Election
Election
1. Definition.-Election, in the teaching of the apostles, is the method by which God gives effect to His eternal purpose to redeem and save mankind; so that the elect are those who are marked out in Gods purpose of grace from eternity as heirs of salvation.
2. Election in the OT.-The doctrine of a Divine election lies at the very heart of revelation and redemption. Abraham was chosen that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed (Gen 12:3). It was through the chosen people, the seed of Abraham, that God was pleased to make the clearest and fullest revelation of Himself to man and to prepare the way in the fullness of the time for the worlds redemption. Through their patriarchs and their Divinely guided history, through the laws and institutions of the Mosaic economy, through tabernacle and temple, through prophets and psalmists, through their sacred Scriptures, and at length through the Incarnate Word, born of the chosen people, the world has received the knowledge of the being and spirituality of God, of the love and mercy and grace of our Father in heaven. To Israel their great legislator said: Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples: but because the Lord loveth you (Deu 7:6 f.). Israel was chosen to spread abroad the Divine glory, and God designates them by His prophet My chosen, the people which I formed for myself, that they might set forth my praise (Isa 43:20-21). They were taught, also, to realize how great were their privileges: Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance (Psa 33:12; cf. Psa 135:4). Their very position on the face of the earth, placed in the midst; of the nations, was chosen with a view to their discipline and sanctification, for thus the Maccabaean annalist puts it: Howbeit the Lord did not choose the nation for the places sake, but the place for the nations sake (2Ma 5:19). And the destiny of the elect people was to culminate in the Elect Servant of the Lord: Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen (, ) in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles (Isa 42:1 Revised Version ; the Elect one appears as a Messianic designation in the Book of Enoch; xl. 5, xlv. 3, 4, 5, xlix. 2, 4, and is found applied to Christ in Luk 9:35; Luk 23:35). This conception of Israel as the people of Gods election colours the whole of the teaching of the apostles and forms the subject of St. Pauls great discussion in the chapters where he deals with the problem of their rejection (Romans 9-11). That the Jewish people had come to attribute to it an exaggerated and erroneous value is clear not only from St. Pauls argument but also from the Rabbinical literature of the time (see Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5, p. 248ff.).
3. Biblical use of the word.-In biblical Greek the word (, ) is of frequent occurrence. In the OT we find used in the sense of picked men [Jdg 20:18, 1Sa 24:2); of individuals chosen by God for special service (Moses, Psa 106:23 [Septuagint 105]; David, Psa 89:20-21 [Septuagint 88]); of the nation Israel (Psa 106:5 [Septuagint 105], Isa 45:4; Isa 65:9; Isa 65:15); of the Servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1; cf. Isa 52:13). In the NT we find the verb used, always in the middle voice, of our Lords choice of the Twelve from the company of the disciples (Luk 6:13, Joh 6:70; Joh 13:18; Joh 15:19, Act 1:2); of the choice of an apostle in the place of Judas (Act 1:24); of Stephen and his colleagues (Act 6:5); of Gods choice of the patriarchs (Act 13:17); and of the choice of delegates to carry the decisions of the Apostolic Council to the Gentile churches (Act 15:22; Act 15:25). It is used of Gods choice of the foolish things of the world to put to shame them that are wise, and the weak things to put to shame the things which are strong (1Co 1:27); and of His choice of the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to them that love Him (Jam 2:5).
In the Gospels and are distinguished: , as Lightfoot puts it (Colossians3, 1879, p. 220), being those summoned to the privileges of the Gospel, and those appointed to final salvation (Mat 24:22; Mat 24:24; Mat 24:31, Mar 13:20; Mar 13:22; Mar 13:27, Luk 18:7). But in St. Paul no such distinction can be traced. With him the two terms seem to be co-extensive, as two aspects of the same process, having special reference to the goal, and to the starting-point. The same persons are called to Christ and chosen out from the world. It is to be noticed in the Epistles that while is used of God or Christ in the present tense (1Th 2:12; 1Th 5:24, Gal 5:8), is never used, nor the present tense of any part, the aorist being employed to describe what depended upon Gods eternal purpose (Eph 1:14, 2Th 2:13). In St. Peters Epistles is not found, nor , but the verbal adjective is found four times, once of elect people (1Pe 1:1), once of Christians as an elect race (1Pe 2:9), and twice, following the OT, of Christ as the Living Stone, choice and chosen to be the corner-stone (1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:6). is found of the Divine act (Act 9:15, Rom 9:11; Rom 11:5; Rom 11:28, 1Th 1:4, 2Pe 1:10), and once as the abstract for the concrete (Rom 11:7).
4. St. Pauls doctrine.-It is St. Paul who most fully develops the doctrine in its strictly theological aspects. His teaching, however, only expands that of our Lord on the same subject, as when He speaks of those whom the Father had given Him (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:39; Joh 17:2; Joh 17:24), to whom He should give life eternal, and whom He should keep so that they would never perish (Joh 10:28). St. Paul from an early period of his missionary labours saw results which were recognized in his circle to be due to an influence higher than mans-to the predestinating counsel of God. For the historian tells how, on St. Pauls preaching for the first time to Gentiles at Antioch of Pisidia, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Act 13:48). This was on his first missionary journey. On his second he preached to the Thessalonians among others, and in the two Epistles written to them on that extended journey there is the clear recognition of the same influence. Giving thanks to God for them, St. Paul in the opening words of the First Epistle discerns in their experience, and sets forth for their comfort, the proofs of their election (1Th 1:2-10). From their response to the gospel call, their acceptance of the gospel message, their patient endurance of affliction, and the joy they had in their new spiritual life, a joy begotten in them of the Holy Spirit, St. Paul inferred and knew their election. And not long after, when he wrote the Second Epistle to correct misapprehensions produced by the First, he set before the Thessalonian Christians, in language still loftier and more explicit, this profound and encouraging truth of a Divine election (2Th 2:13-15). God is here represented as taking them for His own (the verb is , not ), and it is from the beginning, from eternity (there is a reading , firstfruits, instead of ), that the transaction dates. It is not to religious privileges merely, nor even to a possible or contingent salvation, that they have been chosen, but to an actual and present experience of its blessings, felt in holiness of life and assurance of the truth. This was, indeed, what they were called to enjoy through the gospel preached by St. Paul and his colleagues, so as at length to obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. In his Epistle to the Romans, written not long after, St. Paul, in ch. 8, rising to the loftiest heights of Divine inspiration, and penetrating, as it might seem, to the secret place of the counsels of the Most High, apprehends or himself, and makes known for the encouragement of faith, the links of the great chain of the Divine election by which the Church of believers is bound about the feet of God-foreknown, foreordained, called, justified, glorified (Rom 8:28-30). Here they that love God are co-extensive and identical with them that are called according to his purpose. They are foreordained, so that they may attain the likeness of Gods Son, and, further, that He may be glorified in them and see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied. Gods elect (Rom 8:33) may have the assaults of temptation and trial to face, and tribulation, anguish, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword to endure; but nothing can separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.
These disclosures regarding Gods eternal purpose of grace are continued and extended by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the spiritual blessings enjoyed in such abundance by them are traced up to their election by God-even as he chose us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace (Eph 1:4-6). It is a further development of this when St. Paul says again in the same Epistle: We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10). The unconditional character of the Divine choice, emphasized in these statements of the Apostle, is affirmed again when, writing to Timothy, he bids him suffer for the gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose of grace which was given in Christ Jesus before times eternal (2Ti 1:9).
In a separate passage of the Epistle to the Romans (chs. 9-11) St. Paul deals with the mystery of the call of the Gentiles to take the place of gainsaying and disobedient Israel. In so doing he first vindicates God from the reproach of having departed from His ancient covenant-a reproach which would be well-founded if the covenant people were rejected and the Gentiles put in their place. Such a rejection, he contends, would not be altogether out of keeping with Gods treatment of His people in the course of their history.
There was from the first an element of inscrutable selectiveness in Gods dealings within the race of Abraham. Ishmael was rejected, Isaac chosen: Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen, antecedently to all moral conduct, though both were of the same father and mother. Such selectiveness ought at least to have prevented the Jews from renting their claims simply on having Abraham to their father (Gore, Argument of Romans ix.-xi. in Studia Biblica. iii. 40; cf. A. B. Bruce, St. Pauls Conception of Christianity, p. 312ff.).
The election within the election here, St. Paul argues, is the Christian Church-the Israel after the Spirit; and the reproach of the objector falls to the ground (Rom 9:6-9). Besides, the Apostle further maintains, God, in His electing purpose, is sovereign, as is seen in the difference between the two sons of Rebecca; in the Divine word to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and in the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh (Rom 9:10-24). And after all, if the election were cancelled, the blame would be Israels own, because of unbelief and disobedience, such as Moses denounced, and Isaiah bewailed when he said: All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people (Rom 10:21).
But, despite appearances, Israel was not cast off. Their rejection was not final. There were believing Israelites, like St. Paul himself, in all the churches; and he could say: At this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5). Meanwhile the problem of Israels unbelief and of the passing over of spiritual privilege to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11) is to be solved by the Gentiles provoking Israel to jealousy-appreciating and embracing and profiting by the blessings of the Christian salvation to such an extent that Israel will be moved to desire find to possess those blessings for their own. When Jews in numbers come to seek as their own the righteousness and goodness which they see thus manifested in the lives of Christians, and are stirred up to envy and emulation by the contemplation of them, the time will be at hand when all Israel-Israel as a nation-shall be saved. Of that issue St. Paul has no doubt, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom 11:29).
