Gibson on Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election

The changes which this Article has undergone since 1553 are very slight ; the words “in Christ “were added in the first paragraph in 1563, and at the same time ” although the decrees of Predestination are unknown to us” were omitted at the commencement of paragraph the third.

The object of the Article was evidently to allay the angry strifes on the subject of predestination, and while speaking in cautious terms on what was felt to be a deep mystery, to guard against the excesses and extravagances to which the doctrine had led. Thus, after describing what predestination is in the first paragraph, the whole of the rest of the Article is devoted to the practical consequences which follow from the doctrine, and to laying down rules which, when rightly understood, are distinctly aimed against that limitation of God’s love and God’s promises, which has been characteristic of so much predestinarian teaching. The need for such an Article as this is pointedly shown in the language of the section

“De Praedestinatione ” in the Reformatio Legume which begins by calling attention to the terrible consequences, shown in the lives of many, springing from what can only be called a reckless and monstrous fatalism. The section is one which deserves careful study, and will be seen to throw not a little light on the meaning of the Article now under consideration.

“Ad extremum in Ecclesia multi feris et dissolutis moribus vivunt, qui cum re ipsa curiosi sint, differti luxu, et a Christi spiritu prorsus alieni, semper prsedestinationem et rejectionem, vel, ut usitate loquuntur, reprobationem in sermone jactant, ut cum seterno consilio Deus vel de salute vel de interitu aliquid certi constituent, inde latebram suis maleficiis et sceleribus, et omnis generis perversitati quaerant. Et cum pastores dissipatam illorum et flagitiosam vitam coarguunt, in voluntatem Dei criminum suorum culpam conferunt, et hac defensione profiigatas admonitorum reprehensiones existimant : ac ita tandem, duce diabolo, vel in desperationis puteum abjiciuntur prsecipites, vel ad solutam quandam et mollem vitse securitatem, sine aut poenitentia aut scelerum conscientia dilabuntur. Quae duo mala disparem naturam, sed finem videntur eundem habere. Nos vero sacris Scripturis eruditi, talem in hac re doctrinam ponimus, quod diligens et accurata cogitatio de praedestinatione nostra et electione suscepta (de quibus Dei voluntate determinatum f uit antequam mundi fimdamenta jacerentur); haec itaque diligens et seria, quam diximus, his de rebus cogitatio, piorum hominum animos Spiritu Christi afflatos, et carnis et membrorum subjectionem persentiscentes, et ad coelestia sursum tendentes, dulcissima qiiadam et jucundissima consolatione permulcet, quoniam fidem nostram de perpetua salute per Christum ad nos perventura confirmat, vehementissimas charitatis in Deum fiammas accendit, mirabiliter ad gratias

.r

• n

It

agendas exsuscitat, ad bona nos opera propinquissime adducit, et a peccatis longissime abducit, quoniam a Deo sumus electi, et filii ejus instituti Quae singularis et eximia conditio summam a nobis salubritatem morum, et excellentissimam virtutis perfectionem requirit: denique nobis arrogantiam minuit, ne viribus nostris geri credamus, quae gratuita Dei beneficentia et infinita bonitate indulgentur. Prseterea neminem ex hoc loco purgationem censemus vitiorum suorum afferre posse; quia Deus nihil ulla in re injuste constituit, nee ad peccata voluntates nostras unquam invitas trudit. Quapropter omnes nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad decreta praedestinationis se non referant, sed universam vitse suae rationem ad Dei leges accommodent ; cum et promissiones bonis et minas malis, in sacris Scripturis generaliter propositas contemplentur. Debemus enim ad Dei cultum viis illis ingredi, et in ilia Dei voluntate commorari, quam in sacris Scripturis patefactam esse videmus.” ^

This section, it will be noticed, guards still more strongly than does the Article against the abuses of the doctrine, and points out very precisely the dangers then existing. It is also valuable as indicating with certainty the true interpretation of the last clause of the Article, which says that God’s promises are to be received ” in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture,” — a subject on which something must be said later on.

The sources of the Article, and of the section just quoted from the Reformatio Legum, are thought to lie to some extent in the writings of Luther, including both his letters and the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans ; *

’ Jte/ormatio Legum Ecd.^ De Hctres. c. xxii.

’ See Bp. Short’s History of the Church of England, c. x. App. C, where this is pointed out ; and see below, p. 486.

and the language of the last paragraph has been traced by Aichbishop Laurence to Melancthon.^ Still more important, however, is it to notice that the description of predestination given in the first paragraph is to a very great extent couched in the actual words of Holy Scripture, The chief passages on which it is based are Bom. viiL and ix. and Eph. i, and the correspondence is even closer in the Latin than in the English. In writing to the Ephesians S. Paul blesses God, “who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ : even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world (sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem), that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love : Imving foreordained U8 unto adoption as sons, through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will (qui praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Jesum Christum in ipsum secundum propositum voluntatis suae), to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved … in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of Hint who worketh all things after the counsel of His will (praedestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suae),” Eph. L 3-11. Elsewhere he speaks of “vessels made to honour ” (cf. ” vasa in honorem efficta ” with ” an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa faeere aliud quidem vas in honorem^ aliud in contumeliam ? ” Bom. ix. 21), while in Bom. viiL 28-30, he tells us that ” to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew. He also foreordained to he conforraed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren : and whom He fore-

