Annotation CCLI

”Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” — Romans 9:13

Whether predestination is from the merits of the predestined foreseen by God.

Chrysostom, [in] the homily on the epistle to the Romans, treating this passage, seems to indicate that the eternal love, election, and predestination of God toward his own, and [his] temporal calling, arise from the merits of the elect — foreseen from eternity in the divine foreknowledge. For thus he writes: “FOR WHAT cause, then, was Jacob held in love, but Esau in hatred? for what cause did this one serve, but that one rule? Because indeed this one was evil, but that one was good — although, they being not yet born, the one was honored, but the other condemned. For while they were not yet born, God had said, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” And below, comparing the divine election to the election of craftsmen, who choose the materials which they know [to be] more apt for their use, he says: “MANY seemed to be better than Matthew, by the apparent argument of works; but he who knows hidden things, and who can prove the aptitude of the thought [mind] — he knew also the pearl lying in the mire; and, the others being passed over, admiring the beauty of this one, he chose him: and, when he had joined his grace to the nobility of [Matthew’s] will, he pronounced him approved. For if, in these frail arts, those who are able to judge choose not from those arguments by which the unskilled cast their reckoning, which are set before them, but from those [things] which they themselves rightly know — and the tamers of horses very often do this same [thing] in [choosing] horses, and those who are appraisers of precious stones, and those who are craftsmen of the other arts — much more [will] God, [who is] benign, who alone knows all things openly, cast the reckoning about all [men] from his own wisdom. On that account, indeed, he chose the publican, and the robber, and the harlot: but the priests, and the elders, and the magistrates he reprobated and cast out.”

AND [in] the first homily on the epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of election, he says: “IF men, when they choose, select the best for themselves — much more [does] God. For to be chosen is a token both of the divine benignity, and of the virtue of those who are chosen.”

AGAIN, [in] the second homily on the Ephesians: “HE altogether chose the predestined according to [his] free choice and purpose — that is, he predestined those whom he had selected for himself, according to [that] which he saw us [to be] before we were taken into the lot.”

LIKEWISE, [in] the 31st homily on Matthew, ascribing the cause of the calling of Matthew, and of Paul, and of the other Apostles to the obedience which God had foreseen [would be] future in them, he brings forth these [things]: “FOR WHAT cause did he not call Matthew himself together with Peter and John and the other disciples? Certainly [it was] in the manner in which then he approached them and called [them], when he knew [they would]

—[knew] they were going [to obey]: so also he called Matthew then, when he saw [he] would least resist. For which cause also he fished for [caught] Paul after the resurrection. For he who scrutinizes hearts was not ignorant even [of] when each one was prepared to obey.”

AND [in] the 56th homily on Matthew, he attributed the calling of the laborers to their vineyard to their good will, in these words: “HE would indeed have willed to hire all from the beginning, but this difference resulted from the will of the called. Therefore some are called in the morning, some at the third, some at the sixth, some at the ninth, some at the eleventh hour — because they were then about to obey. Which Paul too openly signified, saying: ‘But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb.’ But when did it please him? Certainly when [Paul] was about to obey. For [God] would have willed [it] even from his first cradle [infancy]: but because he knew that [Paul] would resist, he willed [it] then, when he was not ignorant of the calling [that would] penetrate his mind. So also he called the Robber afterward. He could have called him before, but that [man], [if] called, would not have obeyed. For if Paul from the beginning did not obey, much less [would] the Robber himself.”

LIKEWISE, [in] the homily on Psalm 113, speaking of the calling of the Centurion, confirming this same [thing], he says: “IF the Father draws, the Son leads, the Spirit illumines; [then] what fault [is it] of those who are neither drawn, nor led, nor illumined? Because they do not offer themselves worthy to receive that illumination. See, therefore, that this came to Cornelius: for neither did he find this at home with himself, but [only] when God called [him] — since he himself, forestalling [it, made] himself worthy. For although it belongs to [God] to draw and to lead in; yet he requires a soul that complies, and then he applies his own help. Wherefore elsewhere Paul says:¹ ‘To the called according to purpose.’”

THUS FAR Chrysostom: in whose opinion very many of the ancient fathers seem to have been; whose individual testimonies it pleases [me] to insert here, lest it be needful for me hereafter to return to this very argument.