To sum up St. Pauls teaching, election (1) is the outcome of a gracious purpose of the heart of God as it contemplates fallen humanity from all eternity (Rom 8:28-29; cf. Rom 5:8-10); (2) is a display of Divine grace calculated to redound to the glory of God by setting forth His love and mercy towards sinful men (Eph 1:3-14); (3) is not conditioned upon any good foreseen in the elect, nor in any faith or merit which they may exhibit in time (Rom 9:11-13), but is according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph 1:5), according to his own purpose of grace (2Ti 1:9), of Gods sovereign purpose and grace (Rom 9:15; Rom 11:5-7); (4) is carried out in Christ (Eph 1:4; Eph 2:10) through the elect being brought into union with Him by faith, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Eph 1:3; Eph 1:5); (5) issues in sanctification by the Spirit and assurance of the truth (2Th 2:13 f.) and heavenly glory (Rom 8:30); and (6) is proved by acceptance of the gospel call and by the trust and peace and joy of believing and obedient hearts (1Th 1:4-6).
5. St. Peters doctrine.-If St. Peters allusions to the subject of election are few they fully support the teaching of St. Paul. In his addresses at Jerusalem after Pentecost, he speaks of the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Act 2:23) with reference to Jesus. It is fitting that the Apostle of the Circumcision should speak of Him as a living stone, rejected indeed of man, but with God elect, precious (1Pe 2:4; cf. , approved, 1Pe 2:22), and even quote concerning Him the prophetic Scripture: Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious (1Pe:6; cf. Isa 28:16). Of Christ he speaks, too, as foreknown (1Pe 1:20; Hort, ad loc., designated afore) before the foundation of the world.
St. Peter gives manifest prominence to the doctrine of election when, in the opening words of his First Epistle, he addresses the Jewish Christians of Pontus and other Asiatic provinces as the elect who are sojourners there ( , .). Elect they are because their lot is cast in favoured lands where the messengers of the gospel have proclaimed the good tidings-still more because they have obeyed and believed the message, and have had experience of the blood of sprinkling and of the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit-yea, because they have been designated afore, not to service as Christ was from the foundation of the world (1Pe 1:20), but to blessing, even all the blessings of the Christian salvation by God the Father Himself (1Pe 1:1-2). Conceived of as the Christian Israel, the Israel after the Spirit, these Jewish believers are, as St. Peter elsewhere calls them, an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for Gods own possession (1Pe 2:9, where election is seen to be not simply to privilege, but to character and service, to holy living and the setting forth of the Divine glory). Although they are an elect race they are also in the same context described as living stones (1Pe2:5), and Hort is right when he says the whole spirit of the Epistle excludes any swallowing up of the individual relation to God in the corporate relation to Him; and the individual relation to God implies the individual election (First Epistle of St. Peter, I. 1-II. 17, 1898, p. 14).
Few as are St. Peters utterances regarding the doctrine, they entirely support St. Paul, even when, emphasizing the urgency of the matter as a part of practical religion, he bids his readers give diligence to make their calling and election sure (2Pe 1:10).
6. St. Johns doctrine.-It is from St. John that we have the record of our Lords most impressive teaching on the subject of those whom the Father had given Him (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:39; Joh 17:2; Joh 17:24). In his Gospel he uses , always, however, as employed in His discourses by the Lord Himself and with a definite reference to the Twelve, or to the company of the disciples. In his Second Epistle (2Jn 1:1; 2Jn 1:13) he has . Whether the word describes an individual or a society it is not easy to say, but at least it has the same theological signification as in St. Paul and St. Peter. In the Apocalypse (Rev 17:14) is used in a very significant connexion, where they that are with the Lamb in His warfare against the powers of evil, and in His victory over them, are called and chosen and faithful, They are called () in having heard and accepted the gospel message; chosen () as thus having given evidence of their Divine election; faithful () as having yielded the loyal devotion of their lives to their Divine Leader, and persevered therein to the end. That the elect are the same as the sealed (Rev 7:4) may be inferred from the manner in which the 144,000 pass unscathed through the conflicts and terrors let loose upon them (Rev 14:1).
From this passage apparently comes the thought of the number of the elect an in the Book of Common Prayer (Order for the Burial of the Dead): that it may please Thee to accomplish the number of Thine elect. The thought appears early in the sub-Apostolic Church, For in Clements Epistle to the Corinthians he urges them to pray with earnest supplication and intercession that the Creator of all would preserve unharmed the constituted number of His elect in all the world through His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name (lix. 2; cf. ii. 4, lviii. 2; Apostol. Const. v. 15, viii. 22). No countenance is given in the Early Church to the idea that the elect may live as they list and at last be saved, Let us cleave to the innocent and the righteous, says Clement of Rome, for such are the elect of God (op. cit. xlvi. 4). It is through faith, says Hermas (Vis. III. viii. 3), that the elect of God are saved. In love all the elect of God were made perfect, says Clement again (xlix. 5), for without love nothing is wellpleasing unto God.
Literature.-C. Hodge, Systematic Theology 1874, ii. 333ff.; H. C. G. Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 1889, p. 37ff.; C. Gore, in Studia Biblica, iii. [1891] 37ff.; Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 (International Critical Commentary , 1902), 248ff.; A. B. Brace, St. Pauls Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 310ff.; Commentaries on passages noticed above, especially Lightfoot and Hort, ad locc.
Thomas Nicol.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
ELECTION
This word has different meanings.
1. It signifies God’s taking a whole nation, community, or body of men, into external covenant with himself, by giving them the advantage of revelation as the rule of their belief and practice, when other nations are without it, Deu 7:6.
2. A temporary designation of some person or station in the visible church, or office in civil life, Joh 6:70. 1 Sam.x. 24.
3. That gracious and almighty act of the Divine Spirit, whereby God actually and visibly separates his people from the world by effectual calling, Joh 15:19.
4. That eternal, sovereign, unconditional, particular, and immutable act of God, whereby he selected some from among all mankind, and of every nation under heaven, to be redeemed and everlastingly saved by Christ, Eph 1:4. 2Th 2:13.
See DECREE, and PREDESTINATION.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
election
(Latin: eliere, to choose)
Selection of a person for a post by the votes of those authorized to fill the vacancy. In canon law, its ordinary meaning is the appointment, by legitimate electors, of a fit person to an ecclesiastical office. In Scripture, the calling or selection by God of chosen servants, like Saint Paul, “a vessel of election” (Acts 9); and all Christians: “knowing, brethren beloved of God, your election” (1 Thessalonians 1).
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Election
(Lat. electio, from eligere, to choose from)
This subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. Juridical Concept; II. Electors; III. Persons Eligible; IV. The Act of Electing: Forms and Methods; V. After Election; VI. Elections Now in Use.
I. JURIDICAL CONCEPT
In its broadest sense election means a choice among many persons, things, or sides to be taken. In the stricter juridical sense it means the choice of one person among many for a definite charge or function. If we confine ourselves to ecclesiastical law, canonical election, in a broad sense, would be any designation of a person to an ecclesiastical charge or function; thus understood it includes various modes: postulation, presentation, nomination, recommendation, request or petition, and, finally, free collation. In a narrower sense, election is the canonical appointment, by legitimate electors, of a fit person to an ecclesiastical office. Its effect is to confer on the person thus elected an actual right to the benefice or charge, independently of the confirmation or collation ulteriorly necessary. Hence it is easily distinguished from the aforesaid modes that only in a broad sense can be termed election. (a) Postulation differs canonically from election, not as regards the electors, but as regards the person elected, the latter being juridically ineligible on account of an impediment from which the superior is asked to dispense him. For instance, if in an episcopal election the canons designate the bishop of another see, or a priest under thirty years of age, or one of illegitimate birth, etc., no actual right would be conferred on such a person, and the ecclesiastical superior would be in no wise bound to recognize such action; hence the electors are then said to postulate their candidate, this postulation being a matter of favour (gratia), not of justice. (b) Presentation, on the contrary, differs from election not in respect to the person elected but to the electors; it is the exercise of the right of patronage, and the patron may be a layman, whereas the electors to ecclesiastical dignities must be clerics. In both cases the right of the candidate is the same (jus ad rem); but while an election calls for canonical confirmation, presentation by a patron leads to canonical institution by a competent prelate. Moreover, when the right of patronage belongs to a moral body, e. g. a chapter or an entire congregation, presentation may have to follow along the lines of election. Though frequently called nomination, the designation of bishops and beneficed clergy by the civil authority in virtue of concordats is in reality presentation, and results in canonical institution. (c) Correctly speaking, nomination is the canonical act by which the electors propose several fit persons to the free choice of the superior. The rôle of electors in nomination is the same as in election properly so called; as election, however, can fall only on one person, so nomination cannot confer on several a real right to a benefice — rather, their right is real inasmuch as it excludes third parties, though none of them possesses the jus ad rem (c. Quod sicut, xxviii, De elect., lib. I, tit. vi). (d) Recommendation is the name applied to the designation of one or several fit persons made to the superior by certain members of the episcopate or clergy, chiefly in view of sees to be filled (see BISHOP). It differs from election and nomination in that the bishop or members of the clergy do not act as electors; hence the persons designated do not acquire any real right, the Holy See remaining perfectly free to make a choice outside of the list proposed. (e) Still further removed from election is simple request, or petition, by which the clergy or people of a diocese beg the pope to grant them the prelate they desire. The authors of this petition, not being properly qualified, as in the case of recommendation, to make known their appreciation of the candidate, it is needless to say the latter acquires no right whatsoever from the fact of this request. (f) Finally, free collation is the choice of the person by the superior who confers canonical institution; it is the method most in use for appointment to inferior benefices, and the practical rule for the filling of episcopal sees, apart from some well-known exceptions. Evidently, where free collation obtains, election, properly so called, is excluded.