.

ordained, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also jtbstijied: and whom He justified, them He also glorified” (Scimus autem quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia co-operautur in bonum, iis qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti : Nam quos praescivit, et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quos autem praedestinavit, hos et vocavit, et quos vocavit, hos et justificavit ; quos autem justificavit, illos et glorificavit). If these passages are carefully compared with the Article, it will easily be seen how closely it follows them : and hence it results that to one who has previously accepted Scripture as containing the word of God, the positive statements of the Article present no further difficulty.^ They are evidently meant to be simply a reflection of the language of Scripture, and therefore whatever interpretation we are justified in putting upon the language of Scripture, the same we shall be justified in putting upon the corresponding language of the Article. This principle, when fully grasped, will be found to remove much of the difficulty which is sometimes felt in regard to subscription to this Seventeenth Article. It is only in the first and last paragraphs that any difficulty is foimd. The second paragraph, dealing with the practical consequences of the doctrine, contains nothing to which exception can be taken. The third paragraph will be explained and justified later on ; and if this first paragraph be taken, as it is surely meant to be taken, as a summary of Scripture statements rather than a definite interpretation of them, no difficulty whatever need be felt as to its acceptance. Coming now to the substance of the Article, the subjects treated of in it are the following : —

1. The description of predestination.

2. The steps which accompany it

3. The practical effect of the doctrine.

4. Two considerations calculated to guard the doctrine from abuses.

L The Description of Predestination^

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

There have been from time to time various theories held with regard to predestination, and various schemes and systems have been formed by Christians. Of these, the most important are the following, which it will be convenient to consider in the order in which they are here enumerated, rather than in accordance with a more strictly chronological arrangement : —

(a) Ecclesiastical predestination.

(6) The Arminian theory.

(c) The Calvinistic theory.

(d) The Augustinian theory.

(a) Ecclesiastical Predestination. — According to this, predestination is not necessarily to life, but to privilege, t.c. to the opportunity of obtaining eternal life in the way of God’s covenant. On this view, the ” elect ” are to be identified with the “called,” and include all baptized persons. As Bishop Harold Browne puts it: ” Some have held that as the Jews of old were God’s chosen people, so now is the Christian Church ; that

II

‘i

every baptized member of the Church is one of God’s elect, and that this election is from God’s irrespective and unsearchable decree. Here, therefore, election is to be baptismal privileges, not to final glory ; the elect are identical with the baptized, and the election constitutes the Church”^

That this doctrine is taught in Holy Scripture admits of no doubt whatever. Throughout the Old Testament God is said to have ” chosen ” the whole people of the Jews, and not a select few out of their number. The ” children of Jacob ” were His ” chosen ones ” or ” elect ” (Ps. cv. 6). And when we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we find that the members of the Christian Church are regarded as having succeeded to the privileges of the Jews, and that the language used of the Israelites is applied by the Apostles to them.* So S. Paul, in writing to different Churches, addresses his readers indiscriminately as “called” (K\r)To); and S. Peter in a similar way writes to the ” elect ” (eicXc/cToi) who are ” sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,

’ ‘EicX^eti’ is used frequently of this “choice.” See, e.g., Deut. iv. 37, vii. 7, X. 15 ; xiv. 2, Ps. cxxxiv. (cxxxv.) 4, etc.

• ‘E/ifXc/cT6f is used very widely in the LXX., and represents no fewer than twenty different Hebrew words. This is of itself significant, and should prevent us from attempting to fix too hard and fast a meaning upon it in the New Testament. It is used of the whole nation in Ps. civ. (cv.) 6, 43, cv. (cvi.) 5, and elsewhere; but also of individuals, as Moses, Ps. cv. (cvi.) 23 ; Joshua ; Num. xi. 28 ; and David, Pa. Ixxxviii. (Ixxxix.), 19.

[…]

LXX rendering of the same phrase np3D in Mai. iii. 17) ; and cf. also

Eph. i. 14 : eh 6,To&rpo}(riP rrjs irepiToi’fiireufS, » Eom. i. 6, 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; cf. S. Jude, ver. 1.

Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” ^ and elsewhere charges them to ” make their calling and election sure ” (2 Pet. i. 10). Such language can only be used of an election to privilege. Among the Apostles’ conveirts were many who were in danger of falling away, and of committing grievous sins, and yet they are all alike regarded as “called” and “elect,” or chosen. Clearly, then, the ” called ” and ” elect ” are identical ; and the Apostles, in using this language, are writing to their converts as chosen and called by God to the high privilege of being His people.

