
far greater number, who shall live in that happy age of the church, it
is not for us to be over-curious in our enquiries about: However, we may
determine this from scripture, that, in the great day, when all the
elect shall be gathered together, their number shall be exceeding great,
if what the apostle says refers to this matter, as some suppose it does,
when he speaks of a _great multitude, which no man could number, of all
nations, and kindreds, and people and tongues, who stood before the
throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands_, Rev. vii. 9. But these things are no farther to be
searched into, than as we may take occasion, from thence, to enquire
whether we are of that number; and, if we are, we ought to bless God for
his discriminating grace, which he has magnified therein. And this leads
us to consider,
2. That they who are chosen to salvation, are also chosen to
sanctification, as the means thereof: As the end and means are not to be
separated in the execution of God’s decree, so they are not to be
separated in our conception of the decree itself; for, since God brings
none to glory, but in a way of holiness, the same he determined to do
from all eternity, that is, to make his people holy, as well as happy;
or first to give them faith and repentance, and then, the end of their
faith, the salvation of their souls.
There are many scriptures, in which the purpose of God, relating
hereunto, is plainly intended; as when it is said, _He hath chosen us
that we should be holy, and without blame, before him in love_, Eph. i.
4. and elsewhere the apostle tells others, that _God had, from the
beginning, chosen them unto salvation, through sanctification of the
Spirit, and belief of the truth_, 2 Thes. ii. 13. and the apostle James
saith, that _God hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and
heirs of the kingdom_, James ii. 5. and elsewhere the apostle Paul
speaks of persons being _predestinated to be conformed to the image of
his Son_, which he explains of their being _called_, _justified_, and
_glorified_, Rom. viii. 29. and it is also said, speaking of those who
were converted under the apostle Paul’s ministry, _as many as were
ordained unto eternal life believed_, Acts xiii. 48. accordingly they
were ordained to one as well as the other.
The argument, which seems very plainly contained in these, and such-like
scriptures, is, that God’s eternal purpose respects the grace that his
people are made partakers of here, as well as the glory that they expect
hereafter, which are inseparably connected; this cannot reasonably be
denied by those who are not willing to give into the doctrine of
election: But if the inseparable connexion between faith and salvation
be allowed, as having respect to the execution of God’s purpose, it will
be no difficult matter to prove that this was determined by him, or that
his purpose respects faith, as well as salvation. Therefore the main
thing in controversy between us is, whether this grace, that accompanies
salvation, is wrought by the power of God, or whether it depends on the
free-will of man. That which induces them to deny that God has chosen
persons to faith, is this supposition; that that which is the result of
man’s free-will, cannot be the object of God’s unchangeable purpose, and
consequently that God has not chosen men to it. This is the hinge on
which the whole controversy turns, and if the doctrine of special
efficacious grace be maintained, all the prejudices against that of
election would soon be removed; but this we must refer to its proper
place, being obliged to insist on that subject in some following
answers;[193] and, what may be farther considered, concerning the
absoluteness of election, as one of the properties that belong to it,
under a following head, will add some strength to our present argument.
All that we shall do, at present, shall be to defend our sense of the
scriptures, but now referred to, to prove that election respects
sanctification, as well as salvation; and that it does so, is plain from
the first of them, in Eph. i. 4. which proves that holiness is the end
of election, or the thing that persons are chosen to, as appears from
the grammatical construction of the words: It is not said he had chosen
us, considered as holy, and without blame, but that we should be
holy;[194] that which is plainly intended, as the result of election,
cannot be the cause and reason of it.
As to what the apostle says, in 2 Thess. ii. 13. _God hath, from the
beginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of the
Spirit, and belief of the truth_, that plainly intimates, that
sanctification is the end of election; and therefore the principal
answer that some give to it, which appears to be an evasion, is, that
the apostle does not speak of eternal election, because God is said to
have done this from the beginning, that is, as one explains the words,
from the beginning of the apostle’s preaching to them: But if we can
prove that there is such a thing as a purpose to save, it will be no
difficult matter to prove the eternity of the divine purpose; and this
is not disagreeable to the sense, in which the words, _From the
beginning_, are elsewhere used.[195]
As for that other scripture, in James ii. 5. where it is said, _God hath
chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_;
here the words, _That they may be_,[196] (which are inserted by the
apostle, in the scripture but now mentioned) may, without any strain on
the sense thereof, be supplied, and so the meaning is, God hath chosen
them, _that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom_: But
if it will not be allowed, that these words ought to be supplied, the
sense is the same, as though they were these, “God has chosen the poor
of this world, who are described as rich in faith, to be heirs of the
kingdom;” and so we distinguish between election’s being founded upon
faith, and faith’s being a character by which the elect are described;
and, if faith be a character by which they are described, then he who
enabled them to believe, purposed to give them this grace, that is, he
chose them to faith, as well as to be heirs of the kingdom.
