Chapter 22. A Confirmation of This Doctrine by Testimonies of the Scripture

All these things which we have set forth are not without controversy among many, specially the free election of the faithful: which yet cannot be weakened. For the common sort think that God, as he foresees that every man's merits will be, so makes difference between men: that therefore whom he foreknows will not be unworthy of his grace, them he adopts into the place of children: and whose natures he espies will be bent to wickedness and ungodliness, them he appoints to the damnation of death. So by cloaking it with the veil of foreknowledge they do not only darken election, but feign that it has its beginning from elsewhere. And this opinion received of the common sort is not the opinion of the common sort alone: for in all ages it has had great maintainers. Which I do plainly confess, to the end that no man should trust that it shall much hurt our cause if their names be objected against us. For, the truth of God herein is more certain, than that it may be shaken: more clear, than that it may be darkened with the authority of men. But some other, neither exercised in the Scripture, nor worthy of any voice, do rail at this doctrine with greater maliciousness, than that their froward pride ought to be suffered. Because God choosing some after his own will, leaves others, they pick a quarrel against him. But if the thing itself be known for true, what shall they prevail with brawling against God? We teach nothing but that which is approved by experience, that it was always at liberty for God to bestow his grace on whom he will. I will not inquire whereby the posterity of Abraham excelled others, but by that vouchsafing, of which there is found no cause elsewhere than in God. Let them answer why they are men rather than oxen or asses. When it was in the hand of God to make them dogs, he fashioned them after his own image. Will they give leave to brute beasts to quarrel with God for their estate, as though the difference were unrighteous? Truly it is no more righteous, that they should enjoy the prerogative which they have obtained by no deserts, than for God diversely to deal abroad his benefits according to the measure of his own judgment. If they skip over to persons, where the inequality is more hateful to them, at the least at the example of Christ they ought to be afraid to prate so boldly of so high a mystery. He is conceived of the seed of David, a mortal man: by what virtues will they say that he deserved to be in the very womb made 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? This thing Augustine wisely noted, that in the very head of the Church is a most clear mirror of free election, lest it should trouble us in the members: and that he was not by righteously living made the son of God, but that he had so great honor freely given him, that he might afterward make others partakers of his gifts. Here if any man ask why others were not the same that he was, or why all we are so far distant from him, why all we are corrupt and he purity: such a man shall betray not only his madness but therewith also his shamelessness. But if they go forward to labor to take from God the free power to choose and refuse, let them also take away that which is given to Christ. Now it is worth the effort to consider what the Scripture pronounces of every one. Paul verily, when he teaches that we were chosen in Christ, takes away all respect of our own worthiness. For it is all one as if he had said: because in the whole seed of Adam the heavenly Father found nothing worthy of his election, he turned his eyes to his Christ, to choose as it were members out of his body those whom he would take into the fellowship of life. Let this reason then be of force among the faithful, that we were therefore adopted in Christ into the heavenly inheritance, because in ourselves we were not able to receive so great excellence. Which also he touches in another place, when he exhorts the Colossians to giving of thanks, for this that they were by God made fit to be partakers of the estate of the holy (Colossians 1:12). If election goes before this grace of God, that we be made fit to obtain the glory of the life to come: what shall God himself now find in us, whereby he may be moved to elect us? My meaning shall yet be more openly expressed by another saying of his. He has chosen us (says he) before the foundations of the world were laid, according to the good pleasure of his will, that we might be holy, and unspotted, and unreproachable in his sight (Ephesians 1:4): where he sets the good pleasure of God against all our deserts whatever they be.

That the proof may be more strong, it is worth the labor to note all the parts of that place, which being coupled together leave no doubt. Where he names the elect, it is no doubt that he speaks to the faithful, as he also by and by afterward affirms. Therefore they do with too foul a gloss abuse that name, which wrest it to the age in which the Gospel was first published. Where he says that they were elect before the beginning of the world, he takes away all respect of worthiness. For, what reason of difference is there between them which yet were not, and those which afterward should in Adam be equal? Now if they be elected in Christ, it follows that not only every man is severed without himself, but also one of them from another, inasmuch as we see that not all are the members of Christ. That which is added, that they were elected that they might be holy, plainly confutes the error which derives election from foreknowledge, inasmuch as Paul cries out against it and says that whatever virtue appears in men, it is the effect of election. Now if a higher cause be sought, Paul answers, that God has so predestinated, indeed and that according to the good pleasure of his will. In which words he overthrows whatever means of their election men do imagine in themselves. For he also teaches that whatever things God gives toward spiritual life, they flow out of this one fountain, because God has chosen whom he would, and before they were born he had severally laid up for them the grace which he vouchsafed to give them.

But wherever this pleasure of God reigns, there no works come to be considered. He does not here indeed pursue the comparison of contraries, but it is to be understood such as he himself declares. He has called us (says he) with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and the grace which is given us of Christ before the times of the world. And we have already showed that all doubt is taken away in this which follows, that we might be holy and unspotted. For if you say, because he foresaw that we should be holy, therefore he chose us, you shall pervert the order of Paul. Thus therefore you may safely gather. If he chose us that we might be holy: then he chose us, not because he foresaw that we would be such. For these two things are contrary the one to the other: that the godly have it of election that they be holy, and that they come to it by means of works. Neither is their cavilation here anything worth to which they commonly flee, that the Lord does not render the grace of election to any works going before, but yet grants it to works to come. For when it is said that the faithful were chosen, that they might be holy: therewith is signified that the holiness which was to come in them took beginning at election. And how shall this saying agree together, that those things which are derived from election gave cause to election? The same thing which he said he seems afterwards to confirm more strongly, where he says, According to the purpose of his will which he had purposed in himself. For, to say that God purposed in himself, is as much in effect as if it had been said, that without himself he considered nothing whereof he had any regard in decreeing. Therefore he by and by adds, that the whole sum of our election tends to this end, that we should be to the praise of the grace of God. Truly the grace of God deserves not to be praised alone in our election, unless our election be free. But free it shall not be, if God in electing his, does consider what shall be the works of every one. Therefore we find that what Christ said to his disciples, has place universally among all the faithful, You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Where he not only excludes deserving past, but also signifies that they had nothing in themselves why they should be chosen, if he had not prevented them then with his mercy. Like as this saying of Paul is also to be understood: Who first gave to him, and shall receive recompense? For he means to show that the goodness of God so prevents men, that it finds nothing in them neither past nor to come, whereby he may be won to be favorable to them.