The same kind of language is found in the writings of many of the early Fathers,^ indicating that they also held that the Christian Church had stepped into the place of the Jews, and that therefore its members could

• 1 Pet. i. 1. Cf. ii. 9 iKXeicrbp yipoi), v. 13 ((rvpcKXeicrfi), and Col. iii. 12 ; and note that it was of an election to privilege that our Lord spoke when He said, ’* Have I not chosen ieXedjxijv) you twelve, and one of you is a devil ” ? S. John vi. 70.

[…]

^)i

rightly be addressed as ” elect.” And there can be no doubt that this view of election is recognised in our own formularies. Not only is the Church described in the Homily for Whitsunday as “an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people,” but in three out of the four passages where the word ” elect ** occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, it is used of the Church or body of Christians generally. Thus, in the Collect for All Saints* Day, God is said to have ” knit together His elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body ” of His Son. In the Catechism the catechumen is taught to speak of ” God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God”; and in the Baptismal Service, before the child is baptized, we pray that “he may receive the fulness of God’s grace, and ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children,” — an expression which implies the possibility that he may fail and lose his election.^ In the fourth passage in which the word occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, the exact meaning to be given to it may be a matter of doubt. It is in the prayer which follows the Lord’s Prayer in the order for the Burial of the Dead, where we pray God “shortly to accomplish the number of His elect? and to hasten His kingdom ; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of His holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in His eternal and everlasting glory.” It is scarcely natural to take the word here as practically equivalent to the baptized ; and the probability seems to be that something further is intended here, and in the Article before us,

• To these three passages may be added the verside, “Make tliy chosen people joyful ; ” cf. Ps. cxxxii. 9, from which the words are taken.

^ The phrase seems to have been originally suggested by the language of S. Clement, quoted in the note on the previous page.

where predestination is described as God’s ” purpose to deliver those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour.” And if this is so, if, that is, the formularies of the Church while accepting “ecclesiastical election” point also to something beyond it as well, it would appear that in this they faithfully reflect the teaching of Holy Scripture. For while, as we have seen, ecclesiastical election is distinctly taught therein, yet there are some passages the language of which is not really satisfied by this theory. Although it is true that in the Epistles the ” called ” and the ” elect ” are identified, yet in our Lord’s words in the Gospel, ” Many are called (KXrjroi), but few are chosen ” (i/cKeicTol), they are expressly distinguished. Moreover, while it is admitted that S. Paul’s language in Eom. viii. and ix. is primarily intended to refer to nations, and to the election of the Christian Church to privilege, yet it is impossible to exclude from his thought something further. The use of the words “prepared unto glory,” “fitted unto destruction” (ix. 22, 23), and of the phrase “them He also glorified” as the crown of the series of blessings enumerated in viiL 28-30, ” prove conclusively that he is looking … to the final end and destination of man.”i It appears, then, that the theory of ecclesiastical election, though perfectly scriptural, does not cover the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject ; and that we must recognise that there is a further truth, if not definitely revealed, at least implied, in the passages just referred to.

» Sunday and Headlam On the Homans, p. 266 ; cf. p. 347 :” It is quite true to say that the election is primarily an election to privilege ; yet there is a very intimate connection between privilege and eternal salvation, and the language of ix. 22, 23, ‘fitted unto destruction,’ ‘prepared unto glory,’ cannot be limited to a mere earthly destiny.”

I ■’

I s

f .

(h) The Arminian theory of Predestination. — The view which is generally associated with the name of Arminius is that God foresaw from all eternity who among men would make a good use of the grace which is freely offered to all, and that therefore, i.e, because He foresaw their future merits, He predestined some to final glory. This is sometimes called predeslinatio ex prcevisis meritis, and its leading characteristic is that it does away with the mystery of the doctrine, and makes predestination to life a consequence of God’s foreknowledge. Since Van Harmen or Arminius ^ only propagated his views at the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is obvious that an Article drawn up in 1553 can have nothing to do with him and his followers. It is therefore quite unnecessary to enter into the history of the Dutch “Remonstrants” and the Synod of Dort.^ But there were Arminians before Arminius, and the view of predestination which he and his followers developed and worked into their system was held in a loose and informal way by many before him. Indeed, so far as the Fathers before Augustine can be said to have had any theory of predestination to life beyond that of ecclesiastical election, it would appear that they held it to be a consequence of foreseen merit.

Possible indications of this view have been found in the writings of Justin Martyr^ and Irenaeus.* Still

1 Born in Holland in 1560 ; professor at Leyden, 1604 ; and died in

[…]

*“Deus his quidem qui non credunt, sed nullificant eum, infert excitatem … Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non eredituros Veus, cum

more clearly is it seen in the teaching of the great Alexandrians, Clement and Origen. Among later writers it is taught by Chrysostom, whose influence became predominant in the East ; and although in the West the system of Augustine in the main held the field, yet there are traces of something approaching to the earlier view among some of the schoolmen,* and it has never wanted its defenders in the Church of Rome.

sit omnium praecognitor tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegcrunt ; quid mirum si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaoneni, cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos […] Hocr. IV. xlv. “Nee enim lumen deficit propter eos qui semetipsos excaecaverunt, sed illo perseverantc quale et est excaecati per suam culiMuu in caligine coustituuntur. Neque lumen cum magna necessitate subjiciet sibi quemquam : neque Dens coget eum, qui nolit continere ejus artem. Qui igitur abstiterunt a paterno lumine et transgressi sunt legem libertatis, per suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii et su» potestatis facti. Deus autem omnia praesciens, utrisque aptas praeparavit habitationes.”— IV. Ixiv.

