Boultbee on Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election

2. • Wretchlessness ’ signifies carelessness, tlie Latin equiva- lent being securitas. It is an antiquated form of the word recklessness, the older spelling of which was j^eche or recche. It is found in Hooker’s second Sermon on Jude 17-21, § xxxiii:

140 ARTICLE XVn*

• It is want of failili in ourselves, which makes us wretchless in building others.’

3. • We must receive God’s promises in such wise as they he generally set forth to ws in Holy Scripture ; ’ Latin, * ut nobis in sacris Uteris generaliter propositcs sunt,* The word genera- liter here requires special notice. It can hardly be necessary to observe that in a document of this character, written by men versed in technical phraseology, the popular or more modem usage of a word cannot be thought of; although pro- bably in this case it would not lead us very wide of the mark. Generalis signifies that which relates to the whole genus. Hence in respect to the genus under consideration it is equivalent to universal ; and is opposed to singulus^ specialis. There are two modes of viewing the corresponding adverb generaliter in the clause under consideration. First we may take it in relation to the whole genus of promises. In this case we are admonished to take the whole of God’s promises together, without selecting special ones here or there. It is the manner of Scripture to give a promise without condition in one place and with a condition in another (e.g. compare John xiv. 13 with 1 John v. 14). The Christian knows well how this manner conduces to a profitable searching of Holy Scripture and to a more accurate and balanced knowledge of the will of Grod.

Secondly, we may take the word generaliter in relation tc the whole genus of those to whom the promises were given. There is some contemporary authority for so imderstanding it. The Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum was prepared imder the close superintendence of Archbishop Cranmer contempo- raneously with the Articles. If Edward “VT. had lived a year longer it would probably have become law. The language of the Articles is reproduced either literally or with some slight paraphrase in many of the corresponding portions. The twenty-second chapter, * de predestinatione ’ of the section * de hcBresibus ’ is an expanded statement of the warning in the present Article against the peril of the doctrine of reprobation, and of the advantage of a pious reception of the docti*ine of election. It frequently uses the very words of the Article,

and it concludes with this admonition, * Wherefore all should be admonished, that in their actions they should have no reference to decrees of predestination, but should adapt the whole course of their life to the laws of God ; since they see that promises to the good, and threatenings to the bad, are in Holy Scripture generally set forth {generaliter propositas). For in respect of the worship of God we ought to enter those ways, and dwell in that will of God, which we see manifested to us in Holy Scripture.’ In this strictly parallel and con- temporaneous passage, proceeding from the same authority, the word generaliter manifestly refers to the whole genera severally of the good and the bad.

Again in the controversies which led to the ill-omened attempt to lay the yoke of ultra-Calvinism on the Church ol England in tlie days of Archbishop Whitgift, this expression of the Article was used in controversy. Dr. Baro, the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, dissented in some points from the extreme Calvinism then in vogue. The University authorities involved him in vexatious proceedings which ultimately led to his resignation.

Strype* gives an account of these troubles. In a discourse ad clerum (1595) Dr. Baro had maintained that Hhe promise^ of God made to us, as they are generally propounded to us, were to be generally understood : as it is set down in the Seventeenth Article.’

The meaning of this is sufficiently plain from the doctrine of his opponents immediately subjoined — ^viz. that God did on purpose create the greatest part of men to destruction ; that Christ did not die for all ; and *for the same cause they would not have the promises to be general, but extended them to those few persons alone who were created by God to be saved.’ It appears, therefore, that the second is the more correct inter- pretation of this part of the Article, although the first is un- questionably true. And it seems also correct to identify this with the expression of Melancthon, ’ and if other points about election are susceptible of subtle disputation, yet it is profit- able to the godly to hold that the promise is universaV But

’ Whitgift, iv. 17, 18.

142 ARTICLE XVil.

having admitted this, it will not do straightway to qualify it or recal it bj limiting it to the baptized, or any other class in the human race, in order to deduce a theory of election. We must hold that the promises apply to the genus, and not to any species of the genus Man.

Finally, Bishop Beveridge well observes on this part of the Article: — *It is here very opportunely added, that we must receive God’s promises as they be generally set forth in the Holy Scripture. Though they are but some that God hath elected, yet His promises are made to all : Come imto me all .ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt. xi. 28): and Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life (John iii. 16). In the appli- cation of which and the like promises, we must not have respect to the eternity of God’s purpose, but to the universal- ity of His promise. His promises are made to all, and there- fore are all boimd to lay hold upon His promises ; and as we are to receive His promises, so are we also to obey His precepts as made to all. So that in all our doings the will of God is to be followed as we have it expressly declared to us in His word: not considering whether God elected me from eternity, but whether I obey Him in time : if I obey Him in time, I may certainly conclude that He elected me from eternity,’

In short, that God’s promises are * generally set forth,’ is the very nerve and sinew of gospel preaching ; as it is also the delight and confidence of the pious soul to think that God hath chosen it, rather than that it chose God.

