SECT. 25. Paul defended in his use of Gen. 25.21-23. Nothing is gained by supposing the service is temporal.
Let him be anathema, therefore, who says, ‘those words do not oppose the doctrine of Freewill in their original places, which oppose what is quoted by Paul.’ This is said, but it is not proved. And it is said by those who neither understand Paul nor the passages cited by him, but deceive themselves by taking the words in their own sense; that is, in an impious sense. For even if this text in particular (Gen 25.21-23.) were meant to speak of temporal servitude 559 only (which is not true); it is still rightly and efficaciously quoted by Paul to prove that when it was said to Rebekah, 560 “The elder shall serve the younger,” it is not because of the merits of Jacob or of Esau, but through Him that calls.
Paul’s question is whether they attained to what is said of them, by the virtue or merits of Freewill. And he proves that it was not by the virtue or merits of Free will, but only by the grace of Him who called him, that Jacob attained to what Esau did not. He proves this by invincible words of Scripture, such as, that they were not yet born; and again, that they had done neither good nor evil. The weight of the matter lies in this proof; this is the point under debate. But Diatribe, through her exquisite skill in rhetoric, passing over and disguising all these things, does not at all debate the question of merits (although she had undertaken to do so, and although Paul’s handling of the subject requires it). Rather, she quibbles about temporal servitude (as if this were at all to the purpose), only so that she may appear not to be conquered by those most mighty words of Paul.
For what could she have to yelp against Paul, in support of Freewill? What did Freewill profit Jacob, and what hurt was done to Esau by it, when by the foreknowledge and ordination of God, it had been settled what sort of lot each of them would receive? Which was namely, that the one should serve, and the other should rule, when neither of them was yet born, or had done anything. The rewards, which each would receive, were decreed before the workmen were born, and had begun to work. It is to this point, that Diatribe should have directed her reply. This is what Paul insists upon: that they had not yet done nothing good or evil; but still, the one is ordained to be the master and the other the servant, by a divine judgment. The question is not whether this servitude respects eternal salvation, but by what merit this servitude is imposed on a man who has not merited anything. But it is most irksome to maintain a conflict with these depraved 561 endeavours to torture and elude Scripture.
SECT. 26. The service is not really temporal, but spiritual.
It is proved from the text itself, that Moses is not treating their temporal servitude and dominion only; and that Paul is right in this also, that he understands Moses to speak with reference to their eternal salvation. Even though this is not so important to the point in hand, I will not suffer Paul to be defiled with the calumnies of sacrilegious men. 562 The divine answer 563 given to Rebekah in the book of Moses is this: “Two sorts of people will be separated from your womb; and the one people will overcome the other, and the elder will serve the younger.” Gen 25.23 Here two sorts of people are manifestly distinguished from each other. The one is received into the free favour of God, so as to overcome the elder, even though younger; this is not by strength, it is true, but through God’s befriending him. How else would the younger conquer the elder, unless God were with him?
Now, since the younger is about to become the people of God, 564 it is not only external dominion or servitude that is treated here, but everything that pertains to the people of God — that is, the blessing of God, the word, the Spirit, the promise of Christ, and the eternal kingdom. This is even more largely confirmed by the Scripture afterwards, where it describes Jacob as being blessed, and as receiving the promises and the kingdom. Paul briefly intimates these several things when he says, “the elder will serve the younger,” sending us back to Moses as the one who treats them more at large. Thus, in opposition to the sacrilegious 565 comment of Jerome and Diatribe, you may say that all the passages which Paul adduces, fight still more stoutly against Freewill in their original places, than they do in his writings.
This is a remark which holds good not only with respect to Paul, but with respect to all the Apostles, who quote the Scriptures as witnesses to their doctrine, and assertors of it. Would not it be ridiculous to quote as a testimony, that which testifies to nothing, and does not bear upon the question? These are considered ridiculous among philosophers who prove an unknown thing by one that is yet more unknown, or by an argument which is foreign to the subject. So then, with what face will we ascribe this absurdity to the chief leaders and authors of the doctrine of Christ, on which the salvation of souls depends? This is especially true in those parts of their writings in which they treat the main articles of the faith. But are such insinuations fitting for those who have no real reverence for the divine Scriptures? 566
SECT. 27. Diatribe’s evasions of Mal 1.2-3. Love, by a trope, is used for the effect of love.
That saying of Malachi’s which Paul uses, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated,” she tortures by three distinct productions of her industry. 567 The first is, ‘If you insist on the letter, 568 then God does not love as we love; nor does He hate any man, since God is not subject to affections of this kind.’
What is it I hear? Is the question not turned into how God loves and hates; instead of why he loves and hates? The question is, by what merit of ours does He love or hate? We know very well that God does not hate or love as we do; since we both love and hate mutably; but he loves and hates according to his eternal and immutable nature. That is how far He is from being the subject of accident and affection. And it is this very thing, which compels Freewill to be a mere nothing — namely, that the love of God towards men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards them is eternal. This is true not only prior to the merit and operation of Freewill, but even to the very creation of the world. And everything is wrought in us necessarily, according to His having either loved us, or not loved us, from eternity. This is so true, that not only the love of God, but even his manner of loving, brings necessity upon us.
See here what Diatribe’s attempts at escape have profited her. Everywhere, the more she strives to slip away, the more she runs around, so unsuccessful is it to struggle against truth. But let your trope be allowed: let the love of God be the effect of love, and the hatred of God be the effect of hatred — are these effects wrought outside or beside 569 the will of God? Will you also say here, that God does not will as we do; nor is He subject to the affection of willing? If these effects take place, then they take place only when he wills; and whatever he wills, he either loves it or hates it. Tell me then, by what merit on their part, severally, is Jacob loved and Esau hated before they are born and perform any act? It appears, therefore, that Paul most excellently introduces Malachi in support of Moses’ sentiment that God called Jacob before he was born because He loved him, not because He was loved before by Jacob; nor because He was moved to do so by any merit of Jacob’s. Thus it might be shown by the case of Jacob and Esau, what our Freewill can do. 570
SECT. 28. Malachi speaks of temporal affliction.
The second of these laboured excogitations 571 is that,
‘Malachi does not seem to be speaking of the hatred by which we are eternally damned, but of a temporary affliction. It is a reprehension of those who would build up Edom.’
Here is a second word of reproach for Paul, as doing violence to Scripture. So we entirely cast off our reverence for the majesty of the Holy Spirit, if we may but establish our own conclusions about it.
But we will bear this insult for a while, and see what good it does. Malachi speaks of temporal affliction. What of it? Or what has this got to do with the point in hand? Paul is proving from Malachi that this affliction was brought upon Esau without any merit of