[…]

• “A large number of Jesuits e.g. Tolctus, Maklonatus, Lcssius, Vas-

■) 5

Turning now to the consideration of the evidence of Scripture, we note that the only passage to which an appeal can with any show of reason be made by the upholders of this theory is Rom. viii. 28, 29: “We know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose (toa? KaTo, irpodeaiv KXrjrolf;). For whom He foreknew. He also foreordained (Trpoatpiae) to be conformed to the image of His Son,” etc.^ Here the Greek commentators generally have taken Kara TrpoOeaip of the mans free choice, — a view which is undoubtedly false, as the expression must refer to GocTs purpose (cf. ix. 1 1 : 17 Kar iK\oyr)v irpodeat^ rov Beov) ; and Trpoeyveo has been interpreted of foreknowledge of character and fitness. This is plausible ; but a careful examination of those passages of Scripture where God’s ” knowledge ” of individuals or nations is spoken of shows that it cannot be maintained. The word ytyvwaKoyy as used of God, ” means * to take note of,’ * to fix the regard upon,* as a preliminary to selection for some special purpose. The compound Trpoeyi/o) only throws back this * taking note * from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which it expresses and executes.” ^ But if the solitary passage which might have seemed to favour the Arminian theory breaks down, there is, on the other hand, a mass of scriptural evidence against it. The language of both Old and New Testament alike is quite decisive that God’s

quez, Valentin, and Suarez (while he taught at Rome), admit that predestination to grace, but deny that predestination to glory, is irrespective of merit foreseen. God decrees, they say, to give grace to all, and predestines those who, as He foresees, will correspond to it, the rest being reprobate.” — Addis and Arnold’s Catholie. Dictionary, p. 745.

[…]

• Sanday and Headlam On the Romans^ p. 217, where reference is made to Ps. i. 6, cxliv. (cxliii.) 3 ; Hos. xiii. 5 ; Amos iii. 2 ; S. Matt. vii. 23, for •yiyvdtffKii.v. To these may be added Gen. xviii. 19 : “I have known him, to the end that he may command his children,” etc.

election of Israel was not a consequence of foreseen faith or good works. Again and again it is stated that it was ” not for their righteousness, for the uprightness of their heart, that they went in to possess the land ” ; ^ and S. Paul appeals to the history of Jacob and Esau in Rom. ix. 10-13 as exhibiting “the perfectly free character of the Divine action, that purpose of God in the world which works on a principle of selection not dependent on any form of human merits or any convention of human birth, but simply on the Divine will as revealed in the Divine call.” ^ And although this election was simply to higher privileges, and had nothing to do with eternal salvation, yet it establishes the general principle that in God’s dealings with men there is ” an element of inscrutable selectiveness.” ^ The Arminian theory ignores this fact, and does away with the mystery of the doctrine, whereas S. Paul insists that it is mysterious and unfathomable. According to Arminianism, it is dependent on foreseen good works. S. Paul expressly says it is ” not of works,” and uses the history of Jacob and Esau to enforce this principle. ” The children being not yet bom, neither having done anything good or bad, tJiat the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, hut of Him that calleth, it was said unto her. The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. x. 11-13).

If God be omniscient and almighty, it is impossible to deny (1) that He does foresee from all eternity who will make a good use of grace, and (2) that He does predestinate such to final glory. But the error of the Arminians lies in connecting the two assertions by a

• Deut. ix. 5, 6 ; cf. x. 15 ; 1 Sam. xii. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 1-3 ; Mai. i. 2, 3, etc.

’ Sanday and Headlam, p. 289.

” therefore,” and thus making the one a consequence of the other. This introduces an idea of time, a ” before ” and ” after,” into the Divine life, whereas the foreknowledge of God and His predestination, both being from all eternity, are (if the word may be permitted) sywchrmious, neither being dependent upon the other.

(c) The Calvinistic theory, — There remain for consideration the Augustinian and the Calvinistic systems, the latter of which is only a more daring and logical development of the former ; as what Augustine suggested in the fifth century, that Calvin said plainly in the sixteenth ; ^ and what was left indefinite in the earlier system, was filled up and completed in the later.

Like Arminiafaism, Calvinism holds that predestination is to life and not only to privilege; but, imlike that system (which arose as a reaction from it), it teaches that it is “arbitrary,” springing from God’s good pleasure, from motives unknown to us. The ” five points ” of the whole scheme are these —

1. Predestination, including (a) predestination to life, and (h) reprobation or predestination to condemnation.

2. Particular redemption, or the doctrine that Christ died, not for all men, but only for the ” elect,” ie, those predestined to life.