Origen, [in] the seventh book on the epistle to the Romans, expounding that [text], “Has not the potter power over the clay?” etc., wrote these [things]: “THAT which he proposed a little before concerning Jacob and Esau is more openly explained. For [take it] that Jacob [was] a vessel sanctified unto honor, and useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work: his soul had cleansed itself; and God, seeing his purity (for [God], having power to make from the same mass another [vessel] unto contumely) made Jacob indeed — who, as we have said, cleansed himself — a vessel unto honor; but Esau, whose² soul he saw not so pure, nor so simple, he made from the same mass a vessel unto contumely. But that thou mayest know that Jacob was made a vessel unto honor for the purity and simplicity of [his] soul, hear what testimony of simplicity the divine scripture bears to him. ‘And Jacob was,’ it says, ‘a simple [plain] man.’³ Therefore, for this reason the Apostle says of them — because, before he was born, it is said of them, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” The same [Origen], [in] book 1 on the epistle to the Romans, relating the cause for which Paul was chosen by God, speaks in this manner: “But we say, that neither

—that neither was Paul chosen by chance, nor by a natural difference, but that He — who knows all things before they come to be — gave to him [Paul] the causes of his own election in himself. Therefore Paul — in that he is said [to be] “separated unto the gospel,” and separated from the womb of his mother — the causes in it [that womb], and the merits, by which he ought to have been separated, He saw, from whom the mind is not hidden. For he foresaw that [Paul] would labor more abundantly than all the rest in the gospel; that he would preach the gospel in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness — lest perhaps, while he preached to others, he himself should be made reprobate. These [things], therefore, and [things] like these, and many others in him, Jesus, foreseeing [them] from the womb of [his] mother, separated him for these [reasons] unto the gospel. Which also Paul himself, discoursing more fully in what follows, says: “Because whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son” — evidently showing that those whom God foreknew would be such [as] to conform themselves to Christ in [his] sufferings, those same [ones] he also predestined [to be] conformable and like to his image, and to [his] glory. The foreknowledge of God, therefore, precedes — by which they are known who are going to have in themselves labors and virtues; and thus predestination follows. Nor, again, will the foreknowledge be thought the cause of predestination. For [that] which, among men, the merit of each is weighed from past deeds — this, with God, is judged from future [deeds].

Ambrose, in the commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, explaining that [text], “To those who according to purpose are called”: “THEY,” he says, “are called according to purpose whom, believing, God foreknew — so that before they believed, they were [fore]known. For those whom he foreknew would be devoted to him, those same he chose unto eternal rewards.” Likewise, declaring that [text], “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” he writes thus: “THEREFORE I will have mercy,” he says, “on him on whom I shall have had mercy” — that is, “I will have mercy on him of whom I was foreknowing that I would give mercy, knowing that he would turn [to me] and would remain with me. And I will show mercy to him to whom I shall have shown mercy” — that is, “I will give mercy to him whom I foreknew would return to me with a right heart after [his] error.” This is, to give to him to whom [it is] not [to be] given, and not not to give to him to whom [it] is to be given — [so] that he may call him whom he knows will obey, but not call that other, whom he knows will by no means obey.

Jerome, [in] the tenth question to Hedibia, expounding that [text], “Is there iniquity with God?”: “the VESSELS,” he says, “of mercy are not only the people of the Gentiles, but also these, who out of the Jews willed to believe. From which it is shown [that] not nations are chosen, but the wills of men.” And [in] the first book on the epistle to the Galatians, upon that [text], “But when it pleased him who separated me,” etc., he says thus: “IT COMES to pass from the foreknowledge of God, that whom he knows [will be] just in the future, he loves before he rises from the womb: and whom he hates [as] a sinner before he sins — not that in [his] love, and in [his] hatred, there be iniquity of God; but because he ought not to hold otherwise those whom he knows [will be] either sinners or just in the future. We, as men, judge only of present [things]: He, to whom future things are already done [as good as done], bears sentence from the end of things, not from [their] beginnings.”

Likewise, in the commentary on Malachi, chapter one, expounding that [text], “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”: “MOREOVER,” he says, “the love and hatred of God is born either from the foreknowledge of future things, or from works. Otherwise we should not

—hold that God loves all things, and hates nothing of those [things] which he has created: but that he properly vindicates to his charity those who are enemies and rebels of vices; and, on the contrary, hates those who desire to build up again [the things] destroyed by God.”