As for that other text, in Rom. viii. 29. _He hath predestinated us to
be conformed to the image of his Son_; these words, _to be_, are
supplied by our translators, as I apprehend they ought, for the reason
but now mentioned, taken from the parallel scripture, in Eph. i. 4. But,
to evade the force of the argument, to prove that we are predestinated
to grace, as well as to glory, they who deny this doctrine, give a very
different turn to the sense of this text, as though the apostle only
intended hereby, that the persons, whom he speaks of, were predestinated
to an afflicted state in this life, a state of persecution, in which
they are said to be conformed to the image of Christ;[197] But though it
is true that believers are said to be made partakers of the sufferings
of Christ, and, by consequence, are predestinated thereunto, yet that
does not appear to be the sense of this text, as not well agreeing with
the context; for the apostle had been describing those, whom he speaks
of, as loving God, and called according to his purpose, and then
considers them as predestinated, to be conformed to the image of his
Son, which must be meant of their being made partakers of those graces,
in which their conformity to Christ consists, as well as in sufferings;
and then he considers them, in the following verse, as _called_,
_justified_, and _glorified_; and all this is the result of their being
predestinated.
As for that scripture, in Acts xiii. 48. _As many as were ordained to
eternal life believed_; their faith is here considered as the result of
their being ordained to eternal life, or they are represented as
predestinated to the means, as well as the end.
_Object._ 1. But it will be objected by some, that this is not agreeable
to the sense of the Greek word here used;[198] partly, because it is not
said they were fore-ordained to eternal life, but _ordained_; and the
genuine sense thereof is, that they were disposed to eternal life, and
consequently to faith, as the means thereof. And this is also taken in a
different sense; some suppose that it imports a being disposed, by the
providence of God, or set in order, or prepared for eternal life;
others, agreeably to the exposition which Socinus, and some of his
followers, give of the text, (which sense a late learned writer falls in
with[199]) understand the words, as signifying their having an internal
disposition, or being well inclined, as having an earnest desire after
eternal life, for which reason they believed; or were fitted and
prepared for eternal life, by the temper of their minds, and accordingly
they believed.
_Answ._ 1. If the word, which we render _ordained_, be justly
translated, the thing which they were ordained to, being something that
was future, it is, in effect, the same, as though it were said they were
fore-ordained to it, as Beza observes.[200]
2. Suppose the word ought rather to be translated, they were disposed
unto eternal life; that seems to contain in it a metaphor, taken from a
general’s disposing, or ordering his soldiers to their respective posts,
or employments, to which he appoints them, and so it is as though he
should say, as many as God had, in his providence, or antecedent
purpose, intended for salvation, believed, inasmuch as faith is the
means and way to attain it; and that amounts to the same thing with our
translation. But,
3. As to that other sense given of it, _viz._ their being internally
disposed for eternal life, it seems very disagreeable to the import of
the Greek word; and those texts, that are generally brought to justify
this application thereof, appear to be very much strained and forced by
them, to serve their purpose;[201] and, indeed, if the word would bear
such a sense, the doctrine contained therein, namely, that there are
some internal dispositions in men, antecedent to the grace of God,
whereby they are fitted and prepared for it, does not well agree with
the sense of those scriptures, which set forth man’s natural opposition
to the grace of God, before he is regenerate and converted, and his
enmity against him; and others that assert the absolute necessity of the
previous work of the Spirit, to prepare for, as well as excite the acts
of faith.
_Object._ 2. It is farther objected, that it cannot respect their being
ordained, or chosen to eternal life, who believed, inasmuch as none that
plead for that doctrine suppose that all, who are elected in one place,
believe at the same time; had it been said, that all, who believed at
that time, were ordained to eternal life, that would be agreeable to
what is maintained by those who defend the doctrine of election; but to
say, that all, who are elected to eternal life, in any particular city,
are persuaded to believe at the same time, this is what they will not
allow of: besides, it is not usual for God to discover this to, or by,
the inspired writers, that, in any particular place, there are no more
elected than those who are, at any one time, converted; and, indeed, it
is contrary to the method of God’s providence, to bring in all his elect
at one time, therefore we cannot suppose that this was revealed to the
inspired writer, and consequently something else must be intended, and
not eternal election, namely, that all those that were prepared for
eternal life, or who were disposed to pursue after it, believed.[202]
_Answ._ When the apostle says, as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed, we are not hereby led into this hidden mystery of the divine
will, so as to be able to judge, whether more than they that then
believed, were ordained to it in that place; but the meaning is, that
there were many that believed, and that all of them were ordained to
eternal life; and so it is as though he should say, that God has a
people in this place, whom he has ordained to eternal life, who were to
be converted, some at one time, others at another: some of them were
converted at this time, to wit, a part of those who were ordained to
eternal life, if more were ordained to it; so that the objection
supposes that the words, which we render, _as many as_, imports the
whole number of the elect in that place; whereas, we think that the
meaning is, that there were many who believed, and these were only such
who were ordained to eternal life, of which there might be many more,
who then did not believe, but hereafter should; but this remained a
secret, which the inspired writer was not led into, nor we by him.