3. Total ruin, or the doctrine that at the Fall man was wholly deprived of original righteousness.

4. Irresistible grace or effectual calling.

• Calvin’s Institutes were first published in 1536, so that his views had been made public some time before the English Articles were drawn up. But tlie great discussion on predestination at Geneva, and the publication of his book De Predestinatwne, only took place in 1552. It has consequently been doubted whether his system had produced much influence in England at the time when the Seventeenth Article was drawn up. (See Bp. H. Browne On the AHieles, p. 412.) But it is cei-tain that there was much fatalistic teaching among the Anabaptists, which is probably to some extent a reflection of his system. Cf. Hooper’s letter quoted in Tol. i. p. 22 : ” They maintain a fatal necessity,” etc

6. Final perseverance.

It must be admitted that on all these points Augustine in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians used language which practically involved the conclusions which Calvin with fatal logic did not shrink from drawing, at the expense of shutting his eyes to a whole series of counter-truths asserted in Scripture. But, on the whole, it appears to be true to say that Calvinism goes beyond Augustinianism in its definite and systematic teaching of particular redemption, total ruin, and reprobation.^ A clear view of the whole system as it was presented and taught in England may be obtained from the ” Lambeth Articles ” (1595), which state the points with great precision, and from the imposition of which the Church of England was happily saved by the wisdom and good sense of Queen Elizabeth.* The Articles in question are as follows : —

” 1, God from eternity hath predestinated some to life, some He hath reprobated to death.

” 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination to life is not the prevision of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything which may be in the persons predestinated, but only the will of the good pleasure of God.

” 3. Of the predestinated there is a fore-limited and certain number which can neither be diminished nor increased.

” 4. They who are not predestinated to salvation will be necessarily condemned on account of their sins.

” 5. A true living and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God sanctifying, is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally.

” 6. A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with justifying faith, is certain by the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ.

” 7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they might be saved if they would.

” 8. No man can come to Christ except it be given to him, and unless the Father draw him. And all men are not drawn by the Father that they may come unto the Son,

” 9. It is not placed in the will or power of every man to be saved.” ^

No words are needed to point out how alien is the whole tone and temper of this narrow and harsh dogmatism from the wise moderation with which the Seventeenth Article is framed. A comparison of the two documents

^ ” 1. Deus ftb seterno prsedestinavit quosdam ad vitam et quosdam ad mortem reprobavit.

*‘2. Causa moveus aut e£5cien8 prsedestinationis ad vitam non est praBvisio fidei aut perseverautiae, aut bonorum operum aut ulUus rei quie insit in |)ersonis pra&destinatis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei.

• ’ 3. Praedestinatorum preefinitus et certus est numerus qui nee augeri nee minui potest.

“4. Qui non sunt prsedestinati ad salutem, necessario propter peccata sua damnabuntur.

“5. Vera, viva et justificans fides, et spiritus Dei sanctificans non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in electis aut finaliter aut totaliter.

” 6. Homo vere iidelis, id est, fide justificante pneditus, certus est plerophoria tidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum.

” 7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur universis hominibus, qua servari possint, si voluerint.

** 8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum traxerit. Et omnes homines non trahuntur a Patre ut veniant ad filium.

’ ’ 9. Non est positum in arbitrio aut potestate uniuscujusque hominia servari.”

Specimens of various Calvinistic Confessions drawn up on the Continent may be found in Winer’s Confessions of Christendomf p. 162 seq.

is suflficient to show that the Article is not favourable to the Calvinistic theory, which, indeed, is directly contrary to Scripture in its limitation of Divine grace to a few ; ^ and assertion of its irresistible character * in those few, to say nothing of the dreadful dogma of reprobation, which was considered by Calvin as an integi-al part of his system, and on which the Article is wholly silent.* Further evidence that the Church of England is not favourable to the Calvinistic scheme will be found in the remarks offered above on Articles IX. and XVI. ; * and the last paragraph of the Article now under consideration will presently be shown to be aimed at two of the most dangerous tenets of the same system.

{d) The Augustinian theory. — The teaching of Augustine on the subject of predestination has exercised profound influence over the whole Western Church. In the controversy with the Pelagians he was led to formulate his views and to discuss the question thoroughly, and his teaching will be found fully stated in his works,

I Particular redemption is directly contrary to such passages of Holy Scripture as S. John iil 16-17 ; 1 Tim. ii. 3-6, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. viu. 11, where S. Paul speaks of the possibility of a brother perishing, even one “for whom Christ died”; which on the Calvinistic hypothesis is an

impossibility.

• Against the theory of “irresistible grace ” it is perhaps sufficient to refer to S. Paul’s dread lest he himself might prove a castaway, 1 Cor. ix. 27 ; and the whole tenor of his Epistles, in every one of which his readers are assumed to be in a state of grace which is reaZf but from which they may fall, and in which they are therefore exhorted to continue.

’ The word ’* reprobate ” (A5oVt/ios, Vulg. reprobus) occurs occasionally in the New Testament, the key i^assage being Rom. i. 28 (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27), which shows that only those are blinded and hardened and become reprobate who have deliberately flung aside and scorned the knowledge of God, which they already possessed. In Rom. ix. 22, S. Paul purposely uses an indefinite form KaTtipnfffUya €ls drdtXtiav, whereas, when he speaks of the vessels of honour, he says expressly that Ood irporjTolfxaffep. See on the whole passage Sanday and Headlam, p. 261.