II. ELECTORS
Electors are those who are called by ecclesiastical law or statute to constitute an electoral college, i. e. to designate the person of their choice, and who have the qualifications required for the exercise of their right to vote. The law appoints competent electors for each kind of election: cardinals for the election of a pope; the cathedral chapter for the election of a bishop or a vicar capitular; and the various chapters of their order, etc. for the election of regular prelates. In general, election belongs, strictly speaking, to the college, i. e. the body, of which the person elected will become the superior or prelate; if this college have a legal existence, like a cathedral chapter, it can exercise its right as long as it exists, even if reduced to a single member, though, of course, such a one could not elect himself. Electors called upon to give a prelate to the Church must be ecclesiastics. Hence laymen are excluded from all participation in a canonical election; it would be invalid, not only if made by them exclusively (c. iii, h. t.), but even if they only co-operate with ecclesiastics, every custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Ecclesiastics alone, and those only who compose the college or community to be provided with a head, can be electors. This is well exemplified in the cathedral chapter, all of whose canons, and they alone, are episcopal electors. Other ecclesiastics have no right to associate with the chapter in the election of a bishop, unless; — (a) they are in full possession of this right and it is proved by long prescription; (b) hold a pontifical privilege, or (c) can show a right resultant from the foundation of the chapter or the church in question.
To exercise their right, the electors, whoever they may be, must be full members of the body to which they belong, and must, moreover, be in a condition to perform a juridical, human act. Hence natural law excludes the demented and those who have not reached the age of puberty; ecclesiastical law debars; — (1) canons who have not attained full membership in the chapter, i. e. who are not yet subdeacons (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. iv, De ref.), and (2) religious who have not made their profession.
Moreover, in punishment of certain offences, some electors may have forfeited their right to elect, either for once or permanently, e. g. those excommunicated by name, those suspended, or those placed under interdict. The Constitution of Martin V, “Ad evitanda scandala”, permits the excommunicated known as tolerati (tolerated) to take part in an election, but exception may be taken to them, and their exclusion must follow; if, after such exception, they cast a vote, it must be considered null. Apart from censures incurred, privation of an active share in elections occurs frequently in the ecclesiastical law affecting regulars; in common law and for the secular clergy, it exists in only three cases: Electors lose the right to elect, for that time, first, when they have elected or postulated an unworthy person (c. vii, h. t.); second, when the election has been held in consequence of an abusive intervention of the civil authority (c. xliii, h. t.); finally, when it has not been made within the required time. In all these cases the election devolves upon the superior (c. xli, h. t.).
III. PERSONS ELIGIBLE
Those persons are eligible who meet the requirements of common ecclesiastical law, or special statutes, for the charge or function in question; hence, for each election it is necessary to ascertain what is required of the candidate. In general, for all kinds of elections, the necessary qualifications are mature age, moral integrity, and adequate knowledge (c. vii, h. t.); for each charge or function dependent on an election these conditions are defined with more precision and fullness. Thus, neither a layman nor an ecclesiastic who is not yet a subdeacon can be elected bishop; and no regular can be elected superior, etc., unless he has made his final profession. Some of the aforesaid requirements are easily verified, e. g. the proper age, adequate knowledge, the latter being presumable when the law formally exacts an academic degree (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. ii, De ref.); others, especially an upright life, must usually depend on negative evidence, i. e. on the absence of proof to the contrary, such proof being positive offences, particularly when they have seriously impaired the reputation of the person in question or called for canonical punishment. It is principally candidates of censurable morality who are termed unworthy; the sacred canons constantly repeat that the unworthy must be set aside. Such unworthy persons are: (1) all outside the Church, viz, infidels, heretics, and schismatics; (2) all who have been guilty of great crimes (crimina majora), viz, the sacrilegious, forgers, perjurers, sodomites, and simoniacs; (3) all whom law or fact, for whatever reason, has branded as infamous (in famiâ juris aut facti); (4) all under censure (excommunication, suspension, interdict), unless said censure be occult; (5) all whom an irregularity, particularly a penal one (ex crimine), debars from receiving or exercising Holy orders.
Those also are excluded who, at the time of election, hold several incompatible benefices or dignities without dispensation (c. liv, h. t.); or who, at a preceding election, have already been rejected as unworthy (c. xii, h. t.), and all who have consented to be elected through the abusive intervention of lay authority (c. xliii, h. t.). There are other cases in which regulars cease to be eligible. The legislation here described was meant for the episcopal elections of the thirteenth century and aims at abuses now impossible.
IV. THE ACT OF ELECTION: FORMS AND METHODS
In this matter, even more than in the preceding paragraphs, we must consider special laws and statutes. Strictly speaking, the common ecclesiastical law, which dates from the thirteenth-century Decretals, considers only episcopal elections (lib. I, tit. vi, De electione et electi potestate; and in VIº). Since an election is held to appoint to a church or an ecclesiastical charge or office that is vacant, it is obvious that the first condition requisite for an election is precisely the vacancy of said church, charge, or office, in consequence of death, transfer, resignation, or deposition; any election made with a view to filling an office not yet vacant is a canonical offence. When an election becomes necessary, the first step is to convoke the electoral assembly in some specified place, and for a certain day within the legal time-limit. The place is ordinarily the vacant church or, if it be question of an election in a chapter, wherever the deliberations of the chapter are usually held. The time-limit set by common ecclesiastical law is three months, after the lapse of which the election devolves upon the immediate superior (c. xli, h. t.). In an electoral college, the duty of convoking the members belongs to the superior or president; in a chapter this would be the highest dignitary. He must issue an effectual summons, for which no special form is prescribed, to all the electors without exception, whether present in the locality or absent, unless, however, they be too far away. The distance considered as constituting a legitimate excuse for absence (see c. xviii, h. t.) should be more narrowly interpreted today than in the thirteenth century. It is unnecessary to convoke electors publicly known to be incompetent to exercise their electoral right, e. g. canons excommunicated by name or not yet subdeacons. So binding is this convocation that if even one elector be not summoned he can, in all justice, enter a complaint against the election, though the latter is not ipso facto null by reason of such absence. Such an election will stand provided the unsummoned elector abides by the choice of his colleagues or abandons his complaint. As no one is bound to use a right, common law does not oblige an elector to attend the assembly and take part in the voting; the absent are not taken into consideration. As a general rule the absent cannot be represented or vote by proxy unless, according to the chapter “Quia propter” (xlii, h. t., Lateran Council, 1215), they are at a great distance and can prove a legitimate hindrance. Moreover, they can choose as proxy only a member of the assembly, but they can commission him to vote either for a particular person or for whomsoever he himself may deem most worthy.
On the appointed day the president opens the electoral assembly. Though the common law requires no preliminary solemnities, such are frequently imposed by special statute, e. g. the Mass of the Holy Ghost, which should be attended by all the assembled electors and those not prevented from assisting; also the recital of certain prayers. Moreover, the electors are often obliged previously to promise under oath that they will conscientiously vote for the most worthy. However, apart from such oath, their obligation is none the less absolute and serious. These preliminaries over, the electoral assembly proceeds, if necessary, to verify the credentials of certain electors, e. g. those who act as delegates, as happens in the general chapters of religious congregations. Then follows the discussion of the merits (tituli) of the candidates. The latter need not have previously made known their candidacy, though they may do so. The electors, nevertheless, have all freedom to propose and sustain the candidates of their choice. Frank and fair discussion of the merits of candidates, far from being forbidden, is perfectly conformable to the law, because it tends to enlighten the electors; indeed, some maintain that an election made without such a discussion would be null or could be annulled (Matthæucci, in Ferraris, “Bibliotheca”, s. v. “Electio”, art. iv, n. 5). It is more accurate to say that the election would be vitiated if the presiding officer were to oppose this discussion for the purpose of influencing votes. However, though the law strictly prohibits cabals and secret negotiations in the interest of certain candidates, the line between illicit manœuvring and permissible negotiating is in practice not always easily recognizable. [See the Constitution “Ecclesiæ” of Innocent XII (22 Sept., 1695), on the elections of regulars (in Ferraris, art. iii, no. 26), also the regulations that govern a conclave.]
The discussion concluded, voting begins. Actually there is only one customary method, i. e. secret voting (scrutinium secretum) by written ballots. The common ecclesiastical law (c. Quia propter, xlii, h. t., Lateran Council, 1215) admits only three modes of election: the normal or regular method by ballot, and two exceptional modes, namely, compromise and quasi-inspiration. Recourse to lots is especially prohibited; nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation of the Council (Romana, Electionis, 2 May, 1857) ratified an election where the chapter, equally divided between two candidates in other respects fit, had drawn lots; just about as was done for the Apostolic election of St. Matthias. As to the two exceptional methods: (1) Election by quasi-inspiration takes place when the electors greet the name of a candidate with enthusiasm and acclamation, in which event the ballot is omitted as useless since its result is known in advance, and the candidate in question is proclaimed elected. However, modern custom in this matter differs from ancient habits, and it is wiser, even in the case of such apparent unanimity, to proceed by ballot. (2) Compromise occurs when all the electors confide the election to one or several specified persons, either members of the electoral college or strangers, and ratify in advance the choice made by such arbitrator or arbitrators.
Formerly this exceptional method was often resorted to, either to terminate long and fruitless sessions, or when there was a lack of exact information concerning the candidates; it is minutely regulated by the law of the Decretals. The compromise must be agreed to by all the electors without exception, and can be confided to ecclesiastics only. It may be absolute, i. e. leaving the arbitrators quite free, or conditional, i. e. accompanied by certain reservations concerning the manner of election, the persons to be elected, the time-limit within which the election should be held, and so on.
