Green on Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election

In the teaching of Luther and those who followed him, the doctrine of Predestination held no very important place ; hence in the famous and widely accepted Augsburg Confession, as also in the later Wurtemberg Confession, there is no Article on Pre¬ destination. Amongst the Reformed, however, and especially with Calvin, the subject assumed quite a fundamental import¬ ance. The intimacy of Cranmer with Bucer, Peter Martyr, and other leading divines belonging to the Swiss or Reformed school accounts for the place given to the treatment of Predestination in our Articles, and it is noteworthy that the language of this seventeenth Article presents a remarkable agreement with the definition of Predestination given by Peter Martyr in his Com¬ mentary on the Epistle to the Romans1 (p. 41 1, folio ed. ‘ 5 53):—

[…]

1 It will be remembered that Peter Martyr resided in England for some years (1548-1553) during the reign of Edward VI., and enjoyed close friendship with Archbishop Cranmer. The words quoted above were not published until after he left England, but seem from the Preface to have been written as early as 1552, i.e., about the same time as our Article.

dilexit in Christo, vocare ad adoptionem filiorum, ad justificationem ex fide et tandem ad gloriam per bona opera, quo conformes fiant imagini Eilii Dei, utque in illis declaretur gloria et misericordia Creatoris.”

At the same time there are in this Article very important differences from the manner of stating the doctrine of Predestina¬ tion which is found in the formularies of the Swiss school as influenced by Calvin,1 and in the concluding paragraph (begin¬ ning “ Furthermore we must receive God’s promises ”) a resem¬ blance may be traced to passages in the writings of Melanchthon.2

In the Revision of 1563 two slight changes were made in the text of the Article : —

(i.) The words “in Christo” (printed in thick type in the Latin Version) were added.

(ii.) In 1553 the last paragraph began thus: —

“ Furthermore, although the decrees of predestination are un- knowen unto us, yeat we must receive,” &c.

This clause was altered to its present form.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The object of those who drew up the Article seems to have been to state, in view of the many altercations on this awful and mysterious subject, the doctrine of Predestination and Election in Scriptural terms, and to guard against the abuse to which it was seen to be liable.

§ EXPOSITION.

(1.) What is to be understood by Predestination and Election.

In the first part of the Article we have simply a statement of the doctrine of Predestination and Election in the phraseology of Scripture, without addition or comment.

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath con¬ stantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, (Eph. i. 4, 5, 1 1 ; Rom. viii. 28, 29, ix. 11 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. 9.)

1 These important differences will be noted in the Exposition, § 3, below.

P

to deliver from curse and damnation, (Gal. iii. 13.) those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, (Eph. i. 4, 6 ; 1 S. Pet. i. 2-5.)

as vessels made to honour. (Rom. ix. 21.)

Wherefore 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 : (Rom. viii. 28, 30; 2 Tliess. ii. 14; 2 Tim, i. 9.) they be justified freely : (Rom. iii. 24 ; viii. 30.) they be made sons of God by adoption : (Eph. i. 5 ; Gal. iii. 26, iv. 5 ; Rom. viii. 15.)

they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: (Rom. viii. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 18.)

they walk religiously in good works, (Eph. i. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7.)

and at length by God’s mercy they attain to everlasting felicity. (Eph. i. 11 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14; I S. Pet. i. 2—5, v. 10.)

From the first it has been God’s purpose to gather a Church out of the world ; it is in fulfilment of this purpose that He now sends forth everywhere the preachers of the Gospel and calls men into His Church (Rom. i. 6, x. 14, 15; 1 Cor. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12). Those who are thus called by God are regarded as chosen by Him from the mass of mankind, and are spoken of as His elect (Rom. viii. 33, xi. 5, 7 ; Col. iii. 12; 1 Thess. i. 4; Tit. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 10; 1 S. Pet., ii. 9).1 It is simply due to His

sovereign will and pleasure that some have the privilege of admission to the Church offered to them, while others have not (Deut. x. 15 ; Eph. i. 4, 5 ; 1 S. Pet. ii. 9; and see especially S. Paul’s argument in Rom. ix.— xi.). As to those who have not this privilege offered them, we may be sure that they will be judged each one according to his opportunities at the last day (Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. ii. 1 1 — 16). With regard to those admitted to the Church, every one so elected is ‘predestinated to salvation (cf. S. John vi. 39), and has power to attain to it. In considering the famous passages in the Epistle to the Romans which are so

Ir5

often quoted in controversy on the subject of Predestination, we should note : —

(i.) That in viii. 28—30 the verbs irpoeyvw, irpowpLo-e, eicaXeore, eSiKaloocre , eSoj-acre, are all in the past tense. The glory re¬ ferred to in the last of these is, therefore, not the future glory which those finally saved will enjoy in the world to come, but the present glory of Christians in the Church (cf. S. John svii. 22; Eph. i. 18, ii. 6; Col. i. 26, 27).

(ii.) That the analogy of the potter (ix. 21) does not in reality favour the doctrine it is sometimes quoted to support, since the potter makes no vessels^or destruction.