I >i

Be Dono FerseveraniUe and De Proedestinatione Sanctorum, In these he takes up the position (1) that predestination is to life, and not merely to privilege; (2) that it is ” arbitrary,” i,e. that the reason why one is predestinated to life and another is not, is unknown to us ; and thus (3) the reason is not foreseen faith ; (4) only those endowed with the gift of final perseverance can be saved ; but why this gift is granted to one and withheld from another, lies in the inscrutable will of God. His teaching has been made the subject of an admirable study by Professor Mozley, and the conclusion at which he arrives is, that while Augustine is ripht in recognising fully that Scripture does speak of predestination to life, yet he is tvrong in ignoring the fact that Scripture is twosided on this great question. ” If one set of passages, taken in their natural meaning, conveys the doctrine of predestination, another conveys the reverse. The Bible in speaking of mankind, and addressing them on their duties and responsibilities, certainly speaks as if all had the power to do their duty or not, when laid before them ; nor would any plain man receive any other impression from its language than that the moral being had freewill, and could determine his acts one way or another. So that sometimes speaking one way and sometimes another, Holy Scripture as a whole makes no assertion, or has no definite doctrine on this […] The characteristic of S. Augustine’s doctrine compared with the scriptural one is, that it is a definite and absolute doctrine. Scripture, as a whole, as has been said, only informs us of a mystery on the subject ; that is to say, while it informs us that there is a truth on the subject it makes no consistent statement of it, but asserts contrary truths, counterbalancing those passages which convey the predestinarian doctrine by passages as plain the other way :

[…]

but S. Augustine makes predestinarian statements, and does not balance them by contrary ones. Rather he endeavours to explain away those contrary statements of Scripture. Thus he evades the natural force of the text that God would have all men to be saved, by supposing that it only means that no man is saved except through the will of God, or that ” all men ” means not all men, but some out of all classes and ranks of men.” ^ The criticism then to be offered upon the Augustinian scheme is, that it is a onesided development of scriptural truth. What it gains in consistency it loses in truth. It is right to a great extent in its affirmations, and wrong to a great extent in its denials. It is right in asserting that predestination is to life, and that the ground of it is inscrutable by us ; wrong in denying that sufficient grace is given to all, and that salvation lies in the power of all men.

The four principal theories of predestination have now been stated, and reasons have been given for not deeming any one of them entirely satisfactory. How then, if all these are rejected, is the Seventeenth Article to be understood ? In exactly the same way as these passages of Scripture which speaJc of predestination , i.e. ” as containing one side of the whole truth respecting grace and freewill, the side, namely, of grace or the Divine power ; but not at all as interfering with anyone’s belief in a counter truth of man’s freewill and originality as an agent. And in this sense it only excludes a Pelagian, and not such as are content to hold a mystery on the subject, and maintain the Divine power in conjunction with man’s freewill.” ^ The fact is, that the Bible lays down apparently contrary truths, both of which have yet to be held by one who would hold the whole truth. Freewill and predestination are both taught in the Bible ; and though we cannot

see at present how they are compatible with each other, yet if, in the interests of logical consistency, we are led to deny either one of them, we shall find ourselves involved in errors and difficulties from which there is no escape. For the present we must be content to hold both as parts of the truth, remembering that we know but “in part,” and leaving their complete reconciliation to the time when we ” shall know, even as we are known.”

Some words of Dr. Liddon’s may serve to conclude this section. In speaking of the ” old controversy between the defenders of the sovereignty of God on the one side, and the advocates of the freewill of man on the other,” he says —

“The very idea of God as it occurs to the human mind, and the distinct statements of revelation, alike represent the Divine will as exerting sovereign and resistless sway. If it were otherwise, God would not be Almighty, that is, He would not be God. On the other hand, our daily experience and the language of Scripture both assure us that man is literally a free agent; his freedom is the very ground of his moral and religious responsibility. Are these two truths hopelessly incompatible with each other ? So it may seem at first sight; and if we escape the danger of denying the one in the supposed interests of the other, if we shrink from sacrificing God’s sovereignty to man’s freewill, with Arminius, and from sacrificing man’s freedom to God’s sovereignty, with Calvin, we can only express a wise ignorance by saying, that to us they seem like parallel lines which must meet at a point in eternity, far beyond our present range of view. We do know, however, that being both true, they cannot really contradict each other ; and that in some manner, which we cannot formulate, the Divine sovereignty must

not merely be compatible with, but must even imply, the perfect freedom of created wills.” ^

II. The Steps which accompany Predestination,

After having described in scriptural terms what is meant by predestination to life, the Article proceeds, still in close dependence upon Scripture, to describe the several steps or processes which accompany it.

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 CYcrlasting felicity.