The normal or regular method by ballot, according to the law of the Decretals was necessarily neither secret nor written. The law “Quia propter” (see above) merely calls for the choice of three trustworthy scrutineers from among the electors. These were charged with collecting secretly (in a whisper) and in succession the votes of all; the result was then drawn up in writing and made public. The candidate who had obtained the votes of the more numerous or sounder party (major vel sanior pars) of the chapter was declared elected. However, this appreciation, not only of the number but also of the value of the votes, led to endless discussions, it being necessary to compare not only the number of votes obtained, but also the merits of the electors and their zeal, i. e. the honesty of their intentions. It was presumed, of course, that the majority was also the sounder party, but proof to the contrary was admitted (c. lvii, h.t.). The use of the secret and written ballot has long since remedied these difficulties. If the Council of Trent did not modify on this point the existing law, at least it exacted the secret ballot for the elections of regulars (Sess. XXV, c. vi, De regul.). According to this method the scrutineers silently collect the ballots of the electors present; when occasion requires it, certain members are delegated to collect the votes of sick electors beneath the same roof (e. g. at a conclave or at one of the regular chapters) or even in the city (for cathedral chapters), if the statutes so prescribe. This accomplished, the scrutineers count the number of ballots collected, and if, as should be, they tally with the number of electors, the same officers proceed to declare the result. Each ballot is in turn opened, and one of the scrutineers proclaims the name inscribed thereon, then passes it to the second scrutineer for registration, while the third, or secretary, adds up the total number of votes obtained by each candidate. As a general rule, election is assured to the candidate who obtains the majority of votes, i. e. an absolute, not merely a relative, majority; however, certain statutes require, e. g. in a conclave, a majority of two-thirds. When the electors are odd in number, a gain of one vote ensures the majority; if the number be even, it requires two votes. In calculating the majority, neither absent electors nor blank ballots are taken into account; whoever casts a blank vote is held to have forfeited his electoral right for that ballot. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority, balloting is recommenced, and so on until a definitive vote is reached. However, not to prolong useless balloting, special statutes can prescribe, and in fact have provided, various solutions, e. g. that after three rounds of fruitless balloting the election shall devolve upon the superior; or again, that in the third round the electors can vote only between the two most favoured candidates; or, finally, that in the fourth round a relative majority shall suffice (Rules of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for congregations of women under simple vows, art. ccxxxiii sq.). Other special regulations provide for the case of two candidates receiving the same number of votes (the voters being of even number), in which event the election is decided in favour of the senior (by age, ordination, or religious profession); sometimes the deciding vote is assigned to the presiding officer. For all these details it is necessary to know and observe the special legislation that covers them.
When the final vote is obtained, whatever its character, it should be made public, i. e. officially communicated to the electoral assembly by the presiding officer. The decree of election is then drawn up; in other words, the document which verifies the voting and the election. The rôle of the electoral college thus fulfilled, the election is closed.
The principal duty of an elector is to vote according to his conscience, without allowing himself to be actuated by human or selfish motives, i. e., he must vote for him whom he deems the most worthy and best qualified among the persons fit for the office in question. External law can scarcely go farther, but moralists rightly declare guilty of mortal sin the elector who, against his conscience, casts his vote for one who is unworthy. In order, however, to fulfil his duty, the elector has a right to be entirely free and uninfluenced by the dread of any unjust annoyance (vexatio) which might affect his vote, whether such annoyance be in its source civil or ecclesiastical (cc. xiv and xliii, h. t.).
V. AFTER ELECTION
We are confronted here by two hypotheses: either an election is or is not disputed. An election may be disputed by whoever is interested in it, in which case the question of its validity is referred to the superior, in accordance with the same rule as for judicial appeals. Now, an election may be defective in three ways, i. e. as to the electors, the person elected, or the mode of election. The defect concerns the electors if, through culpable neglect, one or more of those who have a right to participate in the election are not summoned; or if laymen, excommunicates vitandi, or unauthorized ecclesiastics are admitted as electors. The defect lies with the person elected if it can be proved that he was not fit (idoneus), in which case he may be postulated, or that he was positively unworthy, in which event the election is invalid. Finally, the defect concerns the form or mode of election when the legal prescriptions relative to balloting or compromise have not been observed. The challenged election, with proofs of its imperfection, is judged canonically by the proper ecclesiastical superior. If the alleged defect is not proven, the election is sustained; if it be proven, the judge declares it, whereupon the law provides the following sanctions: An election made by laymen, or with their assistance, is invalid (c. lvi, h. t.); the one at which an excommunicated person has been admitted to vote, as also that to which an elector has not been invited, must be closely investigated, but is not to be annulled unless the absence of the excommunicated person, or the presence of the unsummoned elector might have given a different turn to the vote. The election of a person who is not unworthy, but simply the victim of an impediment, may be treated indulgently; that of an unworthy person is to be annulled, while the electors who, knowing him to be such, nevertheless elected him, are deprived for that time of the right to vote and are suspended for three years from the benefices they hold in the vacant church in question. Finally, the election wherein the prescribed form has not been observed must be annulled. In all of these cases the right to elect (bishops) devolves upon the Holy See (Boniface VIII, c. xviii, h. t., in VIº); the only case in which it devolves upon the immediate superior is when the election has not been made within the prescribed time-limit.
If, on the contrary, the election meets with no opposition the first duty of the presiding officer of the electoral college is to notify the person elected that choice is made of his person. If he be present, e. g. in the elections of regulars, the notification takes place immediately; if he be absent, the decree of election must be forwarded to him within eight days, barring legitimate hindrance. On his side, the person elected is allowed a month within which to make known his acceptance or refusal, the month dating from the time of receiving the decree of election or the permission of the superior when such is obligatory. If the person elected refuses the honour conferred upon him, the electoral college is summoned to proceed with a new election, under the same conditions as the first time and within a month. If he accepts, it is his right as well as his duty to demand from the superior the confirmation of his election within the peremptory limit of three months (c. vi, h. t., in VIº); but if, without legitimate hindrance, he allows this time to pass unused, the election has lapsed. From the moment of his acceptance, the person elected acquires a real, though still incomplete, right to the benefice or charge, the jus ad rem to be completed and transformed into full right (jus in re) by the confirmation of the election; it is his privilege to exact this confirmation from the superior, just as it is the latter’s duty to give it, except in the event of unworthiness, of which fact the superior remains judge. However, until the person elected has received this confirmation, he cannot take advantage of his still incomplete right to interfere in any way whatever in the administration of his benefice, the punishment being the invalidity of all administrative acts thus accomplished and privation of the benefice itself. The ecclesiastical legislation on this point is very severe, but it concerns episcopal sees only. In the time of Innocent III (1198-1216) those elected to an ordinary episcopal see had to seek the confirmation of their election from the metropolitan only. Bishops outside of Italy who had to obtain from Rome the confirmation of their election (metropolitans, or bishops immediately subject to the Holy See) were authorized (c. xliv, h. t.), in cases of necessity, to enter at once on the administration of their churches, provided their election had aroused no opposition; meanwhile the confirmation proceedings went their ordinary course at Rome.
At the Second Council of Lyons, in 1274 (c. Avanitiæ, v, h. t., in VIº), elected persons were forbidden, under penalty of deprivation of their dignity, to meddle in the administration of their benefice by assuming the title of administrator, procurator, or the like. A little later, Boniface VIII (Extrav., Injunctæ, i, h. t.) established the rule still in force for entering on possession of major benefices and episcopal sees, according to which the person elected must not be received unless he present to the provisional administrators the Apostolical Letters of his election, promotion, and confirmation. The Council of Trent having established the vicar capitular as provisional administrator of the diocese during the vacancy of the see, it became necessary to prohibit elected persons from entering on the administration of their future dioceses in the capacity of vicars capitular. This was done by Pius IX in the Constitution “Romanus Pontifex” (28 August, 1873), which recalls and renews the measure taken by Boniface VIII. In this Constitution the pope declares that the law “Avaritiæ” of the aforesaid Council of Lyons applies not only to bishops elected by chapters, but also to candidates named and presented by heads of states in virtue of concordats. He rules that chapters can neither appoint temporarily vicars capitular nor revoke their appointment. He also forbids them to designate as such persons nominated by the civil power, or otherwise elected to a vacant church. Offences against this law are severely punished, by excommunication specially reserved to the pope and by privation of the revenues of their benefices for those dignitaries and canons who turn over the administration of their church to a person elected or nominated. The same penalties are pronounced against said elected or nominated persons, and against all who give them aid, counsel, or countenance. Moreover, the person elected or nominated forfeits all acquired right to the benefice, while all acts performed during his illegitimate administration are declared invalid.
We may now return to the confirmation of the election according to the law of the Decretals. It belonged to the immediate superior. It was his duty to extinguish all opposition by summoning the elected person to defend himself. Even if there were no opposition the superior was bound to summon, by a general edict posted on the door of the vacant church, all who might possibly dispute the election to appear within a fixed period; all this under penalty of the nullity of subsequent confirmation (c. xlvii, h. t., in VIº). The superior had to examine carefully both the election and the person of the one elected, in order to satisfy himself that everything was conformable to law; if his investigation proved favourable he gave the requisite confirmation whereby the elected person became definitively prelate of his church and received full jurisdiction. While the law did not bind the superior to any strict time-limit for the granting of confirmation, it authorized the elected person to complain if the delay were excessive. All this legislation, especially elaborated for episcopal elections, is now no longer applicable to them; however, it is still in force for inferior benefices, e. g. canonries, when they are conferred by way of election.