4. There are only one or two unimportant verbal differences between the present Article and the corresponding form of 1552. It does not appear that the language of this Article was borrowed from any special theological source.

The Principal Divisions of Article XVH.

There are three principal divisions of this Article, corre- spending to the three paragraphs which it contains.

I. The definition of predestination to life, its origin in the secret purpose of God, its manifestation, wdrking, and final

issue in the elect. To a great extent, this paragraph is a compendium of Bom. viii.

II. The blessedness of this doctrine to those who, by Gk)d’s grace, have grasped His promises. The extreme peril of the opposite doctrine of reprobation to the imconverted.

HI. A caution against partial dealing with God’s word, whether by selecting special passages to build up a compact system ; or by limiting the wide scope and comprehensiveness of God’s offer of mercy through Christ.

Observations on Article XVII.

The purport of our observations upon this Article will be not so much to advocate any particular system as to introduce the student to the subject generally, and to give him a fair acquaintance with the chief phases of those con- troversies about it which are now happily dormant.

Before we enter upon the history of the doctrine of this Article, it is exceedingly important to note that difficulties about predestination are not peculiar to Christianity ; do not, in point of fact, arise out of it, and are not escaped by dis- believing the Scripture. The Fate of the Greek mythology was superior to Zeus himself. The Stoics among Greek philosophers were rigid fatalists. Some account of the disputes of Greek philosophers on this subject may be found in Cicero, * De Fato.’

According to Josephus,^ the Pharisees held that ’ all things were done by Fate,’ yet with a reservation of the freedom of the will. It is well known that Mahomedans are strict fatalists. An interesting accoimt of the Mahomedan idea of the unity of God will be found in Palgrave’s * Journey through Central Arabia,’ ch. viii. According to this state- ment, God is one, not only numerically and without plurality of nature or person, but as the only Agent, the only Force, through the universe, leaving nothing to any other beings but unconditional passiveness. The sole power, motor, energy, is God. Neither loving nor enjoying. He is thought of as an

» ’ Antiquities,’ XVIH. i. 3.

t

144 AETICLE XVn.

absolute, lonely Despot, dispensing felicity or damnation ac- cording to his win, and alike unsympathizing with either fate.

A inibject like this, touching theology with one hand and philosophy with the other, as well as deeply rooted in Holy Scripture, was of necessity handled by the Early Fathers of the Church. Quotations from their writings may be seen in Bishop Browne, or other of the longer treatises on the Articles. It was reserved for Augustine in the fifth century to discuss, systematically the doctrine of predestination. The following passage from his treatise * De Pragdest. Sanctorum,’ ch. xviii., may illustrate his views: — *God hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of sons : not because we were going to be holy and spotless of ourselves, but He elected us, in order that we might be such. He did this according to the pleasure of His will, in order that no man might boast of his own will, but of the will of God towards him.’

Augustine did not understand by reprobation a decree or purpose of damnation, but a leaving of the imgodly to the just consequences of their sins.

Since the time of Augustine, all sections of the Church have been more or less divided on this subject. The school- men discussed the subject of predestination with their usual minuteness. Aquinas and his followers adhered to Augus- tinian views. Scotus, in this, as in other doctrines of grace and merit, approached nearer to Pelagianism.

We come next to the age of the Reformation. The most has been made of supposed differences between Luther and Melancthon on the one hand, and Calvin on the other, in respect of this doctrine. But the Reformers of all countries were strong Augustinians, and, with some modifications, held the same general cast of doctrine on election. Dr. Macbride on this Article quotes Melancthon as saying that * though he speaks less harshly and less like a Stoic, he knows that Luther substantially agrees with him. To Calvin he says, I am satis- fied our views agree, only mine are stated in a less refined manner.’ This may qualify assertions often made on a sup- posed serious difference between Luther, Melancthon, and

Galyin, on iMs point. Still it remains that Melancthon avoided the subject for popular treatment, gave it no place in the Confession of Augsburg, and would have shioii^ £rom the harsh imqualified statements of Calvin ; while the latter gave great prominence to it in every part of his teaching. In his ’ Institutes ’ he laid down absolute definitions on all the points of election, and these became to a large portion of the Protestants tests of orthodoxy. Since his days the name of Calvinism has been generally given to opinions on election agreeing with, or even approximating to, those which he held. It is even probable that, if the tenets of Arminius on this doctrine were preached plainly from a London pulpit, the preacher would be called a Calvinist by the ordinwy hearer ; to such a degree has Calvinism become popularly synonymous with a belief in election. A few extracts from Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ will illustrate his doctrine on matters lying within this Article* : — * By prescience we mean that all things always were and ever continue tmder God’s eye… By predesti- nation we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He de- termined with Himself whatever He willed to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.’