Now to the Romans, where he fetches this question further, and follows it more largely, he denies that all they are Israelites, which are issued of Israel: because although by right of inheritance they were all blessed, yet the succession did not equally pass to them all. The beginning of this disputation proceeded of the pride and deceitful glorying of the Jewish people. For when they claimed to themselves the name of the Church, they would have the credit of the Gospel to hang upon their will: as the Papists at this day would gladly with this feigned color thrust themselves into the place of God. Paul, although he grants that the offspring of Abraham is holy by reason of the covenant, yet affirms that the most part of them are strangers in it: and that not only because they swerve out of kind, so that of lawful children they become bastards, but because the special election of God stands above and reigns in the highest top, which alone makes the adoption thereof sure. If their own godliness established some in the hope of salvation, and their own falling away alone disinherited others: Paul truly should both fondly and inconveniently lift up the readers even to the secret election. Now if the will of God (the cause whereof neither appears nor is to be sought without himself) makes the one sort differing from the other, so that not all the children of Israel be true Israelites, it is vainly feigned that every man's estate has beginning in himself. Then he further follows the matter under the example of Jacob and Esau. For when they both were the sons of Abraham, both together enclosed in one mother's womb, it was a monstrous change that the honor of first birth was removed to Jacob, by which change Paul affirms that there was testified the election of the one and the reprobation of the other. The original and cause of it is inquired, which the teachers of foreknowledge will have to be set out in the virtues and vices of men. For this is an easy short way with them, that God showed in the person of Jacob, that he chooses the worthy of his grace: and in the person of Esau, he refuses them whom he foresees to be unworthy. Thus they say boldly. But what says Paul? When they were not yet born, and had not done any good or evil, that according to election the purpose of God might abide: not of works, but of him that calls it is said, The elder shall serve the younger: as it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. If foreknowledge were of any force in this difference of the brothers, then truly mention were unfittingly made of the time. Let us grant that Jacob was chosen, because he had worthiness gotten by works to come: to what purpose should Paul say that he was not yet born? And this now should be unadvisedly added, that he had yet done no good: because this shall be a ready answer, that nothing is hidden from God, and that so the godliness of Jacob was present before him. If works do win grace, they should then worthily have had their price before that Jacob was born as if he had grown to full age. But the Apostle goes forward in undoing this knot, and teaches that the adoption of Jacob was not made of works, but of the calling of God. In works he interlaces not the time to come or time past: and then he directly sets them against the calling of God, meaning by establishing of the one expressly to overthrow the other: as if he had said that it is to be considered what has pleased God, not what men have brought of themselves. Last of all it is certain that by the words of Election and Purpose, all causes whatever men are wont to feign elsewhere than in the secret counsel of God, are quite removed from this matter.

What color will they bring to darken these things, who in election assign some place to works either past or to come? For this is utterly to mock out that which the Apostle affirms, that the difference of the brethren hangs not upon any consideration of works, but upon the mere calling of God: because it was put between them when they were not yet born. Neither had he been ignorant of this their subtlety, if it had had any soundness in it: but because he very well knew, that God can foresee no goodness in man, but that which he has first determined by the benefit of his election to give him: he flees not to that unorderly order, to set good works before the cause of themselves. Thus have we by the words of the Apostle that the salvation of the faithful is founded upon the will of the only election of God: and that the same favor is not gotten by works, but comes of free calling. We have also as it were an image of that thing set before us. Esau and Jacob are brethren, issuing both of one the same parents, enclosed yet both in one womb, not yet brought out into the world. In them all things are equal, yet of them the judgment of God is diverse. For he takes the one, and forsakes the other. There was nothing but the only first birth, by right whereof the one excelled the other. But this also being passed over, that thing is given to the younger which is denied to the elder. Indeed and in others also God seems always as of set purpose to have despised first birth, to cut off from the flesh all matter of glorying. Refusing Ishmael, he cast his mind to Isaac. Plucking back Manasseh, he more honored Ephraim.

If any man interrupt me with saying that we must not by these inferior and small benefits determine of the sum of the life to come, that he which has been advanced to the honor of first birth, should therefore be reckoned to be adopted into the inheritance of heaven: (for there are some which spare not Paul himself, as though in alleging these testimonies he had wrested the Scripture to a strange sense.) I answer as I have done before, that the Apostle neither slipped by inadvertence, nor willfully abused the testimonies of the Scripture. But he saw (which they cannot abide to consider) that God intended by an earthly sign to declare the spiritual election of Jacob, which otherwise was hidden in his inaccessible throne. For unless we refer the first birth granted to him to the world to come, it should be a vain and foolish form of blessing whereby he obtained nothing but manifold miseries, discomforts, grievous banishment, and many bitterness of sorrow and cares. Therefore when Paul saw without doubting, that God by outward blessing testified the blessing which he had in his kingdom prepared spiritual and never decaying for his servant: he doubted not for proof of this spiritual blessing, to fetch an argument from that outward blessing. This also we must remember that to the land of Canaan was adjoined the pledge of the heavenly dwelling: so that it ought not at all to be doubted that Jacob was grafted with the Angels into the body of Christ that he might be partaker of the same life. Jacob therefore is chosen, when Esau is rejected: and by the Predestination of God is made different from him from whom he differed not in any deservings. If you ask a cause, the Apostle renders this, because it is said to Moses, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy: and I will vouchsafe to grant mercy to whoever I will vouchsafe to grant mercy (Romans 9:15). And what, I beseech you, does this mean? Truly, the Lord himself most plainly pronounces that men have in themselves no cause why he should do good to them, but he fetches the cause from his own mercy only: and therefore that the salvation of his is his own work. When God sets your salvation in himself alone, why will you descend to yourself? When he appoints to you his mercy alone, why will you run to your own deservings? When he holds your thought wholly in his mercifulness alone, why will you turn part to the beholding of your own works? Therefore we must needs come to that lesser people, which Paul in another place says to have been foreknown to God (Romans 11:2): not in such sort as these men imagine, to foreknow out of an idle watchtower the things that he works not: but in such sense as it is often read. For truly when Peter says in Luke, that Christ was by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God appointed to death (Acts 2:23), he does not bring God as a looker on but the author of our salvation. So the same Peter also, where he says that the faithful to whom he wrote were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:2), properly expresses that secret Predestination whereby God has marked for his children whom he would. And the word Purpose, which he joins for a different word, expressing all one thing, forasmuch as it does everywhere signify a stedfast determination as they commonly call it, undoubtedly teaches that God when he is author of our salvation goes not out of himself. In which sense he says in the same chapter, that Christ was the lamb foreknown before the creation of the world. For what is more foolish or trifling, than to say that God from on high did stand looking from where salvation should come to mankind? Therefore in Paul the foreknown people is as much as a small portion mingled with the multitude which falsely pretends the name of God. In another place also Paul to beat down their boasting which being but covered with a visor, do take upon themselves the chief preeminence among the godly before the world, says that God knows who are his (2 Timothy 1:12). Finally by that saying Paul points to us two sorts of people: the one, of the whole kindred of Abraham: the other, severally chosen out of it, and which being laid up under the eyes of God is hidden from the sight of men. And it is no doubt that he took this out of Moses, which affirms that God will be merciful to whom he will (although he there spoke of the elect people, whose estate in outward seeming was equal) as if he should have said, that in the common adoption is included with him a special grace toward some, as it were a more holy treasure: and that the common covenant withstands not but that the same small number may be exempt in degree: and he willing to make himself the free disposer and ruler of this thing, precisely denies that he will be merciful to one rather than to another, for any other reason, but for that it so pleases him: because when mercy comes to him that seeks it, though he indeed suffers not a denial, yet he either prevents or partly gets to himself the favor of which God claims to himself the praise.