The author of the commentaries bearing the inscription of Jerome [pseudo-Jerome], elucidating that [text], “He predestined [them] to be made conformable to the image of his Son”: “TO PREDESTINE,” he says, “is the same as to foreknow. Therefore those whom he foresaw would be conformable in life, he willed [them] to be made conformable in glory.” And a little after: “WHOM he foreknew would believe, these he called. For the calling gathers the willing, not the unwilling.” And again, upon that [text], “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,” he says: “This, in the right sense, is thus understood: I will have mercy on him whom I foreknew could merit mercy — so that already then I have had mercy on him.”

Augustine, in the book of Propositions from the epistle to the Romans, upon that [text], “Jacob I loved,” affirms that God chose Jacob from the faith which he foresaw in him, in these words: “GOD did not, therefore, choose the works of anyone in [his] foreknowledge, but he chose faith in foreknowledge — so that he chose the very [man] whom he foreknew would believe in him; to whom he would give the Holy Spirit, so that, by working good [deeds], he might attain even eternal life. The same God who works all things and in all: but nowhere is it said, ‘God believes all things in all.’ [That] which, therefore, we believe, [and that] good which we work, is his.” The same [Augustine], in the book of 83 Questions, question 68: “‘On whom he will,’ he says, ‘God has mercy; and whom he will, he hardens.’ But this will of God cannot be unjust. For it comes from the most hidden merits; because even the sinners themselves did not, on account of [their] general sin, make one mass; yet there is a certain diversity among them. Something, therefore, precedes in the sinners, whereby, although they are not yet justified, they may be made worthy of justification: and the same precedes in other sinners, whereby they may be worthy of blunting [hardening].” Again, in the book of Six Questions against the Pagans, question 2, he refers the cause of the divine calling to the faith of the called, foreseen by God. For there, answering the question of Porphyry — who asks why Christ did not come in earlier ages to call all men to the way of salvation — he writes thus: “THIS ONLY, for brevity’s sake, let us say in the solution of this question: that Christ then willed to appear to men, and his doctrine to be preached among them, when he knew, and where he knew, there were [those] who would be going to believe in him. For in those times, and in those places, in which the gospel was not preached, he foreknew that all, in its preaching, would be such [as] many were in his corporeal presence, who would not believe in him even when the dead were raised by him.”

Theodoret, in the commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, upon “Jacob I loved”: “GOD,” he says, “when he had foreknown the purpose of Esau and Jacob, foretold the difference of both. For the election of God accords with the purpose of men.” And in the exposition of the eighth chapter of the same epistle: “WHOSE purpose,” he says, “God foreknew, them he predestined from eternity.”

Sedulius, in the Collectanea on the epistle to the Romans, upon that [text], “To those who according to purpose are called,”

—are called, says: “THOSE whom he foreknew would be devoted to him, those same he chose to seize the promised rewards.” And below: “THOSE whom he foreknew would believe, these he called. For the calling gathers the willing.” It is one thing to foreknow, another to predestine. Foreknowledge foreknows [the things] to be done; afterward predestination describes [the things] to be repaid: the former foresees the merits, the latter predestines the rewards. And below: “JACOB and Esau, who are of one coition of [i.e. by] Rebecca, before they were born, were separated by the merit of faith, that the purpose might already remain [stand]. So therefore also now, [those] whom he foreknew, of the Gentiles, would believe, he chose, and out of Israel he rejected the unbelieving.”

Theophylact, in the commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, explaining that [text], “Whom he foreknew and predestined,” speaks thus: “GOD FOREKNOWS, or knows beforehand, those who are worthy of the calling; then thus he predestines. Foreknowledge, therefore, is prior; afterward predestination follows. But by predestination thou wilt understand the unchangeable will of God. He foreknew, therefore, that Paul was worthy of the calling, and so he predefined, or predestined [him] — that is, he unchangeably decreed, and so determined to call him.” The same [Theophylact], on chapter 22 of Matthew, when he expounded that [text], “Many are called,” etc.: “FEW indeed,” he says, “are they who are saved, and who are worthy to be chosen by God; so that it belongs to God indeed to call, but that we be made elect, or not, is ours.”

Oecumenius, in the Collectanea of explanations on Paul, expounding that [text], “But whom he predestined”: “UNDERSTAND [as implied],” he says, “everywhere, ‘who according to purpose are called.’ For [those] whom he foreknew, these he also predefined; because they are according to purpose: but [those] whom he predefined, these he also called; because they are according to purpose: and [those] whom he called, the same he also justified; because they are according to purpose. And let nothing absurd occur, if to some God does good, but to others not. For when ‘according to purpose’ is subjoined, the virtue of those is established, who according to their own purpose believed: and thus God is freed from the respect of persons [partiality].”