We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by His eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His will one day to admit to- salvation, and those whom on the other hand it was His will to doom to destruction.’

• The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that He should; why He deemed it meet, we know not. It is. certain, however, that it was just, because He saw that His own glory would thereby be displayed. When you hear the glory of God mentioned, imderstand that His justice is in- cluded. For that which deserves praise must be just. Man,, therefore, falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his o^vn fault.’ ^

These extracts sufiSciently set forth the nature of Calvinism

[…]

L

146 ARTICLE XVn.

proper on the subject before us. It is not too much to say that the leading theologians of Switzerland, Western Germany, Holland, Scotland, and England,^ during the reign of Elizabeth, held views closely akin to those of Calvin. In the inevitable flux and reflux of hiunan opinion a reaction set in^ the leading spirit in which was Arminius. He was educated at Greneva, and became professor of divinity at the University of Leyden. He died a.d. 1609. Afber his death the celebrated Grotius, Episcopius, and others maintained his opinions. So £ir as our present Article is concerned, it is only necessary to quote the first of the Ave Articles which the Arminians at first maintained against the current theology in Holland : — *

• Grod, fi-om all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those who. He foresaw, would persevere imto the end in their faith in Jesus Christ : and to inflict everlasting punishments on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist imto the end His divine succours.’ We must refer for the history of the Arminians, as a sect, to Mosheim as above.

We are now in a position to define the terms usually employed by English divines in writing on the doctrine of this Article.

1. Calvinism holds the absolute election to eternal life of a certain limited number of individuals ; and that this election is entirely irrespective of anything which God foresaw in them, and proceeds firom the exercise of His will alone. Calvin himself taught also the predestination to damnation of the residue of mankind. But the greater part of those commonly called Calvinists do not hold the doctrine of reprobation. They usually approach nearer to the doctrine of St. Augustine, and are content to say that God simply leaves the impenitent to the inevitable consequences of their sins — a doctrine kn^wn technically as prceterttwn.

There are, however, two distinct sections among Calvinists, known as Supralapsarian and Sub or Infralapsarian^ from the opinion they hold about the fall of man in connection with the

’ See Dean Goode on ’ Infant Baptism/ chap. ill. * Mosheim, * Cent. XVII.’ sect. ii. part ii. 3.

decrees of God. The Supralapsarian holds that God from all eternity decreed the fall of Adam, and the salvation or damnation of all men.

The Sublapaarian deems election to have taken place subse- quently to, or at least on the supposition of, the fall of Adam, who sinned freely and not by the decree of God. He holds that all who have been elected in pursuance of this merciful interference of God will have the grace of final perseverance. With regard to the rest of mankind he usually holds the doctrine of praeterition. It is obvious from the extracts given above that Calvin himself was a Supralapsarian. In our own country and Church few of those ordinarily called Calvinists follow him in the peculiarities of supralapsarianism.

2. Arminianism holds election to be contingent upon the foreknowledge of God as to the use which individuals will make of grace given. It does not hold the doctrine of final perseverance.

It is needful to caution the student as to the use of the terms Calviniat and Arminian, as popularly used in this coimtry. The names are frequently given to those who have very little in common with either Calvin or Arminius, as those who are acquainted with the works of either of those great divines well know. To a great extent these two names are used simply to express the two antagonistic opinions as to the ground upon which the Almighty proceeds in His mysterious operation of election. The Calvinist holds that God elects (so to speak) arbitrarily^ and that the subsequent salvation and sanctificajion of the elect are a consequence simply of their election, and necessarily follow from it.

The Arminian holds that God in His infinite foreknowledge, seeing the use which different persons will make of His grace given, determines and predestinates their eternal position accordingly.

Such is the established use of these words in England. It is obvious that there have been in this sense Calvinists and Arminians long before Calvin was bom. They have existed in every section of the Christian Church, even in that Roman Church which would shrink from the names of Calvin and

148 ARTICLE XVn.

Arminius with horror. It may illustrate the subject to add that in the great Methodist movement of the last century, Wesley took the Arminian and Whitfield the Calvinistio hypothesis. Their respective followers are still divided on this pointy and the Wesleyans are reputed Arminians.