Now let the sovereign Judge and master pronounce of the whole matter. When he saw so great hardness in his hearers, that he did in a manner waste his words without fruit among the multitude: to remedy this offense, he cries out, Whatever my Father gives me, it shall come to me. For this is the will of my Father, that whatever my Father has given me, I shall not lose any of it. Note that the beginning is taken at the Father's gift, that we may be delivered into the faithful keeping and defense of Christ. Here some man perhaps will turn a circle about, and will take exception, saying that they only are accounted in the proper possession of the Father, whose yielding has been voluntary by faith. But Christ stands only upon that point, that although the fallings away of great multitudes do shake the whole world, yet the counsel of God shall be steadfast and stand faster than the heavens themselves, that his election may never fail. They are said to have been the elect of the Father, before that he gave to them his only begotten Son. They ask whether it were by nature: indeed rather, those which were strangers he made his own by drawing them to him. There is a great clearness in the words of Christ, than can by shifting be covered with any darkness. No man (says he) can come to me, unless my Father draw him. But whoever has heard and learned of my Father, he comes to me. If all generally without difference should bow their knee before Christ, then the election were common: but now in the fewness of the believers appears a manifest diversity. Therefore after that Christ had affirmed that the disciples which were given him, were the peculiar possession of God the Father, within a little after he added, I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given me, because they are yours. Whereby is proved that the whole world belongs not to the Creator of it, saving that grace delivers a few from the wrath of God, and from eternal death, which otherwise should have perished: but the world itself is left in its own destruction to which it was appointed. In the mean time although Christ put himself between, yet he claims to himself the power of choosing in common with the Father. I speak not (says he) of all: I know whom I have chosen. If any man ask from where he has chosen them, he answers in another place, Out of the world, which he excludes out of his prayers when he commends his disciples to his Father. This is to be held, that when he affirms that he knows whom he has chosen, there is signified some special sort in the general kind of men: then, that the same special sort is made to differ not by the quality of their own virtues, but by the heavenly decree. From which it follows that many excel by their own force or diligence, when Christ makes himself the author of election. For when in another place he reckons Judas among the elect, whereas he was a devil, this is referred only to the office of Apostleship: which although it be a clear mirror of the favor of God (as Paul so often acknowledges in his own person,) yet it contains not in itself the hope of eternal salvation. Judas therefore, when he did unfaithfully bear the office of an Apostle, might be worse than the devil: but of those whom Christ has once grafted into his body, he will suffer none to perish: because in preserving their salvation he will perform that which he has promised, that is, he will stretch forth the power of God which is greater than all. For whereas he says in all other place, Father, of those whom you have given me, I have lost none but the son of perdition: although it be an abusive speech by figure, yet it has no doubtful meaning. The sum is, that God makes them his children by free adoption whom he will have to be his children: and that the inward cause thereof is in himself: because he is content with his own secret good pleasure.

But Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome thought that God distributes his grace among men, as he foresees that every man will use it well: Indeed, and Augustine was once in the same opinion. But when he had better profited in knowledge of the Scripture, he not only revoked it as evidently false, but also strongly confuted it: indeed, and after his revoking of it, in reproving the Pelagians for that they continued in the same error, says: Who can not marvel that the Apostle knew not this most subtle sense? For when he had set out a thing to be wondered at of these brethren, while they were not yet born, and afterward objected a question against himself, saying; what then? Is there injustice with God? Here was a fit place for him to answer, that God foresaw the merits of them both: yet he says not this, but flees to the judgments and mercy of God. And in another place, when he had taken away all merits before election, Here (says he) is confuted their vain reasoning which defend the foreknowledge of God against the grace of God, and therefore say that we are chosen before the making of the world, because God foreknew that we would be good, not that he himself would make us good. He says not this, who says, You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. For if he had therefore chosen us, because he foreknew that we would be good: he should therewith also have foreknown that we would choose him: and so forth as follows to that effect. Let the testimony of Augustine be of force among them that willingly rest in the authority of the Fathers. However, Augustine suffers not himself to be severed from the rest: but by clear testimonies shows that this disagreement is false with the malice whereof the Pelagians burdened him. For in the 19th chapter of his book of the Predestination of Saints, he alleges out of Ambrose, Christ calls whom he has mercy on. Again, If he had willed, of the undevout he might have made devout. But God calls whom he vouchsafes: and whom he will he makes religious. If I wished to knit together a whole volume out of Augustine, I could readily show to the readers that I need no other words but his: but I will not load them with tediousness. But go to, let us imagine that they speak not at all: but let us give heed to the matter itself. A hard question was moved, whether God did righteously in this that he vouchsafed to grant his grace but to some: Of which question Paul might have uncumbered himself with one word if he had alleged the respect of works. Why therefore does he not do it, but rather continues on a discourse which abides in the same hardness? Why, but because he ought not? For the Holy Spirit which spoke by his mouth, had not the disease of forgetfulness. Therefore without any circumstances he answers, that God therefore favors his elect, because he will: therefore has mercy, because he will. For this oracle of God, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, is as much in effect as if it had been said, that God is moved to mercy by no other reason but because he will have mercy. Therefore this saying of Augustine remains true, that the grace of God does not find men fit to be chosen, but makes them.