These several processes, thus described, have been summed up as follows : — (1) Vocation, (2) obedience to vocation through grace, (3) free justification, (4) sonship by adoption, (5) conformity to the image of oiu: Lord, (6) a religious life, and (7) eternal felicity.^

It is right that these various steps by which God’s eternal decree is carried out should be thus enumerated in the Article, because they form a most important safeguard against Antinomian perversions of the doctrine, showing how much is really involved in predestination to life. Though we cannot, with Arminius, say that foreseen good works are the grou7id of such predestination, yet we can siiy that they are involved in it ; and that where there is predestination to eternal felicity.

[…]

Cf. Sanday and Headlam

” [

*f.

there is also predestination to obedience and to conformity to the image of our Lord. This was fully brought out by Bishop Bancroft at the Hampton Court Conference, as the subjoined extract will show.

” The Bishop of London took occasion to signifie to His Majesty, how very many in these daies, neglecting holinesse of life, presumed too much of persisting of grace, laying all their religion upon predestination. If I shall be saved, I shall be saved ; which he termed a desperate doctrine, showing it to be contrary to good divinity and the true doctrine of predestination, wherein we should reason rather dsceiideiido than descendendo, thus, ‘I live in obedience to God, in love with my neighbour, I follow my vocation, etc. ; therefore I trust that God hath elected me, and predestinated me to salvation’; not thus, which is the usual course of argument, *God hath predestinated and chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned ; for whom He once loveth. He loveth to the end.’ ” ^

III. The practical Effect of thc Doctrine,

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as

because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God : so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living (impurissimae vitae securitatem), no less

perilous than desperation.

Briefly, this rather wordy paragraph amounts to this —

(a) For ” godly persons ” the doctrine is full of comfort, as tending to establish and confirm their faith, as well as to kindle their love towards God. It acts upon them as the sense of a lofty destiny often acts upon men, encouraging them to do and dare all things, secure that the difficulties and dangers which lie before them cannot really hinder the accomplishment of their designs. In this lay the real strength of the Calvinistic creed, and of the Puritan character which it trained and developed. On the other hand, in systems where there is little or no sense of God’s power carrying out His purposes with resistless force through His chosen instruments, there the character trained under them is likely to be deficient in fibre and tenacity of purpose. So Dean Milman has, in a striking passage, pointed out the weakness of Pelagianism : ” No Pelagian ever has, or ever will, work a religious revolution. He who is destined for such a work must have a full conviction that God is acting directly, immediately, consciously, and therefore with iiTcsistible power, upon him and through him. It is because he believes himself, and others believe him to be, thus acted upon, that he has the burning courage to undertake, the indomitable perseverance to maintain, the inflexible resolution to

I I

. k

l’>

die for his religion; so soon as that conviction is deadened his power is gone. … He who is not predestined, who does not declare, who does not believe, himself predestined as the author of a great religious movement, he in whom God is not manifestly, sensibly, avowedly, working out His pre-established designs, will never be saint or reformer.” ^

(b) For those whom the Article calls “curious (ie. inquisitive) and carnal persons ” it is most dangerous and perilous to dwell on the mystery, as it exposes them to a twofold danger, since (1) if they believe that they are not predestined to life it urges them to despair, while (2) if they believe that they are so predestined it leads them into recklessness and Antinomianism.

Both dangers were terribly apparent during the period of the Reformation, when this subject exercised so strong a fascination over men’s minds. Many were taking up the ” desperate ” doctrine referred to by Bancroft, and saying, ” If I shall be saved, I shall be saved,” and thus became utterly reckless of their actions and conduct ; while others were driven to despair by the conviction that they were ” reprobate.”^ Of this Foxe, the martyrologist, gives a remarkable instance, in his account of the death of John Randall, of Christ’s College, Cambridge, who destroyed himself in a fit of religious desperation: “He was found in his study hanging by his girdle, before an open Bible, with his dead arm and finger stretched pitifully towards a

• It was evidently because of this danger that the clergy were exhorted in the ” Iiy unctions ” of 1559 to ” have always in a readiness such comfortable places and sentences of Scripture as do set forth the mercy, benefits, and goodness of Almighty God towards all penitent and believing persons,” in order that ** the vice of damnable despair may be clearly taken away.” Cardwell’s DocumetUiiry Annals, vol. ii. p. 218.

passage on predestination ” ; ^ and both the dangers are alluded to in a passage in one of Luther’s letters, which bears a striking resemblance to the language of our own Article.

” Men should not turn their eyes on the secret sentence of election, foreknowledge, and predestination, as they are called; for such speeches lead to doubt, security, or despair, — are you elected ? no fall can hurt you, and you cannot perish, — are you not elected? there is no remedy for it. These are shocking speeches, and men ought not to fix their hearts on such thoughts ; but the gospel refers us to the proclaimed word of God, wherein He has revealed His will, and through which He will be known and will work.” ^

IV. Two Considerations calculated to guard the Doctrine

from Abtcses,

The last paragraph of the Article gives two rules which seem more particularly intended to guard against the Calvinistic tenet of particular redemption. They are the following : —

(a) We must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally (generaliter) set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

(h) In our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God.