_Object._ 3. There is another objection, which the learned author,[203]
(whose paraphrase on the New Testament, and discourse on election, I am
sometimes obliged to refer to in considering the objections that are
made against this doctrine) proposes with a great deal of warmth; and if
no reply can be given to it, it will be no wonder to find many
prejudiced against it; his words are these: “If the reason why these men
believed be only this, that they were men ordained to eternal life, the
reason why the rest believed not, can be this only, that they were not
ordained by God to eternal life: and, if so, what necessity could there
be that the word of God should be first preached to them, as we read,
ver. 46. was it only that their damnation might be the greater? This
seems to charge that Lover of souls, whose tender mercies are over all
his works, with the greatest cruelty, seeing it makes him determine,
from all eternity, not only that so many souls as capable of salvation
as any other, shall perish everlastingly; but also to determine, that
the dispensations of his providence shall be such towards them, as
necessarily tends to the aggravation, of their condemnation; and what
could, even their most malicious and enraged enemy, do more? What is it
the very devil aims at, by all his temptations, but this very end,
_viz._ the aggravation of our future punishment? And therefore to assert
that God had determined that his word should be spoken to these Jews,
for this very end, is to make God as instrumental to their ruin, as the
very devil, and seemeth wholly irreconcileable with his declarations,
that he would have all men to be saved, and would not that any man
should perish.”
_Answ._ According to this author, we must either quit the doctrine we
are maintaining, provided it be the same as he represents it to be, or
else must be charged by all mankind, with such horrid blasphemy, as is
shocking to any one that reads it, as charging the Lover of souls with
the greatest cruelty, and with acting in such a way, as their greatest
enemy is said to do; determining, that the dispensations of his
providence should tend to aggravate their condemnation, and that the
gospel should be preached for this end, and no other. But let the
blasphemy rest on his misrepresentation, and far be it from us to
advance any such doctrine; therefore that which may be considered, in
answer to it, is,
1. The immediate reason why men believe to eternal life, is, because God
exerts the exceeding greatness of his power, whereby he works faith; and
the reason of his exerting this power, is, because he determined to do
it, as it is the execution of his purpose.
2. It does not follow, from hence, that the only reason why others do
not believe, is, because they were not ordained to eternal life. It is
true, indeed, that their not having been ordained to eternal life, or
God’s not having purposed to save them, is the reason why he does not
exert that power that is necessary to work faith: and unbelief will
certainly be the consequence thereof, unless man could believe without
the divine energy; yet the immediate spring and cause of unbelief, is
the corruption and perverseness of human nature which is chargeable on
none else but man himself. We must certainly distinguish between
unbelief’s being the consequence of God’s not working faith, whereby
corrupt nature takes occasion to exert itself, as being destitute of
preventing grace; and its being the effect hereof. Is God’s denying the
revengeful person, or the murderer, that grace, which would prevent his
executing his bloody designs, the cause thereof? Or his denying to
others the necessary supply of their present exigencies, the cause of
their making use of unlawful means, by plundering others to subsist
themselves? No more is his denying special grace, which he was not
obliged to give to any, the cause of men’s unbelief and impenitency; for
that is to be assigned only to that wicked propensity of nature, which
inclines us to sin, and not to the divine efficiency; and how farsoever
this may be the result of God’s determining to deny his grace, it is not
to be reckoned the effect of that determination.
3. The design of the word’s being preached, is not to aggravate the
damnation of those that shall not believe, according to this vile
suggestion; but that men might be hereby led to know their duty and that
the sovereignty of God, and the holiness of his law, which requires
faith and repentance, as well as man’s obligation hereunto might be made
known to the world. I do not deny, but that unbelief, and the
condemnation consequent thereupon, is aggravated by the giving of the
gospel, for that appears from many scriptures, Matt. xi. 21. Luke x. 13.
as when our Saviour upbraids Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, and other
places, amongst whom he was conversant, with their unbelief, and
represents their condemnation as greater than, that of others, who were
destitute of those privileges: But yet it is a malicious insinuation, to
suppose we conclude that the gospel was given for this end; and we must
still distinguish between the greater aggravation of condemnation’s
being the result of giving the gospel, or the remote consequence
thereof, and its being the effect of it in those that reject the gospel,
and much less the design of God in giving it.
4. God’s denying that grace, which would have enabled men to believe, is
not to be charged as an instance of cruelty, any more than his denying
it to fallen angels, but it is rather a display of his justice. He was
not obliged to give grace to any of the apostate race of man; shall
therefore his denying the grace of faith be reckoned an instance of
cruelty, when we consider the forfeiture that was before made thereof,
and man’s propensity to sin, which is chargeable only on himself?