Neither do we at all pass upon that subtlety of Thomas, that the foreknowing of deservings is not in deed the cause of predestination on the behalf of the act of him that does predestinate, but on our behalf it may after a certain manner be so called, that is, according to the particular weighing of Predestination: as when it is said that God predestinates glory to man by deservings, because he has decreed to give to him grace by which he may deserve glory. For since the Lord will in election have us to look to nothing but his mere goodness, if any man shall covet here to see any more, it shall be a wrongful greediness. If we wished to strive in subtlety, we do not lack the means to beat back this silly subtlety of Thomas. He affirms that to the elect glory is after a certain manner predestinated to them with the grace, by which they may deserve glory. What if I answer on the contrary side and say that predestination to grace serves election to life, and is as it were a waiting maid after it? That grace is predestinated to them, to whom the possession of glory has been long ago appointed: because it pleases the Lord to bring his children from election into justification? For thereupon it shall follow that the predestination of glory was rather the cause of the predestination of grace, than conversely. But away with these strivings, as things superfluous for such as shall think that there is wisdom enough for them in the word of God. For this was in old time truly written of an ecclesiastical writer, that they who assign the election of God to merits are wiser than they ought to be.

Some do object that God should be contrary to himself, if he should universally call all men to him, and receive but a few elect. So by their opinion the universality of the promise takes away the difference of special grace. And thus certain sober men speak, not so much to oppress the truth, as to debar [reconstructed: exalted] questions, and to bridle the curiosity of many. Their will is praiseworthy, but their counsel is not to be allowed: because dallying by shifts is never excusable. But their objecting of it, which do more railingly inveigh against it, is verily too fond a cavilation, or too shameful an error. How the Scripture makes these two to agree together, that by outward preaching all men are called to repentance and faith, and yet not to all men is given the Spirit of repentance and faith, I have in another place already declared, and by and by somewhat of it must be repeated again. Now that which they require I deny to them, since it is two ways false. For, he that threatens that while it rains upon one city, there shall be drought upon another: he that pronounces that there shall in another place be famine of doctrine, binds not himself with a certain law to call all men equally. And he who, forbidding Paul to speak in Asia, and turning him from Bithynia draws him into Macedonia, shows that it is in his own power to distribute this treasure to whoever it shall please him. Yet more plainly he shows by Isaiah, how he peculiarly directs to the elect the promises of salvation: for he says of them only, and not of all mankind indifferently, that they shall be his disciples. By which it is certain that the doctrine of salvation is wrongfully set open in common to all men to profit effectually, which is said to be separately laid up only for the children of the Church. Let this suffice at this present, that although the voice of the Gospel speaks generally to all, yet the gift of faith is rare. Isaiah assigns a cause, for that the arm of the Lord is not open to all men. If he had said that the Gospel is maliciously and frowardly despised, because many do stubbornly refuse to hear: perhaps this color touching universal calling should prevail. Neither is it the purpose of the Prophet to diminish the fault of men, when he teaches that the fountain of blindness is that God vouchsafes not to open his arm to them: only he gives warning, that because faith is a singular gift, the ears are beaten in vain with outward doctrine. But I would fain know of these doctors, whether only preaching, or faith, make the children of God. Certainly when it is said in the first chapter of John, Whoever believes in the only begotten Son of God, are themselves also made the children of God, there is not in that place a confused heap jumbled up together: but a special order is given to the faithful, which are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. But (say they) there is a mutual consent of faith with the word. Namely wherever is faith. But it is no new thing that seed falls among thorns or in stony places: not only because the greater part appears in deed obstinate against God, but also because not all men have eyes and ears. How then shall it agree that God calls to him them who he knows will not come? Let Augustine answer for me. Will you dispute with me? Marvel with me, and cry out, O depth. Let us both agree in fear, lest we perish in error. Moreover if election (as Paul witnesses) be the mother of faith, I turn back the argument upon their own head, that faith is therefore not general, because election is special. For by the orderly hanging together of causes and effects, it is easily gathered that where Paul says, that we are full of all spiritual blessing, as God had chosen us before the creation of the world: therefore these riches are not common to all, because God has chosen only whom he would. This is the reason why in another place he commends the faith of the elect, lest it should be thought that any man does by his own motion get faith to himself: but that this glory may remain with God, that they are freely enlightened by him, whom he had chosen before. For Bernard says rightly, Friends do severally hear, to whom he also says, Fear not you small flock: for to you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. Who are these? Even they whom he has foreknown and predestinated to be fashioned like to the image of his Son. A great and secret counsel is made known. The Lord knew who are his: but that which was known to God, is made manifest to men: neither does he vouchsafe to make any other partakers of so great a mystery, but those self-same men whom he has foreknown and predestinated to be his. A little after he concludes. The mercy of God is from eternity even to eternity upon them that fear him — from eternity, by reason of predestination: to eternity, by reason of blessed making: the one without beginning, the other without ending. But what need I to cite Bernard for witness, when we hear of the master's own mouth, that none do see but they which are of God? By which words he signifies, that all they which are not begotten again of God, do dazzle at the brightness of his countenance. And to election faith in deed is fitly joined, so that it keep the second degree. Which order the words of Christ do clearly express in another place, This is the will of my Father, that I lose not that which he has given. For this is his will, that whoever believes in the Son shall not perish. If he would have all saved, he would appoint over them his Son to be their keeper, and would graft them all into his body with the holy bond of faith. Now it is certain that faith is a singular pledge of his fatherly love, laid up for his children whom he has adopted. Therefore Christ in another place says that the sheep follow the shepherd, because they know his voice: but they follow not a stranger, because they know not the voice of strangers. From where comes this difference, but because their ears are bored by God? For no man makes himself a sheep: but he is made one by the heavenly grace. For which cause also the Lord teaches that our safety shall always be certain and free from danger, because it is kept by the invincible power of God. Therefore he concludes that the unbelievers are not of his sheep: namely because they are not of the number of them, whom God has promised by Isaiah that they shall be his disciples. Now because in the testimonies which I have alleged is expressed perseverance, they do therewith also testify the unmovable steadfastness of election.