VI. ELECTIONS NOW IN USE
Election, considered as the choice made by a college of its future prelate, is verified first of all in the designation of a pope by the cardinals (see CONCLAVE). The election of bishops by chapters is still, theoretically, the common rule, but the general reservation formulated in the second rule of the Apostolic Chancery has suppressed in practice the application of this law; episcopal elections, in the strict sense of the word, occur now in only a small number of sees (see BISHOP). Finally, the prelates of regulars are normally appointed by election; the same is true of abbesses. (See the Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, c. vi, De regul.) The common ecclesiastical law provides for no other elections. There are, however, other ecclesiastical elections that do not concern real prelates. Religious communities of men and women under simple vows proceed by election in the choice of superiors, superiors general, assistants general, and usually the members of the general councils. In cathedral churches it is by election that, on occasion of the vacancy of a see, the chapter appoints the vicar capitular (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, c. xvi, De ref.). It is also according to the canonical form of election that colleges, especially chapters, proceed in appointing persons, e. g., to dignities and canonries, when such appointment belongs to the chapter; to inferior benefices to which the chapter has a right to nominate or present; again in the appointment of delegates on seminary commissions (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, c. xviii, De ref.), or in bestowing on some of its members various capitulary offices, or making other such designations. The same is true of other ecclesiastical groups, e. g. the chapters of collegiate churches, etc., also of confraternities and other associations recognized by ecclesiastical authority. In the latter cases, however, there is no election in the strictly canonical sense of the term.
———————————–
See Commentaries on the Corpus Juris Canonicci at the title De electione et electi potestate, Lib. I, tit. vi; and in VIº; SANTI-LEITNER, Prœlect. Jur. Can. (Ratisbon, 1898); FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Electio; PASSERINI, De electione canonicâ (Cologne, 1661).
A. BOUDINHON. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Election
(See ELECT.)
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
ELECTION
God is a loving and merciful God, and in his grace chooses people for purposes that he has planned. This exercise of Gods sovereign will is called election.
In the Old Testament Gods election applied particularly to his choice of Abraham and, through Abraham, to his choice of Israel to be his people (Gen 12:1-3; Neh 9:7-8; Isa 41:8-9). From this people he produced one man, Jesus the Messiah, chosen by him before the foundation of the world to be the Saviour of the world (Luk 9:35; Act 2:23; Act 4:27-28; Eph 1:9-10; 1Pe 1:20; 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:6). All who believe in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, are the true people of God, the true descendants of Abraham (Rom 9:6-9; Gal 3:14; Gal 3:26-29). God has chosen them to receive his salvation, and together they form Gods people, the church (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:44; Joh 15:19; Joh 17:2; Joh 17:6; Eph 1:4-6; 2Th 2:13-14; 1Pe 2:9). The elect is therefore another name for the people of God (Mat 24:22; Luk 18:7; 2Ti 2:10).
Gods activity in determining beforehand what will happen, particularly in relation to peoples destiny, is sometimes called predestination. This predestination originates in God himself, who acts according to his own will and purpose (Psa 139:16; Isa 14:24; Isa 37:26; Isa 46:9-10; Mat 25:34; Act 2:23; Act 4:27-28; Eph 1:5; Rom 8:28-30; 1Th 5:9; see PREDESTINATION).
The gracious work of God
Election has its source in the sovereign love of God. No one deserves to be chosen by God, but in his immeasurable mercy he has chosen to save some (Rom 9:15; Rom 11:5; Eph 1:5). Gods choice of people does not depend on anything of merit in them. It depends entirely on his unmerited favour towards them (Deu 7:6-8; Deu 9:6; Rom 11:6; 1Co 1:27-29; 2Ti 1:9; Jam 2:5).
Neither does God choose people because he foresees their faith or their good intentions (Rom 9:11; Rom 9:16). Salvation is not a reward for faith. Faith is simply the means by which people receive the undeserved salvation that God, in his mercy, gives (Rom 9:16; Rom 9:30; Eph 2:8-9; see FAITH). Or, to put it another way, faith is the means by which Gods eternal choice becomes a reality in their earthly experience (Act 13:48; 1Th 1:4-9). By coming to believe in Jesus, they show that God has chosen them. Eternal life is not their achievement, but Gods (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:40).
All the merit for a persons salvation is in Jesus Christ, whose work of atonement is the basis on which God can forgive repentant sinners (Rom 3:23-26; see JUSTIFICATION). They are chosen only because of their union with Christ, and they are to be changed into the likeness of Christ (Eph 1:4; 2Ti 1:9; cf. Rom 8:29; 2Th 2:14).
No one can argue with God concerning his work of election, for the entire human race is guilty before him and in no position to demand mercy from him. God is the sovereign Creator; human beings are but his rebellious creatures. The amazing thing is not that God shows mercy on only some, but that he shows mercy on any at all (Rom 9:14-23).
Election and calling
Sometimes the Bible speaks of Gods choosing as his calling (Isa 41:8-9; Isa 51:2; Rom 9:11), but other times it makes a distinction (Mat 22:14; see CALL). God chose his people from eternity (Eph 1:4; 2Ti 1:9) and determined to save those whom he had chosen (Rom 8:28-29; Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11). The historical event when each chosen person repented, believed, and accepted Gods salvation is sometimes spoken of as the call of God to that person (Rom 8:30; Rom 9:23-24; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 2:13-14; 2Ti 1:9).
Side by side with the truth of the sovereign and divine will is the truth of human responsibility. The gospel is available to all, and those who refuse it have no one to blame but themselves (Rom 10:13; 1Ti 2:3-4; 2Pe 3:9).
The knowledge that God has chosen sinners to receive salvation is a great encouragement to those who preach the gospel. It urges them on in their preaching, so that people might hear the message of grace that is Gods means of bringing his chosen to himself (Joh 10:14-16; Joh 17:6-8; Act 13:48; Act 18:10; Rom 10:13-14; 2Ti 2:10). And the salvation of those who respond in faith is eternally secure; for it depends not upon their efforts, but upon the sovereign choice of God (Joh 6:37-40; Joh 10:27-29; Rom 8:33-39; Rom 11:29; see ASSURANCE).
Responsibilities of the elect
Although believers may feel secure because their salvation is centred in God, they deceive themselves if they think their behaviour is unimportant (2Pe 1:9-11). There is nothing mechanical about election. Human beings are not lifeless robots manipulated by some impersonal fate. They are creatures made in Gods image, whose lives reflect their relationship with him. Those who have truly been chosen by God will show it by lives of perseverance in the faith he professes. The Bible often links statements about election with warnings and commands concerning the necessity for steadfastness, watchfulness and perseverance (Mar 13:13; Mar 13:22-23; Mar 13:27; Mar 13:33; Act 13:48; Act 14:22; 1Th 5:23-24; 2Th 2:13-15; 1Ti 6:11-12; see PERSEVERANCE).
Those whom God has chosen to be his people are, by that fact, chosen to be holy (Deu 7:6; Eph 1:4; 1Pe 1:15). Since they belong to God, they are to be separate from sin and uncleanness, bringing praise to him (Isa 43:21; Eph 1:12; 2Th 2:13; see HOLINESS). They are to reflect the glory of Christ now, and will one day share in that glory fully (Rom 8:29-30; Rom 9:23; 1Co 2:7; 2Th 2:14). Part of Gods purpose in choosing them is that their lives might bear fruit for God, as they develop Christian character and do good for others (Joh 15:16; Eph 2:10). God has chosen them to be his channel of blessing to an ever-increasing number of people (1Pe 2:9-10; cf. Gen 12:1-3).
Awareness of their election should not lead Christians to complacency. Rather the opposite, for God requires a higher standard of conduct in those who are his chosen people (Amo 3:2; Mic 3:9-12; 1Pe 4:17). The way people live is the proof or disproof of their election (2Pe 1:9-11; cf. Tit 1:1; 1Jn 2:29; 1Jn 3:10).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Election
ELECTION.The idea of election, as expressive of Gods method of accomplishing His purpose for the world in both providence and grace, though (as befits the character of the Bible as peculiarly the history of redemption) especially in grace, goes to the heart of Scripture teaching. The word election itself occurs but a few times (Act 9:15 vessel of election, Rom 9:11; Rom 11:5; Rom 11:7; Rom 11:28, 1Th 1:4, 2Pe 1:10); elect in NT much oftener (see below); but equivalent words in OT and NT, as choose, chosen, foreknow (in sense of fore-designate), etc., considerably extend the range of usage. In the OT, as will be seen, the special object of the Divine election is Israel (e.g. Deu 4:37; Deu 7:7 etc.); but within Israel are special elections, as of the tribe of Levi, the house of Aaron, Judah, David and his house, etc.; while, in a broader sense, the idea, if not the expression, is present wherever individuals are raised up, or separated, for special service (thus of Cyrus, Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1-6). In the NT the term elect is frequently used, both by Christ and by the Apostles, for those who are heirs of salvation (e.g. Mat 24:22; Mat 24:24; Mat 24:31||, Luk 18:7, Rom 8:33, Col 3:12, 2Ti 2:10, Tit 1:1, 1Pe 1:2), and the Church, as the new Israel, is described as an elect race (1Pe 2:9). Jesus Himself is called, with reference to Isa 42:1, Gods chosen or elect One (Mat 12:18, Luk 9:35 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , Luk 23:35); and mention is once made of elect angels (1Ti 5:21). In St. Pauls Epistles the idea has great prominence (Rom 9:1-33, Eph 1:4 etc.). It is now necessary to investigate the implications of this idea more carefully.