There have been some other opinions on the subject of election, which either evade its difficulties, or else attempt to modify or combine the two antagonistic doctrines.

Among the former of these may be named the opinion of those who hold election or predestination to life as simply implying that God calls certain nations to the knowledge of His saving truth, or certain persons to be members of Hia Church in which salvation is to be found. In other words, that He elects masses of men to privileges, but not individuals to salvation. It must be obvious at a glance that this evades, without solving, the difficulty. For there is just as much that is arbitrary (to our ideas) in placing some persons in a position where they may be saved, and omitting others, as there is in other views of election.

Among modifications or combinations of the two great an- tagonistic doctrines on election, that of Baxter may be men- tioned, as illustrated by the following quotation from his * God’s Goodness Vindicated ’ (ii. 13). * All have so much grace as bringeth and leaveth the success to man’s will ’ (i.e. allows the possibility of salvation to all), and moreover there is * a special decree and grace of God, which with a chosen number shall antecedently infallibly secure His ends in their repentance, faith, perseverance, and salvation. Is this any detraction from His universal grace, or rather a higher de- monstration of His goodness ? As it is no “wrong to man that God maketh angels more holy, immutable, and happy.’

The history of this doctrine in our own Church may be briefly sketched thus: — Until the time of Laud the Calvinistio doctrine prevailed. In connection with this the student may refer to the Lambeth Articles and the Synod of Dort. In the time of Laud, and mainly through his influence, a predomi- nance of Arminian doctrine was established. The reaction from the Puritanism of the Commonwealth, which was strongly

Calvinistic, further strengthened Arminianism, which thence- forward obtained a firm hold of the Church of England.

The opinion of an independent thinker like Coleridge may be interesting to some readers, we therefore add the following from his * Aids to […] impartial person, com- petently acquainted with the history of the Reformation, and the works of the earlier Protestant divines at home and abroad, even to the close of Elizabeth’s reign, will deny that the doc- trines of Calvin on redemption, and the natural state of &Ilen man, are in all essential points the same as those of Luther, Zuinglius, and the first Reformers collectively. These doctrines have, however, since the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church at the retm*n of Charles II., been as generally ex- changed for what is commonly styled Arminianism, but which, taken as a complete and explicit scheme of belief, it would be both historically and theologically more accurate to call Grotianism, or the Gospel according to Grotius. The change was not, we may readily believe, efPected without a struggle.’

In the religious revival of the last century many of the most devoted leaders held strong Calvinistic opinions. The consequence was a renewal of controversy, often carried on with great bitterness. But the example of Simeon, and other leaders of the rising Evangelical body in the Church, led to the abandonment of the controversy on the more speculative points of the Calvinistic doctrine. It may be useful to the student to be enabled to form some opinion on the existing state of thought on this subject in the Church of England. If it be possible to give a probable account of the present posi- tion of the bulk of that which is commonly called the Evan- gelical section of the Church in respect of this doctrine, there can scarcely be found a more typical name in the general es- timation than that of Simeon. It may be well, therefore, to give some extracts illustrating his views. In the preface to his ’ Horse Homileticse ’ he explains at some length his posi tion as being in some respects midway between Calvinism and

• Aphorism II. ’ On that which is indeed spiritual religion.’

150 ABTICLE XVn.

Arminmnism. But this is more tersely expressed in the * Recollections of Simeon,’ by the Eev. A. W. Brown, chap. 2dii:— *Calvinists affirm the doctrine of free election apart from any excellence in man, of utter helplessness in our na- ture, of salvation entirely by faith, and that not of ourselves. This is all right and scriptural. On the other hand, the Ar- minians affirm t^t we shall be saved according as we do good or evil, that man is a free agent, that he is wholly responsible for his actions, that he must work out his own salvation. This also is all right and scriptural. But as soon as either party makes use of its own half of these doctrines to disprove those of its opponents, it is wrong. What though these doc- trines are irreconcileable by us ; does God require us to recon- cile them ? … . Election of the redeemed is made by God’s sovereignty, quite irrespective of any good in them : if there turn out good in them, it is the consequence, not the cause, of their election. For the nature of man is wholly corrupt, and any good in it is put there by God. So fer I agree with the Calvinists. But rejection or reprobation is not irre- spective of evil in those who are rejected, because in that case God would will the death of a sinner, and would take pleasure in his death, and not that he should turn to God and live … I will never agree with the Calvinists, that both election and rejection are irrespective of man’s character ; nor with the Arminians, that they are both dependent on it.