Now let us speak of the reprobate, whom the Apostle joins there together. For as Jacob, having yet with good works deserved nothing, is taken into grace: so Esau, being yet defiled with no wicked doing, is hated. If we turn our eyes to works, we do wrong to the Apostle, as though he saw not the same thing which we clearly see. It is proved that he saw it not — forasmuch as he expressly enforces this point, that when they had not yet done any good or evil, the one was chosen, and the other refused, to prove that the foundation of the predestination of God is not in works. Again when he moved the objection, whether God be unrighteous, he alleges not that which had been the most certain and plain defense of his righteousness, namely that God rendered to Esau according to his evilness: but he was content with another solution, that the reprobate are stirred up to this end, that the glory of God may be set forth by them. Last of all he adds a concluding sentence, that God has mercy upon whom he will, and hardens whom he will. See you not how he imputes both to the only will of God? Therefore if we cannot declare a reason why he vouchsafes to grant mercy to those who are his, but because it so pleases him: neither also shall we have any other cause in rejecting of others, than his own will. For when it is said that God hardens, or shows mercy to whom he will, men are thereby warned to seek no cause elsewhere than in his will.

Everything we have set forth is disputed by many people, especially the free election of the faithful — yet it cannot be overturned. The common view is that God makes distinctions between people according to what He foresees their merits will be — that He adopts those He foreknows will not be unworthy of His grace, and appoints those whose nature He foresees will tend toward wickedness to the condemnation of death. By covering election with the veil of foreknowledge, they do not only obscure election but invent a different origin for it. I freely admit that this common opinion is not held only by ordinary people — it has had prominent defenders in every age. I say this plainly so that no one trusts that our case is harmed if those names are thrown against us. God's truth here is too certain to be shaken, and too clear to be darkened by human authority. But others — with no serious knowledge of Scripture and worthy of no serious reply — attack this doctrine with a malice too great to deserve patience. Because God, acting from His own will, chooses some and passes by others, they pick a quarrel with Him. But if the thing itself is true, what will quarreling with God accomplish? We teach nothing except what experience confirms: it has always been God's prerogative to bestow His grace on whom He wills. I will not ask what made Abraham's descendants excel all others — except that voluntary favor which has no cause outside of God Himself. Let these objectors answer why they are human beings rather than oxen or donkeys. When God could have made them dogs, He fashioned them in His own image. Will they allow brute animals to quarrel with God about their condition, as though the difference were unjust? It is no more unjust for God to distribute His benefits according to His own judgment than it is for these objectors to enjoy a privilege they have done nothing to earn. If they shift to the case of individual persons, where the inequality becomes more offensive to them, they ought at least to be silenced by the example of Christ — and afraid to speak so boldly about so high a mystery. He was conceived from the seed of David, a mortal man. By what virtues will they say He deserved to be made in the very 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? Augustine wisely observed that in the very Head of the church there is a perfectly clear mirror of free election — so that it should not trouble us in the members. He was not made the Son of God by righteous living; rather, He was freely given so great an honor so that He might make others partakers of His gifts. If anyone asks why others were not what He was, or why we are all so far below Him, why we are all corrupt while He is pure — such a person betrays not only his foolishness but his shamelessness as well. But if they press on to strip God of the free power to choose and refuse, let them also strip that power from what was given to Christ. Now it is worth carefully considering what Scripture says about each individual. Paul, when he teaches that we were chosen in Christ, removes all consideration of our own worthiness. It is as though he said: because the heavenly Father found nothing in the entire race of Adam worthy of election, He turned His eyes to His Christ, to choose out of His body, as it were, those He would bring into the fellowship of life. Let this reasoning therefore stand firm among the faithful: we were adopted in Christ into the heavenly inheritance because we in ourselves were incapable of receiving so great an honor. Paul also touches this in another place, when he urges the Colossians to give thanks that God has qualified them to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in light (Colossians 1:12). If election precedes this grace of God — by which we are made fit to obtain the glory of eternal life — then what will God find in us that would move Him to elect us? His meaning will be even more plainly expressed by another of his statements: 'He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, according to the kind intention of His will, that we would be holy and blameless before Him' (Ephesians 1:4) — where he sets God's kind intention against all our merits, whatever they may be.

To make the proof stronger, it is worth carefully noting all the parts of that passage — which, taken together, leave no room for doubt. When Paul names the elect, he is without question speaking to the faithful, as he immediately confirms afterward. Therefore those who twist that term to refer only to the age when the Gospel was first proclaimed are engaging in a grossly distorted reading. When he says they were chosen before the beginning of the world, he removes all consideration of worthiness. For what basis of distinction exists between those who did not yet exist and those who would later be equal in Adam? And since they are chosen in Christ, it follows not only that each one is set apart from himself but also that they are distinguished from one another — since clearly not all are members of Christ. The added statement — that they were chosen in order to be holy — plainly refutes the error that derives election from foreknowledge. Paul cries out against this, declaring that whatever virtue appears in people is the effect of election, not its cause. If a higher cause is asked, Paul answers: God so predestined — and He did so according to the kind intention of His will (Ephesians 1:5). In these words he overthrows every basis of election that people imagine to exist within themselves. He also teaches that all the gifts God bestows for spiritual life flow from this one source: that God chose whom He would, and before they were born He had individually reserved for them the grace He was pleased to give them.

But wherever God's good pleasure reigns, works have no place to stand. Paul does not draw out this contrast in full here, but it is to be understood as he himself explains it. 'He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity' (2 Timothy 1:9). We have already shown that all doubt is removed by what follows: 'that we would be holy and blameless.' For if you say, 'He chose us because He foresaw we would be holy,' you reverse Paul's order. You may therefore safely draw this conclusion: if He chose us in order that we might be holy, then He did not choose us because He foresaw that we would be holy. These two things are opposites: that the godly receive their holiness from election, and that they come to election by means of works. The familiar escape they run to is worthless — that God does not give the grace of election as a reward for past works but grants it in consideration of future works. For when it is said the faithful were chosen in order that they might be holy, it is clearly stated that the holiness that would come to them had its beginning in election. And how can it be made to agree that the very things derived from election are what gave rise to election? He seems to reinforce this further by adding: 'according to the purpose of His will, which He purposed in Himself' (Ephesians 1:11). To say that God purposed in Himself is in effect saying that He looked to nothing outside of Himself in making His decree. He then immediately adds that the whole aim of our election is 'to the praise of the glory of His grace' (Ephesians 1:6). Truly, God's grace deserves praise in our election only if that election is free. But it will not be free if God, in choosing His people, takes into account what each person's works will be. Therefore we find that what Christ said to His disciples applies universally to all the faithful: 'You did not choose Me, but I chose you' (John 15:16). He not only excludes past merit but also indicates that they had nothing in themselves that made them worthy to be chosen — had He not first met them with His mercy. This must also be understood in light of Paul's words: 'Who has first given to Him that He should be repaid?' (Romans 11:35). He means to show that God's goodness comes to people first — finding in them nothing, past or future, that could win His favor toward them.