Election, etymologically, is the choice of one, or of some, out of many. In the usage we are investigating, election is always, and only, of God. It is the method by which, in the exercise of His holy freedom, He carries out His purpose (the purpose of God according to election, Rom 9:11). The call which brings the election to light, as in the call of Abraham, Israel, believers, is in time, but the call rests on Gods prior, eternal determination (Rom 8:28-29). Israel was chosen of Gods free love (Deu 7:6 ff.); believers are declared to be blessed in Christ, even as he chose them in himthe One in whom is the ground of all salvationbefore the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). It is strongly insisted on, therefore, that the reason of election is not anything in the object itself (Rom 9:11; Rom 9:16); the ground of the election of believers is not in their holiness or good works, or even in fides prvisa, but solely in Gods free grace and mercy (Eph 1:1-4; holiness a result, not a cause). They are made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11); or, as in an earlier verse, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace (Eph 1:6). Yet, as it is axiomatic that there is no unrighteousness with God (Rom 9:14); that His loving will embraces the whole world (Joh 3:16, 1Ti 2:4); that He can never, in even the slightest degree, act partially or capriciously (Act 10:34, 2Ti 2:13); and that, as salvation in the case of none is compulsory, but is always in accordance with the saved persons own free choice, so none perishes but by his own fault or unbeliefit is obvious that difficult problems arise on this subject which can be solved, so far as solution is possible, only by close attention to all Scripture indications.
1. In the OT.Valuable help is afforded, first, by observing how this idea shapes itself, and is developed, in the OT. From the first, then, we see that Gods purpose advances by a method of election, but observe also that, while sovereign and free, this election is never an end in itself, but is subordinated as a means to a wider end. It is obvious also that it was only by an electionthat is, by beginning with some individual or people, at some time, in some placethat such ends as God had in view in His Kingdom could be realized. Abraham, accordingly, is chosen, and God calls him, and makes His covenant with him, and with his seed; not, however, as a private, personal transaction, but that in him and in his seed all families of the earth should be blessed (Gen 12:2-3 etc.). Further elections narrow down this line of promiseIsaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau (cf. Rom 9:7-13)till Israel is grown, and prepared for the national covenant at Sinai. Israel, again, is chosen from among the families of the earth (Exo 19:3-6, Deu 4:34, Amo 3:2); not, however, for its own sake, but that it may be a means of blessing to the Gentiles. This is the ideal calling of Israel which peculiarly comes out in the prophecies of the Servant of Jehovah (Isa 41:1-29; Isa 42:1-25; Isa 43:1-28; Isa 44:1-28; Isa 45:1-25; Isa 46:1-13; Isa 47:1-15; Isa 48:1-22; Isa 49:1-26)a calling of which the nation as a whole so fatally fell short (Isa 42:19-20). So far as these prophecies of the Servant point to Christthe Elect One in the supreme sense, as both Augustine and Calvin emphasizeHis mission also was one of salvation to the world.
Here, however, it will naturally be askedIs there not, after all, a reason for these and similar elections in the greater congruity of the object with the purpose for which it was designed? If God chose Abraham, was it not because Abraham was the best fitted among existing men for such a vocation? Was Isaac not better fitted than Ishmael, and Jacob than Esau, to be the transmitters of the promise? This leads to a remark which carries us much deeper into the nature of election. We err grievously if we think of Gods relation to the objects of His choice as that of a workman to a set of tools provided for him, from which he selects that most suited to his end. It is a shallow view of the Divine election which regards it as simply availing itself of happy varieties of character spontaneously presenting themselves in the course of natural development. Election goes deeper than graceeven into the sphere of nature. It presides, to use a happy phrase of Langes, at the making of its object (Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, etc.), as well as uses it when made. The question is not simply how, a man of the gifts and qualifications of Abraham, or Moses, or Paul, being given, God should use him in the way He did, but rather how a man of this spiritual build, and these gifts and qualifications, came at that precise juncture to be there at all. The answer to that question can be found only in the Divine ordering; election working in the natural sphere prior to its being revealed in the spiritual, God does not simply find His instrumentsHe creates them: He has had them, in a true sense, in view, and has been preparing them from the foundation of things. Hence St. Pauls saying of himself that he was separated from his mothers womb (Gal 1:15; cf. of Jeremiah, Jer 1:5; of Cyrus, Isa 45:5 etc.).
Here comes in another consideration. Israel was the elect nation, but as a nation it miserably failed in its vocation (so sometimes with the outward Church). It would seem, then, as if, on the external side, election had failed of its result; but it did not do so really. This is the next step in the OT developmentthe realization of an election within the election, of a true and spiritual Israel within the natural, of individual election as distinct from national. This idea is seen shaping itself in the greater prophets in the doctrine of the remnant (cf. Isa 1:9; Isa 6:13; Isa 8:16-18 etc.); in the idea of a godly kernel in Israel in distinction from the unbelieving mass (involved in prophecies of the Servant); and is laid hold of, and effectively used, by St. Paul in his rebutting of the supposition that the word of God had failed (Rom 9:6 for they are not all Israel that are of Israel, Rom 11:5; Rom 11:7 etc.). This yields us the natural transition to the NT conception.
2. In the NT.The difference in the NT standpoint in regard to election may perhaps now be thus defined. (1) Whereas the election in the OT is primarily national, and only gradually works round to the idea of an inner, spiritual election, the opposite is the case in the NTelection is there at first personal and individual, and the Church as an elect body is viewed as made up of these individual believers and all others professing faith in Christ (a distinction thus again arising between inward and outward). (2) Whereas the personal aspect of election in the OT is throughout subordinate to the idea of service, in the NT, on the other hand, stress is laid on the personal election to eternal salvation; and the aspect of election as a means to an end beyond itself falls into the background, without, however, being at all intended to be lost sight of. The believer, according to NT teaching, is called to nothing so much as to active service; he is to be a light of the world (Mat 5:13-16), a worker together with God (1Co 3:9), a living epistle, known and read of all men (2Co 3:2-3); the light has shined in his heart that he should give it forth to others (2Co 4:6); he is elected to the end that he may show forth the excellencies of Him who called him (1Pe 2:9), etc. St. Paul is a vessel of election to the definite end that he should bear Christs name to the Gentiles (Act 9:15). Believers are a kind of first-fruits unto God (Rom 16:5, 1Co 16:15, Jam 1:18, Rev 14:4); there is a fulness to be brought in (Rom 11:25).
As carrying us, perhaps, most deeply into the comprehension of the NT doctrine of election, it is lastly to be observed that, apart from the inheritance of ideas from the OT, there is an experiential basis for this doctrine, from which, in the living consciousness of faith, it can never be divorced. In general it is to be remembered how Gods providence is everywhere in Scripture represented as extending over all persons and eventsnothing escaping His notice, or falling outside of His counsel (not even the great crime of the Crucifixion, Act 4:28)and how uniformly everything good and gracious is ascribed to His Spirit as its author (e.g. Act 11:18, Eph 2:8, Php 2:13, Heb 13:20-21). It cannot, therefore, be that in so great a matter as a souls regeneration (see Regeneration), and the translating of it out of the darkness of sin into the light and blessing of Christs Kingdom (Act 26:18, Col 1:12-13, 1Pe 2:9-10), the change should not be viewed as a supreme triumph of the grace of God in that soul, and should not be referred to an eternal act of God, choosing the individual, and in His love calling him in His own good time into this felicity. Thus also, in the experience of salvation, the soul, conscious of the part of God in bringing it to Himself, and hourly realizing its entire dependence on Him for everything good, will desire to regard it and will regard it; and will feel that in this thought of Gods everlasting choice of it lies its true ground of security and comfort (Rom 8:28; Rom 8:33; Rom 8:38-39). It is not the soul that has chosen God, but God that has chosen it (cf. Joh 15:16), and all the comforting and assuring promises which Christ gives to those whom He describes as given Him by the Father (Joh 6:37; Joh 6:39 etc.)as His sheep (Joh 10:3-5 etc.)are humbly appropriated by it for its consolation and encouragement (cf. Joh 6:39; Joh 10:27-29 etc.).
On this experiential basis Calvinist and Arminian may be trusted to agree, though it leaves the speculative question still unsolved of how precisely Gods grace and human freedom work together in the production of this great change. That is a question which meets us wherever Gods purpose and mans free will touch, and probably will be found to embrace unsolved element till the end. Start from the Divine side, and the work of salvation is all of grace; start from the human side, there is responsibility and choice. The elect, on any showing, must always be those in whom grace is regarded as effecting its result; the will, on the other hand, must be freely won; but this winning of the will may be viewed as itself the last triumph of graceGod working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Php 2:13, Heb 13:20-21). From this highest point of view the antinomy disappears; the believer is ready to acknowledge that it is not anything in self, not his willing and running, that has brought him into the Kingdom (Rom 9:16), but only Gods eternal mercy. See, further, Predestination, Regeneration, Reprobate.