• Luther’s Letters, No. 1753. There are two expressions in the English of this second paragraph of our Article on which a note may be useful — (1) ** curious ” in the phrase ** curious and carnal persons” simply means inquisitive (cf. Ecclus. iii. 23 : ” Be not curious in unnecessary matters”), (2) ** WTetchlessness” (Latin, securitas) is only another form of the word “recklessness.” It occurs with various forms of spelling. In modem editions it invariably appears as “wretchlessness,” but in the cilition of 1553 it is spelt “rechielesnesse ” ; in 1571, ” rechelessnesse.”

\h

‘f

l>

In the first of these rules the English sounds somewhat ambiguous, but there can be no doubt that ” generally ” here means ” universally,” i.e, of God’s promises as applying to all men, and not, as the Calvinistic party asserted, only to a particular class consisting of a few favourites of Heaven. This interpretation is rendered certain by the corresponding passage in the Reformatio Legitm, which has been already quoted, where God’s promises to the good, and threats to the evil, are spoken of as generaliter propositce in Holy Scripture. The same interpretation was pointed out by Baro in his Concio ad Clerum in 1595, in the controversy when the Lambeth Articles were first projected ; ^ and was also asserted against the Puritans by Bishop Bancroft at the Hampton Court Conference.* Thus the clause directly condemns the theory of particular redemption.^

The second rule seems equally clear against the doctrine of reprobation. ” In our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God”; and that will certainly is that ” all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth ” (1 Tim. ii. 4). The clause is perhaps still more directly aimed against a tenet not unknown to the Calvinists, but finding special favour with the

» Strype’s WhUgift, p. 466.

• Cardwell’s History of Confermces, j). 181. For this meaning of the word, cf. the Catechism, which speaks of two sacraments ordained by Christ “as generally necessary to salvation,” i.c, necessary /or all men ; and cf. the use of the word “generally ” in the Authorised Version, in 2 Sam. xvii. 11 ; Jer. xlvii. 48.

Anabaptists, which spoke of a secret will of God opposed to His revealed will; so Hooper, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, writes in 1549 of the Anabaptists: “They maintain a fatal necessity, and that beyond and besides that will of His, which He has revealed to us in the Scriptures, God hath another will by which He altogether acts under some kind of necessity.” ^ Such teaching as this is at once condemned in our Article, which refers us exclusively to the revealed will of God.^

It only remains, for the sake of completeness of treatment, to point out — (1) that there was no Article on the subject of predestination in the Confession of Augsburg ; and (2) that at the Council of Trent much perplexity was felt on the subject, and finally a decree was drawn up in most guarded terms so that everyone might agree to it : ” No one, so long as he exists in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of Divine predestination as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinated ; as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself a certain repentance ; for except by a special revelation it cannot be known whom God hath chosen to Himself.”^

’ Original Letters, Parker Society, j). 66.

• It must be admitted that the wording of this particular sentence is not particularly happy, and that Guest had some reason for his desire that it should be altered, because it might be thought to countenance the notion of a secret will of God opposed to ‘Hhat will … which we have expressly declared to us in the woi*d of God.” See his letter to Cecil among the State Papers (“Domestic” Elizabeth, vol. Ixxviii. No. 37) referred to in vol. i. p. 4.5,

^Sess. VI. e. xii.

Notes

• See Archbp. Laurence, Bampton Lectures, p. 179.
• Cf. the passage from Mozley’s Lectures and oth^r Hicological Papers (p. 220), quoted in vol. i. p. 352.
• OntJie Articles, p. 393.
• See Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 354 (ed. Stubbs) ; and cf. Hardwick, History of the. Articles, c. ix.
• See the summary of their teaching in Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, vol. ii. p. 299 ; and Laurence, Bampton Lectures, p. 148.
• Gore in Studia Biblica, iii, p. 40.
• Augustine’s disciple, Prosper, seems definitely to have taught reprohati<m {Ep. ad Rujinum, c. xiv.; App. ad Op. August, x. p. 168), and both it and particular redemption were maintained by Gottschalc in the ninth century. See Neander’s Church History, vol. vi. p. 180 seq., and Hagen-bach’s History of Doctrine, vol ii. p. 293 seq., with the references there given.
• Cf. vol. i. p. 53. See Perry’s English Church History, part ii. p. 351 seq.
• Cf. vol. i. p. 51 seq.
• Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 155. ^ Mozley, op, cit. p. 333.
• Dean Barlow’s account of “the sum and substance of the Codforence ” at Hampton Ck>urt. Canl well’s Cmtfercnces^ p. IbO.
• Milman’s Latin Christianiiy, vol. i. p. 150.
• Froude, History of England, vol. ii. p. 81 ; cf. Foxe, iv. p. 694.
• With the expression “generaliter propositT” cf. the language of Article VII., which says that in Scripture “tetema vita humaiw yeneri est jn-oposita” ; cf. Latimer’s Sermons, p. 182, cd. 1584. “The promises of Christ our Saviour be general ; they pertain to all Viankiiid, … The promises of Christ which be general and jYcrtain to the whole world,”