In writing to the Romans, where Paul addresses this question more thoroughly and at greater length, he denies that all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel — for though they all received the blessing by right of heritage, that succession did not pass equally to all. The dispute arose from the pride and self-serving boasting of the Jewish people. For when they claimed the name of the church for themselves, they wanted the credibility of the Gospel to depend on their own approval — just as the Roman church today gladly uses this disguise to thrust itself into the place of God. Paul, while granting that the offspring of Abraham is holy by reason of the covenant, affirms that the majority of them are strangers to it — not only because they have fallen away from true sonship and become as it were illegitimate children, but because God's special election stands above and governs all, and it alone makes the adoption secure. If the godliness of some established them in hope of salvation and their own falling away alone disinherited others, Paul would have been both foolish and pointless to lift his readers' eyes to the hidden counsel of election. But if God's will — whose cause neither appears nor is to be sought outside of Himself — is what distinguishes one group from another, so that not all children of Israel are true Israelites, then the claim that every person's standing originates in himself is baseless. Paul then pursues the matter further under the example of Jacob and Esau. Both were sons of Abraham, both enclosed together in the same womb — and yet it was a startling reversal that the honor of the firstborn was transferred to Jacob. In this reversal Paul affirms that the election of the one and the rejection of the other were testified. The question of origin and cause is asked, and those who hold to foreknowledge want it to be found in the virtues and vices of the men themselves. Their neat short answer is this: God showed in the person of Jacob that He chooses those worthy of His grace, and in the person of Esau He passes by those He foreknows to be unworthy. This they say boldly. But what does Paul say? 'For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"' (Romans 9:11-13). If foreknowledge had any part in this difference between the brothers, there would be no point in mentioning the timing. Suppose we grant that Jacob was chosen because he had merit from future works — why would Paul say that he was not yet born? Someone may object that this was a pointless detail to add — since nothing is hidden from God, and Jacob's godliness was present before Him. But if works earn grace, then their value should have existed before Jacob was born, as though he had already lived his life. The apostle presses on to untangle this knot and teaches that Jacob's adoption rested not on works but on God's calling. He leaves out entirely any mention of past or future works, then sets them directly in opposition to God's calling — making plain by affirming one that he is explicitly overturning the other. It is as if he said: what matters is what God was pleased to do, not what people bring from themselves. Finally, it is certain that by the words 'election' and 'purpose,' Paul removes from the matter every cause that people are accustomed to invent outside of God's secret counsel.

What excuse can those offer who assign some role to past or future works in election? They are mocking the apostle's plain declaration that the distinction between the brothers rests on no consideration of works at all, but solely on God's calling — because it was settled between them before they were yet born. Paul was well aware of their subtle escape, had it carried any weight. But because he knew very well that God cannot foresee any goodness in a person except what He has first determined through the gift of election to bestow upon him, he refuses to resort to that inverted logic of placing good works before the cause of those works. So we have from the apostle's own words that the salvation of the faithful is founded on the will of God's sole election alone — and that this favor is not earned by works but comes from His free calling. We also have a concrete picture set before us. Esau and Jacob are brothers, born of the same parents, enclosed together in one womb, not yet brought into the world. In them all circumstances are equal, yet God's judgment is different for each. He takes the one and passes by the other. Nothing distinguished them except the right of the firstborn — by which one surpassed the other. But even this was passed over: what was denied to the elder was given to the younger. Indeed, God seems throughout history to have deliberately set aside the firstborn, as if on purpose, to cut off all grounds for fleshly boasting. Passing over Ishmael, He turned to Isaac. Pushing aside Manasseh, He honored Ephraim.

If someone objects that we should not use these lesser earthly blessings to determine what belongs to eternal life — arguing that receiving the honor of the firstborn does not mean being adopted into the heavenly inheritance — and if some even spare not Paul himself, as though in citing these texts he had twisted Scripture to a foreign meaning, I answer as before: the apostle neither stumbled by carelessness nor willfully misused Scripture. He saw — what these objectors cannot bear to consider — that God intended by an earthly sign to declare the spiritual election of Jacob, which was otherwise hidden in His inaccessible counsel. For unless the firstborn birthright given to Jacob points forward to the world to come, it would be a hollow and foolish form of blessing by which he obtained nothing but many miseries, disappointments, painful exile, and bitter sorrow and care. When Paul saw without question that God by this outward blessing was testifying to the spiritual and imperishable blessing He had prepared for His servant in His kingdom, he did not hesitate to draw his argument for that spiritual blessing from the outward one. We must also remember that the land of Canaan was joined to the pledge of the heavenly dwelling — so there is no reason to doubt that Jacob was grafted together with the angels into the body of Christ to be a partaker of the same life. Jacob is therefore chosen while Esau is rejected — and by God's predestination he is distinguished from one from whom he differed in no deserving. If you ask for a cause, the apostle supplies this one: because it was said to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion' (Romans 9:15). And what does this mean? Truly, the Lord Himself declares most plainly that people have nothing in themselves that gives Him reason to do good to them — He draws the cause from His mercy alone. Therefore the salvation of His people is His own work. When God places your salvation in Himself alone, why will you look to yourself? When He assigns to you His mercy alone, why will you run to your own merits? When He fixes your gaze entirely on His mercifulness, why will you turn part of your attention to your own works? We must therefore come to that smaller group which Paul in another place says was foreknown by God (Romans 11:2) — not in the way these people imagine, as though God had foreknown from a detached watchtower things that He Himself had not worked, but in the sense the word commonly carries in Scripture. Indeed, when Peter in Acts says that Christ was delivered up by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23), he does not present God as a passive observer but as the author of our salvation. So Peter, when he writes that the faithful to whom he wrote were chosen according to God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2), is properly expressing that hidden predestination by which God marked as His children those He would have. And the word 'purpose,' which he joins as an equivalent term, signifying a firm and settled determination, unmistakably teaches that God, as the author of our salvation, goes no further than Himself. In this same sense Peter says in that passage that Christ was the lamb foreknown before the creation of the world. For what is more foolish and trivial than to say that God stood by watching from on high to see from what direction salvation would come to humanity? Therefore in Paul, the foreknown people are simply a small portion hidden within the larger multitude that falsely claims God's name. Paul says in another place, to put down the boasting of those who under a false pretense take first place among the godly before the world: 'The Lord knows those who are His' (2 Timothy 2:19). Paul is pointing to two groups: first, the whole family of Abraham; and second, those chosen out of it individually — a group stored up before God's eyes but hidden from human sight. And without doubt Paul drew this from Moses, who affirms that God will be merciful to whom He will be merciful — though there Moses was speaking of the chosen people, whose outward condition appeared equal. It is as if Moses had said that contained within the general adoption is a special grace toward some — a more sacred treasure, as it were. The common covenant does not prevent that small number from being set apart in degree. God, wanting to be the free sovereign ruler of this thing, expressly refuses to give any other reason for being merciful to one rather than another except that it pleases Him — because when mercy reaches the one who seeks it, though that person is not turned away, he either anticipates or partly appropriates for himself the favor of which God claims the full credit.