In order that we may understand the relation of the teaching of our Article to other teaching upon the subject, we must observe particularly : —

(a) Nothing is said in the Article about reprobation , or pre¬ destination to eternal death.

In this, as throughout, the Article is strictly on Scriptural lines. The election of some does not imply the final rejection of all the rest. God chooses some, not because He has no regard for those that remain, but in order that, by means of His elect, He may accomplish His good purpose for the whole race (Gen. xii. 1—3, xviii. 18, 19; S. John xv. 16; Rom. xi. 25-32).

On the other hand, the doctrine of Reprobation is an integral part of Calvinism, and its entire omission forbids us to regard the doctrine of Predestination stated in the Article as in any sense Calvinistic.

Calvin’s own teaching may be illustrated by one or two quotations : —

Institutes, III. xxi. 5 :

“ Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Hon enim pari conditione creantur omnes ; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in .alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vcl ad mortem praedesti- natum dicimus.”

Again, III. xxiii. 1 :

“ Multi quidem ac si invidiam a Deo repellere vellent, electionem ita fatentur ut negant quenquam reprobari : sed inscite nimis et pueriliter, quando ipsa electio nisi reprobationi opposita non staret. Dicitur segregare Deus quos adoptet in salutem; fortuito alios

adipisci, vel sua industria acquirere, quod sola olcctio paucis con- fort, plusquam insulse dicetur. Quos ergo Deus praeterit, reprobat ; neque alia de causa nisi quod ab haereditate quam filiis suis prae- destinat, illos vult excluder e.”

With our Article we may contrast the following statements of Calvinistic formulas : —

French Confession, Art. XII. :

“Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione univcrsali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem eripere … alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere.”

Lambetii Articles, I. :

“ Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit quosdam ad vitam, et quosdam ad mortem reprobavit.”

Canons of Dort, “ De Divina Praedestinatione,” Art. VI. :

“ Atque hie potissimum sese nobis aperit profunda, misericors pari ter et justa hominum aequaliter perditorum discretio : sive decretum illud electionis et reprobationis in verbo Dei revelatum.”

(b) Nothing is said in the Article about the motive or cause of Predestination.

According to Calvinism, the moving cause of Predestination, as also of Reprobation, is God’s absolute will, irrespective of any¬ thing in those predestinated.

Calvin’s Institutes, III. xxi. 5. :

[…]

Cf. III. xxii. 1 1 :

[…]

See also the second quotation given under the heading ( a ) above.

♦

Lambeth Articles, II. :

“ Causa movens aut efficiens praedestinationis ad vitam non est praevisio fidei aut perseverantiae, aut bonorum operum, aut ullius rei quae insit in personis praedestinatis, sed sola voluntas benepla- citi Deo.”

Canons of Dort, “De Divina Praedestinatione,” Art. IX. :

“Eadem haec electio facta est non ex praevisa fide, fideique obedientia, sanctitate, aut alia aliqua bona qualitate et dispositione,

tanquam causa seu conditione in homine eligendo praerequisita, sed ad fidem, fideique obedientiam, sanctitatem.” …

Art. X. :

[…]

Westminster Confession, X. 2. :

“ This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man.”

According to Arminianism, on the other hand, the decree of Predestination is not arbitrary, but in consequence of God’s foreknowledge that those predestinated will respond to His call and make good use of the grace given to them.

Of. the Confession of the “ Remonstrants,” xvii. 3 :

“Est vocatio efficax ab eventu potius, quam a sola intentione Dei sic dicta, quae scilicet effectum suum salutarem reipsa sortitur, non quidem idcirco, quod ex praecisa salvandi intentione per singu- larem et arcanam quandam Dei sapientiam sic administretur, ut fructuose congruat voluntati ejus, qui vocatur, neque quod in ea efffcaciter per potentiam irresistibilem aut vim quantam omnipo- tentem voluntas ejus, qui vocatur, ad credendum ita determinetur, ut non possit non credere et obedire.” …

In the view of both Calvinists and Arminians election is con¬ sidered to be to final glory, and by the elect are meant, therefore, those eventually saved. But, as we have seen, according to Scrip¬ ture teaching, which our Article simply affirms, election is to membership in the Church, and the elect are therefore the bap¬ tized.1 This is certainly the view of our Church in her public offices and in the Catechism. See the Baptismal Office, where we pray that the child about to be baptized “ may ever remain in the number of God’s faithful and elect children ; ” and again, in the Rubric at the end of the same service, we are assured, “ It is certain by God’s word that children which are baptized, dying- before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” So, too, in the Church Catechism the baptized person is taught to express his belief in the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifieth him “ and all the elect people of God.”

1 The baptized in general are constantly spoken of as “ the elect ” in the Letter of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the Epistles of S. Ignatius, and in the “ Shepherd ” of Hennas.

With this doctrine of our Church the Calvinistic belief stands in sharp contrast, as expressed, e.g., in the Westminster Confession, X. 4 : —

“ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.”

(2.) Practical Results of the Consideration of Predestina¬ tion.

(a) For the godly.

The godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable com¬ fort 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,

The consideration of God’s Predestination and Election is thus full of comfort for His people, because —

(i.) it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because (ii.) it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.

(b.) For the ungodly.

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,

The compilers of the Article here evidently have in view the evil consequences which were seen to follow in some cases upon the consideration of the doctrine of Predestination as it was often taught and understood at the time.

whereby the devil doth thrust them either (i.) into desperation, or

(ii.) into wretchlessness 1 of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Calvin himself admits that his doctrine of Predestina¬ tion lies open to similar objection. See e.g., Institutes, III. xxiii. 1 2 :

“ Hoc quoque ad evertendam praedestinationem exagitant, quod ipsa stante, concidat omnis solicitudo, et bene agendi

“For men to be careless about what is spoken by them and their own matter … is the part, doubtless, of dissolute and wretchless persons.”

studium… . Ita omnes projicient se, et deploratum in morem, quocunque libido tulerit praecipites ibunt. Et sane non in universum mentiuntur. ”

Cf. III. xxiv. 4 :

“ Et vero licet, periculosi maris instar habeatur praedestina- tionis disputatio ; patet tanien in ea lustranda tuta et pacata, addo et jucunda navigatio, nisi quis periclitari ultro affectet. Ham quemadmodum in exitialem abyssum se ingurgitant, qui lit de sua electione fiant certiores, aeternum Dei consilium sine verbo, percontantur : ita qui recte atque ordine ipsam investi- gant qualiter in verbo continetur, eximium inde referunt con- solationis fructum.”

(3.) The Doctrine of Individual Predestination repudiated.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they he generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture : (See S. John iii. 16; 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6.)

The meaning is that we must receive God’s promises as they are set forth to us, viz., as applying to the ‘ genus human urn/ and not to some favoured individuals only.1

Cf. the wording of His Majesty’s Declaration prefixed to the Articles in 1628 : —

“That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God’s promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures.”

[…]

“ Quapropter omnes nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad decreta praedestinationis se non referant, sed uni- versam vitae suae rationem ad Dei leges accomodent ; cum et promissiones bonis, et minas malis, in Sacris Scripturis generaliter propositas contemplentur.”

In the light of this last . paragraph, we should not omit to notice the manner in which the doctrine is stated in the first part of the Article. Predestination is there declared to be

1 For the use of the adverb generally in the Article, cf Church Catechism :

“ Q. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His Church ?

A. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation.” …

See also 2 Sam. xvii. 11 ; Jer. xlviii. 38.

“ the ‘purpose of God whereby … He hath constantly decreed … to deliver from curse, &c., … and to bring … to eternal salvation,” not individuals separately, but a certain class of persons as Christians collectively, “those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind.”

Calvin’s manner of stating the doctrine of Predestination should be carefully compared with this, and the vital difference will at once appear. See, e.g., Institutes, III. xxi. 5 : —

[…]

6(1*1 •••

“Itaque prout in alterutrum fiiiem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.”

Again, III. xxi. 7 : —

[…]

Further, in III. xxiv. 1 Calvin expressly says : —

[…]

In this connection it is instructive to note that in the General Confession prefixed in 1552 to the Order for Morning and for Evening Prayer, which was based on a form composed in French by Calvin, the clause “ According to Thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord ” was added by our English Reformers.1

The Article concludes : —

And in our doings that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

[…]

“Debemus enim ad Dei cultum viis illis ingredi, et in ilia Dei voluntate commorari, quam in Sacris Scripturis patefactam esse videmus.”

This last clause of the Article is manifestly directed against those who held that, besides the revealed will of God (cf. 1 Tim.

1 Cf. Article VII. : —

“Per Christum qui unicus est Mediator Dei et hominum Deus et homo, aeterua vita humano generi est proposita.”

I 2 I

ii. 4), there is also His secret will according to which He has elected only a few.

A few quotations may be given to indicate the position taken up by the Church of Rome in the controversy on the subject of Predestination. The Council of Trent (Session VI.) decreed : —

“Nemo quoque, quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur, de arcano divinae praedestinationis mysterio usque adeo praesuinere debet, ut certo statuat se omnino esse in numero praedestinatorum ; quasi veruni esset, quod justificatus aut amplius peccare non possit, aut si peccaverit, certam sibi resipiscentiam promittere debeat : nam nisi ex speciali revelatione, sciri non potest quos Deus sibi elegerit.”

Of, Canon XVII. of the same session : —

“ Si quis justificationis gratiam non nisi praedestinatis ad vitam contingere dixerit, reliquos vero omnes, qui vocantur, vocari quidem, sed gratiam non accipere, utpote divina potestate praedestinatos ad malum : anathema sit.’7

Q

Notes

• Several passages are quoted from Melanchthon by Archbishop Laurence in his Hampton Lectures, p. 179.
• The Christian Church has thus succeeded to the privilege of God’s ancient people, which is spoken of in the Old Testament as elect. Cf, c.g ., Deut. vii. 6 ; Ps. xxxiii. 12.
• I.e., recklessness. Cf. Jewel’s “Apology,” Part I. cap. 3, § 5 :