James Orr.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Election
e-lekshun (, ekloge, choice, selection):
I.The Word in Scripture
II.The Mysterious Element
III.Incidence Upon Community and Individual
IV.Cognate and Illustrative Biblical Languange
V.Limitations of Inquiry Here.Scope of Election
VI.Perseverance
VII.Considerations in Relief of Thought
1.Antinomies
2.Fatalism Another Thing
3.The Moral Aspects
4.We know in Part
5.The Unknown Future
I. The Word in Scripture
The word is absent from the Old Testament, where the related Hebrew verb (, bahar) is frequent. In the New Testament it occurs 6 times (Rom 9:11; Rom 11:5, Rom 11:7, Rom 11:28; 1Th 1:4; 2Pe 1:10). In all these places it appears to denote an act of Divine selection taking effect upon human objects so as to bring them into special and saving relations with God: a selection such as to be at once a mysterious thing, transcending human analysis of its motives (so eminently in Rom 9:11), and such as to be knowable by its objects, who are (2 Pet) exhorted to make it sure, certain, a fact to consciousness. It is always (with one exception, Rom 9:11; see below) related to a community, and Thus has close affinity with the Old Testament teachings upon the privileged position of Israel as the chosen, selected race (see under ELECT). The objects of election in the New Testament are, in effect, the Israel of God, the new, regenerate race called to special privilege and special service. From one point of view, that of the external marks of Christianity, they may Thus be described as the Christian community in its widest sense, the sense in which the sacramental position and the real are prima facie assumed to coincide. But from 2 Peter it is manifest that much more than this has to be said if the incidence of the word present to the writer’s mind is to be rightly felt. It is assumed there that the Christian, baptized and a worshipper, may yet need to make sure his calling and election as a fact to his consciousness. This implies conditions in the election which far transcend the tests of sacred rite and external fellowship.
II. The Mysterious Element
Such impressions of depth and mystery in the word are confirmed by the other, passages. In Rom 9:11 the context is charged with the most urgent and even staggering challenges to submission and silence in the presence of the inscrutable. To illustrate large assertions as to the liberty and sovereignty of the Divine dealings with man, the apostle brings in Esau and Jacob, individuals, twins as yet unborn, and points to the inscrutable difference of the Divine action toward them as such. Somehow, as a matter of fact, the Eternal appears as appointing to unborn Esau a future of comparative disfavor and to Jacob of favor; a future announced to the still pregnant mother. Such discrimination was made and announced, says the apostle, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. In the whole passage the gravest stress is laid upon the isolation of the election from the merit or demerit of its objects.
III. Incidence upon Community and Individual
It is observable that the same characteristic, the inscrutable, the sovereign, is attached in the Old Testament to the election of a favored and privileged nation. Israel is repeatedly reminded (see e.g. Dt 7) that the Divine call and choice of them to be the people of God has no relation to their virtues, or to their strength. The reason lies out of sight, in the Divine mind. So too the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) in the New Testament, the Christian community, the new, peculiar race, holds its great privileges by quite unmerited favor (e.g. Tit 3:5). And the nature of the case here leads, as it does not in the case of the natural Israel, to the thought of a Divine election of the individual, similarly inscrutable and sovereign. For the idea of the New Israel involves the thought that in every genuine member of it the provisions of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31 f) are being fulfilled: the sins are remembered no more, and the law is written in the heart. The bearer of the Christian name, but not of the Christian spiritual standing and character, having not the Spirit of Christ, is none of his (Rom 8:9). The chosen community accordingly, not as it seems ab extra, but as it is in its essence, is a fellowship of individuals each of whom is an object of unmerited Divine favor, taking effect in the new life. And this involves the exercise of electing mercy. Compare e.g. 1Pe 1:3. And consider Rom 11:4-7 (where observe the exceptional use of the election, meaning the company of the elect).
IV. Cognate and Illustrative Biblical Language
It is obvious that the aspects of mystery which gather round the word election are not confined to it alone. An important class of words, such as calling, predestination foreknowledge, purpose, gift, bears this same character; asserting or connoting, in appropriate contexts, the element of the inscrutable and sovereign in the action of the Divine will upon man, and particularly upon man’s will and affection toward God. And it will be felt by careful students of the Bible in its larger and more general teachings that one deep characteristic of the Book, which with all its boundless multiplicity is yet one, is to emphasize on the side of man everything that can humble, convict, reduce to worshipping silence (see for typical passages Job 40:3, Job 40:1; Rom 3:19), and on the side of God everything which can bring home to man the transcendence and sovereign claims of his almighty Maker. Not as unrelated utterances, but as part of a vast whole of view and teaching, occur such passages as Eph 2:8, Eph 2:9 and Rom 11:33-36, and even the stern, or rather awestruck, phrases of Rom 9:20, Rom 9:21, where the potter and the clay are used in illustration.
V. Limitations of Inquiry Here. Scope of Election
We have sought Thus in the simplest outline to note first the word election and then some related Scriptural words and principles, weighing the witness they bear to a profound mystery in the action of the Divine will upon man, in the spiritual sphere. What we have Thus seen leaves still unstated what, according to Scripture, is the goal and issue of the elective act. In this article, remembering that it is part of a Bible Encyclopedia, we attempt no account of the history of thought upon election, in the successive Christian centuries, nor again any discussion of the relation of election in Scripture to extra-Scriptural philosophies, to theories of necessity, determination, fatalism. We attempt only to see the matter as it lies before us in the Bible. Studying it so, we find that this mysterious action of God on man has relation, in the Christian revelation, to nothing short of the salvation of the individual (and of the community of such individuals) from sin and condemnation, and the preservation of the saved to life eternal. We find this not so much in any single passage as in the main stream of Biblical language and tone on the subject of the Divine selective action. But it is remarkable that in the recorded thought of our Lord Himself we find assertions in this direction which could hardly be more explicit. See Joh 6:37, Joh 6:44, Joh 6:45; Joh 10:27-29. To the writer the best summary of the Scriptural evidence, at once definite and restrained, is the language of the 17th Anglican art.: They which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
VI. Perseverance
The anxious problem of PERSEVERANCE will be treated under that word. It may be enough here to say that alike what we are permitted to read as revealed, and what we may humbly apprehend as the reason of the case, tend to the reverent belief that a perseverance (rather of the Lord than of the saints) is both taught and implied. But when we ponder the nature of the subject we are amply prepared for the large range of Scriptures which on the other hand condemn and preclude, for the humble disciple, so gross a misuse of the doctrine as would let it justify one moment’s presumption upon Divine mercy in the heart which is at the same time sinning against the Divine love and holiness.
VII. Considerations in Relief of Thought
We close, in view of this last remark, with some detached notes in relief, well remembering the unspeakable trial which to many devout minds the word before us has always brought.
1. Antinomies
First in place and importance is the thought that a spiritual fact like election, which belongs to the innermost purpose and work of the Eternal, necessarily leads us to a region where comprehension is impossible, and where we can only reverently apprehend. The doctrine passes upward to the sphere where antinomies live and move, where we must be content to hear what sound to us contradictions, but which are really various aspects of infinite truth. Let us be content to know that the Divine choice is sovereign; and also that his tender mercies are over all his works, that ‘He willeth not the death of a sinner,’ that God is love. Let us relieve the tension of such submissive reliance by reverently noting how the supreme antinomy meets one type of human need with its one side, and with its other another. To the fearful saint the Divine sovereignty of love is a sacred cordial. To the seeking penitent the Divine comprehensiveness of love opens the door of peace. To the deluded theorist who does not love and obey, the warnings of a fall and ruin which are possible, humanly, from any spiritual height, are a merciful beacon on the rocks.
2. Fatalism Another Thing
Further, we remember that election, in Scripture, is as different as possible from the fatal necessity of, e.g. the Stoics. It never appears as mechanical, or as a blind destiny. It has to do with the will of a God who has given us otherwise supreme proofs that He is all-good and all-kind. And it is related to man not as a helpless and innocent being but as a sinner. It is never presented as an arbitrary force majeure. Even in Rom 9 the silence called for is not as if to say, You are hopelessly passive in the grasp of infinite power, but, You, the creature, cannot judge your Maker, who must know infinitely more of cause and reason than his handiwork can know. The mystery, we may be sure, had behind it supreme right and reason, but in a region which at present at least we cannot penetrate. Again, election never appears as a violation of human will. For never in the Bible is man treated as irresponsible. In the Bible the relation of the human and Divine wills is inscrutable; the reality of both is assured.
3. The Moral Aspects
Never is the doctrine presented apart from a moral context. It is intended manifestly to deepen man’s submission to – not force, but – mystery, where such submission means faith. In the practical experience of the soul its designed effect is to emphasize in the believer the consciousness (itself native to the true state of grace) that the whole of his salvation is due to the Divine mercy, no part of it to his merit, to his virtue, to his wisdom. In the sanctified soul, which alone, assuredly, can make full use of the mysterious truth, is it designed to generate, together and in harmony, awe, thanksgiving and repose.
4. We Know in Part
A necessary caution in view of the whole subject is that here, if anywhere in the regions of spiritual study, we inevitably know in part, and in a very limited part. The treatment of election has at times in Christian history been carried on as if, less by the light of revelation than by logical processes, we could tabulate or map the whole subject. Where this has been done, and where at the same time, under a sort of mental rather than spiritual fascination, election has been placed in the foreground of the system of religious thought, and allowed to dominate the rest, the truth has (to say the least) too often been distorted into an error. The Divine character has been beclouded in its beauty. Sovereignty has been divorced from love, and so defaced into an arbitrary fiat, which has for its only reason the assertion of omnipotence. Thus, the grievous wrong has been done of , aischron ti legein per tou Theou, defamation of God. For example, the revelation of a positive Divine selection has been made by inference to teach a corresponding rejection ruthless and terrible, as if the Eternal Love could ever by any possibility reject or crush even the faintest aspiration of the created spirit toward God. For such a thought not even the dark words of Rom 9:18 give Scriptural excuse. The case there in hand, Pharaoh’s, is anything but one of arbitrary power trampling on a human will looking toward God and right. Once more, the subject is one as to which we must on principle be content with knowledge so fragmentary that its parts may seem contradictory in our present imperfect light. The one thing we may be sure of behind the veil is, that nothing can be hidden there which will really contradict the supreme and ruling truth that God is love.