• Christ died for the sins of the whole world. The Bible says so in many passages. What have we to do to judge God’s revelation by metaphysical deductions and supposed consequences ? Men say, Then some of the blood of Christ proved inefficacious. Scripture does not say so; and yet Scripture says, ” And so the weak perish for whom Christ died ” (1 Cor. viii. 11).

• Saints shall be preserved to the end, not because they can- not fall, for they may ; but because God will uphold them. There is nothing in the saint that makes his salvation certain, yet God hath decreed that he shall not perish. He is pre- served by God, but not by anything which God hath put into him.’

On comparing these statements with that which is properly called Calvinism, it will be found that they assert Tmcondi* tional election by God’s sovereign will, and the preservation of the elect to the end ; but they reject the doctrine of repro- bation, and they assert that Christ died for all men. This will bear out a previous statement that in point of feet the bulk of those in the Church of England who are usually styled Calviniste, are more properly Augustinians, for in those points in which Calvin went beyond Augustine they will be found generally agreeing with the latter. It is difficult, if not im- possible, to give an equally probable account of the state of opinion on the doctrine of this Article in other sections of the English Church. It is, however, a probable supposition that the majority may be Arminian upon the whole, since denun- ciations of Calvinism are so frequently heard.

In the midst of this disimion of opinion as to the deep things of Grod’s will, a point of agreement may be found for men of humble piety. They will acknowledge that if they have found God, it was because God sought and foimd them. State the alternative : Did you choose God, or did God choose you ? And who that knows his own heart will hesitate as to the answer ? If they have the love of God in their hearts, and they are asked whether there was any distinguishing goodness in them for which they were chosen of God, they will unfeign- edly deny it, and be the first to own that all was of God’s free grace in bringing them to Him from first to last.

Turning next to the Church of Eome, we observe that the Tridentine divines were too much divided in their opinions to deal with the subject of election in general. They did, however, negative the doctrine of reprobation* : — * If any one shall say that the grace of justification belongs to none but those predestined to life, but that all the rest who are called, are called, but do not receive grace, as being predestined by the divine power to evil, let him be anathema.’ Upon the whole, the section of the Roman Church which, since the Eeformation, has upheld the doctrines of St. Augustine, has been the weaker. This may be seen in the history of the

Sees. vi. can. 17.

152 ARTICLE XVn.

JansenistB in France in thelatterpartofthe seventeenth century, and may be also inferred from the dominant influence of the Jesuits, whose theology has been of a more Pelagian cast.

For conyenience of reference the fi)llowing documents arc subjoined : —

A Translation of the Lambeth Articles, as approved ly Arch- bishop Whitgifi and other bishops,^

L God from eternity has predestined some to life, and some He has reprobated to death.

II. The moving or eflGlcient cause of predestination to life is not the foresight of fidth, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything which is in the persons predestinated, but it is the sole will of God who is well pleased.

in. The number of the predestinated is predefined and cer- tain, it can be neither increased nor diminished.

lY. Those who are not predestinated to salvation, of neces- sity will be damned on accoimt of their sins.

V. True, living, and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is not extinguished, falleth not away, vanisheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally.

VI. A man truly faithful, i.e. endued with justifying ^th, is certain with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ.

VII. Saving grace is not given, is not commimicated, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will.

VIII. No man can come tmto Christ imless it shall have been given to him, and tmless the Father shall have drawn him. And aU men are not drawn by the Father, in order that they may come to the Son.

IX. It is not placed in the will or power of each man to be saved.

»Stiype*8«Whitgift.’

An ahstract of the Five Points of Anniniamsm, condemned by

the Synod ofDort.^

I. That God firom all eternity decreed the salvation of all those whose faith in Christ He foresaw would endure to the end ; and the everlasting punishment of those whose ultimate imbelief He foresaw.

n. That Jesus Christ made a full atonement for all ; which, however, must be appropriated by faith.

HI. That true j&ith cannot be the growth of our natural free will ; that, therefore, regeneration and renewal, the opera- tion of the Holy Ghost, are necessary.

rV. That this divine grace is the source of aU which is good in man ; but that it may be resisted by the sinful will, and be ineffectual.

V. That those who are endued with true faith have suffi- cient grace to give them final victory ; but that the question whether they may, nevertheless, fall away finally, has not yet been sufficiently cleared up from Holy Scripture.

This last question was afterwards answered by the Armin- ians in the afiSrmative. The Third Article was also taught in a manner that approached to Pelagian opinions.

’ Mosheim, ‘Cent. XVII.’ sec. ii. pt. ii. c iii. 4.

AETICLE XVni.