Theodulus, in the Collectanea on the epistle to the Romans, expounding this same [thing], repeats almost the same, saying: “EVERYWHERE understand [as implied], ‘who according to purpose are called.’ For an absurdity is gathered, if God conferred a benefit on some, but did not confer [it] on others. But if ‘according to purpose’ be understood [as implied], the virtue of them is established, and God is freed from the respect of persons.”

Jacobus [Sadoletus], bishop of Carpentras, [in] the second book of the commentary on the epistle to the Romans, making plain that [text] from the eighth chapter of the same epistle, “Whom he predestined, them he also called,” persuades by a long discourse that God chooses not any [men] from the arbitrament of his own will, but because he foreknew that they would neither spurn the divine calling, nor reject the offered grace of God.

THESE, then, are the sayings of the fathers, from which it seems to be gathered that the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of divine predestination — which opinion indeed was condemned in Pelagius.

St. Augustine, when he had first constantly adhered to this

—ma, at last — the matter being more diligently examined — retracted the opinion in almost innumerable places, especially [in] the first book of the Retractations, chapter twenty-five: in which place he testifies that he would never have said this, if he had known that election, without any preceding merits, is from grace alone, and that faith itself is found among the gifts of GOD which are given through the Holy Spirit. For although to believe and to work are both ours, on account of the free arbitrament of the will, and because they are done [only] by us willing [them]: yet both are the gift of GOD, who furnishes both to believe, and to will, and to accomplish.

BUT, lest I sift the fathers’ opinions [that have been] set forth more loftily and prolixly than [befits] the manner of an annotation, and involve both myself and the minds of the readers in a matter so abstruse, and implicated in such labyrinths of disputations, I judge it more than enough to suffice, if I annotate that one [thing] which St. Thomas admonished [us] to observe from the doctrine of Augustine, in the first volume of the Theological Summa, and in the twenty-third question, namely: that in the works of the elect, foreseen by the divine foreknowledge, a twofold reason of cause can be regarded — [the] Meritorious, namely, and [the] Final. First, then, if we have looked to the meritorious cause, it must be known that the order of divine providence toward the elect is distinguished by a twofold variety of grades: of which some precede the reception of gratifying [sanctifying] grace — such as are Dilection [love], Election, Enrollment [Conscription], Predestination, Vocation, [and] the inception of Justification; but others follow the reception of gratifying grace — such as are the increase of Grace, the increment of justice, and the attainment of eternal felicity. If, therefore, it be asked whether the foreseeing of our works is the meritorious cause of the preceding grades: it must be flatly denied; lest we seem to connive with the Pelagians, who say that God chose our merits in his foreknowledge. And according to this opinion all the fathers are to be interpreted who define the eternal election and predestination of God to be from the grace of God alone, no merits foreseen. But if anyone should ask whether the following grades of the divine order have a meritorious cause in the divine foreseeing: without doubt it must be answered that God from eternity decreed that he would give increments of ampler justice to those who would use well the first gift of justifying grace, and then, on account of the merits of well-preserved justice, would render to them the crown of perpetual beatitude. And to this sense we shall endeavor, so far as it can be done, to accommodate some of the aforesaid opinions of the fathers, which seem to ascribe election and predestination to the foreseeing of merits — that is, [to ascribe to it] the completion of predestination and election, or the following and posterior grades of the divine order; because the fathers sometimes, denominating the whole from the part, called [it] Election, or Predestination.

AGAIN, if we turn ourselves to the contemplation of the final cause, we shall rightly indeed be able to affirm that the foreseeing of works, [and] the subsequent reception of divine grace, is the cause of election and of final predestination. For God, as Paul says, chose us before the constitution of the world, and predestined us

—us, that we should be holy and immaculate before him, unto the praise of the glory of his grace. That is, he took us to himself from eternity among his own, and prepared for us the grace of vocation and of justification — to this end, namely, that we might use it well, and, from its good use, might attain the glory of everlasting felicity. Nor is there doubt that some of the aforesaid fathers, according to this manner of speaking, pronounced that our works, foreseen by God, are the cause of divine predestination — the final [cause] indeed, but not the meritorious. These are the [things], candid reader, which we judged were here to be briefly annotated: thou, if thou hast any [things] more apt than these for explaining the opinions of the fathers, use [them]; and take these [things] of ours, whatsoever they be, in good part.