5. The Unknown Future
Finally, let us from another side remember that here, as always in the things of the Spirit, we know in part. The chosen multitude are sovereignly called,… justified,… glorified (Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30). But for what purposes? Certainly not for an end terminating in themselves. They are saved, and kept, and raised to the perfect state, for the service of their Lord. And not till the cloud is lifted from the unseen life can we possibly know what that service under eternal conditions will include, what ministries of love and good in the whole universe of being.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Election
, ‘choice.’ Spoken of :
1. the Lord Jesus: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect (bachir ) in whom my soul delighteth.” Isa 42:1; 1Pe 2:6. He was fore-ordained to be a mercy-seat through faith in His blood. Rom 3:25, margin ; 1Pe 1:20.
2. Cyrus, who was called by God to be His ‘shepherd’ to work out His will, saying to Jerusalem, “Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1-4. It was Cyrus who released the captives to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Ezr 1:2-3.
3. When Jacob and Esau were born, Jacob was elected for blessing, and his descendants as the only nation chosen by God for His special favour. Rom 9:11-13; Amo 3:2.
4. When God again restores Israel into blessing it will be a remnant that will be chosen, whom He calls His ‘elect.’ Isa 65:9; Isa 65:15; Isa 65:22; Mat 24:22; Mat 24:24; Mat 24:31; Rom 11:28.
5. Elect angels. 1Ti 5:21.
6. Election of persons to eternal life. Rom 8:29-30; Rom 8:33; Rom 11:5; Rom 11:7; Col 3:12; 1Th 1:4; 2Ti 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1Pe 1:2; 1Pe 5:13; 2Pe 1:10; 2Jn 1:1; 2Jn 1:13.
The reason Christians feel a difficulty as to the doctrine of election to eternal life, is because they do not see the extent of the fall of man, and his utterly lost condition. Were it not for election, and the prevailing grace that follows it, not one would be saved. Christ died for all, and the gospel is proclaimed to all, Rom 3:22; Heb 2:9; but alas, except for the election and grace of God, none would respond. Luk 14:18. God must have all the glory.
Another error that has caused a difficulty as to ‘election ‘ is the idea which some maintain that as some are ordained to eternal life, others likewise are fore-ordained by God to perdition, called ‘reprobation.’ But this is not taught in scripture – God desires that all men should be saved, 1Ti 2:4, and His election to life ensures that some will be. It was not before Esau was born, nor until long after he was dead, that it was said he was hated of God. Mal 1:3. Some even judge that it refers, not to Esau personally, but to his descendants after their deeds had been fully manifested. Cf. Oba 1:10; Ezek. 35.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Election
Of rulers, by lot
Neh 11:1
Of grace
– General references
Joh 15:16; Joh 17:6; Eph 1:4; Eph 2:10; 2Th 2:13
– Of Christ as Messiah
Isa 42:1; 1Pe 2:6
– Of good angels
1Ti 5:21
– Of Israel
Deu 7:6; Isa 45:4
– Of ministers
Luk 6:13; Act 9:15
– Of Churches
1Pe 5:13 Predestination
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Election
(Lat. eligo, to choose) A choice between alternatives. In psychologyfree choice by the will between means proposed by the understanding. An act of volition. — J.K.F.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
ELECTION
of God’s people
Exo 6:7; Deu 4:37; Deu 7:6; Mat 25:34; Joh 15:16; Gal 4:30; Eph 1:4; 1Pe 1:2
–SEE Predestination, PREDESTINATION
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Election
Of a divine election, a choosing and separating from others, we have three kinds mentioned in the Scriptures. The first is the election of individuals to perform some particular and special service. Cyrus was elected to rebuild the temple; the twelve Apostles were chosen,
elected, to their office by Christ; St. Paul was a chosen, or elected vessel, to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The second kind of election which we find in Scripture, is the election of nations, or bodies of people, to eminent religious privileges, and in order to accomplish, by their superior illumination, the merciful purposes of God, in benefiting other nations or bodies of people. Thus the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were chosen to receive special revelations of truth; and to be the people of God, that is, his visible church, publicly to observe and uphold his worship. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you, above all people. It was especially on account of the application of the terms elect, chosen, and peculiar, to the Jewish people, that they were so familiarly used by the Apostles in their epistles addressed to the believing Jews and Gentiles, then constituting the church of Christ in various places. For Christians were the subjects, also, of this second kind of election; the election of bodies of men to be the visible people and church of God in the world, and to be endowed with peculiar privileges. Thus they became, though in a more special and exalted sense, the chosen people, the elect of God. We say in a more special sense, because as the entrance into the Jewish church was by natural birth, and the entrance into the Christian church, properly so called, is by faith and a spiritual birth, these terms, although many became Christians by mere profession, and enjoyed various priviledges in consequence of their people or nation being chosen to receive the Gospel, have generally respect, in the New Testament, to bodies of true believers, or to the whole body of true believers as such. They are not, therefore, to be interpreted according to the scheme of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, by the constitution of the Jewish, but by the constitution of the Christian, church.
2. To understand the nature of this election, as applied sometimes to particular bodies of Christians, as when St. Peter says, The church which is at Babylon, elected together with you, and sometimes to the whole body of believers every where; and also the reason of the frequent use of the term election, and of the occurrence of allusions to the fact; it is to be remembered, that a great religious revolution, so to speak, had occurred in the age of the Apostles; with the full import of which we cannot, without calling in the aid of a little reflection, be adequately impressed. This change was no other than the abrogation of the church state of the Jews, which had continued for so many ages. They had been the only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the nations of the earth; for whatever pious people might have existed in other nations, they were not, in the sight of men, and collectively, acknowledged as the people of Jehovah. They had no written revelations, no appointed ministry, no forms of authorized initiation into his church and covenant, no appointed holy days, or sanctioned ritual. All these were peculiar to the Jews, who were, therefore, an elected and peculiar people. This distinguished honour they were about to lose. They might have retained it as Christians, had they been willing to admit the believing Gentiles of all nations to share it with them; but the great reason of their peculiarity and election, as a nation, was terminated by the coming of the Messiah, who was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the glory of his people Israel. Their pride and consequent unbelief resented this, which will explain their enmity to the believing part of the Gentiles, who, when that which St. Paul calls the fellowship of the mystery was fully explained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that Apostle himself, were called into that church relation and visible acknowledgment as the people of God, which the Jews had formerly enjoyed, and that with even a higher degree of glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality of the new dispensation. It was this doctrine which excited that strong irritation in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially Christianized ones, to which so many references are made in the New Testament. The were provoked, were made jealous; and were often roused to the madness of persecuting opposition by it. There was then a new election of a new people of God, to be composed of Jews, not by virtue of their natural descent, but through their faith in Christ, and of Gentiles of all nations, also believing, and put as believers, on an equal ground with the believing Jews: and there was also a rejection, a reprobation, but not an absolute one; for the election was offered to the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the Gospel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the elect people of God, on the new ground of faith, instead of the old one of natural descent; and therefore the Apostle, Rom 11:7, calls the believing part of the Jews, the election, in opposition to those who opposed this election of grace, and still clung to their former and now repealed election as Jews and the descendants of Abraham; But the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. The offer had been made to the whole nation; all might have joined the one body of believing Jews and believing Gentiles; but the major part of them refused: they would not come into the supper; they made light of it; light of an election founded on faith, and which placed the relation of the people of God upon spiritual attainments, and offered to them only spiritual blessings. They were, therefore, deprived of election and church relationship of every kind: their temple was burned; their political state abolished; their genealogies confounded; their worship annihilated; and all visible acknowledgment of them by God as a church withdrawn, and transfer red to a church henceforward to be composed chiefly of Gentiles:
and thus, says St. Paul, were fulfilled the words of Moses, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish, ignorant and idolatrous, people I will anger you. It is easy, therefore, to see what is the import of the calling and election of the Christian church, as spoken of in the New Testament. It was not the calling and the electing of one nation in particular to succeed the Jews; but it was the calling and the electing of believers in all nations, wherever the Gospel should be preached, to be in reality what the Jews typically, and therefore in an inferior degree, had been,the visible church of God, his people, under Christ the Head; with an authenticated revelation; with an appointed ministry, never to be lost; with authorized worship; with holy days and festivals; with instituted forms of initiation; and with special protection and favour.
3. The third kind of election is personal election; or the election of individuals to be the children of God, and the heirs of eternal life. This is not a choosing to particular offices and service, which is the first kind of election we have mentioned; nor is it that collective election to religious privileges and a visible church state, of which we have spoken. For although the elect have an individual interest in such an election as parts of the collective body, thus placed in possession of the ordinances of Christianity; yet many others have the same advantages, who still remain under the guilt and condemnation of sin and practical unbelief. The individuals properly called the elect, are they who have been made partakers of the grace and saving efficacy of the Gospel. Many, says our Lord, are called, but few chosen. What true personal election is, we shall find explained in two clear passages of Scripture. It is explained by our Lord, where he says to his disciples, I have chosen you out of the world: and by St. Peter, when he addresses his First Epistle to the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. To be elected, therefore, is to be separated from the world, and to be sanctified by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ, It follows, then, not only that election is an act of God done in time, but also that it is subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation. The calling goes before the election; the publication of the doctrine of the Spirit, and the atonement, called by Peter the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, before that sanctification through which they become the elect of God. In a word, the elect are the body of true believers; and personal election into the family of God is through personal faith. All who truly believe are elected; and all to whom the Gospel is sent have, through the grace that accompanies it, the power to believe placed within their reach; and all such might, therefore, attain to the grace of personal election.