Now let the sovereign Judge and Master pronounce on the whole matter. When Christ saw such great hardness in His hearers — so that He was in effect wasting His words on the unresponsive multitude — He cried out to correct this offense: 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.' And: 'This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing' (John 6:37, 39). Note that the beginning point is the Father's gift — so that we are entrusted into the faithful keeping and care of Christ. Some may try to circle back and object that only those who come voluntarily through faith are counted as properly belonging to the Father. But Christ's whole point is this: even when the defections of great multitudes shake the world, God's counsel will stand more firmly than the heavens themselves, so that His election may never fail. They are called the Father's elect before He gave them to His only begotten Son. You may ask whether they came by nature — but no, those who were strangers He made His own by drawing them to Himself. Christ's words are too clear to be clouded by any evasion. 'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him' (John 6:44). 'Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me' (John 6:45). If all people without distinction were to bow the knee before Christ, then election would be universal. But the small number of believers makes a visible distinction plain. Therefore, after Christ affirmed that the disciples given to Him were the special possession of God the Father, He added shortly after: 'I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours' (John 17:9). This proves that the whole world does not belong to its Creator in the same way — that grace delivers a few from God's wrath and eternal death, who would otherwise have perished, while the world itself is left to the destruction to which it was appointed. In the meantime, though Christ stands between, He claims for Himself together with the Father the right of choosing. 'I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen' (John 13:18). If you ask where He has chosen them from, He answers in another place: out of the world — which He explicitly excludes from His prayer when He commends His disciples to the Father. This must be grasped: when He says He knows whom He has chosen, it points to a particular group within the general mass of humanity. And this particular group is made different not by the quality of their own virtues but by the heavenly decree. From this it follows that many people excel by their own effort and diligence, while Christ declares Himself the author of election. When Christ elsewhere numbers Judas among the elect, this refers only to the office of apostleship. Though the apostolic office is a clear display of God's favor — as Paul so often acknowledges in his own case — it does not in itself carry the hope of eternal salvation. Judas therefore, having faithlessly held the office of apostle, could prove himself worse than a devil. But those whom Christ has once grafted into His body, He will allow none to perish — for in preserving their salvation He will fulfill what He has promised: that He will exercise the power of God, which is greater than all. When He says elsewhere: 'Father, of those whom You have given Me I lost not one except the son of destruction' (John 17:12) — although this is a figurative way of speaking, its meaning is not in doubt. The sum is this: God makes those His children by free adoption whom He wills to be His children, and the inward cause of this is in Himself — because He is content with His own secret good pleasure.

Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome held that God distributes His grace among people according to what He foresees each will do with it. Augustine once held this same view. But after further growth in his knowledge of Scripture, he not only retracted it as plainly false but strongly refuted it. Indeed, after retracting it, while rebuking the Pelagians for persisting in the same error, he says: 'Who can fail to marvel that the apostle was ignorant of this most subtle point? For when he had set forth something astounding concerning the brothers — that before they were born God had made a distinction between them — and then raised the objection against himself, "What then, is there injustice with God?" — here was the ideal moment to answer that God had foreseen the merits of them both. Yet he does not say this but takes refuge in the judgments and mercy of God.' And in another place, after taking away all merits before election: 'Here is refuted the empty reasoning of those who defend God's foreknowledge against God's grace, saying that we were chosen before the foundation of the world because God foreknew we would be good — not that He Himself would make us good. But He who says, "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you," does not say this. For if He had chosen us because He foresaw we would be good, He would also have foreknown that we would choose Him — and so on.' Let the testimony of Augustine carry weight with those who willingly rest in the authority of the fathers. Augustine, moreover, does not allow himself to be separated from the others but shows by plain testimonies that the disagreement charged against him by the Pelagians is false. For in the nineteenth chapter of his work on the predestination of the saints, he cites Ambrose: 'Christ calls those on whom He has mercy.' And again: 'If He had willed, He could have made the ungodly devout. But God calls those He chooses, and makes religious those He wills.' If I wanted to compile an entire volume from Augustine, I could readily show the reader that I need no other words but his. But I will not burden them with too much. Let us, however, set all of that aside and attend to the matter itself. A difficult question was raised: whether God acted rightly in extending His grace to some but not others. Paul could have resolved this in a single word if He had appealed to the consideration of works. Why then does he not do so — but instead continues a discussion that remains equally difficult? Because he should not. The Holy Spirit who spoke through his mouth was not afflicted with forgetfulness. Without qualification, then, he answers: God favors His elect because He wills to; He has mercy because He wills to. For this divine oracle — 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I have compassion' — amounts to saying that God is moved to mercy by no other reason than that He wills to be merciful. Augustine's statement therefore stands true: the grace of God does not find people worthy of being chosen — it makes them worthy.

We pay no heed to Thomas's subtle distinction — that the foreknowledge of merits is not truly the cause of predestination on the side of the one who predestines, but may in a certain sense be called a cause on our side: as when it is said that God predestines glory to a person by merits, because He has decreed to give that person grace by which they may merit glory. For since in election the Lord would have us look to nothing but His sheer goodness, anyone who wants to see more than that is guilty of wrongful greed. If we wished to match subtle arguments with subtle arguments, we are not without the means to counter Thomas's empty cleverness. He claims that glory is in a certain sense predestined to the elect together with the grace by which they may merit glory. But what if I answer in the opposite direction and say that predestination to grace serves election to life, and is as it were its attendant? That grace is predestined for those for whom the possession of glory was appointed long ago — because it pleases the Lord to bring His children from election through to justification? For from that it would follow that predestination to glory is rather the cause of predestination to grace than the reverse. But let us be done with these quarrels — they are superfluous for those who find wisdom enough in the Word of God. For an ancient church writer rightly said: those who assign God's election to merits are wiser than they ought to be.

Some object that God would be contradicting Himself if He universally called all people to Himself and yet received only a few elect. In their view, the universality of the promise eliminates the distinction of special grace. Some sober-minded people say this not so much to attack the truth as to sidestep elevated questions and restrain the curiosity of many. Their intention is praiseworthy, but their approach cannot be approved — evasion by clever detours is never justified. But the objection raised by those who attack this doctrine more aggressively is either too foolish or too embarrassingly wrong. I have already explained elsewhere how Scripture holds together these two truths — that through outward preaching all people are called to repentance and faith, and yet the Spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all. A little of that must be repeated shortly. For now, I deny what they demand, since it is wrong in two ways. He who threatens that while it rains on one city, another will suffer drought — and who declares that another place will have a famine of God's Word — does not bind Himself by any law to call all people equally. And He who forbade Paul to speak in Asia, turned him away from Bithynia, and drew him into Macedonia, shows that it is in His own sovereign power to distribute this treasure to whomever He pleases. He makes this even clearer through Isaiah, where He directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect — saying of them alone, not of all people indiscriminately, that they will be His disciples. From this it is certain that the doctrine of salvation is wrongly said to be open equally to all for effective benefit, when Scripture says it is stored up separately for the children of the church. For now, let it be enough to say: although the voice of the Gospel speaks broadly to all, the gift of faith is rare. Isaiah gives the reason: because the Lord's arm is not revealed to all. If he had said that the Gospel is despised with malice and willfulness, because many stubbornly refuse to hear, perhaps this excuse about universal calling would carry some weight. But the prophet's point is not to reduce human guilt. He is teaching that because faith is a special gift, outward preaching rings in deaf ears unless God opens His arm to them. He is warning that the outward word, beaten into the ear, accomplishes nothing by itself. But I would like to ask these teachers: what makes people children of God — preaching alone, or faith? When John 1 says that those who believe in the only begotten Son of God are themselves made children of God, this is not a jumbled mass — it establishes a specific order for the faithful, who are born not of blood, nor of human will, nor of man's will, but of God. They may say there is a mutual joining of faith with the Word — wherever faith is, the Word is. But it is nothing new that seed falls among thorns or on rocky ground — not only because the majority appear openly resistant to God, but also because not all people have eyes to see and ears to hear. How then can it be consistent that God calls those He knows will not come? Let Augustine answer for me: 'Will you dispute with me? Marvel with me instead, and cry out, "O the depth!" Let us both agree in fear, lest we perish in error.' Moreover, if election — as Paul testifies — is the mother of faith, I turn the argument back on their own heads: faith is not universal because election is specific. For by the natural connection of causes and effects, it is easily gathered that where Paul says we are blessed with every spiritual blessing because God chose us before the creation of the world, these riches are not common to all — because God chose only those He willed. That is why Paul in another place praises the faith of the elect — lest anyone think that a person obtains faith by his own effort — so that the glory remains with God, that He freely enlightens those He had chosen beforehand. Bernard says it rightly: 'Friends hear individually — to them He also says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Who are these? Even those whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. A great and secret counsel is made known. The Lord knew who are His. But what was known to God is now made manifest to people. And He deigns to make no others partakers of so great a mystery except the very ones He foreknew and predestined to be His.' A little later Bernard concludes: 'The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him — from everlasting by predestination, to everlasting by glorification: the one having no beginning, the other no end.' But why do I need to cite Bernard as a witness when we hear from the Master's own mouth that none can see unless they are of God? By these words He indicates that all who are not born again of God are dazzled and blinded by the brightness of His countenance. Faith is rightly joined to election — taking second place in order. Christ's words clearly express this order elsewhere: 'This is the will of My Father, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing' (John 6:39). And: 'This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life' (John 6:40). If He wished all to be saved, He would appoint His Son as keeper over all, and would graft them all into His body by the holy bond of faith. But it is certain that faith is a special pledge of His fatherly love, reserved for His children whom He has adopted. Therefore Christ says elsewhere that the sheep follow the shepherd because they know His voice, but do not follow a stranger because they do not know the stranger's voice. Where does this difference come from, if not that their ears have been opened by God? For no one makes himself a sheep — he is made one by heavenly grace. For this reason also the Lord teaches that our salvation will always be secure and out of danger, because it is guarded by the invincible power of God. He therefore concludes that unbelievers are not His sheep — because they are not among those whom God promised through Isaiah would be His disciples. And since the passages I have cited include perseverance, they also testify to the unshakable certainty of election.

Now let us speak of the reprobate, whom the apostle brings in here alongside the elect. For just as Jacob — having yet earned nothing by good works — is received into grace, so Esau — not yet stained by any wicked deed — is rejected. If we shift our eyes to works, we are doing wrong to the apostle, as though he had failed to see what we clearly see. But he did not see works as the cause — as is plain from the fact that he expressly presses the point that when neither had done anything good or evil, one was chosen and the other refused, precisely to prove that the foundation of God's predestination is not in works. Again, when he raises the objection whether God is unrighteous, he does not appeal to the most obvious and direct defense of God's righteousness — namely that God repaid Esau according to his wickedness. Instead, he is content with another answer: that the reprobate are raised up for this purpose, that God's glory may be displayed through them. He then adds his concluding statement: God has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills (Romans 9:18). Do you not see how he traces both back to the sole will of God? Therefore, if we cannot state any reason why God grants mercy to those who are His other than that it pleases Him, so also we will have no other reason for the rejection of others than His own will. For when Scripture says that God hardens or shows mercy to whom He wills, people are thereby directed to seek no cause beyond His will.